Sitting of 8 December 1964

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  WELSH SHIPPING AGENCY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.
PETITION

  New Hospital, North Devon
  Mr. Thorpe: I beg leave to present a Petition signed by 53,000 people in the North Devon area drawn from the North Devon division and parts of the Torrington and Tavistock constituencies relating to the need for a new hospital.
  The Petition shows that there are 1,000 people at present on the waiting list for admission to the hospital, that the building in question is 138 years old and is inadequate to meet those needs and that in the second revision to the hospital building scheme published in May this year the proposal was that the new hospital building programme should be postponed by three years so that the new building date would be in 1971.
  This postponement, in the view of the petitioners, has placed an intolerable burden on the medical and nursing staffs concerned and on general practitioners and will cause grave hardship to the general public.
  The purpose of this Petition is to pray that the date for the commencement of the new hospital building scheme should be reinstated to the year 1968 and that the existing cottage hospitals should be retained for auxiliary services.
  The Petition represents the united feeling of the people living in this area. It is a rural area of some 800 sq. miles and 53,000 names have been collected
  1296
  in a period of eight days. Some have been obtained by people travelling across Exmoor on horseback, and even the inhabitants of the Island of Lundy have appended their names to the Petition.
  The Minister has indicated that he is reconsidering all the plans for hospital building, and the object of this Petition is, first, to show him how passionately the people of this part of the world want a new hospital so that people will not have to wait upward of 5½ years for surgical treatment and, secondly, it is hoped that he will give hope to those who are sick and encouragement to the medical profession which is having to carry on in intolerable conditions.
  Therefore, I beg leave, with the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). to present this Petition on behalf of these 53,000 people and hope that the prayer in the Petition will be acceded to by the Minister at the earliest possible moment.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  COAL

    National Coal Board (Capital Structure)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Power if he will undertake a complete review of the capital structure of the National Coal Board, in view of the interest charges which are at present borne by the industry.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Frederick Lee): This will be part of the review I announced in the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 1st December, 1964.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this review, which is very long overdue, will give a good deal of satisfaction to the miners and the mining community of this country, but can he give any indication when he will be able to make a statement as to what progress has been made?
    Mr. Lee: No. I will get on with the review as quickly as possible, but I cannot at this stage anticipate when it will be completed.
    Mr. Peyton: Without committing myself, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that any massive write-off of capital which would amount to a subsidy for coal is likely to receive a very chilly welcome from this side of the House?
    Mr. Lee: Perhaps we had better await the outcome of the review.

    Nationalised Industries (Machinery and Equipment)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Power what is Her Majesty's Government's policy toward allowing the National Coal Board to manufacture the machinery and equipment it needs; and what proposals he has for implementing this policy.
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Minister of Power if he will introduce legislation to require the Central Electricity Generating Board to use their pulverised fuel ash for the manufacture of bricks and building blocks.
    Mr. Bishopasked the Minister of Power if, in order to encourage the National Coal Board to manufacture some of the machinery and equipment it needs, he will remove the present restrictions; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: With permission I will answer this Question and Questions Nos. 23 and 35 together.
    I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friends to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen) on the 4th December.
    Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave uncertainty among firms manufacturing equipment for the National Coal Board, not least in the factory which makes mining pit props in my constituency? Will he do nothing to extend the area of the nationalisation? Will he undertake to leave things as they are in this matter?
    Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, under the Act, the Board has extensive powers to manufacture machinery, equipment, and other goods. Whether these powers are adequate is a matter we shall be considering in the review.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend press on with all speed in allowing the National Coal Board to provide in its own workshops as much of its equipment as it possibly can, in particular in development districts like Cowdenbeath where further work for the Board's workshops would be very welcome?
    Mr. Lee: The Board's policy is to employ its own men on such work as sinking shafts and driving roadways where it feels that this would be to better advantage than placing the work with private industry. In the review we shall look at the matters raised by my hon. Friend.
    Mrs. Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was my right hon. Friend answering my Question No. 23, as he said he would? The Question dealt with the Central Electricity Generating Board and not the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman said that he would answer Question No. 23. I was observing the hon. Lady's movements with some interest but they did not take place.
    Mr. Varley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is under-used capacity in the National Coal Board's workshops which could well be used for the manufacture of machinery and equipment? Will he advise the Board to institute a searching inquiry to see what surplus capacity there is for this purpose?
    Mr. Lee: As I have said, the National Coal Board has powers within the Statute to do certain types of manufacture. I will be discussing these matters with Lord Robens in the near future.
    Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the National Coal Board now produces about 8 per cent. of the country's brick output? Is he further aware that this nationalised brick industry is anxious to make its contribution to the building programme of the new Labour Government and that it is "raring" to go? Will he give the nationalised brick industry—a most profitable part of the National Coal Board—the green light to go ahead and do precisely that?
    Mr. Lee: I am very keen, as is my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public

    1299
    Building and Works, to see a substantial increase in the number of bricks available and I hope that the National Coal Board will look very seriously to see if it can increase its output of bricks.

    Smokeless Fuels
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Power how stocks in November of opengrate and other solid smokeless fuels compare with those in November last year; and whether he is satisfied that supplies are adequate to meet demands due to the increased number of smoke control areas.
    Mr. Websterasked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied that supplies of all kinds of smokeless fuel will be adequate during the coming winter; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Channonasked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied that there is an adequate amount of smokeless fuel for the winter; and what steps he is taking to stimulate supplies.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Morris): Stocks of most smokeless fuels are better than last year and in general supplies will be adequate this winter; but there may be local shortages of particular types. The producers are fully seized of the importance of satisfying the market and consumers can help by placing orders in good time.
    Mr. Osborn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the area near my constituency there are local authorities which have come to very different conclusions? Is he satisfied with the working of all the regional advisory councils, and particularly the one near my area?
    Mr. Morris: The confirmation of an order is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the advisory councils.
    Mr. Webster: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House are glad to know that he has been left with adequate stocks for the current year? Will he make the greatest effort to ensure that there are adequate supplies of both Gloco and reactivated fuel for unimproved open grates?
    Mr. Morris: All grades of gas coke are stocked to higher levels than at this
    1300
    time last year. The hon. Gentleman referred to Gloco, the cheapest open fire coke. This is in good supply in the South and in the Midlands, and in adequate supply for existing consumers in smoke control areas in the North and North-West. Those gas boards which make premium fuels, Cleanglow and Phimax, expect to meet the demand for them.
    Colonel Lancaster: In view of the various statements which have appeared from one year to the next about the output of smokeless fuel at Birch Coppice, can he say whether one single ton has been produced at this plant for household consumption?
    Mr. Morris: If I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman correctly, with regard to adequate supplies of fuel in future, the National Coal Board has under consideration a number of other sites for making smokeless fuel. The rate at which plants are set up will depend largely on the demand.
    Colonel Lancaster: That is not what I asked. I asked whether any production was occurring at this moment at Birch Coppice. The hon. Gentleman is aware that £9 million of public money has been spent on that plant. I am sure that the House will be anxious to know whether at long last anything is being produced for the householder at that plant.
    Mr. Morris: I am sorry that I did not correctly understand the question. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman puts down a Question about that plant, I shall endeavour to answer it.
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Minister of Power if he will take steps to control the retail price of prepacked smokeless fuels.
    Mr. John Morris: No, Sir.
    Mrs. Butler: Does the Minister realise that the shocking prices charged for these bags of fuel last winter was a particular hardship on elderly people, living in one or two rooms in a smokeless zone, who were compelled to buy the fuel in this form because they had no storage space? In view of the fact that the worst of the winter is before us and that there is a real danger of some of these old people dying from hypothermia, will he review

    1301
    the machinery for price control to prevent a similar racket this winter with the accompanying tragedies which may well follow?
    Mr. Morris: I am aware of this difficulty. The ability of consumers in general to shop around and choose is the most effective safeguard against excessive prices for prepacked fuel. I am aware of the suggestion of the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council that the recommended selling price should be marked on packets of prepacked fuel. I hope that this practice will be adopted as far as is practicable. I have no power to require the price to be marked on packs in this way.

    Smokeless Zones
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the extent to which the impetus behind the drive for clean air and smokeless zones is being arrested by the dearth of suitable fuel at suitable prices.
    Mr. John Morris: I am not aware of a general shortage of suitable fuels. While gas coke may not be available in some parts of the country there should be ample supplies of other smokeless fuels, some of which may cost no more to use than gas coke.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a bag of ordinary coal costs 10s., whereas a bag of smokeless fuel costs 14s., and that this makes smokeless zones very unpopular, particularly with old people, and puts local authorities which are doing their best to carry out a clean air programme in a very awkward situation? Will he do something to remove the discrepancy between the prices of coal and smokeless fuel which people are obliged to burn in these zones?
    Mr. Morris: I have no power to control prices. This is a matter for the producers, who are in active competition with each other, and can be relied on not to endanger their own markets.

    Mines (Horses)
    Mr. Weatherillasked the Minister of Power how many horses were employed below ground in the mines throughout the country last year.
    Mr. John Morris: The National Coal Board employed 4,737 on 30th June, 1964.
    Mr. Weatherill: Can my hon. Friend hold out any hope of these animals being replaced by machines?
    Mr. Morris: Horses are still kept in some of the older coalfields, where the method of work is such that mechanical help is impracticable. The National Coal Board expects that by the early 1970s horses will be no longer needed in the mines.
    Mr. Ogden: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that although we are all animal lovers, some hon. Members on this side of the House—and certainly those with recent experience in the mines—believe that more attention should be paid to the welfare of the men who work in the pits than to financial and production considerations? Will he give this point some attention?
    Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Renée Short.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Question No. 23.
    Hon. Members: Answered.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There has been some confusion. The hon. Lady's Question No. 23 has already been answered; we had a little word about it. I called her to ask Question No. 24.
    Mrs. Renée Short: I thought, Mr. Speaker, that we were answering Question No. 24 and calling it Question No. 23.

    Brick Production
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the National Coal Board to increase its output of bricks, and to modernise its plant for this purpose.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: No, Sir, but I have been in touch with the National Coal Board and understand it is planning a substantial increase in its production of bricks.
    Mr. Ridley: If there is to be an increase in the production of bricks or anything else by the Coal Board, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he

    1303
    intends to squeeze out the private manufacturers outright, because it is important for them to know the answer to that question?
    Mr. Lee: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should object, especially at a time when there is such a great shortage of bricks—probably brought about by the lack of planning on the part of his right hon. Friends when they were in Government. As a matter of fact, the production of bricks by the Board in the year 1963–64 was 488 million. This year it is expected to be 506 million. Current plans provide for an increase up to 550 million by 1966–67.
    Mr. Popplewell: Will my right hon. Friend rest assured that he will have the full support of hon. Members on this side of the House if he restores to all the publicly-owned undertakings for which he is responsible full commercial freedom to carry out whatever undertakings they determine are in the best interests of the nation?
    Mr. Lee: As I said in answer to a previous Question, there are within the Statutes powers to manufacture. I have also pointed out that we propose to conduct an inquiry to see whether those powers are wide enough. When we have concluded our inquiry I will let the House know the result.

    Domestic Coal (Quality)
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Power whether he is aware of the general concern felt at the quality of coal reaching the domestic consumer; and what action he proposes to take to help solve this problem.
    Mr. John Morris: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) on 1st December.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in spite of heavy investment in new machinery by the coal industry and in spite of the closing down of uneconomic pits, the industry is making a loss of £40 million a year? Will the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House that he will not raise the price of coal so that old-age pensioners particularly, and others, do not have to pay more for the inefficiencies of nationalisation?
    Mr. Morris: I do not know from where the hon. Member gets the figure of £40 million a year. I appreciate his concern for the old-age pensioners. I wish that the party opposite had felt equally concerned in the last 13 years. I have no reason to suppose that the quality of coal generally is poor or that the practice of selling lower or mixed quality coals at high-grade prices is becoming widespread. The National Coal Board does everything possible to maintain the quality of coal as it leaves the pits.

  ELECTRICITY

    Overhead Lines, West Sussex
    Mr. Hordernasked the Minister of Power whether, in view of the continuing concern expressed in West Sussex over the decision to construct a 400 kilovolt overhead line from Bolney to Lovedean. he will order a public inquiry to be held.
    Mr. Loveysasked the Minister of Power what representations he has received concerning the decision to construct a 400 kilovolt overhead line from Bolney to Lovedean; and whether he will review the decision.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: A public inquiry was held in 1963. There has been a considerable volume of further protest since my predecessor came to a decision last July. On the possibility of a review I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friends, the Members for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) and Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) on 1st December.
    Mr. Hordern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in supporting this decision, he is going against expert advice about the safety of these pylons, that there is considerable dispute about the cost of underground cables and that, in upholding the decision, he is going against the advice of his own Department's inspectors about the routing of these pylons? In the light of these factors, will he now call for a further inquiry and take what further steps may be necessary to reverse the existing position?
    Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman should realise that this was not just an administrative decision. It was a formal consent issued to the Board under the Act

    1305
    after all statutory requirements had been applied. If a Minister had power to withdraw consent at any time, boards would be placed in an impossible position.
    Mr. Loveys: In view of the great concern over the increase of pylons crossing the countryside, could not the right hon. Gentleman at least give an assurance that everything possible is being done through scientific research to hasten the day when this type of cable can be economically buried underground? Will he be able to make a statement on the subject in the near future?
    Mr. Lee: I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the figures. The cost of putting a 400 kV cable underground would be about £1 million per mile as against £54,000 per mile for overhead construction. The Board and I—as was, I am sure, my predecessor—are very conscious of the problem of amenity and will do everything possible to improve the position as scientific research makes it possible to do so.
    Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the M.1 on its most expensive stretch cost less than £1 million a mile and that we find it quite impossible to believe that it would cost even one-tenth of that to bury a cable?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. and learned Friend will remember some of the things that have happened to the M.1 as well. I do not claim expert knowledge on this matter. I merely take the figures that experts have given to me.
    Mr. Hordern: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Second Nuclear Power Programme
    Mr. McNair-Wilsonasked the Minister of Power whether the White Paper, the Second Nuclear Power Programme, Command Paper No. 2335, remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Peytonasked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the future nuclear programme in the electricity industry.
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Power whether the Government have yet completed their review, with the electricity supply industry and the Atomic Energy Authority, of the type or types of reactor to be built in the second nuclear power programme; and what decision has been reached.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave my hon. Friend—the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) on 1st December.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Can the Minister tell us whether any progress is being made in finding a reactor to replace the Magnox system at present being used, because this is very important to the programme as a whole?
    Mr. Lee: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are decisions to be taken about the types of the reactor to be used. At this stage it is impossible to give a precise date when we will have these tenders, but the Government are keeping in close touch with the progress that is being made in this matter, and as soon as possible I shall inform the House.
    Mr. Digby: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many tenders have been received for the AGR type of reactor and how many for the water moderated type of reactor, and when we can expect a final answer on this, as the White Paper was laid in April?
    Mr. Lee: Tenders will be received in February, but before receipt I cannot say for which type of reactor they are going to tender.
    Mr. Peyton: Is the Minister saying that we shall have to wait at any rate until February before we hear anything on this important matter? I hope that he will do everything that he can to clear up this damaging uncertainty.
    Mr. Lee: The date for the receipt of tenders is February, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience, until we get the tenders we cannot anticipate the sort of reactors for which they are going to tender.

    Tidal Barrages (Electricity Generation)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Power what consideration he is giving to the production of electricity through peripheral generators placed in tidal barrages in suitable estuaries, where such barrages could also be used to support roads in place of the construction of bridges.
    Mr. John Morris: The possibilities are kept under review, but in the most promising such scheme proposed in this country, the Central Electricity Generating Board estimates the cost of generating electricity would not be competitive.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that electricity is generated by tidal power in France and that there are schemes for doing the same thing in America? Further, is he aware of the excellent research done at Sheffield University which shows that the new type of generators could generate electricity at ½d. a unit? Is it not madness to have these millions of horse power of tidal power going to waste around our shores?
    Mr. Morris: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are real fundamental engineering difficulties here. The main engineering problems are silting up of the barrage basin and hindrance to navigation. Another problem is that power is not always produced when it is needed.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to a scheme in France. There are differences here. The French scheme operates in particularly favourable circumstances. It has been possible to extend the normal tidal power cycle there by adding a pumped storage scheme, but this could not be done effectively in the most favourable place in this country, namely, the Severn Estuary.

    Overhead Lines (Towers)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Power how many 160-ft. towers for 400 kW. lines have now been erected; and what representations he has received from the areas affected.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: 1,377 towers 160 ft. or more in height have now been erected in various parts of the country. Since the work of erection has begun
    1308
    one complaint has been received in the Ministry from Dorset and a petition from North Wales about the crossing of the Dwyryd estuary.
    Mr. Digby: Is the right hon. Gentle, man aware that many complaints have been made to hon. Members, pointing out how unsightly these towers are? Will he consult the Board about them and see whether some improvement can be made in their general design? He said earlier that he was interested in the amenity aspect of the matter.
    Mr. Lee: The provision of electricity is also a pretty good amenity. The design of these towers was submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission, which made no comment. [Laughter.] I say that to show how fair I am in these matters. In preparing the final design the Board had the advice of Sir William Holford.
    Miss Quennell: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether it is the policy of his Ministry constantly to pursue improvements in design from the point of view of aesthetics and amenity? Has there been any consultation with foreign countries, in order to ascertain whether their designs are susceptible of adaptation to our landscape?
    Mr. Lee: I can assure the hon. Lady that we are as concerned as she is about this kind of thing. A great deal of research has gone on, and as soon as there is a possibility of improvement we will do everything possible to bring it into being.

    Privately-owned Meters (Electricity Charges)
    Sir J. Edenasked the Minister of Power if he will now give a general direction to area boards to use their powers under Section 29 of the Electricity Act, 1957, to control the price at which electricity supplied by them is resold through privately-operated meters.
    Mr. Bishopasked the Minister of Power if he is aware that some tenants, sub-tenants and guests are being forced to pay high prices for metered electricity; and if he will issue a general direction to boards to take steps, under

    1309
    Section 29 of the Electricity Act, 1957, to ensure that prices charged are reasonable.
    Mr. John Morris: I am aware of a number of cases where there has been overcharging for electricity re-sold through privately-owned meters. The Chairman of the Electricity Council, in a letter to the former Minister which was reproduced in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 13th February this year, has explained why the electricity boards have not so far used their powers under Section 29. My right hon. Friend is examining with the Electricity Council how to prevent these abuses.
    Sir J. Eden: Can the Minister say how widespread this practice is, and what information his Department has received? Does not he agree that Section 29 makes provision for every conceivable variation in circumstance of resale, and in those circumstances is it not desirable that the boards should fix a maximum resale price?
    Mr. Morris: A number of cases has been brought to our attention. I should prefer not to go into detail as to the possible ways of meeting the difficulty until my right hon. Friend has had an opportunity of discussing this matter with the Electricity Council. He will certainly bear in mind any suggestions that are made in this House, and any complaints that reach him.
    Mr. Bishop: Is my hon. Friend aware that the freedom to make this excessive charge for metered electricity also enables landlords to make a substantial increase in their rent incomes, and that this helps to violate any controls we have upon rents? Will he therefore emphasise the urgency of the matter with his friends in the electricity boards?
    Mr. Morris: I appreciate to the full the point that has been made. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware that many practical difficulties arise from the fact that tariff structures and amounts used by the consumer vary, and also the first block of units is priced differently from later blocks. Difficulties also arise from the fact that although meters which are the property of the electricity boards have to be certified, those which are the property of the landlords—as they frequently are—do not
    1310
    have to be certified. These practical difficulties exist, but my right hon. Friend is consulting the Electricity Council as to the best means of meeting what is undoubtedly an important problem.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Minister aware this is one of the worst rackets of irresponsible landlords, and is very widespread? Could not the problem be tackled by making it illegal for anybody other than an electricity board to retail electricity at a profit?
    Mr. Morris: The hon. Member knows a great deal about irresponsible landlords. [Interruption.] I am not referring to the hon. Member personally—but the party opposite were in power for 13 years, and landlords have from time to time taken unfair advantage of their tenants. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that if we are to do justice in this case we must find the most practical solution.

    Isolated Areas (Supplies)
    Mr. Tinnasked the Minister of Power whether he will take steps to alter the conditions of connecting groups of isolated cottages to mains electricity, so that occupiers who refuse to join a scheme are not subsequently connected to the supply without bearing their share of the capital cost.
    Mr. John Morris: I regret that my right hon. Friend has no power to deal with my hon. Friend's point under existing legislation.
    Mr. Tinn: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a disappointing Answer? Will he consider amending the legislation so as to give the Minister power to remove this anomaly, which causes considerable injustice to people who live in isolated cottages?
    Mr. Morris: I cannot say when it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to introduce amending legislation. As for the general point, as the electrification of the countryside nears completion the problem becomes a diminishing one. In practice, in most cases boards manage to settle these difficulties by agreement.

    Fernhurst Valley (Overhead Lines)
    Sir T. Beamishasked the Minister of Power what would be the extra cost of carrying out the recommendations of

    1311
    the Central Electricity Generating Board's inspector to adopt the blue route in the Fernhurst Valley as opposed to the red route for the line of 160 ft. high pylons proposed, thus following the least conspicuous route across the area about to be declared as of outstanding natural beauty.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: About £108,000. The recommendation was made by inspectors appointed by my predecessor to hold the public inquiry.
    Sir T. Beamish: Does the fact that consent has been given mean that even the route cannot be varied? In view of the very small extra cost, in comparison with the cost of burying this cable, is not the best answer a compromise of this sort, rather than that we should ruin one of the most glorious stretches of the English countryside?
    Mr. Lee: The main reason for rejection was that the so-called blue route appeared to have little hope of being more acceptable than the present route, since the National Parks Commission, the National Trust and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England preferred the red route, which the Board put forward on the recommendation of Miss Sylvia Crowe, the eminent landscape consultant.
    Mr. Hordern: How does the Minister explain the fact that his own inspectors preferred the blue route as opposed to the red route in this area, on the specific ground that it would affect far fewer residents than would have been affected by the original route?
    Mr. Lee: I cannot explain the reasons for the inspectors coming to that decision; all I can say is that the Minister is not bound to accept the recommendations of his inspectorate. I should think that the answer is that the hon. Member might have consulted the former Minister of Power.
    Sir T. Beamish: What does the Minister mean when he says that the blue route would have little hope of being more acceptable than the red route? What has that to do with it?
    Mr. Lee: All the objections that have been raised in respect of the existing route would have been raised in connection with the other route, if that had
    1312
    been preferred. There would have been equal protestation from those who would have been affected if that route had been taken.

  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Nationalised Industries (Financial Objectives)
    Mr. Peytonasked the Minister of Power what is his policy concerning financial objectives for those nationalised industries for which he is responsible.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: The nationalised fuel and power industries for which I am responsible will continue to work to financial objectives agreed from time to time between the Government and the boards.
    Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply is very welcome? We are delighted to hear that he is to follow the policy set by the previous Government, which is very important. Is he further aware of the great sympathy we will feel for him in explaining this to hon. Members opposite?

    South Wales (Iron Ore Imports)
    Mr. Websterasked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking in order to ensure that, in future, facilities for the import of iron ore into South Wales will be considered as a whole.
    Mr. John Morris: The National Ports Council is at present studying ore importing facilities in South Wales and will be making recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. Future planning and action on this matter in the iron and steel industry will be greatly facilitated by the restoration of public ownership over the main part of the industry.
    Mr. Webster: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, quite apart from that last shot, it would be totally intolerable if a jetty were built from the Spencer Steelworks at Newport to Bristol Deeps until there is a complete survey of the economic arrangements in South Wales and adequate protection of all amenities on the Somerset coastline?
    Mr. Morris: In view of his interest in this matter, the hon. Member should be

    1313
    aware that the National Ports Council is conducting a survey of all the interests concerned and of all the matters concerning South Wales and will be making recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members saw the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport on 25th November about this matter.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Iain Macleodasked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement on the future of firms which have substantial interests outside steel.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: As my right hon. Friend, the First Secretary of State, told the House on 4th November, the Government do not intend to use the nationalisation of the steel industry to take into public ownership the main activities of companies which have substantial iron and steel interests but whose predominant interests are clearly in engineering and other activities. Consultations about this have been started with the industry.
    Mr. Macleod: But does the Minister realise that it is necessary to remove as much uncertainty as quickly as possible in this area? Does he accept that almost the only thing we agreed upon in the steel debate was that this should be done as speedily as possible? Will he now undertake to make a statement of intent before Christmas?
    Mr. Lee: I cannot give an absolute date, but since the debate took place we have been in constant touch with as many segments of the industry as wished to discuss things with us, including the Federation, the Steel Board and any other components of the industry which wished to discuss matters with us.

  GAS

    Natural Gas (Imports)
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Power if he will give the volume and value of natural gas imported this year; how much has been fed in to the natural gas pipeline grid between Canvey Island and the North; and what information he has about the future supply of natural gas to gas undertakings connected to the grid.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: Twenty million therms of Algerian gas have been imported at an estimated landed cost of 6¼d. per therm, and rather more than three-quarters of this has been supplied to area gas boards. The planned rate of the scheme is about 350 million therms per year which should be reached during the course of the winter. There are no firm proposals for imports of natural gas beyond this.
    Mr. Osborn: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to state whether the programme for feeding natural gas to all the gas works through the grid has gone according to schedule, and whether he is satisfied with that programme?
    Mr. Lee: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the enterprise of the gas industry, in co-operation with private firms, in making arrangements for these new supplies of gas is much admired? Will he bear in mind also the great urgency of proceeding as quickly as possible with arrangements for the underground storage of the gas, because this is essential to enable the industry to get the best benefit out of it in the interests of the consumer?
    Mr. Lee: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the great enterprise shown by this nationalised body. The second point is rather a different matter, which one has very much in mind.
    Mr. Bellenger: Now that my right hon. Friend is able to import this gas at a very cheap price, may I ask when consumers will reap the benefit in prices, too?
    Mr. Lee: The Algerian gas will help the boards to offset increased costs and to stabilise prices, but it is still a very small proportion of the boards' total supplies and it cannot at this stage lead to general price reductions.
    Mr. Peyton: May I press the Minister on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd)? Is the Minister aware that if the gas industry is to make full use of these important developments like methane it is necessary to provide underground storage? Can he press his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to allow time for a Gas Bill for this purpose?
    Mr. Lee: I am seized of the importance of this point, and it really is a question of when we can get legislation into the programme. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of this project.

    MINISTERS (STATEMENTS)
    Sir J. Edenasked the Prime Minister what is to be the practice of Ministers regarding the priority they are to give to making Departmental statements to the House of Commons, or to the Press.
    Sir T. Beamishasked the Prime Minister why, and at what time, information was given to the Press regarding the proposed corporation tax, before such information was announced to Parliament.
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Prime Minister by what criteria Ministers decide which matters should be announced first in the House of Commons before release to the Press.
    The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. George Brown)rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. George Brown: I am obliged to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    I have been asked to reply.
    There is no change in the long-established practice in these matters.
    Sir J. Eden: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the leaks which have taken place since his Government took office seem to indicate that in some way the Government are trying to by-pass Parliament? Why was it that on this occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not take the first opportunity to follow up his leak with a statement in the House?
    Mr. Brown: If the Opposition really want to call into question a convention which they used for 13 years and which goes back far, far longer than that, we are willing to discuss it with them but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman would be better advised to talk to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about it before in fact he does it.
    Sir T. Beamish: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is very much a House of Commons matter and not a matter of party politics? Does he further agree that the maintenance of the existing very friendly relationship between Press and Parliament is of great importance, highly valued and well tried; but that the week before last it appeared that this relationship was seriously upset when the Government refused to give Parliament information to which hon. Members thought they were entitled, and subsequently gave it to the Press, and even refused to confirm to Parliament what the Press had already been told?
    Mr. Brown: No, Sir, and I repeat that I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman had better talk to his own Front Bench about this before he goes on with the subject.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Does not the Deputy Prime Minister appreciate the constitutional significance of leaking to the Press unofficially, through an unnamed spokesman, matters relating to taxation? Will he say who in fact was responsible for the actual leak? Who was it who actually made it? Will he confirm that in fact it was none other than the Prime Minister himself?
    Mr. Brown: There was no leak. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Very well, if the Opposition want to challenge a convention that was in existence many Parliaments before we arrived here, let them do it. I wonder whether one of the alternative Leaders of the Opposition would like to get up and support his hon. Friends.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloydrose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no wish on our side to challenge the confidential relationship between Press and Parliament, nor in this instance is there any criticism at all of the action of the Press? May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that what seems to us to have been an abuse of this practice is to use that method of passing on particular information with the intention that it should be acted upon?
    Mr. Brown: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was recently

    1317
    the Leader of the House, tell me what he used to do on a certain evening in the week?
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I can find no previous example where information with regard to taxation)—[Hors MEMBERS: "Oh."]—was passed on with the intention that action should be taken upon it?
    Mr. Brown: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I could find many—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—This is a matter for Parliament—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends want to play politics, O.K., but is he aware that I have many examples where he did exactly the same thing?

    GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND
    Sir S. McAddenasked the Prime Minister how long is the tenure of office of the Governor of the Bank of England.
    Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
    Five years, Sir.
    Sir S. McAdden: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any recent attempt to terminate this tenure of office by premature resignation and, if so, why?
    Mr. Brown: That does not seem to arise on this Question. I answered the Question as it was put down.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are not the Labour Government very much beholden to the Governor of the Bank of England? Have they not changed the slogan "Workers of the World, Unite" into "Bankers of the World, Unite" to save sterling from Socialism and the Socialists from themselves?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. No word of that arises from the Answer.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    Captain Orrasked the Prime Minister when he will announce the special measures Her Majesty's Govern-
    1318
    intend to take to offset the effect of the Government's deflationary policy upon the economy of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong again. I do not accept his premise, so no such measures are called for.
    Captain Orr: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously telling us that the policy of the 7 per cent. Bank Rate and the additional tax on petrol are not meant to be deflationary, because so far as I understand it that is quite the contrary to what his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about this measure? If they are meant to be deflationary, should not the Government take special measures to safeguard Northern Ireland from them?
    Mr. Brown: There are very many differences between the policies we are pursuing and those tragic and almost fatal ones which the hon. and gallant Gentleman's right hon. Friends pursued and which landed the country in the difficulties it is now in.
    Mr. Maudling: If the right hon. Gentleman does not agree that it is the policy of the Government to introduce an element of deflation or disinflation into the economy, will he kindly read the recent speeches of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Brown: And as the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) was one of the band who got us into this trouble, he should try to help to get us out of it.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Since the effect of the 7 per cent. Bank Rate is not likely to be reflected in the unemployment figures of Northern Ireland for some time to come, is not this the time for the right hon. Gentleman to look at the whole I.D.C. situation with a view to seeing whether he can get a more positive deflection of industry to Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman is really trying to help Northern Ireland, as distinct from trying to score a political point, he may like to know that the Ministers of Northern Ireland and I have been in much closer contact during the

    1319
    last seven weeks than they ever were with the previous Administration. We will do our best to see that the tragic situation that has afflicted Northern Ireland during all these years of total Tory rule there does not go on any longer.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (INFORMATION)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will give instructions to all Government Departments to increase the output of information, statistical and otherwise, for the benefit of Members of Parliament and of the general public.
    Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
    Departments are already aware of the need to publish as much information as possible. They are examining existing statistics to identify any important gaps in the data available and considering means by which they might be filled.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this might well involve a major reorganisation of the Government's statistical machinery and, if so, will he give an undertaking that such a reorganisation will be carried out expeditiously?
    Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir. If that emerges from the investigation the answer is "Certainly".
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that too much information is given to the public? Is he aware that on one Sunday I read in four Sunday newspapers about the reduction of the Rhine Army, that the next day that was contradicted and that a few days later that story was also contradicted? Is not the British public getting bewildered by this welter of information?
    Mr. Brown: The Question is about information. The hon. Gentleman is talking about fairy tales.

    CHEQUERS (GUARD DOGS)
    Mr. Danceasked the Prime Minister if he will consider conserving manpower by using dogs to guard Chequers in future.
    Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
    Yes, Sir, when appropriate.
    Mr. Dance: Surely life under Socialism is a dog's life? Should not dogs play a fuller part on these occasions?
    Mr. Brown: The last time dogs were used was to protect Mr. Macmillan.
    Mr. Manuel: Would my right hon. Friend agree, if he is going to consider the use of dogs to guard Chequers, that he should not employ dirty dogs—and so avoid any infiltration by hon. Members opposite?
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would the right hon. Gentleman not consult the R.S.P.C.A.—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear if we are concerned with cruelty to animals or whatever it is.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would the right hon. Gentleman not consult with the R.S.P.C.A. before using dogs for this purpose?

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
    Mr. Hirstasked the Prime Minister in view of the fact that the Ministry of Technology is to be the sponsor department for the machine tools, electronics, telecommunications, and computer industries, whether he will give an assurance that this arrangement will not entail strings being attached to Government contracts with a view to the acquisition of capital by the State in such industries.
    Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
    The Ministry of Technology will use whatever measures seem right to promote technological advance in these industries and in industry generally.
    Mr. Hirst: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that does not answer the Question, which asked if he would give an assurance to industry that no strings will be attached? Will he answer that Question, or perhaps the House will excuse him while he gets on the "hot line" to Washington?
    Mr. Brown: I am sure that that was well worked out, but it did not really

    1321
    work. The answer is the exact reply which I gave to the Question: that my right hon. Friend will use such measures as in the circumstances seem right.

    OMBUDSMAN
    Mr. Liptonasked the Prime Minister when he will appoint an Ombudsman.
    Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
    Not yet, Sir.
    Mr. Lipton: Would my right hon. Friend, whom we all hold in high regard, agree, particularly in the light of recent cases affecting the police, that it is of the utmost importance that there should be an outside, independent person to deal with matters of this kind?
    Mr. Brown: As it is 33 years since I first made a speech urging the hon. Member's return to Parliament, I take the first part of his remarks as a rather belated but a nevertheless welcome recognition. The answer to his supplementary question is, Yes, Sir, but I am not yet ready to announce an actual decision.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider including in the terms of reference of this Ombudsman the provision of some sort of clearing house facilities for hon. Members so that they may address their letters on behalf of their constituents to the right Departments and be able to find their way through the mass of Bills, orders, leaks and so on and know the right Ministers to whom to address their remarks?
    Mr. Brown: If the new Chief Whip opposite is not available, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Before the right hon. Gentleman comes to any decision on this matter, will he give the most careful consideration to the proposition put forward by a former learned Clerk of the House, Sir Edward Fellowes, for the setting up of a Select Committee designed to establish whether an abuse about which a grievance has been made was caused by faulty legislation or faulty administration?
    Mr. Brown: We have this very much in mind. There are a whole range of
    1322
    questions to be discussed and some very real points for which we must try to make provision. As I say, these things are in mind.

CORPORATION AND CAPITAL GAINS TAXES (PROPOSALS)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a short statement.
As the House will recall, I promised that as soon as I was able to do so I would provide further details of my proposals for a corporation tax and a capital gains tax.
I am accordingly circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT, in reply to a Written Question on the Order Paper today, information about certain features of the proposals which, as at present advised, I have it in mind to put before Parliament.
Mr. Maudling: We cannot comment until we see the details, but is the Chancellor aware that, while everyone will welcome anything designed to rectify the damage done by instant Government in this field, we on this side are very doubtful, once again, about the method used to propagate this information? Unless I am wrong, it seems that the first that all hon. Members except one will hear of this will be in the newspapers.
Mr. Callaghan: I do not know that this is very "instant", because the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) indicated in his Budget speeches in 1961 and 1962 that he was considering introducing this tax to get rid of the Income Tax and Profits Tax—[Interruption.] I have looked it up this morning.
I think that there is a very real desire for information. I am, therefore, arranging to put copies in the Library, and also, at four o'clock, copies of the Written Answer will be available in the Vote Office, so that hon. Members generally can see what is proposed.
Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Will the Chancellor bear in mind that on the occasions referred to, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirrall (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) indicated consideration, but the right hon. Gentleman himself in his recent speech indicated intention,

1323
which is very different? Whilst appreciating that the right hon. Gentleman's intention now is to restore the confidence destroyed by the Government themselves, will he bear in mind that confidence will only be properly revived if the Government make a forthright declaration that they appreciate the constructive rôle of rising profits in a competitive economy, and give up the practice of whispering one thing in the luncheon rooms in the City and saying something different to their hon. Friends upstairs?
Mr. Callaghan: I think that three years is time enough for consideration of this particular reform, which is long overdue. I must say that if ever I venture into the luncheon rooms in the City I trip over almost every hon. Member opposite.
Mr. Stratton Mills: Is the Chancellor aware that a Royal Commission has examined the idea of a corporation tax? Is he not aware of the danger of rushing into this method of taxation without having given it proper thought? Would be consider referring this scheme to a high-ranking representative committee, for it to examine the implications and report to him before the Budget?
Mr. Callaghan: I am most anxious that this scheme should fit the needs of modern industrial society, and I think that after ten years of consideration there is really very little that is not known for and against the scheme. The reason for my making this statement today, giving a general outline of intentions, is to enable those who will be principally affected to make representations to the Board of Inland Revenue, which will be fully considered in advance of legislation being introduced next April.
Mr. Duffy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members can only decide, after they have had a chance of looking at the details of the statement, whether anxiety was rather unnecessarily raised and confidence rather unnecessarily disturbed if his proposals are immoderate, if his proposals are out of line with existing practice elsewhere, and if we decide that his proposals are not such as could have been anticipated with a little intelligence?
Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I think that a great
1324
deal of anxiety was caused because some people—I do not know who—did not read what I said in my Budget speech. If they had read what I then said, there would have been very little doubt in anyone's mind about what I intended.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about my statements, will he see that his right hon. and hon. Friends read again column 803 of HANSARD for 17th April, 1961, and column 971 of HANSARD of 9th April, 1962?

HOUSING (LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT)
The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on leasehold enfranchisement.
This is a subject which is causing concern to many people. The Government have already announced their intention to introduce legislation to enable householders with an original lease of more than 21 years to purchase the reversion of their leasehold interest. By giving this matter priority in their legislative plans they have shown the importance they attach to it.
But the provisions required raise important issues of policy and also some complex problems of a technical nature. For these reasons, and because of the other demands on parliamentary time, it will necessarily be some time before a Bill can be introduced.
Meanwhile, anxiety has been expressed by those living in houses where a long lease is due to expire. They fear that they may lose the opportunity of purchasing the freehold of their homes if the lease expires before the new legislation comes into force.
The Government sympathise with the anxieties of those whose leases are due to expire shortly; and I can give an assurance that in framing the new legislation the Government will ensure that whatever enfranchisement rights are conferred on a leaseholder whose lease is still running will similarly be conferred on a leaseholder whose lease expires after 8th December, 1964, and is still in occupation, on whatever terms, when the legislation comes into force.

1325
This assurance cannot apply, of course, to those who have lost possession of the property before the Bill comes into force. But most occupying lessees are already entitled to remain in possession when their leases expire. They cannot be displaced save on specified grounds which are examined by the county court. It is, therefore, likely that when the new Bill comes into effect, a leaseholder whose lease has expired will still be living in his old house, though the terms of his tenure will be different.
What I have said does not apply to Scotland, where the land law is very different. The Government are not aware of any anxiety in connection with house property held on long-term leases in Scotland. But Scottish interests will be kept in mind while legislation for England and Wales is being prepared.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the Minister aware that we are grateful to him for having come to a decision and made a statement without having to be pushed into it, unlike some of his colleagues? Is he aware that the substance of his statement appears in this morning's Daily Express? If so, will he undertake to investigate how it is that that information became available to the Press before he made his statement?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this policy of government by statement, followed by a long interval for legislation, causes the maximum of difficulty for all concerned—[HoN. MEMBERS: "The landlords"] Why is it that, as this proposal featured prominently in the Labour Party's election manifesto, the Government had not prepared their ideas on how to implement it, but now have to spend a long time thinking out how it can be done?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman on some occasion seek to reconcile a decision to confer a right to freehold on people who have never previously had it with the policy of the Government, under the Development Commission proposal, to deprive the owners of new houses of freehold rights?
Mr. Crossman: I find that a little curmudgeonly. We are preparing legislation and in the meantime a great deal of anxiety has been expressed by people who own leases. I should have thought it reasonable to give this assurance to
1326
those people. Although the right hon. Member may not appreciate it, I think that leaseholders will.
On the subject of delay, I am a little baffled. We are undertaking a major reform of rent control and directly that is over we shall deal with leasehold enfranchisement.
Mr. Abse: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement he has made will be received with considerable relief and with thanks on the part of leaseholders in Wales? In particular, it will be received with thanks—despite the churlish reception by hon. Members opposite, who did nothing while they were in power—and with particular satisfaction by all leaseholders in Wales whose leases are falling in on Christmas Day.
Now that my right hon. Friend the Minister has made it clear that a leasehold Bill is to be brought in within a very short time, would it not be wiser for bad ground landlords to stop their present exploitation and to follow the example of good ground landlords by offering immediately reasonable and proper terms to tenants who will gladly accept them?
Mr. Crossman: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I also thank him for giving advice to landlords. I hope that they will take it.
Mr. Gower: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he anticipates that the promised legislation will be introduced in the present Session of Parliament?
Mr. Crossman: Yes, I do anticipate that. We have in our Department two major Measures, one on rent control and this, which I anticipate will be coming in as soon as we finish with the first one.
Mr. Alan Williams: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether there will be any premises or leaseholders who will not benefit from this proposed legislation and how the proposed legislation will apply to flats?
Mr. Crossman: Yes, Sir. There will be certain leaseholders who will not benefit, but I make one thing clear. Those not still in occupation will not benefit, but I emphasise that there will

1327
be very few of them, because unless an order can be obtained by which they can be moved from their position they will still be in occupation when the law is passed.
The question of flats is a very difficult problem, one in which we have difficulties because of covenants to carry out repairs and the transfer of responsibility. This is one of the technical details which make it very difficult to draft an effective piece of law.
Mr. Grimond: While welcoming the Government's intention, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there are genuine difficulties about the attempt to forestall legislation by statements which do not cover the whole field? What is to be the position of people who go to the county court and are, nevertheless, evicted on grounds which will disappear when the Government have introduced the legislation? I beg the Government to realise that, although this may be a small number, there will be a considerable feeling of unfairness over the matter. Will he give an assurance that not only will this legislation be introduced as quickly as possible, but that the Government will give as much attention as possible to this group?
Mr. Crossman: I am aware of the difficulty of giving complete reassurance. That is why I drafted the statement in very careful language and had to exclude particular classes, one of which the right hon. Member has mentioned.
Mr. Rhodes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be received with considerable gratitude by many leaseholders in the City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne who are being pressed by landlords at present to purchase the freehold reversions on their properties in the City at exorbitant prices, sometimes 50 to 100 times the, annual ground rent? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what machinery he will establish to enable fair prices to be charged when the freehold reversions take place?
Mr. Crossman: I cannot possibly anticipate the legislation.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the first question I put to him, which he omitted to answer, namely, whether he will investigate the apparent leak of the subject matter of this statement and tell us how it happened?
Mr. Crossman: I am certainly prepared to answer. I did not see this leak. I am very surprised if the text of this careful statement was to be found intact in the Daily Express, which is not usually so careful to publish stories which lack any human interest and are so accurate.

MEMBER SWORN
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:—
John Arnold Farr, esquire, for Harborough.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  PROTECTION FROM EVICTION BILL
  As amended, considered.
  PROTECTION FROM EVICTION BILL

    New Clause. —(RULES OF PROCEDURE AND EXPEDITIOUS HEARING.)
    (1) Section 17 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Act 1920 (which provides for the making of rules of procedure for purposes of that Act, and extends the jurisdiction of county courts and sheriff courts in respect of proceedings under that Act) shall have effect as if references to that Act included references to this Act; and for the purposes of that section any proceedings for the suspension of an order for the recovery of possession of a dwelling to which this Act applies shall be deemed to be proceedings under this Act.
    (2) Rules of procedure as aforesaid shall be made so as to provide that, if the court is satisfied of the urgency of the proceedings, proceedings for recovery of possession of premises to which this Act applies shall be heard (upon a two days' notice to the court and to the other parties to the proceedings) in any court within the circuit of the county court judge of the court in which the proceedings would otherwise have been heard and shall take precedence over other proceedings due for hearing.—[Sir J. Hobson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    3.45 p.m.
    Sir John Hobson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The purpose of moving this Motion is to ask the Minister whether he has been kind enough to consider the point I raised in Committee about how questions of urgency ought to be dealt with. I am grateful for the information that he gave about the administrative arrangements which have been made in the ordinary course for dealing with the average case and for his announcement that it was hoped that possession cases in the county courts would normally take only 21 days from the time the application was made. Of course, the principal benefit will be in the undefended cases, but I do not want to go back over the ordinary run of cases. Arrangements have been made and I am sure it is right that they should be administrative arrangements, but that still leaves outstanding what I think is a lacuna.
    We all know that it is necessary, under the Act, to proceed in the county court
    1330
    for possession. There was a very rapid proceeding available before in the High Court. It was possible on short notice to get possession immediately in the High Court with almost no delay. If there is to be a discretion about granting possession, I certainly agree that it should be in the county court and not in the High Court. I should have thought it necessary to give to county court judges a power, if they are satisfied that there is a case of real urgency, to deal with the matter very expeditiously indeed.
    The purpose of the new Clause is to ensure that where a county court judge is satisfied that circumstances of urgency exist it should be possible for possession to be sought on a two-day notice and for the hearing of that application to take precedence over all other business before the county court. As, at present, there must be at least 14 days' notice before the matter can come before the county court. That time cannot be abridged except by consent. Therefore, there is an imposed delay of at least 14 days and it is likely in very many instances to be substantially more because the county court judge is not available, or it is not possible to find an additional county court judge at once, or for a variety of other reasons.
    Then there will be cases when it is essential that a difficult and awkward situation should be sorted out immediately. In Committee, I instanced the example of when there had been considerable violence between the parties, all living under the same roof, when it would obviously be essential that something should be done immediately. The Bill would prevent the landlord from doing anything—it would be a criminal offence if he took steps by way of self help—to remove the tenant. If he is to be powerless to deal with a situation which may require immediate action, there ought to be a procedure by which he can get a decision of the judge immediately.
    There are the cases of holiday accommodation when sombody holds over and refuses to leave and when a series of holiday lettings depends upon someone getting out. There are other cases when, for instance, a Service family, or a family from the Commonwealth, is returning to this country and expecting to get possession of the premises, with the whole

    1331
    family due to move in and the former tenant holding over. It obviously ought to be right for the family coming from overseas to move straight into that accommodation. If the present procedures of the county court have to be employed, there may be a delay of three weeks, and probably more, before it is possible to get possession.
    It is only for these cases, which may be exceptional and not very numerous and which are certainly not ordinary, but may have exceptional urgency, for which there should be some special form of procedure. It is in order to ask the Minister what investigations he has been able to make to deal with these cases that I have moved the new Clause.
    Mr. Speaker: I should have said, and I do so now because I do not think that it will affect the matter, that it is probably convenient with this to discuss the Scottish version, which is new Clause 4—"Provisions for procedure and expeditious hearing in Scotland".
    Mr. N. R. Wylie: The Scottish new Clause makes provisions somewhat similar to those which my right hon. and learned Friend has suggested for England. I am concerned about the delay likely to result in the ordinary way in the sheriff courts in Scotland. It must be borne in mind that in Scotland the sheriff has not only a very much wider civil jurisdiction, but a wide criminal jurisdiction. The impact of these two jurisdictions, aggravated, as it were, by the recent application of legal aid in criminal causes, is creating a pressure of work in the sheriff courts greater than at any time before.
    For example, I understand that in summary criminal trials, unless taking only a very short time, probably less than a forenoon, there is a delay of about four months in Edinburgh and five or six months in Glasgow and that the delay is increasing because of the effect of legal aid in criminal causes.
    The Lord President of the Court of Session has no power within his own hand to make rules governing procedure and practice in the sheriff courts. The sheriff courts' rules are governed entirely by Statute and in some respects are sadly in need of reform. Apart from such powers as Parliament gives him, the
    1332
    Lord President has no power to interfere in the procedure and practice of the sheriff courts. That is why the Scottish new Clause should be accepted. Otherwise, I can foresee a bottleneck in the work of the sheriff courts in handling legislation of this nature.
    Mr. Graham Page: One rather technical matter arises on the new Clause. In Committee, the Minister gave an assurance that he could deal with the hastening of the hearing of proceedings of this kind in the county court by administrative action, by the rules of the court. I doubt whether, without Section 17 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Act, 1920, implied into the Bill, the Lord Chancellor will have the power to make the necessary rules. Section 17 provides the rule-making power and I doubt whether there is any such power unless that Section is inserted into the Bill in some way.
    It was found necessary to introduce it in the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1958. If it was found necessary specifically to repeat it in that Act, it must be necessary to do so in the Bill. The proceedings under the Bill will be proceedings for a suspension of an order for possession. not strictly proceedings under the Rent Act. That is why specific mention of the rule-making power is necessary.
    If the Government resist the new Clause, they will again be leaving the law in the air, as they have done in other instances in the Bill. I hope that it will be made perfectly clear that the Minister will take the power to ensure that the Lord Chancellor has the power to make the necessary rules so that the hearing of these cases may be speeded up.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): My advice to the House is that the new Clauses are unnecessary. I say that with a little reserve about Scotland, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will deal with a subject on which, I fear, any guidance which I might give ought not to be accepted without considerable qualification.
    The position in England is that without subsection (1) of the new Clause, the county court rules will apply and will be satisfactory to meet the situation which will arise with the operation of the Bill.

