House of Commons
Tuesday, January 22, 1946
The House—after the Adjournment, on 20th December, 1945, for the Christmas Recess—met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock.
Prayers
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair ]
Member Sworn
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
Gilbert James Heathcote-Drummond, esquire, commonly called Lord Willoughby de Eresby, for the County of Parts of Kesteven and Rutland (Rutland and Stamford Division).
Deaths of Members
I regret to have to inform the House of the deaths of Francis Beattie, esquire, Member for the Burgh of Glasgow (Cathcart Division); and Miss Eleanor Rathbone, Member for the University of Durham, the Victoria University of Manchester, the University of Liverpool, the University of Leeds, the University of Sheffield, the University of Birmingham, the University of Bristol and the University of Reading, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Members.
Writs Issued During the Adjournment
Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had issued, during the Adjournment, Warrants for new Writs, namely:
For the County of Ayr and Bute (South Ayrshire Division), in the room of Alexander Sloan, esquire, deceased;
for the Borough of Preston, in the room of John William Sunderland, esquire, deceased.
Private Bill Petitions
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table—Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills, the Standing Orders have been complied with, namely:
Banbury Corporation.
Birmingham Corporation.
Cardiff Corporation.
Cheshire County Council.
High Wycombe Corporation.
Lancashire County Council.
Long Eaton Urban District Council.
Northmet Power.
Nottinghamshire County Council.
Portsmouth Corporation.
Tees Conservancy.
Yorktown (Camberley) and District Gas and Electricity.
Private Bills [Lords]
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table—Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following cases, namely:
Breconshire County Council.
Bromborough Dock.
City of London (Various Powers).
Clevedon and Yatton Gas.
Leicester Corporation.
London Midland and Scottish Railway.
London Necropolis.
Manchester Corporation.
Mid and South East Cheshire Water Board.
Nottingham Corporation.
Rotherham Corporation.
Rushden District Gas.
Tyne Tunnel.
Wisbech Water Bill
Order [16th August], "That the Bill do lie upon the Table," read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ministry of Works
Plate Glass
asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware of the instruction of the Board of Trade that all plate glass is to be used for utility furniture; and whether this instruction cancels the licences already issued by his Ministry for the reglazing of shop windows.
No such instruction has been issued by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and there is no intention of cancelling the licences already issued for the reglazing of shop windows.
In view of the fact that two other Ministries are having a share in the allocation of plate glass, will my right hon. Friend make a special effort to encourage those shopkeepers who want to display their goods in the window rather than keep them under the counter?
Requisitioned Property
asked the Minister of Works whether, in view of the fact that the number of hotels in Government occupation in the county borough of Bournemouth is the largest in any town in England and Scotland, he will arrange to have a considerable number derequisitioned at an early date, especially in view of the fact that Bournemouth is expected to have a large influx of visitors at Whitsun.
Arrangements have been made by the several requisitioning Departments, after consultation with representatives of the local authority and the local hotel association, for the release at an early date of a substantial number of the hotels. Over one-third of the number are now in course of derequisition, and subject to the shipping arrangements for the repatriation of Dominion Service personnel being adhered to, a further third should be derequisitioned by the end of March.
When these hotels are derequisitioned, will the Minister consult with the Ministry of Health and see that the hotels are used for housing families who have no homes at the present time?
Does not the Minister realise that Bournemouth is not the only place that is suffering from these difficulties, and is not one of the great difficulties the failure of Departments to agree among themselves?
asked the Minister of Works how many buildings are now requisitioned for use as offices by foreign Governments; and how many such premises have been derequisitioned during each of the last three months.
My Ministry holds on requisition at the present time 102 buildings in London for use as offices by foreign Governments. During November, one building, and during December, five buildings were derequisitioned. Information as to buildings outside London is being obtained and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.
Will the Minister take steps to inform those Governments that, in view of our own urgent need for accommodation of all kinds, we can no longer afford hospitality on this scale?
I will do my best to see that that information is brought to the notice of the Governments concerned.
asked the Minister of Works how many square feet of office space are now occupied at the building in Westminster of which he has been informed; and what is the average number of people employed there for each of the last three months.
The space held on requisition in this building remains the same as that given in my reply to the hon. Member of 6th November last. The numbers of Government staffs in occupation at the beginning of October, November and December were 1,794, 1,814 and 1,736 respectively. In addition the Petroleum Board have about 220 staff in the building.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those figures still show that this space is only half occupied by commercial standards, and when will the Government abate the scandal of holding on to space which is so much needed by others?
As soon as provision can be made for the staff occupying this building, it will be handed over.
Is the Minister aware of the very great shortage of office accommodation for reputable industries, and will he take steps to see that this space is used for office purposes?
I am very well aware of the shortage, and I think everybody knows the reason for it.
asked the Minister of Works how many flats are requisitioned at the address in Westminster of which he has been informed; by what Department they are occupied; and how soon they will be released.
Seventy flats are held on requistion and are occupied as a hostel for building trade workers engaged on bomb damage repair work. No definite date of release can be given but the steps now being taken to facilitate the return of these workers to their homes will, I hope, enable us to release in the near future this and other accommodation used for this purpose.
Is not this type of accommodation supremely uneconomic for this purpose, and could not the Government use some of the large houses which would be quite suitable for the purpose?
I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that to move these building workers at this stage, when there is a chance of getting them away altogether would be a mistake.
Does not the Minister agree that no standard of accommodation is too good for building trade workers employed on this work?
I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, and that is a reason why they were put there.
Cinema, Marble Arch (Redecoration)
asked the Minister of Works if he has now ascertained the circumstances in which a number of building trade workers were employed in structural redecorations at the Odeon Cinema, Marble Arch, and how many manhours were thus used.
As the case to which my hon. Friend refers may be the subject of a prosecution, it would not, I think, be advisable for me to give any details at this stage.
Housing Components (Storage, Leith)
asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that many crates containing components for prefabricated houses have been lying exposed to the elements in Leith Docks for many months; and when it is his intention to use this material.
Crates containing temporary houses from America landed at Leith are stored under tarpaulins which provide adequate protection. Some of the tarpaulins were recently blown off by the gales, but were replaced without undue delay. The crates will be sent to sites for erection as soon as the erection contractors are ready for them.
Is it not deplorable that this material should be held at Leith Docks for so long when people are crying out for houses?
I am just as anxious as the hon. and gallant Gentleman to see that materials are put in places where they can be used to house people.
Fuel and Power
Domestic Coal (Quality)
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether his attention has been called to the amount of slack and rubbish, particulars of which have been sent to him, that is included in coal deliveries; and if he will take steps to alter this, especially in coal sold in small quantities to poor people.
Some deterioration in the quality of coal is inevitable in present circumstances because of shortage of labour for sorting and preparing the coal for market at the collieries, and because of the need for using all the coal produced. I am, however, concerned that everything should be done to maintain the quality of domestic coal at as high a level as practicable, and where complaints about quality are found to be justified remedial action is taken. I have written to the hon. Member separately on the specific case of which he sent me particulars.
If it is necessary to ration the quantity of consumable goods, will the right hon. Gentleman take all steps that he can to ensure some standard of quality as well?
It is not practicable at this time to provide a standard relating to quality. We must have regard to all the difficulties that present themselves.
Is the Minister aware that the complaints are made about open-cast coal and will he see that open-cast coal is not sent for domestic use?
It is very seldom used for domestic purposes, but as the hon. and gallant Gentleman is well aware, there is very great difficulty in screening open-cast coal.
Petrol Rationing
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is now in a position to state when petrol rationing is likely to be either abolished or relaxed.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will now estimate when petrol rationing will cease, in view of the new U.S. proposed loan and the Bretton Woods Agreement.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will give the date when motorists may expect a larger supply of petrol as the present allowance is inadequate to meet peacetime needs.
I am not yet in a position to indicate when it will be practicable to abolish or relax petrol rationing.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to be able to make a statement on the subject?
I am afraid I cannot.
Is it not a fact that when petrol rationing ceases a considerable number of officials will be displaced? Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that this fact will not cause any delay in the cessation of petrol rationing?
That question is largely hypothetical.
Is the Minister aware that in the opinion of the trade, if petrol rationing ceased there would be very little more petrol consumed? Does he not think that the men concerned would be better employed in production?
I hope the first part of that supplementary question will be noted by hon. Members opposite.
Does the Minister realise that if he accedes to this request he will confer a great benefit on the miners of this country?
How?
It will enable them to use their motor cars.
Does not the Minister recognise that the time has fully come when the wheels on the roads should revolve over wider areas to the advantage of the whole country?
As far as I am able to judge the evidence of my own eyes, there are plenty of vehicles on the road.
Gas Undertakings, London (Manpower)
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, how many Servicemen and prisoners of war are now being employed in the gas undertakings in Greater London; and if he will make a statement on the general situation as regards Greater London.
On 15th January, 1,006 Servicemen and 557 Italians were employed in the gas undertakings in Greater London. With the assistance of this emergency labour these undertakings have sufficient manpower to operate their available gas-making plant. They cannot at present usefully employ more emergency labour, but arrangements have been made for additional Servicemen to be trained so far as the capacity of the undertakings permit.
May I ask the Minister if he could persuade the Minister of Labour to release more skilled men for the service departments in the gas companies, because it takes weeks now to get gas cookers and other appliances overhauled, which is rather a serious position?
We provided many weeks ago for the release of this class of labour, but we cannot force men back into gas works; it depends on their own volition; but we are getting men back gradually. Meanwhile we are making the best of the situation.
Does not the Minister agree that a large number of untrained men cannot be used efficiently in this industry, and is it not a fact that without a serious reversal of the principles underlying demobilisation sufficient civilian labour cannot be recruited for the gas industry?
I cannot speak on the subject of demobilisation—that matter has been settled—but as regards the use of trained labour, I agree with my hon. friend that there is not sufficient available. If I may be allowed to say so, there are serious difficulties confronting gas undertakings in London. People are coming back to London in hundreds and thousands; more houses are being repaired; more gas appliances are being used; and over and above that during the war many of the gas undertakings were bombed and many of their appliances and equipment put out of action.
But could not the right hon. Gentleman have foreseen some of these things?
It was quite impossible for me to change the course of the war.
You tried very hard;
I hope in the right direction. Moreover, there were other people concerned in this hypothesis about the future.
Ministry (Technical Staff)
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of permanent civil servants employed in his Department on the latest convenient date, who are being paid £800 per annum or over; and the number of these who possess technical qualifications up to the standard of a university honours degree.
There are in my Department 124 established civil servants in receipt of a salary of £800 per annum or more excluding war bonus. Of these, 36 are graduates of universities or possess technical qualifications of an equivalent standard.
Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to increase the proportion of technical advisers in his Department?
We are going into the whole question of technical equipment.
Oil (Search and Production Costs)
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will state the total amount spent on the search for oil in the United Kingdom to any convenient date, as distinct from the cost of production; whether the whole of this expenditure was a charge upon the Government; and, if not, by whom was it borne.
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 20th December, 1945, to a similar Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Banbury (Colonel Dodds-Parker).
As I have not the reply to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, will he kindly let me have it?
It was to the effect that the cost of searching and boring for oil is borne by the licensee, and that there is no expenditure incurred by my Department.
In that case, may I take it that the answer is a tribute to the private enterprise which the right hon. Gentleman now seeks to destroy?
There are, of course, some qualities in private enterprise.
Coal Industry
Subsidence
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether it is proposed to provide for the necessary repairs to property damaged by subsidence due to the mining of coal, in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill; or how it is proposed to deal with this problem.
The Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill provides, by Clause 43, for the transfer of liability for breaches of rights of support from colliery concerns to the National Coal Board except where proceedings to enforce liabilities are started before the primary vesting date. The Bill does not deal with subsidence problems generally which, as my hon. Friend is aware, is a separate problem of great complexity, and which will require fresh legislation.
Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is time something was done to deal with this serious problem?
I agree that it is a serious problem, but it is obvious that I cannot deal with it in the Bill to which my hon. Friend refers.
Absenteeism
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the percentage of voluntary absenteeism at the coalface in 1945.
The provisional figure of voluntary absenteeism at the coalface in the year 1945 is 8.6 per cent.
Cannot the Minister say what that figure of 8.6 per cent. represents in the amount of coal lost?
It is quite impossible to do that.
Was it not over 13,000,000 tons per annum?
Can the Minister say how absenteeism in the mines compares with absenteeism in the House of Commons? Is there any reason why the miners should be compelled to attend their jobs if Members of this House are not?
I leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the estimated loss in coal production due to an increase of 1 per cent. in voluntary absenteeism at the coalface.
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) on 9th October last in answer to a similar Question.
Output
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the output per wage-earner in the coalfields for 1938, 1941, 1944 and 1945.
The average annual output of saleable coal per wage-earner employed in the coalmining industry during the years 1938, 1941, 1944 and 1945 was 290.4 tons, 295.8 tons, 259.2 tons and 245.3 tons respectively. The figure for 1945 is provisional.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason for the fall in output for 1945?
It is the fact that we are not getting the output.
Coal Dump, Somercotes
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that a large coal dump has been lying untouched at Alfreton Road, Somercotes, Derbyshire for some years; that for some time the dump was burning, with consequent waste; and whether, in view of the public feeling aroused by this waste in a coal mining area, he will take steps to see that the coal in this dump is now utilised.
Opencast coal for which there was no immediate outlet was stocked at this site during 1943 and 1944 and a third of it has since been disposed of. The coal is not of high quality and is not suited to industrial needs during periods of heavy load in the winter. The balance of coal in stock, amounting to some 50,000 tons, will be allocated to industry to meet summer load requirements. The fire which occurred during the summer of 1944 was effectively dealt with and resulted in a loss of less than 5 per cent.
Lung Diseases
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will have a special inquiry made into the question of stone-dusting and coal-dust problems in connection with coal-cutting and conveying machines underground, with reference to the effects of both kinds of dust upon miners' lungs and as contributory causes of the lung diseases that are painful and prevalent in some coalfields, with a view to their reduction.
Measures to reduce dust in coalmines are already the subject of investigation and action by the industry and by the inspectors of mines, and though I am satisfied that much progress is being made, particularly in South Wales, this will have to be accelerated. In addition a joint committee, composed of representatives of my Department and the Medical Research Council, is assisting a research unit in South Wales dealing with the cause, treatment and prevention of pneumoconiosis.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will state the number of men employed below ground in each of the 26 coalfields who died in the years 1940 to 1944 as a result of silicosis, pneumoconiosis and other lung diseases; the number of men discharged in consequence of the contraction of these diseases from the mining industry in each of these coalfields in the same period; the number of men in each coalfield on waiting lists for examination in 1944 and 1945; and the numbers suspended owing to lung diseases in the anthracite district of South Wales in 1945.
The reply would be too long for a Parliamentary answer, but I will write to my hon. Friend in the course of a few days giving him information in as much detail as I can.
Does not my right hon. Friend think that the figures indicate that there has been a very great increase in the incidence of these diseases among miners, and that the matter is of very great urgency?
There has been an increase, but it is not attributable to stone dust.
May not the whole House have this information?
By all means. If the House desires it it will be included in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Would not my right hon. Friend agree that a great percentage of the increase of cases of silicosis is due to improved methods of diagnosis?
This is an important subject. We discovered that many men have suffered from this malady.
Questions
Military Service (Government Policy)
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the future policy of the Government in respect of military service, so that those approaching military service age can make their arrangements in respect of apprenticeship or university education.
I would refer the noble lady to the reply given on 19th November by the Lord President of the Council to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor), to which I am unable to add.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is very great feeling on this subject? Does he intend to go on calling up young men and making them subject to demobilisation plans and arrangements, pending the time that the Government make up their mind?
This question is of considerable importance and is under active consideration. I think there are other Questions on the paper today on the subject. I can assure the House that we are giving the matter very anxious attention.
Demobilisation
Railway Personnel
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of railwaymen still serving with His Majesty's Forces, compared with the number at the beginning of June last.
Detailed information of this kind can only be given by the Service Departments, and I have satisfied myself that its extraction would involve a disproportionate amount of time and work and would, moreover, interfere with the progress of the release of men and women from the Services. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Member will not press for the information asked for, which can only be given at the cost of slowing down the current work of releases.
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the rate of release of skilled railway personnel, in view of the great handicaps under which our railways are at present operating?
Railway personnel have a special priority now in the question of release.
Could not the right hon. Gentleman get this information merely by asking the railway companies?
Could not the right hon. Gentleman obtain the information by asking the railway companies?
I will take that matter up. We want the information without unnecessary work, and if the railway companies will be good enough to supply it I shall be glad to communicate it to the House.
I beg to give notice, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, that I will do my best to obtain facilities to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the recent accidents on the railways and the difficulties experienced by British railways in giving adequate service to the public because of the shortage of staff, he will take immediate steps to release as many railwaymen as possible.
In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of War Transport, I have recently given very careful consideration to the shortage of staff on the British railways and it has been agreed to release up to 5,000 railway workers of various grades from the Forces under the Class B scheme.
Will the Minister bear in mind the loyal and devoted service given by railway staffs during the war under private enterprise, and will he give them all the help he can, to relieve them?
I am very glad to note that their loyal and devoted service is recognised and appreciated. Certainly every effort will be made to relieve them of the burden.
Building Workers
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men discharged from the Services in Class B as building workers; the number of such discharged men who are now in such work; and the number of such discharged men who are on the unemployed register of the employment exchanges.
Up to 31st December, 1945, 46,330 men had been released from the Forces in Class B for employment in building and civil engineering. The additional statistics asked for are not available.
Are we to understand that the Minister is satisfied that the industry is getting the maximum result in regard to these releases? Do not the figures he has just given suggest that he is not satisfied that Class B releases should be increased?
There is no need. On the information we have it appears, with the increased number of Class B releases, that people are coming forward rapidly enough.
Progress
asked the Minister of Labour how many personnel have been discharged from all the Fighting Services since the end of the war with Japan up to the last available date; and how many have been conscripted during the same period?
The total number of releases and discharges from the Forces and Women's Auxiliary Services between 15th August and 31st December, 1945, was 1,293,500, including 1,184,200 men and 109,300 women. The number of men called up under the National Service Acts between 1st August and 31st December was 92,800. No women were compulsorily called up.
asked the Minister of Labour the numbers of men and women released from the Forces at the end of 1945?
I am pleased to be able to inform the House that, in spite of the unusually bad weather in December which caused substantial delays in transporting men from overseas, the Government's promise of one-and-a-half million releases by the end of 1945 was fulfilled. Allowing for the time-lag in reporting releases from the Navy, the total number of men and women released or discharged from the three Services between 18th June, 1945, when the release scheme started, and the end of the year, was 1,511,800, representing about 1,700 in excess of the actual programme of 1,510,100. I will, with permission, circulate a full statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Can the Minister give us the comparable figures for the United States of America?
RELEASES AND DISCHARGES FROM THE FORCES AND AUXILIARY AND NURSING SERVICES. 1.— Cumulative figures 18th June , 1945 to 31st December , 1945., 1945. Service. Men. Women. Programme. Releases and Discharges. Excess (+) or Deficit (-) on Programme. Programme. Releases and Discharges. Excess (+) or Deficit (-) on programme. Royal Navy— Recorded 199,000 176,522 + 2,500‡ 19,610 25,615 +8,000‡ Effected but * not recorded. not recorded. 25,000‡ 2,000‡ Army† 873,300 835,958 -37,342 80,000 81,322 +1,322 Royal Air Force. 275,500 302,956 +27,456 62,670 62,429 -241 Total 1,347,800 1,340,400‡ -7,400 162,280 171,400‡ +9,100 * Releases from the Royal Navy are made from ships and establishments and not from dispersal centres and in some cases there is a considerable lag between the date of release and the date on which the report of the release reaches the Admiralty. Releases from the Royal Navy are made from ships and establishments and not from dispersal centres and in some cases there is a considerable lag between the date of release and the date on which the report of the release reaches the Admiralty. † Releases from the Army at the end of the year would have been substantially higher but for bad weather in the last week of the year which delayed the transport of men to this country for demobilisation. ‡ Approximate figures.
