May I ask for your guidance, Major Milner, because I am in a difficulty. The first two Subsections of Clause I provide that the Acts placed in Part I of the Schedule shall continue for one year, and those placed in Part II shall continue for two years. I have an Amendment on the Order Paper with regard to the last-mentioned Act in Part II—the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946. If I were not successful with that Amendment and it was not accepted by the Committee, I should desire to argue that that Act should be placed in Part I and should therefore continue for only one year instead of two. If I do not raise the point now, I feel that I might be prevented from raising it on the Schedule, and I should like to know if I shall be safe in leaving the matter until the Amendment has been disposed of.

The hon. Member knows from his long experience that it would be competent for him to raise the matter on the Question that the Schedule, amended or unamended, be the Schedule to the Bill. That will be his opportunity.

Am I correct in deducing that, without saying anything further at this stage, it would be quite competent to oppose Part I of the Schedule, or, if one desires to do that, is it necessary to oppose this Clause?

It would clearly be competent for hon. Members to vote against the Schedule as a whole. There is no Amendment down, and the question of the Schedule retaining Parts I and II does not, I think, arise.

I confess myself at fault here. I have no complaint to make about anyone, and I simply want to have guidance in curing my own default. I did desire to move an Amendment to Part I of the Schedule to omit one of the Acts therein mentioned. I could do that by means of a manuscript Amendment, if that were acceptable. I would like to know whether I should be compelled to oppose either this Clause or Part I of the Schedule in order to make my point?

I think the hon. Member's real question is whether he should oppose this Clause, and that is entirely for him. I should have thought that it was sufficient to argue his point on the Schedule, but, if he has a manuscript Amendment, though I cannot make any promise, I will have a look at it.

May I ask for some explanation of Clause I (3)?: It states:

Any unrepealed enactments which are temporary in their duration shall, in so far as they amend or affect any enactment continued by the foregoing provisions of this Act, be continued in like manner as that enactment whether they are mentioned in the Schedule to this Act or not.

As the hon. Gentleman very well knows, this is a Clause in common form. It is a saving Clause, but I cannot give him, nor would he expect me to, a list of possible unrepealed enactments which should be included here. This is simply a device practised by draftsmen and accepted by Governments all down the years to provide that, if anything has been overlooked, the omission could be rectified.

That is exactly the point. I know it is common form, and that is obvious. It is just as well to know, in the circumstances, if the Government have anything in their minds that might be caught up in this manner. Anyone knowing the Government's mind might think that there are several things which they have overlooked.

I should like to ask for an explanation how Clause 2 applies to Northern Ireland, and what is the Act which the Government of Northern Ireland have not passed but which this Clause seeks to continue. What is the power of this Government in Northern Ireland which is not subject to ratification by the Government of Northern Ireland? There are a number of very bad laws giving powers to this House in Northern Ireland, and I should like to know if these bad laws are to be continued indefinitely. There are some good laws, but there are some very bad ones, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to inform the House why he seeks power in this Clause to continue laws of which I am not aware, and the continuance of which, if I was aware of them, I should oppose. I might endanger some of the good laws which operate from this House, but, for the purpose of clarification for myself, as I am the only Irish Member now present, I ask the Government for an explanation.

We are dealing in this Clause with enactments or part of enactments set forth in the Schedule, and some of them apply to Northern Ireland and some quite clearly do not. For instance, the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act does not apply to Northern Ireland nor to England, nor does the Education (Exemptions) (Scotland) Act. Clause 2 simply continues certain legislation, and where an Act does not apply to Northern Ireland it shall not apply in the future.

The right hon. Gentleman's explanation has not clarified the position for me. He has wonderful ways of going forward and going backward. If these laws to which he refers do not apply to Northern Ireland why bring them in here when we have a Government of Ireland Act, 1920? Under it we have the same powers to create and operate laws as has this Government. What I wanted from the right hon. Gentleman were details of the Acts which this Bill applies to Northern Ireland and which we in Northern Ireland cannot make for ourselves. What laws are operating in Northern Ireland which we in Northern Ireland have not the power to operate through the medium of the Government of Northern Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman has not divulged this information. I agree there is the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act. Many times we have suffered by that Act and still hon. Members of this Parliament call us friends. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to clarify the position along the lines I have suggested.

At this stage someone ought to get up and point out that there are a considerable number of Acts which apply to the whole of the United Kingdom—to Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and even England, and that most of those laws are very good. What should be taken notice of this morning is that the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. J. Beattie) made a speech which for a great many reasons was one of the best advertisements we have ever had of the great value and virtue of the Government of Northern Ireland. I am glad to see that he thinks the Government of Northern Ireland is absolutely first class.

The hon. Member wants to ask the Government of Northern Ireland what they think of me.

I propose to accept the manuscript Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), in page 3, to leave out lines 12 to 15.

I beg to move in page 3, to leave out lines 12 to 15.