    1333
    I hasten to say at once that should it prove that the procedure is not speedy enough to deal with cases which need expedition, the present rule-making powers will be adequate for enabling the Lord Chancellor, in conjunction with the Rule Committee, to deal with the situation. My advice is that the inclusion of a specific reference to the rule-making power of Section 17 of the 1920 Act is not necessary and that the general rule-making powers already provided will be adequate for meeting the situation which may arise if the present procedures prove to be tardy.
    Perhaps I should remind the House that there are already methods of securing expedition under the present rules. For instance, under the existing County Court Rules, Order 16, Rule 1 provides that a judge or registrar may, on application by a party and without a hearing, transfer proceedings to another court, whether on the same or a different circuit, where the proceedings can be more conveniently or fairly heard. The relevant factor will be the urgency of the situation and the court would bear that in mind. I would expect courts to be prepared to exercise that power when the landlord made out a prima facie case for a speedy hearing when taking out a summons.
    As was said by my right hon. Friend in Committee, the Lord Chancellor proposes, by administrative action, to direct the courts to place undefended possession actions in the list for the first sitting after the period of 14 days required between the taking out of the summons and the hearing has expired provided that the owner satisfies the appropriate officer of the court of the need for speed.
    4.0 p.m.
    Perhaps I can take up the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) about the possibility of the abridgement of the 14-day period between the taking out of the summons and the hearing. That period can be abridged on an application ex parte to the judge, and, of course, it can be abridged by consent. One would have thought that if one were in the presence of an urgent situation of the kind we are considering the judge would undoubtedly allow such application ex pane.
    Finally, the House should remember that Section 36 of the County Courts Act,
    1334
    1959, gives judges power to appoint additional courts. This power would be available where an owner makes out a prima facie case for a speedy hearing when he takes out his summons and there is no regular sitting of the court shortly after the expiration of the prescribed period—fourteen days or less. This power covers broadly the same ground as the proposed new Clause, which, in our view, is unnecessary. But, as I say, if experience is to the contrary, the matter will, after consideration by the Lord Chancellor and the Rule Committee, be regulated by the making of new rules.
    I turn to the interesting suggestion of the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington that there should be introduced a procedure to get possession on a two-day notice. Although procedure of that kind exists in Scotland, it does not exist here. At present, at any rate, we have no machinery for bringing on actions at such short notice, although I am bound to say that the Scottish procedure has its attractions and that it might be that at an appropriate time the possibility of introducing it in this country should be examined. However, as I have said, I think that the undertaking that new rules will be made if the delays prove excessive meets the situation.
    In the situations of extreme urgency, such as the possibility of threats of breach of the peace, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington referred, the law would give other remedies—for instance by way of injunction. That would require the reference of the matter to the court, and from the point of view of the tenant, at any rate, it would protect him from the risk of the self-help procedure against which the whole essence of the Bill is directed.
    The effect of the present county court rules is that it should be possible in the larger towns to bring really urgent cases before the court for hearing in less than 14 days. It seems to us that, in the circumstances, that is a reasonable position. After all, we must bear in mind that a tenant may, for instance, desire time to consider his defence to the proceedings, and it may not be practicable or easy for that to be done in the space of, say, 48 hours. If that kind of expedition were imposed, there is little doubt that if the defendant tenant found himself in difficulty an application for an

    1335
    adjournment would be allowed. Therefore, there are limits to expedition. The urge for haste must not defeat the interests of justice.
    In all the circumstances, new Clause No. 3, in our view, is unnecessary and should be resisted.
    Mr. Forbes Hendry: Before the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland replies, I should like to urge on him the necessity of adopting some sort of procedure such as that suggested in the proposed new Clause in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) and myself applicable to Scotland.
    It is necessary for the House to realise exactly what the sheriff court in Scotland does. It is an all-purpose court. It has not only a wide civil jurisdiction, but a wide criminal jurisdiction analogous to that of the magistrates' court in England. That, of necessity, makes the sheriff court in a sizeable place very busy. But it has a very great deal of flexibility in arranging its affairs. In its criminal side, it deals in a very summary manner with the cases which come before it. For small debts, there exists a summary procedure without written proceedings which enables the court to come to a decision very quickly with the least possible delay and trouble.
    This procedure has worked exceedingly well in connection with the tenancy of shops. An Act passed temporarily in 1949 and made permanent this year adapted this procedure for the purpose of protecting the tenants of shops from eviction. I see no reason why it should not apply to the tenancy of houses. That is virtually what my hon. Friend and I are suggesting in the new Clause—that the court be given power either by Parliament or by the Court of Session, which has power to legislate in these matters, to deal with these cases in an extremely summary way.
    I suggest that this is more than necessary in view of the very great delays which take place in sheriff courts in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands instanced the long delay which occurs between the raising of a case and its coming to trial. But that is not the
    1336
    end of it, because there may be a very long delay between the hearing of a case and the issue of a judgment.
    I speak with knowledge on this matter, because I am a practising solicitor in a sheriff court. I should like to instance one case in my practice which occurred recently. It came to trial on 20th July and judgment was issued only last Friday. That was not in Glasgow, but in a busy country court. That is not unusual in a busy sheriff court. It may frequently happen. Very great hardship will be suffered, not only by landlords, but by tenants if there is a delay of that magnitude in hearing cases of this kind, because not only is the landlord denied possession of his house but the tenant is kept on tenterhooks for a very long time.
    In these circumstances, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland should consider this matter either on this stage or when the Bill goes to another place.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): The point made by the Attorney-General and emphasised by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), concerning the summary provisions in the sheriff court, is valid. The difference between us is in the argument mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) about the powers of the Court of Session in this matter.
    I am sorry to tell the hon. and learned Member for Pentlands that he is not correct in his assumption that these powers are not already available. They are. I am told that this rule-making power already exists in Section 34(1)(a) and (d) of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act, 1933. I do not want to trouble the House, but I am quite willing, if the hon. and learned Member desires, to read the long subsection if he is in doubt. I assure him, however, that my advice is that that is so and that the first part of his new Clause asking for this rule-making power is unnecessary because it is already in existence.
    Mr. Wylie: If that is the case, of course I agree that there is no need to introduce the Clause; but that is news not only to me, but to the Lord President of the Court of Session. I have never heard of this before and, as far as I know, it has never ben acted upon. In

    1337
    a matter of this nature, where a difficult crisis is likely to develop, this kind of provision should be evoked.
    I do not want to make a speech, but it seems to me that one thing that the sheriff court does not like in Scotland is for the Lord President to interfere in its affairs. It would be only in exceptional circumstances that he would be obliged to do so. For that reason, I still suggest that it is desirable for these specific powers to be included in the Bill as they are to be found in the 1920 Act.
    Dr. Mabon: I am always delighted to give news to the present Lord President. Nevertheless, I am advised that what I have stated is the fact. In case, however, there is dubiety, it would be useful to put it on record that Section 34(1) of the 1933 Act provides that
    "The Court of Session shall have power by Act of Sederunt—
    (a) to regulate and prescribe the procedure and practice to be followed in any proceedings in the sheriff court or in execution or diligence following thereon and any matters incidental or relating to any such procedure or practice including (but without prejudice to the foregoing generality) the manner in which, the time within which, and the conditions on which any application to the sheriff court or anything required or authorised to be done in relation to any such proceedings shall or may be made or done".
    Subsection (1,d) is as follows:
    "to modify, amend or repeal any enactments relating to matters with respect to which an Act of Sederunt is made under this section."
    That being so, it still seems to us reasonable to say that it would be unnecessary to proceed with the first part of the new Clause.
    The second part of the new Clause is also unnecessary because, as has been mentioned both by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and by the hon. and learned Member—although he does not seem to see the application of this to these removing cases—sheriff court procedure is already expeditious. The majority of removing cases are raised as applications for summary removing which can be used when the let is for less than a year.
    I concede the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Pentlands in relation to delays in other matters, but, as to delays which may occur in summary removing supposing that we were to allow even a delay of seven days in the
    1338
    case of a rural sheriffdom this would mean that the case would come before the court within nine days after the first notice was given. I am told that practically all these cases are disposed of at the first hearing of the court. In the busy Glasgow Sheriff Court, between 200 and 250 such cases have been handled in a week, thus meeting the point which the hon. and learned Member and his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West have rightly brought to our attention. I do not wish to reflect upon English procedure, but it is a reasonable point for us to make that we in Scotland have no need to worry about this.
    Mr. Wylie: My hon. Friend—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know what is happening. Is the hon. and learned Member intervening upon the speech of the Minister, or has the Minister sat down?
    Mr. Wylie: I think that the Minister has sat down, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: In that event, the hon. and learned Member requires leave to speak again, but not, I think, at this moment. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps we might return to England because, like the Attorney-General, and with even better reason, I should not like to embark upon the tumultuous seas of Scottish law. We are grateful to the Attorney-General for helping us on this point, which does not raise one of the major issues of principle on the Bill but is a very practical one.
    The House will appreciate that the Bill abolishes the speedy High Court procedure as well as the also possibly speedy process of eviction without going to court. It is, therefore, important to be clear what is the possible speed of action through the county court in the exceptional case in which it is necessary. That there may be such cases the House will, I am sure, agree, and that is likely to be even more the case when we are dealing, as the Bill does, not only with unfurnished, but with furnished lettings.
    I should like, therefore, to ask the Attorney-General one or two further questions. As I understood his reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington

    1339
    (Sir J. Hobson), there are already adequate powers to make the necessary rules to secure a speedy procedure, and that this can be done substantially without Section 17, to which the new Clause refers.
    I wonder, however, whether the Attorney-General can tell us what would be the quickest possible procedure in a case of real emergency. There can be such cases and I doubt whether, particularly in the case of a difficult character occupying a furnished room in somebody's house, procedure by injunction is a realistic way of proceeding. There may be cases where it is necessary in everybody's interest to get a very quick decision. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that in such cases an ex parte application could be made to the county court judge. Without committing himself precisely, can the Attorney-General give us an idea of, in a case of real urgency of that sort, the quickest speed with which an order could be obtained?
    I apologise for putting the next point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because he has dealt with it; the fault was mine in not following him. At an earlier stage, we had discussion of the problem which arises in country county courts where the judges proceed on circuit. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that it would be possible and was intended by rules to provide that these cases could be dealt with at any county court on the circuit that was convenient in point of time, or will the applicant be confined only to the county court which has jurisdiction in the area where the premises are situated? I shall be grateful if the Attorney-General can clarify these points and perhaps enable us to make progress.
    The Attorney-General: The time within which an urgent case could come before the court would depend upon all the circumstances of the case and upon the nature of any defence which a tenant might make. That is not a very helpful answer so far, but I should have thought that in an urgent case the matter could certainly be dealt with in less than 14 days and that if there was a successful application for the abridgment of the period between the taking out of the
    1340
    summons and the hearing to reduce it to as short a period as, say, two days, it would be possible in a really urgent case to have the matter dealt with within a week.
    I feel sure that we can count upon the judges and the registrars who will be charged with this heavy duty to cooperate in every way they can in the emergency situation with which the Bill is intended to deal. One must bear in mind that without the Bill the parties would be confronted with the ordinary processes of delay which cause an interval to pass between the summons and the ultimate order in any event. Even High Court proceedings are not quite as expeditious as all that. That is the best estimate I can give on the question of the time factor.
    As to the position on circuit, as I have said to the House, under the existing county court rules the judge or the registrar can, on application by a party without a hearing, transfer proceedings to another court whether or not it is on the same circuit. So that power exists already. If it is established by the party making the application that the proceedings can be more conveniently or fairly heard in another court on the problem of urgency and accessibility which would be relevant in considering such an application as that, then, as I said, there is also power in the judge to appoint additional courts, and that is being exercised, and has been exercised a good deal in recent years. So that is also a reserve power which would, I think, prevent the accumulation of these cases so as to cause regrettable delay.
    Sir J. Hobson: In view of the undertaking given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if the procedure should not turn out to be adequate for dealing with cases of urgency the matter would be given further consideration, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1.—(RESTRICTION ON RECOVERY OF POSSESSION.)
    Mr. James Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 16, to leave out from

    1341
    "person" to the end of line 18 and to insert:
    "leaves no such widow or widower, then to such member of his family residing with him for not less than six months, immediately before that person's death as may be decided, in default of agreement, by the court".
    This Amendment concerns the position where the tenant has died, the tenant has no husband or wife, but there are members of the family living on the premises. This Amendment has two sides to it. One is the question of how long those other members of the family have been living in the premises, whether it is six months or less; secondly, who should decide which member of the family then gets the tenancy.
    When we discussed the six months' period in Committee the Joint Parliamentary Secretary rejected the point. I think that I can fairly sum up his argument thus, that the six months' deadline created hard cases; someone might have given up his home and gone to live with the parent to nurse him through his illness and have been there for five and a half months and then failed to be entitled to the tenancy at the end of it; and that, in any case, this was much better settled under Clause 2 by the court when it considered the whole case.
    The Amendment seeks to enable the court, in default of agreement, to lay down who has the right to be considered the tenant. The argument was that the amendment by the rent Act of 1933 made this a cause of abuse—that people came in just to nurse a member of their family, perhaps in the last few days before death, and then claimed the tenancy. I think that at that time the argument about the five and a half months was not used. This period of six months has, I think, been proved over the years to have value, and I hope that on reconsideration the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will agree to the Amendment.
    Then there is the second barrel of this Amendment: who should decide who is the tenant? There may be several members of the family all living there. There must be one tenant; there cannot be a sort of joint tenancy between the family. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he would look into this and come forward with some suitable Amendment. As he has not brought forward his own Amend-
    1342
    ment, I hope that perhaps he will accept this.
    Mr. Graham Page: I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) in this Amendment for the two reasons which he has explained. The Amendment is a two-barrelled Amendment in that part of it which deals with the necessity to have a decision as to who is entitled to the rights under the Bill, the second point being whether it is necessary to retain the six months' rule which has been a feature of the Rent Acts since 1933.
    As to the question of who is entitled to the rights under the Bill, the occupier is the person entitled. The occupier is described in this Clause in subsection (1,c). There can be more than one occupier—any member—I stress the word "any"—of the family residing with the previous tenant at the date of that tenant's death. Now, the occupier is given certain rights under the remainder of the Bill. Under this Clause, the occupier has the right to remain in possession and in residence till a court order is made for removing him. I do not think that there is really any objection to there being several occupiers. The owner might have to bring his case against all those who fell within the description of an occupier under subsection (1) of this Clause.
    It is when one gets to Clause 2 that the difficulty arises. Under Clause 2(2) the judge has to decide on whom to impose certain conditions—as to payment of rent, for example. He therefore must decide who is the occupier. If there are several members of the family residing in the house of the former tenant, then the judge has to decide which one is entitled to the benefits and which one is subject to the duties which he can impose on the occupier under Clause 2(2). Then one comes to Clause 2(4). The judge is directed to consider whether the occupier has done something or failed to do something, or whether certain conditions apply to the occupier. He must decide, therefore, who is the occupier.
    Therefore, we come back to the too vague, statement in Clause 1(1,c) which applies the term "occupier" to any

    1343
    member of the family and gives no directions as to how the occupier under the Bill is to be decided.
    As to the second point, with regard to the six months' rule, it was said in Committee that there were hard cases as a result of this rule, that relatives might have come to stay with the tenant within this six months' period prior to his death and might perhaps have given up their homes and hoped to reside in the controlled house for some time. But, if there have been these hard cases, no effort has been made by legislation since 1933 to correct them; as far as I know no Amendments for removing the six months' period have been tabled to any Rent Act since the 1933 Act; and if there really have been hard cases, and if this six months' rule is not really necessary, it is strange that it has not been amended in the course of the rent legislation since 1933.
    Weighing the disadvantages and advantages of this six months' rule, there are far more cases, I would assert, in which the absence of the rule there would have been abuses by the tenant than there would be cases in which the members of the family would suffer hardship. This is an extension to the protection of the controlled tenant. It is an extension of the Rent Restriction Acts and not merely a holding position. I understand that the Bill is really intended as a holding exercise rather than as an amending Bill. But this provision is an effort to amend the law and remove a provision which it was found necessary to insert into the 1933 Act, no effort having been made until now to disturb it.
    I therefore hope that the Government will consider this a little more thoroughly than it was considered in Committee and recognise the force of the Amendment.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Eric Lubbock: The fact that the provision is contained in the 1933 Act is not a logical reason for retaining it now. I much prefer to approach the matter from first principles. I heard nothing substantial in the arguments of the hon. Members for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) which convinced me that they have made an a priori case. There could in some circumstances be cases of people who have resided with
    1344
    the former tenant for five and a half months and who will suffer severe hardship if they are not given the protection of the Bill.
    Six months is suggested as the qualifying period for the protection of the Bill, but why not nine months, or one year, or even two years? The fact that no cases of hardship have been drawn to the attention of the hon. Member for Crosby under any of the previous Acts does not mean that none has occurred. I therefore hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will resist that part of the Amendment.
    On the other hand, there is substance in the other argument. I have studied the Clause carefully to see how the courts would decide between the claims of two people who were both residing with the tenant at the time of his death. I notice that the Government have tabled a later Amendment to cover a point I raised in Committee. I will not refer to it now, because I should be out of order. I can envisage circumstances in which a blood relation of the former tenant had resided with him in the house at the same time as his natural wife had. It would be impossible, under the Bill in its present form, for the court to decide which of the two should be considered the occupant for the purposes of Clause 2.
    I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will be able to deal with this point, which has great validity, but will refuse the other point raised in the Amendment.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): As I promised in Committee, when a similar Amendment was moved, we have given this matter very careful consideration and have consulted our lawyers, particularly as to whether the point about the successive occupier made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) could or should be dealt with in a Bill such as this.
    I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that the Amendment deals with two points. I thought that we were generally agreed in Committee on the point about the six months' qualifying period. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) himself conceded, as he will see from HANSARD, if he has

    1345
    forgotten it, that there was some substance in my argument about creating an anomaly in a matter such as this. We believe—we are advised that this is so—that there are cases where tenants come to the house, having given up their previous home, to nurse an aged father, for example, and are there for only two or three months. It is a matter for the judge to decide whether such persons should be evicted under the Bill.
    This is a very important thing that I want to make clear. I am not here arguing so much about tenancy. The point is whether such a person should be evicted and whether the eviction order should be suspended for, say, 12 months. I hope that by now the whole country realises that in the not too distant future we shawl introduce a Bill which I hope will deal with some of the rather difficult problems mentioned in Committee. We believe that anomalies would be created by adopting a criterion of six months. We therefore believe that it would be wrong to write such a provision into the Bill. We believe that it is right to rely upon the judgment of the person who will hear the case.
    I believe that there are cases of people who move in in the last few weeks to try to get the tenancy because they happen to know that the parent has not long to live. This would no doubt be argued by the owner and would be fairly and honestly put to the judge, who would then decide the case on its merits. We think that it would be wrong for Parliament to lay down in an eviction Bill an arbitrary rule that the tenant must have been there for six months. I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington that it would be wrong to write such a provision into the Bill. We reject that part of the Amendment.
    I assure the House that we have carefully considered the whole question of the successive occupier. The hon. Member for Crosby raised this matter in Committee. He was given the real answer by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), who said this:
    "If one wants to serve proceedings, one serves them on whom one alleges to be the occupier. He can sue for possession whoever is there asking for the protection of the Act. If the judge makes an order for possession against that person, he gets possession. But one does not have to decide competing claims
    1346
    in order to decide whether he should get possession or not …
    All that the Clause does is to give the court power to delay possession, if it thinks right, and denies the landlord the right to strong-arm his way in—a method of getting possession which I thought both sides of the Committee agreed was out of date."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1964; Vol. 702, cc. 1499–1500.]
    In a case where the deceased tenant has left no widow, but has left more than one member of his family who were residing with him at the time of his death—say, two daughters—the owner cannot enforce his right to possession without a county court order as long as either daughter remains in occupation and in residence. The owner, in applying to the court for an order for possession, would name both daughters as defendants to the proceedings.
    I assure the House that we have considered this matter carefully. We believe that it would be cumbersome and unnecessary to provide machinery for selecting one person as the occupier for the purpose of the Bill in a case where more than one person qualifies.
    Mr. Lubbock: The Bill does imply that the occupier is only one person. Subsection (2) says:
    "In this Act the occupier', in relation to any premises, means the person remaining in occupation …"
    I do not see how there can be more than one of them.
    Mr. Mellish: On the best advice I have received, in a case where the owner is asking for possession it will be for the judge to decide the matter at the end of the day. He will take into account the evidence offered by the owner and by the defendants. I repeat that here we are arguing about whether persons should be evicted. We are not arguing about who should be the tenant or, in that sense, who the tenancy is to be given to. We are arguing about whether the house should now be vacated and handed over to the owner who is applying for the eviction of one or more persons.
    For the reasons I have stated, we are unable to accept the Amendment. We believe that it is cumbersome and unnecessary. We recognise the intentions of those who have tabled the Amendment. I can only assure them that after

    1347
    all the advice we have been given we believe that the Amendment is not necessary.
    Sir J. Hobson: In Committee, we asked the Government to think again about the second leg of the Amendment, which we regard as of much the most importance. The Parliamentary Secretary gave an answer which would have been perfectly satisfactory if the Bill merely contained a Clause the effect of which was to prevent evictions. In that case it would have been right to say that no difficulty would arise from the fact that two or more persons were involved. But the Bill does much more. The county court judge may have to decide on what terms people are to remain in the landlord's premises. It does not leave it to the county court judge to decide who shall be the occupier.
    This matter is settled by subsection (1,c). If it goes forward in this form and is allowed to bite upon two or more children who were living with the deceased tenant, because in the Clause we are talking about successors, there would by definition he no doubt that for the purposes of Clause 2 those two children would both be occupiers if there was no means of distinguishing which of them would succeed to the tenancy. Both would have been normally residing with the member of their family and they would, therefore, both be persons who remain in occupation after the tenancy. A county court judge, for the purposes of Section 2, would not have any description at all of whether one or the other is the person who was the occupant. He would have to treat both as occupiers. Therefore, for the purposes of Section 2, one would have to ask: what is the unfortunate landlord to do—that is what it comes to—about an offer of accommodation?
    Suppose there are two children. One of them is the person who ought to have the tenancy. The older one has lived there all his life, and the other one has lived there only for the last month, and moved in just before the death of the tenant. The landlord offers a new tenancy to the permanently resident older child. He has not offered to one what he has offered to the other one. Under Clause 2, what the county court judge has to consider is whether he thinks that
    1348
    both the occupiers have unreasonably refused the offer of the tenancy of premises or part of the premises for a reasonable term and at a reasonable rent. If the landlord offers the tenancy to both and one accepts and the other refuses, what is to happen then?
    What we are doing here is not only creating for former tenants a position as statutory "squatters"—because they are not statutory tenants; the Government have rejected that. This Clause as it is at present is imposing on a landlord not a single statutory squatter whom he knows and can identify, to whom he must make offers and with whom he must deal over the rent. We are creating a class of two or more statutory "squatters" for all the purposes of the Bill, including the whole of Clause 2. This is wrong. It is wrong to impose in premises a person with rights in those premises under the Statute and not to know which of them it is that can exercise those rights. I would have thought that it was necessary that, as between children, one of them should be selected by the county court judge as the person who should succeed and that then it should be left to that person to negotiate with the other members of the family as to how they shall use the premises and what shall be the position between themselves.
    Therefore, I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington that there is a great deal of substance in this which will come down to practical problems when the parents die and the house is occupied by a series of individuals some of whom may or may not want to stay on, some of whom may want to make family arrangements between themselves, none of these matters being known to the landlord, who ought to have to deal with one individual, who can then deal with the other members of the family and make the necessary arrangements with the landlord. If they agree amongst themselves, there is no difficulty, because the one whom by consent is to have the statutory "squatter's" right can remain in possession of the premises. The law, for many purposes—trepass and other things—operates on possession and it is right that there should be a single possessor who should be looked to for all purposes, whatever arrangements he make make with the other members of the family.

    1349
    I return to the six months' argument. I concede that whether there is a six months' period or no period, there will be anomalies. I submit to the House that there are likely to be far more anomalies unless there is some limitation of time than if there is no limitation of time at all. I have had cases in my constituency, one in particular, that caused considerable difficulty. In this case it was the wife of a person who had been sent to prison who got into a tenancy by having lived there for six months. There will be many cases where people slip into a house immediately before the death of termination or giving up of the occupation of the tenancy by the former tenant. We are dealing with successor rights. What we want to ensure is that those who should succeed under the Statute to the right to remain in the premises when they were never themselves the tenant are those who have been there substantially as members of the household.
    4.45 p.m.
    I should have thought that it was reasonable, and, in practice, it has been shown to be reasonable, under the Rent Act, to say that a person who has resided for a substantial period of time, whether it be six months or three months or any other period, before he should step in to succeed to rights which were never his at all, which he has never enjoyed, in any circumstances, and which did not belong to him. He ought not to be entitled to succeed, as against the landlord, to rights which he never had, merely because it so happens that he has been residing in the same house with
    the person who had those rights. While I agree that it can be to some extent dealt with by county court judges, nevertheless one is putting the person who has been in residence for no period at all, with no claim at all, in exactly the same position, as a statutory right, as the former tenant, who was there by contract.
    Mr. Lubbock: That is not quite right, because the court shall have regard to all the circumstances, and among other things they shall consider the length of time one is there.
    Sir J. Hobson: Yes, but the court does that with the former tenant, too. The Bill is putting somebody who has resided there for no more than a day in precisely the same position as the former tenant, namely, subject to the decision of the court. Courts are incalculable and one is imposing upon landlords people who would not have had the right unless they had stepped in. While I would not, by itself, have regarded the six months period as vital, combined with the fact that one is putting in an undefined class who may not have resided there for any time at all, I would have regarded the Clause without this Amendment as unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Mellishrose—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to address the House, he cannot unless he has the leave of the House. He has already spoken.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to the word "family" in line 17, stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 214.

    Division No. 32.]

    AYES

    [4.47 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Albu, Austen

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

    de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

    Alldritt W. H.

    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

    Delargy, Hugh

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

    Dell, Edmund

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

    Dempsey, James

    Atkinson, Norman

    Buchanan, Richard

    Diamond, John

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Dodds, Norman

    Barnett, Joel

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Doig, Peter

    Baxter, William

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Driberg, Tom

    Beaney, Alan

    Carmichael, Neil

    Dunn, James A.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Edelman, Maurice

    Bence, Cyril

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Chapman, Donald

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Bessell, Peter

    Coleman, Donald

    English, Michael

    Binns, John

    Conlan, Bernard

    Ennals, David

    Bishop, E. S.

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Ensor, David

    Blackburn, P.

    Crosland, Anthony

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Grossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.

    Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)

    Boardman, H.

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Fernyhough, E.

    Boston, T. G.

    Dalyell, Tam

    Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

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

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Boyden, James

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    McBride, Neil

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Floud, Bernard

    McCann, J.

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. K.(St.Pancras, N.)

    Foley, Maurice

    MacColl, James

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    McGuire, Michael

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Freeson, Reginald

    McInnes, James

    Rowland, Christopher

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Sheldon, Robert

    Garrett, W. E.

    Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross & Crom'ty)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Garrow, A.

    MacKenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Mackie, George Y. (C'ness & S'land)

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

    Ginsburg, David

    Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)

    Silkin, John (Deptford)

    Gourlay, Harry

    McLeavy, Frank

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Grey, Charles

    MacMillan, Malcolm

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Hale, Leslie

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Small, William

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Manuel, Archie

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Mapp, Charles

    Solomons, Henry

    Hannan, William

    Marsh, Richard

    Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Mason, Roy

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Maxwell, Robert

    Steele, Thomas

    Hattersley, Ray

    Mellish, Robert

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Stonehouse, John

    Hazell, Bert

    Mikardo, Ian

    Stones, William

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Millan, Bruce

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

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

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Summerskill, Dr. Shirley

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Molloy, William

    Swain, Thomas

    Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

    Monslow, Walter

    Swingler, Stephen

    Holman, Percy

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Horner, John

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    Taverne, Dick

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

    Murray, Albert

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Neal, Harold

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Hoy, James

    Newens, Stan

    Thornton, Ernest

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.)

    Tinn, James

    Hughes, Hector(Aberdeen, N.)

    Norwood, Christopher

    Tomney, Frank

    Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Tuck, Raphael

    Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

    Ogden, Eric

    Urwin, T. W.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Varley, Eric G.

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Orbach, Maurice

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Orme, Stanley

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Wallace, George

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Owen, Will

    Warbey, William

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham S.)

    Padley, Walter

    Watkins, Tudor

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Weitzman, David

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)

    Paget, R. T.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)

    white, Mrs. Eirene

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Whitlock, William

    Kelley, Richard

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

    Pentland, Norman

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Lawson, George

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

    Ledger, Ron

    Prentice, R. E.

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Probert, Arthur

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Rankin, John

    Woof, Robert

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Rees, Merlyn

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Lubbock, Eric

    Richard, Ivor

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Howie and Mr. Harper.

    NOES

    Agnew, Commander Sir Peter

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Burden, F. A.

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Biffen, John

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.

    Biggs-Davison, John

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

    Astor, John

    Bingham, R. M.

    Campbell, Gordon

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Awdry, Daniel

    Blaker, Peter

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Baker, W. H. K.

    Box, Donald

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Balniel, Lord

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Braine, Bernard

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Batsford, Brian

    Brewis, John

    Cooke, Robert

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Cooper, A. E.

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    1352

    1353

    Cordle, John

    Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Peel, John

    Costain, A. P.

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Percival, Ian

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Hopkins, Alan

    Peyton, John

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hordern, Peter

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Hornby, Richard

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Crowder, F. P.

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.

    Pounder, Rafton

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Curran, Charles

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Pym, Francis

    Dance, James

    Jennings, J. C.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

    Jopling, Michael

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Dean, Paul

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)

    Roots, William

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Kimball, Marcus

    Royle, Anthony

    Doughty, Charles

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Drayson, G. B.

    Kitson, Timothy

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Lambton, Viscount

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Eden, Sir John

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Sharples, Richard

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

    Litchfield, Capt. John

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

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

    Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

    Farr, John

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Fell, Anthony

    Longden, Gilbert

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Fisher, Nigel

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Stainton, Keith

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

    Forrest, George

    MacArthur, Ian

    Temple John M.

    Foster, Sir John

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick

    Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

    Maginnis, John E.

    Tiley Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Gammans, Lady

    Maitland, Sir John

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R.H.

    Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Marten, Neil

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Glover Sir Douglas

    Mathew Robert

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    Maude, Angus

    Vickers Dame Joan

    Goodhew, Victor

    Mawby, Ray

    Walder, David (High Peak)

    Gower, Raymond

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Grant, Anthony

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

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Wall, Patrick

    Grieve, Percy

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Walters, Dennis

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Walters, Dennis

    Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Gurden, Harold

    Mitchell, David

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Monro, Hector

    Webster, David

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

    Morgan, W. G.

    Whitelaw, William

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)

    Murton, Oscar

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Neave, Airey

    Wise, A. R.

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Hawkins, Paul

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Hay, John

    Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Onslow, Cranley

    Wylie, N. R.

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Orr, Capt. L. P.S.

    Younger, Hn. George

    Hendry, Forbes

    Oaborn, John (Hallam)

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hiley, Joseph

    Page, R. Graham (Crosby)

    Mr. More and Mr. Ian Fraser.

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

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Mr. W. T. Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 17, to leave out "family" and to insert "household".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it would be to the convenience of the House if we also took Amendment No. 3, in line 17, to leave out "family" and to insert "household other than servants".
    Mr. Williams: It is, of course, true that in the Bill the Government seek to carry on the same terminology as they used in previous rent Acts, and I understand that the Government's intention here is not to amend the law, but merely
    1354
    to have a standstill Measure while awaiting a new, fuller and more comprehensive landlord and tenant Act. This carry-on from previous legislation is one of the ways in which in the past considerable hardship has been inflicted on people who have been left in possession of property, who are not members of the former tenant's family but are as closely related as a member of that family could have been.
    5.0 p.m.
    The House will know that the court is obliged strictly to construe the language in use in Acts. By construction in the past, and one presumes by construction

    1355
    in future in applying the Bill when it becomes an Act, the court will exclude from the protection that is proposed to be given under the Act persons who are not strictly members of the occupier's family.
    One thinks, for instance, of people who live in a house with a tenant. They may have been sharing that household with the tenant over a long period. They are bound with bonds of considerable affection to the tenant. They may have given their lives to the care of the former tenant but, not being members of that tenant's family by blood or by law, they are unable to continue to remain in occupation of the premises, and they will not be helped by this Bill.
    One thinks of a man and woman who have lived together as though they were husband and wife. One thinks of a family composed of such an irregular union having a child, that child being illegitimate and therefore having no legal right. There are people who live together in companionship. One thinks of frequent cases of two ladies who have been teaching at the same school. They become close friends and go to live together in rented property. After they have been living together for many years the one who happens to be the actual tenant dies and the person who is left, having shared that home for a greater part of her life, has no protection.
    In the past this has resulted in a great deal of hardship for people in that position. What we would hope is that, without attempting to bind the Government's hand in future legislation, there should be some provision for these situations. It can easily be done. As this is a short standstill Measure, no hardship can result to the landlord, whereas hardship can result at present to the person who is seeking to remain in possession. It appears to those who have joined with me in putting the Amendment clown that this is an Amendment which in humanity the Government might easily and properly accept.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) put forward the Amendment with the greatest sincerity. His speech indicated that, but as he spoke I wondered how much more impracticable he could get as he went on.
    1356
    The Government have said that they are anxious to speed up the hearing of these actions, to allow people to get to the court quickly and have cases heard if that is necessary. It is necessary to go to court to obtain an order under Clause 1 to get the directions of the court under Clause 2 as to future rent to be paid and so on.
    If the occupier is to be any member of the household, it means that the owner, in order to go to court, must serve every member of the household with proceedings before any action can start at all. He has to serve not only every adult member of the household, but every infant member, even a child in arms who is occupying the premises. Therefore, he has to go through the procedure of appointing a guardian ad litem to all the infants in the house.
    This was stupid enough as a result of the previous Amendment which required him to appoint a guardian ad litem for those infants to defend actions brought against them. The suggestion now is that this nonsense, this impossible procedure, should be extended to every member of the house-hold without legal definition of what a household may be. The household may be crammed tight with 20 or more people, all under the age of 21, and the unfortunate owner has to appoint a guardian al litem for every one of them. The Bill is becoming more and more a farce as we go on.
    Mr. David Weitzman: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) has made a powerful case in favour of the Amendment. I agree that there may be difficulties about service but, just as one can serve members of the family, one can serve members of a household, and the words of the second Amendment clearly are
    "household other than servants."
    I have in mind pitiful cases, and I am sure that hon. Members have come across them in their own constituencies, of men and women who have been living together as man and wife for many years.
    What is to happen to a woman in that position? Is she not entitled to be protected? The object of the Amendment

    1357
    is to protect a woman in those circumstances. If the House recognises that it would be unfortunate if a woman in that position were not to be protected, it is right that an Amendment of this kind should be accepted. As has been said, this is a short Measure which is intended to protect people through a short period. Nevertheless, injustice may arise during that period. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Lubbock: I also hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. I find it difficult to follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). He has mentioned this hypothetical babies' home containing 20 or 30 infants under 21, but I hope it will not be suggested that it should be made easier for landlords to evict infants than to evict adults. This was an argument unworthy of the hon. Member. He can do better than that. I am glad that the Amendment received support from the benches opposite, and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will accept it.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): We discussed this matter in Committee when my hon. Friend, my joint half, expressed his great sympathy with the idea behind it. I found no difficulty in principle about it. The difficulties are entirely practical.
    It is perfectly true that we want to draw the net as wide as possible to collect people and get them under the protection of the court to avoid eviction. Therefore, there is a great deal to be said for extending the definition of people who are protected, beyond the family, to cover the kind of people who would be covered by the household, excluding, as we probably would all agree, servants.
    As my hon. and learned Friend said, there is the case of the unmarried wife who was living with the tenant who dies. There is also perhaps the more important case, less tinged with emotion, of two schoolmistresses who have lived together for many years sharing the house. One of them dies and the other, as I understand it, has no protection. That is a difficult case and one which I should like to deal with.
    I would have thought—this is where I venture to differ from my hon. and learned
    1358
    Friend with some trepidation—that the illegitimate children of the union were part of the family living under the protection of the father and would be regarded as part of his family and that would bring them under protection. Therefore, there is some argument for saying that if the children are protected the mother of the children who is living with them and looking after them, if not protected, at any rate is not likely to find herself evicted to leave the children under someone else's care. I would have thought that probably the mother of the children who were illegitimate was protected.
    My difficulty in this Bill, which is a holding Measure, is to avoid some of the other difficulties that may arise. For example, there is the problem of what happens where a deserted wife is left in the house and the husband has ceased to reside in the house although he remains the tenant and pays the rent. In what circumstances is she protected? The more I look at it the more it seems to me that there are difficulties about this which make it unwise to rush in with this proposal. I do not challenge it on its merits.
    My feeling is that in a holding Bill, if I may use that phrase again without embarrassment, we probably are wise to stick to the classes defined in the Rent Act which have been before the courts. But I would certainly not only promise to, but would want to, look very carefully at the position when our main piece of legislation comes before us. I recognise very much the difficulties of this problem.
    Mr. Weitzman: If my hon. Friend recognises that there is merit in this, is he content that injustice should continue even for a short period?
    Mr. MacColl: The difficulty is that there are other injustices which might be left if we do this. That is why I am hesitant to do it. It is not that I do not want to do it. I feel that it would cause injustices to some people who were extremely worthy but who would not be protected while other people who were less worthy would be protected. If I did not feel that I would be in favour of it. My own feeling at the moment, subject to discussion of this matter this afternoon, is that the wise thing would would be to leave the position as it is at the moment and do something about it when we come to the major Bill. I say

    1359
    that not in any criticism, because I thoroughly appreciate what my hon. Friends have said. They have made an impressive case and my difficulties are purely practical.
    5.15 p.m.
    Sir J. Hobson: I find myself in complete agreement with the Parliamentary Secretary on this point. I quite understand the points that were made by the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) and the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney North (Mr. Weitzman) who spoke for the widening of the provision. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that those cases are probably within the law already. As I understand it, there is authority of the court that a woman who had lived for 12 years with a tenant as his mistress and had two children by him was included and was a member of his family. The court has indicated, admittedly only obiter, that an illegitimate child, if a guardian ad litem is appointed for this purpose, is a member of the family. I find it difficult to see how an illegitimate child cannot be a member of the family of the deceased tenant.
    Mr. W. T. Williams: I think I am wrong about that and I do not pursue it.
    Sir J. Hobson: There is the case of the mother of the illegitimate children who has been there for a shorter period than 12 years. The law may be in some doubt about that, but I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that more than likely if she is looking after the children she will have protection. Therefore, one is left only with an extension of rights that are intended to protect tenants temporarily to everyone within the tenant's household.
    While it may include some for whom one may feel a great deal of sympathy, like school teachers who have lived together for a long period, it would include a tremendous number of other people who are wholly unmeritorious. Any person, friend or companion who had lived in the household for any time, however short, would be a member of the household and would have to be served and come before the court and the whole thing would have to be considered. Any
    1360
    paying guest who was a member of the household would have to be served, any au pair girl who was a member of the household would come within the Bill, any lodger living as a member of the family would come within the Bill.
    Servants, of course, ought to be out, but au pair girls who are not servants but who live in a household, or foreigners who come to learn a language and live in a household, would all be in, and also, of course, any temporary mistress who had only been there for a month or two would also be in because she would be a member of the household, and any guest within any form of relationship who happened to be living as a member of the household would be covered. All these people would become occupiers on the death of the tenant and would have to be served and go before the court. While I appreciate that it is intended to take in a narrow line beyond members of the family, the Amendment would extend it so widely that an enormous additional category of people would have to be hauled before the court with no prospect that they would be allowed to remain in possession. For these reasons, I agree entirely with the Parliamentary Secretary in the view he takes.
    Mr. W. T. Williamsrose—
    Mr Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must ask leave of the House to speak again even if he wishes to withdraw the Amendment
    Mr. W. T. Williams: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 16, at the end to insert:
    (4) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove that the owner believed, and had reasonable cause to believe, that the occupier had ceased to reside in the premises.
    This matter arose in discussion in Committee and the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) moved an Amendment which included a good deal more than the particular point with which our Amendment deals. It included, at the end, that it should not be a recovering of possession within the meaning of the criminal part of the Bill if the owner took possession in the reasonable belief

    1361
    that the occupier had previously given up possesion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised the case of a person who has left, but nobody quite knows whether he has actually gone or not until someone can go into the house and see what the situation is.
    In the discussion, I said that if there were a loophole as regards the flitting tenant we should try to move an Amendment to stop it. This Amendment deals with that fairly narrow point. It provides that, if someone is charged with the offence of enforcing possession without a court order, it shall be a good defence that he believed, and had reasonable cause to believe, that the occupier had ceased to reside in the premises. I hope that this will appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman as a reasonable attempt to meet the point. We think that it covers it succinctly and effectively.
    Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.
    Sir J. Hobson: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after "ceased" to insert "to occupy or".
    First, I thank the Government for tabling their Amendment, which to some extent meets the point I raised, which, though a small one, may be of great importance to people who are accused of a criminal offence. I am sorry that they have not dealt with the other point about an individual who by fraud, fear or intimidation obtains the tenant's consent to recovery of possession. This is something which may cause trouble, and I was anxious that it should be covered, but the Government have not dealt with it.
    As I understand it, if a landlord by fraud, fear or intimidation obtains the consent of the tenant, he will not have committed any criminal offence. He will not have enforced his right to possession. He will have gone into possession by consent, and no criminal offence will have been committed. The tenant will not be able to recover possession, and the sole remedy remaining to him will be an action for intimidation or fraud against the landlord. Although I see the difficulties, I am sorry that this matter has not been covered.
    The Amendment to the Government's Amendment arises in this way. Under the Bill, it is not a criminal offence to
    1362
    seek to enforce one's right to possession against anyone if he is not both occupier and resident. If a person is not both occupier and resident, he is not an occupier for the purposes of the Bill. There will not be many, but there may well be cases of a person being resident but not in occupation because he is resident in the premises as agent for another person. The occupation is in a third party, someone who has two houses, who allows the person who was formerly the tenant to remain in possession of his premises. The former tenant is resident in the premises but is not himself the occupier of them. The likelihood of such cases is not great, but, for neatness and completeness, it would have been desirable to make plain that the special defence here to be provided ought to bite in both instances, both where someone is the occupier but not resident and where someone is resident but not the occupier.
    Mr. MacColl: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again on the main Question—I suppose that I may speak as of right on the Amendment—perhaps I may cover both of them.
    First, on the point about residence, it was the right hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced residence into the discussion. We were anxious to be helpful and we accepted the point which he made. We do not want to confuse the whole interpretation of the Bill by getting involved in highly metaphysical arguments about when one can reside without occupying or occupy without residing.
    We are here dealing with the landlord who goes into a house to see whether the tenant is still there or has flitted. This is plain common sense. The test is whether he is residing there or not. If we must have the difficulty of having the two words in, I think that the best course is to stick to the test of whether or not he is residing there. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will think that we have dealt with the main point and be willing not to press his Amendment.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman regretted that we had not dealt with his other point about obtaining consent by force or fraud. I remember moving

    1363
    a most impressive new Clause on the Housing Bill last year which, unfortunately, was out of order—
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: How did the hon. Gentleman manage to move it if it was out of order?
    Mr. MacColl: The right hon. Gentleman will discover that I am very adroit at it. I only hope that I have no more experience of having to do it for many years. It was an impressive piece of drafting, although it was out of order on that Bill.
    We shall look at the whole problem when we review the rent Acts as a whole, but my immediate view is that, if the court were to have before it someone who, in fact, had obtained consent from a tenant by threats or by fraud, it would brush aside questions about consent and would deal with the matter on its merits. Not long ago, I came across the case of a landlord who, so it was alleged—this was only one side of the story—had got the tenant to sign a document said to be an agreement for another house but which was a consent to withdraw an application to the rent tribunal. As I say, if that kind of fraud were to go on, I think that the court would brush aside questions about consent and deal with the case on its merits. A broad criminal charge of this sort—
    "to enforce … his right to recover possession"—
    would cover any question of fraud or intimidation. If not, and if we find that something more is required, we shall be very happy to introduce it later.
    I hope that the House will accept our Amendment and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will feel that it will improve the Bill and he need not press his Amendment to it.
    Sir J. Hobson: I do not wish to press my Amendment, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. On Report, every hon. and right hon. Member must ask the leave of the House before he may speak again unless he is speaking to a new matter.
    Sir J. Hobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it right that the
    1364
    mover of an Amendment must ask leave to ask the permission of the House to withdraw it? That is all I was doing.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, when we are at the Report stage.
    Mr. Archie Manuel: I want more clarification of the Amendment which has been moved by the Parliamentary Secretary.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We still have before us the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Mr. Manuel: Has it not been withdrawn, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Amendment to the proposed Amendment be withdrawn?
    Hon. Members: Aye.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Manuel: I would like some clarification of the Government Amendment. We must recognise differences that exist between Scotland and England—for instance, as between the sheriff court and the county court. Would it be a defence, under this provision, to prove that the owner had believed, or had reasonable cause to believe, that the occupier had ceased to reside in his premises if the owner happened to catch the occupier out when the latter was on a lengthy holiday? I would be happy to learn that this would not be considered sufficient defence. People do go for fairly lengthy holidays, even from rented property, and I hope that families in such a situation would not have to fear that, on their return, they would be without a home.
    Mr. MacColl: By leave of the House, perhaps I may reply to my hon. Friend. The key words are "reasonable cause to believe" and, surely, if the court felt that the landlord had waited round the corner until the tenant disappeared with his bags to go on holiday and had then shot in to get possession of the house, the landlord would get a rough time. I do not think there is danger of such a situation arising. Of course, if the tenant went away for, say, six months' holiday —although hon. Members often do not

    1365
    understand that there are people who get six months' holiday—that might well be thought a reasonable ground for believing that the tenant had gone.
    Mr. Lubbock: There are cases where people go hop-picking or potato-picking for periods longer than the normal annual holiday of two or three weeks.
    Mr. MacColl: Anyone who knows hop-pickers also knows that they go out to the fields at a certain time of year. If an owner marched into a house to get possession while the tenant was hop-picking I do not think he would get a very good reception in court, I think that the courts can be trusted to interpret reasonable behaviour. One cannot define it. One must leave it to the sense of the courts. That is what the courts are for.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman): I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 25, to leave out "section" and to insert "Act".
    This is a drafting Amendment related to a later Amendment which I shall move.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 2.—(SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION OF ORDER FOR POSSESSION.)
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 20, after second "premises", to insert:
    "or of other suitable accommodation".
    This is a very simple Amendment, and an obvious one. In Clause 2(4) the court is directed to have regard
    "… to all the circumstances and, in particular …"
    to those which are set out in the following paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). In paragraph (b) the court is directed to take into consideration whether the occupier
    "… has unreasonably refused an offer of a tenancy of the premises or part of the premises for a reasonable term and at a reasonable rent;"
    It may be that the owner is able to offer the occupier other accommodation which is perfectly suitable and it would be right to direct the court therefore to give all consideration to that and not only to an offer of a tenancy in the premises of which he has been tenant.
    Mr. Julian Snow: Who is to judge what is suitable? I had a case recently in my constituency where alternative accommodation was offered.
    Sir Eric Errington: The judge would decide.
    Mr. Snow: If the judge had to decide, I suppose that means that he would be asked to inspect the alternative accommodation. I do not believe that this would be either a good thing or a practical proposition. If it were to be left to the owner, however, to submit evidence on the alternative accommodation's suitability, then that would be a one-sided proposition. If the Amendment means anything at all, it means that some form of independent arbitration should be provided to decide whether the accommodation offered as an alternative is suitable or not.
    Mr. Weitzman: I hope the House will reject the Amendment. The grounds set out in subsection (4) are simple and concise and cover all sorts of circumstances which should weigh with the court in regard to this matter. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is surely forgetting that, first of all, in subsection (4) there are the words
    "… shall have regard to all the circumstances.…"
    so that the judge must have regard to a matter of this kind. Again, in subsection (4,b) there are the words
    "whether he has unreasonably refused an offer of a tenancy of the premises or part of the premises …"
    and then, in addition, subsection (4,c) says:
    "whether he has failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain other suitable accommodation."
    The Amendment is, therefore, quite unnecessary. One can imagine a judge having in front of him evidence that the tenant has refused a proper offer of suitable accommodation and coming to the conclusion that the tenant has failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain other suitable accommodation. If the Amendment were accepted, all it would do would be to encumber subsection (4). It is quite unnecessary.
    Mr. John M. Temple: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) on what I

    1367
    regard as a very reasonable and practical Amendment. I rebut the argument of the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tam-worth (Mr. Snow) on the question of the judge having to inspect the alternative accommodation. It is implicit in the Bill already that the judge will have to do just this with regard to the part of the premises which he might consider as suitable for the occupier. If the judge does not see the premises, how can he judge whether part of them would be suitable as alternative accommodation? I believe that this Amendment is perfectly sensible. It will permit mobility of labour, for one thing that the Bill may do is freeze labour in one set of accommodation. I hope that the Government will think again about the Amendment.
    Mr. Mellish: I begin with an apology to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). We and the House in Committee owe him an apology for the way his Amendment was treated last Thursday. He was under the impression, I think, that it had been accepted and was then bewildered to find out that this was not so. He did not even make a speech then but merely moved the Amendment formally and left it at that. No doubt that was why it has been called again today.
    The Government have had time to look again at the proposal, as has my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), who has put the point much more effectively than I can. The words which the hon. Gentleman is asking us to add are not necessary. The judge will have to take account of all the circumstances. We believe that he will have regard to any case argued by the owner that in the house there were other premises available to him. He will listen to the counter argument by the tenant and then having heard all the evidence, he will come to a decision.
    My right hon. Friend's intention was to bring in a simple Bill, one which laymen can understand. With great respect to the lawyers on both sides of the House, they have been trying to make the Bill more complicated. As I think the hon. Member for Crosby will agree, the examples that we gave were general examples of the kind of
    1368
    things which a judge would take into account, and it was always understood that there would be many other factors that he would consider, too.
    It is not possible to write in everything which every lawyer thinks a judge ought to take into account. We rest our case on the simple approach to this matter. We believe that all judges will carefully consider and weigh the evidence placed before them and decide whether suitable accommodation had been offered to the tenant, and then come to a decision. For that reason—and here I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North—we regard the Amendment, in spite of what happened in Committee, as unnecessary.
    Sir J. Hobson: The Joint Parliamentry Secretary pretends to be such an innocent character that I cannot allow him to get away with that. He knows that these matters are difficult, and he knows that when these matters come to be litigated between parties in court it is essential that the court should be given a clear indication of the intentions of Parliament.
    I concede that not only lawyers but many others could think of enormous numbers of additions to the reasons stated in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). The oddity of the drafting of this subsection is that if it had said that the court would consider all the circumstances and do whatever was reasonable there would have been a good deal of force for saying that there was no need to put anything else at all.
    Mr. Mellish: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be interested to know that there were lawyers on both sides of the House who thought that we were wrong to put in paragraphs (a) to (d).
    Sir J. Hobson: That is the point that I am making. I am saying that one way in which this could have been dealt with satisfactorily was to leave out paragraphs (a) to (d) and say that the judge should do whatever was reasonable. But, having put them in, any judge will read them and he will think that they mean something. Paragraphs (a) to (d) will become first-class reasons to which the judge will initially devote his mind. He will say to himself, "Parliament has regarded

    1369
    these questions as of overriding importance, and all other questions which Parliament has not put in I may consider, but they are of secondary importance, and they are secondary reasons". We are therefore in the difficulty that it is no good saying, "The judge can consider everything. We do not need to add this at all. It does not matter whether we put it in or not". We have put words in, and the judge will read what is there, and say, "These are important and anything else is less important".
    It is on that basis that I suggest that it is just as important to see whether the ex-tenant has unreasonably refused not only the offer of the tenancy of the premises he occupies or part of those premises but also of any other suitable accommodation.
    Mr. Weitzman: The Amendment seeks to put in the words
    "or of other suitable accommodation"
    If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at paragraph (c) he will appreciate that no judge is going to say that a tenant has not failed to make a reasonable effort to obtain other suitable accommodation if he refuses such an offer.
    Sir J. Hobson: With respect, there is a complete difference. Paragraph (c) deals with a completely different situation, namely, whether the ex-tenant has made efforts to obtain other suitable accommodation. This is looking to his position whether he has made any attempt to approach an estate agent or take any other steps. The refusal of an offer, which is dealt with in paragraph (b), is different from making reasonable efforts. On the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the whole of paragraph (b) is unnecessary because the tenant would not have made any reasonable efforts if he had refused the offer of the tenancy of the premises or part of them. The argument is the same if we are to have paragraph (b), and I have always thought that there were strong arguments for saying that we should not have anything except that the judge does what is reasonable, and therefore hand everything over to the county court judges and let them do what they like. But if we are to stand on paragraphs (a) to (d), and if we have in paragraph (b) "unreasonable refusal", and in paragraph (c) "reasonable efforts", we should not distinguish, as
    1370
    judges will when they consider the present words, between the offer of the actual premises and the offer of other premises.
    5.45 p.m.
    For those reasons I ask the Government to reconsider whether they should not put in what is sensible, namely, that if a tenant ought to have held against him that he has refused to accept tenancy of the particular premises, he ought equally and in parity to have held against him a refusal to accept equally suitable accommodation which may be next door.
    Mr. A. P. Costain: I agree with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that we do not want to make more work for lawyers, but perhaps I might put one practical point to him. I have taken little part in these debates on the legal side.
    Whatever the learned judge may think or read into the Bill, what is important is how the tenant will see it. The more clarity that we can put into a Clause of this sort from a tenant's point of view, the less he will trouble the courts. I therefore suggest that if a tenant can be shown this, if he can be offered alternative accommodation and told what his position is, and that he will be considered unreasonable if he does not accept it, he will not have his hopes raised falsely and go through the whole procedure of the courts. That is the practical ground on which I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the matter.
    Mr. Manuel: We are dealing with an order for possession. I, too, do not support the case put forward by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). It appears to me that in so far as paragraphs (a) to (d) apply, they provide all the protection that is needed for the owner. We must not forget that this Clause applies to Scotland, too. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is in charge of housing, is present. Subsection (5) reads:
    "In the application of this section to Scotland—
    (a) for any reference to an order for possession there shall be substituted a reference to a degree of removing or warrant of ejection …"
    We know that these are sheriff court matters, but I think we ought to have

    1371
    some explanation of how this will apply in Scotland, and especially paragraph (b) which reads:
    "for the reference to mesne profits there shall be substituted a reference to damages arising from unlawful possession."
    I think that we ought to have a little more clarity about the period between two dates when there has been unlawful possession.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That is outside the Amendment which we are discussing.
    Mr. Manuel: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that subsection (5) brings sheriff courts into the same category as courts in England under subsection (4)?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is talking about parts of the Clause which are not covered by the Amendment. We are discussing an Amendment which seeks to add the words
    "or of other suitable accommodation".
    Mr. Manuel: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would draw to your attention the fact that previous speakers, notably the right hon, and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), mentioned various categories listed in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). Since paragraphs (a) and (b) may have application in Scotland I respectfully request your reconsideration of the advice that you have received in this matter. You are ruling Scotland altogether out of consideration in connection with an order for possession.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but the hon. Member must accept the Chair's Ruling that the points that he is making do not come within the Amendment which is under discussion.
    Mr. Manuel: Then where do they come? This is shocking.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: Shut up.
    Mr. Manuel: I will shut you up.
    Mr. Daniel Awdry: I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to think again about this matter. A number of lawyers from both sides of the House
    1372
    have taken part in the debate, not in order to create more work for themselves. We are trying to avoid making more work for lawyers in the future. The Government keep saying that these words are unnecessary. That may be strictly true, but if they go some small way towards making the classification clearer—and the words in themselves are not objectionable —the Parliamentary Secretary, in the name of common sense, should allow them to go in. There are only three words.
    I have taken part in arguments before county court judges, and I can tell the House that they do not always have to inspect premises. They cannot always be expected to do so. But if a judge is in any doubt he will always do so. These simple words will go a little way towards helping to clarify the position.
    Sir E. Errington: I add my appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary's, on the same grounds as those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), namely, that it is well for those people who read a document to be clear about the conditions that apply, particularly—and I emphasise the word because "particular" is contained in line 15—in case of an offer of a tenancy of premises or part of premises for a reasonable term and at a reasonable rent.
    These are very limiting words. They limit the refusal of an offer purely and simply to the premises or part of the premises. It should be made clear to everybody, in order to ensure that fairness is done both to landlord and tenant, that there is another alternative besides the premises, namely, "other suitable accommodation." As they stand, those words might in certain cases cause a tenant to think that he would not have to go to other suitable premises. If the Parliamentary Secretary thinks about the matter again I am sure that he will come to the conclusion that it is better to make this clear rather than to disappoint those people who do not correctly understand the exact meaning of paragraph (b).
    Mr. Mellish: If I may speak again, by leave of the House—it is interesting that the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) now holds the view that paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) should be struck out—
    Sir J. Hobson: No—I said that I thought that there was a strong argument that that would be one way to proceed, but that we had, in fact, proceeded by way of a different method. I did not say whether I supported one method or the other.
    Mr. Mellish: These paragraphs, which have been constantly referred to, are all designed to help landlords. They all tilt against tenants. My right hon. Friend will shortly be moving yet a further addition to safeguard other interests. As far as possible we have resisted attempts to expand this subsection further. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) was very courteous in his approach to the matter. I can assure him that we did not throw the proposal out because we did not happen to like it. We took advice on it, and we were told that these words are quite unnecessary, and that it is hardly likely that any judge considering a case on its merits would not take into account the question whether the owner of the property has made an offer of suitable accommodation in the premises. If the owner can show that he has it is almost certain that the judge will come down in favour of the owner.
    We feel that in the circumstances these words are unnecessary. We have decided not to include them, and thereby clutter up the Bill even further. I cannot understand why so much is made of this issue. I am quite bewildered. I am shocked to find that so many hon. Members opposite do not believe that judges will take all these circumstances into account and give a fair decision.
    Sir E. Errington: When suitable alternative accommodation—other than the tenancy of the premises or part of the premises—is available, how will it be made clear to the tenant that he can benefit by it?
    Mr. Mellish: If a tenant is taken to a county court and the owner is able to show that he made the tenant an offer of other suitable premises in that house, and that the tenant has refused the offer, I ask the hon. Member to
    believe that the judge will give an order in favour of the owner. Where such an offer has been made it will be argued in court whether the tenant has accepted it, or, if not, for what reason he has not done so. It is a matter for the judge to decide.
    Sir E. Errington: I do not understand the view of the Parliamentary Secretary. This is a different question. I am referring not to accommodation in the same house but to alternative accommodation outside the house.
    Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member must have missed paragraph (c).
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: We can well understand the Parliamentary Secretary's statement made a few moments ago that he is bewildered. But this is a simple point. I am a little surprised, especially after the legal argument of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), and the explanation of the practical aspects given by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
    They agree that this is an important matter for the court to consider. Indeed, the contrary is unarguable. Nevertheless, they are unwilling to consider it as a first-class reason, together with the four reasons enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (d). This seems to be a wholly unreasonable attitude to adopt. I am sorry that we have had to spend so much time on the matter. The Government would have done better to accept the Amendment. In the circumstances I can only advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to register in the Lobby not only our view of the merits of the case but our disapproval of the Government's attitude.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 268.

    Division No. 33.]

    AYES

    [5.58 p.m.

    Agnew, Commander Sir Peter

    Astor, John

    Batsford, Brian

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Awdry, Daniel

    Bell, Ronald

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Baker, W. H. K.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Balniel, Lord

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Biffen, John

    Gurden, Harold

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Bingham, R. M.

    Hamilton, Marques of (Fermanagh)

    Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

    Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Blaker, Peter

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Box, Donald

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Braine, Bernard

    Hastings, Stephen

    Page, R. Graham (Crosby)

    Brewis, John

    Hawkins, Paul

    Peel, John

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Hay, John

    Percival, Ian

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Peyton, John

    Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Hendry, Forbes

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Pounder, Rafton

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Hiley, Joseph

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Buck, Antony

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

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Burden, F. A.

    Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Pym, Francis

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

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Campbell, Gordon

    Hordern, Peter

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hornby, Richard

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Cooke, Robert

    Hunt, John (Bromley)

    Roots, William

    Cooper, A. E.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Costain, A. P.

    Jennings, J. C.

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Sharples, Richard

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Jopling, Michael

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

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

    Crowder, F. P.

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Curran, Charles

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Speir, Sir Rupert

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Kimball, Marcus

    Stainton, Keith

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Dance, James

    Kitson, Timothy

    Talbot John E.

    Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

    Lambton, Viscount

    Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)

    Dean, Paul

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Taylor Frank (Moss Side)

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

    Temple John M.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Thatcher Mrs. Margaret

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Longden, Gilbert

    Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)

    Doughty, Charles

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R.H.

    Eden, Sir John

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Errington, Sir Eric

    McMaster, Stanley

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Farr, John

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Fell, Anthony

    Maginnis, John E.

    Walder, David (High Peak)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Maitland, Sir John

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Forrest, George

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Foster, Sir John

    Marten, Neil

    Wall, Patrick

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Mathew, Robert

    Walters, Dennis

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

    Maude, Angus

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Gammans, Lady

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Gardner, Edward

    Mawby, Ray

    Webster, David

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Whitelaw, William

    Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

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

    Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Wise, A. R.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Gower, Raymond

    Mitchell, David

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Grant, Anthony

    Monro, Hector

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    More, Jasper

    Wylie, N. R.

    Gresham-Cooke, R.

    Morgan, W. G.

    Younger, Hn. George

    Grieve, Percy

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

    Murton, Oscar

    Mr. MacArthur and

    Mr. R. W. Elliott.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Barnett, Joel

    Blackburn, F.

    Albu, Austen

    Baxter, William

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Beaney, Alan

    Boardman, H.

    Alldritt, W. H.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

    Boston, T. G.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Bence, Cyril

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

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Boyden, James

    Atkinson, Norman

    Bessell, Peter

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Binns, John

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Bishop, E. S.

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

    1376

    1377

    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Buchanan, Richard

    Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

    Pentland, Norman

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Carmichael, Neil

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Prentice, R. E.

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Probert, Arthur

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)

    Rankin, John

    Chapman, Donald

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Redhead, Edward

    Coleman, Donald

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham S.)

    Rees, Merlyn

    Conlan, Bernard

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Richard, Ivor

    Crosland, Anthony

    Kelley, Richard

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)

    Darling, George

    Lawson, George

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Ledger, Ron

    Rowland, Christopher

    Davies, I for(Gower)

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Sheldon, Robert

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Delargy, Hugh

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Short, Rt. Hn. E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)

    Dell, Edmund

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)

    Dempsey, James

    Longbottom, Charles

    Silkin, John (Deptford)

    Diamond, John

    Lubbock, Eric

    Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)

    Dodds, Norman

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Doig, Peter

    McBride, Neil

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Driberg, Tom

    McCann, J.

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.

    MacColl, James

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Dunn, James A.

    MacDermot, Niall

    Small, William

    Dunnett, Jack

    McGuire, Michael

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Edelman, Maurice

    McInnes, James

    Snow, Julian

    Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Solomons, Henry

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross & Crom'ty)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    English, Michael

    MacKenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Steele, Thomas

    Ennals, David

    Mackie, George Y. (C'ness & S' land)

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Ensor, David

    McLeavy, Frank

    Stonehouse, John

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    MacMillan, Malcolm

    Stones, William

    Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Summerskill, Dr. Shirley

    Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Swain, Thomas

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Swingler, Stephen

    Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

    Manuel, Archie

    Symonds, J. B.

