I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out from "if," to the end of line 8, and to insert:

"for paragraph (b) (under which regulations may, subject to any prescribed conditions, authorise vehicles to be parked in special parking places without the lights required by the Act) there were substituted—

'(b) any vehicles or vehicles of any class or description when standing or parked within one hundred yards of a street lamp or on road verges or in places specially set aside for the purpose'."

The general object of this Amendment is to make it possible for the Minister of Transport by regulation to legalise parking lights. Hon. Members will be aware that parking lights are in fact in very widespread use in London streets and elsewhere and this practice, although illegal, is connived at by the police. It seems desirable that, if practicable, it should be legalised within the terms and conditions to be laid down by regulations.

That being the general purpose, may I explain how this Amendment seeks to achieve it? The Clause, as amended by this Amendment, would lay down three circumstances in which normal vehicle lighting as prescribed by the Act will not be necessary under regulations to be made by the Minister. The first is in places specially set aside for the purpose. That is already in the existing law and is carried forward into this Clause. The second is where vehicles are standing on road verges. That was in the original form of the Clause agreed to by the Standing Committee and is caught up in the wording I am placing before the House. The novelty occurs in the words:

"any vehicles or vehicles of any class or description when standing or parked within one hundred yards of a street lamp."

The object is to enable the Minister by regulation to legalise vehicles standing without normal lights but using parking lights in lighted streets. The problem one had to face in drafting this Amendment was to define a lighted street and to define a parking light.

The normal definition of a lighted street for the purposes of the speed limit is a street in which there are street lamps 200 yards apart. Had that definition been accepted for this purpose it would have meant that where there was only one light, although perfectly satisfactory, one could not park a car beneath it, although the car was carrying the prescribed parking lights. I have therefore adopted the alternative of specifying the minimum distance from a street lamp.

Hon. Members may be surprised to see that there is no definition of a parking light in the proposed form of words. The reason for that is that once one starts to define a parking light, the matter becomes extremely complex. One not only has to describe the lamp itself but to prescribe the position in which it is to be affixed to the car and the position in which the car must be standing in order that the use of a parking light might be allowed. On consideration it seemed better to allow all these matters to be prescribed by the Minister in due course in the regulations.

I should emphasise that, although it appears to do so, this form of words is not in fact an invitation to allow cars to be left without lights in lighted streets. All it does is enable the Minister to lay down conditions under which they may be so left without the normal lights laid down in the Act. I therefore suggest to the House that this form of words does enable the Minister in due course by regulation to legalise parking lights, which is a desirable object.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Perhaps at this point I may briefly indicate to the House the attitude of the Government towards this Amendment. My right hon. Friend the Minister is not in a position now to say whether or not he intends to legalise the use of parking lamps or to argue the merits of the case in detail. On this he must reserve his decision. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolver-hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) realises that many consultations are necessary with those concerned and especially with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, in conjunction with the police, before the Minister of Transport is in a position to declare whether or how he is ready to give effect by regulation to the permissive power which is here proposed.

Nevertheless, without at this stage giving any undertaking, the Minister does not wish to resist the grant of the power proposed. He fully recognises that in some circumstances, and subject to a number of conditions, the use of parking lamps may prove to be a useful contribution to road safety. It is in line with a growing practice of the public and it has been successfully tried abroad. My hon. Friend is doubtless aware that the possibility of legalising these lamps has been under examination from time to time in the Department for several years, and opinion has not been unfavourable, subject to a number of safeguards. The safeguards in question would cover such matters as limitation of the classes of vehicles to which the relaxation might apply, the place in which vehicles might be parked, and perhaps the times at which they might be so parked.