2.— Analysis of Releases and Discharges 18th June , 1945 to 31st December , 1945., 1945. Service. Class A. Class B. Other Releases and Discharges. Total. MEN. Royal Navy … 170,800† 5,600† 25,100† 201,500† Army … 661,152 62,797 112,009 835,958 Royal Air Force … 253,201 24,283 25,472 302,956 Total … 1,085,100† 92,700† 162,600† 1,340,400† WOMEN. Royal Navy … 24,200† 50 3,323 27,600 Army … 67,714 1,378 12,230 81,322 Royal Air Force … 52,752 407 9,270 62,429 Total … 144,700† 1,835 24,823 171,400† Total MEN AND WOMEN. Royal Navy … 95,000† 5,700† 28,400† 229,100† Army … 728,866 64,175 124,239 917,280 Royal Air Force … 305,953 24,690 34,742 365,385 Total … 1,229,800† 94,500 * †† 187,400† 1,511,800† * Individual specialist releases included in the total number 3,917 men and 63 women. Individual specialist releases included in the total number 3,917 men and 63 women. †Approximate figures.
I do not think there is any comparison. We know where our demobilised soldiers are and what they are doing.
Can the Minister give us comparable figures for the same period of demobilisation after the last war?
I am afraid that I shall want notice of that question.
Would it not be very interesting to have them?
Following is the statement:
3.—Releases and Discharges December , 1945., 1945. Service. Class A. Class B. Other Releases and Discharges. Total. MEN. Royal Navy … 45,732 1,812 3,323 50,867 Army … 208,322 15,662 21,006 244,990 Royal Air Force … 54,412 7,058 2,794 64,264 Total … 308,466 24,532 27,123 360,121 WOMEN. Royal Navy … 4,547 30 309 4,886 Army … 7,291 758 1,517 9,566 Royal Air Force … 6,960 110 615 7,685 Total … 18,798 898 2,441 22,137 Total MEN AND WOMEN. Royal Navy … 50,279 1,842 3,632 55,753 Army … 215,613 16,420 22,523 254,456 Royal Air Force … 61,372 7,168 3,409 71,949 Total … 327,264 25,430 29,564 382,258
Students
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now extend the scope of the Class B release scheme to cover science students.
I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings) on 9th October, 1945, a copy of which I am sending him, from which he will see that certain science students are already within the scope of the scheme.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now extend the scope of the Class B release scheme in the case of arts students to release groups higher than Group 49.
asked the Minister of Labour when he will be able to extend Class B arrangements for the release of art students and university students, respectively, to groups higher than Group 49.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to make a statement in regard to the release of students, now serving in the Forces in age and service Group 50 and above, for the purpose of resuming their studies at a university.
I cannot at present say whether the release of any students in Class B will be extended to release groups higher than Group 49, but the matter is under consideration.
Would the Minister give the House an indication when he will be likely to be able to do so?
It depends very largely upon the general review of manpower and Forces' requirements which is now under consideration.
Will the Minister bear in mind that the great majority of these people will be obliged to assume the task of earning their own living in the near future, and that any undue postponement will mean that they will have no university training at all?
Very similar circumstances will arise in relation to those who are apprentices in industry.
Employment
Building Workers
asked the Minister of Labour the number of building trade workers at present registered with the local employment exchange at Wolverhampton; and how many of these men are engaged on the municipal housing programme.
At the beginning of July, 1945, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 1,500 insured males aged 14 to 64 in the building industry in the area served by the Wolverhampton employment exchange and juvenile employment bureau. I am endeavouring to obtain the information asked for in the last part of the Question and I will write to my hon. and gallant Friend.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, in the county of Sussex, only nine men out of some hundreds recommended for training in building and allied trades under the Government Vocational Training Scheme have yet been actually sent to training; that this is causing grave dissatisfaction among the men themselves and discouragement to those who are voluntarily giving their time to working the scheme; and what action he proposes to take.
There are 103 men from the County of Sussex at present in training in building trades in Government training centres, and 183 men from the county are awaiting allocation to classes. In addition, 110 men have been accepted as eligible for training, and will appear before the local building advisory panels within the next week so that their suitability for building training may be decided.
Every effort is being made to provide increased training facilities, and pending completion of the new centres which are being built to train men for the building industry, emergency centres are being opened in different parts of the country. The increased rate of demobilisation and the large number of applications for training which are being received have, however, caused some delay in allocating men to training.
Is the Minister aware that this dissatisfaction mostly concerns Service men and also that most people are of the opinion that the Ministry is not fully behind the building programme so much wanted at the present time?
We are disturbed at the failure to get hold of the premises as quickly as we want them. Premises that are offered to us have to be cleared of the goods in them and then equipped for this purpose. We are very anxious indeed to bring this waiting list down. We are now in the process of opening five emergency centres in London and ten others in other parts of the country, and I feel very confident that in a month or two we will be able to absorb most of the waiting list.
Night Work (Young Persons)
asked the Minister of Labour when he proposes to reimpose legislation which was in force prior to the war, forbidding the employment on night work of persons under 18 years of age.
Pre-war legislation which prohibits night work in factories by persons under 18 years of age, subject to certain exceptions as regards male young persons over 16, is, generally speaking, in force today. During the war, relaxation of this prohibition was authorised under emergency powers in the case of particular factories so as to allow male young persons aged 16 or over to be employed on shift systems involving night work. The authorisations have been kept under review and the number has fallen rapidly. It is not now very considerable, and will be further reduced as quickly as the necessity for maintaining essential supplies and services and the return of men permit.
Young Persons
asked the Minister of Labour the number of orders issued during the war period, under the Factory Act, permitting children from 14 to 16 years of age to work 48 hours per week instead of 44, and young persons from 16 to 18 years of age for more than 48 hours per week; and how many of those orders have now been rescinded.
The authorisations, under emergency powers, of various relaxations of the hours provisions of the Factories Act during the war were, in general, granted to individual factories and for limited periods after investigation of the particular circumstances of each case, and were kept under review. At the peak there were in force some 16,000 such temporary authorisations permitting the employment of young persons aged 14 to 16 for more than 44 hours in a week. By November, 1945, the latest date for which figures are available, the number had been reduced to about 3,000.
Corresponding figures relating to the employment of young persons over 16 for more than 48 hours in a week are not available, and I would point out that such employment is permissible in factories under the ordinary law to a substantial extent in each year.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the time has now arrived for all these orders to be withdrawn so that we can fall back on Statute law?
We are continually considering that point, and, as rapidly as possible, so long as they do not interfere with the products of some of these industries, these orders are being annulled.
Scotland
Fishing Industry
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the reports of the White Fishing and Shell Fishing Industries Committee of the Scottish Council on Industry will be published.
I am informed by the Scottish Council on Industry that the reports referred to in the Question are in course of being printed and that they should be published in about a fortnight.
Forth Bridge, Prestwick, and Rosyth
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the dissatisfaction in Scotland with the Government's policy regarding the Forth-road bridge, Prestwick and Rosyth; and what steps he is taking to meet Scottish wishes in these matters.
The Government are well aware of the desire expressed in various quarters in Scotland to secure the fullest possible development of the three projects referred to and will continue to bear these views in mind in the formation of policy.
What is my right hon. Friend going to do about it?
I am going to do all I possibly can inside the Government I belong to to bring success to Scotland.
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that his Sassenach colleagues in the Government are aware of the dangers inherent in trying to sit down on a thistle?
Rural Housing
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses for workers have been built in rural areas in Scotland since 26th July; and how many have been reconditioned in the same period.
According to the latest information available, 117 houses for workers have been completed and 63 houses have been reconditioned in rural areas since 26th July, 1945.
Would the Secretary of State consider with his colleagues the restoration of the Housing (Rural Workers) (Scotland) Act, particularly in view of the disappointing results following its cancellation?
So far as the Housing (Rural Workers) (Scotland) Act is concerned, the Government policy has already been announced, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that what can be done for the purpose of developing speedily housing for rural Scotland will be done as far as this Government is concerned.
Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how many of these 63 houses, which have been reconditioned, have been the subject of a grant under the Housing (Rural Workers) (Scotland) Act, which expired on 30th September last?
I must assume that every one has received the necessary grant because the reconditioning of the 63 houses to which I have referred has been carried out under the Housing (Rural Workers) (Scotland) Act.
Does the Secretary of State consider that, with the modern methods of building so speedily, that number is a credit to any Government?
All I can say is that, like many other people, I want even more progress, and I am doing all I possibly can in Scotland to speed up the provision of houses for workers.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether his answer means that at present, therefore, all reconditioning of cottages in Scotland has stopped?
The fact is that the Housing (Rural Workers) (Scotland) Act has not been continued and reconditioning is not carried out under an Act that has ceased to exist.
Questions
House of Commons Rebuilding (Advisory Panel)
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to set up a Committee of Members to advise the Minister of Works on matters arising during the building and furnishing of the new House of Commons.
I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir. As already agreed, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works will set up an Advisory Panel in due course.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say when, because the building of the new House is already in progress.
That practical point will come, I think, at a later stage in the actual allocation of accommodation, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take action in good time.
Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House that this is not a Select Committee, but merely an Advisory Committee, and, therefore, is not in conflict with the Report of the Select Committee over which I presided?
The Noble Lord's interpretation is quite right.
Raw Materials (Home Production)
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the difficulties in paying for imports, he will direct scientific research to the substitution of home-produced for imported raw materials used in British factories.
The circumstances of war have already obliged us to do our best to substitute home-produced for imported materials within the limitations imposed by our natural resources. The Government consider that these efforts should be continued both by the Government and by industry, with the full support of scientific research, in such a way as will contribute effectively to the solution of our balance of payment difficulties.
Netherlands East Indies (Situation)
asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his conversations at Chequers with the Netherlands Prime Minister and other Dutch representatives and on the present situation in Indonesia, with particular reference to the recent resignations of the Dutch military commander and other senior officers in the Netherlands East Indies.
My hon. Friend will have seen the communiqué issued after the Chequers conversations on 27th December, and I cannot add anything to it about those conversations. As regards the transfer from the Netherlands East Indies of certain Dutch military commanders my understanding is that these changes were decided some time before the Chequers meeting and that they are being carried out as a result, not of resignations by Dutch officers, but of a reorganisation of the Netherlands High Command.
The situation in Java appears to have improved as a result of the energetic military measures recently taken to restore law and order in the Batavia area where it is hoped the conversations between Dr. van Mook and the Indonesian nationalist leaders will shortly be resumed. The constitutional issues under discussion are of course matters for direct settlement between the Netherlands Government and the people of the Netherlands East Indies. But a speedy and amicable settlement has throughout been the aim of His Majesty's Government, not only in the interests of the Netherlands East Indies, but also in order to facilitate the satisfactory fulfilment of the military tasks laid upon His Majesty's Government in that territory. By the appointment announced on 19th January of Sir Archibald Clark Kerr, the senior of His Majesty's Ambassadors, to proceed on a special mission to Batavia, His Majesty's Government have given proof of their earnest desire to assist in every way possible towards the attainment of such a settlement.
While I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about Sir Archibald Clark Kerr, could he say whether the Commission proposed at The Hague is in fact going to Java because, if so, is it very likely to help Dr. van Mook's work of conciliation?
I am informed that the Netherlands Government issued a statement on this subject on 19th January. I think that really answers the point which my hon. Friend has raised.
In view of the importance of this subject and the démarche made yesterday by Russia on the question of Indonesia, does the Prime Minister propose to make a further statement this week, or give the House an opportunity of debating this matter?
A fuller statement—if a fuller statement is required—would be made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put down a Question.
Wales (Secretary of State)
asked the Prime Minister what stage has now been reached in the Government's consideration of the proposals for a Secretary of State for Wales; what machinery has been adopted for consideration of the Government's policy, and when an announcement of it may be expected.
I am not at present in a position to make a statement.
While appreciating the competing claims for the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask if he is aware of the growing disquiet regarding the omission of the Government to make a statement, and can he—
I am afraid I did not catch what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said; I did not hear the last part of his sentence at all.
I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would indicate a date by which he could make a statement.
No, I am afraid I could not indicate a date, but the matter is under consideration.
Would the right hon. Gentleman consult Members of Par- liament from Wales in the consideration of this matter, each of whom is pledged absolutely on this question?
The hon. Gentleman may be quite certain that on all Welsh matters hon. Members from Wales in the Government make their voices heard.
Might I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that only a satisfactory settlement of this matter can avoid its being referred direct to the United Nations?
Japan (British Occupation Forces)
asked the Prime Minister what agreement has been reached with the U.S.A. regarding a British Commonwealth Army of Occupation in Japan; what is to be its size, who is to command it; and if the Dominions have been consulted in the negotiations.
I am not yet in a position to make a statement about the British Forces to be used in the occupation of Japan, as correspondence with the interested Governments is still proceeding. I hope to be able to do so in the near future.
Will the Prime Minister say why there has been such an air of mystery about these negotiations, and will he also try to arrange that when an Army of Occupation does go there, there will be representatives of those British territories like Malaya, Borneo and Burma, which have been overrun?
I am not aware that there are any important bodies of troops for Borneo. Surely the hon. Gentleman will realise that a matter which has to be dealt with by consultation between several Governments cannot be rushed; there is no mystery about the matter.
Ask Russia.
M.P.s' LETTERS (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS)
asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to investigate the staffing of Parliamentary Secretaries' Departments with a view to introducing improvements that will enable constituent's cases, submitted by Members, to be dealt with more expeditiously.
I have been asked to reply. Shortage of staff, combined with a very heavy increase in correspondence from Members, makes some delay inevitable, and no special investigation, such as my hon. Friend suggests, would solve this difficulty.
Is the Chancellor aware that, because they are much better staffed, Public Relations Departments of the Ministries are able to answer the same type of question much quicker if it is submitted by a newspaper than if it is submitted by an hon. Member through the Parliamentary Secretaries' department? Will he bring the Parliamentary Secretaries' department up to the same standard?
I do not accept the truth of my hon. Friend's version.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sometimes delays of up to two months are experienced by hon. Members who put their questions to the various Departments?
I should think that is exceedingly exceptional. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I should think so. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If it is not, no doubt before there occurs such a lapse, if the hon. Gentleman would give the Minister a prod, it would not be resented.
While realising the heavy additional labour involved, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to see that the tradition of this House is maintained by which the replies to letters from hon. Members are signed by a responsible Minister?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have had to give a Minister three prods and have had three formal acknowledgements signed by separate Secretaries, and still we can get nothing done in over two months? Will he see to the matter? It is very serious.
I cannot take too wide a responsibility. I should think that the hon. Gentleman had better pursue that with the Minister concerned.
I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
Czechoslovakia (British Assistance)
asked the Prime Minister whether he will make clear that the provision by this country of facilities for the supply of finance or raw materials to Czechoslovakia will not be adversely influenced by an economic policy in that country with which the British Government does not agree.
I have been asked to reply. I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the nationalisation decrees recently issued by the Czechoslovak Government. His Majesty's Government have made representations on the subject of these decrees to the Czechoslovak Government with the object of affording legitimate protection to British interests in Czechoslovakia and of removing hindrances in the way of Anglo-Czechoslovak commercial exchanges. The policy of nationalisation lies completely within the competence of the Czechoslovak Government. There is therefore no question of His Majesty's Government withholding from Czechoslovakia, on account of this policy, facilities for the supply of finance or raw materials.
Is my hon. Friend prepared to reconsider the decision that has apparently already been reached to demand from the Czecholsovak Government compensation in sterling rather than compensation in Czech bonds or Czech currency for British shareholdings in nationalised Czechoslovak industries?
My hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken in the assumption he makes, but I must repeat that there is an obligation upon His Majesty's Government to see that legitimate compensation is made.
Would my hon. Friend elucidate for the House the meaning of the phrase "protection to British interests?" Does that mean British sectional interests?
Oh.
Day of Remembrance
asked the Prime Minister if the date of the Day of Remembrance has been decided upon; and if the years 1939–1945 will be added to the Cenotaph in Whitehall.
These points are under consideration. No final decision has yet been reached.
Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the suitability of the first Sunday in November as a Day of Remembrance; and will he also bear in mind the appropriateness of following such a Holy Day by an additional Bank Holiday the day after?
All relevant considerations will be borne in mind.
Germany
Ruhr Iron and Steel Works
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the intentions of His Majesty's Government concerning the ownership and functioning of the Ruhr iron and steel works.
Our policy is governed by the economic principles agreed at Potsdam, which require the elimination of excessive concentrations of economic power. The British authorities have already taken over possession and control of the firm of Friedrich Krupp and its subsidiary and affiliated undertakings; and further steps will be taken, when necessary and expedient, to carry out the agreed policy.
Occupation Forces
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that the U.S. and French Governments have declared their intention to reduce the number of their troops of occupation in Germany by the summer of this year to 300,000 and 120,000, respectively; and if he will state the number of British troops that will be so employed.
I understand that statements have appeared in the Press of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend. British troops in Germany are employed in a wide range of duties and it is impossible to say what their numbers will be at any future date as this must depend on a number of factors, including the progress of reconstruction, material and moral, within Germany itself.
May I ask my hon. Friend whether, if Germany is to be occupied for a very long time by the Allies, he will see that the burden shall be shared equally amongst all the Alllies according to their resources?
I cannot give any assurance that the burden would be shared in exact equality, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the burden is shared according to the requirements and the policy of the quadripartite authorities who are in control.
Will the Chancellor see that sufficient troops are maintained this time in Germany to support the work of our Control Commission there?
Will the Minister say whether the extent to which we have to maintain troops in Germany will depend on whether he is satisfied with progress made in that direction?
We could not be satisfied with the progress made in that direction if it were not 100 per cent., but we do not expect 100 per cent. in the course of a few weeks or months. If my hon. and gallant Friends reads the answer to the Question, he will find that that factor is taken into consideration.
Stateless Persons
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will state the number of unscreenable or stateless persons in the British zones; and what policy he is pursuing towards these persons.
Our policy for the time being is to consider all displaced persons in the British Zones in Germany and Austria as ultimately repatriable. There will, no doubt, be some who will not be able to be repatriated but their number can only be ascertained when final censuses have been made of the populations as a whole. At present all displaced persons are being cared for by Control Commission authorities. The ultimate disposal of those who are found finally to be non- repatriable is part of the general refugee problem which is receiving the urgent consideration of His Majesty's Government.
Are displaced persons being segregated into various national groups as far as possible in the British Zone, as in the American Zone?
The answer is in the affirmative.
Reparations
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the progress reported by the Reparations Commission in so far as it affects reparations to be made to this country.
I assume the hon. and gallant Member has in mind the Inter-Allied Reparation Agency which is being established in accordance with the agreement reached at the recent Paris Conference on Reparations. The agency has not yet been established but will be shortly. The results of the Paris Conference have been published as a White Paper Cmd. 6721.
Questions
Austria (Occupation Forces)
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any statement to make on the withdrawal of at least a part of the present Allied Forces in Austria.
There is nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Major Wilkes) on 12th- December last.
Civil Service (Recruitment)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to recruit men and women for the administrative, executive and clerical classes of the Civil Service; and what are the numbers of vacancies now required to be filled.
I would refer the hon. Member to the White Paper on Recruitment to Established Posts in the Civil Service during the Reconstruction Period, Cmd. 6567. The numbers of vacancies which we expect to fill from the Reconstruction Competitions are approximately 500, 2,000 and 13,000 for the administrative, executive and clerical class respectively.
Could the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whether he intends to continue the system of temporary civil servants?
That is rather a large question for a supplementary answer. Those referred to in the Question, of course, are not temporary civil servants.
Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us he is certain that in practice officers and men still overseas shall not be disadvantaged in application for these posts?
We have made every possible effort with a view to ensuring that all officers and men overseas shall have a full opportunity for competing. We have done our very best, but if the hon. Gentleman can give any evidence where we are not succeeding I shall be glad to take necessary measures.
National Finance
Imported Gift Parcels (Purchase Tax)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider fixing a price limit under which articles sent to this country by way of gifts by parents, husband, wife, or child of the recipient, could be received at a modified rate of Purchase Tax.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that soldiers and other Servicemen serving overseas sent presents at Christmas to their parents and others, and that the full Purchase Tax was charged on these articles which were not purchased by them or in this country; and will he make inquiries into these charges with a view to putting them right.
Members of the Forces serving overseas may send home parcels free of duty and tax up to a total value of £12 a year. Each parcel must bear a special label which the sender can obtain from his Unit. I cannot see my way to do more than this.
Is not the Minister aware that presents are very often sent from parents to children and from children to parents and that they have more sentimental value than monetary value? The imposition of a Purchase Tax is a very heavy burden; could he not consider this matter again?
After all, it is very unfair from one point of view that there should be an advantage given to gifts sent abroad over gifts made in this country.
British War Debt (India and Egypt)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to negotiate for the scaling-down of the British war debt to India and Egypt to compensate for the diminished purchasing power of the rupee and piastre, respectively, as compared with that of the pound.
I would refer my hon. Friend to Section 10 of the Anglo-American Financial Agreement of 6th December, 1945, to which I have nothing to add at present.