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mapp, Charles

    Taverne, Dick

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Marsh, Richard

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Floud, Bernard

    Mason, Roy

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

    Maxwell, Robert

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Mellish, Robert

    Thornton, Ernest

    Ford, Ben

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Freeson, Reginald

    Mikardo, Ian

    Tinn, James

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Millan, Bruce

    Tomney, Frank

    Garrett, W. E.

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Tuck, Raphael

    Garrow, A.

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Urwin, T. W.

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Molloy, William

    Varley, Eric G.

    Ginsburg, David

    Monslow, Walter

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Gourlay, Harry

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk)

    Wallace, George

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Murray, Albert

    Warbey, William

    Hale, Leslie

    Neal, Harold

    Watkins, Tudor

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Newens, Stan

    Weitzman, David

    Hannan, William

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Harper, Joseph

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Norwood, Christopher

    Whitlock, William

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Oakes, Gordon

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hattersley, Ray

    Ogden, Eric

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Hayman, F. H.

    O'Malley, Brian

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Hazell, Bert

    Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Orbach, Maurice

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Orme, Stanley

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Oswald, Thomas

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Hill, J. (Midlothin)

    Owen, Will

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

    Padley, Walter

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Holman, Percy

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Horner, John

    Paget, R. T

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Zilliacus, K.

    Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Howie and Mr. Grey.

    The Amendment has been tabled to redeem a pledge which I gave in Committee. I stated then that I would write in a special assurance to farmers about the position of their industry. Hon. Members will recall that I outlined the aims of the Bill—to protect two classes of people who might potentially be threatened with eviction during the process of extending adequate rent control permanently. Those two classes are tenants of decontrolled property and agricultural labourers in tied cottages, both of whom were specifically promised by the Labour Party during the General Election that they would have an extension of security of tenure.
    The National Farmers' Union recently pointed out that if in Clause I agriculture was singled out for special mention it was only fair, in this series of guidance, that we should add a fifth guidance specifically relating to agriculture. I accepted that point of view and we decided to take that step.
    I should make it clear that the Amendment does not have the full agreement of the N.F.U., nor, for that matter, of the National Union of Agricultural Workers. It does not because it limits, to some extent, the security which they wanted. The N.F.U. made it clear in a circular which some hon. members received today that while it would rather have nothing about agriculture in the Bill, it would reconcile itself to something, and interest was shown in the Opposition's proposed Amendment in line 2 of my Amendment.
    I need not say more about this, except to comment that I believe that the words in the Amendment adequately do what we promised, and that they make it clear to the county courts that in the case of a tied cottage consideration must be given to the special conditions applying to employment in the agricultural industry. The only question flowing from what I have said is whether one should accept that Amendment to my Amendment. It would be a mistake to do that,
    1380
    because it would mean extending the principal much further. If that Amendment were accepted the Clause would extend to all kinds of people outside the agricultural industry. To do that would be a mistake, although when we come to the long-term Measure we will bear this matter seriously in mind.
    I advise hon. Members that the question of whether we should consider taking all service tenancies together, and not single out agriculture, is being considered in the formulation of our long-term Measure. I therefore ask the House to accept the Amendment and to reject the Amendment to it in view of the possibility of dealing with these things in long-term legislation.
    The second Amendment to my Amendment, in line 4, to leave out "seriously", cannot, I suggest, be accepted, because this is a Bill to protect people from eviction, and it should be made clear that it is only when things are seriously prejudiced that one should consider the extreme course. It is not true to say that wherever it might be said that there was any effect on agriculture one ought to have the right to evict a worker from a tied cottage. Thus, to keep the balance right, the word "seriously" should remain in the Bill, and I advise my hon. Friends to oppose any attempt to remove it.
    Question, That "and" stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.
    Question proposed, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. William Roots: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out from "tenancy" to "for" in line 5 and to insert:
    "in consequence of his employment and he has ceased to be in that employment, the premises are reasonably required".
    I thank the Minister for initially attempting to redeem the pledge which he gave in Committee and, as he put it, to write in a special assurance for

    1381
    farmers. I hope that when he has considered the matter further he will realise that his words, far from amounting to a special or at any rate unbiassed and reasonable assurance to farmers, have gone far too far the other way, for when one considers the wording of subsection (4) one realises the difficulties involved.
    The Minister described the various subsections of the Clause as giving forms of guidance to county court judges. He so described the Amendment standing in his name. He clearly envisages that county court judges will pay particular attention to the wording of the subsection, which is directed specifically to farm service tenants. As he said, when one considers this matter one must recognise that these are the only service tenants included in the Bill.
    We have argued about that and have passed the Clause which brings them within the Bill. I do not propose to reopen that argument. Nevertheless, having brought them within the Bill and having allegedly written in a special assurance to farmers, one finds on considering the words of this special assurance that they are far from being an assurance such as is given to other landlords in subsection (4). Indeed, to use the metaphor the Minister used, the pendulum has been swung a great deal against the farmer because subsection (4,b) states:
    "whether he has unreasonably refused an offer of a tenancy of the premises or part of the premises for a reasonable term and at a reasonable rent."
    Subsection (c) states:
    "whether he has failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain other suitable accommodation …"
    It is striking that this test of reasonableness has been the one chosen by the Government to be the test which the county court judge should employ. In those terms I cannot seek more forceful advocacy than the words used by both Parliamentary Secretaries. The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), was at great pains a few moments ago to stress that the judge's view should and could be relied upon—a proposition from which I should not wish to depart—and, even more striking, the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), said somewhat earlier that the court could be trusted to interpret the word "reasonable".
    1382
    Surely, when one looks at the whole tenor of these subsections, the Amendment to the Amendment clearly fulfils that test. It accords precisely with the nature of the other categories, (a) to (d), and it would read:
    "… whether, in a case where the premises were occupied by the tenant under the former tenancy"—
    that is, the agricultural tenancy—
    "in consequence of his employment and he has ceased to be in that employment, the premises are reasonably required. …"
    So the farmer has to prove that he reasonably requires the accommodation. We do not introduce a fresh test of "seriously prejudiced" but adopt the same test of whether the premises are reasonably required. We include the further test contained in the Minister's Amendment that the farmer has to show that the premises are required for occupation by
    "… a person employed or to be employed by the owner …"
    I accept the terms in which the right hon. Gentleman moved his Amendment. If one is seeking to write in an assurance for the farmers, to produce a test that is quite different from the other test to which the county court judge has to direct his attention, in quite different terms, and involving an inquiry into the running of the farm, which may be quite undefinable, cannot really be regarded as giving any assurance to the farmers, or placing them where I suggest they have the right to be placed, which is on an equal footing as to what they have to show and prove in order to get possession.
    The fact is that even if the Amendment that I am moving is accepted, the farmers have to prove the further condition that the premises are required for occupation by a person employed or to be employed by the owner, so they have a stiffer case to meet. I cannot help feeling that when the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretaries consider the matter further, they will decide that the terms of our Amendment satisfy subsection (4), and satisfy justice to the farmer and to the service tenant whom, as they have said, they seek to protect. In those circumstances, it would be quite wrong to introduce some other and more complicated test when a simple test is to hand. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman

    1383
    will bear in mind the fact that the Amendment I move will produce a fairer result than that standing in his name.
    Mr. Marcus Kimball: In moving his Amendment, the Minister showed us all a green brief that has come today from the headquarters of the National Farmers' Union, but I want to make it perfectly clear that the Lincolnshire branch of the N.F.U., representing the principal farming county, believes quite firmly that that headquarters memorandum is entirely unsatisfactory, and that the compromise is not good enough. I would remind the Minister that in Lincolnshire we have the steel town of Scunthorpe, and there is a special problem as a result, because there are regular cases every year of farm workers occupying tied cottages and then going to work in the steel industry.
    The Lincolnshire branch's real objection to the Minister's Amendment springs from the fact that it makes a complete nonsense of the Contracts of Employment Act. I am sure that every hon. Member welcomes the way in which contracts are becoming widely used and accepted throughout the agricultural industry. If an agreement has been properly executed, with one month's notice to quit on either side, and the person signing it must have understood quite clearly what it was about, and understood the condition of his occupancy, surely no judge could deem that contract to be invalid and give the person concerned a period of six months to stay on in the cottage. That would be to impose a delay of great disadvantage to the whole agricultural industry.
    I do not see why, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots) has said already, it should be on the agricultural industry to have to prove that the house is needed for the efficient management of agricultural land, and go through all the business of taking the matter to court, and having an inquiry into methods and ways of running a farm. As has been said, it would not be difficult in that case for the other side to produce a system whereby someone could come from the village, using transport, while the person in the cottage could be given security of tenure. We realise that the
    1384
    Minister has tried to meet some of our objections, but his attempt is still not good enough.
    Mr. Bert Hazell: This provision is something that agricultural workers would have wished to see left out, because the National Union of Agricultural Workers recognises that it will make the position even more difficult for the farm worker occupying a cottage than for a normal tenant. We were always led to believe that it was the Government's intention that there should be parity of freedom between the ordinary tenant and the tenant of the agricultural cottage. We think that the balance now will be weighted against farm workers, although we recognise the reason that has prompted the Minister to include this wording. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary earlier said that Government leaders had bent over backwards to favour the landlords, but we think that here they have more than bent over backwards in trying to meet the wishes of the farmers.
    I mentioned during the Second Reading debate the hardship suffered by farm workers. Some hon. Members opposite then rather decried my views but the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) has emphasised the very reason for greater protection being given to the farm worker than has hitherto been the case. He said that when a man in a farm cottage gets a month's notice to leave—for whatever cause—he should be out of the cottage at the end of that time whether or not there is anywhere else for him to go. I presume that the hon. Member would maintain that there should be a summary eviction in that event.
    The farm worker's occupancy of his tied cottage is different from that of other workers in other spheres of industry, who often have tied cottages. There are far more evictions of farm workers than is general elsewhere. This provision means that the farm worker will still be in a rather different category from any other tenant. We appreciate the reason for this, and are not opposing it, but I hope that in the more permanent legislation that is to be introduced, the very legitimate claims of the farm workers will be given greater consideration than has been possible in

    1385
    getting this Bill, with all its wide implications, through the House as soon as possible.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I must confess, following the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell), that I hope the Minister will not believe what he said about the need to incorporate further protection in a later Bill. The Minister by his Amendment has fulfilled the promise he gave in Committee and has redressed the balance to a certain extent compared with what before the Amendment was an extremely badly and unfairly weighted Clause.
    I have remarked before that I regret that there are no Ministers from the Department of Agriculture on the Government Front Bench. I do no more than draw attention to the fact that there has been no representative of the Ministry present during discussion of these Clauses.
    Mr. Mellish: That is not so.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am talking about the Clauses which refer to agriculture.
    Mr. Mellish: In order to get the record straight, I should say that when the Amendments concerning agricultural workers were put forward the Minister of Agriculture sat with us on this Bench.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Yes, indeed, but he went away again after about five minutes and there is no one from the Ministry here now.
    We agree that this is an acceptable subsection that goes a certain way to redress the balance for the farmer. I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to accept the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) to leave out the word "seriously". I noticed that when he was talking about that Amendment the Minister said that it would spring the balance too far and that the real purpose was to give adequate rent control permanently in future for farm tenants. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of doing away completely with the tied cottage system.
    Mr. Crossman indicated dissent.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am glad to see him shaking his head. We must realise that in this matter the farmer will be in an extremely difficult position. He may need the tied cottage as a matter of urgency when things go wrong on the farm. He may be unable to get a worker to come on the farm without such accommodation, and he may need the cottage for him quickly. Therefore, the word "seriously" could well be left out. As the right hon. Gentleman is so fond of relying on the discretion of judges, I should have thought that if the word were left out he could be certain that the judge would use his discretion and the weighting would be exactly fair between the farmer and the tenant agricultural worker in this case.
    I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has redeemed his promise and to a certain extent has redressed the balance, yet I hope he will go further and accept the Amendment to delete the word "seriously".
    Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing us to discuss with the Amendment which has been moved the Amendment in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple), to leave out the word "seriously". I am sorry that the Minister has said that he will not accept it. I hope he will reconsider that decision and have second thoughts about it for the omission of this word would improve the purpose he has in mind.
    The Government Amendment is designed to direct the attention of the county court judge to the peculiar circumstances operating in agriculture. Tied cottages are quite different from any other let property within the ambit of the Bill in that in all other types the landlord is presumed to desire and derive some investment income from his property, whereas the agricultural tied cottage is part of the equipment of agriculture. The cottage is wholly uneconomic but it is necessary.
    I think there is a difference of interpretation between us. This Amendment does not require a separate treatment of the agricultural position by the judge. The Government Amendment does not exclude consideration of all other circumstances including the special factors in

    1387
    paragraphs (a) to (d). We could omit "seriously" for three reasons. First, it makes the agricultural factor relatively hard to bring in. Since the "tied cottage" is unlike any other property covered by the Bill, it is desirable for the judge to consider the special circumstances of an agricultural nature. There are quite a number which do not obtain in other properties.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) mentioned, there is the strong probability that it will be a term of a man's employment, included in the written contract of service—though I am advised that it might not, in law, be part of the contract of service but may be included as a separate contract in the document—that he will have possession of the cottage linked to and coterminous with his employment. Therefore, it ought to be in the judge's mind that the man undertook that obligation when taking his job and entering the cottage.
    There is also the very real fear which farmers have of a man living in a tied cottage taking a job outside agriculture. That is something which the judge is not required to consider in other parts of the Measure, although it is very relevant to the particular circumstances of the agricultural tied cottage. Then there is the interest, not only of the employer or owner, but of the prospective occupier, the man who is trying to come to a job but who might be frustrated simply because he cannot get the house or any house near the job.
    Another consideration which the judge should have in mind in the case of service occupancies if he is allowing any period of delay is the need—as the N.F.U. recommended in its note received this morning—to give some indication of mesne profits which should be available to the employer in respect of the time when he loses the use of the cottage after the worker has left his employment.
    All these are matters which ought to be taken into consideration. The implication of the Government Amendment is that the agricultural factor need not be considered unless the efficient management of land would be seriously prejudiced.
    Mr. Crossman: It is, of course, in the discretion of the county court judge to raise the rent or lower it or fix it at its present level. Clearly there is discretion, and this was left for the specific reason that if a man was living in a house where there was no rent paid and now there is to be a rent there would be room in the discretion to put that in. The judge is given full discretion to do that under the Bill.
    Mr. Hill: I see that, but the big distinction is that agricultural cottages are not meant to be economic, and the farmer is hoping that a cottage may be some inducement to a man to work for him.
    How could the word "seriously" be interpreted? If it is left in the Amendment county court judges will assume that Parliament intended something by that word. I think there would be difficulty in interpretation. The only other well-known context in which this word comes is, I think, in workmen's compensation where the phrase, "serious and wilful misconduct" is used. That, I believe, has given the courts much trouble in interpretation. The courts decide rightly that in such cases the word "seriously" would have to be interpreted in the light of the facts of each case. That cannot be so here because most of the important facts have not happened as in compensation cases but lie in the future.
    It is impossible to know in advance whether the loss of the use of a cottage and the consequent shortage of a man will result in serious prejudice or injury to efficient management. In cases where there is only one employee and one cottage, it is virtually certain that the prejudice will be serious. In many cases the degree of prejudice must depend on unpredictable factors lying in the future—for example, the relative shortage of labour, because farms do not carry spare labour nowadays. Labour is always short. Therefore, the absence of one man may cause serious prejudice if there are arrears of work. Again, whether the prejudice is serious may depend on weather conditions alone. It may be governed by the subsequent sickness of other workers. The farmer may, because he has not possession of the cottage, miss the ideal replacement.

    1389
    All that can be shown in most cases are the factors which may prejudice efficient management, although to what degree only time and chance will show. Therefore it would be more satisfactory if the county court judge were specifically directed to take into account any prejudice to efficient management and so consider all the agricultural circumstances along with all the other circumstances.
    A Labour Government should take their stand on that. After all, the Government as a whole, not merely the Minister of Agriculture, have emphasised their support for the 1947 Act, Section 1 of which speaks about the necessity for maintaining a stable and efficient agriculture. Section 1 also mentions providing proper remuneration and living conditions for agricultural workers. There is the balance. I should have thought that all Ministers would want to take account, and have judges take account, of any prejudice to efficient management in industry, and particularly in our greatest industry. Otherwise the impression will be given, as has happened before, that a Labour Government, despite general statements of support for agriculture, usually fall down in practice and on matters of detail through haste, lack of understanding or lack of consultation.
    I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture would not want to give that impression. I do not think that the Minister of Housing and Local Government would. Therefore, I hope that at a later stage the right hon. Gentleman will, after reconsidering the matter, accept my Amendment to his Amendment, because it would in no way prejudice the fullest and fairest consideration of the occupier's case. It would avoid implied restriction on the judge's discretion, which should be as free as possible. It would assist the Minister in his declared intention to ensure that the needs of agriculture are always taken into account.
    Mr. George Y. Mackie: The Liberal Party welcomes the Minister's Amendment, which has been tabled in response to an Amendment tabled by myself and by my hon. Friends which the Minister accepted in principle in Committee. We think that the Government Amendment covers the points we raised in Committee. To delete
    1390
    the word "seriously" would raise grave issues, because I personally could easily prove that some prejudice to efficient management would arise whenever a man left his employer but still occupied a cottage. The word "seriously" can be easily defined. It is obvious from speeches made by members of the Conservative Opposition that a serious situation would arise if a farmer had to milk his cows himself. Not only the hardship which would arise to the man but also the cruelty to the cows arising from such an action would undoubtedly be taken into account by the judge. It would constitute a reason.
    Seriously, we think that the sensible Amendment tabled by the Minister covers the points we raised. We support the Government's Amendment and not the Amendments to it.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Temple: Unlike the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie), I must declare an interest. I am a farmer. I am capable in an emergency of milking my own cows. I support the case advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill), because he made a serious point. I believe that the word "seriously" is unnecessary. I will give an additional reason to those advanced by my hon. Friend. Today agriculture is an extremely efficient and scientific industry. I hope that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has had the opportunity of going to the Smithfield Show this week. If he has not, I hope that he will go and convince himself of the science which is necessary to run an agricultural holding today.
    In view of the scientific approach which farmers must now make to their vocation, I believe that it is necessary to have a well-trained labour force and if a member of the staff leaves it is necessary to be able to replace him reasonably quickly. If the word "seriously" is deleted, it will have the effect of enabling farmers to replace an agricultural worker rather more speedily and satisfactorily, because today I believe that the only circumstances in which district councils will rehouse an agricultural worker are when a court order has been obtained saying that the worker must leave his premises.
    If the system is to work as it has hitherto, the court order will have to be

    1391
    obtained fairly quickly. I believe that it will be difficult to prove that the management of a holding has been seriously affected in a very short while, because "seriously affected" means that it has been seriously affected over a period. I therefore hope very much that the Minister, with his personal knowledge of agriculture—I do not quite know whether he is capable of milking his own cows, but I know that he has a great personal interest in agriculture—will think again about the Amendment to his Amendment.
    Sir J. Hobson: I support the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) and Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) and suggest to the House that it is too restricting to leave in the word "seriously".
    I turn to the main Amendment to the Amendment in the names of my hon. Friends and myself. It is all very well to have a discussion about agriculture, but that is not the only industry. We are glad to have had the Minister of Agriculture with us for the last five minutes. He has missed all the debate on agriculture. Perhaps he will now listen to the points which affect the direction which is now being given to county court judges.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I hope that hon. Members opposite will not continue with this discourtesy. I have made arrangements. I have had some important meetings. The Opposition spokesman on agriculture well appreciates the position. I advise the hon. and learned Gentleman to consult him.
    Sir J. Hobson: I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman has been at important meetings, but he is not the only Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture. He has deputies. He is well supported. If he cannot be here, one or other of his deputies could be here.
    Why should this principle apply to agriculture only? In our last debate there was a good deal of discussion about railway employees and railway occupants. If the principle is to be that the efficiency of farms is important and should be taken into account by county court judges, equally the necessity of providing accommodation for those who are to take over the jobs of railway employees should be considered.
    Mr. Crossman: This is something which the right hon. Gentleman has said twice before. I made a specific statement that I would write in something about agriculture. I said this to the N.F.U., which has welcomed this qualification about agriculture. The issue is whether service tenancies in general should be in the Bill or whether there should be a specific assurance on agriculture. I said I would do that and I have kept my promise.
    Sir J. Hobson: This is nothing to do with service tenancies. It covers all in agriculture, whether service occupancies or tenancies. The Amendment is intended to emphasise that while we accept and are grateful for the fact that that principle has been applied to agriculture, it ought equally to be applied to all forms of industry where somebody is let premises in consequence of his employment and where he has gone into those premises because they were necessary as part of his employment. That principle ought to apply not only to agriculture but to the other circumstances.
    May I give a few instances? School caretakers and stokers, for instance, frequently have to live on the premises. It is important that they should do so, and it is important, when the county court judge considers whether or not he should make an order for possession, that he should take into account that somebody else has to get that job, that the premises were originally let to the person in consequence of his employment, that that person has ceased to be in that employment and that somebody else now has to live in those premises for that work. I have already mentioned railway employees; we debated them at length on the last occasion and several questions, from the Government benches, from the Liberal representatives and from this side of the House, were asked about why railway employees were being treated differently.
    Factory workers and night watchmen, in many cases, have to live on premises, and some factories have processes just as important as agriculture. It is just as important that some people in other industries than agriculture should live on the premises. Hospital staffs, managers of public houses and caretakers of flats are all people to whom the premises were originally let to enable them to do a job. When they have

    1393
    ceased to be in that employment, it is surely right that the county court judge should Lake into consideration the fact that a new employee must live in those premises.
    I cannot understand why the Minister should be upset, because when he has done it for agriculture, the same principle should apply to large numbers of other industries, where it is of immense importance that the fact that the premises are needed for the purposes of the job and that another person has to go into those premises for the same job should be taken into account by the county court judge.
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: It would appear that the Minister of Housing is under the impression that one can find alternative accommodation for a farm worker just by looking to some local council. In fact, if a farm worker is looking for alternative accommodation and if he is to remain a farm worker, it would not be within the area, he would have to move a considerable distance. If such a farm worker has been taking care of a milking herd, the effect on the milk production if that man remains with the herd when he is no longer living on the same farm must be very serious. If the Minister of Agriculture is interested in seeing that milk production maintained, perhaps he would like to explain to the Minister of Housing what the position is.
    Mr. Crossman: The Minister knows.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: I should like to make one point in relation to the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell), because he says that this is something which is wanted by the National Union of Agricultural Workers. I would like to ask him if he has looked at the advertisements in any agricultural paper, either those by the people looking for jobs in agriculture, or by farmers looking for workers. I do not think he would be able to find one single advertisement which said: "No house required".
    If there is a house required, how does he imagine this difficulty is to be surmounted by the people looking for work? He is only looking at one side of the picture when he says that there are many people being evicted and that he has a lot of evidence about it. I am a farmer and have lived in the country for most of my life and I have never seen any of these incidents taking place and I have never had any of them brought to my attention. If this is what goes on in Norfolk I can only say that things are different in East Sussex. I would certainly ask him to have a look at the advertisements in agricultural papers before he says that workers do not want cottages with their work.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 200.

    Division No. 34.]

    AYES

    [6.57 p.m.]

    Abse, Leo

    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

    Diamond, John

    Albu, Austen

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

    Dodds, Norman

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

    Doig, Peter

    Alldritt, W. H.

    Buchanan, Richard

    Driberg, Tom

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Dunn, James A.

    Atkinson, Norman

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Dunnett, Jack

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Carmichael, Neil

    Edelman, Maurice

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Barnett, Joel

    Chapman, Donald

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Baxter, William

    Coleman, Donald

    English, Michael

    Beaney, Alan

    Conlan, Bernard

    Ennals, David

    Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Ensor, David

    Bence, Cyril

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Crosland, Anthony

    Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)

    Binns, John

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Bishop, E. S.

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

    Blackburn, F.

    Dalyell, Tam

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Darling, George

    Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

    Boardman, H.

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Boston, T. G.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

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

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Floud, Bernard

    Boyden, James

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Delargy, Hugh

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Dempsey, James

    Ford, Ben

    Freeson, Reginald

    McGuire, Michael

    Rose, Paul B.

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    McInnes, James

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Garrett, W. E.

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Rowland, Christopher

    Garrow, A.

    Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

    Sheldon, Robert

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    McLeavy, Frank

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Ginsburg, David

    MacMillan, Malcolm

    Short, Rt. Hn. E.(N'c'tle-on Tyne, C.)

    Gourlay, Harry

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

    Grey, Charles

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Silkin, John (Deptford)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Manuel, Archie

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Hale, Leslie

    Mapp, Charles

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Mason, Roy

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Hannan, William

    Mellish, Robert

    Small, William

    Harper, Joseph

    Mikardo, Ian

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Millan, Bruce

    Snow, Julian

    Hattersley, Ray

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Solomons, Henry

    Hayman, F. H.

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Hazell, Bert

    Molloy, William

    Steele, Thomas

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Monslow, Walter

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Stonehouse, John

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    Stones, William

    Hill, J. (Midlothin)

    Mulley, Rt Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk)

    Summerskill, Dr. Shirley

    Holman, Percy

    Neal, Harold

    Swain, Thomas

    Horner, John

    Newens, Stan

    Swingler, Stephen

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

    Norwood, Christopher

    Taverne, Dick

    Howie, W.

    Oakes, Gordon

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Ogden, Eric

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

    Orme, Stanley

    Tinn, James

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Tomney, Frank

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Owen, Will

    Tuck, Raphael

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Padley, Walter

    Urwin, T. W.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Varley Eric G.

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Paget, R. T.

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham S.)

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)

    Wallace George

    Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W Ham, S.)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Warbey William

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Watkins, Tudor

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Weitzman, David

    Kelley, Richard

    Pen'land, Norman

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Perry, Ernest G.

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Whitlock, William

    Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Lawson, George

    Probert, Arthur

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Ledger, Ron

    Rankin, John

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Redhead, Edward

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Rees, Merlyn

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Lipton, Marcus

    Richard, Ivor

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Loughlin, Charles

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Lubbock, Eric

    Robertson, John (Pais'ey)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. K.(St.Pancras, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    McBride, Neil

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Mr. McCann and

    MacColl, James

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Mrs. Harriet Slater

    NOES

    Agnew, Commander Sir Peter

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Blaker, Peter

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Box, Donald

    Cooke, Robert

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

    Cooper, A. E.

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Costain, A. P.

    Astor, John

    Braine, Bernard

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Brewis, John

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Awdry, Daniel

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Baker, W. H. K.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Crowder, F. P.

    Balniel, Lord

    Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Barlow, Sir John

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Curran, Charles

    Batsford, Brain

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Buck, Antony

    Dance, James

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

    Biffen, John

    Burden, F. A.

    Dean, Paul

    Biggs-Davison, John

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

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Campbell, Gordon

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    1396

    1397

    Doughty, Charles

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)

    Pym, Francis

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Eden, Sir John

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

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

    Kitson, Timothy

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Lambton, Viscount

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Farr, John

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Forrest, George

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn(Wirral)

    Roots, William

    Gardner, Edward

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

    Sharples, Richard

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    McMaster, Stanley

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    Maginnis, John E.

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

    Goodhew, Victor

    Maitland, Sir John

    Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

    Gower, Raymond

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Grant, Anthony

    Marten, Neil

    Stainton, Keith

    Gresham-Cooke, R.

    Mathew, Robert

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Maude, Angus

    Talbot, John E.

    Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Mawby, Ray

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Temple, John M.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

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

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Hawkins, Paul

    Mitchell, David

    Walder, David (High Peak)

    Hay, John

    Monro, Hector

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Morgan, W. G.

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Wall, Patrick

    Hendry, Forbes

    Murton, Oscar

    Walters, Dennis

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Neave, Airey

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Hiley, Joseph

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Weatherill, Bernard

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

    Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

    Webster, David

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard

    Whitelaw, William

    Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Hordern, Peter

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hornby, Richard

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Wise, A. R.

    Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)

    Page, R. Graham (Crosby)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)

    Peel, John

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Hunt, John (Bromley)

    Percival, Ian

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Peyton, John

    Wylie, N. R.

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Younger, Hn. George

    Jennings, J. C.

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Pounder, Rafton

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Jopling, Michael

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Mr. Ian Fraser and Mr. More.

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
    Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 3, line 27, at the end to insert:
    (5) Where in proceedings for the recovery of possession of any premises the court makes an order for possession but suspends the execution of the order by virtue of subsection (1) of this section it shall make no order for costs, unless it appears to the court, having regard to the conduct of the owner or of the occupier, that there are special reasons for making such an order.
    The purpose of the Bill is to protect tenants from eviction and to give guidance to the courts, particularly in regard to the suspension of orders for eviction, and there are two matters which the courts have to consider. The first is the question of the order for possession, and this is a point on which we have spent a considerable time. There is also the order for costs which the courts
    1398
    have to consider when these orders for possession come before them. This is a very important matter on which we have so far not touched. An earlier Amendment on costs was moved formally but was not accepted.
    It seems unreasonable, when a tenant is brought before the courts and gains security of his tenancy for a limited period, that he should then find himself in considerable financial difficulty because costs are awarded against him. While the court has a discretion, the costs are normally awarded to the successful party, and in practice only in exceptional cases does the court exercise its decision the other way. This may bear very heavily upon occupiers, even though the court may suspend the order for possession. We had hoped that the courts would exercise their discretion generously in favour of occupiers who are suffering considerable hardship by the threat of

    1399
    eviction. The object of my Amendment is to cover this aspect of the Bill and to tighten it up a little in the matter of costs.
    My attention was first drawn to the hardship that may be involved in this question of costs when we were discussing the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1958, which was introduced to try to relieve some of the acute hardship caused by the Rent Act.
    A similar Amendment to this one was introduced in the discussion on that Bill, and at that time I had had representations made to me by a constituent who complained bitterly that he had been before the courts. The landlord's order for possession had been suspended for three months, but the tenant had found himself faced with a bill of £20 costs which he had to pay. This seemed to me to be quite wrong. The Minister at that time proposed an Amendment on lines similar to the one which I now move, but subsequently he had second thoughts and that Amendment was omitted in that Act.
    It seems to me, therefore, that if there are hon. Members who think that this Amendment is not necessary and that the court's discretion need not be tampered with in any way, the experience which we had with that earlier legislation points to the fact that there is need for something of this kind to ensure that justice is done to tenants.
    One of the difficulties of a debate on a Bill of this kind is that we get bogged down in technical details and we are apt to forget the human purpose behind the Bill. We are apt to forget that the majority of tenants who become involved in cases of the kind covered by the Bill are people of very limited means. Indeed, they would not be in this position if they had money to obtain some other kind of accommodation. We are also apt to forget that a great many of the landlords who take them to court in this way are real rogues and villains. It is quite wrong that when these landlords employ solicitors, and, possibly, counsel, and run up a considerable bill of costs the tenant should be expected to pay it.
    I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted. It is not only necessary in order to give additional protection to
    1400
    the tenants but it is eminently reasonable and it is a matter of equity that something on these lines should be written into the Bill. This may not be perfect wording, but I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will consider that it will fulfil a need, and that it is part of the object of introducing the Bill that something like the Amendment should be incorporated.
    The two following Amendments, Nos. 15 and 16, in lines 31 and 34, were thought necessary to bring the Bill into line for Scotland. I hope, therefore, that all three Amendments will be accepted in order to cover an important point which, so far, has not been touched.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) reminds me that I should have said that clearly it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss the Amendments in line 31, leave out "and", and in line 34, at end insert:
    "and
    (c) for the reference to costs, there shall be substituted a reference to expenses".
    Mr. Graham Page: I suppose that any hon. Member practising in the courts ought to declare an interest in connection with an Amendment which deals with costs and, therefore, I declare an interest at once. As the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) said, the Amendment is very much in the wording of a Section in the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1958. As so many times in Committee and in today's debate, the Government have rejected Amendments from this side of the House endeavouring to produce logical points from the 1958 Act, I hope that the Government will be consistent and decline to accept this one as well.
    7.15 p.m.
    It is not correct, as the hon. Lady said, that in possession cases costs follow the event. They do not in the county court. The county court judge has complete discretion under Order 47 of the county court rules, and he certainly does not exercise that discretion to order costs in favour of a successful litigant in a possession case. The principle adopted in possession cases is that the landlord who is claiming possession is trying to persuade the court to exercise discretion in his favour rather than to establish

    1401
    legal rights. Therefore, it does not follow that if he is successful the tenant is at fault or, if the tenant is successful in his defence, the landlord is at fault. The decision may be based on the judge's discretion in connection with hardship or reasonableness and it is frequently the practice that the county court judge declines to make an order one way or the other.
    I do not feel strongly about the Amendment or whether or not it should be accepted. I feel that the county court judge should be left with his existing discretion. The way in which he exercises it is well known in the practice of the courts. I should have thought it sufficient to leave this matter to his discretion, exercising powers already given to him under Order 47 of the county court rules.
    Mr. MacColl: Like the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), I have no very strong views about this. If it were the will of the House to do it, it would not seriously alter the present position. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) has argued her case with great force and effectiveness. 'The drafting seems to me to be all right, and all that the Amendment is saying is that in a normal case the judge will not make any order as to costs, which is a fairly common practice now in this type of case. But the Amendment goes on to say that if either of the parties by their conduct during or before the proceedings have been open to question the judge might intervene and show his view of the matter by making an award of costs.
    This seems to me a reasonable thing to do and it is a matter of judgment. I do not know what the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) thinks about this. If he feels strongly that this is something which should not go into the Bill, I would feel that I would not want to press it at this time because I do not think that it will make a great deal of difference.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that if the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) wanted this or did not want it he was prepared to accept the
    1402
    position? I should have thought that, rather, he would meet the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler).
    Mr. MacColl: I said that I did not think that this would make a great deal of difference in practice and, therefore, I do not think that there is a great point of merit about it. On the other hand, as it is in the 1958 Act there is something to be said for declaring that the attitude should be the same in this matter as it was in those cases. Therefore, from that point of view there is probably a case for accepting the Amendment.
    Mr. N. R. Wylie: I also have no strong views on the Amendment, but I should have thought that it was easier to leave the existing practice as it stands. Surely county court judges can use their discretion, but if the hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment will he see that it is translated into Scottish terms? We do not know what is meant by "costs".
    Sir J. Hobson: The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) moved the Amendment with moderation. It is true that the wording was in the 1958 Act, but it can work two ways. A case where the landlord was entitled to possession took two minutes to decide because it was not disputed, but a long time was spent on whether the order should have been defended or not and whether on the way the case was conducted the tenant should have had costs.
    If the Amendment were accepted, the tenant would not be able to recover the cost from the landlord. It works both ways, and on this question of costs one has to look at both sides. On the whole, I should have thought that in a temporary Measure it would have been better to leave the matter as it was to the discretion of the judges who exercise it very properly and understand the problems as they arise rather than that the judges should be shackled in the way in which they might exercise their discretion in favour of the tenant having costs if the tenant was so entitled. Therefore, I would suggest to the House, I hope with moderation, that it might be better not in temporary legislation to put in a restriction of this nature.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Page 3, line 31 leave out "and".
    In line 34 at end insert:
    "and
    (c) for the reference to costs, there shall be substituted a reference to expenses".—[Mr. Manuel.]

    Clause 3.—(RESTRICTIONS ON OPERATION OF FOREGOING SECTIONS, 1959, c. 22.)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 3, line 36, at the end to insert:
    (a) a contract to which the Rent of Furnished Houses (Scotland) Act 1943 and the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946 as amended by the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act 1949 applied immediately before the termination thereof or would then have applied but for the provision as to rateable value contained in section 12(1) of the Rent Act 1957.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment No. 18, in page 3, line 36, at end insert:
    (a)a contract

    (i)to which the Rent of Furnished Houses (Scotland) Act 1943 and the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946 as amended by the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act 1949 applied immediately before the termination thereof or would then have applied but for the provision as to rateable value contained in section 12(1) of the Rent Act 1957; and

    (ii) which related to premises situate in an area which was not at the termination thereof designated by an order of the Minister of Housing and Local Government (made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament) as one to which the provision of this Act apply.

    and Amendment No. 19, in line 36 at end insert:
    (a) a tenancy of a furnished dwelling which has been customarily occupied by visitors for holiday purposes and is not occupied for the purpose of a permanent residence.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I respectfully agree, Mr. Speaker, that I think it would be for the convenience of the House if with this Amendment we took Amendment No. 18, also in the name of my hon. Friends and myself, and Amendment No. 19, in the name of the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King), the more so, because, as the House will have appreciated, Amendment No. 18 is an alternative to Amendment No. 17.
    The purpose of the Amendment which I have moved is to exclude from the Bill
    1404
    what are called furnished lettings, and the effect also, I hope, of Amendment No. 18 is to do the same, except in areas as the Minister may by order designate.
    This is one of the matters which throughout our discussions on this Bill has seemed to many of us, particularly on this side of the House, to be alien to the main purpose of what the right hon. Gentleman calls this emergency Bill. The purpose of the Bill, as the Minister has told us again and again, has been to deal with the possible effect on tenants who might be evicted as a result of the Government's announcement that they intend to make substantial Amendments in the Rent. Act. It is therefore important on this Amendment for us to be clear as to how little is the connection between furnished lettings and the Rent Act.
    In previous Rent Acts, as I think the House is aware, unfurnished lettings have been dealt with, but furnished lettings have been outside the main purpose of the Rent Acts and have been dealt with, where at all, in a separate and subsidiary way. That was true of the 1957 Act whose repeal it is the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman to effect.
    Therefore, the first proposition that I wish to put to the House is that the bringing into this Bill of provisions in respect of furnished lettings is completely outside the emergency purpose which we were told was the reason for which the Bill in the Minister's own phrase was solely and exclusively introduced. There has, after all, been no statement that the Government intend to extend the Rent Acts to furnished lettings. There is, therefore, so far as I know, no crisis, no emergency in respect of furnished lettings. That has been created, as I understand it, as a result of the Government's statement in the unfurnished field only. This provision, therefore, whatever may be said for or against it, does not seem to me to come within the emergency concept of the Bill, although of course, the right hon. Gentleman can create very quickly a further emergency if he says that it is his intention to extend the Rent Acts to furnished lettings. But if he does that, he will create an emergency which it will take a good deal more than this Bill to deal with.
    It is also a fact—and this is very material—that under previous legislation

    1405
    furnished lettings have been dealt with under a different system from unfurnished. There is the system, with which the House is familiar, of the rent tribunals, and it is significant that this Bill makes no mention of and leaves absolutely untouched the system of rent tribunals. What it does is to provide that furnished lettings shall be dealt with both by the county court, under this Bill, and, in parallel, under the separate system of the rent tribunals. That is surely a highly unsatisfactory position. It is, at any rate, possible that both the rent tribunal and the county court may in rapid succession be concerned in dealing with the same premises, and it is an indication, moreover, of the inappropriateness of dragging furnished lettings into this Bill that the Government leave untouched under this Measure the existing system for dealing with furnished lettings through the rent tribunal. Of course, the reason why furnished and unfurnished lettings have, as a matter of history and of fact, been dealt with by a different system is that the subject matter is substantially different.
    Furnished lettings have a very wide scope. They include—I concede this to the right hon. Gentleman—the letting of a complete furnished house to a family in a certain number of cases for a long time, but they extend also over a very wide field indeed down to the let of one room to one person for perhaps a week. They cover the important subject, on which I think some of my hon. Friends may wish to say something, of seaside lettings for holidays. They include the equally important case of people who go abroad on business or duty and let their houses for a limited period designed to coincide with their absence abroad, and they include a vast number of comparatively short lets to students, secretaries and other single people, very often young people.
    The field is therefore a very wide one, and I think that must be the reason why our predecessors in this House, when they dealt with this thorny subject, have in general dealt with furnished lettings under a different system to unfurnished. Therefore, it seems to me clear that the onus is very much on the right hon. Gentleman to show why he should reverse that, and why, without
    1406
    altering the existing system in respect of furnished lettings, he should include them in the provisions of this Bill which he introduced to us in the context of a problem relating to unfurnished lettings.
    7.30 p.m.
    While there may well be problems, particularly in London, affecting the furnished letting of whole houses, taking the country as a whole the typical furnished letting is probably that of the single room to a single person. There are innumerable examples of this. In such cases, the balance of hardship between landlord and tenant would probably be rather different from that in the case of unfurnished lettings. If the owner of an unfurnished house is deprived of occupation of it by legislation, he may well suffer financial loss and the hardship of not being able to occupy his own house. If, on the other hand, the owner of premises let furnished, particularly individual rooms let furnished in a house, is not able to obtain possession of them, he may well be exposed to different and more intense hardship. The problem of the unsuitable tenant, the tenant who misconducts himself or is in one way or another difficult, is probably not so great for the landlord of the unfurnished house, but, when one has taken someone into one's own house to occupy a furnished room, the effect both on oneself and upon other tenants of individual rooms is serious and immediate.
    All these facts, arising from the different nature of the subject matter, explain, I think, why it has been settled policy for many years to deal with unfurnished lettings and furnished lettings differently. Equally—on this I must await what the right hon. Gentleman may have to say about Amendment No. 23—the question of the speed of recovery of premises is, generally speaking, even more important in the case of the furnished than in the case of the unfurnished letting.
    Holiday resorts pose two special problems. There is the problem of what are called the winter lettings. I understand it is the practice of people who let houses or furnished rooms during the summer to let those same houses or rooms, very often at a low rent, during the winter. They do not expect to make very much profit, but someone is found accommodation and the houses are kept warm and

    1407
    dry. It is essential for such people that, at the beginning of the summer holiday season, occupation of the houses should be given up by the winter tenants. There is the equal and related problem of lettings during the summer, when people take tenancies for specific periods, generally fortnight by fortnight, Saturday to Saturday. If a tenant were to hold out and say that he would not go until he was taken to the county court, and, when taken to the county court, were to apply for a suspension, the whole programme of seaside lettings would be disrupted. Not only would the owners suffer but a very large number of perfectly innocent people would have their summer holidays ruined.
    Mr. Mellish: That could happen today.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Everything is possible today, of course, but what the hon. Gentleman, in his sedentary utterances, does not realise is that this Bill, if it continues to apply to furnished lettings, will make it much more likely to happen because it will take away the other methods available to the landlord to secure possession.
    There is the other problem of those who go abroad on duty or on business for a limited period and who, very sensibly, let their houses while they are away. It is better, because of our shortage of accommodation that their houses should not remain empty, and, of course, if one is fortunate in finding a good tenant, it can be a most satisfactory arrangement. But what is to happen when the owners return from abroad if these furnished lettings remain covered by the Bill?
    Since our discussions on the Bill began, I have received a considerable number of letters from people who feel that they will be adversely affected, in particular, by the incorporation of furnished lettings. Here are a few lines from a letter from a gentleman who is in exactly the position I have described, a gentleman serving in Cyprus as an official. He says:
    "But civil servants serving overseas for a specific term of duty and who are due to return to their home stations to continue work with the Government may not be able to obtain possession of their homes which they let during their three year tour of duty abroad."
    1408
    He goes on to say that the effect of this will be disastrous for people so placed.
    This brings me to another important consideration which the House will wish to have in mind. The inevitable effect of applying this Bill to furnished lettings generally must be to reduce the supply of furnished accommodation available. People such as that gentleman who wrote to me from Cyprus, and many others like him going abroad for a limited period, faced with the risk of not being able to get into their homes when they return although the tenants entered under a specific obligation to render them up on a particular date, will decide to leave their houses empty. Equally, people who have spare rooms in their houses suitable for the accommodation of students, secretaries and so on will, at least, hesitate before making them available to people who, as a result of the Bill, would be in a position to stay on for a quite considerable period against the owner's will.
    I do not ask the Government to take this from me. I have had a flow of correspondence, though I shall not weary the House by reading it all. This is what is said by a gentleman in South-West London:
    "I have just acquired an 11-room house in Putney which was let as offices and which I propose to convert into self-contained flatlets. If the Bill is passed in its present form, I would leave the house in office use. No doubt, the proposed Bill will cut down heavily the supply of furnished lettings which are badly required by overseas students, visitors, etc."
    Here is another example:
    "The proposed Bill will discourage owners of private houses letting them if they are temporarily absent."
    I have here another letter—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen it; I gather that the original was sent to him—which says the same, that, as the Bill is drafted, a family going abroad for weeks or months will not, as they do at present, let their house.
    The introduction of controls of this kind on lettings inevitably has the effect —this is something one has to balance —of tending to diminish the supply. For the reasons which I have given relating to the special factors affecting furnished lettings, it is demonstrably clear that the drying up of supply will

    1409
    be much more manifest in furnished than in unfurnished lettings. In the light of the representations which many of us are receiving, this is plainly true.
    No one knows better than the Minister that our accommodation problem is serious and will remain serious for many years. We ought to use every sound piece of accommodation which is available. It would be singularly unfortunate if by passing a Bill, the main purpose of which, according to the Minister, is to deal with a totally different problem, one enacted principles which would have the effect of reducing the supply of furnished accommodation. I warn the Minister that, if he persists in the inclusion of furnished accommodation within this temporary Measure, he will, before many months have passed, see a diminution of the supply. We have warned him from this side of the House, and he will be taking a serious responsibility if he persists.
    I know that, as in all these matters, one must balance not so much good against good but perhaps evil against evil. I do not dispute that, even in respect of furnished lettings, there are family problems in London and perhaps one or two other great conurbations. It is difficult to balance all this against the vast mass of furnished lettings about which there is no problem but about which there will be a problem, undoubtedly, if this Bill goes through in its present form.
    It is in an endeavour to find a way of meeting both points that the Amendments have been tabled. The intended effect is that the Minister could apply control of furnished lettings to any area by making an Order subject only to negative procedure, so that there would be no question of delay or loss of Parliamentary time. Unless he applied this provision by Order furnished lettings would not be included in the Bill. Having said this, however, I prefer the Amendment which has been moved to the others, for I do not think there is a case at all for an emergency Bill to apply to furnished lettings.
    The Parliamentary Secretary made a point about London which has, I accept, certain validity. If we arrive at a sensible solution by dealing with those parts of the country which the Minister, at his discretion, thinks it necessary to
    1410
    deal with but do not apply the Bill to those parts where he thinks it unnecessary, it may be that we shall effect some improvement in the Bill.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if he does not see the force of the argument on the Amendment I have moved, will at least reflect on the following Amendment. Under that Amendment he would have power, if he thought it right, to apply control to furnished lettings in any part of the country he wished to designate. He would therefore be free to deal with the problems of London housing, which many of us think are special in many ways, but he would do so without inflicting the very serious damage on seaside and holiday resorts, in particular, which will suffer from the Bill as it stands.
    I do not see how the Minister can object to a proposal which leaves the power in his hands, which leaves him free, if he thinks it his duty, to apply the Bill to any part of the country, but which does not involve Parliament prejudging the issue as to whether control should operate throughout the country regardless of varying circumstances and without the chance of differentiation.
    It is for that reason that we have tabled the second of these three Amendments, although my feelings are very much in favour of the first. I have been impressed, however, by the volume of protest from certain areas as to the risk of a universal application of the Bill to furnished lettings throughout the country. After some reflection, therefore, we tabled the second Amendment in an endeavour to meet that point. This is probably the most important issue which arises at this stage of the Bill. If the Bill goes through in its present form the effects will be very serious. I hope that the Minister and the House will reflect on them.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Evelyn King: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has put the case for omitting from the Bill all furnished houses. If I felt that the Amendment would be accepted, there would be nothing else I need say, but I must face the remote possibility that it will not be. If it is not to be accepted, I should like the Government to consider alternatives.

    1411
    There are two possibilities—the exclusion of all furnished houses and the exclusion of furnished houses on a regional basis. I find it difficult to follow arguments against the second Amendment. If the Minister wanted to, he could, under that Amendment, include every region in the country. We are not asking him to give up anything.
    The last Amendment stands in my name and it is noticeable that those of my hon. Friends who have also signed it represent such places as Blackpool, Poole, Folkestone, Hythe and Bournemouth. These are all constituencies which border the sea and which smell of sea air. It is equally significant that right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite who are dealing with this problem represent Coventry and Bermondsey and West Ham. They are all Members for urban constituencies.
    I am sure that if the Minister is to make anything of housing, the first thing that he must get into his head—I am sure that he will—is that we are not living in 1945. Then the housing problem was national. Of course, there is a housing problem even today in most areas but it is at a point where it is regional, where the difficulties existing in Coventry, Bermondsey and West Ham are not those to be found in the seaside towns and the rest of the country. It is a general statement as well as a particular one that regionalism, of which we hear so much today, is nowhere more applicable than it is in housing.
    The case made by hon. Members opposite links the problem with what is called "Rachmanism". I do not dispute the desirability or even the necessity of such a Bill in the East End of London and various other big cities, where there is a special case for what may be called extreme measures. But no such thing as Rachmanism or anything like it exists or has been claimed to exist by hon. Members opposite in seaside resorts. The name of Rachman is unheard of in Dorset and in Poole just as cows and sheeps are, no doubt, unheard of in West Ham. There, one is dealing with a totally different problem and the measures needed in London simply do not apply elsewhere.
    There has been reference by the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) to landlords as being
    1412
    rogues and villains. That may well be true in Bermondsey but it is not so in Weymouth or Poole or other places where civilised persons live who, for many years, have entered into contracts and have kept them, as do their tenants.
    Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to my constituency. For his information, I point out that the municipality owns two-thirds of the borough and we are not, therefore, bothered by landlords either.
    Mr. King: The fact remains that the Bill is particularly desirable for London if not for Bermondsey. The argument still applies. There are two kinds of persons with which I am concerned. The first is the Service men who form a big portion of occupants certainly of Portland and many other constituencies. Last week the Weymouth Echo said:
    "Lodgings for senior ratings are urgently needed during the winter months by the Navy at Portland. A naval spokesman at Portland said, 'Many men come in to the base at short notice and we want to have a list of places where they can be directed for lodging.'"
    This is what the Bill will prevent people from doing. Indeed, if a concrete case is desired I will give one forthwith. I have had an enormous mail, and one letter springs to mind immediately. It is from a retired lieutenant of the Royal Navy, now living on a modest pension in a four-bedroomed house. Previously he has for short periods let the top floor consisting of two bedrooms to Naval ratings during their time in Portland. He writes to point out that he has married, grown-up children of his own, and when they come back he uses those rooms for his family. That is a natural family situation.
    Mr. Lubbock: What the hon. Gentleman is describing sounds like a licence rather than a tenancy. They cannot be assumed to be tenants.
    Mr. King: The top floor is let as a furnished flat.
    Mr. Lubbock: Self-contained?
    Mr. King: Yes.
    Usually, he has used that flat for his children when they returned. He says that if the Bill goes through he will not let that flat. Why should he? We are doing what I should have thought right

    1413
    hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite particularly desired not to do. If the Bill goes through in its present form, it will add to the problem of under-occupation, and many large houses will not be fully occupied as otherwise they might be. That, briefly, is the problem of the Service families.
    More important is the problem of the seaside landladies, and perhaps I might first say something about them in general. Many of them are aged 60 or over. Many of them have not got pensions. They have very few ways of making their living, as women of that age cannot easily get a job. For generations past we have had the widow or the spinster at a seaside resort who has found a harmless way of earning a living, and that is by letting rooms to visitors, sometimes for part of the year.
    The Bill has caused them alarm. Do not let us think only of being unable to get a tenant out. Let us think also of the landlady. Quite often her lodgers come for a fortnight or so from a Midland town. They may turn out to be thoroughly undesirable. It does not often happen, but if there is a case of drunkenness in the house of a spinster of 60, she is able to tell the person concerned to go. That is a measure of discipline which I do not believe has ever been exercised unreasonably, and I suggest that it is wrong to do away with it.
    Many of these women have written to me pointing out that they have no other means of livelihood. I would perhaps go so far as to say there is an element of risk, but there is certainly an element of discomfort if the landlady has lodgers from industrial towns with whom she has been able to deal in the past but will not be able to deal in future. We must remember that this Bill introduces criminal penalties. If these landladies act in a way which may be held to be unreasonable, not unnaturally they will be frightened if they are told that in certain circumstances they may be liable to six months' imprisonment. This is a form of discipline to which the seaside society simply is not accustomed.
    I appeal to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider the circumstances of people in whose interests they have not advanced one single argument. We have not heard one case of a landlord or landlady behaving unreasonably in the sort of places which I have
    1414
    described. No doubt there are hundreds of cases in London, but they are not found in small seaside resorts. The Government are taking a bludgeon to beat a problem which does not exist.
    If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite think—which I hope they will not—that this is some kind of party case, perhaps I might quote this from one neutral source:
    "Already there gave been … anxious inquiries from poorly-off elderly people, whose sole income derives from long furnished lettings in winter and from short ones in summer, as well as even more desperate cris-de-coeur from others who let furnished rooms in their own houses simply to make ends meet. It has always seemed to me that to saddle such landlords with immovable, though legally blameless, tenants would not only inflict hardship but would remove flexibility from the private letting market."
    That comes not from any Front Bench speaker on this side of the House or the other side, or from any backbencher, but from the New Statesman, one paper to which I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman might have been prepared to listen, and from which he would accept this as a reasonable and neutral view.
    Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: My constituency is in the London area and a number of civil servants reside there. Many of them are in the Foreign Service, attached to the Colonial Service, the Commonwealth Relations Office, and so on. I have had a number of letters from them on this subject because when they go abroad for perhaps a year or 18 months, they are in the habit of letting their houses. One correspondent says that he always lets his house with a certain amount of trepidation, but that if he now has to face the risk of not being able to recover possession for up to 12 months it may well be the final impediment to him and to others who otherwise would be prepared to accept the risk of letting their houses. This applies not only to these worthy citizens in the Foreign Service but also to engineers and salesmen who have to go abroad on their company's business and to those in the fighting Services. I am convinced that a number of them, particularly if they are going abroad for a few months, will hesitate to let their houses while they are abroad.
    To talk for a moment about holiday letting, I think it is often advantageous to quote a human case, and I shall quote

    1415
    one which has been sent to me which puts the case far better than I can. The writer says:
    "I obtained a mortgage on my house some years ago to purchase a furnished terrace cottage in Whitstable to provide seaside holidays for my children and the children of my relatives. In addition I filled in with other fee paying holiday makers and endeavoured to find a winter tenant who was looking for a temporary home. In the event the children have grown up and the tendency is to use the cottage for holidays for my wife and myself and any other holiday makers who may be interested. The winter tenants have included the following types; people who have sold up and are waiting to go abroad, soldiers' families coming back from abroad who are awaiting allocation of married quarters, sailors temporarily stationed at Chatham Barracks who wish to have their families near them, artisans doing temporary work in the district, workmen who are new to the district and are looking round before settling in rented property or houses they are going to buy, finally, scoundrels trying to get something for nothing, who get in under false pretences, pay little or no rent and are difficult to get out.
    I think the Government proposals will only result in the latter type of person imposing on me. I am aware that I have recourse to the law which in due time will give me the right of entry into my property, but in the meantime what will happen to the holiday makers who have booked to take over the tenancy on a specific date?
    I think I am offering a useful service to all my tenants except those scoundrels mentioned above. Is it proposed to offer this type something for nothing at the expense of all the others some of whom have been using the cottage for their children for years?"
    I cannot put the case more forcibly than that and I feel that the Government ought to omit holiday and furnished lettings. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot do it in every part of the country, he should accept my right hon. Friend's suggestion and do it on a regional basis.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Peter Blaker: I rise to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King). I also regard the Amendment as an alternative to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. I rise because it seems to me from the attitude of hon. Members opposite that they have not yet recognised either the size or the nature of the problem which the Bill is likely to cause to a large part of those engaged in the holiday industry. In Blackpool, 500 establishments have recently been converted into flatlets or flats particularly designed for summer letting.
    1416
    Each establishment contains a number of flatlets—some a few and some up to 20.
    These establishments are not owned by large property companies; they are owned and run by families. In many cases the persons concerned are of retirement age, who have put into these properties all their savings, and they regard them as their sole means of livelihood. The total number of people engaged in running these flatlets in Blackpool is over 1,000. Most of these establishments have been created in the last five years or so, to meet a new demand—the growing demand from holiday-makers, especially those with young children, for what I may describe as the "do-it-yourself" holiday, in accommodation which is self-contained and where they can keep their own hours.
    Like hotels and boarding houses, these establishments are an essential part of the holiday industry. The way in which they make their bookings is very much like that which operates in hotels. They make bookings throughout the summer, for two or three weeks at a time, and take deposits from their customers, who often come back to them year after year. Out of season they are sometimes able to let their flatlets for low rents for limited periods of five or six months. The average rent for a flatlet in Blackpool in the winter is as low as 31s. a week.
    I can assure hon. Members opposite that the owners of holiday flats in my constituency are extremely alarmed about the effect that the Bill will have on them if it passes into law in its present form. Indeed, a deputation from the holiday flats industry which came to see me the other day described the Bill as farcical in this respect. The owners of these establishments are worried because they fear that if a winter tenant holds over they will lose a substantial part of their summer earnings, as a result of being unable to get him out—and they rely upon their summer earnings for their livings. They fear that so long as that tenant stays they will be receiving only the low winter rent. Furthermore, their summer programmes will be dislocated.
    A point which has not been made is that if it is necessary for the owners of these establishments to take proceedings, however much hon. Members opposite