The Amendment now proposed would permit the Minister to lay down safeguards of this kind, if on consideration he decided to use the power. The House will realise that there are many difficulties to be overcome; for instance, the definition of parking places in relation to street lamps might automatically open the door to the parking of vehicles on trunk roads, or other places, where the parking light would be quite inadequate; nevertheless, it would be quite impossible to mark all streets throughout the length and breadth of the country, where parking within 100 yards of a street lamp was not permitted. I am indicating the sort of difficulties which naturally inspire caution on this matter, but I am not here to say that they are insurmountable.

My right hon. Friend is glad to promise, if this power is granted, a very early and thorough re-examination of the whole question of parking lamps, but until that is done he cannot state to Parliament what use, if any, he would make of the proposed additional powers, except to say that, elsewhere than possibly on grass verges, he would not intend to use the power to permit any extension of the practice of parking vehicles unlit. In these circumstances. I can advise the House to accept the Amendment.

I beg to move,

"That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the new Clause standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Henry Brooke."

I have no desire to hold up the Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), but this new Clause which I seek to move vitally concerns my constituency, and as I was not a member of the Standing Committee this is my first opportunity of raising the matter. For that reason, I hope that the House will agree to the Motion.

I beg to second the Motion.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I do so primarily in order to voice the strong criticism that prevails in the constituency and borough which I represent against the working of the London rate equalisation scheme, which springs from Section 10 of the Local Government Act, 1948. In order that we may discuss this matter with the placidity which is usual on a Friday morning, I should like to assure the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), whom I see opposite, that I have no intention of pressing this matter to a Division or of forcibly putting up the rates in his constituency. Indeed, I am the first to recognise that the equalisation scheme could not be abolished without something else being put in its place. Naturally I cannot write a whole new scheme into a Private Member's Bill; therefore, the only proper way in which I can initiate a debate, I hope a short debate, on the matter, is by moving to repeal the operative Section in the 1948 Act.

This equalisation scheme has now been working in London for the past five years. To the best of my knowledge it has not been debated in the House at all in that period, so I think the Committee will agree that it is not too early to take it out to have a look at it. The Committee will recollect that the 1948 Act set up two rate equalisation schemes, entirely separate from one another. The main one applies to the whole country except London. The basis of that scheme, and indeed of the other, is that equalisation grants are made to assist local authorities whose rateable value per head of population is below the average. Outside London these equalisation grants are made from the Exchequer. London receives no Exchequer equalisation grant.

The separate London scheme provides that those boroughs whose rateable value per head of weighted population is below the average of all the boroughs shall receive assistance not from the Exchequer but from the other boroughs, known as the paying boroughs. Frankly I regard it as one of the major defects in the scheme that it is taxation without representation. Outside London it is possible for Government Departments, which are the paying bodies, to exert some control over the more extravagant ideas of local authorities, but there is no power whatever for the paying boroughs in London to exert any control or influence over the expenditure of the receiving boroughs.

I have no doubt that a freedom to spend the ratepayers' money should be in the hands of the elected representatives of the ratepayers. If, as happened recently, a certain Metropolitan borough council thinks that it is in the interests of its ratepayers that a municipal aviary should be established, well and good, if those ratepayers are to pay for it; but the ratepayers of Hampstead are not at all enamoured of the idea that, under the equalisation scheme, they should be called upon to make a contribution to the aviary of some other borough. That is one of the flaws in the scheme, that there is no really adequate safeguard against extravagant policies in the receiving boroughs qualifying for subsidy from the paying boroughs.

Let me seek to put into perspective the financial implications of the matter. When the scheme first operated in 1948, the paying boroughs, that is, those with rateable values above the average, were called upon to pay an additional rate of 1s. 8d. in the £. That has now risen to just over 2s. in the £. The receiving boroughs are this year receiving various sums ranging from 7d. in the £ up to the enormous figure of 9s. 9d. in the £. From that it will be appreciated that the operation of this scheme, while it is a technical matter with which to weary the Committee, is of extreme importance to ratepayers throughout London.