Polish Forces, Britain (Cost)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the total cost borne by his Department in respect of the upkeep of the Polish armed forces in Great Britain from the cessation of hostilities until 31st December last; and the estimated future cost to his Department from 31st December last to the anticipated date of their departure.
About £670,000. All future charges will be borne on the Votes of the Service Departments.
Returned Internees (Medical Treatment)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Government's pledge that free medical treatment, where necessary, is to be given to all returned civilian internees from the Far East is being interpreted by the Scottish and other authorities as only free if the internee is destitute; and if he will see that these internees are given the same free treatment that is available for Service ex-prisoners of war.
I am looking into this.
Postwar Credits (Deceased Persons)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if postwar credits, when payable, will be paid to the next-of-kin of deceased persons who held postwar credits.
A deceased person's postwar credit passes to his personal representative, to be dealt with as part of the estate.
Lira-Sterling Exchange Rate
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will negotiate with the Government of Italy in order to revise the Lira-Sterling exchange rate.
This matter is under consideration.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if we may expect to hear something more about this?
No doubt.
Questions
Fair Wages Resolution
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is proposed to bring before the House the Fair Wages Resolution referred to in White Paper Cmd. 6399 of 1942.
Soon, I hope.
Business of the House
May I ask the Leader of the House—whom we are glad to see safely back from his excursion—a question on Business? The Government have not yet told us what days they propose to allot to the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill. There can be no complaint about that because it is for the Government to announce their own business in their own time, but I thought it would be convenient to ask the Government to give us the fullest possible measure of time for the Second Reading of that Bill. Whatever our viewpoint about the Bill, there can be no dispute as to its great significance to our national life and, therefore, I trust the Government will grant us at least three days for the Second Reading of this Measure.
I am glad to notice the vigour and the ambitious spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has returned to his Parliamentary duties. We had considered the question as between one day and two days for the Second Reading of this Bill, but the Government take the view that two days would be reasonable for that purpose. If we can help by a limited Suspension of the Rule on the first day, we shall consider that, but I do not think that, in the present state of Parliamentary Business, we could agree to more than two days.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter. If he will look up the precedents, he will find that, in his Parliamentary experience and in mine, there have been cases in which even four days have been given to Second Readings of Measures. A great many Members in all parts of the House want to speak. We have had a long Recess and, if necessary, we might sit a little extra for this.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to reconsider the matter, and I will reconsider it, but not in any mood of optimism. I agree there are precedents for three days and there may be for four days—that is how Parliaments used to go on—but there are not many precedents for a Parliamentary Session of this kind, with all this exceedingly valuable legislation coming before Parliament.
In view of the fact that there is general agreement on this proposal for the nationalisation of the mines, would it not be better to limit the time on this Bill and use the valuable time of the House for other Measures?
Would the Leader of the House bear in mind that, in view of the increased use of Standing Committees upstairs for the Committee stages of these Bills, it is desirable that there should be a greater opportunity for Members to speak on Secońd Reading on the Floor of the House?
I cannot see that that makes any difference. The Bill will have a Report stage in any case.
Since the question of Committee stages has been introduced might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is denied that this Bill is, necessarily, a Bill of such constitutional importance that it must be taken on the Floor of the House?
I cannot anticipate whether the Bill will be on the Floor of the House or upstairs, but I certainly do deny that this is a Bill of serious constitutional importance within the submission I made to the Select Committee on Procedure.
When the Leader of the House announced before the Recess that the White Paper on civil aviation was to be introduced shortly, I asked whether he would sympathetically consider extending the Rule substantially when the Debate takes place. As we know, the Debate is to take place on Thursday. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can assure us now that we can have a two-hours' extension on Thursday, and also whether he takes note of what is happening in Scotland in regard to civil aviation?
I am rather doubtful whether that would be generally convenient to the House. I understand that there may be a Division, and I do not think it would be desirable for that Division to be too late.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—I should think that if hon. Members reflected for a split second they could guess why.
Will any time be given to discuss the results of the memorable visit to America of the Lord President?
I cannot flatter myself that my visit to Canada and the United States has reached the stage of world importance to warrant a Parliamentary Debate.
Can the right hon. Gentleman make any statement about the projected Debate on Palestine?
I think that question will have to be put on Thursday.
I am still in a little doubt—
I think we had better get on with business.
Orders of the Day
Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision as to notice to quit served after reference to tribunals.)
If, after a contract to which this Act applies has been referred to a tribunal by the lessee or by the local authority (either originally or for reconsideration), a notice to quit the premises to which the contract relates is served by the lessor on the lessee at any time before the decision of the tribunal is given or within three months thereafter, the notice shall not take effect before the expiration of the said three months:
Provided that—
( a ) the tribunal may, if they think fit, direct that a shorter period shall be substituted for the said three months in the application of this section to the contract that is the subject of the reference; and
( b ) if the reference is withdrawn, the period during which the notice is not to take effect shall end on the expiration of seven days from the withdrawal of the reference.—[ Mr. Aneurin Bevan .]
Brought up, and read the First time.
3.21 p.m.
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The House will probably recollect that on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill I expressed the view that there was a very delicate balance between those who advocated no security of tenure for the tenant making an appeal to the tribunal, and those who said that unless such security were given, we would not get very many appeals. I was anxious, and I am certain all Members of the House are anxious that we should not do anything which would have the effect of reducing the available accommodation and of making those who do let rooms frightened that they might incur so many legal disabilities and so many limitations that they might not make the accommodation available. This was considered by the Committee at some length, and there was a feeling among at least the majority of the Committee that unless the appellant to the tribunal were provided with some security against being driven out of his lodgings we would have very few appeals. The new Clause proposes to provide protection for appellants in those circumstances.
The Clause first deals with the point that was raised that, immediately an appeal was made to the tribunal, as the Bill stands the principal tenant or the lessor, might at once give notice, and clear the appellant out. So the Clause provides that immediately an appeal is lodged, security begins, and no eviction proceedings can start. Then the appellant appears before the tribunal, and, at that stage, when the decision is given, the tribunal might, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, give security of tenure up to a maximum of three months. The reason why the matter is left in that flexible state, is because the members of the tribunal would be able to assess the emotional relationship between the two persons who appear. If it looks as though there is bad blood the tribunal will, of course, give the maximum security in order that the blood might cool. In many cases there will not be ill feeling, because the amount of rent that ought to be charged for furnished lettings is at the moment unknown, and many of these appeals will be in order to seek guidance from the tribunal as to what they consider a reasonable rent. In such circumstances the maximum security of tenure might not be given. Furthermore, in the event of a reference being made to the tribunal and not exercised, then the security of tenure lives for only seven days.
It seems to me that by some simple form of words such as is contained in this Clause, the desires of the Committee which considered this matter can be realised. I am exceedingly anxious that the House should provide the Government with these powers as soon as possible. I had hoped to have them before Christmas, but that proved impossible. It seems to me that there is no very great hardship imposed upon anybody by the Clause. It must be remembered that it is not desirable to give the tenant an indefinite security of tenure, because we must not try to tie together, in the same premises, two people who are fundamentally in disagreement with each other. Therefore, an indefinite security of tenure, or too long a security of tenure, would have a disastrous effect upon the provision of furnished lodgings. I think three months is reasonable. It means that appellants who go before a tribunal are quite sure that they will not be turned out at once, and when tribunals are at work this will assist in dealing with the problem which we have in mind of bringing about reasonable rents in circumstances of shortage of accommodation.
In this case, in contrast with certain other matters on this Bill, I, and I think my hon. Friends also, take the view that the Minister has arrived at a wise balance on what was a difficult question, namely, the extent to which security of tenure should, for the first time in our history, be given in the case of furnished lettings. It is perhaps worth recalling the conclusion which was reached by what is commonly referred to as the Ridley Committee—a strong Committee including representatives of all political parties, and ladies and gentlemen of no political party. They summarised their conclusions in their Report, in these words:
"We therefore recommend that save in exceptional cases some limited security of tenure be given, and that in ordinary cases after an application to the Tribunal the tenant shall be entitled to retain possession of the premises until the expiry of three months from the date of the hearing (or such shorter period as the Tribunal may order, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the agreement subsisting between the parties), upon condition that the rent assessed by the Tribunal is duly paid and other terms of the contract observed. There may be exceptional cases in which no security should be given, e.g ., where the Tribunal is satisfied that the application by the tenant was not bona fide or that the premises are urgently needed by the landlord on grounds of health or for reasons connected with his occupation. In such cases the Tribunal should have discretion to order that no security of tenure should be given."
It is satisfactory that after the further consideration given by the Department, and after examination of this Bill in Committee upstairs, the conclusion which was reached by the Ridley Committee is, in substance, that which the Government are putting before the House. Speaking for myself, I am very happy to put no objection to this Amendment.
3.30 p.m.
I had not the advantage of being a member of this particular Committee. I rise only to make one or two observations and also to get a point clear. It was said that this proposal would not work unless there was a feeling of mutual co-operation, and that is really very true, because the right hon. Gentleman need only go to any part of London, and ask the occupants of a house whether they would be prepared compulsorily to share rooms—to let the rooms—and it would be found that people are all absolutely dead against it. Therefore, I do think that Members should try to co-operate as much as possible to get an Amendment which is not going to force two people to live together. It really would be a complete failure, and I am convinced a large number of tenants of houses will not let furnished rooms if they feel they will not be able to terminate that letting within a reasonable time. I myself do not oppose the suggested three months, but I do want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether during that period the householder would have to continue to pay rent. What will be the position supposing the occupants of the furnished rooms refused to pay rent during this three months for those furnished rooms? Will there be any redress? Will the person who is letting the furnished rooms be able to recover the rent in some really effective manner from the people who occupy the rooms, or will they in effect stay in the rooms without payment?
These tribunals are not rent-collecting tribunals. There will be civil action in the ordinary way.
I find it very difficult to see how this particular Clause can be defined as providing what is described as security of tenure. Whilst I welcome the Clause as far as it goes, it is obvious that the purpose of its machinery is to suspend, while the tribunal is considering the matter, the question of the tenancy. In other words, while the matter is sub judice , nothing is to be done to alter the relationship of the parties. That, of course, is quite sensible, and quite natural, if the decision of the tribunal is to have any effect at all, for indeed the tribunal may arrive at a conclusion which would be completely frustrated, if, in the meantime, a notice to quit had been rendered effective. Therefore, to that extent I welcome it, but to describe it as security of tenure is a complete misnomer, in my humble submission. I should like the Minister to consider whether there is not an omission— whether there is not a fault, which ought to be put right, in the language that has been used in this Clause. It says:
It seems to me that if we are going to protect the tenants after the reference, there should be some space of time prior to that, which would also rank for protection. To my mind this Clause is defective to that extent. It is going to dole out two forms of justice for the same kind of thing. I quite agree that there is the matter of time. As regards date, of course, there is a difference, because on one particular date the notice may not have been given. On the other hand, that day may precede by one or more days this particular reference. With great respect, I would say that if there is any sense in this Clause at all, if there is any practical purpose in it, if the circumstances assert that it is necessary to have this period, then it must apply at least a day or two before, with the same effect as it would have a day or two afterwards. In my submission, this Clause ought to that extent to be amended.
On this question of security of tenure the Minister, as I follow it, says that we must give some security of tenure. I have tried to show that this really does not give any at all. He does say you must give some security of tenure, but you must not give too much. The reason the right hon. Gentleman cites for that, as far as I can gather, is that you cannot force people to live together if they do not want to live together. I quite agree. You cannot do that any more than you can force two people to live together as man and wife. But that is only one aspect of this matter. In my experience, the majority of the cases are not those in which there are several people of different families in the same house. In my experience these lettings are very similar to those of ordinary dwellinghouses that are not furnished lettings at all.
Families, either one or two or more, go into these furnished lettings on exactly the same basis as they would go into any other place, except that there happens to be furniture. The fact that there is furniture takes away from the particular premises the right which the tenant has, if it is unfurnished, to come within the Rent Restriction Act, and that cannot be removed except in a very limited way in the county court. This must be pointed out because there ought not to be any misconception about it. When the Minister says there ought not to be more security of tenure than is provided under this Clause, I grant that we must not keep these people together if they do not want to be together but with great respect, that does not apply except in a few limited cases. Apart from those criticisms, I accept this Clause, but I think it ought to be strengthened in the respect I have indicated.
Is not the answer to the hon. Member that the purpose of this Clause is to apply protection to a tenant, only in the specific instance in which the notice of eviction is the result of an appeal? Until an appeal has been made, obviously you cannot apply this. There may be a case—my own experience tells me that there is a case—for much more protection for tenants, but that is not the purpose of this Bill. I wonder whether even three months is enough. In practice it is not easy for somebody who is given notice to quit furnished premises, however undesirable the relationship is with the lessor, to find alternative accommodation. However, as some measure of protection and as laying down the principle of protection, I welcome the Clause.
I wish to support this new Clause, but I am made anxious by the fact that it gives no sort of immediate protection to the tenant of furnished accommodation. I am sure that all hon. Members, every week, hear of the most unfortunate cases of people who are faced with immediate eviction from furnished accommodation and who have, apparently, no redress whatever. Sometimes the reason for terminating the tenancy is entirely unsatisfactory. I had one case last week, in which a young couple were to be evicted simply because the wife was going to have a baby. In cases of that kind, where there are two or three furnished rooms in a house, the local authority cannot requisition, and apparently nothing can be done for these people. Although, in my view, this New Clause is so necessary that, without it, the Bill would be largely valueless, I hope the Minister can do something, before the Measure comes into operation, to ensure that these people can be protected.
The Bill does not lay down that a local authority must set up a tribunal. It merely states that the local authority "may" set up a tribunal, and the Bill has not become law yet. In many areas it may be a long time before the local authority will set up a tribunal, and, therefore, although, as soon as the Bill becomes operative and the tribunals are set up, people can have this protection, and cannot be evicted in less than three months, I submit that something more should be done to strengthen this Clause in order to protect people and ensure that the local authorities do, in fact, set up tribunals immediately the Bill becomes law.
It is so seldom that I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that I feel that, on this occasion, when I am in agreement with him, I must show that agreement. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) complained that, under the Bill as it stands, not all the people concerned will be covered. There may be great difficulties and dangers from the start, and I would remind the hon. Member that this Bill does lay down, in its first Clause, that, after consultation, any local authority which considers a tribunal necessary for its area may ask the Minister to set up such tribunal immediately, and that seems to me to cover those districts in which there is real need.
On the question of security of tenure, I think the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) has assumed, rather too lightly, that the vast majority of furnished lettings are lettings in premises that are completely outside the house in which the landlord resides. I speak as a member of the Ridley Committee, which took a lot of evidence on this question, and the vast majority, so far as we could see, were furnished lettings in the same house. The anxiety which we had on that Committee in mak- ing the recommendation which the Minister has now accepted, was that, if there was a limited degree of security of tenure, it might frighten people from letting during a period when we wanted every furnished room that could be let in this country. We decided, and the right hon. Gentleman has now taken the same view, that, in order to ensure a really fair chance for cases going before the tribunal, the tenants should have some sort of limited protection. If we were to lay it down that everybody about to let a furnished room was to be faced with the position of having that tenant indefinitely, I am very much afraid that we should find room after room, which would otherwise be let, being held back.
It will not always be a question of three months, but I believe that, on balance, we are right to give that limited protection. I do say, however, that, if we were to go any further on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Gloucester, and, possibly, on the lines which other hon. Members have in mind, we should be driving out of operation those very premises which we so badly need.
3.45 p.m.
I think the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes) has rather mistaken the position, because he might very well use precisely the same arguments with regard to the sub-letting of unfurnished rooms in a house. I do not think that is really the point that ought to be considered. The question we have to consider is whether it is going to be used as a precedent when it comes to a question of dealing with the whole matter of controlled houses. I am very anxious that we should not allow anything which is said here by the Minister—and I hope he will make that clear—to be regarded, when the greater question is under discussion, as an indication of the point of view put forward with regard to controls in relation to all problems. This Bill has certain faults, which I hope, in due course, the Minister will have corrected before the Bill goes on the Statute Book. First of all, I am not altogether happy about the period of three months. I think there should be at least a six months' protection and we know, of course, that, under the Rent Acts, houses which are unfurnished are given this protection and the controls are continued indefinitely. Quite frankly, I see no reason why furnished apartments should not be controlled in a similar manner. I do, of course, appreciate, at this moment, that we are not getting a more comprehensive Bill, and it is highly essential that we should give some protection to furnished rooms, but I do not think that three months is sufficient.
I should like to point out that a certain discretion is given to the tribunal by this new Clause, and it is a very wide discretion. One tribunal may take a particular point of view, and another an entirely opposite point of view, in relation to the length of the period of control. I think, with the greatest respect, that the Minister should make it clear that only in certain circumstances should the tribunal be entitled to reduce the period, whatever it may be. If it is a matter of three months at least, let it be made clear to the tribunal that they are not, haphazardly, to reduce that period. The report to which the hon. Member for Wavertree referred gives certain reasons which, can be utilised by a tribunal in reducing this period, but the actual suggestion in the Clause, as now presented by the Minister, does not give these reasons to the tribunal when they may decide to reduce the period. I think it is very dangerous to leave it entirely to the tribunal in that way. It should be made perfectly clear that only in most exceptional circumstances should the period be reduced, if the tribunal is entitled to reduce it at all. I ask the Minister to consider that aspect of the matter and to let us have a comprehensive Bill as speedily as possible.
The position in the country is extremely serious. There are many premises not under control at present which ought to be placed under control as speedily as possible. Thousands of instances can be given throughout the country where control is essential, and I am not prepared to admit that people refrain from letting because of control. I think a comprehensive Bill is long overdue, but, meanwhile, this temporary Measure should be one which will not indicate a departure from the general principles of control.
I shall not oppose this new Clause, but I regret I cannot. subscribe to the Minister's optimistic statement as to its value. My own opinion is that the Clause will be practically valueless and that the Minister, in fixing this moderate period, has fallen betwixt two stools. He is getting the worst of both deals. Obviously, if there is too great a degree of security you will get no rooms. The three months' security offered under this Clause will frighten a number of people away, but, on the other hand, three months is of little use to a man occupying furnished rooms. It is very little comfort to him to know that he will be turned out on is April instead of on is January. Anyone with one or two children who goes in search of furnished rooms will know that there is not a greater chance of getting them on is April than there is on 1st January. Disputes will arise because, perhaps, of some incident not at all connected with the rent of the premises, but arising between two women in one house. The query will arise "What about our rent?" And there will be a wordy discussion on the question, and one of the women will decide to refer the case to the tribunal. The other woman will know at once the case is going to be referred, and notice to quit will be served immediately. The notice will be operative, and there will be no protection under this Clause.
What we want to do—and what, I think, the Minister wants to do—is to avoid putting anything into this Bill which will stop rooms being available. We do not want to introduce anything which is going to prevent tenants, or discourage tenants, from going forward and getting the benefit of the provisions of this Bill. The Minister could have met this by fixing no period in this Clause, and giving full jurisdiction to the tribunal, to assess the degree of security to be given to the tenant at the time they assess the rent. Naturally, there ought to be a greater degree of security in cases where children are involved. We should have a better response in the offer of rooms and more likelihood of tenants seeking the protection of the Bill if no fixed period were inserted, and if the tenant could go to the tribunal and have the degree of security assessed at the same time as the rent is assessed.
The only point I want to deal with is a drafting one—as to what date the words "has been referred" refer to. This Clause only gives protection where a notice has been served after a certain date—that is to say, when the matter has been referred to the tribunal. There is no definition in Clause II of "The reference." We have to look at Clause 2 which says:
"to refer the contract to the tribunal for the district, and where any such contract is so referred to the tribunal, they may by a notice in writing served on the lessor…"
When has the matter been referred to the tribunal? Is it when the tenant writes a letter? Is it when the letter is received? Is it only when the tribunal have decided, in accordance with their discretion, because the word "may" is used? They "may" by notice in writing take up the matter. Is the reference only effective and operative when the tribunal have exercised their discretion to send the notice to the lessor? It is a matter of a good deal of doubt and requires definition. Better than definition would be to slightly alter the wording of the Clause. As I understand it, its object is to provide protection for a tenant who wishes to use the Measure and to prevent him from being promptly ejected, because he uses the Measure. In my opinion, the protection required is to prevent him being victimised because he intends to use the Bill. I suggest inserting -after the words:
"If after the contract to which this Act applies"
not "has been referred to a tribunal "but"
notice either in writing or verbal has been given by the tenant to the landlord that he intends to refer the matter to the tribunal."