On a point of Order. I think it has been ruled from the Chair on previous occasions on discussion of the Schedules of this Bill that detailed administration by Ministers cannot be criticised, but the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), if I understand him aright, is going even further and is drawing a distinction between what the Minister has done in a particular case and the advice tendered to him by his permanent officials. Surely that cannot be right?

As the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has said. we are now dealing with legislation and not with administration.

I thought I myself said so. I am not in the least criticising anybody in relation to the matter I have in mind. I said that. I have already said that I think justice was ultimately done. I do not criticise the officials concerned, either, because I have no reason to suppose, and I do not suppose, that there was any conflict of opinion between the officials in the case I have mentioned and the Minister. I am sure all concurred in the result, and the result was not unreasonable. I quoted this particular example, not by way of criticising anybody at all but in order to illustrate the kind of way in which secret powers of this kind must be exercised and the harm they do. If I may continue for one more sentence on the point, I think the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) will see what I mean and will appreciate that I am not criticising either the Minister, or the officials, or the administrative action taken.

One of the difficulties which arises in accepting a manuscript Amendment in this case from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is that I have not before me the text of the Aliens Act. I gather that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has not the text, either. We are, therefore, in some difficulty, but it would appear to me that he is really dealing with the administration of the Act and not with the Act itself or with the desirability or otherwise of deleting this from the Schedule.

I must be guided by you, Major Milner, and I certainly do not want to do anything which you think is wrong, but what I am objecting to is that absolute powers are given to a Minister. The reason I am objecting is that I think absolute powers of that kind can never be exercised in such a way as to produce justice as it is produced by an open inquiry before a tribunal, or by some other way short of arbitrary power by the Minister. It is a little difficult to see how I can illustrate my point unless I can show how this kind of dictatorial power impedes justice and even prevents justice from being done.

This is not by any means the first time that objection has been taken to the continuance of this particular provision. My hon. Friend has put forward a perfectly sound and reasonable argument of principle, namely, if I understood it rightly, that the control of aliens—and I gather he does not deny that there has to be a control—should be exercised by the Secretary of State acting always in public, always giving his reasons, and subject to the proceedings of some kind of judicial or semi-judicial tribunal; in other words, that, generally speaking, the discretion of the Secretary of State should be taken from him or should be exercised only in the light of proceedings of the tribunal. That is a perfectly intelligible principle, and one with which, I should imagine, many of us feel sympathy. However, at the same time, I think experience has shown, even in wartime, when it was a very much easier thing, in a sense, to devise suitable rules—for people were prepared to accept much more stringent rules then than in peacetime—that it is extremely difficult to get any system of control by tribunals which is satisfactory.

Would my hon. Friend explain to the Committee how evidence of improper use could ever be available under this system?

I can only say that I have been personally connected with this only a bare year, and that it is my experience that there is no lack of persons to champion anybody who feels he is wronged in the operation of the Aliens Order. I do not think it can fairly be said that there is any kind of Star Chamber procedure which prevents Members of this House from knowing the principles upon which the administration of this Order is carried out.

How is it possible for any Member of this House to champion cases, as my hon. Friend suggests, if we do not know about them? The 1919 amending Act gives the Minister the power to arrest, to detain, to prevent interview, and to prevent anybody's having any contact at all with the person detained. How can one possibly get to know about such a case?

And power to deport.

Yes.

Deport, yes; but I do not know where my hon. Friend gets all the rest of what he has just said. I am not aware of any such powers. It is true that there is a power of detention and of deportation, but I think, except in wartime, when it is impossible sometimes to deport a person, that the detention is of an extremely limited duration. I do not think there is any foundation for my hon. Friend's allegations.

Would my hon. Friend allow me? We are discussing this somewhat in the dark. We are discussing this somewhat unexpectedly, and there is no Memorandum, except the Financial Memorandum, to the Bill. However, would my hon. Friend tell the Committee just what powers this Clause does give?

We are somewhat at a disadvantage in not knowing that this was to be raised in this specific way. I am afraid that I have only a note of the actual list of powers given under the Act of 1914. The original powers appear in Section 1 of the Act of 1914. They were continued by Section 1 of the Act of 1919, which I have here; but they were not actually repeated, only continued by reference. The provisions in the 1914 Act covered control of the landing and embarkation of aliens, their occupation and employment, provisions as to their registration, powers as to controlling their residence, their movements, and their deportation. I think that is an exhaustive list, but I have not the actual text of the 1914 Act with me.

I am sure my hon. Friend wants to be quite frank and candid about this. Which of the powers which my hon. Friend the Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) alleged the Secretary of States has, does the Under-Secretary of State say he has not got? He read out what he said was an exhaustive list. Except for the power of life and death I cannot think of anything missing from it. Has he power to deport anybody without reason? When he decides to deport anybody, has he power to arrest him at once if he does not deport him at once? What is the extent of the limitation of detention? It would appear that there is power to detain and to deport anybody unreasonably, without reasonable cause, and that nobody can stop it.

I said just now that I agree that there are powers of deportation. My hon. Friend was right about that, but as to the suggestion that a man could be detained, and anybody prevented from contacting him in detention, I said I know of no justification for that statement, either in the Act or in the Aliens Order.