    1417
    may try to speed things up the owners of holiday flats will not know how long those proceedings will take, and when the tenant will be out. If it is the summer season they will not know whether they will be able to keep the contracts that they have made with the remainder of their customers, or whether they ought to warn them to make other arrangements. If their summer programmes are dislocated and their would-be customers are unable to move into the accommodation promised to them they are worried at the possibility of being faced with litigation initiated by their customers, and by the prospect of having to compensate them for the extra expense involved in finding other hotel accommodation for their holidays.
    I followed closely the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, earlier this afternoon on the question of expediting proceedings. I had the impression that he could not hold out any serious hope that, at best, proceedings could be completed in less than 14 days. I speak somewhat as a layman in these matters but I suspect that if the Bill causes a great increase in the work of the county courts even a period of 14 days may be an ambitious target.
    I noted with interest that at an earlier stage of the proceedings on this Bill the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Bill was aimed at protecting tenants living in their homes. I hope that I am not misrepresenting him if I say that my impression was that he implied that the Bill was not aimed at holiday tenants. As it stands, however, the Bill will apply to holiday tenancies. In default of an Amendment exempting furnished lettings altogether, what is needed is one which takes holiday tenancies right out of the Bill.
    I hope that the Government will accept either the Amendment on furnished lettings or Amendment No. 19. Amendment No. 19 will not cause hardship, whereas the Bill as it now stands is likely to cause hardship not only to the modest owners of holiday accommodation but also to holiday makers. Successive Governments have urged—as has the British Travel Association—that the holiday industry should modernise itself so as to provide better facilities not only for British
    1418
    holiday makers but also for visitors from overseas who bring us badly needed foreign exchange. That is what the holiday flatlet owners have tried to do. I ask the Government to help them to do it and not to make their task more difficult.
    Mr. Geoffrey Howe: I want to say a word in support of the general case which has been advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I suggest that the Government, in including furnished lettings within the Bill, have ignored all the conclusions reached by many committees over the last 40 years, appointed by various Governments, to consider the desirability of control over furnished lettings, starting with the Salisbury Committee in 1920 and including the second Ridley Committee in 1945. All of these recognised that the extension of such control, involving security of tenure for the tenants of furnished lettings, would threaten to dry up the supply, and it was only with the greatest reluctance that the second Ridley Committee in 1945 recommended a limited degree of security of tenure in the emergency conditions which then prevailed. Even then it said:
    "We think that to confer an unlimited right of security of tenure on the tenants of furnished lettings would have the unfortunate consequence of drying up the supply of domestic lettings."
    In the special conditions then prevailing there may have been a case for passing the 1946 Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, but surely we do not have to acknowledge today that the accession to power of another Socialist Government represents another emergency calling for yet another extension of what was thought desirable in 1945.
    If we look at the effect of the Rent Act on the supply of furnished lettings, even within Greater London, we find that the survey produced in 1960 on the effects of the Rent Act—Cmnd. 1246—pointed out that the one sector of supply, even in London, which had come forward more abundantly as a result of the Rent Act, was the sector containing furnished lettings. They studied 19,000 properties in Greater London in which the occupation had changed in the two years since the passing of the Rent Act. Of those 19,000 previously controlled unfurnished lettings 2,000 had been let within the two years

    1419
    to new furnished tenants. We have that argument to show that the removal of control does encourage supply. If the Minister and his hon. Friends are not prepared to accept the general case advanced by my right hon. Friend for removing furnished lettings altogether from the Bill, I urge them to look with more sympathy and care than yet they appear to have done at the position of holiday lettings, holiday landlords and holiday tenants.
    I do not understand the case the Government are trying to make. Are they suggesting that the holiday-making occupants of holiday-let premises would face hardship or difficulty if the Amendment were accepted? Are they suggesting that hardship would arise if they were not included, as they are now, within the terms of this Bill? I cannot conceive that they are saying that it is essential for the purposes of the Bill to include the holiday lettings within its scope.
    Are they saying that the landlords of these holiday premises would face no difficulty if the Bill remains as it is drafted? It may be that no landlord with holiday accommodation to let need be worried because he will always be able to get possession, and holiday tenants will move out on the day they are due to go. I do not believe that can be so. There must be some occasions when tenants will stay on and some landlords will face hardship. The only case which I can conceive that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are putting forward is that it is not within their capacity to produce a draft which will release holiday-let property from the provisions of the Bill; that they have not yet been able to devise a suitable formula. I cannot in a logical situation see the case for allowing the Bill to stand as it is drafted.
    I suggest to the Minister that there is yet a third formula which the Government might be prepared to consider in place of that advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset. South (Mr. Evelyn King). I refer to the provisions contained in the New Zealand Tenancy Act of a much longer duration which has been re-enacted on a number of occasions since the war by Governments of different political colour. They recognised the problem and have provided for it in the latest legislation of
    1420
    1955. In Section 8(1) of the New Zealand Tenancy Act it states:
    "Where an agreement has been entered into at any time after the date of the commencement of this Act for the letting of any dwelling-house for a term not exceeding six weeks, this Act shall not apply to the premises so let or to any part thereof in respect of that tenancy."
    It exempts lettings of less than six weeks duration, which would include most holiday lettings. The next subsection of the Act makes a comparable provision for camp sites and caravans.
    It may be argued that this could be got round if a would-be landlord who wanted to make a long let were to make a let of only six weeks and renew it from time to time. That is provided for by the far-sighted New Zealand draftsmen by the provisions in subsection (3) where it is stated:
    "Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the application of this Act in any case where the tenant continues with the express consent of the landlord to occupy the premises after the expiration of six weeks from the commencement of any such tenancy."
    An Amendment on those lines may not meet the whole case put forward by my hon. Friend but it would go some way towards it. For the reasons which I have indicated I cannot see why hon. Gentlemen opposite are not willing to try to do this, if not in this House in some other place. I see no reason in justice for rejecting the case out of hand and I urge them to look again to see whether something on these lines might not prove acceptable to their general case, whatever it may be.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I support my hon. Friends who have spoken on behalf of the seaside resorts. It is quite clear that either Amendment No. 18 or Amendment No. 19 would deal with the problem. The suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Howe) would go a long way, though perhaps not all the way, towards solving the problem of the seaside resorts. If it could be ensured that lettings of no more than six weeks, or perhaps in the case of Blackpool of a considerably less period, would be exempted, a lot of the difficulties would be removed.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) mentioned the difficulty of

    1421
    winter lettings. I am quite sure that landlords in many seaside resorts would heave a sigh of relief if either one of these approaches could be made; if either the matter could be dealt with on a regional basis—so that Blackpool was not visited with the sins of London—or on a time basis, as has been suggested. Either procedure would be within the capacity of the Parliamentary draftsmen and would provide an avenue of escape from the very real difficulty which confronts landlords in many a holiday resort.
    In Blackpool we have two types of lets for holiday flats. One type of letting is for the winter period when flats are let at low rents purposely, because it is necessary to keep them occupied and to recover the cost of repairs. They are then available for the holiday trade in the summer months. During the summer months it is possible for people to earn a considerable amount more, by working on the Golden Mile and in the amusement arcades, than at any other time of the year, and it might well be a temptation to those who have cheap winter accommodation to say, "I am going to chance my arm and stay on." If that were done, it would wreck the letting programme for the holiday season. Summer lettings vary in length from a week to 10 days or a fortnight, and they depend on people leaving at the agreed time. I admit that this will not be a widespread problem involving every establishment, but, even if it occurs only occasionally, it will cause great difficulty.
    It is argued that landlords can go to the county courts where the procedure, it is hoped, will be expedited, and get the occupants out. It is my experience that nothing which this House could do would succeed in making the county court procedure sufficiently speedy to solve the problem confronting a landlord or landlady whose premises are occupied by someone who will not leave. It was argued that such a position is not very different from the position which might exist today, but the situation would be different. Today, if a tenant will not go, the landlord cannot use physical force to drive him out. If a tenant says he is not going, the landlord may go to the county court. If a landlord has a tenant who has taken the premises for a week, 10 days or a fortnight, it is clear that, in the end, and without physical force being used, he will be put out. The landlord
    1422
    may arrive on the doorstep and say, "You are getting out". In my experience there has never been any trouble about people leaving their accommodation—
    Mr. Mellish: Why should there be any difficulty now?
    Mr. Miscampbell: Because if they stay on now, they know perfectly well that the minimum period they can stay will be a fortnight at least. If anybody tries to interfere with that position he will be brought before the court.
    When one thinks of holiday cottages and flats the picture of so-called luxury accommodation may come to mind, the sort of places on parts of the coast of Cornwall. Blackpool, however, caters mainly for the less well-paid person who comes from Lancashire to enjoy a cheapish holiday. Such a person wants for himself and his family a house or part of a house which has been properly converted and which, 5 or 10 years ago, was probably the traditional type of boarding house.
    The trade is changing all the time. In many holiday resorts people are no longer content to go to the traditional boarding house. Many people are going in for holiday flats and cottages, which give them a cheaper opportunity to spend a week or longer at the coast with their families. This is the trend in Blackpool. It is an important trend and the town is anxious that it should continue. It is believed that in future it will represent one basis for the development of the town.
    Mr. Mellish: What is all this business of holiday flats being made available and built in Blackpool? I always understood that a person went into a flat at the seaside but had a home to go back to after his holiday. I have always understood that after spending two or three weeks at the seaside he and his family were only too glad to return to their own home. Why is everything suddenly changing so that thousands of people who go to Blackpool no longer wish to return to their homes but prefer to stay on? Is it because they love Blackpool so much?
    Mr. Miscampbell: The answer is simple. Why are the Government taking such steps to protect these people? The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.

    1423
    My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) has had expressed to him by people in Blackpool the fear that if someone does not leave a flat the landlord may in some way be responsible for the damage caused to someone because of his having lost his holiday. I cannot believe that that is a well founded fear. I am subject to correction by others more learned in this matter, but if someone stayed on in a flat and took advantage of the opportunities offered by the Bill, the landlord would be able to plead before the county court—which, no doubt, will have to deal with the matter and decide whether or not the person concerned would have to leave the flat—that the person was not entitled to damages. I suggest that in such circumstances the county court would not say that damages should be awarded.
    The trouble is that unless the landlord runs the risk of suffering those damages —claimed by people whose holidays have been ruined, those people saying, "I want compensation because my holiday is ruined"—he must take immediate steps to get the person who is in the property out of it. If not, it might be argued against the landlord, "You have done nothing to get the person out and you are allowing my holiday to be ruined".
    This sort of thing is representative of the arguments my hon. Friends have been adducing throughout our discussion of the Bill. We have been claiming that it imposes on landlords the duty to go to considerable expense by going to the county court. If the Bill had been properly drafted he would not be put to such expense and trouble and, as we know, even if the landlord succeeds in the county court against the person who has stayed on in the property, he may well not see a penny of the costs he has incurred.
    Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: My hon. Friends have developed with considerable experience practically the whole of the case of what one might call the seaside industry. While I may trespass in my remarks on what I might call the lodging side of the subject, I wish to deal with the interests of the tourist industry as a whole.
    I do not believe that the Government appreciate the damage which they are likely to do by a Measure of this
    1424
    kind to the whole of the tourist industry. By that I mean much wider than merely seaside resorts. I venture also to suggest that the Bill is the forerunner of things to come.
    Nobody can claim that I have been one who in the past has rooted for the landlord. I have always been a rebel in this sphere and I have voted against my party over it more than once. I do not necessarily share the views which are sometimes accepted on this side of the House in certain aspects of this subject.
    I strongly and sincerely believe that the greatest mistake the Government have made in the Bill is that they have applied it to the whole of the United Kingdom. Amendment No. 18 is the nub of the matter. If the Minister would still consider the possibility of the Bill being applied to parts, but not all, of the United Kingdom, I suggest that it is along those lines that he might achieve rapidly what he requires, without the need for long debates and without the need to expect trouble from the tourist industry, the seaside resorts and others who will be highly critical of the Bill when it becomes law.
    When I mentioned that the Measure may be the forerunner of things to come, I had in mind that we should consider the question of the removal of rent control, for this matter should be considered now. I hope that the Minister will consider that there can be no possible case for the introduction of any form of control over furnished lettings in the future, whether or not this Measure is passed. I say that because there is abundant and sufficient control already, subject to one possible lacuna, and that will depend on whether there is a case in certain parts of the country, certain conurbations and cities, for some form of control over furnished lettings. There is no reason why the Minister should not take powers to control and designate by area those parts of the United Kingdom where a pressing problem arises.
    8.30 p.m.
    I have some experience, not only of the problems in the country but of direct analysis in the London area. If one takes the Metropolis itself, one finds that only in three or four—at the most,

    1425
    in six—of the areas of particular councils does this problem arise at all. For example, the Joint Under-Secretary pointed out, perfectly accurately, that it did not apply to Bermondsey, although in the East End. On the other hand, one knows that it may well apply to Paddington, and it may apply in certain circumstances, curiously enough, to Chelsea.
    It is equally clear that it does not apply to a great many of the other boroughs in the London area. Therefore, this deals with the most delicate part of the problem with which we are concerned, even in one of the main areas. Therefore, if we are to seek to apply a form of control over evictions from furnished lettings over the whole London area, we are wasting our time with regard to a large part of that area.
    It must be remembered, too, that this Bill is an emergency Measure. Presumably, therefore, one should have some evidence of evictions from furnished tenancies, but when I flung that question at the Minister for Housing in the initial stages of this debate he was unable to give any evidence of it, and pointed out that in his view there were insufficient statistics to support an answer. I hope that I correctly summarised what the right hon. Gentleman said. That may be, but such statistics are not necessary, because were we to get evictions—and evictions, in certain circumstances, that lead, or are likely to lead to notoriety—we would soon get the sort of statistics that are the best answer.
    Mr. Crossman: What I said was that there were no statistics about either furnished or unfurnished accommodation.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes, I entirely accept that, but with regard to the furnished ones, to which I was confining myself, there is no evidence at all to support the view that there have been any substantial numbers of evictions in any part of the country at the present time.
    The problem in London and the major cities today is that a very large quantity of flexible furnished accommodation is required. We have an enormous turnover of foreigners who come to this country. They are unable to afford, and are also
    1426
    unable to find, accommodation in our hotels. They come from every corner of the world, and much of the record achieved this year in the immense and important tourist industry has resulted from the arrival of large numbers of Australians, Canadians those from the Commonwealth, those who have come here for study, those who have come here for conferences, those who may come here for the Test Match.
    They may come for any one of a myriad different reasons, but, when they come, instead of going into hotels they go into furnished accommodation in the Metropolis. They need to stay for a month, perhaps, or two months, or three or four months. With all this accommodation, and with all these people coming here—who frequently decide to stay on—there must be knowledge in the landlord that he has this rapid turnover in tenants for the accommodation available.
    When we turn to the centres of our country and to the river areas—down the Thames, and in the tourist centres in the middle of the country—we see that it is equally necessary that they shall be able to have a very rapid turnover and a flexibility in furnished accommodation, very often not only in the summer but in the winter. This, therefore, applies equally to the central areas as to the seaside.
    When we turn to the position in all the university towns—Bath, Bristol, Southampton, Oxford, Cambridge, or the others—we find an equal need for this great flexibility. The difficulty is that the pattern of tourism is changing. These people are moving into caravans—which are also caught, in part, by this Measure. The pattern now is not to say in hotels, not to get board and lodging in a boarding house but to get one's own key to one's own flat. Much of the difficulty in this Bill could have been avoided by making everything licensed to provide bed and breakfast, but that is not the picture today.
    An illustration—in this case a seaside one, but it applies equally throughout the country—is given in a letter I have received from constituents who go in for the modern type of accommodation. The letter comes from The Moorings Hotel, 14 Albion Place, Ramsgate, and is sent by two elderl ladies—a Mrs. Beauchamp and another lady. I give

    1427
    this as an illustration to the House because it is manifestly true.
    These ladies write:
    "We and thousands of other people in the same business are gravely concerned about our position if the Government repeals the Rent Act and gives security to sitting tenants. When the hotel and boarding house business deteriorated"—
    the writer is referring to what I have alluded to—
    "we converted our hotel into holiday flatlets —let by the week or fortnight—for which there is a great demand. During the winter months we let them at very cheap rates"—
    an advertisement is included with the letter—
    "making it quite clear that it is only for the off season' as you see by the advertisement we have in the local paper, semi-permanently. We are already nearly fully booked for the 1965 season and have taken the deposits. Can our winter tenants suddenly say they will not move out? If this happened we would be faced with bankruptcy as the business is our only source of income. Please let us hear your opinion."
    I have had to give them my opinion to the effect that there is no doubt that if their tenants decided to stay on they would be able to stay for the period until the matter went to the court and in those circumstances their subsequent bookings would collapse like a pack of cards.
    The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) posed this question when intervening in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell). He asked if the people who went there had flats of their own to go back to. He got a very sharp retort. There is another retort, that this is not so. The people who take these flats at very low rentals are "movables". They are the pensioners and people living on small fixed incomes. They go to the seaside in the winter because they cannot afford to go there in the summer. In the summer they move from the seaside to go inland into cheaper accommodation there. If they outstay their welcome in the winter at the seaside they will cause trouble there and if when they go inland and overstay their welcome they will cause trouble there. That is why this is not such an easy argument to address to the House as one might at first think.
    1428
    This is an emergency Bill which was brought in with a tremendous clarion call of trumpets because the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) and one or two others claimed that in that area, in Acton and perhaps in parts of Liverpool, there is a problem. It is no good the Minister pointing at my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). My right hon. Friend did not ask for this Bill; it is the Minister's Bill. The mere fact that we did not oppose the Second Reading is no answer to the suggestion that the Bill can be properly amended. I have not opposed the Second Reading either in spirit or in thought. But I repeat that there is plenty of opportunity, and the proper thing is to apply the Bill to areas where the problem arises.
    If it is applied to Paddington, Acton and parts of Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham, it would not hurt the fabric of the tourist industry. Nor would it reduce one whit the amount of flexible accommodation. It would satisfy my hon. Friends who represent seaside constituencies and those, who also ought to be present, who represent tourist resorts in England. It would not make it impossible to encourage people to stay in accommodation when they do not want to stay. It would generally achieve the purpose which the Government want to achieve without at the same time showing complete lack of understanding and ineptitude by not appreciating the problems concerned.
    There is the same trouble over this Bill as we have had in all these 50 days, the good old hustle and bustle of being seen to be doing something and, therefore, doing far more than we need to do for fear that someone will understand that we are not doing something which we ought to do.
    Mr. Crossman: I rise now because I feel that possibly it is time the House heard what we have to say in response to this long and extremely interesting debate. I myself regret that we did not have this discussion in Committee, but this was not our fault. It was postponed by hon. Members opposite because they preferred to discuss it now. I should have preferred a full discussion in Committee so that we

    1429
    could have put our point of view earlier. This is our first chance of doing so.
    When considering the full question of rent control one is profoundly tempted to consider the possibility of regionalising the solution. There are great differences between different parts of Great Britain. The regional solution applies no more to furnished than to unfurnished lettings. This is a highly localised problem in its acute form. The localisation is in a few great conurbations. It is in those areas that the problems leading to rent control are so violent and passionate that nobody can deny their existence.
    On the other hand, it would be an illusion to imagine that in small country towns, or even in Blackpool or Bournemouth, there cannot be cases of eviction or injustice to isolated individuals. If I am asked what the evidence for that is, I repeat something I said earlier, namely, that one thing which I have learned since I became Minister of Housing is the extreme difficulty of obtaining evidence on this subject. We are fortunate in having the Milner Holland Committee, which is completing its labours and which has made the first, and possibly the most thorough, investigation into the rent and tenant-landlord position in one city. I realise now, having had initial talks with the Committee, that the light it will throw on the position in London emphasises our ignorance of everything outside and the danger of drawing conclusions and saying, "We know that this is localised".
    However, it is obviously silly to say now, on Report, that we should take powers to apply the Bill separately to separate regions. If we started to try to do such a thing at this stage of the Bill, there would be no Bill before Christmas. In fact, there would be no Bill. There would be no point in having one. We cannot possibly decide now to change the whole shape of the Bill and make it apply narrowly to certain areas without creating great difficulties for other areas. I am certainly not prepared to consider the possibility at this stage of writing into the Bill the provision that it should apply only to certain specific areas. Such a provision can be discussed when we introduce our long-term Measure. It would make good sense for the Opposition to put forward their ideas on the long-term Measure, but it is an entirely
    1430
    inopportune solution on this short-term Measure.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that by a slip of the tongue the right hon. Gentleman said that we seek to apply the Bill as a whole area by area. Our Amendments relate only to that part of the Bill which extends this form of control to furnished lettings.
    Mr. Crossman: The argument, if it applies to furnished lettings, applies with equal force to unfurnished lettings. There would be just as strong a case for eliminating certain areas in respect of them. This is the central issue between us. This is an important debate and I will try to respond to it. If I speak at some length, it is because I have a number of arguments to answer and I think that, even at this late hour, the House deserves a serious answer from the Government in reply to a serious debate.
    I am sorry that I left the Chamber for a short time, but I found it necessary to have something to eat after all these hours. When I was listening to the debate earlier I was struck by the curiously different world people live in. Speech after speech referred to the landladies of Blackpool and Bournemouth. However, there was not one speech about the families to whom one furnished room is home. Indeed, we heard it argued that this debate should be about homes and protecting them and that homes excluded furnished lodgings because, after all, they are just furnished lettings and not homes. We have to have this for a small but significant section of this community, many of them young men and women with children.
    8.45 p.m.
    The furnished room is very often the only home they know. To be evicted from that is worse and easier than to be evicted from an unfurnished dwelling. To get rid of them from the furnished room, the landlord does not even have to put their furniture on the street; he just throws them out. To suggest to me that there is no problem of eviction or of pressures, intimidation or harassment of families living in furnished dwellings shows a total ignorance of the conditions which occur in our great conurbations.
    From our point of view, there is in this Bill—at the lowest level, where these

    1431
    crises occur—no clear distinction between the furnished and unfurnished lettings.
    Mr. Miscampbell: Is it not right that at present our furnished accommodation is protected better than anything else by the provisions of the 1946 and 1949 Acts?
    Mr. Crossman: I have thought about this. I was going to deal with it. My contention is that there is not adequate protection. If there were we should not need further protection in this Bill. There is overwhelming evidence—a lot of which will be produced before the big Bill—that there is a grave inadequacy in the security of families compelled to live in furnished lettings.
    Mr. Evelyn King: In the big cities.
    Mr. Crossman: Yes. In the big cities. The House should understand this: the distinction is not between the furnished and the unfurnished letting but between the conurbation, where rented accommodation is desperately short, and those areas of the country where rented accommodation is not so short. That is the distinction, and where accommodation is desperately short one could have harassment or eviction or misery in the furnished and unfurnished lettings alike. Where it is not so short there is not so much harassment and not so much danger. This applies in exactly the same way to both types of letting.
    For us, it was absolutely essential, therefore, in dealing with the segment where evictions were likely, to treat the so-called furnished dwelling as what it often is—an unfurnished dwelling masquerading under the guise of a furnished dwelling to evade the Rent Act. I was looking the other day at some evidence which has been collected about one London borough. Half the one-room lettings in the borough are furnished lettings; 72 per cent. of the furnished lettings are one-room; only 10 per cent. of them have exclusive use of kitchens, whereas, in the case of the unfurnished, a vast proportion have exclusive use of the kitchen. It is the furnished room which tends to be accompanied by the most desperate conditions of poverty and the weakest conditions, where the landlord can punish and penalise. We are talking
    1432
    about the condition of a small segment of the population, as we were in the case of unfurnished accommodation.
    Nobody is assuming that the majority of landlords will behave in this way, but, as we heard on the second Reading and in Committee, there is that small minority of landlords who will seek to use the period before the big Bill to get rid of unwanted tenants. And if hon. Members opposite think that this big Bill will not deal with furnished lettings they make a great mistake. Of course it will, because they are one of the most important elements in the problem. Now I turn to the other side. There are very great problems about protecting innocent and decent landlords from the effect of measures which are required in order to protect the tenants of the bad landlords. This is a problem which we have to face in the case of unfurnished lettings as well as in that of furnished ones. I was asked about the present security of tenure. It is true that there are rent tribunals. It is true that if one goes to the tribunal one can get one's three months security prolonged, but there is great evidence that a large number of these people in one-roomed furnished lettings do not go to the tribunal. Anyway, they can be evicted before they do. The landlord gets rid of them before they even go to the tribunal. There is plenty of evidence from London that this happens. I think hon. Members will find when we come to later discussions that a number of hon. Members on this side of the House who have been kind in not speaking in this debate will produce a lot of evidence of the sort of things which happen to poor people in furnished dwellings. In many cases they are no better protected than those in unfurnished dwellings. That is why we had to act to protect them.
    Of course, I agree that the measures that we have introduced for this purpose, just like the measures which could have a bad effect on the good farmer, could possibly turn out to be disadvantageous to the good landlord. On that I would like to say one thing to hon. Members opposite. I am sure that everything that was said by those hon. Members who spoke for the seaside resorts was said with sincerity. I have had letters, and a number of people have come to see

    1433
    me, asking "Is it true that my flat is in danger if I let it to somebody and go abroad?" I have said, "It has always been in danger in the sense that if you choose a tenant who is awkward and you want to get him out, in practice you have to go to court." That was always true because no sensible, decent person would try to evict by force.
    If the suggestion is that this Bill creates a danger if one should choose a tenant who decided to be awkward, I would say that that is not a new danger. It is not a good service to the constituents of hon. Members opposite to cause alarm and dismay by suggesting that this Bill has introduced a novel risk. The risk in England and Wales always existed. I shall come to the position of Scotland in a minute. There has always been the risk that one might let one's house to a certain type of person and that it might take weeks, by means of the court, to get him out.
    What has this Bill done? I want to be absolutely fair because we have asked for an impartial assessment of the problem. The Bill has given the courts the power to grant a stay of execution for 12 months so that the courts can give a tenant the right to stay. It has also given the most elaborate guidance to the courts so that they shall not let tenants stay if they are doing any of the things which it has been suggested they would do at some of the seaside resorts. In such a case the courts would get rid of them. It is also true that if one waited to go to the courts the weeks would be wasted—
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the House are not saying that what the right hon. Gentleman has said is wrong, but he is giving the tenant an encouragement or a mandate to stay. Thus he will stay and use the procedure of the courts.
    Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer. This Bill gives no mandate. The mandate was there in the sense that a tenant who wanted to be awkward on the termination of a tenancy in England or Wales could stay and say, "Get me out if you want but you shall jolly well take me to court to do so." This kind of person in a free country is a damned nuisance to good, innocent people whom he persuades to let him stay in their houses. But this is not the first time
    1434
    that the tenant has been given the right. I think it is a great pity for the tourist industry in our seaside resorts if hon. Members, in the passions of political disagreement, spread alarm by suggesting that this legislation has done something which it has not done. It has given no mandate to these people which they did not have before in England and Wales.
    Now I come to Scotland—
    Mr. Evelyn King rose—
    Mr. Crossman: No, I will not give way now. I am going to refer to Scotland. The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time to ask questions. I do not dislike answering questions, but I now want to talk about Scotland. Nobody on the other side of the House has yet referred to the landladies in the seaside resorts of Scotland. Why? Because they have been subjected to the Bill's measures, the so-called mandate, for the last 200 years. These unfortunate Scots officers who have let their houses and gone abroad have been doing it for 300 years and no particle of evidence has been collected today to indicate why it is that in Scotland, where they can evict only after a court order, none of these catastrophic events has occurred in their seaside resorts.
    This is the answer to people who are trying to spread alarm and despondency. All that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has to do is to leave Ramsgate for one day and go to Scotland and study the boarding houses there and ask what happens; or he can read a book. He will find that this practice has existed there because there they have a civilised law under which they say that throwing people out by the scruff of their necks by force is an uncivilised practice even when done by the angelic landladies of Ramsgate and Blackpool. Those who let and who are not shrewd enough to see a rotter before he comes in, do not make a success of their lettings. They must get used to facts and must learn more about human nature before they do more letting.
    We are legislating here for protection from eviction. We are legislating against the real danger to the tenant of the furnished room. He has been harshly treated and at times he has been under exactly the same kind of risk as the tenant of the unfurnished room. It is true that

    1435
    he has had the tribunal, but he has not used it because he was too weak or too frightened. These people were terrorised by their landlords into thinking that if they wanted to stay they must not use the tribunal. These conditions exist and they are a scandal and disgrace. We shall eliminate them, if we can, in the big Measure. In the meanwhile when the emergency Measure deals with the threat of emergency evictions between now and the coming of the other Bill, it would have been a mockery to leave out furnished lettings.
    There was the question also of estimating to what risks we were exposing the landlords and landladies of Ramsgate and Blackpool and also the civil servants. When we were considering the problem I tried to see whether it was humanly possible either to write in a power to discriminate, by schedule, as has been suggested today, or, even better, a power to discriminate between lettings of the kind made in seaside resorts and lettings of the kind which cause trouble in the slums. The more we looked at the matter the more impossible it was to make a distinction, because the crafty landlord in the slum will use all the tricks in the trade every time we try to define the lettings with which we want to deal, and he will turn to other lettings and thus get round the law.
    There was no way of outwitting the clever landlord of the furnished dwelling, so we have to use the blunt instrument of saying that all are stopped from evicting without a court order.
    9.0 p.m.
    The question we now have to ask ourselves is what is the actual risk to the good landlord or landlady in the seaside resorts. So far as I can understand it, the only increased risk that he or she has is that the court could be induced to give a person a two months or three months stay instead of the normal one month which is the maximum given under the existing law. This is the only extra risk. An hon. Member shakes his head. I am assuming that she is a decent landlady who does not evict by force, and who, if she wants to evict one of these tenants, takes him to law. If she has to take him to law the position will be that the court can postpone the stay of execution longer than before.
    1436
    When I look at the instructions which we give to the court on this subject, it is crystal clear and written into the Bill that this kind of tenant will be given short shrift under this Bill.
    If there is one thing absolutely clear in reading the Clauses through, it is that in dealing with the kind of person who takes a winter letting in a seaside resort and over-stays his welcome into the summer, no county court when he appears before it would conceivably give him anything more than the minimum stay of execution.
    The only difference is that introduced by an hon. Member opposite when he talked about incitement to tenants and said that there was a kind of provocation. If hon. and learned Gentlemen make long speeches here describing what clever tenants can do to exploit this Bill against their landladies and get their views printed in the local papers, and if they use the House of Commons to spread propaganda of that sort, I cannot be responsible for the effect that they have. If the tenants believed them and took them seriously some crooked people would have been given some pretty shrewd ideas of how tenants could outstay their welcome successfully.
    If such tenants listen to me they will be very careful about staying at all because they will know from me that this Bill does not give them any licence or any extension of their freedoms of any kind which could really seriously undermine the defences of the good landlord or the good landlady of furnished rooms.
    I apologise to the House for being a little long, but this has been a long and interesting debate and I thought it essential to put the point of view not only of the Government but of all reasonable, decent people who want to give the good landlord a good chance and enable the good landlord to get rid of the bad tenant. We want to do all that, but we are also determined, in this short Bill, to prevent tenants being evicted before the big Bill is passed. That is the point of this Bill.
    I can say to the House with absolute conviction that we can safely reject these Amendments because this talk of the terrible threat to seaside resorts was a grave mistake by hon. Members opposite who represent them. It is untrue, it is a gross exaggeration of what is happening,

    1437
    it does no good to their constituencies, it misleads ordinary people, and I am glad to have the opportunity at this Dispatch Box of saying what is really true about the situation and putting things straight.
    Mr. Roots: I cannot help feeling that the House will think that the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was unfortunate in the light of the debates which we have had on this Bill. The fact of the matter is that it was a period of non-sequiteurs. He started by asking us to believe, and we were prepared to believe, that he had considered the risks to Service landlords and landlords and landladies generally. Then he proceeded to attack hon. Members who represent constituencies where these problems will be particularly felt for indulging virtually in agitation to create difficulties. He has only to consider that he told us, or he now tells us, that he recognised that there would be difficulties before ever they spoke.
    These hon. Gentlemen have spoken on fears and complaints conveyed to them by constituents. If they were trumpery, it is curious that the right hon. Gentleman's mind should have run to them as well. He has admitted that there was a difficulty here, that a number of quite innocent people would suffer, and that he could not find a way round. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If the right hon. Gentleman had not thought that they would suffer, he would not have poured crocodile tears and a lot of work allegedly into trying to help them.
    The right hon. Gentleman quoted Scots law, but he would have done better to await the presence of the Scottish Law Officers because, as I understand it, Scots law does not at present include any right of suspension. It is true that one needs an order for eviction, but there is no power of suspension such as is given in the present Bill. Under English law, similarly, there is an adequate procedure for immediate eviction under the High Court order of which we have heard.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The hon. and learned Gentleman talks rather hastily about what can happen under Scots law. When a case like this is brought before him, the sheriff has the right to
    1438
    allow a stay of eviction, and the average is about five weeks.
    Mr. Roots: The right hon. Gentleman has only to think that, if the power under Scots law were really as adequate as he suggests, it would not be necessary to include Scotland in this Bill. In fact, the position under Scots law is quite different and is not what is now sought.
    If there is no problem, why was the right hon. Gentleman worried about it? Why did he try, as he said, to find a solution? The real weakness in his case is that he tried and could not find a solution, and he will not listen to any suggestions from this side of the House. He has not sought to answer Amendment No. 19 to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) spoke. This would meet the case of the holiday letting, and it would also assist as regards lettings by Service owners. But it has been rejected virtually out of hand.
    The right hon. Gentleman has rejected the regional approach. It is admitted that the problem in terms of furnished lettings is largely a regional one, but the right hon. Gentleman, as I understood him, rejected the regional solution because he thought that furnished and unfurnished lettings ought to march together. It is no good weeping crocodile tears of sorrow for the good landlord, the good landlady and the good Service tenant if he simply says that he will not consider differentiating, although arguments have been advanced in the House and not answered to show that regionalisation in terms of furnished lettings, at his discretion, would give a just solution for both landlord and tenant.
    As far as I could gather, this solution has been rejected because the right hon. Gentleman doubted—I certainly do not agree—that he would get the Bill by Christmas. In fact, there is an appropriate Amendment on the Notice Paper. It would not delay the passage of the Bill one minute, and, on the other hand, it would achieve what my right hon. and hon. Friends have sought to do, that is, not to impede the general principle of the Bill but to provide justice for those who will be unnecessarily harmed by it. There may be some who have to be harmed, but many will be unnecessarily harmed by the Bill.

    1439
    I very much regret in the circumstances—because I had understood that on both sides of the House it had been conceded that everyone has attempted to make this a workable and sensible Bill—that, in the light of the Minister's reply, I cannot do other than ask my
    right hon. and hon. Friends to go into the Lobby in favour of the Amendment.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 237.

    Division No. 35.]

    AYES

    [9.10 p.m.

    Agnew, Commander Sir Peter

    Gower, Raymond

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Grant, Anthony

    Murton, Oscar

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Neave, Airey

    Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.

    Gresham-Cooke, R.

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Astor John

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Awdry Daniel

    Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

    Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard

    Barlow, Sir John

    Gurden, Harold

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Batsford Brian

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Bell, Ronald

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

    Page, R. Graham (Crosby)

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Peel, John

    Biffen, John

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Percival, Ian

    Biggs-Davison John

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Peyton, John

    Bingham R. M.

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Blaker Peter

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Pounder, Rafton

    Box, Donald

    Hawkins, Paul

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

    Hay, John

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Pym, Francis

    Braine, Bernard

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin

    Brewis, John

    Hendry, Forbes

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Hiley, Joseph

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

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

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Hordern, Peter

    Roots, William

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Buck, Antony

    Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Bullus, Wing Commander Sir Eric

    Hunt, John (Bromley)

    Sharples, Richard

    Burden, F. A.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Shepherd, William

    Campbell, Gordon

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Carlisle, Mark

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

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

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth W.)

    Jennings, J. C.

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Cooke, Robert

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Stainton, Keith

    Cordle, John

    Jopling, Michael

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Costain, A. P.

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Talbot John E.

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)

    Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Crowder, F. P.

    Kimball, Marcus

    Temple, John M.

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Curran, Charles

    Kitson, Timothy

    Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Dance, James

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Dean, Paul

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Walder, David (High Peak)

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Doughty, Charles

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Stephen

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Mc Adden, Sir Stephen

    Wall, Patrick

    Eden, Sir John

    Maginnis, John E.

    Walters, Dennis

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Maitland, Sir John

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Farr, John

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

    Marten, Neil

    Webster, David

    Forrest, George

    Mathew, Robert

    Webster, David

    Foster, Sir John

    Maude, Angus E. U.

    Whitelaw, William

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton

    Mawby, Ray

    Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Gammans, Lady

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

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Gardner, Edward

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Wylie, N. R.

    Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Younger, Hn. George

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Mitchell, David

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    Monro, Hector

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

    Goodhew, Victor

    Morgan, W. G.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Gourlay, Harry

    Orbach, Maurice

    Albu, Austen

    Grey, Charles

    Orme, Stanley

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Alldritt, W. H.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Owen, Will

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hale, Leslie

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Paget, R. T.

    Atkinson, Norman

    Hannan, William

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Harper, Joseph

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)

    Barnett, Joel

    Hattersley, Ray

    Parkin, B. T.

    Baxter, William

    Hayman, F. H.

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Beaney, Alan

    Hazell, Bert

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Pentland, Norman

    Bence, Cyril

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Perry, E. G.

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Bessell, Peter

    Holman, Percy

    Probert, Arthur

    Binns, John

    Horner, John

    Rankin, John

    Bishop, E. S.

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Redhead, Edward

    Blackburn, F.

    Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

    Rees Merlyn

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Howie, W.

    Reynolds, Gerald

    Boardman, H.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Boston, T. G.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Richard, Ivor

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

    Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Boyden, James

    Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Rose, paul B.

    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Sheldon, Robert

    Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Buchanan, Richard

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Silkin, John (Deptford)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Chapman, Donald

    Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

    Small, William

    Coleman, Donald

    Lawson, George

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Snow, Julian

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Ledger, Ron

    Solomons, Henry

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Steele, Thomas

    Cronin, John

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Crosland, Anthony

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Stonehouse, John

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Stones, William

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Loughlin, Charles

    Summerskill, Dr. Shirley

    Dalyell, Tem

    Lubbock, Eric

    Swain, Thomas

    Darling, George

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Swingler, Stephen

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    McBride, Neil

    Symonds, J. B.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    MacColl, James

    Taverne, Dick

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    McGuire, James

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    McInnes, James

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Delargy, Hugh

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Dempsey, James

    Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Dodds, Norman

    McLeavy, Frank

    Tinn, James

    Doig, Peter

    MacMillan, Malcolm

    Tomney, Frank

    Driberg, Tom

    MacPherson, John E.

    Tuck, Raphael

    Dunn, James A.

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Urwin, T. W.

    Dunnett, Jack

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Varley, Eric G.

    Edelman, Maurice

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Manuel, Archie

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mapp, Charles

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    English, Michael

    Mason, Roy

    Wallace, George

    Ennals, David

    Mellish, Robert

    Warbey, William

    Ensor, David

    Mikardo, Ian

    Watkins, Tudor

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Millan, Bruce

    Weitzman, David

    Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Whitlock, William

    Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

    Molloy, William

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Monslow, Walter

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

    Ford, Ben

    Neal, Harold

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

    Newens, Stan

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Freeson, Reginald

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Norwood, Christopher

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Garrett, W. E.

    Oakes, Gordon

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Garrow, A,

    Ogden, Eric

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    O'Malley, Brian

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Ginsburg, David

    Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)

    Mr. McCann and

    Mrs. Harriet Slater.

    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, Amendment No. 20, in page 4, line 6, to leave out lines 6 to 15 and to insert:
    (d) a tenancy to which any of the following Acts apply, that is to say—

    (i) the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts 1886 to 1931;

    1949 c, 25

    (ii) the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland> Act 1949;

    1949 c, 75

    (iii) the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949;

    (iv) the Crofters (Scotland) Acts 1955 and 1961.

    This is a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 25, applies to the whole Bill the definition of "tenant" in Clause 1(5). By this definition the term "tenant" is applied to any person who occupies an agricultural tied house under the terms of his employment. As a result of that Amendment, Clause 3(1,d), as originally drafted, would exclude from the Bill tied houses on tenanted farms.
    By this Amendment Clause 3(1,d) has been rewritten to make it clear beyond doubt that the tenancies excluded by it are only those which are already protected under the separate codes specifically referred to in sub-paragraphs (i) to (iv). In particular, subparagraph (iii) excludes the tenancy of a complete farm but will not now exclude a tied house on the farm.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 4.—(THE COURT.)
    Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 4, line 31, at the end to insert:
    (3) Where, by virtue of section 1(3) of this Act, it is not lawful for the owner of any premises to enforce against the occupier his right to recover possession of the premises except by proceedings in the county court, but the High Court has before the commencement of this Act made an order for possession in proceedings by the owner against the occupier, the order shall, on application made by the owner to the county court, be treated for the purpose of execution as if the proceedings had been taken in. and the order made by, the county court, and section 2 of this Act shall have effect accordingly.
    This Amendment adds a new subsection dealing with what happens when High Court proceedings have begun before the coming into force of the Bill. My right hon. Friend promised at an earlier stage to see what could be done to make the position clear about the
    1444
    transfer of authority. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has been able to do some work on this, and he would like to assist the House in the matter.
    The Attorney-General: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity and for enabling me to get off with being a minute late. As my hon. Friend has said, the Amendment arises from consideration which has been given to the position where, before the Bill comes into effect, proceedings for possession have been instituted in the High Court.
    With this Amendment it may be convenient also to consider Amendment No. 23, in Clause 6, page 4, line 43, at end insert:
    (3) Any proceedings in the High Court by an owner against an occupier for possession of premises to which this Act on the date on which it comes into operation applies and in which no order or judgment has been made or given by the High Court before such date shall be transferred to the appropriate county court; the Rules of the Supreme Court and of the county court shall provide for the transfer of the pleadings and files therein to the said county court and for the continuation of the action in such county court.
    in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), which deals with a similar situation. It is necessary to deal with cases of this kind because, when the Bill comes into force, it will be a criminal offence to evict an occupier of premises to which the Bill relates, except on the authority of the county court. Undertakings were accordingly given in Committee to consider the position.
    The Amendment in my right hon. Friend's name deals with cases where an order for possession has already been made by the High Court. During the Committee stage it was pointed out that if this situation were not expressly dealt with in the Bill, the occupier would have to start his proceedings all over again in the county court, which, clearly, would be a very undesirable situation.
    The effect of this Amendment is to enable the owner of premises to apply to the county court for a High Court order made but not executed on the coming into operation of the Bill to be treated for the purposes of execution as if it had been made in the county court. The county court will be obliged to accede to

    1445
    this application. The application will be made in the court office and there will not be the necessity for a hearing in court in relation to the application. The order will then be treated as if it had been made by the county court before the commencement of this Bill and therefore it can be executed as a county court order without any offence being committed against the provisions of the Bill.
    I should remind any of my hon. Friends who may be disturbed by that observation that, because the provisions of Clause 2 will be attracted by the Amendment, it will be open to the occupier of the premises to apply to the county court to exercise its powers to suspend the execution of the order. Reading the Report of the Committee stage discussions, I think it was the general feeling of the Committee that this was the objective at which we should aim.
    Amendment No. 23 deals with a situation in part similar, that is the position where proceedings have been commenced in the High Court but no order has been made. We have looked into the matter and have come to the conclusion that no provision in the Bill is necessary to deal with that situation. Under Section 50 of the County Courts Act, 1959, either party can apply to the High Court for an action to be tried by the county court. Section 77 of the Act deals with the procedure to be followed when such an application is made. The Amendment seeks to produce this same result by an automatic transfer of the High Court proceedings into the county court and, superficially, this would be a very attractive proposition, were it workable. It would be an advantage if a transfer could take effect without any action by the parties and without any further reference to the court by way of application in the court. But, unfortunately, what is proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington is not practicable, for a reason which he and his hon. Friends will readily anticipate.
    It is that this Bill deals only with premises which are within the jurisdiction of the county court, that is to say, premises with a rateable value not exceeding £400. As the House will know, the jurisdiction of the High Court in an action for possession is unlimited and for this reason the pleadings in the action do not
    1446
    contain any indication of the rateable value of premises which are the subject of an action for possession. It follows from this, therefore, that some evidence of rateable value would have to be given to the High Court before the case was transferred to the county court. Therefore, some form of application to the High Court by one of the parties is inevitable. Accordingly, for these reasons, in our view the Amendment is unnecessary and, what is perhaps a worse objection, misconceived.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having tabled the Amendment. The moral of this seems to be for my hon. Friends not to bother about drafting Amendments, but to raise these points in Committee on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." This was a point which I raised in that way, when I pointed out an unfortunate error in the Bill.
    At that time there was not a Law Officer on the Government Front Bench—certainly not a Law Officer who was awake—and the error would not have been noticed had my hon. Friends not drawn attention to it at that stage. I am grateful for the realisation by the Government, even at this late stage of the Bill, that they are not perfect in the drafting of the Measure and that there are some Clauses which can be improved, this being one of them. The Amendment will be of assistance in practice and I am glad that it has come forward.
    Mr. Weitzman: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is wrong in saying that it was not noticed on this side of the House. It was.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.33 p.m.
    Mr. Mellish: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I am privileged to be moving the Third Reading of the Bill. I am indebted to my right hon. Friend the Minister for having given me this privilege because, as the House knows, I also spoke on Second Reading. Winding up the proceedings on a Bill of this sort is for me a great honour and to have the Bill reaching this stage is a great privilege for my hon. Friends as well as for many hon. Members opposite.

    1447
    Many hon. Members on both sides of the House represent constituents to whom the Bill will be of material assistance. It is hard to estimate the number of people who will be helped as a result of the passage of the Measure. From the figures I have obtained from the Department, I estimate that about 1,300,000 people in Britain are at present decontrolled tenants, many of them in that position as a consequence of the previous Administration's 1957 Rent Act.
    Just prior to taking office we made it clear in our manifesto that we would repeal the Rent Act, the Measure which has resulted in so much injustice. I have no doubt that when the results of the General Election were announced many landlords, in anticipation of the Rent Act being repealed, immediately moved into action and served notices to quit on many of their tenants.
    I said on Second Reading, and I repeat, that many hon. Members, including many on the benches opposite, could supply personal evidence of considerable numbers of their constituents who have received notices to quit and who face a very bleak Christmas indeed. It was for this reason that my right hon. Friend, knowing that a Measure to repeal the Rent Act must necessarily take some time—probably two or three months before being produced, and then having to pass through its various stages, involving perhaps another four or five months before it could become law—realised that it was essential, based on the advice he was given not only by his Department but by individual hon. Members pleading for assistance for their constituents, to introduce this Measure. He had the courage to introduce this emergency legislation which, certainly from the point of view of my hon. Friends, is a welcome Measure indeed.
    We have had a number of detailed criticisms. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has many times said that the Bill is badly drafted, but to many of us on this side its main principles are about as good as they could be—
    Mr. Temple: The hon. Member has just been referring to the drafting of the Bill. Will he, in the course of his re-
    1448
    marks, refer to the position of caravans under this Measure?
    Mr. Mellish: With very great respect, I can, on Third Reading, only speak of the Bill as it now is. Amendments dealing with caravans were not acceptable to the Chair in the Committee stage. I want to talk of the broad aspects, as I believe that the Bill affects the vast majority of people. I do not deny, we never have denied, that there is always the possible danger that in its implementation a few people might get hurt. Neither do I deny, that, for the first time in many years, there has been a tilt in rent legislation towards the tenant. I do not apologise for that, because for too long our legislation has been tilted in favour of the landlord.
    The proof of that is the extent of homelessness in some of our great cities. We did not know what it was to have the problem of homelessness in London until after the 1957 Rent Act came into operation, and for most of this year we have been receiving an average of 60 or 70 homeless families a week. About 6,000 people have been declared homeless, the vast majority as a consequence of the Rent Act passed by the previous Administration. Something had to be done to stop that situation continuing, and I believe that the Bill we have produced will mean that thousands of people in our great cities and towns will now have a security of tenure denied them in the past.
    We found the party opposite to be in an impossible position on Second Reading and it is again in that position now. This Bill is really the beginning of the end of the Rent Act, of which so much fuss was made. It was to solve the housing problem. Houses were to become empty overnight and so provide accommodation for those with the greatest need. That has all been proved to be absolute rubbish. That Act stopped the mobility of very many thousands of tenants who previously used to move to one property from another, and it brought in its train all the hardships of which we have heard.
    It is interesting to know that one of the most powerful advocates of this Measure has been the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Captain Lichfield) who, from the Opposition benches, bitterly criticised his own previous

    1449
    Administration for not having themselves brought in such a Measure. I said then and I repeat it, that such speeches come rather late in the day to save some of the misery of so many people. In commending this Bill to the House, we believe that it will be welcomed by the vast majority of those threatened by the 1957 Rent Act.
    In Committee, we discussed furnished accommodation, with particular reference to seaside flats. I recognise that there may be some landladies who will be understandably worried by the possibility of tenants taking advantage of this Bill to move into flats like that, and try to retain the tenancies for such a period of time as to destroy those lettings that provide a living at the seaside. That might happen in one or two cases, but I do not think that it will be anything like the general complaint feared and expressed by hon. Members opposite.
    I honestly do not believe that. I cannot believe that there are hundreds of people in London just waiting for the chance to go to Blackpool, and to stay there. I do not believe that they will go into that sort of accommodation—these flatlets—stay there, defy the landlady, and then be taken to court in the knowledge that the magistrate or judge will decide against them. Many of the fears expressed will not be realised. One of the things that came out clearly on Second Reading and throughout the proceedings was that perhaps the worst feature of the present system was the letting of furnished accommodation. Every one of us knew that this had to be tackled and dealt with.
    I never knew that there were so many landlords who were good people who were suffering so much financially. This Bill was never designed to hurt the good landlord. I do not believe it will worry them for one moment. The good landlord never has to have recourse to the law. The Bill was never designed to touch them, but only to hurt the minority of bad landlords. It is our belief that in furnished letting accommodation we have the greatest number of offenders. In the great cities this has been a means for exploiting the tenant. The landlord puts in a little furniture and a strip of carpet which is not worth anything and calls it a furnished letting. Every hon. Mem-
    1450
    ber representing a constituency in a city or town knows this to be true.
    My right hon. Friend had to bring in furnished accommodation. When we have the major Bill the sort of furnished accommodation in seaside flats and so on which has been spoken about will certainly be looked at because the last thing my right hon. Friend or this party wants to do is to hurt the landlord of the genuine type of furnished lettings at the seaside or a genuine flat which the owner wishes to let for a short period. But this Bill will deal quite emphatically and properly with the sort of person who has made furnished accommodation a racket. If in doing this we upset one or two hon. Members opposite and a few landladies we do not apologise. We do not apologise because in homeless units we see hundreds of British people who are without a roof over their heads. They have committed no crime, but they are there because they could not get proper furnished accommodation. This Bill was justified for that reason.
    We were told that we were wrong to bring in provisions for agricultural workers. My right hon. Friend brought in the agricultural worker because the Labour Party has for years said that we believe the agricultural worker in the tied cottage has had a raw deal. He had the right to security of tenure and to insist on the owner of the property going to court. We are not concerned here with the decent farmer but with a few bad ones. The decent farmer need not worry about this Bill.
    This Bill is a temporary Measure. We expect that in a few months it will be replaced and overtaken by a major Bill. In the meantime it will give to many people the security of tenure which they have a right to expect. By giving the Bill an unopposed Third Reading, the House can send it to another place with the message that we want to see it on the Statute Book before Christmas because speed is imperative. The Commons regards this Bill as one of the most important we could bring before Parliament at this time because of the thousands of people involved who are crying out for the security of tenure that the Bill will give.
    9.44 p.m.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is customary when a Bill has had the full and proper discussion which this one has had for speeches on the Third Reading to be mercifully brief and of as amiable a character as possible. In the light of that tradition I searched my mind for something agreeable to say about this Bill at this stage, but the only thing I could find was that it is at any rate a less bad Bill than when it was introduced.
    As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, reference has been made in our discussions to the drafting of the Bill. I have not for many years seen a Bill presented so badly drafted as this one. That is evidenced by the very large number of drafting Amendments it has been necessary to make during our proceedings. Those Amendments ensure that those who will have to interpret the Measure will have a less difficult task than they would have had had the House and the Committee not done their duty by the Measure.
    I do not propose to rehearse again the arguments which were adduced on the main issues of the Bill. I must take up the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary about the homeless. The implication of what he said was that the Bill will diminish the number of homeless. Will it? Will it increase in any degree the total of accommodation, which is the only way in which homelessness can be dealt with? There are features of the Bill which make it the more likely in some respects that the supply of accommodation will be diminished rather than increased. Though I fully understand the Parliamentary Secretary's feelings, I ask him to reflect that legislation does not always have the effect for which it is designed, and it is our experience of controls in this and other spheres that they often have the unhappy side effect of diminishing the supply of the thing being dealt with.
    Mr. Mellish: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen the figures of the number of homeless in London, but he will probably know them. These figures are certainly available to members of his own party who are members of the London County Council. The figures are broken down to show how these people have come to be homeless,
    1452
    for what reason? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to study the figures of the past and the present figures. That will provide the answer.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer is a little more difficult than that, as the hon. Gentleman will realise, if he reflects. Whether it is in this great city or in the country as a whole, the problem of homelessness is dealt with only by increasing and making fully available the sum total of accommodation. Therefore, the only relevance of the problem of the homeless to the Bill is whether the Bill when enacted will increase or diminish the sum total of accommodation available. It seems to many of us that the effect of the Bill—not the purpose, but the effect—particularly perhaps in regard to furnished lettings, will be to diminish rather than increase the supply.
    There was one hopeful moment in the course of our discussions. It was in the speech of the Minister on an Amendment earlier this evening. The right hon. Gentleman then indicated that, though the Bill itself is on a universal national approach, he did not wholly reject the idea of a regional treatment of the problem. I was glad to hear that. I am sure that the whole House was glad to hear it. Many of us who have thought upon the problem a good deal are becoming more and more convinced that some measure of differentiation in the treatment of the problem in different parts of the country will make for its more effective treatment.
    In those circumstances, I particularly regret the fact that, for reasons which seemed to me wholly unsubstantial, the right hon. Gentleman did not translate that bit of forward thinking into an Amendment. It would have been a better Bill and I do not believe that it would have been delayed a day. I think that those who have studied the problem will agree with me about that.
    As the House knows, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I approach the Bill with two thoughts in mind. First, as I said on Second Reading, we accept that, in the light of the problem created by the Government's announcement of their intention to repeal the Rent Act, because it was that which created the problem, it was necessary to provide something on the lines of Clause 1 to prevent a minority of landlords, in apprehension of the right

    1453
    hon. Gentleman's forthcoming Measure, unnecessarily and unfairly evicting tenants. We said that on Second Reading and I gave an undertaking, which has been carried out, that, though, in view of many of its terms, the Bill would have to be critically examined, it would be subjected to no undue delay. For that reason, it is certainly not our intention to divide against its Third Reading.
    I must also make it very clear that we regard many parts of the Bill as being wholly extraneous to that purpose. We remain utterly convinced that that emergency purpose, to use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase, has little, if anything, to do with the provisions in respect of agricultural tied cottages and furnished lettings. Whatever the merits or demerits of these proposals, they are proposals which could well have been—and more fairly have been—put forward on another Measure. That is the view which we have consistently expressed throughout the debate. As I said, it is not—
    Mr. A. Woodburn: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in previous legislation of this kind to stop rackets, the main effect has been to stop the rackets without involving people in legislation at all? The fact that the Bill is on the Statute Book will make these people reasonable and make landlords come to reasonable terms with their tenants. The owner will never have to go to court at all, in the vast multitude of cases.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is a very interesting intervention. Its precise relevance to what I was saying—or, indeed, to the Third Reading—is perhaps more arguable.
    What we were concerned about was that the particular provisions which I mentioned are not consistent with the proclaimed initial purpose of the Bill, the purpose in respect of which the Minister appealed for our co-operation in its passage and the reason which the Minister himself gave for its being put through Parliament speedily. I must make this clear. The fact that, for this reason, we have given not too difficult a passage and one without unnecessary division to this Measure in these circumstances does not indicate that when some of the features of this Bill are reflected—as we are told they will be—in a further Measure, that Measure or that part of it will receive
    1454
    similar treatment. It would be unfair to the Minister to leave him in any misunderstanding about that.
    Mr. Crossman: I never thought that.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman is capable of so many misapprehensions that I thought that I would relieve him of one. Though we have improved this Bill, it is in many respects not a good Bill, and even the greatest supporters of the Government would not say that it was the jewel of this Sessions' legislative programme.
    9.53 p.m.
    Mr. Weitzman: I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few moments, but I cannot, in view of the speech which we have just listened to from the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), let his remarks pass without comment. To say that this Bill was made necessary by any action on the part of this party or this Government is so absurd that we ought to refute it immediately. I congratulate my hon. and right hon. Friends on having brought it in now and on having passed this Measure, which I hope will undo a great deal of the evil which was brought about by the party opposite when it was in office.
    9.54 p.m.
    Mr. Peter Griffiths: I rise to speak on the Bill as amended. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and the proof of the Bill will be in its operation as an Act. It is most unusual, but we have already in my constituency put the Bill to the test. I have listened to the debate on this Bill, particularly on the Second Reading and in Committee, and again today. I fully appreciate the need for the Bill if the period preceding the repeal of the Rent Act is not to be abused by an unscrupulous minority of landlords.
    At the same time I believe that the Bill as amended will prove to have very serious deficiencies. Although it is intended to be purely a temporary Measure, it could have been used to advantage if it had been sufficiently widely drawn. The aim of the Bill has been stated to be the prevention of mass evictions in a very short period of time. My constituency is faced with a special problem which has led to the close examination of the provisions of this Bill, because

    1455
    we had hoped that we might be able to make use of it immediately.
    A large firm in my constituency has ceased operation. In several streets there are rows of houses held on service tenancies. These houses are now up for sale. Should the firm give these service tenants notice to quit, they will be without protection when this sale is completed, and this in a town with a dreadful housing shortage. Even if the firm does not do this and sells with sitting tenants, accepting a lower price, some of the tenants who have already been given notice to quit because they have accepted alternative employment will be faced with the same threat of eviction that I have mentioned because they have been given notice to quit prior to the sale. It may be possible through the efforts of the Mayor of Smethwick or myself to persuade the company not to take the action that I have mentioned.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: Name the firm.
    Mr. Griffiths: These efforts may be successful, but the fact is that when this Bill was tested it was found wanting. It has raised false hopes, and I think that is worse than raising no hopes at all. It could have been a useful weapon in the hands of those who are dealing with housing problems at a local level. Instead, the first time that it has come to be tested, it has proved to be something of a broken reed.
    9.58 p.m.
    Mr. B. T. Parkin: In spite of the panic-stricken approach from the Deputy Chief Whip, I feel that I might be allowed to say a few words on the Bill at this late stage. If I have said nothing up to now in the debate, it is because I want to see the Bill through, and speed is the essence of it.
    However, the Bill has a greater significance than my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has shown in his speeches up to now. He has insisted on the temporary character of the Bill. To me it means the end of a barbarous and uncivilised practice of dumping people into the street, without any provision as to what shall happen to them, without any administrative follow-up of a legal process.
    1456
    As this practice has done more than anything else to get the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) seated where he is sitting now instead of on this side of the House, we are entitled to say that this is a change achieved by consent of public opinion in this country, manifested by the voices of many hundreds of thousands of people in parties other than my own—indeed, by representatives of property owners themselves—who want to see the end of this practice and who are prepared to concede that security of tenure must be re-established according to law.
    The other day I came across a piece by Charles Dickens, written when he was doing propaganda for the abolition of public executions. It was the public aspect of it that moved him most. He said
    "I am solemnly convinced that nothing that ingenuity could devise to be done in this city, in the same compass of time, could work such ruin … I do not believe that any community can prosper where such a scene of horror and demoralisation … is passed by, unknown or forgotten."
    There is this other side to it. We have heard a great deal of the sufferings of those who are evicted, but I am concerned with the demoralising effect on the public. It is astonishing that we should have become numbed into an acceptance of this process over the years, so that many other issues and other aspects of the law that might have been cleared up have been confused.
    In the course of one of my election speeches in one of the crowded areas in my constituency, where I was giving one of my usual clear sociological exposés, an eviction scene took place within 100 yards of where I was speaking, and nobody took any notice. It was only at the point when violence was taking place, when one man was shaking pieces of milk bottle out of his hair, when another man had got a bent iron bar in his hand and three people, including a woman, were struggling on the ground that I hastened to intervene, and I was restrained by the passers-by who thought that it was wrong of me to get involved in such a commonplace scene. This was the normal practice. The story, when investigated, was of incredible complexity—
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Protection from Eviction Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Lawson.]