If those words could be accepted this difficulty would be overcome and one would also overcome the difficulty referred to by the last speaker, when he said that when the intention to refer is known notice to quit is promptly given. That is a danger which requires consideration, but in any event there is going to be a lot of work for us lawyers unless some better definition of "has been referred" can be found.
4.0 p.m.
We have to be clear as to the intentions and the purposes of this Bill. I do not believe it is intended to establish security of tenure for persons occupying furnished tenancies, although, admittedly, there is ground for establishing a greater security of tenure for such tenants. This, as I understand it, is a Bill to prevent the levying of extortionate rents, and this new Clause is designed to prevent cases which ought to go to the tribunal from being diverted away from them by the lessor giving notice to quit to the lessee. My right hon. Friend has done the right thing in bringing this proposal forward, because those of us who have had experience of this kind of thing know quite well that there would be a tendency on the part of many lessors to avoid the case going to a tribunal if they possibly could—very largely on account of a guilty conscience which leads them to know that the rent they are charging for their accommodation is extortionate and would not bear the light of day—by giving notice to quit to the tenant or the lessee. In cases of this kind the lessor has a great power over the lessee. Of course, there are tenants who become nuisances to landlords, but it is also true that a great number of lessors become tyrants, in some respects, to their tenants and lessees.
I recently had a case which emphasises very clearly the attitude and type of mind against which the tribunal is endeavouring to protect itself. It was a case of a middle-aged man and his wife, both out at business, who had the furnished tenancies of two rooms, and one smaller room used as a kitchen-scullery, for which they paid a rent of 3½ guineas. Those two persons were accustomed to being away from the house during the hours of business, but on one particular morning the man was not feeling well and decided to remain in bed. Shortly after nine o'clock in the morning, when his wife had gone to business, he heard somebody prowling round the sitting room adjoining, opening drawers and cupboards and having a good look round. Then, after a time, the door of his bedroom opened; in walked the landlady with somebody else and started opening drawers and looking into things. Suddenly she realised that the tenant was in bed watching her doing it. She was most embarrassed; in fact, I think they were both embarrassed. What was the result of that embarrassment? At the end of the week, the landlady served a week's notice to quit on the tenants, and they had to leave. The poor man and his wife had committed no crime. He was not unduly annoyed because the landlady had walked into his rooms without asking permission. But he was served with a notice to quit, and he now finds himself in the position of very likely having to go to court, and having an order made against him for the possession of the rooms. He came to me, and told me that it is absolutely impossible for him to get other accommodation, and he just does not know what he is going to do. I instance that sort of case in order that we may have some idea of the type ox mind which is, peculiar to some landladies who let furnished accommodation. If any tenant deserves some degree of security from the type of mind that would do a vindictive action of that kind in order, perhaps, to relieve a guilty conscience, I would say such a tenant deserves it.
I believe the Minister is on the right lines here in this respect. The Amendment is designed to enable a case of extortionate rent to be referred to the tribunal and to ensure that in the course of its consideration the tenant who has brought the case to the tribunal shall have a reasonable degree of security for a period of three months during which the tribunal may give consideration to the case, weigh up all the circumstances and see that justice is done. Therefore, I feel we should be clear as to the intentions of this Bill. The Bill is not intended to establish security of tenure for furnished tenancies. It is designed to avoid the charging of extortionate rents, and I think the great value of the Bill is not so much the machinery which it sets up as the deterrent effect it will have in a large number of cases by ensuring that those persons who let furnished accommodation are letting it at a reasonable rent, because if they know that these cases can be brought to the tribunal I feel sure there will be a considerable scaling down of extortionate rents, which is the main purpose of this Bill.
I hope the House will agree to this new Clause, because I believe it will establish the tribunals in a proper setting. It will help considerably in its deterrent effect on the rents charged for furnished tenancies, and it will ensure that those rents are fair and reasonable. We hope as a result of the machinery which will be established that we can ensure that tenants of furnished accommodation enjoy their accommodation at reasonable rents, and we hope that machinery will be created to deal with those exceptional cases where extortionate rents are charged.
I have no stories, either sad or happy, with which to regale the House. In this matter, what we are all trying to arrive at is common fairness between the landlord and tenant. In fixing this period of three months, or in other dealings with the tribunal, it is obvious that some landlords enjoy an advantage over others because of the operation of the Rent Restrictions Acts. I would like to know whether, in deciding what are fair and unfair considerations, any arrangements which are laid down in the Rent Restrictions Acts will be considered so that the decision will be fair on both the tenant and the landlord. Perhaps I might have an answer to that question.
I would like to refer first to the point of construction made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) as to when, under the terms of this Bill, a case can be said to have been referred to the tribunal. I am in sympathy with the point that he has made. I would have thought—though there are many in this House much more qualified than myself to pass an opinion on the construction of a document—that the intention of these words was to take the date of reference from, the sending of the reference by the lessee or local authority. I think the case is complicated by the fact that in line 8 of Clause 2 of the Bill there are these words:
"where any such contract … is so referred to the tribunal."
In the new Clause moved by the Minister of Health this afternoon we have more logically:
"If, after a contract… has been referred to a tribunal."
I think if the Clause is to mean what the hon. Member for Northampton thinks it ought to mean, and what I also think it ought to mean, it would be more logical to have the words "has been" in line 10 of this Clause. I am in sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's desire to make clear that the date of reference should start from that point of origin, but I part company from him when he seeks to incorporate words which will allow for a verbal as well as a written notice. The hon. Gentleman has disinterestedly shown himself desirous of not extending the practice of his profession, but if there is one thing which takes up more legal time than the construction of documents, it is the effort to establish the truth of disputed verbal conversations, and I see no end to the legal wrangling involved if we accept a verbal as well as a written notice for reference to a tribunal.
I might perhaps make this suggestion which would get over the difficulty. The Bill could provide specifically that protection operated from a date a specific number of days before written notice that commenced the reference. That would avoid difficulty in proving a verbal notice.
That might give rise to certain difficulties, though I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is worth while considering whether a period, before the written notice "could also be incorporated. In such a case I hope he will agree with me that the period should be kept to a minimum, because it is very difficult to legislate back on these matters.
I will briefly refer to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Poole). I am in sympathy with his point of view, though three months may be a small period of delay to give certain tenants. The hon. and gallant Member was rather pessimistic as to the chances of finding alternative accommodation within that time. I agree with him that until the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman to provide more housing accommodation are more successful, three months must necessarily remain a very short time for the finding of accommodation. I hope the hon. and gallant Member awoke a sympathetic echo in the heart of the Minister, as he certainly did in the hearts of the Members of the House as a whole, when he put in a special plea for the case of families with very young children. I do wish we could have in this Clause something especially and specifically to protect their position. It is a dreadful thing to contemplate that people who have young children or are bringing them into the world can be victimised on that account and put in a position of mental anxiety by reason of being turned out of their premises. I most heartily endorse what the hon. and gallant Member said in that regard. I think it illustrates the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman is in in these matters when the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr Janner) recommend contradictory courses to achieve the same end. Both hon. Mem- bers were, very properly, anxious that sufficient protection should be given under the terms of this new Clause. Their recommendations to the Minister are, in the case of the hon. Member for Lichfield, to give a wider or an unfettered discretion to the tribunal, and in the case of the hon. and gallant Member for Leicester to give more specific directions to the tribunal. Far be it for me to anticipate the choice of the right hon. Gentleman in this regard, but I would like to suggest for the consideration of the hon. Member for West Leicester that it is impossible to give directions to these tribunals that could hope to cover every variety of case with which they will meet.
It certainly is not impossible. It would require a very lengthy Clause. I have endeavoured to draft one myself. I think the hon. and gallant Member will agree that the Minister should give directions by regulations of some sort.
The Minister will speak for himself in this matter. I do think it is particularly difficult to try to cover all possible contingencies by any regulation. I think it right that these tribunals should be left with a large measure of discretion, on the understanding that that discretion will be exercised sympathetically to the tenant, more particularly in the sort of case to which the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield referred. I am aware of the. difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman in this regard and realise that this Clause is an effort to meet them. I support it, but not so wholeheartedly as if it covered more specifically the various points which have been raised.
4.15 p.m.
Perhaps it would be convenient if I replied to the discussion at this stage. The point raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is one of some substance, but the suggestions as to how it can be met are rather more doubtful. First, you cannot impose a subjective test. You cannot speak about when it was the intention of the tenant to make an appeal to the tribunal. The intention must objectivise itself in some action before it can be recognised. It must be remembered that if "reference means" intention to refer "then protection starts at once.
I suggested notice of intention.
Notice of intention need not be given to the lessor. It means reference to the tribunal. We are perfectly clear, as the Clause is now, that if a letter is written to the tribunal, that is a reference and protection begins. There is no doubt about that at all.
I am a little doubtful about that. It is very difficult.
I have not the slightest doubt about that. It must start somewhere. If there is any doubt about it at all, it will be made quite clear. The Bill can confer power upon the Minister to make regulations, and the regulations will make it quite clear that a reference must begin sometime, somewhere. If a tenant writes a letter saying, "I wish to raise with the tribunal the question of my rent," that is a reference.
Writes or posts—or the date on which the letter is received? It may be very difficult.
I dare say. The answer is that it may happen with regard to almost any document. This, of course, can be a happy hunting ground for learned gentlemen. All this Bill proposes to do is to give an element of rough justice in a very difficult set of circumstances. The hon. Member will realise this subject may be tied up so tightly in legal terminology that you will lose furnished lettings, and I am very anxious not to do that but to keep the thing on a commonsense basis.
There have been difficulties in other fields where such expressions as "where notice is given" have been used. I remember a case in which I myself was engaged and in which the question was whether notice had been given at the time it was despatched, or whether it was necessary that it should be raised before the notice was given. I think it would be reassuring to the House—because I think the House as a whole desires that this Clause should come into operation—that when the lessee or the lessor, as the case may be normally it will be the lessee—has done his part of the reference, when either a letter is posted, or he notifies the officers of the tribunal, it should not depend upon acknowledgement of receipt, or any matter of that kind. Would the Minister consider drafting either regulations for the proceedings before the tribunal, which he has power to do under Clause 7, or regulations for the general carrying into effect of the provisions of this Measure? Would he look into this and make it clear that the act of the lessee is sufficient to constitute a reference?
I think I made it quite clear that what I have in mind is to regard any reference as an act by the appellant, not any response made by anybody else. Once the tenant has objectivised his intention by an act, once he has written a letter and done something that can be recognised as an appeal to the tribunal, that is a reference to the tribunal, and it is from that point and from that date that protection should begin.
Would a personal reference to the tribunal verbally by an appellant be accepted in the same way?
I should say "Yes," so long as it is recognisable as such. Very many of these appellants are not accustomed to writing letters and therefore, in drafting the regulations, we must protect them. So long as the act can be seen and identified as an act of reference to the tribunal concerning rent, that would be sufficient to establish a status, and it is from that point that protection should begin. I am quite clear about that. I am grateful to hon. Members for having raised the matter, and when the Regulations are drawn up we shall make it quite clear that that is what we mean.
I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but there is just one more point which should be made clear. He speaks of a verbal reference, not of a verbal notice of intention to refer, given by the tenant to the landlord. That, I think, should be made clear.
There is no doubt at all about it. We do not want any verbal niceties about this. So long as the intention has resolved itself into recognisable action—that is the point—protection will begin.
What about this case? A tenant writes to his landlord and says, "If you do not reduce my rent from I0s. to 5s., which I think is fair, I shall refer it to the tribunal," and if in reply the landlord says, "I hereby give you notice"—
I was about to deal with that point. The hon. Member must realise that the tenant must then take some additional action. He must then make a reference to the tribunal. [ Interruption .] Really, I think I might be permitted to finish. [An HON. MEMBER: "All these lawyers!"] Yes, far too many, and I am bound to say that they do not always make themselves clear. So long as the intention has resulted in recognisable action to refer to the tribunal, it is from that point that protection begins. The hon. Member says that a tenant may notify his landlord. But if he impulsively says to his landlord, "I intend to raise the question of rent with the tribunal," protection cannot start with a form of words like that. It would be very difficult: it would have to be proved later on. If protection were to start from the point where a tenant wrote to his landlord, there would then have to be some protection for the landlord—he must then proceed to refer the matter to the tribunal. The tenant must give effect to his intention, and telling his landlord that he intends to refer does not do that. He should then proceed to make a reference.
I do not know whether, as a lawyer, I can make myself clear. but I will try. A great many cases will best be dealt with, once this Bill becomes law, by direct negotiation between landlord and tenant, and in a great many cases it will not be necessary to go to the tribunal at all. It is desirable that negotiations should be encouraged, and that cases which can be settled by agreement should be so settled. If, however, protection under this Clause only begins when the tribunal is brought into the picture, the door is closed to all private negotiations, and every case is forced before the tribunal. Surely, as soon as a man says to his landlord, "I am not satisfied that my rent is not too high, let us talk about it, I want to take advantage of my right under the Act," as soon as he has thus given objective reality to his intention, protection should begin.
To whom does he give it?
To his landlord—the other party concerned. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he has then done everything he need, but if the landlord can then immediately give notice—it may be a week's notice—people are prevented from negotiating at all. Protection ought to arise as soon as the landlord knows of the intention, and if it is said that that is not fair to the landlord, the answer is that the landlord himself can refer the matter to the tribunal if he has got an answer to his tenant's claim. The point is that as soon as the man indicates an intention, either to the landlord or to the tribual, to make a claim under this Act, this Clause must become operative.
Perhaps I may now be allowed to finish. I think the hon. Member is extending this to such a range as to make it entirely unworkable. We are quite clear as to what happens when the tenant refers the matter to the tribunal or when the tenant writes a letter, but the beginning of amicable negotiations between tenant and landlord for the purpose of re-adjusting the rent cannot carry with it the beginning of protection at once. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it has to be proved to somebody before legal protection can ensue. A landlord may take action against the tenant, and say to the tenant, "Clear out." The tenant says, "No, I will not clear out"—
rose —
I really must be permitted to finish; I have listened to a very large number of hon. Members. The tenant says, "No, I will not clear out, I claim protection." From what point does he claim protection? Is it that he is alleged to have said something in conversation to the landlord? If the tenant is to obtain protection, he must go somewhere and register his claim, he must go to the tribunal. It cannot hang suspended in the air. If the law is asked to protect a tenant, the tenant must take some action before the machinery of the law can operate. The tenant, therefore, must go to the tribunal. If I may say so with all respect, hon. Members are making rather heavy weather of this. It is perfectly proper for us, when we are drawing up the Regulations, to see that these matters are covered, but we must cover them sensibly.
I now turn to the other, and rather more important, point that has been raised concerning the actual length of protection. I wish that hon. Members would realise that here we are dealing with a very large number of people who belong to exactly the same class. Very often these so-called landlords are tenants themselves—most of them are, certainly—who are letting rooms to other people. When it is suggested that indefinite protection should be given by the tribunal, it should be remembered that, if it became known to this large body of persons who are now making accommodation available that it might be frozen indefinitely by a tribunal, accommodation would be lost overnight. They would not put themselves into such circumstances at all. Here we are trying to protect people against having to pay exorbitant rentals, there being a shortage of housing accommodation which is being exploited by a minority of people, but we must not introduce protection in such a way as to cause an immediate diminution in the amount of accommodation available. That is an important point Apprehension would at once arise among large numbers of these people, who would say, "Ah, we had better clear him out, because if we do not, this tribunal might put him here indefinitely."
The next point is about the six months. Well, there is no absolute guarantee here at all: you do not know whether three or six or nine months is an appropriate time, but it seemed to us that three months was reasonable in the circumstances. Anybody's opinion on this is as good as mine, but I should have thought that six months was rather too long, and that this serves all the purposes we have in mind. The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) was apprehensive lest this should become a precedent for major rent legislation. The House makes its own precedents; the House is master of itself there. There has always been a legend about precedents. We cannot make precedents in statements.
4.30 p.m.
Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me? I appreciate the House is not bound by precedent but what I was anxious about was that the Government should not use any statement made by the right hon. Gentleman himself as a precedent when the case is being argued at a later stage.
Arguments are not precedents. It may be argued that an argument of the same sort was used, but it is not a precedent. But I have no such intention. Our intentions concerning permanent rent legislation have not yet been formed and, therefore, any expression I may have used today, must be considered as having no regard whatever to any similar Clause or subject that may arise. I do hope that having regard to these assurances we may now have the Clause.
What about my question? This does not concern the Rents Acts. It is a question of furnished lettings. Quite frankly, the Minister does not—
On a point of Qrder. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to speak twice?
It is not in Order for an hon. Member to speak twice.
May I ask the Minister this question? How does he propose to protect a man who, having once sought the service of the tribunal, and being known by everyone in that area, to have availed himself of that machinery, presents himself for furnished accommodation and is met by his landlord with the condition, "Yes, I will take you in, but in order to protect myself I propose to serve you with a month's notice forthwith and I shall renew it from month to month"? How will that tenant be protected?
I am not a lawyer, but I should have thought that no contract can be made and no terms or condition can be imposed upon a contract of any sort the purpose of which is to cheat the Statutes.
If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that no contracts in this country ever contained clauses designed to defeat, he is under an illusion indeed. I think the Minister has made his case on this Clause, subject to two points which I regard as small but useful for this proposed new Clause.
On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was in Order for an hon. Member to speak twice. He has spoken once before himself, and I do not understand why he should speak again.
May I remind the House I have not spoken before on this Clause? I asked the Minister a question in the middle of his speech. I was going to say that if this new Clause were being con sidered in the context of the wide range of rent restrictions legislation, I should have considerable sympathy with many of the points raised on this side; but I concede that the Minister has made his point, that, in his view, the Clause must be considered only in the very narrow range of this Bill, and that no argument for this Clause should be relied upon when the wider discussion comes. I think the Minister has made that clear. But there are two points on which he has not satisfied some of us at any rate. They are, first, with regard to the time in which protection comes into operation; and, secondly, with regard to the unlimited discretion of the tribunal to reduce the statutory period of three months which is enacted by the proposed new Clause. With regard to the first point, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it is not those of us pressing him on it who are making heavy weather; I think it is he who is making heavy weather about it. He has introduced this Clause to make sure that an appeal to a tribunal under this Measure shall not be rendered abortive by the landlord's exercising his unfettered power to give notice immediately any question of a man's right of protection under this Bill arises. In many cases, they are merely tenants at will and will become trespassers as soon as the landlord tells them to go. The tenant at will is less protected than a licensee, and a licensee, of course, as many of them are, has power to remain on the will of his landlord. What the Bill intends to secure—
That difficulty lies outside the scope of the Bill.
I am not suggesting that my right hon. Friend can deal with that particular difficulty. Nobody is asking for that. What is being asked is, that this valuable new Clause shall not be defeated by it. The Bill is in order to give some tribunal power to review exorbitant rents, and the protection it gives ought to come into effect as soon as the tenant, or the landlord, for that matter, seeks to avail himself of the protection afforded. Surely that is all a man need do. Why need he do any more—unless it is intended to force every case before the tribunal? Many cases will be settled by agreement. A great many cases will be settled without the tribunal being troubled.
Surely, it is perfectly possible, when intention has been given to go to the tribunal, for the case to be referred to it, for negotiations to take place and for the case to be withdrawn?
Of course; nobody has any objection. But that is not the only logical or reasonable thing that may take place. I follow the point of the hon. Member, and of the Minister, that, if a tenant writes to the tribunal and says he wants his case referred to it, the protection under this Clause shall start at once. That is right. Nobody wants to interfere with that, and it is true that such cases need not necessarily go before the tribunal at all. Negotiations may start, and it may be indicated that the matter has been settled and the tribunal need not be further troubled with it. But suppose the tenant does not do that; suppose he makes clear to the landlord he is relying on his rights under the Bill, and says, "Do not let us have all this fuss and bother with a tribunal and all the expense, but let us get together"—
Surely he is then making a statement that he is intending to refer the case to the tribunal?
On the contrary. What he is saying to the landlord is, "I do not intend to refer this to the tribunal, unless you turn out to be so unreasonable that you will do nothing about it." He is saying, "Let us avoid litigation. Let us be sensible people and not quarrel, let us consider the facts ourselves; because we are both reasonable human beings and we can settle this by ourselves, although there is the tribunal to go to." That is an advantage to the tribunal. It will save their days from being cluttered up with a lot of cases that are only referred to the tribunal to get protection of this sort. I say that you can give them this Clause without their first having to go to the tribunal, but without prejudice to the right to go to the tribunal, and you are thereby conferring great benefit on the tenant and upon the landlord. There can be no conceivable objection to that.