But my hon. Friend could not deport a man unless he had arrested and detained him.

I think I have made it quite plain. Obviously, if there is a power of deportation, and a decision is taken to deport, it must be open to the Secretary of State to hold a man for the purpose of putting him in a ship. That is the purpose for which the man can be detained. I think that the best evidence for the interpretation that has always been put upon this power lies in the fact that during the war, when it was impossible because of the Nazi oc- cupation of Europe to deport persons whom it was desirable to deport, a special article had to be added to the Aliens Order to permit the detention of aliens under the Aliens Order for an indefinite period. That article was maintained only to meet the special circumstances of the war, and has now been cancelled. It was used only in the war. I think that that, at any rate, is some support for what I am saying.

What is being claimed is surely a simple and reasonable thing. If we are to take action against a man on which the whole course of his future life may depend, it is unfair to do so without telling him why it is being done, what there is against him and on what evidence the charges are being made, and to give him an opportunity of rebutting them. If it is said that the hearing should not be in public the courts have power to hear cases in secret, or a special tribunal could be set up. It is surely wrong that the person should not be told on what grounds his liberty is taken away and his whole future sacrificed.

I think that the hon. Member is trying to equate proceedings that take place with regard to deportation or exclusion with a criminal trial. I think that he is overlooking the fact that there must be many cases where there is not a precise charge, as there would be in a criminal trial, backed by the sort of evidence which would be brought to sustain a criminal charge in a court of law, but where there is, nevertheless, ample ground for removing the alien. We all know that the effects in a limited class of cases may be very serious, but in the great majority of cases where exclusion or deportation is operated, it is not against persons long associated with this country who have built up their lives here. In 99 cases out of 100, it is not the sort of case where the whole life and reputation of the alien is at stake. I believe that it would be very hard indeed to devise any rules for a tribunal which could be operated in the manner which my hon. Friend suggests, and which would be satisfactory for the welfare of this country and, at the same time, be operated in a reasonable way for the reputation of the person concerned.

rose——

I did not anticipate that we were going to have a long Debate. If hon. Members desire to continue the debate I ought to make it clear that we are discussing the continuance or otherwise of the powers set out in Section 1 (1) of the 1919 Act. It is not permissible to discuss alternatives. The simple question is whether or not these powers should be continued year by year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.

I listened very carefully to what the Under-Secretary had to say, and it is obvious that he has failed to realise that in asking for a continuance of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, he had to give the Committee some very genuine and logical reason why it was necessary to continue it. He has not given any evidence that it will be necessary. He has simply told us how the Home Office justify the administration of it in the past in certain circumstances. He has not dealt with the principle that underlies the whole of the Amendment, which was based on certain conditions in this country, under which it was possible for people to take subversive action which rendered it necessary for someone to have particular powers to deal with that immediately. Obviously, the powers were vested in the Home Secretary. He might have told the House today if we are now in a situation in which we require a Minister of this country to have the sole power to arrest, to detain and to deport, without consulting anyone. In certain circumstances, British subjects might be involved in a matter due to the fact that they have some connection with the victim of this sort of legislation in peace-time.

The speech of the Under-Secretary raised a question in my mind which I should be grateful if he would answer. There are various reasons why these laws are repeated annually in this Act. The reason I have always understood why the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, is continued by this Act is that it was one of the Acts of a semi-suspensory nature, and an Act which provided the State with powers which it was considered desirable that the State should have in case of need, but it was not an Act which was considered necessary to put upon the permanent Statute Book because there was not any permanent need for these powers, and the powers were not expected to be exercised with frequency. The hon. Gentleman, in his speech, used an expression which indicated that the provisions under the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act were being used with very great frequency. He referred to the constant searching of his conscience and in other ways gave me that impression. The question which I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would answer is approximately how many cases have been dealt with under this Act in the past year.

Would the hon. Gentleman tell me why he considers that this Act should be continued at the present time, particularly in view of the fact that a different line is now being taken in connection with naturali- sation, in which an opportunity is given to any person who is refused naturalisation or about to be refused to have the matter brought before an appeal committee? His case is considered and decided by the Committee which is set up under that Act. Such procedure seems to me to be the right lines along which questions relating to aliens should be dealt with.

The hon. Member is now dealing with the question of administration. I hope that hon. Members, having regard to what I have said, will confine themselves to the question of the continuance or otherwise of the powers concerned without going into the administration of those powers.

I was giving that example by way of illustrating that the Act implies that there is no right vested in anybody to have his case brought before any tribunal. Therefore, with the greatest respect, I think I am in Order in suggesting that that is a bad thing, and that it does not really enable an individual to justify any actions or any course of conduct concerning which he may be attacked, before any body which can judicially consider his particular claim.