  PROTECTION FROM EVICTION BILL
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Mr. Parkin: The one point of interest in that complicated story possibly was that the landlord of the house had actually borrowed money from Paddington Borough Council to buy it, 194, Portland Road, and the council had taken no measure to ensure that the tenancy of the house was secure. The only question in this case was who had the stronger arm. These are acts of violence, demoralising to the public as well as to those who have to suffer. I hope therefore that we shall see the end of this practice now.
  I am sorry to have to introduce a note of regret, more in sorrow than in anger, that the Minister was not able to make the provisions of the Bill apply to local authorities as well. It is very necessary in the course of the next year and the long discussions which will take place over the next rent Bill that it should be understood that this particular device for gaining a court warrant for dispossession by an officer of the court, without the provision of alternative accommodation, must cease and is excluded from any subsequent discussions. This has gone for ever, and local authorities must begin to get it into their heads that it is not available to them either. I can understand that in the haste in preparing the Bill, and I am as responsible as anyone else for that—
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Is it in order on Third Reading for an hon. Member to refer at length to matters which are not in the Bill?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): It is not in order, and the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) must keep to the subject matter of the Bill.
  Mr. Parkin: I appreciate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you have been caught by
  1458
  the intervention of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls).
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must get back to the subject matter of the Bill and not discuss the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls).
  Mr. Parkin: If the hon. Member for Peterborough who asked you for that ruling had read the Bill he would have seen that in Clause 3(2) there is a specific reservation of the powers of the local authorities, and I should be much obliged if he would not interrupt again.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Am I to understand that the hon. Member for Paddington, North is contesting your Ruling on this matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member for Paddington, North is, and I hope that he will be allowed to get on with his speech.
  Mr. Parkin: We all understand that it is often necessary for warnings to be issued in Third Reading debates that hon. Members should kindly keep to what is in the Bill, but this is very revealing because it shows how the bureaucrats can smuggle their bits of algebra into these documents in defence of their own interests when nobody notices it. Clause 3(2) provides that
  "Nothing in this Act shall affect the operation of the Small Tenements Recovery Act 1838 in so far as it has been applied by any other Act, or of section 22(2), 45(3) or 85(2) of the Housing Act 1957."
  Section 22(2) of the Housing Act, 1957, applies to houses which have a demolition order on them. Section 45(3) refers to houses which have a clearance order on them, and Section 85(2) refers to houses which are overcrowded.
  In each of these cases, unfortunately, it has been thought necessary to leave the law as it is. I can quite understand the circumstances. A lot of negotiating has to be done before one can secure an agreed amendment of local government legislation, but I should have expected the Minister to be as confident as I was that such practices on the part of local authorities would cease forthwith.
  It was no pleasure to me—quite the contrary—to learn at mid-day last Thursday that the London County Council had taken out a sheriff's order to evict a woman from St. Philip's Place, Paddington,

  1459
  on 11th December. I rang up the Parliamentary Secretary's Office, because he is the man who can speak sharply to various authorities in London, and I left a message that I hoped that this eviction would not take place and that, unless I got a message to that effect, I should raise the matter in the House of Commons. I felt quite certain that, after one telephone call, that would be the end of it.
  A very curious thing happened. I got no response from the Parliamentary Secretary's office. This shows how these things can go on. I received a message rather later in the day to ring the private secretary to the Minister of Sport. This was after office closing hours, and I felt slightly flattered. I was sure that the Minister of Sport was to open a paddling pool or something in my constituency and I should be asked to be present.
  The following morning I telephoned to the number I had been given and I collected a little lecture on the inevitability of the eviction of this lady. It had nothing whatever to do with the Department to which the Minister of Sport is attached in either a Parliamentary or a financial sense. It was a mistake by the channels of communication, but I could see how eager everyone was to get things off his Minister's desk. What made me angry was that it was said to me, "This woman has brought this on herself".
  Mr. Robert Cooke: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, could he, for the record—I have no wish to enter into controversy about it—tell the House to whom he is referring when he mentions the Minister of Sport? I understood that there was no such gentleman.
  Mr. Parkin: As I was about to say, there was a case for negotiation with this lady. I told her myself that, although I did not think that she need fear execution of the sheriff's warrant, she must at once make up her mind about which of the available dwellings she was able to take. There had been some confusion. A letter had been lost. A clearance scheme was to be carried out. But it is wrong to say that someone in these circumstances has "brought it on herself", when, without any wish of hers, she is to have her home compulsorily bought over her head—in this
  1460
  case getting £115 for it—and is to be pushed somewhere else because the area is wanted for another purpose. It is a misuse of words to say that such people bring things on themselves. They do not. Someone has to speak up sometimes for the individual who can be caught in this kind of bureaucratic process.
  I do not know whether I dare go further and tell the House about another case which I have put in the Minister's hands. Similarly, under a clearance order, there lives a lady who is so misguided as to keep a poodle. Her house is to be pulled down over her head, and she has been told that the rules for the alternative accommodation available do not permit poodles to be rehoused. There is all the difference in the world between applying for a council flat and being told what the rules are before one is accepted into it and having one's house pulled down over one's head, the authority being obliged to offer alternative accommodation suitable to one's needs.
  I hope that I am not misusing this opportunity to say that it must be understood now that, in the course of the discussions, local authorities must get used to the idea that this particular practice is no longer available to them and they have to prepare a case to go before a court. In this case, it could probably have been settled in 10 minutes. The local authority would have produced evidence of the kind of alternative accommodation offered. It would have been granted possession on a certain date but the alternative accommodation would have been available.
  Now this device for eviction is out for good. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is his general intention. One of the difficult things in politics is that one can go for the crooks but so much evil is done by well-intentioned people who are being lazy and who are taking the easy way out. If we are to embark on a great new charter of landlord-tenant relations in order to get rid of thraldom, of exploitation and tyranny, we must see that those who are to administer the vast number of municipally-owned dwellings appreciate that they must be ready to meet many more varieties of personal need. We must establish certain basic rights of the individual. For

  1461
  that reason, among many others, I welcome the Bill and rejoice in it.
  I feel a little like Samuel Plimsoll who was, perhaps, an insufferable colleague in this House but who had perhaps one
  1462
  moment when he felt that he had done something good.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  GAS INDUSTRY (BORROWING POWERS)
  10.12 p.m.
  The Minister of Power (Mr. Frederick Lee): I beg to move,
  That the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order, 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.
  The Electricity and Gas Act, 1963, raised the limits of the gas industry's borrowing to £600 million and provided that the limit could be further raised to £650 million by order. In presenting this Order to the House, I think I should say how the industry has developed since we considered its borrowings during the passage of the Act.
  I believe that it is a success story. At that time, the Gas Council supported its application to the House by a publication called "Gas Goes Ahead". The confidence expressed in that title has certainly been justified. In 1963, the industry had plans providing for an increase in gas sold of some 5 per cent. per year. This of itself was a very encouraging figure when one remembers that throughout the 1950s gas was hard-pressed to avoid a net loss in sales.
  One can, therefore, congratulate the industry, firstly, on its optimistic outlook for the future at the time of the 1963 Act and, secondly, on what has happened since. To give an estimate at this stage of future growth is by no means easy. A great deal of the new business which the gas boards are now securing is for seasonal heating, which is very much affected by weather conditions. Although corrections for temperature can be applied there is within this position considerable margin for error and there are signs that heating standards are changing rapidly and, in the main, for the better. Also, the extent to which gas has already caught on varies from one part of the country to another. These and a number of other factors make forecasting a pretty risky business, but I think that we can with some confidence estimate that the rate of increase from now on will be about 7 or 8 per cent. per annum, which of itself is about half as much again as we expected as recently as 1963.
  One may ask how this spectacular resurgence of gas has come about. To
  1464
  those who remember the struggle which the industry was having, almost for survival, a few years ago, this is a most remarkable change. I suppose that basically the reason for the expansion is that the public, and I think particularly the householder as distinct from industry, have taken a new view of the prospects of the industry itself. I think that all of us have been impressed by the scheme to import liquid gas from Algeria, a scheme which has just begun to operate. This is an outstanding example of enterprise by a nationalised industry brought to fruition in co-operation with private concerns and, indeed, with international partnerships.
  In addition, the last few years have seen the coming into operation of two important Lurgi plants for the total gasification of coal, and also the introduction of some very economical and flexible processes for making gas from light oil. On top of all that, there is the possibility of gas being found beneath the North Sea. Under these conditions, it is perhaps no wonder that the man in the street expects gas to be an increasingly competitive fuel.
  It is a short step from that to expecting reductions in the price of gas. Indeed, I was asked a Question about this at Question Time today. This is an issue which is relevant indeed to the Order which I am now asking the House to accept. Like other businesses the area gas boards are meeting increased costs in labour, goods and services. In addition, capital charges are payable before the investment to which such capital charges relate can begin to bear fruit.
  It is important to remember that as yet only a comparatively small proportion of our gas comes from what I might describe as the new low cost sources. At the same time, the industry has to make a suitable contribution to its own development, and perhaps I should mention here that it is now providing upwards of £50 million a year from its own resources, principally depreciation provisions and revenue surplus, which is about half of its annual investment needs.
  Relating all that to the price of gas, I think it is pretty clear that there is, and may remain for some time, a transitional period during which the aim must

  1465
  be to stabilise the price of this fuel. In fact over the last two years the overall price has increased by only a halfpenny per therm, which is a record comparable to that of any industry over the same period.
  During the transitional period there may well be variations, according to the circumstances of individual boards. As the House knows, the industry is based far more on regions than on any central national control. We can have no doubt about the ultimate benefits of the investment which I am asking the House for tonight, in its effects on the financial stability of the industry. It will certainly lead to reductions in the average costs of making gas and to increases in the amounts of gas available to the British public.
  The British winter is not to be underrated, and gas is a most suitable fuel for supplying the seasonal heating load. Per unit of output, the capital cost of the new gas-making plants is quite low, and the distribution is less affected by weather conditions than is the case with most other fuels.
  The Order which we are now discussing is needed rather earlier than was expected when we debated the parent legislation, and I have no apologies to offer for that. The reasons for this are implicit in the increased rate of growth to which I have referred and the increased fixed and working capital which arise from it. It follows that the industry will fairly soon have to apply to Parliament for new legislation to extend its borrowing powers beyond the limits of the 1963 Act.
  That will be an occasion for a more comprehensive look at the picture of the gas industry than I have given tonight, and at this stage I think that the House would not expect me to go beyond the rather short progress report that I have given.
  Summing it up, this money is needed for investment in a growth industry which has an essential part to play in our fuel economy, both in industry and in the home, and I therefore commend the Order to the House.
  10.23 p.m.
  Mr. John Peyton: First, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I want to express our very warm
  1466
  regret that a Measure of this importance should have been produced for the consideration of the House at this late hour. [Laughter.] The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland may laugh, but we have had some experience of his dealing with these matters in the past. I am quite serious. The practice has been to divide into two parts the large sums of money which we lend to nationalised industries. It is one of those second tranches that we are dealing with tonight. The House of Commons is being asked, by way of affirmative Resolution, to give the Minister power to lend this further £50 million to a highly successful industry. I regard as quite monstrous the fact that at this hour we should have to be content with the extraordinarily meagre survey that we have had from the Minister.
  It is wholly wrong that we should be asked to initiate and undertake a discussion of so large an industry as this at this hour. I do not believe for a moment that it is in the public interest that the House should deal so lightly with large sums of money, nor do I believe that this method of proceeding is anything but an affront to the House. We are asked in the most cursory way to apply a rubber stamp to what the Minister appears to suggest is simply a routine operation—
  Mr. Ernest Popplewell: Do not talk such utter rot.
  Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member will have plenty of opportunity to speak later. We have listened to him speak at great length in the past, and I do not doubt that we shall have an opportunity of listening to him tonight. But nothing he says is going to deter me from expressing my point of view and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends.
  Lastly, I would say that the conduct of the Government on this occasion shows a very scant regard for this nationalised industry. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that his exceedingly brief survey has not left us any wiser than we were before. He told us that forecasting was a pretty risky business—I will come back to that point before I finish my remarks. The right hon. Gentleman played vaguely

  1467
  with the idea that there might be a reduction at some time in the price of gas. He conducted an argument with himself which was brought to no conclusion. He referred, rather mysteriously, to a transitional period, during which the aim must be to stabilise the price of this fuel. He went on to use words indicating that the price had already been stabilised. He referred to the reduction in the average costs of making gas without leading us on to any conclusion from that.
  The right hon. Gentleman continued that a new Act of Parliament would be necessary soon which would—we took comfort from this—give us a better opportunity to survey the state of the industry. I profoundly echo the hope of the right hon. Gentleman that we shall have a better opportunity of surveying the state of the industry than the one we are enjoying, or tolerating tonight. I should like something a little more precise from the right hon. Gentleman than the suggestion that soon it will be necessary to have another Bill before the House authorising increased borrowing. Perhaps he can tell us when.
  May I interpolate that we welcome very much the Answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave at Question Time earlier today that the Government have decided to continue the policy—which was attacked very largely by hon. Members opposite when in Opposition—of financial objectives for these industries. As I endeavoured to suggest at Question Time, while we applaud his decision, we nevertheless extend him some sympathy in the difficult task which he may have of explaining this to some of his colleagues.
  As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, it is not long ago that this industry appeared to be thoroughly moribund. Happily, however, the professional mourners have been proved wrong. They were premature in arriving at a decision that this industry had not any future. Instead, we have had remarkable developments such as Lurgi, methane, and the new oil-based processes, and, I think it fair to add, the skill and determination of those involved in the industry. I should like to take the opportunity to pay my tribute to Sir Henry Jones and Sir Kenneth Hutchison
  1468
  particularly. By their tenacity, determination and skill they have seen that all the opportunities available to the industry were used and exploited to the maximum. I am certain that the whole House would agree that they had served this industry with very great distinction. Added to these new processes, which have opened up quite a new future for the industry, we have the prospects of Dutch gas and even new supplies which may be won from the North Sea.
  I think that the progress of the industry may be measured very well by looking at the sales of appliances which over the first six months of the present financial year have shown, so far as space heaters are concerned, an 18 per cent. increase over the same period last year. One must always bear in mind that last year showed a marked increase over the year before. In addition, sales of central heating units have increased by about 14 per cent.
  It is clear from these figures—and it would be possible to produce others like them—that the demand for gas is likely to expand. It is also clear that the new developments demand that we have a clear new look at the requirements of the industry. Very high on the list of priorities is, I believe, the project of underground storage. This is necessary if the industry is to make full use of its investments.
  It is also necessary that there should be some amendment of the industry's structure. The Report of the Select Committee on the industry not long ago made the point perfectly clear that the Gas Council was woefully weak for the functions it was called on to perform. I think I am right in saying that a Bill is ready. Indeed, have not we been told that this is so? Are we now being told that this Bill is being put back; that no time can be found for a Measure which that Select Committee considered was necessary and desirable and that instead that time will be filled in with an iron and steel nationalisation Bill? The Minister laughs at that, but I hope that his laugh will be heard in the country, because what we are saying now, and we will go on saying it, is that the Government must realise that it is their duty to make sure that this and other industries already in public ownership are given every opportunity to succeed.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Peyton: I am pleased to have that applause from hon. Members opposite. I will take time—and there is plenty of it—to remind them that this industry left the gloom and failure and emerged into a highly successful, modern, thriving industry under Tory administration. It was already under public ownership.
  My hon. Friends and I are always being told—we have listened to this idiotic claptrap from hon. Members opposite for many a long day—that the Tory Party is somehow prejudiced against the publicly-owned industries. Yet it was during the period of Tory Administration that this industry embarked on a highly successful period of progress.
  We hope that the Government will take seriously their responsibilities towards these industries and will do all they can to see that they have every chance of succeeding and every chance of prosperity—that is, before they conduct other ill-judged and ill-timed experiments in public ownership.
  I hope that the Minister will give us his views on the subject of underground storage. Is it a necessary part of the gas industry's future progress and, if so, when will he make provision for it?
  We should like to know when the Dutch gas is likely to be available, and at what price, and for what period. If recent Press reports that we are considering taking up to half our needs from Holland are true, can we be told how that supply will be married with supplies that may become available from the North Sea? We have not had from the Government or from the Minister any evidence that this matter has received the most careful consideration.
  When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the industry to be able to provide substantially non-toxic gas? The development of the industry contains the seeds of some very serious problems for the coal industry. Some three years ago, 84 per cent. of our gas production was based on coal; in three years from now that figure will have dwindled dramatically to about 40 per cent. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that abort 50 per cent. of the gas Indus-
  1470
  try's research programme is devoted to means of producing gas from coal?
  Whatever may be the research position, the problem of the relationship between the gas and coal industries remains a serious one. Despite that problem, however, I hope that the Minister will not be led into arresting the gas industry's progress because of pressures on behalf of coal. He should emphatically reject any idea of giving to each industry a fixed share of the fuel market. We believe that all these industries should compete and, in competing, give the customer not only the best value for money but the widest freedom of choice.
  We have had rather ominous references from the party opposite to the importance of a co-ordinated policy for the major fuel industries, and we have now come to the point when we must ask what that means. So far, we have not been told. if in 1955 we had had what I believe is meant by a co-ordinated policy for these industries, where would the gas industry have been today? I do not doubt that it would by now have been stagnating. It would certainly have gone beyond the point of no return. There would have been no dramatic recovery such as it has experienced.
  A document entitled "Twelve Wasted Years", produced by the party opposite and published in September, 1963, contains the following paragraph:
  "In spite of representations from the coal industry, the gas industry is being allowed to go ahead with the production of gas from oil. These are the complications resulting from making two public authorities compete, when a positive programme of co-operation (e.g. siting Lurgi plants on coalfields and distributing the gas by high-pressure pipeline) could satisfy both the nation's fuel requirements and the stability of the industries concerned."
  Does the right hon. Gentleman share the belief implicit in that paragraph that it is wrong to make two publicly-owned industries compete? I should like a clear answer to that question tonight. If we cannot get it tonight, we shall press for a clear answer unceasingly in future.
  I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in confronting the admittedly complicated problems of the fuel economy of the country, will resist any

  1471
  temptation he may have felt or still feels to regard himself as omniscient or to adopt a policy which implies an assumption of infallibility. None of us can see the future of this industry. Prophecies and guesses have been numerous and they have almost never been right. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to confess tonight that forecasting is a risky business. I hope, holding that belief as he does, he will not make the cardinal and almost unforgivable error of committing the fuel economy of this country to such a shaky and unfounded basis as a guess.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will refrain from putting the gas industry or any other fuel industry into a straitjacket. I hope, despite all that the party opposite has said, that he will adhere to the policy of allowing them to compete in order that they may better serve the public interest.
  I end by repeating what I said at the beginning. I very greatly regret that this Measure should have been brought before the House at this late hour. I am sorry that the Minister apparently does not echo these sentiments. I believe that the standing of the House of Commons—if I may mention such a thing to such a Government—demands that we should be given a full opportunity of considering carefully the position and prospects of such an industry. I do not believe that conduct such as we have had from the Government in these circumstances is particularly flattering to an industry which I should have thought well deserving of warmer congratulations from the right hon. Gentleman.
  10.43 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Norwood: I suppose many hon. Members have said this before and many will say it again. I rise with a great deal of humility and a great deal of pride to make my first speech in this House. I do so on this Measure at this hour particularly because I have worked during most of my adult working life in nationalised industries. While I wish to avoid contention where possible, I can only observe that this gives me a somewhat different view from that held by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton).
  I am proud to be in this House. I am proud to represent part of the City of Norwich. I can say no more than
  1472
  that no man could feel happier to represent a finer or fairer city or be more proud of the confidence expressed by the electors.
  The background of this request for additional borrowing powers is simple. It is the renascence of the gas industry. From 1950 to 1959 the sales of the industry remained virtually constant. Since 1959 the gas industry has shown a remarkable increase in sales. There is an explanation for this, an explanation—again I cannot avoid this point of contention—which cannot be gainsaid by a speech as inconsistent as the one made by the hon. Member for Yeovil.
  If we go back to 1954, we find the first of the public estimates put forward by the Gas Council, estimating for 1959–60 the sale of slightly less than 3,000 million therms. My right hon. Friend the Minister has made the point that forecasting is a most uncertain business, and I know this well to my cost. The fact remains, however, that against that estimate of nearly 3,000 million therms, sales in 1960 amounted to 2,500 million therms. In other words, on that occasion the estimators shot high.
  In February, 1960, a further publication appeared. All three publications to which I shall refer were, incidentally, published under the previous Government. For the first time in the history of the gas industry since the war, the February, 1960, publication began to stress the importance of using oil-based products—in other words, gas from oil. In this publication, the shift to oil is justified by arguments of the load factor type, that since oil plant is cheap capital-wise it is reasonable to install it, cutting the capital cost with plant to meet peak load. That is a legitimate argument; I do not think that many would argue against it. That same publication points out—and to do so within a matter of a few paragraphs is "sitting on the fence"—that one of the great things about gas is its importance to the nation in helping to extract the utmost value from coal.
  What about the forecast that was put forward in February, 1960? The forecast for 1965–66 was slightly over 2,800 million therms, or a lower figure than the pundits six years previously had forecast for that same year of 1960. The forecast for domestic use was about 1,350 million therms. The interesting thing about this

  1473
  forecast is that both these figures were exceeded in 1963 and 1964 and there is every indication that sales will continue to rise. Indeed, one of the few remarks made by the hon. Member for Yeovil with which I can agree was his comment that it looks as if the sales of gas will increase. My goodness, the industry's whole plan is based on that assumption. The plan for every other fuel industry is based on that assumption too.
  We can, therefore, describe the estimate made in 1960 as a low shot; the forecasters shot low. One of the things about forecasting is that one cannot be right. if anyone could be right about forecasting, there would be no need to be a forecaster. There are other more profitable activities.
  In October, 1963, the pamphlet "Gas Goes Ahead" was produced. That is a fair title. It describes what has happened in the gas industry. Gas has gone ahead. The previous estimate in 1960 was in terms of a 3 per cent. per annum increase in overall gas sales. In October, 1963, "Gas Goes Ahead" thought in terms of a 5 per cent. per annum increase in gas sales. Tonight, we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Minister that 5 per cent. is now reckoned to be low.
  What is the reason for that? Is it, as the hon. Member for Yeovil suggested, because of a renascence in Government administration? I reject that suggestion, because in that case the hon. Gentleman must account for the previous nine years of stagnation in the industry. What has happened is that the gas industry has been able to shift from dependence upon one fuel. Unlike virtually any other industry, it has been able to shift away from its dependence upon coal and to move into cheap oil-type sources. This has freed the gas industry to adopt new price policies, which it has done.
  We come back to the argument—unacceptable to hon. Members opposite but still true. Let us see the extent of this change. Perhaps I may burden the House with a few more figures. The measure of this change is shown by these gas industry figures for 1958–59 relating to new plant installed in the industry, the plant that commits one for the future. It shows the managerial type of decision that one is making, and one is, after all, committed to that plant.
  1474
  In terms of million cubic feet of capacity, in 1958–59, 31 million cubic feet of carbonisation plant were installed; 71 million cubic feet of oil gasification plant; and other plant—mainly water gas and producer gas—about 5 million. Those figures already show a shift to oil compared with previous years. In the last year for which figures are available, 1963–64, the figures for new carbonisation plant installed were 1 million for coal carbonisation, 262 million for oil gassification and for the other category 92 million.
  This is the extent of the shift away from coal. An industry which in the middle 1950s was using 28 million tons of coal, is now using 21 million tons of coal and by the 1970s, on the most optimistic estimate, will be using 14 million tons of coal. In the context of Great Britain's current fuel situation this seems to me to be a curious arrangement. It is the explanation of the gas industry's success, of its promotional tariff and of its freedom to advertise. It is, I think, a most compelling argument—and this is why I have strayed into the field of contention in this speech—for some sort of complete re-think about the co-ordination of the various fuel industries in this country. On that point I could not be more wholeheartedly in support of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power.
  In asking for the indulgence of the House in having perhaps spoken more strongly than one should in his first speech, my reason is that I work in the fuel industry and there is a tremendous amount to be said for the policy put forward by my right hon. Friend.
  10.53 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am very happy to have the duty and the pleasure of congratulating the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood), as a Member from the gas industry, on his very thoughtful speech.
  Mr. Norwood: I am very sorry, but I must make it plain that if I said that it was a slip of the tongue. I am from the fuel industry—the coal and electricity industries.
  Mr. Lloyd: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for making that mistake. It is true to say that every hon. Member enjoyed his speech very

  1475
  much and will look forward to hearing him speak on fuel problems on other occasions.
  We on this side of the House are very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward this Order, but we are scandalised that he should do so at this hour of the night in view of the fact that it deals with a huge sum of money which ought to be spent on making a further major breakthrough in the magnificent progress of the gas industry in recent years.
  The Minister said that a remarkable change had occurred in the gas industry in the last five years. In saying that, he was paying tribute to the progress of the gas industry under a Conservative Government. If I may say so, I resent very much the attitude of hon. Members opposite, because I would remind some of them, and particularly some of the older Members and those in the miners' group, that I was the first Minister of Fuel and Power after the Labour Government of 1945–51 and that Sir Winston Churchill said that while we were opposed to further nationalisation and although, as he said in his inimitable words, it might somewhat mar the symmetry of party controversy, it was our job to do the best we could for the industries that were nationalised at the time.
  Mr. Popplewell: The House is much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing to its attention the fact that he was the first Tory Minister of Fuel and Power to operate the nationalised gas undertaking. Are we to take it that he was responsible for the ten years of stagnation in the industry and that it was possible only in the last four or five years, after he had left office, to make progress?
  Mr. Lloyd: I shall address myself to that very point. I prefer to take the history of the industry farther back than four years. I think not so much of a remarkable change in the past five years but of an entire transformation in the past ten years. Ten years ago, the gas industry was facing a bleak outlook. It was completely tied to coal. The cost of coal was going up rapidly each year. Gas and coking coals were becoming increasingly scarce, and the National Coal Board took the view, therefore, that cok-
  1476
  ing coal must bear a large increase in price. This was a source of deep frustration to the gas industry, and the outlook was very bad.
  I well remember the chairman of the North Thames Gas Board, now Sir Michael Milne-Watson, coming to see me in 1955 and, in the context of the fuel shortage, speaking of the possibility of bringing to this country in tankers natural gas frozen to a temperature of—260 degrees Fahrenheit and using it to supply our towns here. The House will understand what a daring conception that was at the time. Nevertheless, I encouraged him to go ahead because I could see what the possibilities were.
  It is of interest to know how the project began. A big industrialist in Chicago, Mr. Wood Prince, felt that he was being squeezed by the natural gas suppliers of that area, and he determined to free himself by a ruthless pursuit of the principle of competition. He decided to be the first man in the world to buy gas down in the Gulf of Mexico and to bring it up the Mississippi in special ships. Very hazardous procedures were involved. Nothing like it had been undertaken before. Mr. Prince decided to make special ships with balsa wood as insulation, as steel becomes very soft, almost soft as paper, at such low temperatures, and he carried out experiments in the Louisiana Flats. I arranged, in concert with the chairman of the gas board, that British safety engineers from the Ministry of Transport should go across and familiarise themselves thoroughly with the dangers and the safety precautions which might be necessary for this new method of transporting methane so that, if we were able later to proceed with it, we should be well acquainted with the safety precautions necessary in this hazardous enterprise and be able to proceed faster.
  All this helped the industry a great deal. Afterwards, there were difficult negotiations involving the oil companies, and, eventually the consortium was formed which finally brought matters to success. The gas industry deserves great congratulation for its enterprise, and so do the big companies which have worked with it.
  The question of the gas grid then immediately arose. It would not be worth while bringing in great quantities

  1477
  of natural gas if it could be used only in one area. The industry was, therefore, led right on to the next great development, the gas grid, which everyone agrees has been a great success.
  A new era opened for the gas industry. The existence of supplies of methane and the establishment of the gas grid put the gas industry in a favourable bargaining position with the petroleum companies when it came to make agreements about the light petroleum distillates, the next important development.
  First of all, we have the I.C.I. reforming process which is the basis of most of the gas production from oil at the present time and which is very successful. Then we are glad to know—and I am especially proud of this—that a great deal of research work has been done by the gas industry in its research institute in the West Midlands, very near Birmingham. There, the scientists have found what they believe to be an even better process, the catalytic rich gas process.
  Alas, we are disappointed that their equally enterprising experiments to find a way of gassifying low grade coal have not so far been successful, but one is glad that they are continuing with this research. We hear of even more possibilities—of oil from the North Sea and of a deal with the Dutch. We do not know the details, but they are obviously big possibilities.
  But the industry having taken these several large leaps forward in technical progress, there remains one very important development which will crown all these others and bring them to full fruition, both for the industry and the consumer. This is underground storage.
  The industry has done a great deal of research into this. It knows that it is technically possible. That side is well worked out. What is necessary is legislative provision to enable the work to be done. We know from my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton)—and the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed it—that a Bill is ready now which would enable this great work to continue and to continue fast. We are very disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman, in a somewhat pedestrian statement on the state of the industry at the present time, never once looked
  1478
  ahead, never once saw the vision of the Britain that the Prime Minister has spoken about.
  Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he came in while I was speaking?
  Mr. Lloyd: I was here the whole time. I never heard the right hon. Gentleman putting forward and saying what further great progress would be made if underground storage could be brought in. Perhaps he will tell us whether he is prepared to bring in a Bill and bring it in fast. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would be prepared to support it and give it a good passage so that the industry could fulfil its promise.
  But instead of working hard on such a Bill, the right hon. Gentleman is spending his time on fulfilling what The Times calls the symbolism the Government need—the Iron and Steel Bill. If the Government put in more work on a gas storage Bill, they would serve the country better. If they do not bring in such a Bill they will be betraying the gas industry and greatly hurting the interests of the gas consumers.
  This is important not only for householders. It is equally important industrially, as I appreciate, coming as I do from the West Midlands, which is the greatest consumer of industrial gas in the country and where gas plays an enormous part in the annealing of metals for the big Birmingham metal companies. It is very important that we should have the benefit from underground gas storage.
  By providing gas storage on a big scale we can take advantage of gas in a way that the electricity industry cannot take advantage of electricity. The stored gas would enable the gas industry to continue at an even pace throughout the year, using accumulated stored gas when necessary in winter. This is just the sort of thing the Prime Minister has asked us to consider in moving into the modern, technological age with capital intensified industries and reduction of costs.
  It is gas storage which will enable the country to get the real benefits of the previous fine progress in the industry and give the consumers the opportunity of possible price reductions. The figures are very impressive. From coal carbonisation a therm of gas costs about 1s.;

  1479
  from methane, 7½d.; from these new gas processes only 5½d. The figures speak for themselves. I appreciate the caution of the industry, and indeed of the right hon. Gentleman when he talks with authority and responsibility about the possibilities of price reductions, but the figures speak for themselves. The hon. Member for Norwich, South showed how the industry is changing over from the 1s. a therm process to the 7½d. and 5½d. processes, and it is quite clear what the trend can be.
  If we can add to the possibilities of price reductions the increased efficiency resulting from underground storage, we can then make real progress in a very important fuel for the householder, and in many parts of the country a basic fuel for industry as well. I therefore urge the right hon. Gentleman to lose no time in bringing forward the Gas Storage Bill and to give it priority over the Iron and Steel Bill.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: I respect the right hon. Gentleman's great knowledge of the gas industry, and I appreciate the point that he is making about gas storage, but is it not true that for some considerable time the gas boards desired to store gas at Winchester? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why his Government never brought in the Bill to which he referred?
  Mr. Lloyd: In this country every regard must be had to the susceptibilities of local objections, but I understand that that has now been surmounted and that the Bill is ready and would have been brought in.
  11.6 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest Popplewell: We are all very interested in the enthusiasm shown by the right hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) for the undertaking for which he had so much responsibility during the early days of the Tory Administration. I am somewhat surprised that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) should charge the Government with neglect for not going ahead with the underground storage of gas. During 13½ years of Tory rule there was talk about the possibility of importing methane gas, but they
  1480
  did nothing about storing it underground. It therefore ill becomes them to accuse the Government, after less than two months in power, during which time they have tried to restore the good name of this country—something which was necessary after the neglect and ineptitude shown by the Tory Administration—of neglect in dealing with this question. It is remarkable what a complete change-about there has been. It is astonishing what happens when the Tories are in Opposition.
  I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) on his knowledgeable portrait of the situation facing the fuel and power industries as a whole. He rightly pinpointed the tremendous difficulties involved when this question is being discussed. In spite of the statements of the hon. Member for Yeovil, I think that there is a need for a comprehensive fuel policy. The tenor of the debate is indicative of the essential part played by fuel in our economy, and we must, therefore, ensure that all forms of fuel are utilised in the best interests of the nation.
  The gas industry can rightly claim that with the importation of oil, methane gas, and so on, from abroad it can play a large part in providing a cheaper fuel, but we must also think of our own natural resources, and not allow profitability, which is so dear to hon. Gentlemen opposite, to be the only factor in deciding which fuel to use. There are social factors to be taken into consideration in working out our fuel policy.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is making a point about profitability. That is one way of looking at it. Keeping down production costs to maintain full employment is another.
  Mr. Popplewell: Both those points have been considered, but what I am saying is that social needs have to be assessed as a criterion in addition to mere profitability.
  I was extremely intrigued to hear the protests which came from the other side of the House about this Order being considered at this late hour. It made me wonder how many times right hon. and hon. Members opposite used to ask us to debate these Orders at this time of night. During the comparatively brief spell when

  1481
  the right hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field was at the Ministry of Power, did he not discuss this type of Order at a late hour or listen to discussions on other Orders from other Departments? Did this not happen under his own Administration?
  I was amused by the hon. Member for Yeovil in his synthetic and histrionic protest which filled this side of the House with sympathy for his gestation—[Interruption.]—yes, I said gestation. We were further interested as the debate unfolded to discover that very little came from Members opposite which related to this Order. We did not see any real desire to talk about fuel, and I suggest that at the first opportunity the Opposition ask for a Supply Day to be used for discussion of this important topic. I assure right hon. and hon. Members opposite that we shall be most delighted to discuss the subject with them.
  To return to this Order, I compliment my hon. Friend on the way in which he introduced it. He certainly dealt with its merits. I should like to ask, first, whether he would have another look at the gas industry as a whole. For example, he said that the industry had to supply half of its investments from current revenue—some £50 millions of investment. That amount has to be provided from a total of £100 millions a year. Is not this putting an undue proportion of expenditure on the undertaking? Is it not mortgaging too much of the future to expect so vast a sum to come from current revenue?
  The hon. Member for Yeovil talked of the straitjacket in which the gas industry found itself. I agree, but I hope that this Government will take it off this industry and other publicly-owned undertakings, and give them full commercial freedom to compete on equal terms with private enterprise. The hard fact is that this straitjacket was put on the publicly-owned industries by hon. Members opposite.
  Why not allow the gas undertaking to produce the component parts which it feels are essential for the sale of its wares? Hon. Members opposite had the opportunity to do that, but the opportunity was never taken because the straitjacket was imposed which prevented such freedom. We should give
  1482
  the same commercial freedom to the publicly-owned industries as private enterprise enjoys. The success story which would then unveil itself, in spite of the shackles which have been placed by hon. Members opposite on the nationalised undertakings, would rocket upwards and astound the Minister. Even in the remarks of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield one could trace a certain amount of pride in the achievements of the gas industry. He was one of the persons who was concerned with its administration when he was a Minister, and we have heard many former Tory Ministers defending publicly-owned undertakings, although politically and from a doctrinaire point of view they condemned them.
  My right hon. Friend indicated that £650 million would not be sufficient. This is typically Tory administration. In the past a number of half-measures have been put forward by hon. Members opposite when they were in the Government. On many occasions we have been asked to subsidise an undertaking that, given commercial freedom, would not need a subsidy. We have heard many Tory Ministers say that these subsidies would be required only for a short period. This is the same thing all over again. I therefore suggest that before my right hon. Friend comes forward with a request for a further extension of this kind he should take the first step towards giving complete commercial freedom to all the undertakings for which he has responsibility.
  If that happens we shall be able to go a long way not only towards providing a more efficient service but to reducing the price of gas and keeping prices at a much more stable level. This is very necessary. If we want to repair the damage done to our balance of payments by the Tory Administration the best way of doing so is by keeping prices stable, and by avoiding the vicious circle which has bedevilled us in the past.
  I put these suggestions to my right hon. Friend for further consideration. I am sure that if he follows them even hon. Members opposite will not be able to cast stones at publicly-owned undertakings in the way they have done in the past. Instead, they and the nation will realise the wonderful success stories that can be told by these undertakings.
  11.18 p.m.
  Colonel C. G. Lancaster: I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) and with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) in expressing my congratulations to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) on his excellent maiden speech, which was so well-informed, modest, and to the point.
  I also take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West on being appointed Chairman of the Select Committee dealing with nationalised industry matters. I am sorry, however, that in his new-found position he did not refer to the Select Committee, because four years ago it considered the gas industry in considerable detail.
  I am not concerned with debating this matter at this late hour, but I am concerned with the cursory manner in which the Minister put forward his claim for £50 million, and the slight reference that he made to the developments in this immensely important industry. Of course the House would wish to give him the additional finance for which he is asking, but we are justified in saying that the gas industry has perhaps been more successful in selling gas than in forecasting its future financial requirements. It is only a short time ago that the House made provision for its financing at the rate of £600 million.
  I, of course, cannot agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West when he says that this £50 million is a gross imposition on that industry and that it is too large a proportion of their net returns to have to put into their own capital requirements. Ever since the inception of the Select Committee inquiries into the various corporations, one of the things which has struck me most, particularly recently, is what pleasure the chairmen of these corporations express towards the White Paper which laid down the new system of financing and gave them a feeling that they were themselves contributing so substantially to their own requirements.
  Hitherto they had to go cap in hand to the Treasury for any money they wanted. It is impossible for them to go to the public market which would be the
  1484
  most ideal means, but they are, of course, given power to level their prices so that they can make very large reserves, and do make large reserves. I have noticed that they are glad to have the opportunity of contributing so materially from their own reserves in order to meet their own capital requirements. Undoubtedly this £50 million will not, I am sure, be the end of the story. The Minister will be coming back within a short time to ask for more. That in a sense is a measure of the success which is attending the efforts of this industry. It is remarkable and everyone who has spoken has paid tribute to that.
  Since the Select Committee's inquiries into the gas industry, it has risen from approximately £2 million net profit to last year's considerable increase at round about £9 million. If the Minister's forecast of a 7 per cent. increase holds good, and I have no reason to suppose it will not, we can expect that £9 million to be improved upon considerably. One of the things that does give satisfaction is the fact that since we inquired into the industry it has made considerable provision for its own obsolescence, amounting to something like £19.5 million. That is one of the recommendations we made and it has carried it out faithfully.
  As to the industry's developments, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, these are considerable. The cost of making gas in new oil reforming plants has been reduced in relation to electricity produced by conventional coal-or oil-fired methods by more than four times. That, as it progresses, will have a very real bearing on the importation of methane. As the Minister said, we have quite recently had the first ship bringing Sahara methane into this country and we are at present, I understand, in consultation with the Dutch about bringing in methane from Holland either by ship or possibly by some cross-Channel pipe.
  Whether the whole of this development in regard to methane will not be submerged by the big development brought about by oil gasification by two very remarkable developments enabling us to get rich gas from naphtha, and whether we shall find methane even in these early days beginning to take a back seat as against developments on oil gasification, I think is open to question. In either case it is inevitable that the development

  1485
  of this industry vis-á-vis the other energy producing industries is bound to be very great indeed.
  In the United States 30 per cent. of the energy requirements in that great country today comes from gas. In this country at the present moment it is of the order of 6 per cent. That, I think, gives the House some idea of the immense developments which lie ahead of us. I join with my hon. Friends in saying that I hope that the greatest freedom will be given to this industry to develop, either through the use of methane or oil, and the like, so that it can play its part in bringing about a reduction in prices.
  There is plenty of room for electricity. The requirements of industry for electricity are by no means satisfied. But equally there is a great field not only in regard to gas fires and space heating, and the like, but for the use of gas in a great variety of industries as well. Gas has a large part to play, and if greater freedom is given to the industry to compete with electricity and oil, the greater will be the advantage to the country itself.
  I go further and say that I wish that the Minister had been able to hold out some greater hope that we should see a reduction in prices in the not too distant future. As I say, such advances have been made that it is now possible to produce gas at a price one-quarter of that produced under pure oil or electricity methods. This must give some indication of the fact that a considerable field of opportunity lies ahead of us in bringing about a reduction in the price of gas itself.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the price of a therm of gas. I am not entirely with him. I thought that gas produced by the conventional method cost nearer 1s. 3d. than 1s.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I was giving the more conservative figure of 1s., having taken credit for coke and its by-products.
  Colonel Lancaster: My own figure was something of the order of 1s. 3d. whereas a therm of gas produced by methane was of the order of 8¾d. and a therm produced under this new oil method was nearer 6d. This gives some indication of the very wide opportunity that exists for producing gas between, as I say, 1s. 3d. a therm or, as my right
  1486
  hon. Friend says, 1s. a therm and 6d. It shows that there is every chance of a considerable reduction in the not too distant future.
  Having dealt with that, I want to go back to two of the recommendations made by the Select Committee and which, of course, were not referred to in the Minister's speech tonight. The first was in regard to the structure of the industry itself. The Select Committee made a very definite recommendation that that should be looked into and that it should be improved.
  We came to the conclusion that a council consisting of a chairman and vice-chairman and 12 area chairmen was not a sound method for controlling the industry. The 12 area chairmen were considered to be of a very high level of ability and men of considerable independence of thought. We considered that the job of attempting to be an area chairman and to sit on a central council and to speak with two voices was asking too much of these men, and that, indeed, they were not doing the job effectively. We noticed this particularly in their approach to the Lurgi process. They did not speak with one voice and it looked unlikely that they would on the developments that lay ahead. We strongly recommended—and the House will realise that it was an all-party Committee—that the council should be reformed. I hope that before long that matter will be looked into.
  Another matter which received our attention and recommendation was the question of the underground storage of gas. This is a subject of immense importance and it has not been possible until recently to speak with any great experience about it. It is an involved geological problem. Mention was made from the benches opposite about the underground storage of gas at Winchester and that that scheme was dropped. I can assure the House that it was not dropped because of local objections but because the best advice both in this country and from the Continent was that the risks in storing gas under the strata underlying Winchester were too great to warrant such a development.
  It has been shown that there are other, more suitable, strata, clay in particular and, in some cases, sand. Clay is the most suitable for underground storage.

  1487
  But whether it is done in clay or otherwise, the necessity to push ahead now that a great body of experience has been gained is paramount, for whatever developments we have been discussing tonight, they will not be wholly satisfactory until we can get the full benefit of not only these new processes but of being able to store the gas.
  Like all hon. Members, I agree with the necessity for this Order of £50 million. I wish that the Minister had elaborated his case rather more on some of the matters which are essential for the future progress of the gas industry. The opportunities for the industry are immense, possibly greater than any of the other industries concerned with power. We all wish the industry well.
  11.33 p.m.
  Mr. Neil Carmichael: At this late hour, I do not wish to speak at great length. I felt that, since we are discussing something as great as the gas industry, not to have a voice from Scotland would be remiss, particularly since the history of the gas industry in Scotland has been even more remarkable than in other parts of the country.
  Because of the geographical layout and historic nature of Scotland, we have entrusted a vast amount of work to the Scottish Gas Board. It is surprising to realise that that board has undertaken 200 work projects for a population of about 5 million people. Hon. Members representing East Midlands and North-East constituences speak about the gas industry's progress in vastly more heavily populated areas.
  Because of the geographic layout of Scotland and the history of the gas industry there, the Scottish Gas Board has a particularly difficult task. It may surprise hon. Members who represent densely populated areas like the East Midlands and the North-East to realise that on vesting day the Scottish Gas Board was responsible for nearly 200 production works, and this for a population of about 5 million. Because of the Board's work the producing units have been cut by two-thirds, and this process is continuing.
  There is not the slightest doubt that only a nationalised industry could have got such rationalisation, and pulled up
  1488
  the industry in Scotland by its bootstraps. We had from the other side a curious blend of speeches—well-informed for the most part, but always one sensed that though hon. Members had to praise the industry they were somehow sorry that it had succeeded as a nationalised industry. It was rather difficult for them to admit that a nationalised industry had done so well.
  The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said that he wanted to encourage the nationalised industries, but nobody who listened to him for very long could feel that that was so. I see that in the debate on the nationalised industries on 18th June the hon. Gentleman voted against any expansion—which was really a vote of no confidence in them.
  Criticisms of my right hon. Friend's brevity, and of the time at which this Order is being debated are also very largely a matter of "going through the motions." We all know that it is quite customary for such Orders to be discussed fairly late at night, while my right hon. Friend explained that he did not speak at length because the gas industry spoke for itself. He was speaking of a going concern and wanted additional authority to enable it to go ahead. From the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite it was evident that they, too, regarded gas as a going concern—so why should they criticise my right hon. Friend for his statement?
  Of four main things that must be done fairly quickly, three relate to gas. First, the Gas Board must continue its search for a non-toxic gas. Some parts of the country have it, and it is high time that this work was speeded up. Particularly in some of the older areas where the underground pipes and the installations are ageing, we must have non-toxic gas as soon as possible. We have to accept the fact that removal of the toxic substances will probably mean a slight increase in cost, but I am sure that people would be quite willing to pay such a marginal increase if they could feel that the old hazard from gas had been completely removed.
  Next, investigation of underground storage is quite vital. Here, one felt that hon. Members opposite were quite willing to let us have underground storage in return for giving up steel. They will give us almost anything if we

  1489
  will give up steel, but as we feel that steel is just as important to the economy as the decision to nationalise the gas industry has proved to be, they are unlikely to be successful in their efforts in that direction.
  In addition to the grid being extended, as was discussed by a previous Minister of Fuel and Power in a very well-informed speech, we must move to the supergrid very quickly. I hope the day is not too far ahead when, if Glasgow, Edinburgh or some other Scottish city is short of gas, we can push supplies to it from Birmingham or Manchester—although if the history of the last 13 years is anything to go by and were to continue, the gas would more likely be pushed the other way. In British terms the distances may be great, but in Continental or American terms they are as nothing. The supergrid must be started from some point fairly soon.
  Most important of all—I am sure that I shall have little support from hon. Members opposite on this—if we are to have competition I am quite happy about it so long as it is in the production of fuel. We are fast reaching a stage where we must have a co-ordinated policy for selling fuel. This is particularly true of domestic sales. The average householder who wants to install central heating is bewildered, not by people genuinely telling him what is the best way to go about it, but in most cases by those suggesting the best way which will get a particular individual a bonus as against another individual interested in another fuel wanting a bonus.
  I should like to see in the centre of big cities, instead of gas or electricity showrooms or a coal utilisation centre, a fuel and power centre where trained engineers and salesmen would be able to look at a particular problem and say that for an individual house or process the obvious answer is gas, electricity, oil, or some other type of fuel. The time is coming very quickly when we should end this wastage which as a nation we should not tolerate. In the next 10 years I hope gnat we shall see the day when instead of being badgered with brightly coloured brochures we shall have factual evidence given by people in the industries who are now engaged in cutting each other's throats. I commend this suggestion to my right hon. Friend. I know
  1490
  that many people in the fuel industry would like such a set-up.
  My right hon. Friend made a perfect point when he said that he was putting forward a prospectus for a growing, expanding and healthy industry. I am happy to await the further Measure and the longer report he has promised to introduce.
  11.43 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Bessell: It may be somewhat impertinent of me as a new Member to compliment the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) on his maiden speech, but I should not like the occasion to go by without a word of compliment from this bench. On behalf of my party I add my congratulations to those which have been expressed by other hon. Members.
  I have a sneaking suspicion that at this hour of the night hon. Members in all parts of the House would be far happier to be in their beds than listening to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I share their view entirely and I shall therefore address myself to the point with brevity. I do not feel that we can allow the debate to finish without a word of congraulation from the Liberal bench to this great industry. There is no doubt that there has been a wide measure of agreement on both sides of the House tonight in spite of appearances to the contrary. The gas industry has gone forward in a way which is deserving of great praise. I certainly shall not enter whether that is the result of its being under public ownership—although, for the record, the Liberal Party voted with the Labour Party on that during the 1945 Government—or whether it is the result of Conservative administration in the past 13 years. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that the greatest possible praise is due to the industry and I am glad of the opportunity to say this tonight.
  There has been a great rise in demand, which is satisfactory to the industry and to the nation as a whole. This is in part due to the fact that it is no longer regarded as sensible to get up in the morning to a cold bedroom and to take a cold bath. Although our Victorian ancestors thought this virtuous, it is much more practical to enjoy the modern amenities of heat and comfort. This is

  1491
  also part of the general rise in national prosperity. We should not, however, overlook the fact that it is also due to the considerable technological advances in the gas industry. Great credit is due to the industry for the strides it has made, particularly in recent years, in domestic heaters as well as in the industrial field. It is necessary that this work should be encouraged, that there should be a continuation of the programmes of modernisation, that there should be a full examination of methods of underground storage and that every opportunity should be examined for research into new sources of gas.
  Whilst giving that encouragement, we must pay tribute to the industry also for the fact it has produced so much of its capital requirement from its own income and resources. In this way, the industry sets a remarkably good example to other nationalised industry.
  One aspect of the industry which is important concerns the extension of smokeless zones. Gas has a great part to play in this and from a health standpoint, apart from all other considerations, this great industry should receive encouragement. In future, too, we in this House should look carefully at proposals for the further advancement of this great industry. I conclude by saying that we on this bench give support to the purpose behind tonight's Measure and that we welcome it.
  11.48 p.m.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: As, perhaps, one of the last speakers in this debate, I will endeavour to be brief. My position is rather difficult, however, as I have not attended or taken part in the proceedings of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries; and I cannot claim to be an expert on the industry, although I made my maiden speech on the gas industry. Firstly, I therefore congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) on his maiden speech tonight.
  There is a difficulty. As Members of Parliament, we are trustees for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's money. We are also trying at this late hour to make a wider appreciation of the possibilities of gas and of the gas industry. Our debate tonight has, perhaps, been a compromise
  1492
  between the two. We have before us an Order which, in two main sentences, decides that the gas industry should be allocated more money.
  One of my difficulties as a trustee is in trying to underwrite the activities of the Select Committee. It might have been better if the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries had looked at the Order and given us the benefit of its advice before we had to debate it in the House of Commons.
  We learn from the Minister's statement that the increase in gas sales is likely to be about 7 or 8 per cent. as against the estimate published six months ago of 5 per cent. in the current year and a figure of 3 per cent. in the previous year. We have thus had confirmation of the increase in demand for gas.
  We have also the annual White Paper. The latest one, Government Expenditure Below The Line 1964–65, was published in April. On page 17, it contains an appreciation of the "Estimated Issues out of and Receipts into the Consolidated Fund Below the Line". This gives a figure of roughly £20·8 as against £68·8 million quoted by the Gas Council the year before. That would indicate a slightly reduced requirement. Does this match up to the proposals which have been put forward by the Minister this evening?
  As the taxpayer's trustee, I find my position similar to that of a trustee looking at a private company which wishes to expand. The problem of managing a nationalised industry is similar to the problem of managing a large industrial concern. The company goes to its merchant bankers or its stockbrokers and asks for more money. It might be a private loan from the bank or a public issue of debenture stock or preference stock. There would have to be a prospectus. Therefore, if private industry wanted this extra money, we would demand much more information than the Minister has given us or than has been published in the various reports.
  We want to know how much capital has already been invested in the industry, what the increase is going to be in each particular endeavour of the industry, and we want to know more about the current return on capital. One figure bandied about is 10·1 per cent. If therefore all this money is wasted, it is the taxpayer

  1493
  who pays. This is going to be the increasing problem of running our nationalised industries.
  I see the hon. Member who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries which dealt with the gas industry. This could well be his problem as the years go by.
  Mr. Popplewell: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Select Committee's Report on the gas industry, he will find that this Order is more in accord with the recommendations that the Committee made at the time.
  Mr. Osborn: That is exactly what I have been doing, as I knew that this subject would be debated, and I shall pursue my point. We come back to the information which is before us, namely, that we are asked to raise the borrowing powers by £50 million. What could I find from the Select Committee's Reports? There are two Reports that we have a chance of studying. The first was printed on 5th June, 1962. Perhaps I may quote from paragraph 38, in Part II of the Report, on page 10:
  "The Committee … believes that a minimum standard rate of return should be laid down for the Boards by the Minister in respect of large investment projects, and that this should introduce a greater sense of realism into the plans which are to be made."
  I gather that is what the hon. Member was referring to. This is excellent. But do we know that this now applies? This is the recommendation of the Committee, but has it been implemented?
  Let us look at the Second Special Report which was published in March, 1964. The hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) has referred to paragraphs 43 and 44. Reference is made to the two alternative ways of reorganising the gas industry. To what extent has that been carried out? To what extent is that necessary in connection with the increase in these borrowing powers?
  There is also mention of the increase in the number of Council members. Paragraph 49 refers to legislation to provide for the development of underground storage of gas, the advantages of which have been referred to in the Committee's Report. There comes a stage when, if we are asked to vote more money, as representatives of the tax-
  1494
  payers, we surely ought to know what progress has been made towards implementing these recommendations.
  I apologise for raising at this hour technical questions which, admittedly, are Select Committee questions, but this is part of the routine of politics and part of the work which we must do as Members of Parliament if we are to look after the taxpayer's money which, in this case, is to be spent by the gas industry.
  There have been other documents and reports. The excellent summary in "Gas Goes Ahead", a development plan to 1970, gives some idea of the industry's proposals, which we welcome, but there seems to have been a remarkable increase in its borrowing powers lately, and this calls for redoubled energy in scrutinising how the money is being spent. It would have been more satisfactory if an equivalent kind of document, perhaps in the form of a statement, had been presented with this Order so that we could assess for ourselves what progress had been made along the lines of the plan rather than take the Minister's word for it.
  I made my maiden speech four years ago on the gas industry, and I referred then to the importation of methane from the Sahara and to the creation of the gas grid. In the past four years, the first section of the grid has been established. I welcome the Minister's announcement of the level of gas imports, 350 million therms a year, and his reference to a price of 6¼d. per therm, which is remarkably cheap.
  In my maiden speech I spoke also about the economics of the household use of gas, a matter which was dealt with this evening by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael), and I discussed the merits and demerits of various forms of fuel for heating a house. Much has changed in four years. There has been a dynamic change in the gas industry itself.
  But the industry has had its successes and its disappointments. I have had the privilege, as many hon. Members have, of going to Birmingham and West Fife where the Lurgi process has been put into operation. These projects may in due course be worth while, and continued expenditure on them will be justified, if in the end we find a process which will enable us to use low grade solid fuel.