A second flaw in the scheme—I am not blaming the originators of the scheme for all this; it was a pioneering effort, and it is extremely difficult to get everything right first time—is that though the receiving boroughs, those with low rateable values per head, received according to their need, there is no provision whereby the paying boroughs are made to pay according to their means. In fact at present the average rateable value per head of population in London under the formula is, I understand, £15 14s. The borough of Hampstead, which I represent, is unlucky; it has a rateable value per head of population amounting to £16 16s. Therefore, it is only just on the wrong side, but it is charged an additional rate of 2s. in the £, exactly the same additional rate as falls upon other boroughs and other parts of London which according to the formula are three, four or seven times as rich as is Hampstead.

A third flaw is that the scheme is based on resident population, and everybody knows that resident population in various parts of London is no criterion of the services that have to be provided. This happens to operate in favour of my constituency rather than against it, but I cannot help thinking that the representatives of some of the central boroughs must feel strongly about the fact that no attention is paid to the cost of the services which they have to provide for the swarms of people who come into their boroughs to work each day.

A fourth flaw is that a rather complicated system of industrial weighting of the population was introduced into the original scheme. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) will deal with that point, because I remember him as a pioneer critic of that element in the scheme five years ago when it was introduced, and his words have been proved to be absolutely true.

Does the hon. Member think it fair to introduce this important and vital issue, which is very complicated, into a minor Bill of this character? Would it not have been better to await another and more favourable opportunity of raising it?

To reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I think that if this matter had concerned his constituency as it concerns mine, he would have taken the first opportunity of raising it. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that I have no desire to take an unreasonable time on the subject. The fifth and last weakness that I want to mention is one which is not confined to London, but which is marked in London, and it is the inequalities of valuation in the different boroughs. My own borough suffers through this particularly, because it always endeavoured to operate the law of valuation properly and not to underassess the properties in its area.

I can sum up the shortcomings of the present system by one or two illustrative figures. If there were no equalisation scheme, the rates in the borough of Lambeth, which I see represented here, would be 1s. 8d. higher than the rates in Hampstead. Thanks to the equalisation scheme, the rates in Hampstead are made 1s. 6d. higher than the rates in Lambeth. It is a peculiar kind of equalisation which, instead of equalising, virtually changes the positions round. I could quote figures illustrating just the same point by comparing the borough of Hampstead with the borough of Wandsworth.

All I ask is that in his reply the Parliamentary Secretary will give an assurance to the Committee that the revision of this scheme will receive the attention of the Government. I know that at officer level much thought has been given to this complicated matter. I trust that a new scheme can soon be worked out and brought into operation to remedy these flaws which I have described, flaws which are largely agreed among all parties.

Perhaps I may specify two criteria which the new scheme ought to satisfy. I hope it will not allow all expenditure automatically to qualify for equalisation grant; I see no reason why a local authority which decides to charge particularly low rents for its council flats, and thereby incur a high rate deficiency on its housing revenue account, should, because of that policy decision, expect other metropolitan boroughs to help to finance its rent policy. I hope, too, that attention will be paid to safeguarding against the use of payments to repairs and renewals funds as a means of gaining unfair advantage from the scheme. I also trust that when the new plan is worked out it will offer direct incentives to economy and the saving of money.

The paying boroughs recognise that some kind of equalisation scheme must exist. I greatly hope that, with the help of the Government, a new scheme will be worked out which will eliminate these present defects and will secure as much good will as possible from all quarters—good will which at present certainly does not exist.

I wish to oppose this Motion, although I understand that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) does not propose to press it. I must confess that I had a good deal of sympathy with the interjection of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who said that this was hardly the appropriate time to introduce a subject of this size and importance. It is a pity that it has been raised in this way. There were plenty of other ways in which consideration of the London rates equalisation scheme could have been discussed without, on the face of it, jeopardising a Bill which, as far as I can judge, most people are anxious to see reach the Statute Book.