It would be quite irresponsible to suggest that in the present state of the world the Home Secretary should be denied drastic powers to deal with aliens, but I do not think that point of view ends the discussion on this Amendment. There was one point made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), to which the Under-Secretary did not reply, and which certainly carries some weight with me. That is, whether the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is the proper vehicle for the continuance of these powers. It would be absurdly optimistic to suggest that the Home Secretary will be able to discard powers, not necessarily exactly these powers but of this nature, for many years to come, in view of the state of the world. I wonder whether it would not be more satisfactory to have the matter dealt with by permanent Statute. That would have the advantage, firstly, that this House would know what it was doing and would not merely be participating in a pretence that the matter was being dealt with on a temporary basis, when everybody knows that it will have to be dealt with on a permanent basis.

Will the hon. Member say why he is supporting His Majesty's Government on a matter which he agrees is a disagreeable necessity?

As I believe the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) has found on occasions, it is disagreeable to support this Government. In fact, I believe that he too has found it a disagreeable thing to do, and I congratulate him upon it. On this issue, it is quite clear that the Home Secretary must have the powers. Therefore, if the hon. Member tries to deprive him of them, I shall do my best to see that he does not succeed. I hope that in the interval between now and next year the Home Office will consider whether it will not be more satisfactory to bring forward an up-to-date statute of as a permanent nature as any statute is, so that we shall not require to have this point raised year after year, and so that we may have the position brought up-to-date and put on a satisfactory legal basis. I do not think that this temporary sham annual statute is the proper way of dealing with the question.

The first point I wish to make was that this Act was first passed on 5th August, 1914, and could not have been passed on any other day. It is important that the House should have in mind that it was passed immediately after the declaration of war, when it was obviously necessary to give the Executive wide powers which they would not have been given in peace-time. When we come to the transition period after the war, when there was difficulty about the peace treaty, it was extended for 12 months. The Act of 1919 says that the powers which were specifically given only for war-time and a state of grave national emergency, could be extended for 12 months after the end of 1919, which was the period when we attempted to re-approach the tranquillity which never rapidly came.

Society must be protected.

Yes, but we have also to protect humanity. We have to protect the elementary principle of the dignity of the human being. We have to respect the historic tradition of this country, and the right of political asylum which is part of its great tradition. We have to have regard to the fact that if a man did not have the privilege of being born in the United Kingdom—he may have been born on the high seas—he is, nevertheless, entitled to the same elementary rights that it is our desire to accord, as far as possible, to citizens of all countries.

It is possible that I am the only Member here who can be considered to be partly responsible for the 1919 Act, as I was in the Parliament of that year. It is seldom that I agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but I do so today. It should be the first duty of Parliament and each of its Members to look after the interests and freedom of the private individual. Nothing is more important or vital to our work. The trouble with this Bill is that from year to year there is only one real opportunity to discuss the administrative effect of its operations, and that is on the Home Office Vote. We cannot properly discuss its administration today. That is why I object, in principle, to the Act being continued in this manner. When the Act was extended in 1919 few people imagined that it would continue for another 20 or 25, or even 30 years. The necessity for it then was the after-war period, but for year after year since then we have kept the Act in being because Governments have never been able to make up their minds precisely how they wish to deal with an alien coming into this country.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) for his useful and helpful intervention. I can assure him that I will bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend the views expressed by the Committee, but I certainly could not give any undertaking that my right hon. Friend will, on consideration, think it would be useful to introduce a permanent Measure. I believe that there is a good deal of unreality in the alleged advantages of having a permanent Measure for this particular purpose.

I thank the Chair for having permitted me to move this Amendment without notice, and I do not think it would be right to ask the Committee to take a decision upon it in this way. However, before doing what I propose to do, I should like to say two things. No one supposes that, in the world as it is today, we can go back to 1914 in this or most other matters. No one supposes that we ought not to have an immigration policy, or that the Executive ought not to have powers to control the movements, admission and deportation of aliens. If I may say so with great respect to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, we all want to protect society, but we think society is better protected by good laws than by bad, and that it is better protected by freedom than by the arbitrary administration of matters which affect people's lives very deeply.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, column 3, after "one," to insert:

"except so much of that section as defines a 'built-up area' by reference to a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps not more than two hundred yards apart."

"A built-up area shall be deemed to exist where a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart is provided thereon."

I appreciate that the hon. Member has a helpful purpose in mind in moving his Amendment. The definition of built-up area has been fully considered in the past. When the Road Traffic Act of 1934 was going through this House there was considerable Debate in the Committee about what should be the proper definition of built-up area in order to arrive at a standard for the 30-mile-an-hour speed limit. There were various suggestions put forward. The right hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank), who is here with us this morning as he was then, suggested that these should not be called built-up areas but lit-up areas. That did not seem to commend itself to the Committee, although I cannot see why, for it seems to me to be an excellent definition, if I may say so.

Thank you.