  1495
  One can praise the industry sometimes, and other times not. What is most interesting now is that various customers and would-be customers are surveying their own requirements in the light of a possible price of 6d., 8d. or 10d. a therm. This contrasts with the average present price of gas of 22·77d. per therm to the consumer. Such a reduction would be remarkable and much to be welcomed if it could be implemented and if the industry could still earn a return on capital invested.
  It would be with reluctance, therefore, that one would object to the giving of this increased borrowing power if the consumer can look for reductions in price of that kind at the end of the day. So far, we have only the Minister's word for it. It is a far cry from 22·77d. per therm to the promise before us, but, if the promise can be fulfilled, there will be vast changes.
  The hon. Member for Woodside spoke of the toxicity of gas. In the last four or five years, the carbon monoxide content has come down as a result of the introduction of new processes. Whereas 10 per cent. would have been regarded as normal, it is now 3 per cent., and this factor makes the use of gas more safe. I am referring not to the risk of explosion after leakage from pipes but to the other hazard which sometimes discourages its use.
  I could in conclusion raise many other points but it is not my wish to do so now. We in this House should know how this money is to be spent and be sure that it is spent in those areas where it should be spent and not outside them. For instance, to what extent should we encourage the Gas Council in North Sea activities? Would it not be better—and this was indicated in the Select Committee's Report—for that type of exploitation and development to be carried out by outsiders, with the encouragement of the Gas Council, which would do more purchasing from outside? There will have to be agreements with the Dutch. Would it not be better for the Gas Council to concentrate more on that kind of thing than on North Sea developments itself?
  These questions are nebulous but in the Yorkshire area where I come from we hear of extensive developments in the Humber and Hull. Would this not be in-
  1496
  evitable if adequate resources of natural gas were found in the North Sea?
  It is difficult at this late hour to judge correctly whether or not this money is being spent wisely by the Gas Council, because we do not know. The gas industry has had a very fine record in the last four or five years and therefore my inclination is to support this Order. But on future occasions we shall want much more information before we can judge whether or not the money is being well spent.
  12.1 a.m.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: Even in the West Country there is considerable interest in the gas industry and, indeed, in Bristol we have a gas works of some considerable quality. It was only in the village of Chew Magna that the industry originally escaped nationalisation and this was because no one knew about the works there until a new main was dug, when it became part of the nationalised undertaking.
  I do not wish to detain the House too long so I will try to compress my remarks on the more important aspects. Gas is a most significant form of power and has enormous social advantages, some of which have been mentioned tonight. As one who is keen on the preservation of our countryside, I might emphasise the complete absence of pylons and wires and other excrescences on the surface of the ground.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: What about gasometers?
  Mr. Cooke: I am coming to them. I dearly love the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), although I cannot call him my hon. Friend, but I shall not follow him now in his sedentary interruptions.
  This is a vitally important industry and that is emphasised by the fact that the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) chose to make his maiden speech on the Order at this late hour. That is indication enough of the importance of the subject. He said that he would not be controversial but did enter into controversy in his remarks about a complete rethinking of national fuel policy.
  I could not help thinking that underlying that was the fear that perhaps the

  1497
  nationalised coal industry might find itself contracted still further because the gas industry was coming to rely less and less on coal. Certainly the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) had very stern words to say about it. He suggested that the coal industry must not be sacrificed in the name of profitability.
  What on earth does that mean? Surely we are not to be asked to run any industry as a social service for those employed in it. Before that statement evokes a roar of disapproval from hon. Members opposite, may I say that I realise that, in the great changes that are taking place in our great industries, of course the welfare of those employed in them and who will have to change their jobs is of great importance to this Government, as it was to the last.
  That must be a paramount charge on any changes that take place. The idea that he had in mind was that an industry should be kept going in an unproductive way purely as a social service to provide employment for those in it. The gas industry, to which we are being asked to vote considerably increased funds, must exist on its own and must make use of every modern invention which comes to hand.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing their best to prolong this short speech of mine. I have no intention of inflicting myself on the House for longer than is necessary—[HON. EMBERS: "Hear, hear:]—but I must warn hon. Gentlemen opposite that there is a limit to the patience of even the most saintly hon. Member, and it may be necessary to take up some of the interventions, mostly made from a seated position.
  The Minister was rather coy in his forecasts of future policy and future trends, and even this glossy booklet, one of a fistful which I was handed from the Vote Office when I asked for the papers on this debate, does not go very far. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take a leaf out of the book of his right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General who, the other day, on purely hypothetical figures, forecast losses in the postal services for five years ahead. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could use that type of crystal ball in getting a much
  1498
  more satisfactory view of the future of the gas industry.
  Much more could be said about this subject, and especially about the future methods of producing gas, but one would not wish to go into those technicalities at this stage, because no doubt there will be other opportunities for doing so. The House will recall that a day or two ago the Government, somewhat reluctantly, confirmed the licences for activities in the North Sea, which have a considerable bearing on this subject. If that is any indication of the sort of attitude which the Government are going to adopt to this vitally important industry, and indeed to others, on which the whole future of the economy depends, there is not much hope for this country. The future of the economy cannot be settled by borrowing money from abroad at exhorbitant rates. It can be settled only by working for it.
  Mr. Bence: Not at ten past twelve.
  Mr. Cooke: The hon. Gentleman says not at ten past twelve. Surely that is typical of the attitude of the Government. They want to work for only eight hours a day. I do not know whether it will be a five-day week. I doubt whether it will be; it is more likely to be four. That is the sort of attitude which the Government adopt. We are discussing a vitally important matter at this late hour, and all that we can get from hon. Gentlemen opposite is ribald laughter. I have not even attempted to make a speech which was remotely amusing. I could do better than this if I were trying to put on a comic turn. But the House of Commons is not the place for that.
  There are a few final thoughts which I should like to give the House. One of these is on the question whether the gas industry should have some permanently fixed share in our fuel policy. We have heard that sentiment expressed. Surely that would be a most dangerous attitude to adopt. One must be flexible in this. One must be able to adapt oneself to future needs. Are we going to have a Ministerial reply which will give us a little more indication—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not tonight."]—That is all that we hear from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Before we vote this money, we ought to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are prepared to

  1499
  grasp all the new opportunities of the technological age. What is the new Minister of Technology doing about the future of the gas industry? We are being asked to approve this expenditure. The House has a right to know what is going to be done with it.
  12.10 a.m.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: I should like to join in the congratulations offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) on a most admirable maiden speech. It was most knowledgeable and full of interest for the whole House. I heartily congratulate him upon it and assure him that we shall look forward to hearing future contributions from him on this subject.
  I began to get a little alarmed when the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) leaned so far across the Dispatch Box as almost to do himself a mischief in his great anxiety to criticise me for having dared to bring on this Order for discussion at so late an hour, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to HANSARD for 29th July, 1963. There, at column 171, we read,
  "GAS (BORROWING POWERS) ORDER.
  10.29 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Peyton): I beg to move,
  That the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order, 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 29th July, 1963, Vol. 682, c. 171.]
  That was at 10.29 p.m., and the hon. Gentleman got through his explanation in three minutes flat and sat down at 10.32.
  Mr. Peyton: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would also be good enough to inform the House for how long the debate continued and, secondly, whether I spoke again.
  Mr. Lee: If the hon. Gentleman does not wish to have a reply to this debate, then that is splendid. We can then all go home, but at least I should like to mention this ersatz approach to the debate, about starting at a late hour, and at the same time complaining that I confined myself only to what is in the Order. This comes ill from one who did exactly the same thing in 1963, but managed it in only three minutes.
  1500
  Tonight we have heard of ventures in the North Sea, and possibilities of an agreement so far as Dutch natural gas is concerned, but, at this stage, these things, important though they are, have nothing whatever to do with whether or not we agree to an increase of £50 millions for the Gas Council. Those other matters are vitally important issues and I venture to think that we shall discuss them, but for hon. Members opposite to criticise me for the alleged narrowness of my speech because I confined myself to the increased borrowing and did not talk about Holland or the North Sea, is not the best of criticism.
  It seems tonight that my hon. Friends have been badly out-done in the pæans of praise and the superlative approval for the benefits of nationalisation. "The junkyard of nationalisation". Where have we heard that expression? The right hon. Gentleman who once held the position I now have showered congratulations on this nationalised industry for the remarkable speed with which it had gone ahead, and the way in which every opportunity had been grasped in order to eliminate the fears which faced the industry only four or five years ago.
  To say that it is a very fine compliment for all the things which we have advocated over the years is one thing; to think of all the denigration of the nationalised industries, which has been a constant theme of the Tory Party and which has cost the party millions of pounds in propaganda, is another. These things can be brought up against hon. Members opposite when the occasion arises.
  The hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Col. Lancaster) and the hon. Member for Yeovil raised the question of storage, and the need for the reconstruction of the industry itself. These are not issues which come within the general discussion of this £50 million, although I agree that they are vital ones. The Select Committee reported four years ago. There is no question of the Gas Council being in any way held up for lack of those powers. Nevertheless, I recognise that if we are to have success in the North Sea venture—if, indeed, at some stage there is agreement between the Gas Council and the Dutch authorities—such storage would become utterly inevitable.

  1501
  But when we receive criticisms from the hon. and gallant Member we remember that it was four years ago that the Select Committee reported, and also that when a Bill came to the House it was not sponsored by the Tory Government but by the Gas Council as a private Bill. The criticism that was made in that debate was centred on the fact that it was a Private Bill. Why is it that that which was not deemed necessary prior to 15th October, namely, for the Government to introduce a Bill, has suddenly become imperative within a few days of 15th October? We reject the rather cynical approach of hon. Members opposite, who had years in which to introduce such a Measure and did not believe that it was imperative, but have now suddenly found—they being out of office—how important and vital it is that this Measure should be on the Statute Book.
  I, too, want legislation as soon as possible. I agree that there is a need for giving more power to the Council as distinct from area boards. National ventures such as we have been discussing, whether for importing methane or searching, for gas beneath the North Sea, require more power at the centre. I repeat, however, that at the moment we are not holding up any progress in the industry. We hope to get the necessary legislation, and the Bill is practically ready, but there is the question of priorities in the Parliamentary timetable, and I cannot say when it will be possible to introduce the Measure. It will certainly he introduced long before the industry could be held up for lack of the necessary power, but I cannot say that it will be introduced this Session.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I appreciate that the question of the powers of the Gas Council would not hold up anything, but surely the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it is urgent that the industry should have this Bill to give it power to get on with underground storage.
  Mr. Lee: I do not dissent from that. I repeat that it is not holding up the development of the industry at the moment, nor can it for some time. Secondly, I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says; I, too, would like to get this legislation as soon as possible.
  The reasons why the Gas Council requires increased borrowing powers I gave
  1502
  in the course of my opening speech, and at this time of the day I am pretty sure that a repetition of what I said would hardly be appreciated in any part of the House.
  During the debate there has been no dissenting voice from the basic argument that this is a highly successful industry, and because of its success it now requires an increase in its borrowing powers. Much of the investment already undertaken cannot possibly yield results in the meantime, and therefore this £50 million is necessary. If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) had any doubts whether this is a good investment I would say that many people would love to put the £50 million up as private people, if they had the chance. I may be exciting ideas among hon. Members opposite when I say that, since past history has shown that whenever nationalised industries are guilty of making profits they immediately become candidates for denationalisation in the eyes of the party opposite.
  I was asked whether we would further competition in the nationalised industries. It is a fantastic situation that apparently these days the Tories are advocates of more cut-throat competition in the nationalised industries and the elimination of any competition for the private ones. This is a fantastic situation. I hope that the House will now be prepared to agree that we have made the case for the increase of £50 million. I commend the Order to the House.
  12.20 a.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The Minister was remarkably quick to rise to his feet, and I might have let him to bed before I had opportunity to wind up the debate from this side of the House had he not made such an unsatisfactory speech at his second attempt as well as at his first. It is not our fault that the House is troubled at this late hour with discussing this important matter. We did not put down the Order for tonight. If the Government had not troubled themselves with a lot of contentious legislation and asked us to take this Order late at night on top of it, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would not have been sitting on the benches opposite longing for their rest in the way they now do.

  1503
  I hope that the Government, when they come back to the House for more borrowing powers for the Gas Council, will make certain that they give us a full day's debate. When the present Act was debated it was done at a more suitable time than ten o'clock at night—the time when the debate on this Order started. In spite of the late hour we have had a good debate and I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends upon the assiduity and attention with which they attend the affairs of the Gas Council. The way in which my hon. Friends have taken part in this debate goes a long way to disprove the allegations that the Tories do not care for the nationalised industries, which have been made so freely from the other side of the House.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that this Order had nothing to do with the various projects we have been talking about. This Order is for £50 million new investment by the Gas Council. It is right that we should discuss the form of that new investment before we agree to the Order going through the House tonight. There is every need and right for the House to discuss future developments and processes which are coming into the manufacture of gas and which are revolutionising that industry so that it can break away from its past.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) went a bit far. He talked about gross neglect and ineptitude on the part of the Tory Government with regard to the gas industry. Can he really substantiate that? I hope that he will have the grace to withdraw those words. This industry has prospered and gone ahead on the evidence and testimony of all those who have spoken in this debate, yet this was how the hon. Member described the contribution of the last Government to what has been done. Those words were not worthy of the hon. Member.
  Mr. Popplewellrose—
  Mr. Ridley: I hope that the hon. Member is asking me to give way so that he can withdraw.
  Mr. Popplewell: I referred to the ineptitude and gross mismanagement of the Government of past years by saying that
  1504
  it was taking us so long to clear up the mess before we could get on with all these things. What I referred to was the Tory Government putting the publicly-owned industries into a straitjacket and not allowing them full commercial freedom. That is correct, as everyone knows. If that freedom is given, as I hope and trust it will be given by my right hon. Friend, these publicly-owned undertakings will be even more successful than they have been previously.
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has already made one speech and in his second speech, just like the Minister, he seemed to me to add nothing to his first.
  The point is that under the Conservative Government this industry prospered. There were all the new projects which we have been discussing tonight. Sahara methane was brought in by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd). He was the originator of this scheme. It is one of the new schemes which has allowed the Gas Council to break away from the past which it inherited from the Government of the right hon. Gentleman's party in 45–51.
  I hope that the Government have no prejudices against the import of methane. Reading through past debates on Orders for borrowing powers for the gas industry, we see that time and time again on the then Opposition Front Bench there has been this prejudice against any increase in the Gas Council's sources of fuel or its power to get fuel from elsewhere. I was very pleased—and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman for this—that the Minister did not tonight repeat what was said when his party was in Opposition. I am also pleased to read that the Gas Council has opened negotiations with the Dutch to explore the possibility of laying a pipeline across the channel in order to import Dutch natural gas.
  These are most important negotiations. If they succeed in bringing them off it will mean cheaper methane coming to us under the English Channel rather than having to import it from the Sahara. I hope that in due course we shall hear something about the scheme from the right hon. Gentleman. There is also the question of the possible supply of natural gas from the Continental Shelf.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) mentioned the

  1505
  fact that the Government have decided not to revoke the licences. I hope that this is a genuine conversion and not merely because it was too late to change the decision of the last Government—a genuine conversion that will allow the gas industry to take what sources of fuel are most economical for it and not be tied to trying to boost the sales of coal, and will allow it to roam free and make its own fortune where it may.
  All these sources are going to increase the consumption of natural gas by some 320 million therms by 1965–66. This underlines again the importance of the points which my right hon. Friends have made concerning underground storage. I really do not think that we were very impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's answer as to when he was going to bring in this legislation. The point is that despite many technical and other difficulties the legislation was, more or less, ready to be introduced into the House. Had my right hon. Friends won the election it would probably have been going through the House at the present time. Just because the party opposite won the election the Bill has been put back.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that he thinks it is unlikely that the Bill will be brought in this Session. This is a very serious matter. It means that the Government are putting their other Measures—we dread to think what they will be—contentious Measures and quite unnecessary Measures, in front of the future development of the gas industry.
  The Lurgi process has not yet been proved to be economic and there is not yet any known means of making gas from coal which will be as cheap as the means by which the industry has been doing it lately. I hope that hon. Members opposite will accept the fact that wishful thinking will not change it.
  We have been told throughout the debate by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) and other hon. Members opposite that in some ways we have been beastly to nationalised industries. I should like to quote from the speech of a very well loved Member of the House, now recently ennobled, Mr. Blyton. Speaking in the last gas debate he said:
  "After facing this with patience and tolerance, we now receive another blow from the
  1506
  nationalised gas industry, which is importing liquid methane and using oil, with the backing of foreign capital."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 29th November, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 723.]
  If that is not attacking the nationalised industries I do not know what it is. Here is a clear attack from the then Opposition Front Bench on a nationalised industry, the Gas Council, which was trying to improve its competitative ability and make itself pay. Who were allowing it to go ahead? The Tories. Who were distracting it? Hon. Members opposite. So please may we have less of this argument?
  Do the Government see what modernisation means today? Do they understand the full implications of the technological age? Or are they going to stick to their reactionary and protectionist outlook and stick to the theory of a co-ordinated fuel policy, with each fuel industry having a separate, alloted share of the market? The only hope is for all the fuel industries to compete. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside who said, in effect, "Let them compete in price but not in sales", seemed to be begging the question. How can one compete in price if one does not try to sell against another, describing the relative attractions as well as the relative prices of the products?
  Following on what my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said, I hope that we are not going to have an attempt to straighten out the future of these different industries by placing them in pre-ordained channels, because as the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) said in his admirable maiden speech, forecasting is a very difficult and dangerous business. Forecasts have often failed in the past. Have the Government accepted that this is so?
  The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West claimed that we should on all possible occasions use indigenous fuel. This has been a constant cry from hon. Members opposite; that for the sake of our balance of payments we should use indigenous fuel. What is the point of this year lending about £300 million abroad or giving aid in the form of grants? We have given long-term credit guarantees to the tune of £1,350 million. All our efforts are strained to increasing the amount we can lend abroad.

  1507
  Should we lend less abroad and import more from the underdeveloped countries, such as the Sahara, from which we are importing methane? Or should we achieve more in the underdeveloped countries by lending more money which we have saved on our balance of payments? We cannot do it both ways and I hope that in this endless argument about the balance of payments we will bear in mind that trade is often much better than aid.
  The Government are tonight asking the House to grant £50 million. The Minister said that the new Bill to increase the borrowing powers of the gas industry would be required fairly soon. We should still like to know when that will be. When the last Measure was introduced, in 1963, the then Minister of Power said that it would last until the seventies. With the accelerated rate of capital investment, the Minister is already forecasting a new Bill, which means that he has used up the £125 million. I hope, therefore, that he will inform the House as soon as possible when the new Bill will be brought forward.
  I remind him that he has left many questions unanswered. A large number of points have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House and, although many of us are waiting to go home, that is no excuse for leaving some of these vital questions unanswered. I hope that, perhaps before Christmas, perhaps very shortly afterwards, the right hon. Gentleman will allot us another day to debate these great industries, which we on this side take with great seriousness and concern.
  I echo the words of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) who ended his speech by congratulating the Gas Council on making a profit of £9 million this year. We should like all the nationalised industries to do this, and we therefore have great pleasure in allowing this Order to go through, but we again appeal to the Government not to treat the whole matter quite so cavalierly.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.

  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATES
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ifor Davies.]
  12.36 a.m.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Almost from the first day on which this Government took office we have had Ministers giving speedy but, I am afraid, hazy statements of what future legislation is likely to be. I suppose that their reason for doing so is to give an impression of alertness and dynamism in anticipation of a General Election which cannot be all that far away, in view of the general situation.
  I agree that useful and properly thought out legislation cannot make the some immediate impact as do these breezy but ambiguous interim statements, but I believe that, at the end of the day, the proper course is still the best course, and that the proper course is that it is a less dangerous way of governing if a statement is followed up immediately by a Bill or at least a White Paper. One of the best examples of the present method was provided by the Chancellor, when he gave his disastrous, provoking anticipation of his next Budget, and we saw part of that from the paper that had to be put in the Vote Office today.
  The other example is provided by the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade on 12th November, and it is this that I wish to discuss. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "… I told the regional controllers of the Board of Trade yesterday, after a full discussion, that I wished to see a tougher application of the I.D.C.s on factories being built in the really congested areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1964; Vol. 701, c. 1226.]
  A tougher application in regard to the industrial development certificate policy. I should like to know exactly what that means. It is right that we should know, because from my knowledge of the policy of the last four years as practised by the previous Government, anything much tougher could not be put into operation without direction of industry, and the corollary of the direction of labour if the thing was to work at all. With this possible interpretation of the words of the President of the Board of Trade, we

  1509
  should have more clarification as soon as possible.
  The previous policy on industrial development certificates was made quite clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) when, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade he spoke in this House on 4th May, 1964. My hon. Friend said:
  "As the Study makes clear, the South-East makes a vast contribution towards the prosperity of Britain. In our desire to deal with the problems of the South-East we should be wary of pursuing economically masochistic policies towards the South-East such as a blanket refusal to grant any more I.D.C.s in the South-East irrespective of the merits of the individual application."
  Does a tougher application go back on that statement? My hon. Friend went on to say:
  "Just as it is true that we cannot have proper regional development without national economic growth, so it is equally true that we cannot hope to optimise our national rate of growth its unless every region is itself optimising Its economic potential."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1964; Vol. 694, c. 1039–40.]
  Will that piece of good sense still stand when the tougher application is brought into being?
  My hon. Friend a little later said:
  "As I made quite clear, development districts have priority when I.D.C. applications are considered. Few certificates are granted in the industrially overcrowded part of the country for new ventures or for major expansion of existing factories.
  On the other hand, it is quite unrealistic to suppose that all industrial development can be prevented in the South-East, or that areas of high unemployment would benefit if it were. There are, for example, efficiency schemes which can reduce employment; local service industries which cannot be separated from existing factories, and others which, although not requiring adjacent premises, need to be within a relatively short distance of the parent plant or parent suppliers. It would be unrealistic and unsound to try to prevent such industrial development…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1964: Vol. 694, c. 1046-7.]
  Is that practical and sensible approach to be replaced by something more rigid? If the hon. Gentleman in replying can say that it is not intended radically to alter the basic approach to this question, the optimum of productivity which is the nation's need will be more likely to be achieved.
  If the new toughness means forcing industry to development districts without regard for individual factory needs, I
  1510
  tremble for our 4 per cent. national growth need and our balance of payments problem. If anything like that had been in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman when he made the speech on 12th November, the interim statement may have done some good in the sense that it might have given us a chance to try to deter him in time.
  Everyone accepts the need and the good sense in making it difficult for any more factory building in the busy areas of full employment. To build there they should have to pass strict and rigid tests, but I claim that the door ought not to be bolted and barred irrespective of merit. Everyone accepts the need and the good sense of inducing firms to prefer the development districts. That is right and my right hon. Friends in the previous Administration had notable success with a policy which brought that about without being as rigid as the words used by the President of the Board of Trade indicated he might intend to be.
  I ask the Government to examine without prejudice the success of the previous Administration, who were firm without being rigid to the point of not taking merit into account. The figures I have for the years 1962, 1963 and 1964 give this message of success by the previous Administration. In the year ending 31st March, 1962, 41,155,000 square feet of extra development took place. Of that, 5,500,000 took place in a development district. In 1963 the total was 30,537,000 square feet, of which 5,116,000 was in a development district. In the year ended 31st March, 1964 the total development was 42,470,000 square feet, of which 12,747,000 was in a development district.
  I suggest that 23,370,000 square feet in needy areas in three years is a good record. It was achieved without losing the good will of all the industries involved. This is very important. It would be a bad thing if the Government allowed a fleeting satisfaction of applying what they call toughness to interfere with this very satisfactory trend. It is agreed that Government measures are required to encourage economic growth in areas of unemployment and underemployment, but the most effective way of doing that is to improve the facilities and services in the areas to which we want to attract industry. Better roads, improvement in port facilities, airports,

  1511
  hotels, power services and water supplies, houses, schools and hospitals are the sort of improvements that will attract industry naturally to the areas where we want it to go.
  It should not be attempted by extreme I.D.C. toughness. The refusal of an I.D.C. for location A does not necessarily mean that the applicant will obediently go to location B. Often he goes nowhere, because expansion in the existing location is the only practical course as he as a business man sees it. If that happens, the nation is the loser; we do not have the improvement that we want for our general improvement in productivity.
  Indeed, reports from the Central Midlands indicate that many small and medium-size firms have expansion potential which is not being realised. Both in Birmingham and in Manchester, industry has emphasised the need for attention to be given to management problems and the shortage of management staff. Before an I.D.C. is refused, it should be remembered that the scale of business of many firms is such that if they have to open a branch too far away from their parent plant, they do not have the management staff capable of working it. If the distance is too far for the managers of the original firm to travel with success, the result is that the potential from the new factory will not be achieved, and for that reason it is not even started. If a Midland firm is compelled to go to a distant location, this necessitates a new organisation, which often is not available. This is sufficient to deter companies from making the move which would be in the best interests of the nation.
  My hope in bringing this matter to the attention of the Department is that we shall be able to get from the Government tonight clarification of the statement by the President of the Trade and a statement that they are prepared to copy their predecessors in at least one respect: that is, in trying to achieve the same success in applying industrial development certificates. It is right that the Government should urge everyone who wants extension to go to development districts, but in the absence of agreement every application should be judged on its merits. It is surely good sense to give permission even in areas of full employment rather than not have the development.
  1512
  I suggest to the Government that the success of our policy so far has justified its continuation. I hope that the interpretation of the Government's new policy will not injure the good will and success which has been achieved.
  12.48 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I assure the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) that we will not endanger the success—I admit, the success over the past years—of the industrial development certificate policy. The hon. Member asked me to explain what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade meant by a "tougher application" of I.D.C. policy. What it means is that applications from the heavily congested areas will be examined a little more critically than in the past.
  Those words have been used before. The hon. Member was rather selective in his quotations from Board of Trade Ministers of the previous Administration, and I should like to quote a statement that was made by the then President of the Board of Trade, Sir David Eccles, in July, 1958. He said:
  "As the House is aware, it is not the practice of my Department to issue industrial development certificates—save in the most exceptional circumstances—for firms wishing to set up new factories in the more congested parts of the country. The certificates issued in those places are almost entirely for extensions or efficiency projects"—
  that is the point which the hon. Member has made—
  "which it would be uneconomic to separate from the existing buildings.
  I propose in future to examine all such applications, both for new buildings and for extensions, even more critically than in the past and to extend the practice at present applied in the Greater London and Greater Birmingham areas to other parts of the country where unemplopment is low."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1958; Vol. 592, c. 156–7.]
  Those are practically the same words that my right hon. Friend used a day or two ago. The same thing happened in 1962 when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), in the debate on the Address, said:
  "We shall continue the very tough policy of I.D.C.s that we have pursued for some years. It is nonsense to suggest that our policy has been other than tough."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1962; Vol. 666, c. 663.]

  1513
  Later on. in July of this year, the then Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development, the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), said:
  "There is no intention of relaxing the industrial development certificate policy. As far as the Midlands and the South-East are concerned, it will remain as tough as ever."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1964; Vol. 698,c. 1517.]
  This emphasis upon toughness in carrying out the I.D.C. policy has gone right through the previous Administration and it has again been expressed today, for obvious reasons. This country has got resources of manpower that are not being fully used because the industries are not in the places where the spare manpower happens to be. Somehow or other we have got to ease the load, which is now very oppressive indeed in some of the congested districts.
  In fact, I think it is generally agreed now that one of the reasons for what is called the "overheating" of the economy is that in certain parts of the country the industrial firms are fully stretched. They have no new skilled labour which they can take in when expansion of their production is called for. In many cases, because of the congested area in which they are working, they are in difficulties in getting arty factory expansion at all, even if I.D.C.s were given to them. This has meant that there is a backlog of orders which cannot be fulfilled, and it goes all the way down the line. Somehow we have got to do all we possibly can as quickly as we can to break this situation, and the I.D.C. policy is the best way of doing it.
  Therefore, when my right hon. Friend says that we are going to be tougher than in the past, we are saying precisely the same thing that Ministers in the previous Administration had said, that we have got to be tough and examine very critically indeed, and, in our present circumstances, be even more critical than before.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that what the President of the Board of Trade said was that he was going to be as tough as he had been before? We interpreted his statement to mean that he was going to superimpose extra toughness on the toughness that existed before.
  Mr. Darling: No, we are going to examine even more critically than before all the applications which come in. This is extra toughness. In those circumstances, for the reasons which the hon. Member gave, and with which I agree, if an application comes along where if one does not allow the extension to go ahead one will interfere with the efficiency of the set-up, the question has got to be examined from that point of view. But where industries or extensions to industries can go to development districts where there are spare labour and resources without hardship to the existing firm, whatever the circumstances may be, they should go. That is what the industrial development certificate system is for.
  It is very difficult indeed to pinpoint how extra toughness will operate except by taking examples, which—and I do not mean this in any unduly critical way—the hon. Gentleman did not produce. He knows very well that the applications as they come into the Board of Trade are thoroughly examined. If a firm, perhaps in a congested area in the Midlands, is dissatisfied with the attitude of the officials of the Board of Trade, senior officials can look at the matter again. It can be looked at by Ministers, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, issues are raised in the House, deputations are received, and so on. I am confident that, if we carry out my right hon. Friend's words and make the examination of all applications for I.D.C.s in the congested districts more critical, all the factors will be taken into account and will be properly examined. But I repeat that, in the present circumstances of overheating of the economy, something must be done.
  Over the past 12 months, to the surprise of almost everyone I think, industrialised production in this country has not gone up. This is a surprising fact because all the forecasts made earlier in the year suggested that there would be a continuous rise. Somewhere in this country, with our economic system, there must be spare manpower. Otherwise, these production figures do not make sense. We know that there is spare manpower in the sense of under-employment in some of the development districts, and there are great numbers of unemployed. I cannot make the calculations, and I do not know what would happen to our production figures if all the people who

  1515
  could be fully employed were, in fact, fully employed today.
  But there must be other factors in the levelling off of production over practically the whole of this year. It may be, as the hon. Gentleman said, that in certain parts there is transport congestion. There are resources and public services not properly planned. In many areas where the overheating occurs, because of lack of supplies of components further down the line or lack of semi-finished materials coming at the right time, many firms may well be holding on to skilled workers and not working full time in the sense of giving full production.
  If one of the factors in this situation is that loss of production is being caused by congestion of one kind or another while in the development districts and elsewhere there is labour underemployed, we must somehow spread our production activities over the country and take a lot more to the places where there is spare labour. In this situation we must look more critically at applications for factory extensions in the congested districts. If we do not look at them very critically indeed, we may be making the situation worse.
  I am not sure—I am thinking aloud—whether it may be necessary to look at the application of industrial development certificate policy afresh, if we have time, so that we may be able to offer inducements to firms to move out of the districts where they are now even though, at present, they are not thinking of applying for any additions or extensions. We certainly do not want to put any firm in the situation where, by refusing an extension to its factory, we reduce the opportunities for it properly and efficiently to expand and, perhaps, do what we want many more firms to do, that is, move strongly into the export trade. We have to look at the matter as a whole, from all these points of view.
  There is another important factor to be taken into consideration. It may be that, in certain cases of application for extensions which come before the Board of Trade for examination, the labour force would actually be reduced if that extension were to be for automatic machinery, because such machinery occupies more space with fewer workers than previously.
  1516
  We must look at extensions in relation to the number of workpeople to be employed. In the Midlands area, with which the hon. Member for Peterborough is very much concerned, we have also surely to look very carefully at the proposals that are being made for overspill. I do not want to go into that aspect now because it raises different issues but the whole picture must be looked at and I feel sure that the hon. Member will agree with the approach I am taking.
  We want to look at development districts and I.D.C. policy very carefully, but we must insist that all the applications for extensions in heavily congested areas, particularly the Greater London and Greater Birmingham areas, are looked at very critically. But I assure the hon. Member that, as far as we know, we have had no complaints that suggest that the tough policy of the last Government caused any great hardship to any firms. Individual firms may protest that their development is being frustrated if we refuse applications in getting a little more critical, but we must set that against those firms which complain—and this happens frequently—that new developments undertaken by other firms in their neighbourhood are stealing their workers away from them.
  These are some of the factors we have to balance. I assure the hon. Member that the needs of individual firms are not ignored when I.D.C. applications are under consideration. Each application is thoroughly examined. Full discussions are held with the applicants and we give every opportunity to them to argue their case. The large number of applications that are approved in such areas as the Midlands and the South-East are evidence of the consideration which has been given to every case.
  Another point needs making. The hon. Member touched upon it. When I.D.C. applications are being considered there is discussion with the other Departments involved. He is right in saying that public services in the development districts must be looked at so that we can make them more attractive to firms that we hope will go there. This is where our regional planning proposals come in.
  I assure the hon. Member that the close consultation which has taken place in the past under the last Government

  1517
  between the Board of Trade and other Departments will be continued and, indeed, strengthened and made more effective by the regional planning proposals which will be announced this week.
  I feel sure that, although we must stress also that all applications for I.D.C.s in congested districts must be examined very critically, we do not ignore the points the hon. Member has raised. We shall make sure that all applicants receive the fullest consideration and that we do not interfere with efficiency and the reasonable development of industry in any way.
  Mr. Harold Gurden: Many of the industries peculiar to the Midlands are service industries serving the larger industries. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that they are dealt with fairly? There are thousands of these small firms and the
  1518
  whole economy could be disrupted, particularly in such industries as the car industry. It would be to the advantage of the country if these smaller businesses were more generously dealt with in relation to their size. More could be gained by persuading larger industries to move rather than hurt the great service these small businesses do.
  Mr. Darling: That raises wider issues, but I think I said that it may be that one solution is to get larger industries to move en bloc.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at six minutes past One o'clock.

MINISTRY OF POWER
  Rural Electricity Supplies
  Rural Electricity Supplies
  Steel Industry (Nationalisation)
  Steel Industry (Nationalisation)
  Bolney-Lovedean Overhead Lines
  Bolney-Lovedean Overhead Lines
  Nuclear Power Programme (Report)
  Nuclear Power Programme (Report)
  Import Charge (Steel Industry)
  Import Charge (Steel Industry)
  North Sea Drilling Operations (Licences)
  North Sea Drilling Operations (Licences)
  Woodfield Pumping Station (Power Supplies)
  Woodfield Pumping Station (Power Supplies)
  Natural Gas Pipelines
  Natural Gas Pipelines
COAL
  Smokeless Fuel (London)
  Smokeless Fuel (London)
  National Coal Board (Headquarters)
  National Coal Board (Headquarters)
  Miners' Pension Scheme
  Miners' Pension Scheme
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Congo (Technical and Economic Aid)
  Congo (Technical and Economic Aid)
  British Nationals and Property (Treatment)
  British Nationals and Property (Treatment)
  Trinidad (Aid)
  Trinidad (Aid)
  Former Colonies and Dependencies (Payments)
  Former Colonies and Dependencies (Payments)
TECHNOLOGY
  Salt Water Conversion
  Salt Water Conversion
  National Insurance and Petrol Duty Increases (Cost)
  National Insurance and Petrol Duty Increases (Cost)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Import Surcharge (Carpet Fibre)
  Import Surcharge (Carpet Fibre)
  Corporation and Capital Gains Taxes (Proposals)
  Corporation and Capital Gains Taxes (Proposals)
  Foreign Borrowing (Interest)
  Foreign Borrowing (Interest)
  Computer Systems (Stock Control)
  Computer Systems (Stock Control)
  Automation and Cybernetic Equipment
  Automation and Cybernetic Equipment
  Betting (Taxation)
  Betting (Taxation)
  Civil Servants (Mileage Allowance)
  Civil Servants (Mileage Allowance)
  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  I.M.F. Credit (Central Bank Loans)
  I.M.F. Credit (Central Bank Loans)
  Income Tax (Child Allowances)
  Income Tax (Child Allowances)
POST OFFICE
  Letter Box, Cavehill
  Letter Box, Cavehill
  National Insurance and Petrol Duty Increases (Cost)
  National Insurance and Petrol Duty Increases (Cost)
  Commemorative Stamps (Battle of Britain)
  Commemorative Stamps (Battle of Britain)
  Member's Private Division Bell (Failure)
  Member's Private Division Bell (Failure)
  Petrol Duty Increase (Cost)
  Petrol Duty Increase (Cost)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Coastal Pirate Radio Stations
  Coastal Pirate Radio Stations
  Advertising Inquiry Council (Statement)
  Advertising Inquiry Council (Statement)
  Television Programmes, Wales
  Television Programmes, Wales
HOUSING
  Import Surcharge (Cost)
  Import Surcharge (Cost)
  Leasehold Reform
  Leasehold Reform
  Housing Summary and Return
  Housing Summary and Return
  Mortgages (Interest Rates)
  Mortgages (Interest Rates)
  Council House Building (Increased Costs)
  Council House Building (Increased Costs)
  Development (Leasehold and Freehold Grants)
  Development (Leasehold and Freehold Grants)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Green Belts
  Green Belts
  Central Electricity Generating Board Offices, Bramhall
  Central Electricity Generating Board Offices, Bramhall
  Grant Orders
  Grant Orders
  Use Classes Regulations (Launderettes)
  Use Classes Regulations (Launderettes)
  New Town, Risley
  New Town, Risley
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Commonwealth Consultative Assembly
  Commonwealth Consultative Assembly
  Rhodesia (Talks)
  Rhodesia (Talks)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  University Fees
  University Fees
  School Building
  School Building
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Overseas Bases and Army Personnel
  Overseas Bases and Army Personnel
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Hydrocarbon Oils (Duty)
  Hydrocarbon Oils (Duty)
  Milk Delivery Charge, North Dorset
  Milk Delivery Charge, North Dorset
  Bank Rate, Petrol Duty Increase and Import Surcharge (Cost)
  Bank Rate, Petrol Duty Increase and Import Surcharge (Cost)
  CONGO (DETAINED BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  CONGO (DETAINED BRITISH SUBJECTS)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Palace of Westminster
  Palace of Westminster
  INDIVIDUAL GRIEVANCES (PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION)
  INDIVIDUAL GRIEVANCES (PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  North Sea Deposits
  North Sea Deposits
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Cytological Tests
  Cytological Tests
  Cigarette Advertising
  Cigarette Advertising
  Cervical Smearing
  Cervical Smearing
  Infant Mortality (Bootle)
  Infant Mortality (Bootle)
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
HOSPITALS
  Maternity Hospital Annexe, Bootle
  Maternity Hospital Annexe, Bootle
EMPLOYMENT
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Service Voters (Registration)
  Service Voters (Registration)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  National Assistance
  National Assistance
  Pensionless Persons
  Pensionless Persons
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
SCOTLAND
  Petrol Duty, Bank Rate and Import Surcharges
  Petrol Duty, Bank Rate and Import Surcharges
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
ROADS
  Tolls (Bridges)
  Tolls (Bridges)
TRANSPORT
  Driving Tests, Doncaster
  Driving Tests, Doncaster
  Waiting Restrictions, Ilford
  Waiting Restrictions, Ilford
  Side Lights (Maximum Height Regulations)
  Side Lights (Maximum Height Regulations)
  Competitions on Public Highways (Regulations)
  Competitions on Public Highways (Regulations)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry
The Lord Ashcombe—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

EGG IMPORTS
2.37 p.m.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they intend to continue the importation of eggs from Poland and other countries when there is an ample supply of this commodity in the United Kingdom and an adverse gap between imports and exports.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES): My Lords, I would refer the noble Lord to the Answer I gave him on November 24. In order to relieve our balance-of-payments difficulties the Government decided to restrict imports by means of the temporary import charge of 15 per cent. They decided, for good reason, that this should not apply to
2
foodstuffs. In these circumstances it would not be justifiable to prohibit the import of eggs because domestic supplies are plentiful.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, but I should like to ask him this further question. Are the Ministry of Agriculture aware that at the Government inquiry into the British Egg Marketing Board's second scheme last week evidence was given by a director of a large chain of food stores that because of the withdrawal of these eggs from the home market over 3½ million eggs had to be imported for the making of cakes, increasing the cost by something like £15, 000? Would the noble Lord agree, having regard to the fact that the eggs were available in this country, that this was quite unnecessary?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I noticed about the withdrawal of the second-grade eggs, but I do not think the reason suggested by the noble Lord is quite the correct one.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what is the correct one?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, the fact that the second-grade eggs were withdrawn has no bearing on the arrangements we have made for the import of eggs, and, in the circumstances, we cannot change them.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, could the noble Lord give us any idea what the percentage of the importation of eggs is as compared with the home market consumption?
LORD RHODES: Yes, my Lords. It was 2-2 per cent. in 1962, 2-4 per cent. in 1963, and it was running at the rate of 1-8 per cent. in the first nine months of 1964.

PROCEDURE: REPETITION OF GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why important announcements concerning Government administration in Wales by the Prime Minister in another place have not been made in this House.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, as the House is aware, the Government usually make arrangements for important Statements which are made in another place to be repeated in this House. The Statement to which the noble Lord refers was, in fact, the oral answer to a Question for Written Answer in another place, and was consequently not repeated here. I appreciate that the noble Lord may feel that the House has been deprived of hearing an important Statement by what he may regard as a procedural accident and I am sorry if he should feel that that is so. I am looking further into the implications of the matter.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his kind reply. It seemed odd that an oral answer to a Written Question should turn out to be a Statement in another place. As I did not mention "Statement" in my Question, I rather hope that in future any replies to Questions of this nature, particularly relating to Wales, if they are Statements, may be repeated in this House.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I will certainly pay great attention to what the noble Lord has said, and we are only too glad to hear his views on this subject at any time. Although my grandmother came from Llandeilo, I cannot promise special treatment to Wales; but we will do everything we can.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I only hope that those who have ties with Wales, and have left us, will not forget us.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, is there not a perfectly well-known and established way to deal with these things? Even if a Question is on the Order Paper and the matter is one of an important pronouncement on policy, or an important announcement, it is perfectly competent and usual for the Prime Minister, or the Minister who answers the Question, to say in answer to the Question: "I propose to make a Statement at the end of Question Time". That is constantly done in another place. Then a similar Statement can be made here. Could not that procedure be followed? The noble Earl has given a most courteous Answer, which is what we should naturally expect from him.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I will pay great attention to what the noble Earl has said. It certainly would not seem to be impossible or without precedent to do what he has said. On the other hand, what the Prime Minister did on this occasion was not without precedent. However, I agree with the noble Earl that this matter should be gone into further.

GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION IN WALES
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are their proposals for Government administration in Wales.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, the interests of Wales are now represented in the Cabinet by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. My right honourable friend will have a Welsh Office in Cardiff, which will be adequately staffed, and a small Ministerial Office in London. He has already taken over responsibility for all issues affecting Wales which do not fall within the responsibility of any other Department. He will now take over virtually all the executive responsibilities of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in Wales. In particular, my right honourable friend will be responsible for housing, new towns, town and country planning and the organisation of local government. In view

5
of the close link between policies on urban planning and on road planning he will also take over from my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport responsibility for roads, including trunk roads, in Wales.
In the vital field of regional planning my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will co-operate closely with his right honourable friend the First Secretary of State, and the Welsh Department will provide the Chairman of the Planning Board for Wales. The formulation and implementation of the plan for Wales will be done in conformity with the overall national policy for which my right honourable friend the First Secretary of State is responsible.
With reference to the work of other Government Departments, the application of national policies in Wales will be for the Ministers centrally responsible; but my right honourable friend will have oversight within Wales of the execution of national policy by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Education and Science, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Transport, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour. For this purpose my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will maintain close and regular contact with the heads of the Welsh Offices.
As regards Parliamentary Questions in another place, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will deal with all those relating to his executive responsibilities and with those arising out of his responsibility for regional planning. In addition, by arrangement with the Ministers concerned he will answer in another place on matters of special concern to Wales arising out of the work of other Departments. Comparable arrangements will apply in this House. Consideration is being given to improving arrangements in another place for the Parliamentary discussion of matters concerning Wales. My right honourable friend will review the present arrangements for the publication of information about the activities of Government Departments in Wales. These changes achieve the object of giving Wales a strong voice in Government counsels and a strong hand in her own administration.
2.45 p.m.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his full and courteous reply. I should also like to say how delighted I am to see him answering for Wales in this House. But, as the Government have failed to fulfil the promises made by them in their Election Manifesto, when they said they would give the Secretary of State executive responsibility over a very wide field, which included education, science, health and agriculture, and even now he does not have full executive responsibility for housing and local government—certain parts of that are retained—will the noble Lord tell us why the Government have found it convenient to break these promises, and why they have led the people of Wales up the garden path and the Welsh Office over Offa's Dyke back to Whitehall?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, despite the kind remarks of the noble Lord, I hope this will not develop into a war between Pontypridd and Brecon. What has been done is a significant step forward by reason of the fact that there is now a Secretary of State for Wales in the Cabinet with exclusive responsibility for the needs of the Principality. Her Majesty's Government, before arriving at the new arrangements, have given the most careful thought to securing the right degree of constitutional devolution to Wales, as well as guarding against the breaking up of existing Departments where that would appear to have been inimical to the interests of Wales. The new arrangements appear to Her Majesty's Government to represent the right answer at the moment, but if changes in any direction appear to be needed in the future, we shall be prepared to make those changes.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the purpose of this rather complicated co-ordination (if that is the right expression to use) is to accelerate or decelerate business?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the main point of it is to give Wales the satisfaction of realising that her voice will be more strongly heard in the Cabinet, and we think this will be achieved by this method.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, as the noble Lord has really propounded the

7
policy of the Conservative Party during the General Election, when we said that we did not want to break up Government Departments as proposed in the Labour Manifesto, I am very glad that he agrees with us. But, as the Secretary of State has taken over responsibility for roads and trunk roads in Wales, I should like to ask under whose direction and authority the Traffic Commissioner and the Divisional Road Engineer will now exist.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this is rather a difficult point for me to answer without previous notice, but if the noble Lord cares to put it on the Order Paper I will certainly reply.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I will certainly do that. But does the noble Lord not agree that what the Government have done at the present moment means that, instead of the promised co-ordinated transport plan for Wales, we shall have divided responsibilities for railways, roads, buses, docks and airports?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I do not think the arrangements at which we have arrived will work out too badly. The roads, clearly, will have a direct bearing on regional planning, and because of this regional planning aspect it was thought advisable to place roads immediately under the Secretary of State for Welsh Affairs. We rather think it is the right thing to do. With regard to the noble Lord's reference in his previous supplementary to Conservative policy as against Signpost for Wales, I am not afraid occasionally to accept anybody's policy if I think at the moment it is the right one.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the Statement mentioned close co-operation with the first Secretary of State and with a number of other Government Departments, but I do not think it was clear what rôle, if any, the existing Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the existing Ministry of Land and Natural Resources will have in respect of Wales. Are they to be relieved entirely of all responsibility, or will some responsibility still be left to those two Ministries? Or is it really a question of passing the statistics to the Welsh Office from those two Ministries?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, so far as executive responsibility is concerned, will come completely under the new Secretary of State for Wales. I think it will be very much more than an exchange of statistical information. I think that this plan will work out well, but if it does not, clearly we shall not hestitate to alter it.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Secretary of State will receive a special allocation for roads, apart from the Ministry of Transport allocation?—because Scotland now gets its allocation for roads through the Scottish Home Department. Will they get a special Vote for that, or will it have to come through the Ministry of Transport?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, there will be separate expenditure by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales. This will inevitably be the subject of a special Vote, and the special arrangements for the actual transfer of financial responsibility are at present being prepared. Having a separate Vote for Wales will be quite a departure.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I apologise if I am being slow in picking it up, but I am still not quite clear and should like to revert to my previous question. Will the policy for housing and local government still reside with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government or will it lie with the Secretary of State for Wales?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, policy, of course, will be decided, I would imagine, so far as Wales is concerned, jointly between them. Executive responsibility for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in Wales will pass to the Secretary of State for Wales. Obviously, there will have to be close-co-operation between the two on matters affecting Wales.
LORD HASTINGS: I thank the noble Lord.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, there is just one further question that I should like to put to the noble Lord. Did the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place really mean that no

9
deputation from Wales will be allowed to see the Minister in charge of a Government Department, and that they will all have to be channelled through the Secretary of State? I think this is an important question which people in Wales are already asking.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this question about exactly how deputations will go is another matter which needs looking into. But I should imagine that the Welsh authorities, and so on, would like to approach the Minister directly responsible for Wales, who has access to the Cabinet. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales, if some particular deputation feel they would like to go through him to the Central Department, would look very sympathetically at any such request.
LORD BRECON: By Lords, the Prime Minister did make the statement that these deputations would go, first of all, to the Secretary of State.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, that seems, first of all, to be the correct approach, but, as I said, I think that there would be a suitable arrangement arrived at in the circumstances suggested by the noble Lord.

FUTURE OF SMALL GENERAL HOSPITALS
2.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will define their policy with regard to the smaller general hospitals and whether they agree that these hospitals do fulfil a very genuine need in the best traditions of the medical and nursing professions.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD TAYLOR): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government's policy is to improve all our hospital services. Many smaller general hospitals fulfil a genuine need, in the best traditions of the medical and nursing professions. As more district general hospitals are
10
developed, each with more facilities for diagnosis and treatment than can be provided in smaller hospitals, some smaller hospitals will have to be closed; others will be retained, but their use will be changed. None will be closed without the personal decision of my right honourable friend the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State for Scotland.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him to invite his right honourable friend, when considering these matters, to take into account the fact that so many patients and their friends and relatives are greatly convenienced by being able to attend their local hospital, which is virtually around the corner, as against having to go some five miles or so to attend a general hospital? Also, will the noble Lord take into account the fact that the friendly, private and very sympathetic atmosphere of these smaller general hospitals is vastly more conducive to recovery than the atmosphere which is frequently found in the major and larger hospitals?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I think that both the noble Lord's points are good ones. In the case of the proximity to the hospital, the problem is that we are short of diagnostic facilities and of experts to work these facilities. In these circumstances it really is more economical to use them in one place rather than to have them scattered in several places, if that is the choice, and it is a reluctant choice. With regard to the noble Lord's second point, the very pleasant and good atmosphere in many smaller hospitals—what the Americans call "T.L.C.", tender, loving care—is something very important. Our problem is to preserve and develop this in the district hospitals as well as keeping it in the smaller hospitals which are retained.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: While again thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him also to bear in mind that when the smaller general hospital finds itself unable to cope with some particular case or complaint, customarily and invariably it sends the patient on to the larger general hospital where the diagnostic ability is available.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, that is indeed true for the less acute conditions.

11
But in acute emergencies tragedies sometimes happen through patients going to a smaller hospital which cannot cope with all emergencies.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this? In view of the fact that there are many people like the noble Lord who are particularly attached to these smaller hospitals, could not his Department give more publicity to the fact that, with the increasing specialisation in medicine today, it is not in the interests of the patient to encourage these smaller hospitals?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, this is really a difficult problem because one has so much to balance the value, which is a real value, of the smaller hospital as a social unit as against the known medical efficiency of the larger unit. We anticipate that these smaller hospitals will continue to play a rôle as geriatric units, and possibly as maternity and minor illness units, in remote localities. However, I would agree with my noble friend that it is important to teach the public that good medicine needs proper facilities and these are not necessarily always provided in the smaller places.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me, in view of what he said, why an old person should not get proper and good facilities? If you are going to turn these hospitals into geriatric departments, does this not mean that these old people are going to receive second-class medical care?
LORD TAYLOR: Certainly not. The answer is simply that most old people, as the noble Lord well knows, suffer from lingering complaints where speed is not of vital importance, except occasionally. By and large, old people can properly and very well be looked after in small units, provided that there is good geriatric supervision. One knows there are many excellent small units doing this work, and I am sure the noble Lord knows them, too.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord who will have the final say about the closing of small hospitals in Wales? It was the Minister of Health in England, and, I presume, also in Wales and Scotland, as the noble Lord said earlier.
LORD TAYLOR: I am afraid that I shall have to consult with my noble friend to answer that.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, does not the Minister think that a rather false antithesis is being made in suggesting that tender loving care can be obtained in a small hospital but not in a large one. Is not the real solution of this problem to develop a different atmosphere in the large hospital and is it not perfectly possible, provided that we are determined to do it?
LORD TAYLOR: I entirely agree with my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger. I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. It is more difficult in a large institution to develop this atmosphere, but even more important.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, may I compliment the noble Lord on the answers he has given to these very difficult and sensitive questions? Is he aware that I am very glad to know that, so far as the small hospitals are concerned, it would appear that Her Majesty's Government do not propose to change the general policy of the previous Government?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that there will be two Statements this afternoon at a suitable moment after 3.30. I shall be making the first Statement on the subject of capital gains and corporation taxes, and my noble friend Lord Mitchison the second on the subject of leasehold enfranchisement.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report from the Committee.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1.—Appointment of Sub-Committees
(a) Library
The Sub-Committee on the Library was appointed as follows: E. Attlee V. Simonds (Chairman), V. Soulbury, L. Amulree, L. Burden, L. Carrington, L. Chorley, L. Merthyr, L. Reid, B. Wootton of Abinger and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(b) Refreshment Department
The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was appointed as follows: E. St. Aldwyn, L. Amulree, L. Macpherson of Drumochter, L. Strang, L. Sainsbury, L. Shepherd, B. Swanborough and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments. The Sub-Committee was given power to co-opt further members and to appoint its own Chairman.
(c) House of Lords' Estimates
The Sub-Committee on the House of Lords' Estimates was appointed as follows: E. St. Aldwyn. L. Shepherd, L. Amulree and L. Merthyr (Chairman).
2.—Revised Scales of Pay
The Committee approved revised salaries for the post of Clerk of the Records and the combined posts of Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain, Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod and Serjeant-at-Arms.
3.—Parliament Office
The Committee authorised the appointment of an additional Personal Assistant and a Clerical Officer on the staff of the Department of the Clerk of the Parliaments.
4.—Hansard Reporting Staff
The Committee reviewed the agreement with Haynes Secretarial Services for the supply of typists for the reporting of debates and approved an increase in their charges with effect from 1st January, 1965.
5.—Estimates
The Estimate for the House of Lords for 1965-66 was laid before the Committee and approved.
6.—Retirements
The Committee sanctioned the payment of the following superannuation awards under the Superannuation Acts:—

(a) Death Gratuity to legal personal representatives of the late Leonard Carter, Principal Doorkeeper, who died on the 9th September, 1964. The Committee instructed the Clerk of the Parliaments to convey to his widow their warm appreciation of Mr. Carter's valuable service in the House.