I am anxious to understand what is proposed. Do I gather that it is proposed that protection begins immediately the tenant starts an argument with his landlord about the rent? At the moment, as this Clause stands, protection is given up to a maximum of three months. All the tenant has to do is to start a discussion with the landlord about the rent, and automatically the protection begins. The landlord is stopped from doing anything at all. Surely, if that is so, it means that the argument begins the protection. If the landlord says "Clear out," the man says "I am protected." Although he can eventually obtain protection by going to the tribunal, he is getting protection in the first instance.
I do not think that the landlord is left unprotected at all. If the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) were to be put into operation, it would be done in a great many cases in bad faith. The tenant has only to say to the landlord, "My rent is unreasonably high," when it is not unreasonably high at all, and by virtue of doing that, and nothing more, he automatically converts his weekly tenancy, licence, or tenancy at will, into a quarterly tenancy. That is covered in the Bill.
If the landlord thinks that the negotiations are being unreasonably protracted in order to give the tenant a longer protection than he otherwise would have, the landlord can ask the tribunal to determine it just as well as the tenant. The landlord can go to the tribunal at once, and say, "My tenant is not satisfied, I cannot come to an agreement with him, you determine it for us under the Bill." That is perfectly fair. I am-not saying that this is a very important point or fundamental to the Bill, but I say it would be a useful addition to a very useful Clause in a very useful Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not close his mind to it.
The other point which I wish to raise is the completely unfettered discretion of the tribunal to reduce the period of three months. The Clause, as it stands, really says, "If the tribunal thinks fit." I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the discretion which the tribunal has to reduce the period of notice below three months ought to be a judicial, conditional discretion and not an unfettered, absolute discretion. I see that it may be very difficult to work every possible consideration or condition into this Clause or into the Bill, but, as pointed out already, there is no difficulty whatever in specifying in the regulations the considerations to which the tribunal must have regard, if it is to limit, by its own unfettered act, the three months' notice enacted by the Statute.1 hope that my right hon. Friend will consider these two points.
The Minister says that every argument is not to be regarded as eventually going to the tribunal. Will he say what is the position, assuming there is a dispute, when the notice to quit is served, and after that, the dispute goes to the tribunal? What is the operation, in those circumstances, of this Clause?
The answer is that protection cannot be given until the reference is made, or, if the regulations so define it, until intention is resolved into an act. The hon. Member must realise that we are not, in this Bill, attempting to give a general protection.
May I ask a question?
There seems to be a tendency to use the pretext of a question to' make another speech; that of course is not in Order.
Does the Minister realise that a verbal notice is perfectly effective? Therefore, cannot something be done to say that, if a verbal notice by the tenant of intention to furnish shall not grant protection, then the landlord must give written notice to quit before he can rely on it, after reference to the tribunal?
The fact that a verbal notice by the landlord to quit is sufficient arises out of the existing contractual relations in special circumstances with which, in fact, we are not dealing. If it is argued that a verbal notice by the tenant to discuss the rent should be sufficient to start protection, the difficulty is to get that validated by someone who has to determine that it is a good notice. Only the tribunal can do that. That is the difficulty with which I am faced on all these matters.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
CLAUSE 2.—(Reference to tribunal of contracts for furnished letting.)
4.45 p.m.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, at the end, insert:
In such circumstances the tribunal can dismiss the reference, so that the matter is open again, and the landlord can, if he so wishes, increase the rent to whatever he considers reasonable, having regard to the new relationship that exists between the two, and the tenant can appeal to the tribunal if he thinks that the rent is unreasonably high. It seems that these words will carry out the intention of the Government and the promise given in Committee.
I and my hon. Friends are grateful to the Minister for fulfilling an undertaking which he gave in Committee by moving the addition of these words, though they do not improve the Bill to the extent to which we thought it could be improved by the Amendment standing in my name—in page 2, line 26, after "reduce," insert "or increase"—which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have not thought right to call. I think there is no doubt at all that the Minister's present Amendment is a substantial improvement It was indeed a surprise to me that the Scottish Act had not been discovered to have a weakness in that it had no such words as these, because it set up a tribunal and only gave that tribunal the option between two courses, one of which it must follow. Whatever it thought of the terms of the contract, it could only register the rent which was then the standing one, between the parties, or reduce the rent, even if it thought that it was a rent charitably or generously fixed, and even though the circumstances had changed since it was fixed. I hope he was not intending by what he said in moving his Amendment, to introduce any narrowing of the words of his Amendment, because to my mind, and in my own intention when I made this suggestion, it should not be so circumscribed as to apply only to cases where furnished rooms had been let, perhaps to a relative, or to an old friend, or to somebody who made an appeal in a situation of financial difficulty or otherwise, and indeed there are other cases to which the Minister's Amendment would apply.
The words are wide of interpretation.
It would seem to me in the words the Minister used he was narrowing their scope, and would be excluding from the Bill a case in which a rent having been fixed on a generous basis, but with no particular relationship between the parties, but on a value fixed below the market rate, and then the situation had changed, from the point of view of what was the proper rent, or indeed the circumstances have been such that if the tribunal were free they would have increased it. In any of those circumstances the tribunal can say to the applicant, "You ought never to have refused this contract. It was an unreasonable act on your part to apply for reduction of this rent which is a proper rent. We will not improve it. We will not reduce it. We will dismiss the appeal." I am quite sure that that will be a saving to the tribunals, because it will not give an absolutely free run, with no possibility of loss to the applicant Under the Bill as it was originally introduced a man could refer his contract to the tribunal, which would have been under an obligation to do one or other of two things, either to approve his existing rent or reduce it, and that situation without this Amendment for which my hon. Friends and I were responsible would, I am quite sure, have- cluttered up these tribunals in a most undesirable way.
As the Minister has said, he was very strongly pressed at the Second Reading, and also on the Committee stage, to amend this Clause to enable tribunals under certain circumstances to grant an increase in rent, as well as stabilise the rent, or to reduce it. He claims that these amended Clauses would meet the argument that my right hon. Friend and I on this side of the House put forward. I do not think they do. I want to point out to the hon. Gentleman the effect which in my opinion this one-sided form of tribunal has already had on the object which he has in view, of trying to persuade people to let more rooms in their houses. If the right hon. Gentleman will remember, we urged from this side of the House that a tribunal which could only adjudicate one way was not in effect a tribunal at all, and any way it was an insult to ask anybody to sit on a tribunal of that sort. The Minister has also laid himself open to the charge that he has approached this question with a good bit of political bias against anybody who happens to own any property. What has been the effect of it? During the past month the Minister has carried out a very intensive campaign to try to persuade people who do not normally let furnished rooms now to let them, in view of the great housing shortage. I think I am right in saying that that campaign has been an almost complete failure. At the time of the Second Reading, and also—
The hon. Member surely is going beyond the terms of the question.
I do not want to stray outside the limits of Order. The point I wanted to make to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House, was that by limiting the powers which these tribunals have, in the way that this Amendment does limit them, is in my opinion to defeat the objects in view, and though we on this side of the House are prepared to accept this Amendment as being something better than what was in the Bill before, we must express our regrets that the Government have not seen fit to accept the Amendment in the original form put forward.
It does appear to me that the Minister's Amendment is likely to raise a great deal of vexatious litigation between landlords and tenants, and I should have thought that anything that could have been inserted which would prevent any kind of what I call unreasonable application to decrease the rent would have been preferable to the Minister's proposal to dismiss the application and leave the landlord then in a position to increase the rent and the tenant to make representation against such increase. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me? He thinks that perhaps there are a lot of genuine cases which would not be brought forward if tribunals had the power to increase as well as decrease rents. As the Amendment in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) has not been called, I do not intend to develop the argument.
Hon. Members have suggested that this proposal does not go far enough. I do hope that the House will in no sense be misled by the suggestions that have been made. Not only is it impossible, in my view, to have a Measure of this description which goes further, but I think it would be sorely inadvisable if the Minister were to be inveigled into accepting any of the suggestions that have been made. In the first place it would be absurd to permit increases to be made.
The hon. Member is now also going beyond the terms of the Amendment.
I will put it this way. I see my right hon. Friend is amused, but I want to make the point that what this does is to give the tribunal an opportunity of saying that it is not satisfied that there is an excessive charge. It also has the advantage of enabling the lessor to negotiate with the lessee a higher rental because it would imply, if the case were dismissed, that the higher rental ought to be paid. I think the Minister has done all he possibly can in the circumstances to assist those lessors who would be dealt with unjustly otherwise, and to prevent the possibility of people being stopped from applying to a tribunal in the fear that there might be some increase instead of dismissal.
Amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, at end, insert:
"(4) An approval, reduction or increase under this Section may be limited to rent payable in respect of a particular period."
The purpose of this Amendment is to give effect to a promise made on the Committee stage, when the point was raised that there might be circumstances especially in seaside resorts, where different rents are reasonable at different periods of the year. The point was raised that during the summer a higher rent would be more reasonable than during the winter, that if rents were frozen on the winter levels hardship would be done to the landlady and if they were frozen at the summer levels hardship would be done to the tenant. The purpose of the tribunal is to fix the rent to be payable in respect of a particular period.
This is another case in which I am grateful to the Minister for having acceded to pressure exerted from this side of the House. I am sure if will be beneficial to the working of the Bill, and that tribunals would have been in a difficulty if they had not been able to limit the period for which they are registering any particular rent.
Amendment agreed to.
CLAUSE 3.—(Register of rents.)
Amendments made:
In page 2, line 44, leave out from "contract," to "the", in page 3, line 1, and insert:
"under which a rent is payable that has been approved, reduced or increased under"
In page 3, line 8, at end, insert:
"and, in a case in which the approval, reduction or increase is limited to rent payable in respect of a particular period, a specification of that period."—[ Mr. Bevan .]
CLAUSE 4.—(Rents in excess of registered rents and premiums illegal.)
Amendment made: In page 3, line 18, after "entry," insert:
"(or, in a case in which a particular period is specified, in respect of that period)"—[ Mr. Bevan .]
CLAUSE 7.—(Regulations.)
I beg to move, in page 4, line 18, at end, insert:
"(c) for enabling the tribunal to award to any party reasonable personal expenses in any case where the tribunal is satisfied that he has been vexatiously treated in the course of the proceedings by any other party to the reference"
This Amendment is one to add a Paragraph to this Clause of the Bill, which is one which contains the Minister's powers for making regulations. The purpose of the Amendment is plain, I think, from its terms. It deals only with cases where this novel procedure has been abused by one party or another to the reference. There is no doubt at all that there will be cases, on both sides, where an unreasonable, perhaps grossly unreasonable, attitude is taken up with regard to the fixing of a furnished rent. By the structure of the Bill it is more probable that an unreasonable attitude will be taken up by tenants, because the Bill is wholly in favour of tenants. Under this Bill tenants who have furnished accommodation are most properly being provided with tribunals whereby extortionate or, even excessive, furnished rents, as they are called, may be reduced to a proper level. The tribunals that are to be set up are tribunals that cannot reject any tenant more than to the extent of saying, "Go away, we cannot do anything about your rent"
I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the Bill provides for an increase in certain circumstances, that it is possible to apply at a later stage for an increase.
I was not dealing with the part of the Bill which deals with a change of circumstances after the matter has been referred to the tribunal. There may be that exception, if it is an exception, and if it is it merely strengthens my argument that there might be a most unreasonable allegation of changed circumstances where, in fact, there had been no change at all. In the great bulk of the cases it will be an attempt to pay a lower furnished rent than exists under the contract. In many cases landlords, under these contracts, do not live in the same place as the house or rooms which are being let. Many country cottages are let over large parts of the year. There are many people in London who let premises which they own, but which they might have inherited not long before. They let them furnished, perhaps 300 or 400 miles away, and then it may well be—and it is contemplated by this Bill—that. a reference will be made to the tribunal, the only proper course with which is to dismiss that reference. The only case where the reference will be dismissed is where it ought never to have been made. If it is contemplated by the Bill that there may be references to tribunals with which the tribunal should never have been troubled, and the respondent to the reference should not have been troubled, then it is as clear as daylight that the opposite party to the claimant in the arbitration has made a claim he ought never to have made.
There may be claims which ought not to have been made in the sense that they were not claims which a tribunal would allow to succeed. None the less they may not have been vexatious, or unreasonable. But it is quite clear that where the lay tribunal in this kind of case comes to the conclusion that the claim has been vexatiously made, and there are opportunities for something in the nature of business blackmail, that sort of claimant should be properly penalised. He may say, "I shall make a claim for a reduction of my furnished rent by 5s. a week. My landlord will not trouble to spend money on coming to London from Llandudno in order to give evidence of the conversation when this agreement was made."
The natural penalty, I would say, upon a claimant whose claim the tribunal considers to be vexatious, should be on a basis of a monetary payment, on the basis that it was grasping and vexatious to put the other party to trouble and expense which he ought not to have incurred, and that penalty should be in the nature of some monetary sanction. This is not the case of the ordinary legal award of costs. It is one where, I submit, that some such expenses as are defined in the Amendment, reasonable personal expenses, should be capable of being awarded by the tribunal, in cases where they felt that one party or other in the course of the proceedings had been treated vexatiously. I was unable to follow the arguments which the Minister advanced on earlier occasions against proposals of this kind. It should be possible for proceedings which are vexatious to be discouraged, and it ought to be possible to do something in those cases where a man may take up the attitude that it does not matter how much trouble and annoyance he causes since he has not anything to lose. He does not have much to lose under this Bill in any event. That anybody in these circumstances should be able to drag any party before a tribunal, with no possibility whatever of any reason- able personal expenses being allowed for such vexatious action, seems to us on this side of the House to be entirely wrong. It seems to me to be a grave defect in the Bill and one which should be removed, and one which could be removed if the Government see their way to accepting this Amendment.
I realise that there is much to be said for the arguments that have been put forward; I emphasise that because I want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to appreciate my point, as I am sure he will on reflection, that what he is pressing for in this Amendment is an extremely difficult thing to carry into effect. It would have repercussions in many other directions. The question of what is vexatious or frivolous is one that comes very rarely before tribunals of a very high standing so far as litigation is concerned, and the courts and the judges are very loth indeed to admit that an action is vexatious or frivolous. It takes a considerable amount of legal experience and training to come to a conclusion on an issue of that description. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to do is to impose upon a tribunal of laymen the obligation of deciding whether an application under this Bill is vexatious or not. In my view, that would be giving the tribunal a task which it ought not to have imposed on it. Apart from that, I am afraid, if I may say so with respect, that he is making rather heavy weather, because if an application were of such a nature that it was really vexatious, the amount of evidence required to refute the suggestion would be of such a small nature that it would be vexatious on the part of the respondent to incur heavy personal expenses in order to refute such statements. If the tribunal found that it was a vexatious case, there would be no need at all for incurring heavy personal expenses of any nature. On these two grounds I think on reconsidering the matter the right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that as there are costs being given on either side, to put forward a point of this nature would create a peculiar position and one which would not be justified by the nature of the tribunals now being brought into existence.
I have heard, on many occasions, discussions in connection with the legal approach to various questions, and I have heard it said, time and time again, by all the legal experts in pre-war Governments and in the Coalition Governments that the worst thing imaginable for any Government to do was to legislate on the basis of exceptional cases. To bring forward an Amendment of this kind is to seek to legislate on the basis of what must be very exceptional cases. What are we faced with? We are faced with the fact that the tenant cannot say to the landlord that he will pay him so much and that the landlord will have to accept it. That is not the situation. In these days people are so desperately short of accommodation that the landlords can charge any price they like for a house, and the tenant will feel like paying that price. It is a fact that in many cases a tenant, if he is to appear before the tribunal, may take a day off from his work and lose a day's wages all because of glaring, and extortionate demands being made for the use of a room. If it were a question of the tenant being in a position to say to the landlord, "I am taking a room and paying you 5s.; that is all you are going to get," it would be a very different situation. What we have to realise is that, today, people are desperate to get a roof over their heads—
5.15 p.m.
I wish the hon. Member could appreciate that the effect of my Amendment would be this. In the sort of case he mentions, where, in a time of great shortage, a grossly extortionate rent is being paid for furnished rooms, a reference is made, and after it has been made, somebody acting on behalf of the tenant or the tenant himself would say to the landlord, "Are you really going through with this? An exactly similar case has been before the tribunal in which a reduction has been made and yet, knowing this, are you going to make me lose a day or possibly two days' wages even though we do not know whether the case will come up or not?" If the landlord says" Yes, I am going through with it even though that is the case"—then the tenant is being vexatiously treated by the landlord and, in such circumstances, that would give the tribunal the right to award reasonable personal expenses. It would give to the tribunal the right to award to the tenant, when it reduced the rent, the day's wages which he has lost.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has suddenly discovered an interest in the tenant. When he moved the Amendment, his whole concern was about vexation—which does not exist—directed against the landlord. The tenants would be quite satisfied, even though there were any amount of vexation, to go before the tribunal and have their cases dealt with, and get what the tribunal considered to be a just rent for the house. The tenants who propose to go before the tribunals have not suggested that an Amendment of this kind should be moved, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not got the tenants in mind when he moved the Amendment. It is very bad legislation to legislate for exceptional cases, and the cases to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred are very exceptional cases.
I do not think the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)quite appreciates the object of the Amendment. What is intended in regard to vexatious or frivolous cases is that only if the tribunal decides that the application which has been made, whether by the landlord or by the tenant, is a frivolous one that ought not to have been made, would any sort of personal costs be awarded.
The hon. Member is overlooking the point that the application made by a tenant may be a just and necessary application, but the fact that he has to make it means that there has been a vexatious act on the part of the owner of the house which has forced the tenant to make the application. The tenant does not look for compensation, even though he has lost a day's wages; he looks for a reduction in his rent.
The hon. Member does not appreciate that the sort of vexation which makes it very tiresome for a tenant to have to go before a tribunal is not the sort of legal vexation with which the Amendment deals. Under the Amendment, if a case goes before a tribunal and the tribunal decides it is absurd on the face of it that the application should have been made and that the making of it has caused considerable personal expense to the other party involved, in that case only would the money be awarded to the aggrieved person, who might possibly have had to come a long way to take part in a case that ought never to have been brought. Such cases would be the only possible occasions when the matter could arise. The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) approached the matter from a slightly different angle. He said, with that air of great legal wisdom with which he always speaks, that first and foremost the courts in the ordinary way are very reluctant to award vexatious damages; but the hon. Member has forgotten that in an ordinary case, where a person brings what might be called a frivolous and vexatious claim, he loses his case, and it is not necessary to give vexatious damages because, by losing the case, he has to pay the costs of both sides. We are now dealing with an entirely different matter.
The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point I made. I was not talking about the dismissal of an action as a result of a plea being put forward that it is vexatious or frivolous. What I said was that it takes a very high legal authority to decide this matter, and that there is reluctance to decide that an action is vexatious or frivolous.
I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite appreciates this difference, that in ordinary cases before the courts a person who brings a frivolous or vexatious action has to pay the costs if he loses, and that is some sort of check against a person being unnecessarily foolish. The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that there are great legal difficulties and that the tribunals that are to be set up will find it difficult to decide what is a frivolous or vexatious case because they will not have great legal experience. I sometimes think hon. Members are inclined to exaggerate the need of legal knowledge for dealing with commonsense matters. The tribunals will probably have before them over a period of time very large numbers of cases on similar lines. Will it be so very difficult for them, in view of their knowledge of what they have done in other cases, to decide whether a case ought to have been brought or not? Legal knowledge is not necessary; what is wanted is a certain amount of commonsense. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health will see that the tribunals are com- posed of men who are sufficiently intelligent to decide whether something is frivolous or serious.
Finally, the real reason I support my right hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is that, in view of the fact that the tenants know quite well that if they appeal their rent cannot be increased in any circumstances, it is advisable, if the tribunals are not to be flooded with cases of a frivolous nature, which will take up time when really serious cases ought to be dealt with, to have some provision which makes it plain that a person going before the tribunals with a purely frivolous case, if he puts someone else to expense, will have to pay something. Such a provision would not be used very much, but it would be a deterrent, and it would be of advantage to the man with a good case.