I am sorry that he was not able to carry his right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) with him on that occasion. Finally, the decision was reached that the best way of determining a built-up area for this purpose should be an area in which street lamps were situated not more than 200 yards apart. There were a lot of gloomy forecasts made that the system would prove to be unworkable. Indeed, it is interesting to read the account of the Debate which took place in Committee and to see how these forecasts have been falsified by events. In point of fact, I think it is true to say that it has worked admirably. Nowadays the motorist knows that if he is in an area where there are street lamps, he is in an area where the 30 miles an hour limit is operating. Broadly speaking that is the case, and he knows where he stands.

I appreciate what the Minister has said and I think in intention there is practically no difference between his outlook and mine. It is evident that if the advice tendered to him is correct, my Amendment goes further than I desired or intended it should. It was not my desire that we should abolish the existing system. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said in that connection. However, I believe, although he did not specifically say it, that he is also with me in the view that the time has passed when new street lighting systems should automatically necessitate the introduction of the 30-mile-an-hour speed limit. I agree that where there are lamp posts—which is not invariably the case nowadays by any means—they are a useful guide to the motorist. On the other hand, it is by no means necessary, and the introduction of the speed limit can perfectly well be brought about by Ministerial order based upon the general principle that in those other circumstances which arise, such as a main road, where it is a lit-up area, in the Minister's expression, it would be a good thing to have an order.

On the whole, I think the system of defining this by reference to street lighting is administratively the best and most convenient, especially with the reserve powers that the Minister has of considering whether street lighting is the best way of doing it, and de-restricting a road if necessary or putting a restriction on if that is necessary. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the hon. Gentleman as far as that point is concerned.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 44, col. 3, after "Act," to insert "except Section seven."

"but save as aforesaid nothing in this Act shall affect any provisions of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts, 1920 to 1939."

"Many flats comprised in blocks are let at rents which include a charge not only for the accommodation but for services provided and maintained by the landlord such as porterage, cleaning, hot water, central heating, lifts and refrigerators."

"We agree that, if the provisions of these services in accordance with the standard agreed between the landlord and the tenant involves the landlord in a greater expenditure than he had to incur before the war, he should be entitled to an increase in the rent. The amount of the increase must obviously depend on the services provided in each individual case. This is a question eminently suitable, in our view, for decision by the Rent Tribunals, who will be able to decide on the appropriate increase on the evidence produced to them. Since the expense of providing services may have been continuing for some time at a higher level, Tribunals should arrange to give applications of this kind a high priority."

"We are agreed that this, in common with other problems, must be reconsidered at some point. The view of the Government is that we have not the time at present to bring proposals before the House."

"I do not believe it would be right to take a special and relatively small section of property and treat it differently from the broad generality of property under the Rent Restrictions Acts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1947; Vol. 443, c. 1266-7.]

"You will also be asked to pass a measure to provide for reviewing the rents of shared rooms, and of houses and flats let for the first time since the war."

I assume that the hon. Member is moving his Amendment to except Section 7, and, although I do not know what view the Government may take, his remarks are clearly applicable to the point he raised earlier—that, if Section 7 is not excepted, he would wish those remarks to be considered by the Government in relation to the transfer of this particular item, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act to Part I instead of being in Part II. I do not desire, if it can be avoided, a second Debate on the Schedule, because the arguments are precisely the same. May I take it that the hon. Member has covered that point?

May I say, in order to avoid further discussion on the Schedule, that, if the Government were prepared to accept this Amendment, we should be most happy that the Act should continue in operation for another two years. If they do not accept it, I feel that we ought to have another look at the Furnished Houses Act next year.

I do not understand the hon. Member's reference to two years. Perhaps he would explain it?

Unless I have completely misread the Bill, it places the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act in Part II and, if the hon. Gentleman will look——

The difference is not between one and two years; the actual difference is between 31st December, 1949, and 31st March, 1950. It is a difference of three months, not double the time.

I apologise for that oversight, but I feel that it should come into Part I so that we can have a look at it when, next year, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is again before the House.

I am obliged to the hon. Member.

I should like to support the Amendment, for which my hon. Friend has set out all the arguments. I should imagine that there must be a very wide measure of agreement that the Rent Restriction Acts are fast becoming a sort of madman's paradise, so that it will soon be more appropriate to refer them, not to the Courts of Justice, but to the Commissioners in Lunacy. They started off with the idea of protecting the tenants of small houses against exorbitant rents, but they have now gone far beyond that and we find these Acts being applied to the protection of tenants of luxury flats in the West End of London.

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) has referred to the fact that he raised this matter about this time last year and he has been good enough to quote some of the words I used on that occasion. That means that my words on this occasion can be very few indeed. The arguments he advanced are substantially those he advanced last year, and such extra points as he put to the Committee do not alter the view I must take on this proposal. After all, the effect of what the hon. Member is proposing would, as I understand it, mean that for the very limited field of service flats and houses controlled rents should be increased or for that matter reduced, and for a limited field of furnished houses rents controlled under the Rent Act could be reduced. I am quite certain that Parliament, when it passed the Act of 1946, clearly intended that only those rents which were not already subject to control should be dealt with, and that the Act should not, therefore, apply to controlled rents.