(b) Gratuity to Mr. Sydney Baden Randell, Senior Custodian, on his retirement on the 7th December, 1964.

(c) Gratuity to Mrs. Rose Winifred Killington, Housemaid, on her resignation on the 14th November, 1964.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be now agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE ELECTRICITY, GAS AND ATOMIC ENERGY INDUSTRIES
3.2 p.m.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: What are their policies in regard to future investment in the generation and distribution of electricity, gas and atomic energy and to call attention to the annual reports of the Electricity Council, Gas Board and Atomic Energy Authority; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, a recent article in the Statist concluded with words to the effect that no one expects to guess the future pattern of energy needs. History is littered with erroneous predictions. Certainly the history of the last twenty years is littered with unfortunate prognostications. Nevertheless, somebody has to assume the rôle of Old Moore; otherwise there will be no power in the future. It is easy to scoff at the planners, but both in Government and in private industry someone has to plan for the years ahead.
Power represents the investment of big money, and the decisions involved are possibly second only to those involved in Defence programme estimates. It is unlikely that plans will turn out to be right. One can only hope that they will not turn out to be too wrong. At the moment the future of power is most intriguing, for we have many horses in the race and the most exciting of them all is a very recent entry. In 1963 we used about 283 million tons of coal equivalent energy, of which coal represented 190 million tons, oil 90 million tons, and others 3 million tons. As to the future there are two problems to speculate about: first, the total energy needs, and, secondly, the pattern within that total.
We talk to-day about a national growth figure of 4 per cent. annual increase, though many people think that 3 per cent. would be a more realistic figure. The consumption of energy tends to go up at a rather slower rate than the national income. Based on a 3 per cent. national growth rate and an energy growth figure of rather less than 3 per cent., I suggest that the energy figure for 1975 should be in the neighbourhood of 360 million tons of coal equivalent, as against 283 million tons to-day. If one accepts this

15
360 million tons as a basis for discussion, then the problem is to guess what will be the pattern within that total having regard to economic, social, strategic and other considerations. On that pattern we have to base our investment plans for the next ten years. The Government have got to take the lead, but in the private sector, too, important and expensive decisions have to be made.
First let me take a glance at the various runners. I think that in my Motion I should have referred specifically to the National Coal Board, because one cannot ignore coal when discussing future energy. At the moment the coal industry seems hard pressed to find markets for 200 million tons of coal of which about 190 million tons are for the home market. They are producing a large quantity of coal at a profit and a small quantity at a loss. They make quite clear in their annual report that any reduction in the total quantity produced would lead to an immediate increase in their overhead charges per ton. But, at the same time, they go on to say that they could increase production quite considerably at a proportionately smaller increase in overheads.
The high cost production is in parts of Scotland, Durham, Wales and Kent. The first question is how far this high cost to the Coal Board is offset by lower transport charges, because it is ultimately the price in the grate which matters rather than the price at the pithead. How far is this losing production required to meet specific requirements, and if it is why do not the requirers pay the cost price for it? If the answers to these questions are unsatisfactory, then the production from these losing pits must be for social reasons. In that case, is it right that the whole coal market should be saddled with the cost of coal won at a loss for social reasons? In the short term I suggest it may be tolerable, but in the long term it would clearly be intolerable.
I now turn to electricity generated from coal, oil, uranium and water power. The Central Electricity Generating Board just managed to get through our horrible winter two years
16
ago on a capacity of 32 million kilowatts, with a good deal of voltage cutting but no major power cuts. Last March the installed capacity was nearly 36 million kilowatts, and during this calendar year another 4 million was due to come into production.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I want to be quite clear. Did the noble Lord say that last year installed capacity was 36 million kilowatts?
LORD HAWKE: Last March it was nearly 36 million kilowatts, and 4 million are due to come in this year—4 million in 1965 and 1966 and 6 million in 1967 and 1968, making some 55 million at the end of 1968 (after allowing for some withdrawal of older plant) which is nearly three times the capacity which existed ten years ago; while by 1970 the Board expect to have a capacity of about 67 million kilowatts in action, after withdrawal of some older plants. I do not know what the plans are beyond 1970, but there is talk of 5 million kilowatts of an atomic plant, and if conventional plant were to continue to come in at about the same 5 million kilowatts a year we could have a capacity of over 90 million kilowatts in 1975.
Capital costs have been coming down, and are now about £40, per kilowatt for conventional stations. But people do not think that there is much more margin for a fall, because we have reached practically the maximum temperatures and pressures. Fuel consumption is running at about 60 million tons of coal, and measured in coal equivalent, oil, 4½ million tons, hydro and atomic, 5 million. This brings me to the generation of electricity by atomic power. The existing programme started in 1955, and provided for 5 million kilowatts by 1969. Those stations are included in the rough figures I have already given for electricity generation. These stations are all the Magnox type, using carbon dioxide gas to transfer the heat from the uranium, moderated by graphite. Berkeley and Bradwell cost about £180 in capital per kilowatt; Size-well is expected to cost only £107 per. kilowatt, and Wylfa £100 per kilowatt. In that case, Wylfa would be generating at about two-thirds of a penny per unit, against ½ d. for a conventional station.

17
I wonder how far these figures will prove realistic? I have been told that our costs are based on a twenty-year life and an availability of 75 per cent. Many people think that thirty years for the life would be nearer the mark, and I understand that at Bradwell the availability has been over 90 per cent. I should like to know what are the costs of generation, actual and estimated, at our latest Magnox stations; on what life and availability they are based; and what would be the difference if we took the thirty-year life and a 90 per cent. availability as a basis. I have mentioned these questions to the noble Lord who is going to reply.
A new generation of atomic power stations is in prospect at which lower costs are anticipated. Can Her Majesty's Government say whether any particular system has been chosen at the moment? As your Lordships are aware, the great feature of atomic energy is that the costs are about two-thirds capital and one-third running, whereas for conventional power precisely the reverse is the case. Can we be certain that inflation will not so put up running costs that in twenty years' time the high capital and low running costs of atomic stations will not have the advantage over the low capital and high running costs of the conventional station? I emphasise that the capital costs of the atomic stations are fixed to-day. when they are built. This, I suggest, might be particularly relevant if the 4 per cent. gross target should in practice be achieved partially by inflation.
I now turn for a moment to gas, which up to date has been rather a slow runner, but recently has received such a pep pill that it may run away from the field. Gas was always a good fuel for cooking and certain industrial purposes in urban areas, but was rather expensive for space and water heating. To-day, the outlook is completely altered by reason of two important developments: the ability to make gas from oil, and the import of natural gas. All this has been made still more exciting by the fact that in Holland there has been discovered what may prove to be the second largest natural gas field in the world. North Sea exploration is busily developing, and there is quite reasonable hope, I am told, that we may wake up one day and find that we have natural gas within our own curtilage.
18
The Dutch are working hard to export their gas to Germany and to Belgium, and I understand they have made an offer to us. If we found our own gas, this offer might well prove to be superfluous, but if we did not it could be most advantageous. Presumably it would need a pipe-line under the North Sea. I presume that such a pipe-line will be required in any case, either to import the Dutch gas or for us to be able to export our own gas if we find it in large quantities.
With such exciting possibilities for the future as these, the existing gas figures are rather prosaic and academic. But the Gas Board use about 22 million tons of coal, 2 million tons of oil in coal equivalent, and they buy about 3½ million tons of coal equivalent of gas from refineries and coke ovens, to send out about 3,000 million therms of gas. In some of these new processes from oil, gas can be sent out within 90 seconds of manufacture—a most important point in regard to meeting a peak load. Gas can be stored.
The capital cost of adding to gas production is not so great as with electricity, but it needs expensive buried mains for distribution; and to expand fast, a great deal of money will have to be sunk under the ground in mains. At the moment, gas is connected to about 12 million consumers, whereas electricity goes to 17 million consumers. One major snag on the horizon is that the Dutch gas is double-strength gas. The result is that it cannot be burned in their existing appliances. If it could be mixed with an appropriate quantity of leaner gas, of course it could be burnt in existing appliances: but if you are going to rely to a large extent on this particular sort of gas you will not want to make a lot of leaner gas to mix with it. The Dutch are hastily changing all their appliances. That is a problem that might face us here one day.
Gas and electricity, then, are obviously going to play an increasing rôle in our energy pattern. The problem is, how much? To-day, with the same 33 million kilowatts of electric capacity, we are using some 70 million tons of coal equivalent. If, in 1975, we were to go up to 90 million kilowatts, as I said was possible, and use it to the same intensity, it seems that we could be using

19
something of the order of 180 million tons of coal equivalent, or half the total energy figure I suggested as appropriate for 1975; while gas, which might well double over this period, would then be using 15 per cent. of our energy. Transport is expected to take about 12 per cent.
The sum of these figures, my Lords, would be 77 per cent., leaving only 23 per cent. of the total energy field for all industrial and domestic uses other than electricity, gas and transport. This figure seems obviously too high, if not absurd. The calculation is, of course, disputable on several grounds; but, even so, it seems that either total energy requirements for 1975 are under-stated at 360 million tons of coal equivalent, or we could be over-invested in electricity by that year if we go on building generating plants at the present rate.
Based on the figures I have described, our 1975 fuel consumption could look something like this. Coal, 190 million tons; oil, 140 million tons of coal equivalent; others (that is, atomic energy and water), 30 million tons. The figure of 140 million tons of coal equivalent of oil represents something like 90 million tons of oil, which is an awful lot. If our figure of 360 million is too low, the oil might well have to go up still higher.
Is the oil position secure? The world reserves of oil are ample for the foreseeable future, but some are situated in politically unstable parts of the world. As against this, the reserves are very diversified; the production of Canada has hardly been scratched; and, in the last resort, the consumers have the whip-hand because the oil countries get no revenue if they cannot sell their oil. Nevertheless, oil has to be paid for. Oil companies all emphasise that they earn a great deal of foreign exchange for Britain and that they buy much of their equipment here. One feels that we should recognise that oil is the fuel of the future, and see whether we cannot arrange that a still larger proportion of the oil companies' requirements should be bought here in order to help pay for it. If we do not find gas, then we may have to increase coal production from the economic coalfields and put more of our money into atomic energy.
20
We come now to the main object of this exercise, which is to ask Her Majesty's Government how they see the future, taking into account the following considerations. I wonder whether we shall be over-invested in electricity by 1975. Is it economic to make such immense investment in plant which may be required only at peak periods? What can we do to spread the Lord by off-peak consumption? What are the latest developments in that direction? Can we extend the Ffestiniog type of project, which pumps up water at off-peak and generates very quickly at peak-load. If we decide to slow down on generating capacity beyond 1970, will it be a better bet to give preference to the next generation of atomic power over conventional stations? Shall we, in any case, require a North Sea pipe-line? If we find the North Sea gas, and it is the same type as the Dutch gas, how are we going to deal with the question of our burning equipment? If our gas industry turns over almost entirely to oil or natural gas, how are we to supply the substantial but shrinking market for coke? Then, if the gas industry is going to expand at the sort of rate I have indicated, how about the gasfitters of the future? Are we training enough? They are a retiring class on the whole, and since Mr. Hosmer Angel used the gas-fitters' ball for his nefarious purposes, and finally met the horsewhip of Holmes, we have not heard much about gas-fitters in our economy.
Our decisions on investment have to take account of all the decisions which I have mentioned, and others as well. We have to look to the balance of payments without condemning industry to use uneconomic energy. We have to support our suppliers of capital equipment at home at least to the extent that they can expect to secure orders abroad. We have to keep in being our teams of atomic engineers so that they may keep in the forefront of science and at the same time be able to secure export markets. We have to remove as much uncertainty as we can, so that the heavy capital expenditure of the oil industry can be directed to the right projects. My Lords, all these questions are very difficult ones. We must not expect any human agency to give all the right

21
answers. We can only hope that their decisions will not prove to be too wrong. I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am not at all certain about the success of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, in the rôle of Old Moore, but I am quite certain that your Lordships' House is indebted to him for bringing, forward this very important Motion and for the manner in which he has presented his case. I was somewhat relieved to hear him say, almost in his last sentence, that he felt that no human agency could possibly guarantee to answer successfully all the questions he had put. Certainly this particular human agency does not aim at answering all of them, but I will do my best in the course of my speech, if perhaps less fancy-free and more pragmatic, to deal with most of the points which have been raised by the noble Lord.
Her Majesty's Government fully recognise that both our economy and our planned expansion are dependent on the production of power. Our power policy is therefore designed to satisfy, and as far as possible to anticipate, the progressively increasing demand for power—and to satisfy that demand as to quantity, quality and variety in as efficient and economic a manner as possible. The fulfilment of that policy requires investment on a massive and increasing scale.
Last year the gas industry in Great Britain spent over £90 million on capital account; and the nationalised electricity industry in England and Wales (including nuclear power stations) spent nearly £490 million. But with growing demand annual capital expenditure in the electricity industry will increase substantially, and the figure of £673 million has been approved for the next financial year. The Gas Boards, too, have to expand their capacity, but as their new processes are less costly in capital their expanding quantitative investment will not, for the present, cost more than around £100 million a year. At the moment, as your Lordships are aware, the Government are engaged in a review of public expenditure and investment, in the light of our general plans for national economic growth. Until this is completed it is not possible to give, in financial terms, precise forecasts of the gas and electricity industries' longer term level of investment. It is certain, how-
22
ever, that although the £770 million which we shall be investing next year in gas and electricity is a large sum, this, and more, will be necessary in the years ahead if we are to support the growth of the economy and provide for domestic requirements. More power is essential, not only for increasing production but for increasing the efficiency of industry.
The capital requirements of the power industries have to be met from the resources available from public investment as a whole, but we are convinced that they must be granted the highest priority. And, in addition to the industries which the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, mentioned in his Motion, as he very properly said we must take coal and the privately-owned oil industry very fully into account. They have vital parts to play in meeting national energy requirements. The capital needs of coal have to be met out of the total pool. The Government regard it as essential to the proper assessment of priorities to operate a coordinated fuel policy. To this end my right honourable friend the Minister of Power has already begun discussions with the chairmen of the nationalised fuel industries, including, of course, coal. It is as yet too early to go further than that, but when our reassessment is completed Parliament will be informed. Turning to the individual industries and, first of all, to the gas industry—
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? I imagine that oil is represented in this committee to decide the future, because the oil industry's investment is very big indeed.
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords. I had actually mentioned the privately-owned oil industry a few sentences before, and in any consideration of fuel policy oil must be taken into account.
The gas industry, as the noble Lord mentioned, has recently seen a marked upsurge in its fortunes; indeed, it has taken its place in the forefront of the technological revolution. The confidence expressed in the Gas Council's publication Gas Goes Ahead has certainly been justified. In 1963 the industry's plans provided for an increase in gas sold of 5 per cent. a year. This contrasts with the position in the 1950's when they were hard put to maintain the level of gas sales. It is not easy to forecast with certainty, but now a 5 per cent. annual increase

23
seems much too low. Much of the Gas Boards' new business is for seasonal heating which is very much affected by the weather, but it seems likely that the rate of increase in gas sales, which is now of the order of 7 to 8 per cent. a year—50 per cent. more than expected last year—is likely to continue.
This spectacular resurgence has come about because the public has taken a new view. of gas prospects. The first tanker carrying liquid gas from Algeria arrived on October 12, and a substantial quantity of gas from this source has already been reformed and supplied to consumers. This, the world's first venture in the large-scale transportation of gas beyond the seas, is working smoothly. When fully operational it will supply some 350 million therms, or 10 per cent. of our town gas requirements a year. It is a useful addition, therefore, to our supplies of cheap non-toxic gas which will help to meet the rising demand for gas this winter. In total, however, it amounts to only two years' increase in sales, so it has had no significant effect on the requirements from other sources. But this is an outstanding example of enterprise by a nationalised industry, brought to fruition in co-operation with private concerns and international partnerships. The Gas Council's investment in this project is limited to the £13½ million cost for the grid which carries gas to the eight Area Boards and to the terminal at Canvey. In addition, during the last few years two important Lurgi plants have been brought into operation for the total gasification of coal, and some very economical processes for making gas from light oil have been introduced.
As the noble Lord mentioned, the industry is also participating in the search for natural gas. The Gas Council-Amoco group was awarded five licences in September to drill for oil and natural gas in the North Sea. Extensive survey work has already been completed and drilling will start next year. But as well as its own drilling, our gas industry, with its statutory monopoly of the distribution through pipes of the public supply of gas, has an interest in other potential finds because it will have first option on any natural gas which becomes available for use as fuel. Any money spent on North Sea exploration is being charged to revenue account and, therefore, capital-
24
wise it will not affect the remainder of the industry's programme.
As the noble Lord mentioned, Dutch natural gas affords another very large potential source of supply. Indeed, the natural gas reserves at Groningen have been estimated at 1-1 million million metres—roughly a hundred years of United Kingdom consumption at the present level. Discussions were initiated in June, 1963. between the Gas Council and the company developing the Groningen reserves, but progress has been slow because the project involves a number of difficult economic and technical problems including, as the noble Lord said, the proposal to lay a pipe-line under the North Sea. On this last question there is now hope that the terms for a feasibility study for a pipe-line may be agreed in the reasonably near future. But agreement for a joint study does not imply a commitment to supply or to take gas at any future date, and in any case a scheme for importing Dutch gas would be subject to the approval of my right honourable friend.
Under the stimulus of these new developments gas will play an increasingly important rôle in our economy, in providing fuel supplies at competitive prices, and our investment in this field will unquestionably bring rich benefits. Gas is ideal for many sophisticated heat processes in industry, and in the home it is the most suitable and reliable fuel for meeting the seasonal heating load. We shall need more gas and our planned investment will ensure that it is produced and distributed as economically as possible.
I turn now to the electricity industry. The supply industry in England and Wales is at present planning its investment on the basis that the total sales of units of electricity will increase over the next six years at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum. Translated into calls on generating plant, that means that the demand for electricity around 1972—eight years hence—is likely to be double what it is now. As major production units take some five years from conception to commissioning, we have a very great deal to do if we are to double our capacity in some seven years and thus begin to create reserve capacity. But the most urgent task is to close

25
the present gap between maximum capacity and peak demand, and here I might say a word about electricity supply prospects for this winter. The industry is working on estimates which put the expected peak demand in "average cold spell" weather at 33, 600 megawatts, and the demand in weather of extreme severity at 36, 600 megawatts. The noble Lord quoted his figures on a somewhat different basis. I hope he will not mind if I use this standard which is the one most commonly used.
According to the law of averages, there is a fifty-fifty chance of weather being worse than "average cold", but only one in a hundred of its being worse than "extremely severe". To meet these possible loads—the two extremes, I may call them—the Generating Board expect, by the end of this month, to have a total capacity of 35, 000 megawatts. In recent winters the Board has managed to have about 90 per cent. of its plant available to meet the peak, so that, assuming this figure can be achieved this winter, and that demand and capacity have been correctly estimated, there will be this winter a plant deficit of about 7 per cent. in an average cold weather spell and a deficit of 14 per cent. in extremely severe weather. On these estimates, in an average cold spell the Generating Board expects to be able to cope with the deficit by reducing voltages—I understand that the lights get a little dim: in very severe weather actual disconnection of some consumers may be necessary at peak hours.
These demand estimates were adopted by the Electricity Council in May, but, so far, sales are running somewhat below the forecast. It is now thought, therefore, that demand may not turn out to be higher than 33, 000 megawatts, and, if all possible measures are used to relieve pressure on the system, the deficit in average cold weather could be of the order of 3 per cent., and, in extremely severe weather, 11 per cent.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think I have taken these figures wrongly. I thought he said that in normally cold weather 33, 000 megawatts were required, and that we were in fact producing 35, 000 megawatts. That does not seem to me to be a deficit. I did not quite understand the figures.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, what I said was that in an ordinarily cold spell it would be 33, 600 megawatts; in very severe weather it would be 36, 600 megawatts. They are the peak loads. Then I went on to say that by the end of this month the Board hopes to have plant capacity available for 35, 000 megawatts, but that normally they are able, even at peak, to produce at best only 90 per cent. of that capacity in terms of power to be consumed.
LORD DERWENT: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I quite understand.
LORD STONHAM: That brings us to the point that, if we have the ordinary, "fifty-fifty" winter, during the cold spell of that winter we shall be 7 per cent. short, and, if it is very bad, during that time we shall be 14 per cent. short. I was going on to say, however, that since May, when those estimates were prepared, the level of consumption has been less than anticipated, and we now therefore think that it may well be that, at best, we shall have a 3 per cent. deficit, and, at worst, 11 per cent., and therefore the chances of having to disconnect consumers would be reduced. But, of course, we must not ignore this.
The Generating Board may face additional difficulties in certain areas because of delays in completing important sections of the transmission system. So far as the Area Boards are concerned, they have taken all practical steps to accelerate the reinforcement of their distribution networks, and the chances of local interruption are expected to be less than in recent winters, although they cannot be ruled out. Your Lordships will also be aware that the shortage of generating capacity arises mainly because, under the previous Government, the rate of growth of demand was seriously underestimated. Another important factor has been the serious delays in commissioning new plant this year.
All possible steps are of course being taken to avoid breaks in electricity supplies. The Boards have made special arrangements with owners of private generating plants to operate them for short periods when otherwise Lord shedding might be necessary, and they have secured the co-operation of large industrial consumers to reduce, without serious loss of production, their demands on the

27
system at peak hours. It is expected that the increased investment programme will improve the supply situation in the next two years; and, under the Generating Board's present proposals, we should have an adequate reserve margin of plant by about 1970. That is how the point of a reserve margin applies: we must have more than the peak demand. The Board now aim at a reserve plant margin of 17 per cent. compared with the figure of 14 per cent. formerly thought adequate. The achievement of this target will require maximum effort by the Board and the heavy electrical industry. It will also involve investment totalling £4, 000 million over the next six years.
My Lords, I have at this point reached a stage in my speech at which it might suit the greater convenience of your Lordships if the two important Statements were now made. I could then resume my speech on the nuclear power programme. With your Lordships' agreement, therefore, I will sit down now and allow these two Statements to be made.

PROPOSED CORPORATION TAX AND CAPITAL GAINS TAX
3.46 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a short Statement which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just made in another place. I think it would be convenient if I were to use his own words.
"The House will recall I promised that as soon as I was able to do so I would provide further details of my proposals for a corporation tax and a capital gains tax. I am accordingly circulating in the Official Report, in reply to Questions on the Order Paper to-day"—
that is, in another place—
"information about certain features of the proposals which, as at present advised, I have it in mind to put before Parliament."
My Lords, I am arranging for this information to be circulated in the House of Lords Hansard, but your Lordships might like to know that 50 copies are
28
being made available and will be in the Printed Paper Office after 4 o'clock.
Following is a copy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's reply referred to in the above Statement:
"The task of working out all the provisions of these major schemes of tax reform will be long and complicated. But I am anxious that there should be no unnecessary doubts and I set out below certain features of the proposals which, as at present advised, I have it in mind to put before Parliament. It must be understood that these outline proposals are concerned with ordinary transactions and the ordinary conduct of business affairs. Special provisions may be necessary for special types of corporations such as, for example, life assurance companies: and the full details of the schemes I shall present next April will, of course, have to take account of, and guard against, any dangers of action that might be taken to avoid or artificially to reduce the normal liability to tax. I am, of course, ready to consider any ideas arising out of my outline proposals which representative bodies may wish to put forward and representations should be addressed to the Board of Inland Revenue at Somerset House. Meantime, the House will not expect me to give any further details, pending the examination of representations and the formulation of my detailed proposals.
Proposals as to Corporation Tax General
The essence of my proposals is that the income of all companies and of other bodies within the scope of the profits tax shall become liable to a new corporation tax and shall cease to be liable to income tax and profits tax. Income arising to individuals and partnerships will be liable to income tax and, where appropriate, to surtax also.
A corporation tax will be charged at a flat rate on the total income of companies for each accounting period. A deduction will be given for normal interest (including normal debenture interest) and other charges paid in the accounting period. No deduction will be given for dividends on either ordinary or preference shares Such dividends will be liable to income tax and surtax when received by individuals and partners. Capital allowances will be given for corporation tax purposes on the same lines as for income tax. It is a natural corollary of the separation of company taxation from personal taxation that a company which enjoys overseas income that has suffered overseas tax should receive credit for overseas tax only against the corporation tax to which it is liable. I realise that this will create special problems for certain companies and I am considering whether, whilst adhering to the principle set out above, these problems could be eased by some transitional arrangements.
Basis of Charge
In general, the first charge of corporation tax will be on the income of the accounting period following that which was the basis of income tax liability for 1965-66. The rate of

29
tax appropriate to income up to April 1966 will be fixed in the Budget of April 1966. For new companies corporation tax will be payable in one sum nine months after the end of the accounting period, but for existing companies which keep the same accounting date the tax will be payable in one sum on the 1st January in the financial year following that in which the accounting period ended.
The last charge to income tax on trading profits will be for 1965-66. As regards other sources of income, the last income tax charge will also be on income charged for 1965-66. The last charge to profits tax will, in relation to a particular source of income, correspond to the last charge for income tax; thus, in the case of trading profits, the last charge will be on the profits of the period that formed the basis for the 1965-66 income tax assessment.
Dividends
Companies will be required to deduct income tax at the standard rate from dividends and other distributions of profits, and also from interest and other charges, and to account to the Revenue for the tax as and when it is deducted. These provisions will apply to dividends and other payments after 5th April, 1966. Special provisions will be introduced to deal with possible attempts at forestalling as regards dividends.
Provisions will be required as to the treatment of dividends paid by one United Kingdom company to another, and these require further consideration. But I can give an assurance now to investment trust companies and unit trusts that such dividends will not be charged to corporation tax in their hands if they are passed on to their shareholders in the form of dividends. I can also give an assurance that dividends received by parent companies from their United Kingdom subsidiaries will be treated as "franked" income for corporation tax purposes.
Special Cases
Because the new scheme will tax undistributed profits at a lower rate than the present scheme, there will be special provisions to ensure that certain types of companies, including the so-called 'one-man' companies, do not retain profits for the purpose of enabling shareholders to avoid personal taxation.
Charities and approved superannuation funds which are at present entitled to exemption from income tax will not themselves be chargeable to corporation tax and will continue to be entitled to exemption from income tax, and will therefore be able to claim repayment of income tax suffered by deduction.
Proposals as to Capital Gains Tax Occasion of Charge
The new tax will be imposed only on gains which are realised after next Budget day. Such gains will be chargeable whenever the underlying assets were acquired. There will, however, be no retrospection; the gain to be charged on disposal will not exceed the difference between the value of the particular asset on the 1965 Budget day and the amount realised when it is disposed of subsequently. Moreover, the charge to tax on a gain realised after next Budget day will not be on an
30
amount greater than any gain that is realised. As I have already indicated, provisions will be included to prevent avoidance by creating artificial values on Budget day.
For the purpose of the tax, realisation will include disposal by sale, long lease, exchange, forfeiture and the transfer of ownership by gift or on death. In the last two cases the asset will be treated as realised at its market value. However, the first £5, 000 of gains realised on death will be exempt; and any capital gains tax paid will be deductible from the amount of the estate for estate duty purposes.
Where stocks, shares or securities are treated as realised involuntarily, in such circumstances that new stocks etc. are received in place of those formerly held, as a result of a conversion operation or a scheme of company reorganisation no tax will immediately be chargeable: for cases of this kind I propose that there should be rules broadly comparable to paragraphs 10 to 14 of the Ninth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1962.
Assets Chargeable
The tax will extend to all gains realised on the disposal of assets of whatever kind, whether tangible or intangible, with the following exceptions. Gains realised from the disposal of the taxpayer's only or principal residence will be exempt. Capital gains realised in respect of Savings Certificates or National Development Bonds will also be exempt, as will sums received on the maturity or surrender or normal policies of life assurance. Premium Bond prizes, football pool dividends and betting winnings, where there is no disposal of an asset, are outside the scope of the tax. Gains arising out of the sale of chattels will not be within the charge to tax except where the price realised from a single transaction standing alone is £1, 000 or more. There will be restrictions on relief for losses on chattels.
Persons Liable
Persons, including companies, who are resident in the United Kingdom will be liable to tax on all realised gains wherever the underlying assets are situated. Non-residents, whether individuals or companies, will not be liable on gains realised from assets situated in the United Kingdom unless those assets are used for the purposes of a trade or business carried on in this country by a permanent establishment which they maintain here. Thus, gains realised by non-residents from portfolio investments in the United Kingdom will be exempt. Gains realised by charities and approved superannuation funds which enjoy exemption from income tax will also be exempt.
Basis of Charge
The tax will be charged on net gains realised in the year to the extent that those gains are not already chargeable to income tax. Relief for realised losses will be given primarily against any gains realised in the same year, any excess of losses being allowed to be carried forward without time-limit and set against future gains. For assets acquired before next Budget day relief will be given only for the due proportion of the loss which accrued after that day.
The relationship of the new tax to the existing short-term gains tax is under examination."
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we are very grateful to the Government for this extraordinarily prompt and most welcome reaction to the requests which your Lordships made on Wednesday and Thursday of last week. We shall look with great interest in the Printed Paper Office or in Hansard tomorrow in the hope of discovering that the Government really do understand what they are trying to do.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will always be prompt and that, in time to come, the noble Earl will not think it is extraordinary.

LEASEHOLD REFORM
3.48 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat a Statement on leasehold enfranchisement which my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has just made in another place. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to use his words. He said:
"This is a subject which is causing concern to many people. The Government have already announced their intention to introduce legislation to enable householders with an original lease of more than 21 years to purchase the reversion of their leasehold interest. By giving this matter priority in their legislative plans they have shown the importance they attach to it.
"But the provisions required raise important issues of policy and also some complex problems of a technical nature. For these reasons, and because of the other demands on Parliamentary time, it will necessarily be some time before a Bill can be introduced.
"Meanwhile, anxiety has been expressed by those living in houses where a long lease is due to expire. They
32
fear that they may lose the opportunity of purchasing the freehold of their homes if the lease expires before the new legislation comes into force.
"The Government sympathise with the anxieties of those whose leases are due to expire shortly; and I can give an assurance that in framing the new legislation the Government will ensure that whatever enfranchisement rights are conferred on a leaseholder whose lease is still running will similarly be conferred on a leaseholder whose lease expires after December 8,1964, and is still in occupation, on whatever terms, when the legislation comes into force.
"This assurance cannot apply, of course, to those who have lost possession of the property before the Bill comes into force. But most occupying lessees are already entitled to remain in possession when their leases expire. They cannot be displaced save on specified grounds which are examined by the county court. It is therefore likely that when the new Bill comes into effect a leaseholder whose lease has expired will still be living in his old house though the terms of his tenure will be different.
"What I have said does not apply to Scotland where the land law is very different. The Government are not aware of any anxiety in connection with house property held on long term leases in Scotland. But Scottish interests will be kept in mind while legislation for England and Wales is being prepared."
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, we are much obliged to the noble Lord for giving this Statement to the House. It is, of course, a most important and significant Statement. It makes quite clear the Government's decision to proceed with the legislation which, admittedly, was promised in the gracious Speech at the beginning of this Parliament. On the other hand, I had rather hoped that, after mature consideration, this would be one of those cases where the Government would come to the conclusion that discretion was the better part of valour, and that they might, perhaps, change their mind in this respect. But we are grateful for small mercies, in that the Government have at least

33
recognised the very important issues of policy which are raised by their proposal and that there are very complex problems of a technical nature to be solved. I directed attention to one or two of these problems when I spoke during the debate on the humble Address, and I do not propose to say any more about them at the moment.
Turning to the latter half of the statement, it is made quite clear that the Government intend to preserve the rights of existing leasholders who may find their leases expiring before the Act comes into force; and since the Government have made it clear that they propose to introduce a Bill compulsorily to enfranchise these long leases of over 21 years, I would not dissent from the intention indicated in the Statement. I agree that it is a perfectly logical thing to do. Therefore, so far as that part of the Statement is concerned, I do not propose to criticise it in any way.
In the last paragraph or two, however, the Government point out the very considerable protection already afforded to leaseholders, but remind them that they can be displaced, on specified grounds, by order of the county court. That raises in one's mind the question as to whether the Government propose to alter in any way the terms of this sort of protection, which, I would remind your Lordships, is a protection for the landlord as well as for the lessee. It makes one wonder how much tampering there will be with the rights of private ownership, with the necessities for redevelopment and, of course, with the basic laws and rules of private contract. These are matters which we shall have to consider and to discuss very thoroughly when we see what legislation is brought forward. I thank the noble Lord for his Statement.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for the tone of his comments and for his readiness to accept that complex legislation of this kind does require careful consideration and preparation. That is what is going on at the moment, and I think it would be unwise to say anything about how far amendment of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, will be required. I would add that we make a practice of keeping our Election promises.
Several Noble Lords: Oh! Oh!
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, might I ask whether the proposed interim protection will require legislation?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I do not so understand the Statement. I think this is a warning that rights which are to be given in the future will be extended in the future in certain circumstances.

THE ELECTRICITY GAS AND ATOMIC ENERGY INDUSTRIES
3.55 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, after that genial, or nobly genial, interlude, I hope that it will be in order if I try to shed a little more light on the general proceedings. Your Lordships will remember that I had reached the point where I had expressed the Government's hope that in seven years the power plant construction programme would have reached parity with the demand that we then expect; and I said that to do that would entail, as at present estimated, an investment of some £4, 000 million. In that programme the production of electrical energy from nuclear plants will play an increasing part. It will be recalled that the first nuclear power programme suffered, under the previous Government, from several drastic changes of heart, but it managed to survive as a programme to provide 5,000 megawatts of nuclear generating capacity by 1969. Three stations are already supplying power to the Grid. Wylfa, the last station, will be commissioned in 1968 and 1969. All nine stations, including the Scottish station at Hunterston, are of the Magnox type developed by the Atomic Energy Authority at Calder Hall.
Last April, the previous Government announced "The Second Nuclear Power Programme", which planned to provide a further 5,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity to come into commission between 1970 and 1975. This programme which had been agreed by the C.E.G.B. and the A.E.A. was intended to be flexible, and subject to revision at regular intervals in the light of new information. We are all glad to know that the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, who was until recently Chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority, will be able to take part in

35
this debate. The A.E.A. and the C.E.G.B. having made a joint study of the available reactor systems for the new programme, agreed that the main contenders were: the advanced gas-cooled reactor (A.G.R.), which has been developed by the Atomic Energy Authority; the American water-moderated reactor systems, especially the boiling water reactor (B.W.R.); and, pressurised water reactor (P.W.R.). We really ought to congratulate the experts on providing such initials for these things that a layman like myself can understand what they represent. So often one has to have a special inquiry to see what the initials mean.
It was decided that the C.E.G.B. would invite tenders for an A.G.R. station to be built alongside the Magnox station now under construction at Dungeness, at the same time making it clear that it was also ready to consider tenders from British industry for "water-operated reactor systems of proved design". The previous Government intended to review the tenders with the C.E.G.B. and the A.E.A. before a decision was taken as to the type of reactor to be built. The tenders are to be submitted by February 1 next, and the Board, in consultation with the A.E.A., will then have to assess them and consult the Government. A decision, therefore, cannot be expected until well into the summer of next year. It must be borne in mind that whilst the capital cost of a conventional station is expected to fall to £37 per kw. by 1969, compared with an estimated £100 per kw. at the latest nuclear station at Wylfa, the running costs of a nuclear station are substantially less than those for conventional stations. Indeed, it is possible—some say likely—that by the early 1970's nuclear power may become cheaper than conventional power for the generation of the base load. But because of the many uncertainties it is obvious that the programme must be flexible and subject to review.
Electricity now accounts for an increasing proportion of the nation's total energy requirements. Between 1953 and 1963, it rose from less than 17 per cent. to nearly 30 per cent., and this increase is expected to continue. Last year, nuclear power contributed around 4 per cent. of the total units of electricity produced, but if the two nuclear programmes are com-
36
pleted as planned, the proportion by 1975 will be over 16 per cent. But by then the fuel requirements for electricity generation will have doubled, and ten years hence coal will still be the major fuel used by the industry.
It is understandable that your Lordships' House and the industry are anxious to secure answers to a number of important questions, but my right honourable friend has not yet had an opportunity to consider "The Second Nuclear Power Programme." Meanwhile, arrangements for tenders for the first station are going forward, and it is likely that it will be designed and constructed by one of the three consortia, all of whom have been invited to submit tenders for a comprehensive contract. The consortium method enables the novel design and construction problems of a nuclear station to be tackled as a whole. In the course of time, as standard designs become feasible, it may be found preferable to have direct contracts with specialist firms, as is now done with the building of conventional stations. How soon this may be depends on the way the technique of building these stations develops.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, suggests that nuclear stations have a longer life than the present assumption of 20 years, and that the availability is not 75 per cent., but more than 90 per cent. There is one staggering example quoted—I believe it was at Calder Hall—where the availability at one time was 99 per cent. These are points of vital importance in assessing the relative costs of power from nuclear and conventional stations. The noble Lord asked me what was the estimated cost of the latest nuclear station—and I take it that he was referring to Wylfa. I understand that, with less conservative grounds—that is to say, a life of 25 years and 85 per cent. availability—the cost of Wylfa will be virtually the same as the cost from the conventional means of production.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, has he by any chance worked out what difference a 30-year life would make? He has jumped up the availability from 75 to 85 per cent., and if he jumps the life up from 20 to 30 years, what difference in cost would that make? Has he the figures?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I think that in something so new as this, where there are so many imponderables and where our experience is so limited, one cannot be precise about these matters. I have said that it is possible, perhaps even likely, that in the early '70s generation by nuclear means may be cheaper than by conventional means and I have given the noble Lord the forecast by adjusting the ground rules to the extent which I suggested—25 years and 85 per cent. availability. But we must not forget that this is a hypothetical example. If we adjusted the ground rules up to 30 years, that might lead to the assumption, which might prove quite false, that these stations have a life of 30 years. In any case, these points will be fully considered by the Board.
We are also fully aware that a programme of.5, 000 mw. is insufficient to keep the three consortia fully employed, and in the light of this situation the future organisation of that part of the industry is under review inter-departmentally. Meanwhile, whilst awaiting the results of the inquiry for tenders, all these relevant matters are being constantly and closely considered. Obviously, however, I cannot go further in anticipating the Government's decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said that coal should have been included in his Motion and that it cannot be ignored. Coal must form the basis of the production of a great deal of our energy for some years to come. The noble Lord also said, if I took his words down aright, that continuous production from losing pits would be intolerable unless there were very special reasons for it.
LORD HAWKE: I said that in the short term it would be tolerable, but in the long term intolerable.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord is aware that I was not trying to misquote him. I was just trying to get the sense of what he said. The National Coal Board's policy is aimed directly at the elimination of uneconomic production. This of course, involves the modernisation and reconstruction of existing pits and the closure of pits which have no prospect of covering their operational costs before deprecia-
38
tion and interest. This process has been going on a long time and is continuing now. When I say that, I exclude, of course, those pits which are running at a loss just at the particular moment—for example, because of temporary geological difficulties, or because they are in process of reorganisation and construction. Pits will not be closed unless modern methods cannot make them viable.
The major part of the Coal Board's reconstruction programme, which was undertaken in the 1950's, when the demand for coal exceeded the capacity of the industry to produce, is now completed. The annual expenditure on major colliery schemes has been reduced by nearly 50 per cent. since 1959 and is expected to decline still further in the next few years. Indeed, in recent years the coal industry has done well in adjusting itself to mounting competition from other fuels. But despite the present level of production, it is still facing a difficult task. Because of the change in the pattern of its markets, the lower-priced electricity coals providing an even greater proportion of its outlets, the coal industry needs a higher annual increase in productivity than most other industries to meet the inevitable increases in wages and other costs, and to keep prices stable. Thus, there is a continuing need for modernisation to improve the efficiency and profitability of existing collieries.
A growing proportion of capital expenditure, now running at about £90 million a year, will be needed on schemes, such as the reorganisation and mechanisation of existing collieries, at the pit face and away from it, and the replacement of existing worn-out or uneconomic machines with more modern and improved equipment. The Board's investment programme includes expenditure on processing coal, for houses, for research and development projects, for brick-making and other ancillary activities. Legislation will be needed to extend the Board's borrowing powers, and that will have to come before the end of next year. As my right honourable friend stated in another place on December 1, he is reviewing, in collaboration with the National Coal Board, the prospects for the coal industry in relation to a coordinating policy for fuel. All matters

39
concerning the Board's long-term investment programme will come under review. The possibility of a capital reconstruction to relieve the coal industry of some of its capital charges has been widely canvassed. That will have to be borne in mind in the course of the review to which I have referred; but this will require legislation. I have no doubt that the objective of securing our fuel supplies on the most economic terms will be viewed against the probable social and economic consequences of declining coal production.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, asked what would be the effect of the present interest rates on the power programme. Bank rate naturally has a direct immediate effect upon the structure of short-term interest rates, but its effect on long-term rates, such as those charged to the Electricity and Gas Councils, is less immediate and much more limited in effect. The Councils will already be paying a higher rate of interest on their overdrafts from commercial banks as a result of the recent increase in bank rate, but these overdrafts are not used to finance the capital investment programmes: they are employed for working capital. As far as long-term borrowing is concerned, however, the rise in bank rate will have no effect whatsoever upon existing loans, and the rates for new loans have not been increased. Whether the rate on new loans will be increased depends upon the effect bank rate has upon long-term rates of interest in general; and as it is in the interest of the Exchequer and the industries to avoid frequent changes, it is the custom to await such time as a level establishes itself before making a change. Such a level is not at present established.
The noble Lord also asked about the effect of inflation on generating costs over the next 25 years. It is not possible, of course, to forecast—even Lord Hawke's Old Moore could not forecast it—what inflation will take place over the next 25 years. It is part of the Government's basic policy to seek stability of prices, but much will depend on the success of their incomes policy. However, if the value of money does continue to fall, there is no reason to think that the costs of electricity will increase more than prices generally. Indeed, the probability is entirely the other way. Over the last ten years, while the general
40
price index has increased by about 32 per cent., the average price of a unit of electricity has increased by only 18 per cent. This is because the use of vastly larger generating equipment has brought great economies in capital cost per unit generated, and increased sales have proportionately reduced overheads. Rising coal costs have been offset by more efficient generating plant, by the use of poorer grades and relatively less expensive coals, and by rationalising the transport of coal to power stations. These factors should continue to operate, and, in the long run, nuclear power may also bring economies to offset price inflation.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, also mentioned the prospects for pumped storage. Here I cannot hold out hope of any great expansion. We fully recognise that pumped storage stations have a longer working life than the conventional generating plants that would otherwise have to be installed to meet peak demand, and the quick response of hydroelectric plant is especially valuable in coping with sharp fluctuations in electricity demand and emergency conditions. Unfortunately, although the outlook is favourable in Scotland, the topography limits the number of suitable pumped storage sites in England and Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, mentioned the pumped storage scheme at Ffestiniog which was brought into operation in December, 1961. Its eventual capacity is 360 mw., and the Generating Board say that the project is providing peak period Lord power efficiently and economically. In North Devon the Generating Board have started exploratory surveys, including trial borings, at two sites to assess their suitability for pumped storage. Then the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board have a project at Cruachan which, with a capacity of 400 mw., will be the second largest pumped storage project in the world. It will be commissioned next year and in 1966. The Hydro-Electric Board are also considering the possibility of a pumped storage scheme at Loch Sloy near Loch Lomond. The capacity, at 1,200 mw., would make it the largest in the world. Those are the projects that we have in mind.
With regard to the future of pumped storage, like nuclear generation costs,

41
pumped storage costs have been reduced, but they have to compete with the steady fall in the capital cost per kw. of conventional power stations. However, further gains from advances in the technology of conventional generation are likely to be less spectacular than they have been in the past. This may make pumped storage schemes more attractive, as will the growing availability of nuclear power, when the capacity of nuclear power plant is sufficient to supply the minimum Lord on the system and surplus low cost nuclear energy begins to be available for night pumping. But this is some way in the future. Meanwhile, the Boards are ready to examine any projects where the circumstances are likely to be favourable.
As I said when I began, this is one of the most important items—if not the most important—in the foundation of our economy. On the generation and production of power rest the whole of our hopes for a steadily increasing national productivity, our standards of living and, indeed, our power, in a different sense, in the world. It is impossible to overestimate its importance. The Government realise this, and everything that can be done will be done in order to ensure that the power is there as and when it is required, and that it is produced in as diverse a fashion as required and in the most efficient and economic manner possible.
4.19 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Hawke for initiating this important debate in your Lordships' House this afternoon, because after the policy on Defence, the power policy, or fuel policy, of this nation is in my opinion—and I think in that of all your Lordships—the most important. It is only right, with a new Government in office, that we should examine this policy afresh. My only excuse for getting up to speak this afternoon is that I want to say a word or two on the atomic energy programme for the next five years. I was delighted to see (he has gone now) the noble Lord, Lord Snow.
Following me is the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. I understand that responsibility for the Atomic Energy Authority will now pass from the Minister for Educa-
42
tion and Science, whose responsibility it was in the late Government, to the new Ministry of Technology. I think this is a good thing, and that they will be able to study this great problem afresh.
We have made tremendous advances as pioneers in developing atomic power stations. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and I were privileged to go down last summer and spend a day at Bradwell, and we are most grateful to the Generating Board for the time they gave to us in explaining everything to us. It is a wonderful station. At that time it was the largest station in the world. It has now been superseded by Dounreay, in Scotland.
LORD HOBSON: Hunterston.
LORD WOLVERTON: I think that that one is now the largest station in the world. All these nine stations are based on the Magnox system, and their cost of generating electricity is about ⅔d. per unit, against ½ d. with coal. That is a big difference. As your Lordships know, coal has made a tremendous advance in the last few years on high steam pressures. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said that probably we are beginning to see the end of the advancement that can be made on that.
The point I wanted to make this afternoon is that the General Electric Company consortium have nearly completed a very large station in Japan. That is based on the Magnox system. We have an order for another one in Italy, which is, I think, running now and the one in Japan is about to run. I read in the Press the other day that the Japanese are thinking of giving some more orders for stations, but are now looking to America for the boiling-water reactor system. We had a great debate about this in your Lordships' House on June 10. We were assured then that the Atomic Energy Authority had made great advances with the advanced gas-cooled reactor, and that specifications would go out to British manufacturers to quote for a station of the advanced gas-cooled reactor type, to be placed side by side with the station of the Magnox type which is running this autumn at Dungeness.
If the Japanese are now thinking of turning to America for their next stations, it will be a great disappointment

43
to this country. We must do a great deal more research. I think it was agreed last summer that the Generating Board, if they wished, could import one set of American design of boiling-water reactor, to be put up and tested against our own advanced gas-cooled station, in order to see which was the more efficient type. Obviously, we must have greater efficiency if we are to compete with America.
In my view, there is a tremendous future in atomic energy power stations, but so often, as I said in the debate in June, pioneers get left behind. So I am hoping that, as Her Majesty's Government have said to-day, the programme will continue to be flexible, as the late Government said it would be. I also hope that a great deal more research—urgent research—backed up by the new Ministry of Technology, will be carried out by the Atomic Energy Authority, in consultation with the manufacturers and the Generating Board, to see whether we cannot get astride of the Americans. I understand, from a very good speech which the noble Viscount. Lord Caldecote, made in June, that although the Americans have not built any commercial station, the big companies in America have spent a large sum of money on research and confidently expect their boiling-water system of reactor to be the best in the world. We must try to get as good as they have, and it is a problem, in my humble submission, which needs a tremendous amount more research.
We must go on with the present programme of stations which for some years to come, presumably, unless they make big advances at this experimental station on the Magnox system, will not be as economical as the most efficient coal station. We have recently seen an instance of that in these very large power lines, one of which is almost completed. It passes all through East Anglia and Eastern England, coming down from Yorkshire to Waltham Cross.
It is a huge line, a 400, 000-volt line, with four conductors to each phase, and carries a very large Lord to bring the power down from Yorkshire coalfield stations along the Trent to London. I think it has been tapped twice—or it will be, eventually—near Cambridge and
44
King's Lynn. But primarily it is for London, and with this great increase in voltage which they have now been able to develop, it is cheaper to bring down power from the generating station on the Trent, using the East Midlands coalfield, rather than to bring down the coal, even by sea, to the Thames-side station. But these great pylons are very ugly. They are something like 160 feet high, and dominate the landscape. I have great sympathy with some of the views expressed in the debate we had in your Lordships' House the other day on this problem. It is out of the question to put the cables underground, owing to the enormous cost.
I hope that we shall be able to develop more of these atomic energy power stations, which are admirably suited to the South. We already have some, on the East coast, on the Severn, and on the South coast. We must get on quickly with this important research to see whether we can get the reactors to stand up to higher steam pressure, so as to be able to produce the current required at a cost that is more in competition with that of the most efficient coal station.
4.28 p.m.
LORD SHERFIELD: My Lords, if I limit my remarks this afternoon to atomic energy, it is because this aspect of the subject is the one with which I have the larger acquaintance, and not because I wish to press for the preferential treatment of nuclear fuel over other fuels. With the ever-increasing demand, each fuel has its part to play, and the problem for any Government is to strike the best balance between them. There are three points to which I should like to draw particular attention. They are the selection of the type, or types, of reactor to be introduced into the electricity generating system in the United Kingdom between 1970 and 1975; the rate at which atomic energy should be introduced into the United Kingdom electricity system, and, perhaps more particularly, the question of our organisation in this field. On the first point, a procedure for the selection of types has been laid down and, as has been said, we have to await the submission of tenders by the consortia and their assessment. Therefore,

45
no more can be said on this matter this afternoon.
But I should like to make this observation. There must be a very strong presumption in favour of choosing for the next stage of the nuclear power programme a system which has been developed by our scientists and engineers in the Authority, in industry, and in the Central Electricity Generating Board and of which we now have profound experience. The chosen line of development for British power reactors, the graphite gas-cooled system, has technically been extremely successful. After some avoidable and some unavoidable delays, the early stations are working well. For example, Hunterston, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, referred, at one time almost written off as an expensive failure, was, within two months of the second of the two reactors being commissioned, reported as already achieving an output of electricity some 7 per cent. more than its design capacity. The Tenth Annual Report of the Atomic Energy Authority gave the most encouraging information about the progress of the prototype of the second generation of reactors, the advanced gas-cooled reactor at Windscale.
I have been much concerned by the way in which public statements and many articles in the Press have over three or four years now tended to cast doubt on the products of the British system. Why this is so I do not know. Perhaps it is part of a general tendency to self-depreciation and denigration of our own performance which has recently become rather fashionable. I deplore this, not only because I think it is fallacious, but also because full advantage has been taken of it by our enterprising and vigorous competitors to press the merits of their own systems. My belief is that not only will the present generation of graphite gas-cooled reactors prove to be successful technically, but also that they will, in practice and with greater operating experience, give a much better economic return than at present is expected of them. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, gave some of the reasons, and, without being dogmatic or going into the various ground-rules which are laid down from time to time to calculate these matters, I am convinced that these reactors will, in fact,
46
perform much better than has been estimated.
As regards the advanced types, there seems very little doubt that any of them could, if built on a sufficient scale, produce power at substantially cheaper rates than that which would be available from any other contemporary source of electricity. Secondly, I think in forecasting their likely economic performance the result in each case and I refer, of course, to the British, American and Canadian types of reactor—would be the same within the margin of error. If this is so, the presumption in favour of the British system must surely prevail.
My Lords, the question of the rate at which atomic power should be introduced into the United Kingdom involves both technical and non-technical considerations. Technically, atomic power stations have a number of advantages over coal and oil stations. They are free from grit, dust, fumes and sulphur dioxide. They can be fuelled by a few tons of fuel elements a month, which can be brought in in a single load, and they are. therefore, almost immune to transport difficulties, for example, in very cold weather. The main hazard associated with them is some catastrophic accident resulting in the release into the atmosphere of radioactivity. But a great deal of research and development has gone into making nuclear power reactors safer than safe, and there is now every assurance that the effects of even the most improbable failure in a nuclear installation would be contained within the building in which it occurs. This improvement in safety devices should lead to a relaxation, where this is necessary, of the restrictions on the siting of nuclear power stations which were drawn up in the days when experience with nuclear reactors was a fraction of what it is to-day. The criterion of that time was what was known as the "maximum credible accident"—and it will be clear, I think, that anybody who regulated his life on such principle would never get out of bed.
It seems, therefore, that atomic power has now proved that it is technically efficient, safe and reliable, and that it has certain advantages over other types of energy for power production. But there is a major problem of finance. Broadly speaking, a nuclear power station costs about three times as much to build and

47
about one year longer to construct than a conventional power station. On the other hand, a nuclear power station costs about a third as much to run as a conventional station. Nuclear power is, therefore, highly capital intensive. As the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, implied (and I know this is a sensitive point) it could be argued, on the assumption that inflation is likely continue at a more or less steady ra that it would be desirable to build a large number of nuclear power stations as rapidly as possible. On the other hand, the nuclear power programme has to compete with other capital projects, such as roads, education and the other huge commitments which successive Governments have assumed.
My own view has been that the target figure of 5,000 mw. of additional nuclear power by 1975, tentatively recommended in last year's White Paper, having regard to the effect of economics of scale on the cost of nuclear power is on the low side—certainly at the bottom end of the desirable bracket. Clearly, there are difficult questions of priorities and national interest, and I am not surprised to hear that the Government need more time than they have had to examine all the aspects of this question before they are able to reach a conclusion.
There is, however, one point of special importance. Most of the systems at present under consideration for future nuclear power generation require the fuel to be uranium enriched in the isotope Uranium 235. It is therefore essential to prepare a source of supply. We have at Capenhurst an isotope separation plant of the diffision type which provides us with a source of indigenous material. Construction of this plant against time some fifteen years ago represents one of the great post-war triumphs of the British engineering industry, little publicised, but, in comparison with the experience of similar plants abroad, highly significant. At present, it is working at a low level in the absence of military demand for enriched uranium, and, for reasons which are fairly well known, its product would not at present compete in price with that which is now available from the United States. However, at the cost of a relatively small further capital investment it could be brought up to date and its
48
product would be, if not equal to, at least within range of, the American price, and no doubt in practice both sources of supply would be drawn upon.
In the past have been suggestions that the factory at Capenhurst should be closed down. It seems to me imperative that this should not be done. Here is a technological process of the most advanced kind in which we have a leading position. Here is a semi-processed material which, quite apart from its military importance, will become increasingly required for civil purposes. It would seem to be to be an act of folly to discontinue this process in the United Kingdom or to fail to bring it up to date and thus leave the production and supply of this material in the hands, however friendly, of the United States, of France, of the Soviet Union or perhaps of some other country in the future.
The rest of the nuclear fuel cycle is now fully provided for by an efficient fuel element factory at Springfield and efficient fuel processing plants at Windscale and Dounreay. All these plants have ample capacity for the foreseeable needs both at home and abroad. With these facilities the production group of the Atomic Energy Authority has in the last year or so been successful in obtaining foreign business worth many millions of pounds. This is an indication that though these facilities were primarily designed for domestic purposes, both civil and military, they are producing a return in the export field which is far from negligible. Clearly a decision on the United Kingdom programme in favour of a British system would greatly help these activities.
I now turn to organisation. At the present time our own nuclear industry is, I think, in a state of uncertainty and transition. There is, I believe, much to be said for the view that this is due mainly to the way in which we have organised ourselves for the production of nuclear plant. In retrospect it seems unfortunate that when it was decided to exploit the graphite gas-cooled reactor system commercially no fewer than five different industrial consortia were formed for the purpose and that five different applications of the system were ordered. Accordingly five different design and development teams had to be established, and the Atomic Energy Authority was given the difficult task of developing

49
simultaneously five different types of fuel elements. No doubt the extent of the market was at that time overestimated. No doubt it was right not to put all our eggs in one basket, or perhaps I should say one pressure vessel. There was perhaps an assumption—fallacious in my opinion—that the existence of five different groups would preserve a degree of real competition for the generating boards.
But, however good the reasons, the fact is that our competitors in other countries have managed to concentrate their industrial effort and their resources from the outset, whereas our effort and resources have been dispersed. The Americans have taken advantage of the economies of scale while we have persisted in the policy of the "one-off"; and although certain changes have now been made, I do not think that on the production side we have yet recovered from the handicaps which our system of organisation has imposed upon us and which certainly in the export field have robbed us of the highest prizes.
On the demand side, the two Generating Boards were already established as monopoly purchasers and the Atomic Energy Authority became, in practice if not as a matter of policy, a monopoly supplier for fuel elements. I believe that the concepts of a monopoly purchaser and a monopoly supplier are bad in principle. Both tend to the exercise of excessive influence, though of course a monopoly supplier is in a weaker position than a monopoly purchaser, since it is always open to the latter to look overseas. The Electricity Council and the Central Electricity Generating Board have single-mindedly pursued the laudable object of cheap power for the electricity consumer. But a single criterion does not necessarily resolve a problem, nor does it follow, to borrow a transatlantic expression, that what is good for a public board is good for a country. Other factors of a political, strategic and social nature have to be brought into the assessment, which only the Government of the day can make. Such matters cannot be settled by public boards, in this case, for example, by the Atomic Energy Authority alone or the Central Electricity Generating Board alone, or by both together.
And let me say, in parenthesis, that this latter contingency is by no means
50
as remote as might be supposed. Indeed, I wish I could do something to lay the ghost of the supposed bitter antagonism between the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Atomic Energy Authority, of which I have read so much. I believe that the supply of fuel elements is now entirely satisfactory both to the Authority and to the Board, and, as far as development is concerned, it is quite natural and healthy that there should be some difference of approach and judgment between the developer and the operator. But I believe that the relationship between these two bodies is now good, and in fact the issue lies, in my observation, much more between the Generating Boards and industry than between the Boards and the Authority, and although some changes have been made I doubt whether this situation is even yet satisfactory.
The Central Electricity Generating Board has built up its own team of scientists and engineers with prime experience of the graphite gas-cooled system, and this has, not unnaturally, created a tendency to multiply the requirements, the specifications and the paraphernalia of tendering, which imposes an almost intolerable burden on those concerned with the designing of nuclear power stations. The curious thing is—and I stand open to correction on this—that the Generating Board seem prepared to take on trust from foreign suppliers what they are not prepared to take on trust from British suppliers. This means that the foreign tender costs less to make, and there is a built-in temptation for United Kingdom firms to take the easy way out and accept the foreign designs. This state of affairs is discouraging both to the industry as far as overseas orders are concerned and to the foreign purchaser in regard to his confidence in the British product.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Can he give any evidence of the C.E.G.B. being less rigorous in their requirements in respect of foreign reactors than those of our own production?
LORD SHERFIELD: Since the C.E.G.B. has intimate experience of the graphite gas-cooled reactor system, they know much more about it and therefore are much more particular, whereas so

51
far as foreign systems are concerned, since they have not been involved in the research and development they are more inclined—and I am not saying it is not quite natural—to take what is offered on trust; and this appears to produce a situation of some inequality, which I think is regrettable.
I know of no way of moderating the power of a large public monopoly otherwise than by governmental influence. I suggest that the present situation is having a harmful effect on the chances of our industry competing with foreign suppliers or maybe even of staying in business and that there is a prima facie case for Government intervention; and I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that this situation is under review. I think the least the Government ought to do is satisfy themselves, in assessing the different systems of nuclear power generation, that the conditions and assumptions made are precisely the same in the case of the domestic and of the foreign systems in comparison.
Too often in the recent past we have led the world in early research and development of a new invention or process, and then at a later stage of the development have allowed the ball to be taken from our hands and carried off by our American or other competitors. This may sometimes have been due to lack of resources, sometimes to faulty or wasteful organisation, but perhaps also to a certain failure of will and resolution. Are we going to allow this to happen also in the civil applications of atomic energy?
Important decisions lie before the Government here, and they will need to be taken in the next few months. There are the decisions about the nuclear power programme to which I have referred. There is a decision on the construction of a prototype fast reactor power station, in the design and development of which we are, thanks to the experimental facility at Dounreay, still, I believe, ahead of the rest of the world. There is a decision about the future of the diffusion plant at Capenhurst. The Government have proclaimed their strong interest in the technological advance of this country. Here is a field in which we are in all respects already in the forefront, and in some
52
respects still, though perhaps not for much longer, ahead of other countries. The moment of decision is near, and the issue is whether to push the machine over a dead centre and go forward, or allow it to fall back and watch our competitors reap the benefit of all the effort which has been put into equipping ourselves with the capital works and the scientific and engineering know-how for the production of nuclear power and the other benefits of the nuclear age. I hope that we shall have the courage and the confidence to back our own horses.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether I could ask him one question. He made a most interesting suggestion about the conversion of Capenhurst. Can he give us a rough estimate of what this will cost for the purposes he has in mind?
LORD SHERFIELD: My Lords, I would prefer not to do that, because I am a little out of date as regards some of these calculations.
4.53 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I propose to confine the few remarks I have to make to a much more pedestrian subject than that with which the noble Lord has dealt in such an interesting way, and to confine myself to electricity supply in general terms and within the four corners of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, in respect of future investments and in drawing attention to the Annual Reports of the Electricity Council, et cetera.
As has been clear to your Lordships from what has been said in the debate, electricity is no longer a matter which can be dealt with in isolation when one is considering the power requirements of the nation. But it is a highly efficient section of our nationalised industry. I am sure I am speaking with your Lordships' sympathy when I say how pleasant it is to see with us to-day the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, who presided during the difficult years of the formation of this nationalised industry, which is most efficiently run, although, of course, it is well to remember that another method of employing and harnessing the electricity power of the nation might be found to operate more easily, and more economically in the long run.