I hope the House will support me in resisting the Amendment. In Committee I resisted a similar Amendment, and I am astonished that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has brought up this Amendment again, because I thought the arguments in Committee were decisive. This is an exceedingly dangerous Amendment. Let hon. Members consider the class of persons with whom we are dealing. Very large numbers of exceedingly poor people would immediately be frightened if any provision appeared in the Measure which meant that they might be mulcted of an unknown amount of expenses. Nothing could be a worse deterrent to poor people exercising their rights under the law than the fear that if they did so it would be an extremely expensive process. Of course, the right hon. and learned Gentleman may say that only in extreme cases would these powers be invoked, that only in certain circumstances demonstrably vexatious would personal expenses be awarded. But the people with whom we are dealing under this Measure are not able to interpret an Act of Parliament in that way. We do not want to encourage them to employ lawyers at these tribunals. We want the whole thing to be done as informally as possible. Therefore, I ask hon. Members opposite not to try to import into the Bill words which would either lead to very long proceedings or deter people who needed help from going to the tribunals.
May I put this final reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments? What additional sanction does he require? An appellant has been before the tribunal in the circumstances envisaged by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. A frivolous application has been made, and the defendant has been vexatiously treated. In other words the landlord who has been vexatiously treated can immediately clear the tenant out. I should have thought that that is enough sanction in any circumstances in these days. The power of a landlord to put a tenant out on the street without any protection at all I should have thought, in the circumstances of the day, is sufficient sanction to protect any landlord from being vexatiously treated by a tenant.
5.30 p.m.
Would it give the landlord the power to increase the rent as well as to turn the tenant out?
If I answered that question, I would be as much out of Order as the hon. Member has been in putting it. We are not dealing at the moment with power to increase rents. We are dealing with an Amendment which says that it ought to be possible for the tribunals to award expenses in cases where they are satisfied that the application has been vexatious. Let me point out one further argument which, I believe, should clinch the matter. It is this. There is no body of law which enables persons to determine what is a reasonable rent or not at the moment. There is a wide variety of circumstances in this field, and no tests at all have been made: there are no standards. Landlords and tenants do not know, in many circumstances, what are reasonable rents. Many of these furnished dwellings will be of various types, some of them badly furnished, some of them very well furnished; some with expensive furniture, some with inexpensive furniture. No one therefore in those circumstances can really determine with any degree of dispassionateness what in fact, at the beginning, will be a frivolous application or not.
It will be some time in fact before a set of principles grows up out of the tribunals which will enable people to decide whether their demand is reasonable or otherwise, and therefore, to put upon the tribunal in this unchartered field, the obligation of determining whether the application is frivolous or not I think quite unreasonable. The words, as I pointed out in Committee, are much too wide. They say "if satisfied that he has been vexatiously treated in the proceedings"—not vexatiously treated by the reference, but in the course of the proceedings. I pointed out that indeed it might conceivably happen that if he has caused the defendant influenza he might be caught by these words. It is not the application which is regarded as frivolous but the way in which the appellant has behaved in the course of the proceedings. For all these reasons, I think that hon. Members opposite ought to be satisfied that they have, on the whole, been met fairly well, today and in the Committee Stage on this Bill.
The Minister suggested that people might be deterred from going to the tribunals because of the fear of being mulcted in expenses. Is the experience of his Department that people have been deterred from going to county courts in order to exercise what rights they may think they have under the Rent Restrictions Acts?
I should have thought that they were considerably deterred.
The right hon. Gentleman I think appreciates, or I hope he appreciates, that I am capable of being moved by his arguments on certain parts of this Bill on which we have made progress together—the two sides of the House—in a very satisfactory manner. But I am bound to say I am entirely unimpressed by the arguments against this Amendment. In the first place, the Minister refers to the poverty of tenants. A great many lessors of furnished apartments are very poor too. And indeed, it is by no means infrequent that the first letting of rooms arises from the limited means of those who find themselves driven to increase their incomes.
Is it not the case that if the lessor is very poor too, then he will be there on the spot and not living in a house 300 miles away from the house that he has let?
Whether he is living there or not, that argument has absolutely no relevance because it has been indicated by the hon. Gentleman who has just interrupted me that parties to these references may have to give up a day's work and exactly that position might arise with a lessor of equally humble income status with the tenant and some person of humbler means than the tenant would have to give up a day's work in order to attend the tribunal. In the second place the Minister says landlords are amply protected because in such a case the reference would be dismissed and the landlord would be free to give notice to the tenant. What remedy is that? It is not a remedy which ought to arise or the course that ought naturally to follow a vexatious and unnecessary application. A vexatious application might well be made by a tenant whom a decent-minded landlord would be most reluctant to turn out. There are cases which excite great sympathy and in the present circumstances a decent landlord might be most reluctant to eject tenants merely because they had been grossly unreasonable in demanding a reduction of the rent. There is no reason whatever why the Minister should hold up the probability that in such a case they would be turned out on the street.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman must not put those words into my mouth. I said that it is within the power of the landlord, and that that sanction itself would be sufficient to inhibit the man in the first instance.
I was unhappy that the Minister should even have mentioned that as what apparently he thought would be probable. I prefer to have greater confidence in my fellow citizens and to think that there may well be cases where the landlord may be treated vexatiously by his tenant whom he had no desire at all to put out. But if the landlord or the tenant were most unreasonable, up to three, four or five pounds expenses should be paid. The proper sanction for such conduct on the part of anybody who starts legal or quasi-legal proceedings should be a reasonable sum, limited to personal expenses and not including the
employment of a solicitor or anything of that kind. In such oases I feel, and I think that my hon. Friends feel strongly with me, that the proper and only reasonable sanction against vexatious and aggressive proceedings, such proceedings as appear oppressive to a commonsense lay tribunal, is that the tribunal should have power to impose this penalty in proper cases, not in all cases which fail but in cases where they consider that the conduct of the person who started the reference, or the conduct of the person who is maintaining the reference, should bring this penalty upon them.
The next argument of the Minister was that giving somebody a cold by causing a draught, was an action done "in the course of the proceedings." What nonsense. It is perfectly obvious that being treated vexatiously in the course of the proceedings means in matters which concern the proceedings, in the bringing of the proceedings, in the maintaining of the proceedings, in persisting with the proceedings. So, the words are not too wide at all. We have come to terms on almost every point that has been discussed in this Bill but I and my hon. Friends feel strongly that the Minister is encouraging frivolous applications, frivolous defences to claims, if he does not show the confidence in these tribunals which should be shown by allowing them to say to one party or the other, "You have behaved very badly to the other side. You have caused the other side £3 expenses and we are not only going to dismiss your claim but we are going to order you to pay the reasonable personal expenses which you have most perversely caused the other party to the contract to incur."
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 261.
Division No. 60.] AYES. [5.47 p. m. Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. Cuthbert, W. N. Aitken, Hon. M. Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Darling, Sir W. Y. Amory, Lt.-Col. D. Heathcoat Bullock, Capt. M. Davidson, Viscountess Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.) Butcher, H. W. Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D. Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W. Baldwin, A. E. Carson, E. Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Barlow, Sir J. Challen, Fit.-Lieut. C. Drayson, Capt. G. B. Baxter, A. B. Clarke, Col. R. S. Duthie, W. S. Bennett, Sir P. Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Eden, Rt. Hon. A Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) Erroll, Col. F. J. Boles, Lt.-Col D. C. (Wells) Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L. Boothby, R. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G. Bower, N. Crowder, Capt. J. F. E. Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R. Savory, Prof. D. L. Gammans, Capt. L. D. Maclay, Hon. J. S. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. Glyn, Sir R. MacLeod, Capt. J. Smith, E. P. (Ashford) Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G. Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold Smithers, Sir W. Gridley, Sir A. Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) Spence, Maj. H. R. Grimston, R. V. Marlowe, A. A. H. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Marsden, Capt. A. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'dbr'ge) Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin) Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Studholme, H. G. Haughton, Maj. S. G. Medlicott, Brig. F. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'fn, S.) Head, Brig. A. H. Mellor, Sir J. Teeling, Fit.-Lieut. W. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. Morris-Jones, Sir H. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) Thorneycroft, G. E. P. Hope, Lord J. Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.) Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N. Howard, Hon. A Neven-Spence, Major Sir B. Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Nield, B. (Chester) Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D. Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.) Osborne, C. Ward, Hon. G. R. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey) Keeling, E. H. Pickthorn, K. Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J. Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H. Pitman, I. J. White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury) Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Williams, C. (Torquay) Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Williams, Lt.-Comdr. Gerald (T'nb'ge) Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull) Price-White, Lt.-Col. D. Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U. Lipson, D. L. Raikes, H. V. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Little, Dr. J. Ramsay, Maj. S. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) York, C. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall) Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. Ropner, Col. L. MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. Ross, Sir R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES: Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight) Sanderson, Sir F. Mr. Drewe and Major Mott-Radclyffe
NOES. Adams, Capt. Richard (Balham) Collins, V. J. Haworth, J. Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Colman, Miss G. M. Herbison, Miss M. Adamson, Mrs. J. L. Cook, T. F. Hicks, G. Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Hobson, C. R. Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Corlett, Dr. J. Holman, P. Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh) Corvedale, Viscount Horabin, T. L. Alpass, J. H. Cove, W. G. House, G. Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Daggar, G. Hoy, J. Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Daines, P. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Attewell, H. C. Davies, Edward (Burslem) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Austin, H. L. Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.) Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Ayles, W. H. Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B Deer, G. Janner, B. Bacon, Miss A. de Freitas, Geoffrey Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester) Baird, Capt. J. Diamond, J. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.) Balfour, A. Dodds, N. N. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Barstow, P. G. Driberg, T. E. N. Keenan, W. Barton, C. Dumpleton, C. W. Kenyon, C. Bechervaise, A. E. Dye, S. King, E. M. Belcher, J. W. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Kinley, J. Benson, G. Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.) Kirby, B. V. Berry, H. Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F. Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Leslie, J. R. Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Ewart, R. Levy, B. W. Binns, J. Follick, M. Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Blackburn, Capt. A. R. Foot, M. M. Lewis, J. (Bolton) Blenkinsop, Capt. A. Forman, J. C. Lindgren, G. S. Blyton, W. R. Freeman, Peter (Newport) Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Gaitskell, H. T. N. Logan, D. G. Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Gallacher, W. Lyne, A. W. Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) Ganley, Mrs. C. S. McAdam, W. Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Gibson, C. W. McAllister, G. Brook, D. (Halifax) Gilzean, A. McEntee, V. La T Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Glanville, J. E. (Consett) McGhee, H. G. Brown, George (Belper) Gooch, E. G. Mack, J. D. Brown, T. J. (Ince) Goodrich, H. E. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Gordon-Walker, P. C. McKinlay, A. S. Burden, T. W. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Maclean, N. (Govan) Burke, W. A. Grenfell, D. R. McLeavy, F. Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Grey, C. F. MacMillan, M. K. Byers, Lt.-Col. F. Grierson, E. Mainwaring, W. H. Castle, Mrs. B. A. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Mallalieu, J. P. W. Champion, A. J. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Mann, Mrs. J. Chater, D. Guest, Dr. L. Haden Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Chetwynd, Capt. G. R. Gunter, Capt. R. J. Mathers, G. Clitherow, Dr. R. Guy, W. H. Mayhew, Maj. C. P. Cluse, W. S. Haire, Fit.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe) Messer, F. Cobb, F A. Hale, L. Middleton, Mrs. L. Cocks, F. S. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Mikardo, Ian Coldrick, W. Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Mitchison, Maj. G. R. Collick, P. Hardy, E. A. Monslow, W Collindridge, F. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Montague, F. Moody, A. S. Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Turner-Samuels, M. Morley, R. Royle, C. Usborne, Henry Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Scott-Elliot, W. Vernon, Maj. W. F. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.) Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S. Viant, S. P. Mort, D. L. Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. Wadsworth, G Moyle, A. Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) Walkden, E. Murray, J. D. Shurmer, P. Walker, G. H. Naylor, T. E. Silverman, J. (Erdington) Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Neal, H. (Claycross) Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.) Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Simmons, C. J. Warbey, W. N. Noel-Buxton, Lady Skeffington-Lodge, Lt. T. C. Watkins, T. E. O'Brien, T. Skinnard, F. W. Watson, W. M. Oldfield, W. H. Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester) Webb, M. (Bradford, C.) Orbach, M. Smith, Ellis (Stoke) Wells, P. L. (Faversham) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall) Palmer, A. M. F. Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.) White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.) Pargiter, G. A. Smith, T. (Normanton) White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.) Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T. Snow, Capt. J. W. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Solley, L. J. Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B. Paton, J. (Norwich) Sparks, J. A Wilkins, W. A. Pearson, A. Stamford, W. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) Peart, Capt. T. F. Steele, T. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) Perrins, W. Stephen, C. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) Piratin, P. Stewart, Capt. M'chael (Fulham, E.) Williams, W. R. (Heston) Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield) Stross, Dr. B. Williamson, T Porter, G. (Leeds) Stubbs, A. E. Willis, E. Proctor, W. T. Symonds, Maj. A. L. Wills, Mrs. E. A. Pryde, D. J. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Wise, Major F. J. Pursey, Cmdr. H. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Woods, G. S. Randall, H. E. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) Yates, V. F. Ranger, J. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Young, Sir R. (Newton) Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R. Thomas, George (Cardiff) Zilliacus, K. Reeves, J. Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) Reid, T. (Swindon) Thurtie, E. TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Rhodes, H. Timmins, J. Mr. J. Henderson and Captain Bing Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth) Titterington, M. F. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Tolley, L.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
5.54 p. m.
There is one point which I want to raise on Clause 9. There are certain words in that Clause about which I should like some explanation. They are:
"That no such proceedings shall be instituted otherwise than by"
the local authority. I want to ask why the ordinary right of the individual to bring criminal prosecutions is taken away. Why is this matter left to the local authority? It seems to me that this is a point where the criminal law can always be brought in to try to stop an individual from committing acts of violence and taking the law into his own hands. We may have a case where a number of individual parties feel themselves aggrieved. One of them may want to bring a criminal prosecution, but by this Clause the Government are denying the individual that right. The point I want to make is this. Why are H.M. Government at this stage taking away from the common individual his ordinary right to prosecute if he wishes, and placing upon the local authority the responsibility to institute proceedings of this nature, especially if, as in this case, if the prosecution is brought, there may be payment to the lessor or the lessee? Why are the Government at this moment taking away the ordinary individual's right to bring a prosecution if he wishes and putting the responsibility on the already entirely overworked legal staffs of local authorities?
The answer to the hon. and gallant Member is simply that these would be civil proceedings.
5.56 p.m.
I should like to ask the Minister's consideration of a few points and particularly one point which has been debated at length this afternoon. I should like to ask him whether he can do something about it even at this late stage.
The hon. Member is only entitled on the Third Reading to deal with what appears in the Bill.
I appreciate the point you have made, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but may I put it this way? What now will appear in the Bill is that a notice to quit will not be binding for a specified period in the event of proceedings being referred to a tribunal. In that regard, I would ask the Minister to consider whether the provision goes as far as it should go, for this reason that what the Measure will do will be to protect a person from receiving a notice to quit once an appeal has been referred to the tribunal but what it will not do will be to protect—
If it would not do it, I cannot answer on it.
Surely I am in Order on the Third Reading in pointing out that the position is not an entirely satisfactory one, and in trying to induce the Minister even at this stage, to see whether he cannot remedy what is a defect. What it will not do will be to protect a tenant who has started negotiations with his landlord. I am sorry to have to refer to this again, but it is important because it will mean that if two people are negotiating a settlement the tenant will be in the unhappy position—
I am very sorry to interrupt, but pointing out some deficiency in the Bill is a matter which cannot be debated now. It is outside the purview of a Third Reading Debate.
I am sorry if I am not entitled to point this out on the Third Reading.
I have so ruled.
If you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, hold that I am not entitled to do it, then I abide by your Ruling, but nevertheless I hope my intervention will have the result that it was intended to have.
5.59 p.m.
I would not have spoken on the Third Reading but for the curt reply by the Minister to the hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall (Major Roberts) who raised a point on Clause 9 which I maintain should be answered. Although we may be a small minority in this House, we have a right to voice our opinions and have them considered. The hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall raised a very important and interesting point from the aspect of the ordinary individual's freedom for instituting proceedings. Although I am not a lawyer and I do not know if this is a civil or criminal offence, I would point out that under a preceding Clause of the Bill very heavy fines can be inflicted. Unfortunately this afternoon we have not heard the Law Officers of the Crown on this subject. I am not complaining in any way about that, but I am saying when hon. Members raise a point of this sort concerning the civil liberties of the country we are entitled to a proper, full and considered reply from the Government. I should not like to accuse the Minister of trying to make trouble, but I do put it as a mild suggestion that it might be helpful when any hon. Member makes a really straight point of this kind, which appeals to many of us, that we should have a careful, considered answer.
6.0 p.m.
I, too, like my hon. Friend, would not have intervened in this Debate but for the answer given by the right hon. Minister. It seemed to me not only curt but, on its face, quite astonishingly inaccurate. I think the Minister of Health may desire to reconsider his observations. In reply to the careful argument addressed to him regarding the provisions for dealing with an offence, and those who should have power to institute such proceedings under Clause 9, the Minister in very curt terms rose and said, "The answer is that they will be civil proceedings." I have never known civil proceedings for an offence under a Statute, and the offences referred to are those, as I read Clause 8 of the Bill, which refer to the persons concerned being guilty of an offence and liable to conviction and fine. When an answer given from the Government Front Bench is not only discourteous in its tone, but also palpably inaccurate, I hope it may be corrected.
6.1 p.m.
I do not desire to appear to be discourteous to hon. Members, or to anybody in the House, but I think hon. Members opposite will realise that they were using the Third Reading stage of a Bill in a very unusual manner. It is not the practice of the House to use the Third Reading stage for the purpose of putting questions on Clauses which could have been put on the Second Reading, on the Committee stage, or on the Report stage.
On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, could the question have been put on the Report stage?
If it dealt with a subject matter on the Paper.
May I point out that it is not the purpose of the Third Reading of a Bill to put interrogations to the Government. The Bill has been examined and it is in its final stage. The Opposition are perfectly entitled to reject the Bill on general grounds, and perfectly entitled to argue that the Bill ought to be rejected, but it would be repeating the other stages of the Bill if advantage were taken of this stage in order to put questions to the Minister asking the meaning of this or that Clause in the Bill.
On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This is really a rather important point. As I understood your Ruling just now, the Third Reading can be used to discuss anything that is in the Bill. Surely an hon. Member is entitled on the Third Reading to make certain of what is the meaning of a phrase in the Bill; in other words, to ask the Minister a question. It is of such importance that, if we have that right, we should know it, and it should not be taken away from us.
As you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, know very well, on the Third Reading the Minister is in a difficulty because he can only speak a second time by permission of the House. Therefore interrogation is an extremely difficult procedure to use on Third Reading, and indeed it is not intended to be used then. However, I frankly confess at once to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the reference to civil proceedings was wrong; they would be criminal proceedings.
I am sorry to rise again. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I asked you for a reply to that point of Order, namely, whether we may ask for explanations on parts of the Bill on Third Reading, because it is rather important from the point of view of the ordinary Member.
Within limits that is so, but it depends a good deal on how far an hon. Member goes.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill
Read the Third time, and passed.
National Service (Release of Conscientious Objectors) Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
CLAUSE 1.—(Release of conditionally registered conscientious objectors.)
6.7 p.m.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, at end, insert:
"so however that where it appears to the said Minister that the conscientious objector has suffered detention or imprisonment for any offence other than an offence committed for reasons of conscience at a time when he was a conditionally registered conscientious objector, the period of detention or imprisonment shall be disregarded."
During the Committee stage, a number of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee drew attention to what obviously was a flaw in the Bill as it was then drafted, and this Amendment has been put down to meet that criticism. The short point was this, that for the demobilisation of men in the Armed Forces any period that they might spend in detention or in prison for any offence that they commit is not taken into account in the Service calculation. It is proposed by this Amendment to treat persons who are registered conscientious objectors in exactly the same way: that any offence they may commit which is not associated with their conscience stand, and any imprisonment they suffer in consequence, shall be disregarded in calculating the service for the purpose of their demobilisation.
We on this side of the House would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the Amendment he has moved. I was not a member of the Committee, but I have read the proceedings, and I know that certain of my hon. Friends who took a prominent part in that Committee will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I would like to express our satisfaction from this Bench, and to say that I am glad the Government have put down this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Chester (Mr. Nield) will not be called as it is out of Order.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[ Mr. Ness Edwards .]
6.11 p.m.
I am disappointed that the Amendment standing in my name and that of the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-on-Thames (Major Boyd-Carpenter) has not been called. I accept, of course, the Ruling of the Chair.