I would ask for your Ruling, Mr. Bowles, on a point raised a few minutes ago when we were on this Amendment as to whether you would permit a discussion on the Question that this be the Schedule to the Bill, because that raises further points on which I should like to make some comment. I understood from the Chairman before you took over that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) could discuss both point—sfirst the question of Section 7, with which he was specifically dealing, and then on the Schedule as a whole he could refer to other matters which would enable that provision to be dealt with on the basis of a shorter period than is intended by Part II of the Schedule. If it is for the convenience of the Committee that these matters should be dealt with at the same time, I should like to say a word or two now, but if not I will reserve what I have to say till we discuss the Motion that this be the Schedule to the Bill.

Perhaps the hon. Member would start his remarks and we can see how he goes along. If he gets out of Order I shall stop him.

In that event I want to say that I am not in accord with the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield in his desire in any sense to limit the powers already existing, whether this be exercisable by the courts or by tribunals. He himself is asking for a piecemeal dealing with Acts which require very extensive modifications and Amendments, and which, in my view, in order to be fully effective or understood, will have to form part and parcel of a consolidating Measure. I do not think that the public as a whole—landlords or tenants but particularly tenants—have the foggiest idea of their powers under these Acts, including those parts to which the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has referred. Certainly we should have a very much larger number of cases coming before the tribunals and the courts under these Acts if it were understood what powers the Acts gave the people and what they are entitled to demand.

On a point of Order. Shall we be in Order, Sir, in discussing in this Debate the whole merits of this Act? We are discussing the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), not the question whether the Act should be included in Part I or Part II of the Schedule. If we are to be allowed to range over the whole Act, could we have your Ruling on the point?

We do not want a discussion on the whole Act, but I think the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) is in Order so far. Although I cannot say whether or not he is in favour of the Amendment, I think he has been in Order. It would not be in Order however to have a discussion about the whole Act.

Before you assumed the Chair, Sir, it was ruled by your predecessor, and it has been ruled in previous years in a Debate of this sort—indeed I think the point was raised by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) this morning—that it is not proper or allowable for a discussion to take place on the administration of any particular Act.

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that information. I hope the hon. Member for West Leicester will take note that that is the condition.

I am obliged. I am not commenting on the administration of the Act. What I am commenting on is the necessity for the continuance of this Act without interference, in so far as it is possible for there to be no interference with it. I am showing, therefore, that this Act should be included in the Schedule because it has served a very useful purpose. I intend also to try and show by means of figures that if the Act could be exercised as fuliy as we would like, then the results would be even greater than those I have given. The Chairman of the East London Rent Tribunal referred in a statement which he made, and which was quoted in the "Leicester Mercury," to the rent tribunals, saying that in its present form the law has led to the creation of a new social group, which he called "the Order of the Trembling Tenants."

On a point of Order. It was ruled by your predecessor, Sir, I think to the knowledge of everybody at present in the Committee, that the discussion on this Amendment might cover the actual Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), which is designed to continue The Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, with the exception of a single Section—Section 7—and also that we might discuss the point whether or not the continuance of that Act should be for 12 months or for 15 months. No one has at any time suggested the deletion of this Act from the Schedule and I submit, therefore, that the remarks of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) who is seeking to justify the inclusion of this Act in the Schedule, are out of Order.

The hon. Member for West Leicester has the advantage of me. He heard my predecessor's Ruling; I did not. Perhaps he will abide by it.

I do not want to take advantage of the Committee in the sense of speaking at an earlier time than is permissible. I do not wish to ask you, Sir, to make a decision on this point, because that would not be fair in view of the fact that your predecessor has already made a decision. It is possible that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) is right and that that is what your predecessor meant. Obviously, we are going to discuss this when we are discussing the Schedule itself. If the right hon. Gentleman feels happier that we should not discuss it at the present time, I shall be very pleased indeed to make my further points when we are discussing the Schedule as a whole. I had hoped we might save time by discussing it now, but I am quite prepared to finish at this point and to indicate that I would like to say a word or two more on the subject when the Question that this he the Schedule to the Bill comes before us.

There is one point I would like to raise with the Minister, and that is when do the Government propose to bring forward this comprehensive legislation on the Rent Restriction Acts? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health gave the same excuses last year as those given this year when he said on 31st October:

"The view of the Government is that we have not the time at present to bring proposals before the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1947; Vol. 443, c. 1266.]

I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the occasion. We are considering whether to continue certain laws, and we are in particular considering whether Section 7 of the Act we have been discussing should be continued. We are not discussing in any way any comprehensive review. Nor would it be proper for me to begin to answer the question the hon. Gentleman has put. I have claimed that the Act of 1946 has served a useful purpose and ought to be continued, and I have said that I cannot accept the hon. Baronet's view that we should give what, in fact, would be special treatment to a small group in circumstances in which, certainly at this moment of time, nothing can be done for the larger group. I cannot even begin—I should be ruled out of Order were I to try—to indicate the Government's view on the whole realm of rents restriction to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Before we leave this matter I should like to take it a little further. The Parliamentary Secretary, as I understand it, has admitted quite candidly that the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend is fully justified on merits. He has not said a single word against the merits of the Amendment, and, indeed, his whole case was that this is a meritorious Amendment, but that there are other meritorious Amendments which could be made, and that if we made this one we should cause trouble elsewhere, because the others were not made.