53
But I want to draw particular attention to a paragraph in the Report of the Electricity Council where, in referring to the announcement in January last that there will be further upward charges in the bulk tariffs, it says:
"This was to enable the Board to meet the higher costs associated with the expansion of their capital programmes and with the increased use of the older and less efficient power stations due to the shortage of plant."
This seems to me to call into question a matter of principle. If it means that existing tariffs are not high enough to cover depreciation and amortisation of existing plant, then certainly the tariffs are too low. If that is the case, they must be raised. Perhaps in that measure the increased tariffs may stem from inflation, as other noble Lords have said to-day; but that again is another matter. In my view, it is not correct to contemplate the raising of tariffs to enable the Board to meet the higher costs associated with the expansion of their capital programmes.
We have had some glimpse, not only in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, of the enormous figures which are involved when we come to generation by atomic power. It is fair to bear in mind that to increase tariffs to-day in order to meet increased capital costs in the future can well be interpreted as charging existing consumers higher rates so that future consumers can benefit. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made plain at the end of his speech, we must remember that power tariffs are the life blood of the economy of this country, and increased rates now may well mean increased costs for industry now, and such might have long-term effects, including the restriction of industrial expansion. Another effect of reduction of industrial expansion is a curtailment of future Lord requirements in relation to electricity supply.
One matter, which perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply might deal with in his speech, and which has confused me and may well confuse other noble Lords, is that on the one hand we have a statement that increased costs must be met by higher tariffs, and yet it is perfectly plain—the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, made this point in his speech—that as atomic power develops in efficiency, and as thermal stations develop in efficiency, so the cost per kilowatt goes
54
down. My mind is not clear on where that affects an approach to electricity tariffs in respect to this intimation that they may have to be raised in order to meet increased costs.
On my next point, which to my mind is not of the same weight but is of general principle, I think it is easier to turn to Scotland and to the problems of the Hydro-Electric Boards. I think that perhaps the best thing to do is to turn to the Mackenzie Report where, at page 9, it says that the Committee envisaged that the Board would co-operate in schemes for the regeneration of the Highlands. To my mind, and in my own personal experience, there is here a big problem in regard to how much of the cost of general social benefits, rural benefits—call them what you will—is fairly chargeable to the cost of electricity. Here I believe that a great deal of careful thinking may still be required.
Other noble Lords have indicated that there is going to be plenty of thinking ahead for those who are going to plan our power development. The point I wish to make is that in their thinking let it be borne in mind (and I am not belittling the achievements of the Hydro-Electric Boards or anything like that) that the cost of any amenity other than what is specifically related to the production of electricity could well be said to be chargeable to the State and not to the consumer, which is where it ends up, if it is included in the cost of the production of power.
I should like to turn to what has been mentioned about off-peak generation and pumped storage. No mention has been made to-day—and I do not recall having seen anything about it in the Board's report—of the fact that the gas turbine can produce a "peaking" unit which is very rapidly capable of being placed on load, but pumped storage equipment provides for the consumption of off-peak power. The price which hydro stations can supply for peaking at the present rate is, I know, equal to or below that at which the thermal stations would have to supply into the system if old plant were to be used. But is this particular approach low enough? Should it not be the case, if, as I suggest, there is an element of social cost in the price output of hydro power, that the lower cost at which they can supply should be the measure at which a hydro station could feed into the system at peak hours? On the subject of

55
pumped storage the Cruachan plant is of wonderful construction, and had the advantage of being completed a month or so ahead of time. One additional advantage, which it is well to bear in mind, is that it has a catchment area which of itself provides many kilowatts of power.
As for off-peak load, suggestions have been made of various outlets for this power. I, personally, feel that not enough attention has been given to the possibility of pumping water, both for water supply and for the de-watering of mines and the like, on off-peak tariff. There must be a stage at which off-peak tariffs can reach a rate at which double or triple shift working may be possible with electric power in various industries, though not all of them. Has that stage been reached in any of our industries? Are our off-peak tariffs really attractive enough to bring on Lord all the industries and all the apparatus that might be brought on load?
I feel that it is worth turning to the matter of thermal storage heating, which has been referred to in various reports. There has been a remarkable growth in 1963-64, amounting to a 70 per cent. increase in the use of unit plant storage heaters for space heating in domestic establishments. This is a remarkable growth, and it is well to remember the fact that the domestic storage type heater was made available to domestic users stemming from a Question and Answer in this House. But an increase of that measure cannot be expected year by year, because this related to a time when domestic storage type heaters were not available.
I may have spoken in a very theoretical and perhaps rather pedestrian way, but I have spoken on these matters of basic principle which, within their limits of practicability, remain principles. I urge the Government in their thinking to keep these matters of principle in mind. Listening to your Lordships to-day has certainly given me the feeling that the thinking which needs to be done—and which in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, has said must be done—will be a fascinating adventure. Certainly more time is needed to study the matter. The point which I wish to make is the relationship between finance for the future
56
and tariff formulation to-day and in the years to come. This is of paramount importance.
5.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I should like to congratulate most heartily the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, on the admirable way in which he presented his important Motion. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stonham (I am sorry to see he is not in his place), for the very satisfactory reply which he made to many of the questions raised by Lord Hawke. It has been a most interesting debate; it has covered a very wide field, but it has clarified a great many problems which we all want to know something about.
In my younger days, before the nationalisation of the coal and gas industries, I was closely in touch in many directions with the gas industry. I still follow its progress through the Institute of Gas Engineers, of which I was for quite a long time President. I had not intended to take up too much of your Lordships' time to-day, but I should like to ask four questions of the Minister—three of which have already been raised by Lord Hawke and have been dealt with by Lord Stonham, which is rather frustrating for me. However, if I repeat them again it is only to try to elicit from the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate something more in regard to £s. d.
Of the three sources of energy which have been referred to to-day, namely, electricity, gas and atomic energy, gas is the most economical and we hope that it will become cheaper still. It is, however, important to remember where gas comes from. At present we are dependent largely on the old-fashioned method of producing gas, by the carbonisation of small-sized British coal. This is a costly process and, by the time the local gasometer has been filled, I would say, at a guess—and it is a pure guess, for it varies up and down the country—that on average it costs something in the region of 1s. to 1s. 1d. a therm. This process which we use to-day is rapidly being superseded by new methods of producing gas from petroleum or by natural gas.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, about the frozen natural gas which is already being transported from Algeria. It comes from the Sahara, it is transported by pipe-line to the

57
Algerian coast, and is brought to the Thames in two specially constructed insulated gas containers. The United States-British-French combine has just opened a 64 million dollar plant at Arzew for this purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, replied to that. But I should like to know whether it is proposed to increase that method of production and transportation, if we can get the gas, and how much more economic the price is going to be compared with production by carbonisation. I am under the impression that it costs about 7½ d. a therm, delivered to the Thames. I wonder whether the noble Lord who is to answer this debate can clarify that, and say how much more of the gas we are likely to get if we require it.
The new field in the Netherlands has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and I am very glad to hear that progress is being made with N.A.N. who are the Dutch group handling it. I read somewhere recently, that a pipe-line from the Netherlands to the British coast would not pay unless the gas could be delivered to this country at about 5½ d. to 6d. a therm, which seems to be a very low figure. I wonder whether any estimate has been made of what the gas would cost to come from the Netherlands if a pipe-line were built.
Also, we have heard about the fact that twenty of the great oil companies, as well as the Gas Council, have already commenced operations with a view to proving petroleum deposits close to the British coast, thus providing natural gas or petroleum oil from below the North Sea. I wonder whether the noble Lord can give us any idea what the gas is likely to cost per therm, if it is proved. Fourthly, certain other processes have been developed under which light petroleum distillates from our British refineries can be easily and cheaply converted into gas. I am told that the cost of that is about 7d. or 8d. a therm. Is that the right figure; and how much more gas are we likely to get from that means of production?
All these petroleum-based fuels are efficient and cheap to produce, and I believe that the British Gas Council has quite properly concentrated its attention on all four of these possibilities. It follows, of course, that coal gas will inevitably be displaced by petroleum or
58
natural gases as their production, which is already well advanced, proceeds further. In that case, as the production of coal gas is reduced so the production of coke will likewise be reduced, and we may have to face a shortage of solid smokeless fuels for our new smokeless zones. That matter was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, but my hearing is a little imperfect and I could not quite hear whether or not there would be sufficient coke for that purpose. Obviously, difficulties would arise at this stage if a further strain were put on electricity and gas in the smokeless zones.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is not anticipated that there will be any shortage.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, coke ovens in steelworks are also gradually being superseded by other methods, and it seems that the production of coke will eventually almost disappear, with a permanent adverse effect on our coal industry, owing to the loss of a large and long-established market for coal. But that point, again, has been referred to by the noble Lord.
Finally, there is the question of what might happen if this country were again to be engaged in a continental war, and we were relying on gas piped from abroad or brought here in a frozen state. But I suppose that, in any case, the questions that I have raised this afternoon would form only a very small part of a very large problem in a petroleum-starved country such as we are.
5.15 p.m.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, my first words must be to congratulate very sincerely the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, upon introducing this subject this afternoon. His remarks were fair and temperate, and quite well informed. But the impression, which I have had almost from the time I first came into this House, is confirmed, about how careful one should be to avoid generalities, because it is almost certain that in some part of the House there will be an expert, or a series of experts, who will demolish the premises upon which a speaker has raised his case.
I cannot claim to be an expert, but I am one who has been associated with two of the three industries mentioned in

59
the Motion. Both of them I found were efficient, and there was a degree of enthusiasm which was inherited by nationalisation. It was not evolved with nationalisation, but I hope that it was improved and stimulated, and it seemed to permeate the officials. The engineers and the commercial people believed in the service they were performing, and that made my ten years of chairmanship of the British Electricity Authority and its successor, the Central Electricity Authority, a very happy time indeed. Then I had five years as a part-time member of the Atomic Energy Authority. I found the engineers and scientists and members of the board with a progressive outlook, always wanting to embark upon some experiments or some new phase of work, but always restrained by the indirect but none the less effective shadow of the Treasury.
With gas I have nothing to do. I am a small consumer, and I try to be as small a consumer as is consistent with my household requirements. But I have long been an admirer of the ingenuity exercised by those who belong to that industry in fighting what I have long believed to be a losing battle—though I do not feel quite so confident of that to-day, in the light of recent developments which seem to have given the Gas Council, and the industry generally, a new lease of life. They are embarking upon a new era, the outcome of which I sincerely hope will prove successful; and I hope that it will provide an additional stimulus to the electricity industry further to increase its efficiency and so retain what is, I think, its well-deserved lead.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, performed a service in a direction which I think is particularly useful. I often writhed, when I was Chairman of the Electricity Council, at the perfunctory way in which the Reports of my own Board, and those with which I was associated, were dealt with in Parliament, not because of lack of interest but because of lack of opportunity fully and properly to investigate and examine the detailed matter set out in the Reports. The Annual Reports of all these bodies are literally packed with information. Indeed, I would say that the summaries of the Tables, particularly the Financial Tables, would repay study even by an expert accountant.
60
Infinitely fuller evidence of the activities of these Boards is given in those Annual Reports than is ever given by private companies in their reports. And in saying that I am not unmindful of the fact that a number of the larger companies produce admirable reports, usually well illustrated and quite expensive and attractive in their "get-up", which describe to a much greater extent to-day than was the case, say, 20 or 30 years ago the activities in which they are engaged, and the results of those activities. Those private companies have not the ordeal of periodical scrutiny by a Select Committee of another place. I think many of them would view with horror the prospect of anything of the kind, and would, to some extent regard it as a handicap. I say that because what is not realised is that when one is conscious that a periodical review will come along, or that some ad hoc committee may be appointed, a considerable number of people are looking over their shoulders and preparing data for when that time arrives. The freedom which one hoped for the public corporations has, in my opinion, been gradually whittled away over the years since nationalisation was introduced in 1947.
What should not be lost sight of is that, so far as gas and electricity are concerned, and to a lesser extent atomic energy, these industries are fiercely competitive. That is a curious thing to say about monopolies, but it is the fact that all of these industries are, in some sense or other, meeting fin the case of atomic energy, only at marginal points with the Central Electricity Board, but wholly in the case of the gas and electricity industries) open, keen and constant competition. I know more about electricity supply, of course, than I know about the other two; but, as this Motion is calling the attention of the House to the Reports, it may not be out of place to remind noble Lords who have looked at the Reports of the Electricity Council of some of the achievements.
There are now 16¾ million consumers of electricity in England and Wales; and, if we add the South of Scotland (which, when I was Chairman, up to 1925, at least, was served by the British Electricity Authority), there are over 18 million consumers of electricity to-day. That figure, of course, excludes the North of Scotland. The revenue for the

61
industry last year was £912 million, and there was what I would call a surplus (and it was so called during my period), though it is now euphemistically described as a "balance of revenue", of some £70 million, after meeting huge sums for depreciation and interest.
An instruction was given by Parliamentary Resolution to the Electricity Boards to speed up the development of electricity on the farms and rural premises generally. A promise was given that 85 per cent. would be connected by 1963. But that promise was exceeded, and to-day some 92 per cent. of all the farms which are in any way eligible—some are too far away from the system to make it, by any sort of imagination, economic to serve them—are connected up. I should like your Lordships to think for a second of what that means. In pre-war days, some 3,000 farms a year were being connected to the public supply, either by private companies or by municipalities which had sufficiently large boundaries. That total was raised during my chairmanship—though not due to any effort of mine—to 15, 000 a year; and the price of electricity to the farmers and the farming communities is exactly the same as the Board's charge to their consumers in the various cities and towns and other urban areas.
The policy which was pursued by the electricity authorities in my day was to keep prices down. We believed that prices were rising too rapidly altogether throughout our community, and we thought we had some small contribution to make, as an Electricity Authority, by producing electricity as cheaply as we could and by selling it as cheaply as we could. We had a huge capital programme, and the stage was reached when the Government came along and said, "You must raise more of the capital you require from your revenues". In other words, we were required to engage in self-financing to a much greater extent than was traditional in the industry. We eventually agreed to about half of the total capital being raised from our revenues, and that policy has been continued since by all the Boards.
Noble Lords may remember the White Paper published by the Government which required the Boards to earn something like 12½ per cent. on their net assets. That position was reached last year, so
62
that half the total investment comes from the Board's own resources. The remainder comes from borrowing from the Government, on which they have to pay the current rate of interest, which has been as high as 6¼ per cent., and, I rather think, at a particular period, 6¾ per cent., though I am not sure of the latter figure.
Reference has been made this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to the capital cost of the power stations. Construction costs are going up, as they must go up in response to the various calls upon manufacturers. They went up by 44 per cent. over the ten-year period from 1954 to 1964: but the cost per kilowatt of the plant went down by 36 per cent. This, I think, is a remarkable achievement, and is the result of initiative and of a good deal of courage and boldness in installing untried generating sets—boilers out of all comparison, in size and capacity, with those that had been utilised before—and, by that means, getting the cost down.
The thermal efficiency of the industry, too, has been raised enormously. When I became Chairman it had been, I think, 2019 per cent., or, something of that kind; that is to say, of the heat extracted from the fuel, only some 20 per cent. was being turned into useful energy. Last year, according to this Annual Report of the Electricity Council, the average thermal efficiency was 27-67 per cent. Those of your Lordships who have looked over the Report may have said that this is not much of an increase because the previous year it was 27-44 per cent. These figures can conceal some very dramatic results. In my day on the Electricity Authority a saving of one-tenth of 1 per cent. on our then coal consumption meant a saving of 180, 000 tons of coal a year. With the greatly increased consumption of to-day it means far more than that. In the later days of my association with the industry I heard a chairman use the expression that there were no foreseeable limits to the development of electricity. I know that that sentiment was not shared by the officials of the Treasury who exhibited a pessimism that has long since been falsified.
My Lords, to turn to atomic energy, the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, has given your Lordships various principles and

63
a great deal of the details as to how the Authority is carrying on. I should like to remind your Lordships that the 1955 programme, which was published as a White Paper and debated in Parliament, was based on the premise that by the end of 1965 there would be insufficient coal available from the National Coal Board to provide our power stations with their requirements. Subsequently that estimate was very much revised. But the programme was based on the assumption of an impending coal shortage; and some day or other that shortage must arrive. That was the basis on which it was decided to go ahead with the 1955 programme. And I personally was in favour of that programme, although it could not, as it were, produce any economic results better than those we were then obtaining, or indeed anything like as good as those we were obtaining, from our conventional plant.
LORD SHERFIELD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, I was not so much criticising the size of the programme, or referring to the size of the programme, as referring to the dispersion of effort between different types.
LORD CITRINE: Yes, my Lords, but I am not on that point, although I think I could put another side of the case. The point I was on was this. The first programme was a small one, 1,500 to 2,000 megawatts; that was the 1955 programme. It was received by the general Press almost like a fairy tale. Here was a new fuel coming along just at the time when we needed it, a fuel that was going to resolve all our problems. I knew that in many quarters suggestions were made that in five years' time or thereabouts no more conventional stations should be built; that all should be atomic energy stations. The enlarged programme that came along, it should be remembered, was propounded by the Conservative Government. It was not the programme of the British Electricity Authority or of its successor, the Central Electricity Generating Board. We knew very well that there was an element of risk in any programme of this size—technical risks and also financial risks. But we were told by the Government of the day, a Conservative Government, that they were most anxious for the enlarged pro-
64
gramme, that the Cabinet themselves wanted us to go up to 5,000 or 6,000 megawatts; whereas our estimate of the maximum that we could safely produce from the economic viewpoint was some 3,500 megawatts.
I am not giving away any secrets, because all this was stated in the Report of the Select Committee which two years ago, I think, went into the electricity supply industry. The programme, of course, was slowed down subsequently and, as stated by my noble friend Lord Stonham, the target is not expected to be achieved until 1969. I want to say this about the Atomic Energy Authority. They have always loaded the dice against themselves; their estimates have always been on a very conservative basis—and that should please noble Lords opposite. Their expectations were always toned down and, from a promotional point of view, the worst possible case was put forward. A life of twenty years for the station! Neither Sir Roger—when one has sat at a table for five years calling a man "Sir Roger" it is difficult to remember that he is now the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and I apologise for that slip—nor anybody can say whether the life of the stations will be twenty years, thirty years or forty years. I have seen estimates of that kind from very reliable sources.
A Lord factor of 75 per cent. has been given for the calculations. Yet your Lordships have heard this afternoon that there are stations doing 87 per cent.—Chapel Cross station and Calder Hall station. Some have for a period of three months been up to 92 per cent. A high rate of interest has always been included in the estimate, higher than was available at the time the estimates were made. And the life of the fuel used, uranium, has always been underestimated. And very wisely so, because in dealing with experimental fuels it was wise to take very careful estimates of the results. But the 3,000-megawatt days which figured the estimates and on which these Magnox stations have been built has already proved to be well below what can be achieved. The Atomic Energy Authority and its officials have no doubt whatever as to the future. They believe—and they have solid evidence for this—that their advanced gas reactor is probably as efficient as any in any part of the world. I hardly like to risk quoting from memory

65
the capital cost of that station, but I believe it was in the neighbourhood of £82 10s. a kilowatt. But they are confident that an enlarged station can be built which would be able to generate electricity at 0-4d. per unit.
Then there is the Dounreay fast reactor, now up to its full heat output. I do not think the world will ever realise what ingenuity has gone into the building of that plant. It was a most difficult job. Yet the predictions of the scientists and engineers have been fulfilled. Then they have two other types of reactors. They have the steam generating heavy water reactor which I believe will be a winner. I saw the plans of it, I heard discussions on it and I saw the estimates, and I am very much in favour of it, as I was of the 100 megawatt prototype. Your Lordships have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, about the essential character of research. But it is a terrible thing for scientists who have embarked upon some plan for the future, perhaps for several years ahead, perhaps for a decade ahead, to find those plans frustrated by reason of a Government policy which feeds them only from year to year with the capital they desire. You cannot run an industry on that sort of basis successfully. So I hope it will be possible to give in extended measure the capital necessary to carry on an extended research by the Atomic Energy Authority.
So, my Lords, I reach my conclusion. These industries are, all of them, confident and efficient. They are vigorous and they are alert; they are viligant, they are enterprising and they are in competition—that competition which is so dear to the hearts of noble Lords opposite. They have an enthusiastic: belief in the commodity and the service they are rendering to the community. Speaking for myself, the happiest years of my life—and I have had many in other services—were those spent in public service in the nationalised industries.
5.41 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we are greatly indebted to my noble friend Lord Hawke for putting this Motion down and enabling the House to discuss this important, highly technical and complex subject. I am particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, took part in this debate. He says that he is not an expert; but when I know that he was
66
Chairman of the British Electricity Authority for ten years and a member of the Atomic Energy Authority for five years, it makes a mere novice, such as I am, wish to regain his seat with quite unprecedented rapidity.
When I first saw the Motion which my noble friend put down, I was surprised at the scope and enormity of the debate which it depicted, because each of the industries which he mentions could well occupy your Lordships' attention for all of one afternoon and evening on its own. But it is right that in discussing the policy for the production of energy as a whole, we should discuss these methods together. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that this question is the basis of all our existence. We talk gaily about increasing productivity and about building new roads, new houses and new factories, and take for granted that the power to light, heat and energise these places will be there for the asking. It is right that it should be there for the asking but it requires careful thought and long-range planning, and we have constantly to be prepared to alter our plans and our predictions if in any way they are shown to be inadequate.
It is necessary to know exactly what we are aiming for in a power policy and exactly what our principles should be. I suggest that, first, we must ensure that there is enough fuel of all kinds to meet the needs of British industry and the domestic consumer as a whole; secondly, that the price of the fuel must be such as not to put our industrialists out of line with their competitors; thirdly, that the supply must be secure, and fourthly, that there should be sufficient supplies to allow the consumer to choose the form in which he wants to take his energy, whether it is coal, gas, electricity or oil. To achieve these principles requires well-founded fuel industries which are modern and up to date in their technique and which are not subject to erratic and sudden changes of policy.
The first thing I would do is to impress upon Her Majesty's Government that, in developing our fuel policy, we should expand on a broad front and encourage every facet of these industries. We may well find that it is dangerous to develop

67
excessively one form of power production at the expense of others, by spending too much of our national resources on the production of what looks like, at any one time, the cheapest form of fuel. If one type of fuel or, indeed, one type of production of a fuel were to be unduly cheapened, an excessive demand for this would be stimulated and we should find that much of our national resources was being spent on developing a particular branch of the fuel industry at the expense of the others. This does not mean that every effort should not be made to encourage the cheap production of fuel. But, when we consider the investment to be placed in industry as a whole, we should keep a balance, I would suggest, between the various methods of production and types of fuel, expanding where possible and encouraging new methods, but not necessarily at the expense of the more conventional, and equally not discarding too quickly an industry or method of production within an industry which appears at the moment to be not so economically successful as some of its rivals. At the same time, we must not tolerate out-of-date methods.
Of all the power industries, the electricity industry takes by far the largest proportion of capital investment—some £650 million, of which the taxpayer provides about half. So Her Majesty's Government have a big and loaded interest in the electricity industry. But this enormous amount of capital expenditure is in order to ensure that our electricity supplies are adequate for the future. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, pointed out, our capacity is only just within the bounds of the demand—in fact, it is not quite within the bounds. Everyone has the right to expect in cold weather and in hard winter to be able to call for more fuel. Bearing in mind that electricity demand increases by some 10 per cent. a year and that it takes some seven years for a new power station to become operative after the decision to build it has been taken, long-term planning must be accurate and must not fall down.
We have heard a great deal from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of how he is going to review Government expenditure in order to counteract the state of affairs which at the moment exists in the economic sphere. There are a num-
68
ber of questions I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Hobson. Do Her Majesty's Government intend to cut the investment programme of the electricity industry? If not, will the noble Lord give an assurance that this will not be cut? What, in fact, are Her Majesty's Government's proposals for the future building of power stations? How many stations are going to be built, when are they going to be built, and where? By what methods are these to be powered? Are we going to see more use of nuclear energy or are we going to continue to see them powered by steam? And, if by steam, how is that to be generated: by oil, by coal or by pulverised fuel?
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, say that for future nuclear stations it had not been decided whether to use the British advanced gas-cooled reactor or the American water moderated reactor. And I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, put so clearly the advantages of nuclear energy and of the British system. I should like to endorse very much his remarks when he said that the Central Electricity Generating Board has the duty of providing electricity at the cheapest possible rate, but that this should not be the sole criterion in deciding what type of reactor should be used. If, indeed, the Government decide in the end that the American water-moderated system should be used, I hope that they will bear in mind the possible bridling of research that that decision might make inevitable on those who are already engaged in the designing and perfecting of the advanced gas-cooled reactors.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? Nothing that I said should be interpreted in any way as suggesting that the American reactor was going to be selected. Indeed, I indicated the exact terms on which tenders have been invited.
EARL FERRERS: I did not think that for one moment, and I was not aware that I gave that impression. If I did, I apologise. I accept entirely the fact that the noble Lord said that this decision has not been arrived at. The point I am trying to make is that when the Government come to make that decision they should have regard to the fact that production of the cheapest form of electricity is not necessarily the sole

69
criterion on which the decision should be taken.
It is expected that nuclear power stations should be able by the early 'seventies to compete in cost with conventional power stations for the production of electricity. As noble Lords have already pointed out, the capital cost of erecting nuclear power stations is far in excess of that of erecting conventional power stations, although the running cost is considerably lower. We have seen in the last five years, since the construction of the Berkeley Station, that the capital cost per kw. of capacity has dropped from something like £177 to £106 at the Sizewell plant. What I should like to know (I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, can answer this) is whether it is anticipated that the capital cost of building nuclear power stations in the future is still likely to decrease on anything like the scale which it has in the past, and whether, when we have arrived at the point where nuclear power stations can compete with conventional power stations for the production of electricity, it is anticipated that the nuclear-powered system will become cheaper, or whether it will remain merely competitive.
In all industries the larger the unit of manufacture the cheaper tends to be the end product. This is so with electricity. There are the vast 500 mw. generating sets to which the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, referred; and, of course, they produce electricity more cheaply than the smaller sets. That is a substantial argument in favour of having them. But when one of these monsters breaks down, the chaos that results is considerably greater than if the set were of a smaller dimension. Therefore I wonder whether the noble Lord can throw any light on what might be expected in the future. Are we likely to see more of these large sets, or are they likely to be smaller—or bigger?
Continuity in supply is vastly important in the electricity industry, as in any fuel industry, and will become more so in the future as industry depends more on electricity and as the consequences of breakdowns become ever greater. One of the greatest causes of failure in the electricity industry is the process of reducing the electricity from high voltage to low voltage. This is of a technical nature. When
70
this happens, frequently the fuses tend to blow one after the other—what is technically and rather graphically described as "cascading". This is a problem of some magnitude and is a great cause of the breakdown in electricity supplies. I wonder whether it is possible for more to be spent on research into this particular aspect, so that the continuity of supplies can be more readily available. What I should like to know, also, is what are the Government's plans—if, indeed, they have any—to deal with the situation caused by the fact that many of the underground cables in our big cities, and particularly in the West End of London, are rapidly becoming too small, in view of the vastly increased demand put upon them by consumers requiring more electricity. Is it intended that these should be replaced with bigger cables of adequate size, or is it intended that they should continue to be overloaded, with all the trouble that this causes?
My Lords, these are real problems which the electricity industry has to face, and problems which become the more acute when electricity is compared with any other form of fuel, and particularly with gas. In this connection, I wish to touch upon one very real disadvantage to electricity when compared with gas, and it is one that is best illustrated by two advertisements that one frequently sees, particularly in agricultural papers. One is by the Central Electricity Generating Board which depicts a person placing a pylon in a field or on the landscape and which says at the bottom: "Where would you put it?" The other is issued by the Gas Council, and depicts a field of barley growing quite beautifully, and underneath it says: "Last year a gas main was laid under here". I do not want to labour the point, because it was discussed some three weeks ago, but this is a problem; and I feel that much more money should be spent on research to see whether it is not possible to lay underground cables more cheaply and more effectively. It is done in other countries, and it should be done in this country, if our ever-depleted countryside is not going to become bogged down with a mass of wires. I suppose one cynical observation might be that all praise should be given to the Gas Council for not inflicting upon us a mass of monster black pipes, travelling over our heads about 100 feet high all

71
over the country. I hope the Government will do all they can to see that more research is put into laying cables underground.
One of the disadvantages which electricity has is the fact that the capital cost of making gas in the new oil-reforming plants is only 25 per cent. of the capital cost of making electricity. The gas industry, of course, has revolutionised itself from being an almost defunct relic of the Victorian era into a modern, highly efficient, high competitive, highly productive industry, all in a matter of seven to eight years. There is in operation, as has been mentioned already, the very ambitious scheme of bringing Algerian methane to this country; and there are many other possibilities, such as methane from Holland, and the drilling for gas in the North Sea, not to mention the cheapest method of gas production, which is that from oil. At the moment, only about 6 per cent. of our energy requirements in this country comes from gas, whereas in the United States the amount is 30 per cent. So obviously, whilst one does not want to draw too close an analogy, there are vast possibilities for gas to fulfil a large part, and an increasing part, of our energy requirement over the next decade or so. But if gas is to be used on a greatly increased scale, one of the problems that is bound to arise is the question of storage. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, will be able to tell us precisely what are the Government's views about underground storage. Will they permit it? Indeed, will they encourage it; and, if so, what will be the scale of the investment?
In all these considerations over the gas industry one must remember one significant fact, and that is that the gas industry has no built-in monopoly of any kind. There is nothing that can be done by gas that cannot be done by some other fuel. This means that it is essential, if the fullest use is to be made of all the potentials open to the gas industry, that the greatest freedom of choice must be allowed in the methods of gas making and in the use of raw materials.
The answer, I should have thought, is that each of these industries, whether gas or electricity should be given a great deal of rein so that they can develop whatever technique suits them best. We hear a great deal about
72
planning, particularly from noble Lords opposite. Overall planning is certainly necessary. We must plan what our energy requirements will be for the future. We must plan the investment. But replacing enterprise with planning could well be a disaster, and I cannot help recalling the words in the Labour Party's pamphlet which I thought was rather offensively entitled as Twelve Wasted Years. It said:
"In spite of representation from the coal industry, the gas industry is being allowed to go ahead with the production of gas from oil. These are the complications resulting from making two public authorities compete, when a positive programme of co-operation (for example, siting Lurgi plants on coalfields and distributing the high pressure gas by pipe-line) could satisfy both the nation's fuel requirements and the stability of the industries concerned."
My Lords, I wonder whether that is really the view of the Labour Party now that they have had a few weeks' experience of government. I wonder whether they really believe that it is wrong for the Gas Council to make gas from oil, even though it is cheaper, just because they might be damaging the coal industry by not using the other alternative of coal. I wonder, indeed, whether the new Minister of Technology would not prefer to make a meal of those words, and admit that it is by being competitive that these new processes have been evolved for the benefit of the gas industry and the country as a whole. We cannot afford to have doctrinaire views about essential industries. The main thought should be so to set the conditions that each industry can make the best possible use of the resources at its disposal and give of its best to the nation.
If we are entering a new era where modern technology is to be released to play a full part, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, to explain what are the Government's views about the production of gas. Are they going to insist that the Gas Council should make its gas from coal, even though gas can be produced at two-thirds the cost from methane, and at less than half the cost from oil? Or are they going to sanction and bless an increased investment in the gas industry to make the best use of the most up-to-date and modern forms of production? These are real problems and I, for one, would be the first to say that they are by no means easy of solution. But they are

73
problems on which we in this House wish to have the Government's views, and I hope the noble Lord will not be content to brush your Lordships off with the answer that these matters are under review. The Government must have an opinion, and I invite the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, to give us that opinion.
We want to know what is the Government's intention with regard to capital investment in these basic industries. In this regard I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, will give a clear and concise indication on one other point of great importance. In April, 1961, the Government published a White Paper entitled, The Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries, in which clear objectives were stated with regard to the finances of the nationalised industries—for instance, that surpluses should be at least sufficient to cover deficits over a five-year period, and that allowance should be made in the accounts of the industries for interest and depreciation on capital. Do Her Majesty's Government adhere to the principles as laid down in this White Paper?
I am not asking these questions of the noble Lord to score a few debating points, but because I genuinely want to find out what the Government propose to do. We have had a change in Government—mistakenly in my view—and we have had new minds put into the top positions: not necessarily be;: ter minds, not necessarily worse minds; but fresh minds. What we want to know is what view these minds have taken, and whether the views are the same as they were when they were in Opposition; for if they are, we are in for some surprises. But it may be that they have been mellowed after a period, even a slight one, of responsibility. But whatever decisions may be taken, we must remember that the results of these decisions will not be made effective over the next year, or the next two years: one may not see them for the next five, six or seven years. Therefore the important thing is that these decisions should be as near right as we can get them.
6.7 p.m.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, I think we shall all agree that we have had a most interesting and informative debate, and we are grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Hawke, for raising this very important question of a fuel policy, which is
74
of paramount importance to the economy of the nation and the wellbeing of all of us. In your Lordships' House we are exceedingly fortunate in having among our Members noble Lords who have had a lifetime of service either in the gas or electricity supply industry. One has only to look back this afternoon at the contributions that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, the noble Earl, Lord Dudley (who has associations with the gas industry), the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield (who was a prominent Chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority) and the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, who was probably the founder of the Central Electricity Board, over which he presided so successfully for ten successive years.
It will be my object this evening, in the time at my disposal, to endeavour to answer seriatim the questions that have been raised—and they are many. There may be sins of omission and commission, but in that event I will write to the noble Lords, and give them, I trust, not an evasive reply but the answer which, though they may not like it, they perhaps require. When we are dealing with fuel and power (and I do not make a political point here) one cannot help remembering that these industries, coal, gas and electricity are very successful nationalised industries; and not even the present Opposition had any intention, while in power, of denationalising any of them. One of the advantages of these nationalised fuel industries, as has been pointed out by several noble Lords this afternoon, is that they are competitive one against the other; and that is one of the reasons why we have such successful fuel industries.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, in so far as he dealt with the coal industry, dealt with something—and I am not making a debating point here—which was outside the terms of this Motion. The noble Lord raised certain specific questions on this aspect, and I have been successful, I trust, in getting the required information. But the whole gravamen of his speech was that he was asking for a national fuel policy. It is precisely the intention of the present Government to supply one. But this cannot come about overnight. I think that anyone who is devoid of any political aims would agree that prima facie this is something that is

75
absolutely essential and vital to the economy of our country. We shall endeavour to achieve this national fuel policy, but, as I said, it cannot be done overnight. I am very pleased to know that we shall have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke on this policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, raised one specific query: was the oil position secure? With respect, I think he answered his own question. Apart from the resources that are now known and are operated, there are, of course, vast deposits of oil in another part of the Commonwealth which are largely untapped. We know that they are there, and I think we can say with firmness that the oil position is secure.
The noble Lord was also concerned with over-capacity of power-generating plants. Of course, it depends on what is meant by over-capacity. There must always be adequate spare plant, but engineers may differ as to what it is necessary to regard as spare plant. But with the whole development of the Grid, and the development now of the Super-Grid, the amount of spare capacity which is required is less than heretofore. Certainly, I think it is safe to say that at the present moment there is not spare capacity, because in certain winter conditions we should need every kilowatt we can generate. But the aim, as my noble friend Lord Stonham has pointed out, is that eventually we should have spare capacity which is considered by the engineers to be adequate.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, also raised the question of off-peak loading and the question of tariffs. This is a very complicated question, but I shall deal with it. I assure noble Lords that I am not dodging this question, which was also raised particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. But I can say straight away to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that the question of off-peak tariffs is a matter which is always being considered both by the Central Electricity Generating Board and by the Area Boards.
My Lords, at the outset of his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, raised the question of coal output. Coal output was 195 million tons for the year ending March, 1964. Future prospects of the coal industry in relation to the co-ordinated
76
policy for fuel are being reviewed by the Minister of Power in collaboration with the noble Lord, Lord Robens, and his colleagues. Until the new review is completed it would be unwise to make any predictions about the level of coal output in future years, certainly not as far ahead as 1975, the year mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke.
I come back to electricity. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, raised the question of the cost per unit in conventional power stations and the cost at Wylfa. I do not think this figure has been given. I am taking the Wylfa atomic power station, because this is the largest and, we trust, the most modern. The cost per unit at conventional stations is 0-54d. per unit and the cost per unit at Wylfa is 0-68d. It is interesting to note, and I think I ought to give this information here, that the output of Wylfa station will be of the order of 1,180 mw.
LORD HAWKE: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, will he confirm that these figures for Wylfa are, as I believe, based on what is termed the conservative basis of a 20-year life and 75 per cent. availability?
LORD HOBSON: That is perfectly true. I think the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, answered that point. I think we all agree.
LORD HAWKE: I was merely seeking information.
LORD HOBSON: At present, on what is known as ground assessments, it is on the basis of a 20 to 25-year life. They may last thirty years like the conventional station. Quite frankly, the answer to this is that we just do not know. We are in the field of a modern and new science. Let us take pride that it is the British who have developed it. I just cannot categorically answer that specific question and, frankly, I do not think anybody, even the experts, the engineers and the physicists can give a direct answer to it.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord has got me mixed up. Nobody is asking the noble Lord to say what the life of these stations is. We are only asking him to say on what life these particular figures are based; that is all; and the noble Lord has answered twenty years.
LORD HOBSON: These things are based on a 20 to 25-year life.
LORD HAWKE: There is a big difference between 20 and 25 years.
LORD HOBSON: I cannot be adamant about this. I am not prepared to be committed, but the noble Lord can take it as twenty years.
I now come to the question that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, about the types of reactor and, in particular, about the boiling water reactor. The fact of the matter is that at the present moment there is no British made boiling water reactor. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, is entirely wrong in saying that the Central Electricity Generating Board have been given permission to import an American reactor. That is not so. The type of reactor that we are to have in the future has not yet been decided. Indeed, the policy of Her Majesty's Government at the present moment is precisely the same policy as was enunciated in April, 1964. I believe it was debated in your Lordships' House in July, 1964, just before the Summer Recess. It is made perfectly clear in paragraph 6 of the White Paper.
What the Central Electricity Generating Board have done—and I paraphrase their words—is to ask for tenders for an advanced gas-cooled reactor and also for a boiling water type reactor. The question of choice has got to be made. Obviously Sir Christopher Hinton, who was then the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, wanted to be absolutely sure which was going to be the most economic, because it was part of his statutory duty to provide a reliable source of energy to Britain at the lowest possible price. This is a question ultimately of prudence, and this is precisely what is going to take place. Tenders are being called for and a decision will have to be made. As the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, mentioned, that decision will have to be made in conjunction with the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Atomic Energy Authority, who together will make the reappraisal. But the final decision will be with Her Majesty's Government, and, of course, we shall await the outcome of those deliberations.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I quite understood, because I myself took part in that debate which the noble Lord mentioned, that the boiling water reactor is not made in this country, but I thought that the Generating Board were anxious to try one out, and therefore would ask the British manufacturers to give a quotation for it, which, as I understood it, they would have had to do under licence from American firms. If they had given a quotation for that against the advanced gas-cooled reactor it would, of course, be under licence from America. Is that not right?
LORD HOBSON: That is perfectly true because, as I said a few seconds ago, we do not make a pressurised water reactor. Therefore, we should only hope—and I am sure it would be the policy of Her Majesty's Government—that it would be made here in Britain under licence. I only hope that a time will rapidly approach when we ourselves have a successful pressurised water reactor.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point—which is rather important—as he said the final decision would be taken by Her Majesty's Government, can he give an assurance that the cheapness of the production of electricity will not be the sole criterion by which the final judgment will be made?
LORD HOBSON: In matters like this, the Government will obviously have to take into consideration every factor regarding the reactor; its cost, whether it is made in Britain, and the expected ultimate price per unit. I think those are the main points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton.
I now come to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. He is, of course, a very eminent ex-Chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority, and he certainly made a very authoritative statement. In looking at The Second Nuclear Power Programme the Government will obviously take into account every consideration which he has raised, particularly the questions of safety. We must, I think, pay a tribute here to the work of the Atomic Energy Authority, in conjunction with the Central Electricity Generating Board, in regard to the safety of modern atomic

79
power stations; touch wood! we have had no major trouble whatever, and this is a very fine record.
As to what the programme will be, the White Paper has stressed that The Second Nuclear Power Programme will have to be flexible. Obviously, we cannot go ahead with new nuclear power stations until such time as we have assessed which is the most suitable reactor, whether advanced gas-cooled or pressurised-water. The noble Lord mentioned the question of the relations between the Boards. I know there was a great deal of talk in the Press about alleged trouble between the Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board. Frankly, I do not think that many people believed this; but of course it made a good story. When these questions are being discussed in an atmosphere such as that, I always feel like saying that there is complete harmony only in the graveyard, and there is not much life there. Here very important technical questions had to be discussed. But relations between the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Atomic Energy Authority at the present moment are most amicable. I do not think paragraph 6 of The Second Nuclear Power Programme can be said to be a compromise settlement; it was nothing of the sort. It was a settlement which was agreed as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent (I think on July 20), made abundantly clear when we addressed your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, made a very important point about using Capenhurst for enriching uranium. I think that is something which will have to be borne in mind. I am sure Her Majesty's Government will pay particular attention to that point. If there is to be a run down of fissionable material for war purposes, and if we can use the plant for enriching uranium for use in more advanced reactors, that is of considerable advantage indeed.
I come now to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. He referred to paragraph 64 of the last Report of the Electricity Council, which dealt with the effect of bulk supply tariff and the high cost associated with the expansion of their capital programmes. This arises
80
from the policy of the previous Government when they set financial objectives for the nationalised industries in the 1961 White Paper on Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries. This was issued in the form of a Command Paper, No. 1337. The nationalised fuel and power industries, for which the Minister of Power is responsible, will continue to work for financial objectives agreed from time to time between the Government and the Board.
Then the noble Lord raised the question of what was being done in case we had a very severe winter. For example, should we have auxiliary generating stations? I am very pleased to inform him that the Central Electricity Generating Board are at the present moment well ahead with the programme for gas turbines to cover these emergencies. It will be essential for these difficult periods should we get a very severe winter. I think that answer will satisfy the noble Lord. It is a very important point and it is one on which action has already been taken; this is not a question of hope deferred.
I now pass to the question of rural electrification. My noble friend Lord Citrine saved me a lot of work, because I think he answered the noble Lord. It is running now at 92 per cent., which is a marvellous achievement, and even in the most difficult areas of Merseyside and North Wales a figure of about 89 per cent. has been reached. This is a wonderful achievement of which the C.E.G.B. can be very proud indeed. I think we ought to pay a special tribute to the Area Boards who deal with this as a matter of top priority. There are going to be very few areas without electrical power within the next year.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I agree that the record is very remarkable and excellent. I think that some parts of Scotland have the most extensive rural electrification in the world. What I was worrying about was the cost to the consumer, now that saturation has nearly been reached. Is proper attention paid to the social side of this matter, and the last few connections to be made, which are the most difficult?
LORD HOBSON: Unquestionably. I can categorically answer that such considerations are continually being looked

81
at. The noble Lord dealt with the question of tariffs, and raised the matter again by way of interjection. At the beginning of his speech he really put in a plea for higher tariffs, because he was questioning the wisdom of having non-base Lord stations to come in at peak periods. He was arguing whether they were really necessary and what effect they had on the cost. That is as I understood the noble Lord, and I took a full note. Obviously, we want the most equitable tariff as between industrial and domestic consumers. One cannot be dogmatic about this question—conditions vary from region to region because of geographical positions—but with the transmission of electricity of high voltage it has become of less and less importance. I can assure noble Lords on both sides that the question of tariffs for electricity—particularly for off-peak periods, and that is when we want people to consume eleotricity—and the question of space heating storage is continually being looked at.
It is not an easy problem. It was a problem in my early days in municipal electricity. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Wolventon, is perfectly well aware of this. It is not dodging the issue and ducking for cover when I assure noble Lords of that, and I am prepared at any time to face a debate on electricity tariffs. I must stress the fact that this is a most difficult problem indeed, because of the nature of the industry where it has to meet this heavy demand at peak periods only. If it is coupled with high domestic demand, the cost really is increased. It is a question of alternating the Lord factor. If we can get more people to go in for space heating storage and so reduce the peak load, the question of tariffs will always be to their advantage.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstood something I said, but we need not worry now; we can talk about it on some other occasion.
LORD HOBSON: We shall have a nice, pleasant chat about the whole problem.
Now I come to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, on priorities in regard to nationalisation and the question of gas. He said that gas was the most economical form of power. It is, in certain places, but not all the time. So far as the future of the gas industry is concerned, I think that the previous
82
Government, and certainly the Gas Council, seeing that these nationalised boards are free from political interference in day-to-day management, have done a valuable job. There has been the construction of the two tankers to import methane, the purification plants at Canvey Island, and to-night we can probably look forward to burning gas from Algiers.
So far as the question of importing natural gas from Holland is concerned, I must ask noble Lords not to be too pressing on this matter, because negotiations are at the present moment taking place. Obviously, if the Gas Council can get Dutch gas at a price which is worth looking at, they will. They are progressive. Their sales since 1950 have gone up considerably. It is a dynamic industry, and any source of supply of natural gas that we can use, we shall use. Of course, we cross our fingers and hope that the explorations that are now taking place in the North Sea will show that there is a continuation of the natural gas field from Groningen in Holland.
I now come to the speech of my noble friend Lord Citrine. I should like to pay tribute to his speech. He gave us a short but comprehensive history of the industry. It is one that he may look back on with great pride. It has certainly been a success story, and in his retirement he must, I think, feel proud. It is an industry that has done well for the nation. It is a progressive industry. So far as conventional and atomic stations are concerned, I think we can say that we are just in front of any other country. I do not think that any other country has the edge on us, and this is largely due to the drive of the original Chairman of the Board, Lord Citrine.
I now come to the specific questions—they were almost frightening—of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who wound up on behalf of the Opposition. I shall be able to answer some of them, but not all. I can give him a categorical assurance that we are keeping the same investment programme—namely, £673 million for electricity and £100 million for gas. As to what the future will be for next year, considerable deliberations are taking place at the present moment. It is quite early in the lifetime of even this dynamic Government to say precisely what the figure of vast sums of capital expenditure are

83
going to be in the industries. No doubt there are ways and means open to the noble Earl from which he can ascertain as time goes by if he thinks we have been rather slow in coming forward. Noble Lords will no doubt take the usual Parliamentary steps to find out. My intervention here is to give the noble Earl a categorical assurance that it is the status quo ante that prevails at the moment. That is not to say that it will continue as such, because obviously we have certain hopes.
He dealt with the methods of power. There are no prejudices in these matters. I cannot tell him what the conventional stations are going to do—whether they are going to burn oil, pulverised fuel or coal. That really is a question of day-to-day management for the Central Electricity Generating Board. It may be that at certain stations in the North or in Scotland it is more advantageous to burn coal. There may be certain other stations where oil is preferred. This is entirely a question of day-to-day management, and I certainly cannot give the noble Earl an assurance of that kind, any more than I could with regard to the future atomic programme, other than what I have stated.
He said that he hoped that there would be a decrease of cost for atomic power stations. That is already being brought about. The capital cost per kilowatt of Wylfa will be less than that of the existing atomic power stations. The lower we can get the capital costs the more competitive will they become with the conventional stations. But I must enter a caveat here. It is not fair to say, or to give the impression, that only the atomic engineers are making headway. The development that has taken place in steam pressures and the temperatures of superheat in my time has been tremendous; and we might even, to use a phrase which I detest using, get a break-through from the conventional engineers. Those are all things for which, in a progressive industry, we have always to be on our guard.
Then the noble Earl dealt with the question of breakdowns and having all the eggs in one basket. The fact of the matter is that with the super and high Super-Grid there is less chance of getting
84
a flatout if the 500-megawatt set goes down. Judging from what happened in the past, from one's own experience, the tendency is bound to be for sets to get larger. It is not so many years ago that Battersea was the show-place of Europe on 100, 000 kilowatt sets—and somebody told me they had chromium plated rails there because there were so many visitors coming to see it. I think one can safely say that the tendency will be that we shall have to keep to 500, 000 kilowatts for a little while, but that, progress being what it is, output will get larger.
The noble Earl dealt with the difficult question of cascading. That is a problem which occurs quite frequently in times of bad weather, where short-circuits occur on the switch gear, the switches drop and certain sections are put out; and of course, the higher the voltage stepped down to 240 volts domestic supply, the more difficult it becomes to ascertain which one has crept out. But this is a matter which the engineers are studying. So far as strengthening the distributing network is concerned, this is going on all the time. We know that there are certain black spots in the Metropolis, but the London Electricity Board is doing what it can, allowing for the capital resources at its disposal, to strengthen the distributing network. This arises from the terrific demand for electricity which is continually taking place.
I have endeavoured to answer most of the points that have been raised. If I have not succeeded, certainly my right honourable friend or myself will write to any noble Lord on any point that we may find, having read the Official Report to-morrow, we have omitted to deal with. I want to conclude by saying a word on the future of atomic stations. This is an interesting subject. It is something to which (one almost hesitates to use the words) fashionable attention is paid to-day. Point one is that tenders are due in February. Point two is the type of reactor, whether advanced gas-cooled or boiling-water type, that will be decided. An assessment will be made by the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Atomic Energy Authority and the Government's decision will be final.
I think the whole House was pleased to have the assurance that should there be an interim period, so far as the work

85
of the consortia is concerned this question is being actively considered. On the other hand, all consortia are hopeful. I fail to see why they should not secure contracts from abroad, because our atomic power stations, which have been proven, are first-class. The difficulties are certainly not those of design; they are certainly not due to the failure of the skill of our engineers or technicians; and if we can export atomic power stations abroad nobody will be more pleased than the consortia, on the one hand, and Her Majesty's Government, on the other.
I will conclude by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, for initiating this most interesting and informative debate. I am sure that even those noble Lords who know the industry from A to Z cannot have helped but glean some information from listening to the debate to-day.
6.40 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I should like to thank "the usual channels" for their permission to bring forward this debate at this time, and noble Lords for taking part. We have heard a major speech from the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, which I hope will be studied at home and abroad where there are chances of export orders for atomic energy plant. With those few words, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NATIONAL INSURANCE &c. BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last, and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 44A; read 1a.
FINANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read la, and to be printed.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
  COMPOSITION OF BALANCE -OF-PAYMENTS DEFICIT
  COMPOSITION OF BALANCE -OF-PAYMENTS DEFICIT