This Measure is one which has met with support in all parts of the House. I was upon the Standing Committee which dealt with the matter and it was clear during the proceedings of that Committee that the purpose of this Bill was welcomed on all sides. That purpose, as the House knows, is to provide machinery for the release of conditionally registered conscientious objectors in a manner similar to the plan for release of those in the Armed Forces of the Crown and all hon. Members thought that was right and just. I would ask the House to consider for one moment Clause I (4) of the Bill. The effect of that Subsection is that a man who has served in the Armed Forces of the Crown and thereafter becomes a conditionally registered conscientious objector may add together the two periods of time, namely, his military service and his conditionally registered service, for the purposes of release in accordance with the age and length of service. I would point out, however, that it does not appear that a conscientious objector who later joins the Armed Forces may add those two periods together. In other words, while the soldier who becomes a conscientious objector can add the two periods together the conscientious objector who becomes a soldier cannot do that and that is a point of serious criticism which I would make of the Bill. It seems to me that at some time justice and consistency require that the soldier who has had a period of service as a conscientious objector shall be entitled to add that period to his military service for the purposes of release. Generally speaking criticisms made and suggestions put forward in the Committee stage and on Second Reading have been met by the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister of Labour.
6.13 p.m.
There are two points still out- standing upon this Clause notwithstanding the generous way in which the Parliamentary Secretary has met some of the objections which were put forward on the Standing Committee by hon. Members on this side of the House. The major of these difficulties arises on Clause I (6) of the Bill which deals with the situation which would arise if unfortunately it became necessary to recall to the Armed Forces any group of men who have been released. The provision of the Bill is that if that unfortunate state of affairs should arise, the Minister may place before the tribunals the case of a conscientious objector in that group. That is to say, in the event of such a recall, while men who had served in the Armed Forces would automatically be recalled without argument, the case of conscientious objectors even coming before the tribunal would depend upon the discretion of the Minister of the day. This matter was discussed on the Standing Committee, and the arguments adduced by the Parliamentary Secretary in no way decreased the disquiet to which this provision gave rise in my mind and, I think, in the minds of a number of hon. Members. The Parliamentary Secretary explained that should this state of affairs arise, it was not his intention or the intention of the Minister to put before the tribunals at all the case of any conscientious objector at present working in what he described as an essential industry.
By reason of the withdrawal of a certain number of powers of the Minister of Labour to direct labour, the situation which would arise in the event of a recall to the Forces of a group would result in conscientious objectors in that group in essential industry not being subject to any compulsion of any sort or kind unless they went before a tribunal. The Parliamentary Secretary's argument was that it would be a waste of time to bring them before the tribunals. Unless such men were put before a tribunal, they would be under no compulsion whatever to remain in the so-called essential industry in which they were working, and, in those circumstances, it appears that it is the intention of the present Government, should this most unfortunate state of affairs arise, to leave a substantial number of conscientious objectors under no form of compulsory service whatsoever. Even at this stage of the Bill, I would appeal to the Minister and to the House to consider the consequences of such action, with particular reference—
On a point of Order; I understand that the hon. and gallant Member is now inviting the House to consider what the Bill would be like if it contained something which it does not contain. Is such a discussion in Order?
A general discussion on the Bill and what is contained in the Bill is in Order, but a discussion of what is outside the Bill is not in Order.
I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I was addressing my argument to the words which are in the Bill, and, in particular, the word "may" in Clause I (6) of the Bill, and inviting the attention of the House to the intended exercise of that discretion by the Minister and I would, even at this late stage of the Bill—
Do I understand that the hon. and gallant Member is presenting an argument to show how much better the Bill would be if it contained something which it does not contain? I suggest that such a discussion is out of Order.
I am watching the hon. and gallant Member very carefully and it may be I will have to call him to refrain from pressing the argument any further.
I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I would, at this stage, invite the attention of the House to the effect on the morale of men compulsorily recalled to the Forces if the Minister makes use of his discretion under this Bill in the way the Parliamentary Secretary said he would use it. I ask the House to consider the atmosphere of such an occasion. The recall to the Forces of a group of men recently released would be a matter arousing very deep feeling. What would be the effect upon such men knowing that conscientious objectors in the same group were not being placed under any form of compulsory service? May I put an illustration before the House? Supposing there were two shopkeepers, who, in 1939, came under the operation of the Military Service Acts, and one served in the Armed Forces while the other was directed by the appropriate tribunal to work of national importance. They have both been released and the recall comes. The soldier goes back to the Forces, and the other man at the discretion of the Minister may remain in his civilian vocation, competing against the business of the soldier. The effect in an admittedly tricky situation on the morale of men recalled would be of a most unfortunate, if not dangerous, character. I would appeal to the Minister, when replying, to modify, so far as he can, his expression of his intended use of the powers under the Bill. I would ask him to reflect that if he allows it to go out from this House that that is his intention the effect cannot but be most unfortunate.
There is only one other matter to which I would invite the attention of the House, that is, during the discussion of the Bill in Standing Committee, the point was put to the Minister of the position of a man who prior to being registered as a conscientious objector, had performed valuable national service. The Minister appreciated the position. He told the Standing Committee that the position could be dealt with by putting the case before the conscientious objectors tribunal and asking them to ante-date the date of conditional registration. He told the Standing Committee he had the power to do so under Section 5 (1) of the National Service Act, 1941. Since that argument was used I have looked at the Act referred to, and I would say with great respect to the Minister that there would appear to be no power whatever under that Section for the conscientious objectors tribunal—
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member, but he is out of Order. He is discussing another Act.
I bow to your Ruling, of course, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but the only reason I sought to refer to it was because the Minister himself, in explaining this Bill to the Committee, said that he could get out of the difficulty, which admittedly exists, by the exercise of his powers under that other Act, and the argument that I would have put, had I been permitted—
Undoubtedly the hon. and gallant Member cannot put it.
I do not know whether, when the Minister replies, he will be entitled to refer, subject to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to his own argument before the Standing Committee. If he is so permitted I would most respectfully invite him to say whether he still holds to that argument.
Just one thing more. It is certainly, as I understand it, the feeling of hon. Members on this side of the House, that this is on the whole a good Bill, and the criticisms I have ventured to make are criticisms of detail. If I may repeat what I said before the Standing Committee, the only object which I and my hon. Friends who had down Amendments had in putting forward these points for the consideration of the House, was to secure what I understood from the Minister to be his object also—that this Bill deals with absolute fairness and absolute equity between conscientious objectors and those of another point of view. It is from that point of view only that I have ventured to make one or two criticisms of the drafting and of the effects of this Bill.
6.21 p.m.
The excellence of this Bill has been somewhat marred by the misunderstanding which has arisen out of the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston (Major Boyd-Carpenter). It is to us a very unsatisfactory state of affairs that we are unable on the Third Reading, thanks to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to present to the House and to the country outside a proper interpretation of what this Bill does or does not do. I would like to claim your indulgence for a moment. This point was discussed at length in Committee. I claim, subject to your Ruling, and with all respect, that I am entitled to discuss the merits and demerits of the Bill as a whole as it has emerged from its previous stages, so long as I adhere to the terms of the Bill as it stands. If I transgress, I feel sure that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will interrupt with your usual tact and forbearance. If we read the Bill in the light of a statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary upstairs we have the right to know whether his statement on the subject of the possibility of re-registering with the tribunals under the Act of 1941, to which he referred in Committee, is or is not the case. If he will give a clear answer on that point it will enable us to interpret this Bill in one sense or another. Failing that no one in this House or outside will be able to understand what the Bill really does. Following your Ruling; I am unable to pursue that matter further. All I want to do is to put that question in order to be sure that we know where we stand.
To refer to the Bill generally, it is very satisfactory to feel that in certain respects we have gained certain modifications, thanks to the Government, who have met the point of view which has been expressed and made certain Amendments to the Bill. When we examine the contents of the Bill as presented on Third Reading, we find that the obnoxious delay of some four to six weeks in the release of conscientious objectors, a point which we raised at an earlier stage, has been met by an Amendment. The Government have met our point of view about establishing some sort of Class B release for conscientious objectors. Therefore in those two respects we have obtained satisfaction from the Government in the course of these Debates on the Bill. There only remains the unsatisfactory points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston and the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Nield), who took such a leading part in discussing this Bill in Committee. It is to us a source of dissatisfaction that the point put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chester, which he has already elaborated, has not been met. I trust that the Minister will say something, before this Bill receives its Third Reading, to satisfy my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston on the question of the Act of 1941 and something to satisfy my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chester on his point. Subject to these matters I am glad to say that this Bill is likely to obtain its Third Reading without opposition.
6.24 p.m.
I do not know whether I have to crave the permission of the House to speak, as I formally moved the Third Reading of the Bill. If so, I beg to do so. A number of points which have been raised, and I think that without incurring your displeasure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I shall be able to meet the points of criticism. In the first place the hon. and learned Member for Chester (Mr. Nield) raised the question of conscientious objectors who subsequently joined the Forces. It is extremely difficult under this Bill for any provision to be made for those men. The Bill only provides for the release of conscientious objectors, and it would be extremely difficult, within the scope of this Bill, to make provision for men who had been conscientious objectors, but who had become members of the armed Forces. That is the difficulty we are in. I am watching you very closely, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in case I do step over the line of Order in this connection.
The next point was the question of what we shall do in the case of a call-up or the re-call of a number of groups. This Bill provides that the Minister shall, in appropriate cases, refer the re-call of conscientious objectors to the tribunal for the imposition of certain conditions. That is permissive, it is not compulsory. The question is raised, and I think I shall be in Order in answering it, about what we propose to do in regard to those people who are left outside our net. The case of two shopkeepers was quoted, and I want to give the assurance to the House which I gave to the Committee. If there is an ex-Army man who is a shopkeeper and an ex-conscientious objector who lives in the same street, and keeps a shop in the same street, and their group is recalled, in cases of that type one man will be recalled to the Army and the conscientious objector will be referred to the tribunal. I wish to give that undertaking to the House. I hope that meets the position clearly. The argument in Committee was that it was the view of the Minister that if men were engaged in agriculture and were ex-conscientious objectors and the group in which they were concerned was being recalled, it would be unnecessary and a waste of public time and the time of administrative officials to refer those men to the tribunal to reinforce the condition that they must stay in agriculture as a condition of not being called to the Army. What would happen if they left agriculture? We say if they leave a type of industry imposed by the tribunal, that is a change of circumstances which administratively, we think, would entitle us to refer that case, in the new circumstances, to the tribunal. In that way we hope we would maintain that element of fairness, as between the conscientious objectors and the men in the group who were being recalled to the Armed Forces, and we feel indeed we have met completely the criticism that was made upstairs in the Committee.
Another point was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) with regard to the reference of those cases of men who had been in the Friends ambulance units. I think when speaking in the Committee I referred repeatedly to the facts as I was then advised. It turns out, on examining the thing more closely, that we could not do that which we promised to do but, whilst we cannot do it in that way, we are proposing to keep faith with the Committee and to do it administratively. There is no intention at all to depart from the undertaking given to the Committee that we shall seek ways and means through the administration of dealing with that type of case and give the concession which was asked for on all sides of the Committee.
I want to pay a tribute to Members on all sides of the Committee which handled this Bill upstairs. The Second Reading Debate was an excellent Debate. We saw this House at its best. That tradition was maintained at the Committee. I think we got on remarkably well. We had one Division over a very small point, but, apart from that, unanimity was found throughout the proceedings of the Committee, and I want to thank Members of the Committee for the very generous way in which they dealt with this Bill. I am satisfied that this House can be proud of the fact that it has done justice to a section of the community which perhaps, in the past, might have had entirely different treatment. A good job of work has been done, and I thank hon. Members for it.
Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I put a point? The hon. Gentleman has made an important statement that he was unable to do something which at an earlier stage he was advised he was able to do. He was, as he very openly said, wrongly advised. This must be regarded as quite a serious matter. The hon. Gentleman has given an undertaking that this will be carried out by administration. Could we be given some report—
On a point of Order. We must surely have some regard for the Rules of this House and this must definitely be out of Order.
I shall be better able to determine the validity of this point of Order when I have heard the concluding remarks of the right hon. Gentleman.
I said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, "before the hon. Gentleman sat down." He himself rose twice, and I am asking whether he will give us a report at some future date on this matter, on the Estimates, so that the House may be fully informed of how this matter is being carried out.
I think a great deal is being made of this point. I am told the number of men is round about 50 or 60, and it is asked that credit shall be given to them for service they rendered in other countries, when they could not become registered in this country because they were away. When they return and become registered, it is desired to give them the benefit of the service they have given to the country. We have an arrangement under this Bill—Class B—and it will be quite possible under this arrangement to deal with a number of these cases. After all it is a small number and I am wondering, in so far as we have acquiesced to the pressure from the opposite side of the House, whether so much ought to be made of the thing. On the other hand, we do not want a sort of general hullabaloo that we are giving to these men something which is not warranted; neither do we want to encourage other claims from men who are less entitled to it. It is a thing which might become like a snowball in effect. I am afraid I cannot give a firm answer to the point put by the right hon. Gentleman. I will certainly make his representations known to my right hon. Friend the Minister, and if we can meet him in any way we shall be only too glad to oblige.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
India (Proclamations of Emergency) Bill [Lords]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]
Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 2.—(Commencement and transitional provision.)
6.35 p.m.
I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, at the end, insert, "civil."
During the Second Reading Debate on this Bill, certain misgivings were expressed by a number of hon. Members who feared that the liberty of the individual might be prejudiced by the operation of the Bill. I undertook to give consideration to the possibility of inserting an Amendment in Clause 2 which would put beyond any doubt the fact that this Bill would be limited to civil proceedings. At the same time, as I stated on that occasion and I still take the same view, there is nothing in the Bill as originally drafted which could support the misgivings then expressed, but in order to put the matter beyond any doubt whatsoever, I propose to insert the word "civil." I think this would, therefore, meet the misgivings that were then expressed.
We would like to welcome the Minister's initiative in inserting the word "civil" at this place. Considerable doubts were expressed in the course of the previous stage of the Bill, that this Bill would cover cases involving human considerations, and indeed would raise the whole question of civil proceedings. Therefore, it is very satisfactory that the Government have taken this action, although I am inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the terms of the Bill itself would have precluded such cases. It is very satisfactory that the Government have met the point and so far so good.
As one of the hon. Members who criticised the Bill, and, in particular, Clause 2, because of the fear that the original wording might have covered cases of a criminal character, I wish to congratulate the Government on having met the grievance which I felt and expressed in this House, and which was also felt and expressed by other hon. Members. I would like to add this. Although, as far as this Clause is concerned, I accept what has been offered by the Government, I would like to say that, as a matter of principle, this sort of legislation and, in particular, the principle of the Bill, as far as it is typified in Clause 2, is an unwelcome one from a Socialist point of view, and that the less we have of this emergency legislation the better it will be for our Indian comrades.
Amendment agreed to.
It will be for the convenience of the Committee if the next two Amendments are taken together.
I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, to leave out "any law," and to insert: inter alia , paragraph 24 reads as follows:
If it is the case that the Government only want the Bill to deal with three specific cases, I consider that they ought to accept an Amendment on these lines. If it is not the case, and they want the Bill to cover a series of cases about which they have not told us, I think they should inform us of the type of case they have in mind to cover and make an explanation. In presenting the Bill here and in another place, they did not explain that the Bill had a wider implication than we believed it to have, and I ask the Government now whether this Bill is intended to deal with the three cases mentioned by the Secretary of State in another place and by the hon. and learned Gentleman in this House, or whether it has a wider application and deals with many other cases as well. The hon. and learned Gentleman may say that the method I have chosen in putting these Amendments on the Order Paper is not the right method. He may say that my law is at fault or that my drafting has not that excellence which one would associate with those who advise the hon. And learned Gentleman. If that be the case, it is incumbent upon the Government to produce an alternative and to limit it to the original purpose for which the Bill was designed. In any case, the moving of the Amendment will give us, on this side of the House, an opportunity of finding out whether this Bill is intended to deal with three specific cases, whether it is linked up with the Defence of India Act, as we were told, and what is the objection to putting down in clear language, in an Amendment of this sort, a limitation to the cases, to deal with which we understood this Bill was designed.
6.45 p.m.
May I, first of all, give to the right hon. Gentleman the information he asked for as regards the number of cases that will, or may, be affected by this Bill? I have, in fact, made inquiries of the Government of India on the point, and my information is that the only cases known are the three cases to which I referred during tire Second Reading Debate, and that, of those three cases, only one is relevant, because only in one case was the decision in the first court given against the Government's submission. Therefore, from the practical point of view it is true to say that subsection (2) will, in fact, only cover one case, and that is the case that I described as the Bombay case on the last occasion.
It is not quite the fact that, when I made my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, I limited the purpose of this Bill merely to covering that one case from Bombay, because I did say that the Government of India were very anxious that steps should be taken irrespective of the eventual decision of the Federal Court, to safeguard the general emergency measures from this form of challenge by removing any doubt which there may be as to the validity of their emergency powers, and the object of inserting the word "law" which the Amendment seeks to delete, is to cover the very faint possibility that there may be another case—a writ may have been issued yesterday; one does not know—which might challenge any rule made under the Government of India Act.
I give the right hon. Gentleman an example. There might be a case where the Government of India ordered a factory owner to camouflage his factory during the war. That, so far as I can see, is not covered by the Federal or Provincial List, and it may be that a challenge could be taken in respect of that power. There is no new case; the only cases known are those to which I have referred and one of which the Government lost. We felt that it was better to keep the word "law" so as to prevent any possible challenge being taken under the Defence of India Rule.
I would also remind the Committee that this is not at all a Section entirely in favour of the Government of India. It does provide that, if a case be taken up, and if there be a challenge to any other rule, in the event of the complainant losing his case as a result of the passing of this Bill, he should be given some form of protection. Therefore, my answer to the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the facts of the situation, is that there is no question of us seeking, by the back door, so to speak, to get greater protection than we need, or of any question of not having been frank with the Committee and informed the Committee if there were other cases, because, as I have said, there are no other cases. But we felt that it was far better to make it proof beyond any doubt, that, in any case where the Government of India have exercised their powers for the purposes of the war emergency, there should be no question of their powers being challenged. For those reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.
When the hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking before he quoted the words in the light of the provisions of this Act and he there claimed that was in justification of the Bill. As I understood him, he made it clear that that meant the Bill was only to apply to the three specific cases. Do I now understand that I wrongly apprehended the situation, and that the Bill is required for the general purposes which the right hon. Gentleman described and which he has just read out, namely:
"The calling into question of the validity of the Government of India Emergency Powers is regarded seriously because it may conceivably be directed against other powers exercised under the Defence of India Rule, even though the present appeal to the Federal Court should fail"?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1945; Vol. 417, c. 1221.]
The Government of India are very anxious that steps should be taken to safeguard the general Emergency Powers from this form of challenge as to the validity of other powers. If that general purpose is sought can I have one further assurance from the hon. and learned Gentleman that that purpose will be achieved by this Bill and that no other undesirable cases, especially against the subject, can come up? If I can have that assurance I shall be ready to withdraw this Amendment.
I certainly think I can get that assurance, and that is what I have sought to make clear on each occasion on which this Bill has been discussed. There is no possibility of the liberty of the subject being prejudiced by anything contained in it.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
I beg to move, in line 33, at end, insert:
"but not so as to render any party to whom any damages or compensation have been awarded and paid under such proceedings liable to repay the same."
The point that arises on this subsection is that we feel it would be very unfair if a court awarded damages or compensation to a person in pursuance of the law as it then stood, and that person had actually received that compensation and spent it, that he should, as a result of a review of these proceedings, have to refund such damages or compensation when he would probably not be in a position to do so. To remedy that we, on this side of the Committee, decided to put down an Amendment in this sense. Again, this may not be the absolutely perfect way of achieving what we have in mind, but I should like to know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman can give his observations on the Amendment and on the reasons I have adduced in support of it.
Let me at once say that if there had been any case which would have been covered by this Amendment I should certainly have accepted it, but, as I have already informed the Committee, I have made inquiries from the Government of India as to the number of cases that will be affected by this Bill. There is only the Bombay case, where no damages, compensation or award has been made and, therefore, there is really nothing to be gained by inserting this particular Amendment.
I would ask for an explanation, because I am not in possession of the advice from India which the hon. and learned Gentleman received. I would be perfectly happy if we had been able by a previous Amendment to limit it to the three cases, but it appears from the hon. and learned Gentleman's previous remarks that we are unlikely to limit the Bill thus. Power has been given to make rules under this Bill. If the Bill does, in fact, cover other cases—and this is retrospective or retroactive legislation—how can the hon. and learned Gentleman now come to the Box and assure us it will only cover one particular case, namely, the Bombay case? I am asking for an explanation, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman would be kind enough to give it, it would not be necessary for me to press my Amendment.