I have not discussed the merits. What I have said is that I am not prepared to agree to alter the law in this one small respect. I put my case in that way, without, in fact, arguing the merits, which I did on a previous occasion endeavour to do.

Let me say first of all that I think we are indebted to you, Sir, for the Ruling which you have given, for it is a far more convenient course to dispose of this Amendment rather than to take a discussion upon the whole merits of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, which the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), quite rightly and properly from his point of view, wishes to do.

"Where on any reference of a contract, the rent whereunder includes payment for services, the tribunal are of opinion that it would be proper that the rent payable for the premises should include an amount in respect of increases…. in the cost of providing such services…"

I am sorry if I did not answer the one point which your predecessor in the Chair, Sir, agreed we could take in the discussion on this Amendment. I did point out that it was just three months' difference. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that previously we continued this until the end of December. The reason for the change is a quite simple one. When we were preparing this Bill on this occasion it was pointed out to us that it would be much more convenient if we could renew the Act for a period of 15 months in order to coincide with the financial provisions in the Estimates. That seemed to my Department to be a sensible course. Therefore, for the first time now, I agree, we are actually asking for this particular Act to be extended for the 15th months' period. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that, of course, will not alter the time at which the House will be asked to reconsider the matter if it is necessary, but I am advised that it would be much more convenient from the Treasury's point of view if we had this renewal for 15 months.

If this is to go on for 15 months, will it come up again in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill next year as usual? Then we shall have the rather curious position of our passing a law which will begin three months, apparently, after the existing period. That is an interesting point to which it is well worth while drawing attention.

It will come up about this time next year as usual. It is quite normal form to have in the Schedule the categories of the expiring dates, at the end of December or the end of March.

I agree that what I intended to say may come more appropriately within the scope of this Motion. Therefore, I want to continue the matter to which I was referring when my right hon. Friend raised the question about the Amendment which was then being discussed. I was saying that these Acts are serving an extremely useful purpose, but not as useful a purpose as they might serve, if they were framed and completely used by the tenants who are entitled to use them, some of whom, in consequence of certain of the provisions of this particular Act, have been described as forming a new social group called "The Order of the Trembling Tenants." "The Order of the Trembling Tenants" arises from the fact that people are frightened in many cases to approach the tribunal——

The hon. Gentleman is not confining himself to the Question, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill." I hope that he will do so.

What I am endeavouring to do is to show that the Act is good in many parts and should, therefore, be continued, but that, nevertheless, it may be utilised even more extensively than it is at present, if it did not contain——

The hon. Gentleman is not allowed to discuss the merits and demerits of the administration of the Act, which is what he is doing.

With great respect, that is what I am intending not to do. If I am infringing, it is with very good intent, but perhaps with very bad results. I am referring to the Act and not the administration of the Act—to the Act itself, why it should remain, and why it may be held by some people that it should not remain. I am trying to show that the advantages of it remaining outweigh the disadvantages of it not remaining, and consequently it should be included in the Schedule.

The Question before the Committee is, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill." If the hon. Gentleman wants the Act to be deleted, he should put down an Amendment to that effect. It is now part of the Schedule itself.

Supposing the Schedule, like the curate's egg, is good in parts, surely I am entitled to say that there are reasons why it should remain as it stands, and that the parts that are good outweigh the parts that are bad to such an extent that I have reason for asking that the Schedule should remain. I think that on that basis I am entitled to say that the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act is very good, but in view of the fact, as has been stated, that in some places as many as 40 tenants——

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to make up his mind whether he wants this Act in the Schedule or not. He must either say which are the good parts of the Schedule which he wishes to retain or which are the bad parts which he wishes to delete and leave the Committee to judge on balance.

That is what I am trying to do. I am not referring to those parts of the Schedule which I agree are very good; I am dealing with a particular portion of the Schedule, and I am trying to show that the Schedule should not be rejected. Because Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act does not permit 40 persons instead of one to come before the courts to have their rents reduced that cannot outweigh the great advantages contained in the other Acts in the Schedule. If I am out of Order in doing that, I will seek another opportunity——

I do say that it is out of Order.

I have no wish to discuss the Act on the question of merit or otherwise. There are a considerable number of Acts in the Schedule, and I should like to know what method the Government have for going into these Acts and deciding whether they should be there or not. Acts sometimes come out of the Schedule. There used to be a committee dealing with this point. Is there still such a committee, is it sitting now, and how often does it generally sit for the purpose of revising and cutting down this Schedule? I am wondering if the committee to which I have referred has been kept in existence since the war, and I should like to ask whoever is to reply whether the attention of this committee is being drawn to the various objections which we may have when we deal with this Bill during its Committee stage.