Perhaps I have not made myself perfectly clear. There are only the three cases I have, referred to which have been taken to the Court and there is only one in which the complainant won—the Bombay case. No compensation was ordered to be paid in that case and there is no case up to date in which compensation has been ordered by any court. The right hon. Gentleman asks, how is that consistent with my refusing to accept the other Amendment deleting the word "law" and substituting the words in the Amendment which he moved, on the ground that I argued there might be other cases which required protection. All I can say is that, in fact, there have only been those cases. Perhaps out of an abundance of caution we thought it preferable to retain the word "law" in order to make it clear beyond any doubt that anything done by the Government of India under their Defence Rules was within their constitutional, legislative and executive powers and, therefore, protected by the Bill. Perhaps it is my fault if a misunderstanding has arisen.
I am afraid I am not satisfied. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways. At one moment he assures us the Bill would only cover three cases, and then, in view of his statement, which I recalled myself, that
"The Government of India are anxious that steps should be taken irrespective of the eventual decision of the Federal Court to safeguard the general Emergency Powers from this form of challenge by removing any doubt there may be as to the validity of other emergency powers."
I understood it was advisable to leave Clause 2 drafted in the sense the Government had drafted it with the inclusion of the word "civil," which we have accepted. But I want to be quite sure on this question of compensation to the individual that the Bill will not have such effect retroactively that any individual is likely to be endamaged in the way this Amendment seeks to avoid. I do not understand how, if the Bill is not confined to the three cases, and if the Government insist on retaining the word "law" for the purpose of widening the scope of the Bill, how the hon. and learned Gentleman can still say the Bill applies only to the Bombay case. This Amendment seeks to ensure that a person is not asked to repay money which he has not got. If that is not to be inserted in the Bill how can I be certain that no other cases will arise and that the hon. And learned Gentleman will be able to maintain the position as he wants it? If he can tell me that, I shall be happy.
I can claim that no other case will arise because by the time it came to be heard in the Indian courts this Bill will make it impossible for the Government of India to lose their case as a result of any doubt as to the validity of what they have done in the past. A difficulty only arises because of the success of the challenge in the Bombay High Court. The fact that I am not able to accept the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman does not widen the scope of the Bill. Clause 2 is not wider than the scope of Clause 1, which is the basis of the Bill. The ambit of the Bill is decided by Clause 1 and not by Clause 2. Clause 2 is merely the machinery for carrying out the law as laid down in Clause 1, with special reference to any cases which may have been taken to the Courts as the law exists before the passing of this Bill into law. Clause 1 has been accepted and it defines the scope of this Bill.
Amendment negatived.
7.0 p.m.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, after "that," insert:
"the party making any such application as aforesaid shall serve upon the other party to the proceedings a copy of this Act and."
In the circumstances, I do not propose to press this Amendment. Its object was that the party making any such application should serve upon the other party to the proceedings a copy of this Act. In view of the non-acceptance of the previous Amendment, this Amendment falls to the ground. I will not withdraw it until I have heard whether the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with me. I will move it but I will not press it.
In the event of proceedings being taken for the purpose of review—for example, in the Bombay case—it would be necessary for the party launching the proceedings to serve a notice of motion upon the respondent, and that notice of motion would have to state the grounds for moving the court in that way. I think, therefore, the respondent would be given ample notice of the fact that this Bill had become law, and I do not think it essential to safeguard the respondent in that way.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move, in line 3, leave out "they vary or reverse", and insert "it varies or reverses."
This is purely a question of grammar. I think it is obvious that this Amendment should be accepted.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in line 4, leave out "to be paid to the," and insert:
"any party in whose favour the variation or reversal operates to pay to any."
The purpose of this Amendment is to meet the criticism that the Act does not state specifically who is to make the payment. This is not strictly necessary, as the court obviously could not order payment by anyone not a party to the application, but again, in order to put the matter beyond any doubt, I am moving this Amendment.
I would like to welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman's initiative in putting down this Amendment, and I hope on this happy note we can conclude discussion of this intricate and complicated Measure.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 3.—(Short title and printing)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Having spent six years at the India Office in the same position as the hon. and learned Gentleman, and having been a member of the Round Table Conference and other conferences, I thought I was fairly familiar with the Government of India Act, but I confess I do not understand the meaning of this Clause. As I think it is desirable in the case of this rather complicated legislation, because it rests to some extent upon the Government of India Act, I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to explain the meaning of Clause 3 and in particular the last five words. The Clause says:
"A copy of the Government of India Act, 1935, … shall be prepared and certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments and deposited with the Rolls of Parliament, and His Majesty's printer shall print in accordance with the copy so certified all copies of the Government of India Act, 1935, which are printed after the said copy has been so prepared, certified and deposited."
Perhaps I might put my question in a more succinct form. Is it in accordance with the usual precedent?
I think I might say that this is the usual form which is followed in these cases. There are many hundreds of precedents for it. I am sure the noble Lord, with his much greater experience of legislation than I have, must have come across them on many occasions. My answer would be that this is according to the usual precedent.
While we are discussing this Clause, I would like to ask the significance of the words:
"the amendments mentioned in section six of the Indian Franchise Act, 1945."
I am very interested in the subject of Indian franchise, as I was originally a member of the Indian Franchise Committee, and I would like to know why it has been brought into the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman has bowled rather a fast ball on this occasion. Frankly, I am not in a position to give an answer.
My right hon. Friend and I can hardly leave the matter where it is. I entirely sympathise with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I myself have often been in the same position. I hope, at any rate, he will give us an answer on the Third Reading, because I would draw attention to the title of the Bill:
"An Act to amend the Government of India Act, 1935, as respects the effect of Proclamations of Emergency under section one hundred and two of that Act."
It is a little difficult to see how the amendment of the Indian Franchise Act comes within that title because, so far as I know, the Indian Franchise Act was not the result of a Proclamation of Emergency My right hon. Friend and I, being very lenient people, will not ask to report progress and ask leave to sit again in order that the hon. and learned Gentleman may have an opportunity to consult his advisers, but I hope he will give us an explanation, for which we are entitled to ask, on the Third Reading.
My recollection may not be correct, but I believe—I speak subject to correction from the Front Bench—that Section 6 of the Indian Franchise Act, 1945, makes certain Amendments to the Government of India Act, 1935. All that Subsection (2) of Clause 3 provides is that a copy of the Government of India Act, 1935, should be printed, showing the Amendments, so that the Act may be read as a whole in the light of the Indian Franchise Act.
That was my point. My point was how it can possibly come within the Short Title. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows you cannot put in a Bill something which is not comprised in the Title.
I cannot apologise on behalf of the Front Bench.
This is also a quite usual thing in the circumstances at the moment. This is merely providing that the various Amendments which have been made during 1945 are embodied in Clause 3 of this Bill so as to provide the copy of the Government of India Act with the Amendments contained in the 1945 Act, the Indian Franchise Act, and shall be subject to the procedure set out in the last five or six lines of the Clause.
There is a substantial point on the Title of this Bill. This is
"a Bill intituled An Act to amend the Government of India Act, 1935, as respects the effect of Proclamations of Emergency under Section one hundred and two of that Act."
Therefore the operation of this Bill should be restricted to anything arising under Proclamations of Emergency under Section 102 of that Act. This Bill has nothing to do with some form of printing of Amendments made or a previous Measure which we have discussed during this Session on the question of franchise. If the object is to come to this Committee this evening and suggest that this Bill has a certain object, then we are ready to pass it. If the object of this Bill is to consolidate the Government of India Act, 1935, in respect of Amendments made of a separate Act, namely the Indian Franchise Act, 1945, I claim the short Title of the Bill ought to state that. I do not think we can let this matter go unless we have an assurance that the short Title will be amended to make it read and describe exactly what the Bill sets out to do. I would like an explanation from the hon. and learned Gentleman how he proposes to amend the short Title of the Bill so as to make it apply to matters with which the Bill deals.
There is no need to amend the Short Title. Nor is this a Measure consolidating the various Acts of Parliament. This is a matter of Parliamentary procedure for which there have been many precedents. It is merely included for the purpose of preparing and certifying by the Clerk of the Parliaments the Amendment to the 1935 Act mentioned in Section 6 of the Indian Franchise Act, 1945. Therefore there is no question of consolidation at all. Nor is there any question of affecting the purpose of this Bill, because this is merely a reference for the purpose of the certification as contained in Clause 3 of the Bill.
7.15 p.m.
Why are the words used:
The wording of this Bill is peculiar in two respects. It appears that the Amendments made in a totally different Bill dealing with franchise, which we have discussed, are to be incorporated in the Government of India Bill and to be printed by the printers. Secondly, the Amendments made by Clause 1 of this Bill shall be printed up with the Government of India Act, 1935. If you are going to print up Clause 1 of this Bill why do you not print up Clause 2? Surely Clause 2 is just as important as Clause 1? We cannot let this Clause go by until we get a proper explanation first why there appears to be some element of consolidation in respect of Clause 1 of this Bill alone, and secondly why Clause 1 is referred to and not Clause 2. Why should it be necessary in this Bill to refer to a totally different Act, namely, the Indian Franchise Act, 1945? All these things seem to me to be far more important than can be answered by a reference merely to precedent. My right hon. Friend, who has I think more experience than anybody in this House, has informed me that he considers the matter to be very peculiar. I think therefore it would be undesirable to pass the Clause before we obtain a further explanation.
May I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are anxious only to get elucidation? I will put my question in a more concrete and clear form than before. I call attention to the Title, which says:
As respects the effect of Proclamations of Emergency under Section one hundred and two of that Act,"
that is the Government of India Act, 1935. In what way do the Amendments mentioned in Section 6 of the Indian Franchise Act, 1945, come under that Title? Were they the result of Proclamations of Emergency? If they were not the result of Proclamations of Emergency how can they come within the short Title?
Replying to the question by the right hon. Gentleman who asked why reference is made to Clause 1 of the Bill we are discussing to-night, and no reference is made to Clause 2, the answer is very simple. It is Clause 1 which seeks to amend the Government of India Act and not Clause 2. Therefore it would not be proper for any reference to be made to Clause 2. The right hon. Gentleman asked what there was in Section 6 of the Indian Franchise Act, 1945, which came within the Emergency Powers. There is nothing in the Indian Franchise Act, 1945, which comes within the Emergency Powers but there was an Amendment of the Government of India Act, 1935, in Section 6 of the Indian Franchise Act, 1945. The Amendments are therefore well within the scope of this Clause which, for the purpose of recording the Amendments to the 1935 Act, seeks to embody the various Amendments contained in the Indian Franchise Act, 1945, and the Bill we are discussing tonight.
The hon. and learned Gentleman admits that his Short Title is misleading. How can it be otherwise than misleading if he now admits that this particular provision does not come within the terminology "as respects the effect of Proclamations of Emergency"? He has just said that it does not come within that yet that is the short title of the Bill. How does he explain it?
That is neither here nor there.
We really cannot leave this matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman has given one explanation to me, namely, that the reason why there is only a reference to Clause 1 of this Bill is that it is only Clause 1 which amends the Government of India Act, but he has not answered my point about this being a new form of consolidation, nor has he answered my point about other proposals, those to amend the Education Act of 1944 by an Act of 1946, and similar methods of amending. Why in this case should we have consolidated—I use the word again because I have had no explanation to make me depart from it—into the final version of the Government of India Act, 1935, only Clause 1 of this Bill, leaving Clause 2, which is a. vital part, outside in a separate Act? Not only do we have retroactive legislation—this is the second time the Government have brought this type of legislation on India before this Committee—but we have a form of consolidation of part of an Act, leaving the lawyers of the future to interpret the Act with one part consolidated within the original Act and one part left outside.
It seems to me a quite intolerable position, and I must say we shall have to take some steps about it unless the Government can give us an assurance that they will take the Bill away tonight and reconsider the drafting of Clause 3, which seems to me to be odd in the extreme, and to call for revision in the light of the original Title. I earnestly appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman to take this Bill away and look at the drafting of Clause 3 again.
I must express my disagreement with the point the right hon. Gentleman has just made. The Short Title states that this is a Bill "to amend the Government of India Act, 1935, as respects the effect of Proclamations of Emergency under Section 102 of that Act." Clause 1 of this Bill seeks to amend Section 102 of the 1935 Act. Clause 2 does not make any Amendment to Section 102 of the 1935 Act, and therefore there cannot be any question of consolidation, because Clause 2 of the Bill deals with special procedure to cover cases which necessitated the introduction of this Bill. Therefore, there cannot be anything wrong in referring merely to the Amendment made by Clause 1, because Clause 1 is the Clause which amends Section 102 of the 1935 Act, to which reference is made in the short title of the Bill. The reference to Amendments made in Clause 3 is merely in accordance with the custom in drafting Bills, and is the procedure followed to tie up Amendments made to a major Act in subsequent legislation. As regards the suggestion by the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill should be given further consideration, I can only say that I think we ought to have the Third Reading, but that if as a result of further consideration it is necessary to make any further Amendment—
The Third Reading tonight?
Yes—it could be done in another place. There could be no case for making any reference to Clause 2, because Clause 2 does not seek to make any Amendment to the 1935 Act.
I venture to put before the Committee this submission. Although on the surface there might appear to be some substance in what has been said by hon. Members opposite, nevertheless I think that there is a good answer to put forward on behalf of the Government. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) referred to Clause 3, and stated that it was, in part, the Clause which consolidated the Government of India Act. It is nothing of the sort, and therein lies the fallacy of the Opposition's argument. All that Clause 3 says is that, for the convenience of persons who are occasionally required in the course of their duties to look at various Statutes, His Majesty's printer should print a copy of the 1935 Act containing certain Amendments. That is one thing, but it is quite another thing to say that by reason of those instructions given to His Majesty's printer certain Acts have been consolidated. Consolidation can only take place when the matter is discussed on the Floor of the House of Commons. What Clause 3 does in fact is this: it says that this Bill amends Section 102 of the Government of India Act, 1935—that is the sole purpose of this Bill—and it provides that the Government of India Act, 1935, when printed in India by His Majesty's printer, should contain these Amendments. While doing so we might as well put in Amendments made under Section 6 of the Indian Franchise Act, 1945.
The hon. Member is defending the Government; may I ask him a question?
I do not propose to give way to the Noble Lord, because he did? not extend that courtesy to me on another occasion. I am afraid that the thread of my thought has been broken by the intervention—
It was not very good thought in the first instance.
—of the Noble Lord. But since he did not know what I was going to say, his reasoning that what I was about to say was not worth listening to must be fallacious. However, if I might conclude my argument—the Title of this Bill explains perfectly the purpose of the Bill even in so far as it requires the Government of India Act, 1935, when printed, for certain limited purposes to include certain other Amendments which were made some time ago. In my respectful submission this Bill does not require any further amendment, since the Government have a complete answer to the argument of the Opposition benches.
7.30 p.m.
I did not intend to intervene but for the last remarks made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary, when he suggested that there would be another opportunity, after this House has given the Bill its Third Reading, to look into the matter and correct it, if necessary. Might I remind the Committee that this Bill has reached us from another place? When it receives its Third Reading from this House and goes back to that other place, the only thing that they can then consider will be whether they agree or disagree with the Amendments which have been" made. They cannot possibly discuss or raise anything which is not an Amendment to the Bill as it leaves us, so that I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that this is the last opportunity. But having said that, frankly, I do not follow the view taken by the two right hon. Gentlemen on this side. The Short Title to the Bill is a short description of, and a short guide to, what is contained in the Bill; and this one very rightly says that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will amend the Government of India Act, 1935, as respects the proclamation of emergency under Section (102) of that Act. That is a correct description of the only thing that this Bill does do. It amends the Act of 1935. Having done that, in Clause 3, it then goes on to say that:
"A copy of the Government of India Act, 1935 … shall be prepared and certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments."
But not only the Act of 1935, but the Amendments that have since been made shall be included. The only one so far as I know, and I suppose it is the only one, until we come to this Bill, is Section (6) of the India Franchise Act, 1945. The next one will be this Bill when it becomes law. All that Clause 3 says is that, for the convenience of Members, we direct that parts of the Acts of Parliament shall be printed together so that anybody reading them will read them all together. Then nobody, looking at the Act of 1935, can be ignorant of the fact that Amendments have been made. This does not add to the Bill; it does not add in any way to any Amendment that has already been made in Clause 1 or in any Amendment of the Act of 1935.
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman know of any other, Amendments made to the Act of 1935? If so, are they going to be bound up with that Act? How can we distinguish between the original Act and Amendments made since, if Sections, or some of them, are to be bound up with the original Act?
So far as I know this is the only Amendment that has been made since 1935 till we come to this Bill and, therefore, very rightly the draftsmen have said the right thing to do when we print the Act of 1935 in future, is to print also this Amendment. There is another Amendment that has been made, just prior to this, in the India Franchise Act of 1945. We print that as well, so that the three can be read together. It is not consolidation, as the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is. It is a matter of convenience, and, very properly, should be put through, but it does not add to the Act and it all comes within the short title. In these circumstances, I should think it was quite right and that there is no need to amend this.
This is a very complicated thing to me, who am interested in India. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite read out the Short Title "to amend the Government of India Act," and so on. He said that was the only one that was amended. Why not stop at Clause 1, and not include Clauses 2 and 3, and leave it at that? The Leader of the Liberal Party has pointed out that this is not consolidating, but that for another reason Clauses 2 and 3 have been printed in this Bill. Why not add to the Short Title and say all that Clause 1 proposes to do? Why not add a few words and say at the same time what Clauses 2 and 3 propose to do? I think that would make it clear, at any rate to me, and to most people in India also.
I have now been able to obtain some advice, and I hope to be able to convince the right hon. Gentleman opposite that although we have had great fun chasing the hare, none the less it is a hare. In every Act that has been passed since 1935 amending the Government of India Act of that year an identical Section has been contained in each Act. I happen to have with me two amending Acts, an Act called the India and Burma (Temporary Miscel- laneous Provisions) Act, 1942, and the India (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1944, and in both these Acts there is a Section at the end in identical words with Clause 3 of this Bill, with the exception that the reference to Amendments is always a reference to Amendments contained in the last Act preceding that with which we are dealing. So that in this case the reference is to the Amendments which are contained in Section 6 of the India Franchise Act of 1945. That Section 6 contains Amendments contained in the previous Act prior to the Act of 1945. The Bill we are discussing tonight refers to Amendments contained in Section 6 of the India Franchise Act, 1945, the last Act that was passed amending the Act of 1935. In view of that explanation, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the Clause is quite right.
I must say, subject to what my hon. and right hon. Friends have to say, that we are now eliciting a most interesting piece of information from the hon. and learned Gentleman, namely, that Section 6 of the Franchise Act, 1945—I apologise for not having it with me, but I do not always have my authorities with me—includes, in fact, previous Amendments to the Government of India Act, 1935; and so this Bill is rolling up previous alterations made; and for once the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) was not absolutely right in saying there had not been Amendments. So, the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Government are all learning from the activities of the Opposition, fortified by a very good holiday.
I trust the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government will realise we have returned in a mood to examine most critically the manner in which Parliament is proposed to be treated in this Session, and it was not until the hon. and learned Gentleman produced the explanation that he has, that any sign of satisfaction appeared on our visages this evening at all. But though my hon. and right hon. Friends are feeling a little happier, we are not completely satisfied; and during this interval in which the hon. and learned Gentleman has been obtaining information so that he might address us with his usual facility, we organised our forces for a battle; but in view of his exposition it will not be necessary to divide the House on this Clause.
Although I entirely associate myself with my right hon. Friend—I have been his second-in-command in this little engagement—I do ask that when we come to the Third Reading this point may be considered further, because I. am not satisfied. I do not ask him to decide now. I would thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for the care he has taken in this matter, especially as he was handicapped by the hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway, whose speech can be described as the exact opposite of clarity of exposition.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) [Money]
Resolution reported:
"That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament towards local government expenses in Scotland of a further sum in addition to the General Exchequer Contribution payable under Section fifty-three of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, in respect of each of three years and for the apportionment of such sum among the counties and large burghs of Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, of grants to local authorities in Scotland in respect of the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-five, and of each of the two following years, of amounts representing respectively Exchequer contributions of one million three hundred and seventy-five thousand pounds, one million five hundred and twelve thousand five 'hundred pounds and one million six hundred and fifty thousand pounds."
Resolution agreed to.
Adjournment
Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. Collindridge .]
Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes to Eight o'Clock.