I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the matter contained in lines 17–20 of the Schedule, which refer to the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934. I propose to make some brief comments on the proposal to continue for a further period of 15 months the provisions of that Act which are mentioned in the Schedule. At the time when the Act was passed the world was just emerging from a shocking economic crisis, and the cotton industry was in the doldrums. At home, spinning mills were stopped, looms were idle——

Hon. Members may say that they like the Schedule or that they do not because certain Measures are contained in it. The hon. Member cannot talk about the merits of any Act contained in the Schedule.

On a point of Order. May I ask, with the greatest respect, how a person can give any reason for his likes or dislikes unless he refers to a Measure in more specific terms, and explains why he likes or dislikes a particular Act which is contained in the Schedule? I quite understand the difference between what is permissible on the Motion we are discussing and what it is permissible for a Member to say in moving an Amendment or in referring to an Amendment which he believes ought to be made. But for the purpose of showing his like or dislike, surely a Member is entitled to say that the provisions of a particular Act please or displease him in consequence of what is contained in that Act or what is left out of it? I hope that we shall not be reduced, in these Debates, to the position of having to get up and say: "I like or I dislike this or that," and that is an end of the matter. That would give the Government, any Government, tremendous scope to evade points of public importance.

The way to proceed is for a Member to put down an Amendment. Otherwise he is out of Order. The position is that the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fairhurst) cannot go into details. He can generally, within certain degrees, discuss an Act which he wishes or does not wish to continue, but he cannot do so in too great a detail.

Shall. I be in Order in asking the Minister certain questions which arise as a result of the 1934 Act?

Perhaps the hon. Member will proceed.

Then I shall confine myself to asking certain questions. The first is whether any useful purpose will be served by continuing this Act? The second is, could a new order prescribing a new list be made, or will it be necessary for both sides of the cotton industry to make a joint approach to the Government, and——

The first question is in Order but the second one is not.

My third question is whether the continuance of this order prevents the adoption of any new scheme of piecework prices, incentives or new wage standards?

That question goes too much into detail.

I must make a protest. How am I to explain to the Committee either the background of my observations and the reasons for them, and how can I persuade the Committee to think about the points which I wish to mention and discuss, if I am only allowed to say that I like or do not like the Act in question? The Act does not now serve any useful purpose, but although I can say that, and although I might be able to justify it, how can I provide that justification if I am not allowed to speak?

The hon. Member for Oldham, like the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), has missed his opportunity by not putting down an Amendment. I agree that he finds himself in an unfortunate position in trying to make the speech he wishes to make within the limits of the Motion before the Committee. He cannot, on this Motion, go into the kind of detail upon which he was embarking.

I have no desire to discuss the Act, but I wish to state certain points which I had in mind about the provisions of that Act.

The answer to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is that Government committees of one kind and another are constantly sitting. It is impossible for me to say whether some committee, unspecified by him other than in his general indication that it was in existence when his party was in office, is still in existence. I can tell him that all the Bills listed in the Schedule are kept under review, and when a Bill of this kind is prepared year by year, the Government Departments concerned are consulted before the Bill takes the shape which it assumes before us today.

I am not satisfied with that answer. I was not referring to a committee which only sat when the party to which I have the honour to belong was in control. There was not in the ordinary sense a Government committee. It was, I think, a Select Committee which used to sit regularly. It was referred to in this House in 1930, when the previous Socialist Government were in power. At that time we received some explanation about what it was doing. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman cannot have all the details and facts before him now, but in considering this Schedule it is of vital importance that we should know if that method of limiting the length of the Schedule is still in operation. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to inquire into this matter, and either on the Third Reading, or else in some other way, perhaps by my putting a Question to him, he could tell the House whether that Select Committee still operates, and if it is now still operating as it used to do.

It is obvious that if there was such a Select Committee it would have been reappointed when this Session began because Select Committees do not continue year after year. I think that the Committee will agree that no Select Committee is sitting on this matter at the moment. The hon. Member asked for an assurance that these matters were closely watched by the Government and Government Departments. I can give him that assurance. They are watched, and where it is possible to allow an Act to expire it is excluded from this Measure.

I thank the Financial Secretary for the amount of information he has given me. We all know that Government Departments review these matters from time to time, but where there is a long Schedule of this kind it is essential that we should have something more than an ordinary Government Department inquiry. There has been at least one instance in which that has led to very unsatisfactory results by Bills having been left hanging over in this way. I hope that as I have drawn attention to the matter some consideration will be given to it by the authorities in the future.

A question has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Fairhurst) as to the Government's reasons for continuing Sections 1 and 2 of the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934. It is highly necessary, in view of what is transpiring in Lancashire that the Government's reason for continuing these Sections should be made quite clear. Unless we preserve Sections 1 and 2 the machinery whereby new wages are established in Lancashire will become defunct, and the present wage system, which is frozen under an order under this Act, cannot be altered. All that Sections 1 and 2 do is to preserve the machinery whereby both sections of the industry may come to the Government and ask for a new order.