I do not want to enter into a long argument about the reason and justification for the London rates equalisation scheme. It is inevitable in any equalisation scheme that the richer boroughs will pay a little more than the poorer boroughs; that is what is intended and what has been done in London. All the hon. Member for Hampstead has done is to emphasise once more what many of us have heard many times since the days of poor law education, when members of the Poplar Borough Council went to prison over a question of rates—the objection of the richer parts of London to helping to bear the burdens of the poorer parts.

The equalisation of rates scheme was introduced in order to ease some of those burdens. It has not by any means removed all of them. I regret that the hon. Member referred to some boroughs deliberately adding to the rate charge for rents. It is quite true that there are some boroughs which, because of the economic circumstances of the people who have to live in their houses, must keep rents down to a figure lower than that which perhaps some of the people who live around Hampstead Heath could afford to pay. The alternative is for them not to have any houses, because the people would not be able to pay the higher rents.

It has always seemed to me to be quite justifiable socially for a housing authority to keep its rents down to a figure which the people for whom the houses were built can afford to pay. If that involves an additional charge on the rates, I think it is justified. I do not suggest that there is no limit to it, but I have never heard it suggested that any of the London boroughs, including the East End Boroughs which have a higher housing rate, have unfairly operated the provisions of the Housing Act.

The district auditor has criticised two Metropolitan boroughs on that ground.

That may be, but the district auditor has not the last word in these matters. It is strange to have a point of that kind made by somebody who wants to extend the bounds of freedom for local authorities—as I do, too— but the point I was trying to make was that it would be unfair to use that as an excuse or one of the excuses for abolishing or seriously altering the equalisation of rates scheme which, on the whole, has worked fairly well and has been of advantage to the poorer parts of London.

The hon. Member referred to the fact that residence is no criterion—that the number of people who live in an area is no criterion—of the amount of services which the local authority may have to provide. That is quite true. Nor is it an indication of where they produce the wealth which the boroughs enjoy. In my own borough, Lambeth, most people go out of the borough to work and to produce the wealth which is enjoyed in other boroughs and which adds to the value of land and property in those boroughs.

Some even work in Hampstead.

It seems to me that there is nothing wrong in principle in a scheme which provides that part of the cost of maintaining the social services—and I do not want to go into them in detail today—should be borne by the richer boroughs in which the greater part of the wealth of London exists and is produced. I therefore hope that the Committee, having heard the points raised, will pass to the next business and allow us to complete the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill today.

I want to be very brief, but I think it is highly desirable that this House should have an opportunity of discussing this subject at the present time, because the 1948 scheme has been working for five years and has been referred to a Committee for consideration. I represent a borough which I suppose is looked upon by many people as a rich borough, although in fact it consists of two parts. A great deal of the borough of Kensington is extremely poor and requires as much help as the richer part of the borough can possibly give it. We happen to be above the line and therefore have to subscribe a very substantial amount each year to the poorer boroughs.

I want to make it clear that we in Kensington believe that there must be an equalisation of rates scheme for London. There is no question about that. Our complaint is that we want the legislation under which the obligation to pay is imposed on the paying boroughs revised so that the boroughs pay a much more fair and equitable proportion than some of them pay today.

The Kensington Borough Council, which has an energetic and active Labour minority, unanimously took the view after discussion on Tuesday of this week that it is desirable that the scheme should be revised as soon as possible. Their complaint is not against the richer boroughs having to make a payment for the poorer boroughs. I, like the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), agree that we cannot cut up social services into parts: that is impossible in London. I think that a much bigger question will arise in future between London and the suburbs, but let us leave that for the time being.

What we want is that the amount which is to be paid shall be found in what we think would be a much fairer manner than that in which it is found today. The burden on Kensington rate-payers is far greater for this purpose than the corresponding burden on the ratepayers in some of the neighbouring and richer boroughs. We want that aspect of the scheme revised as soon as possible.

On the other point, we have doubts whether the provisions to prevent boroughs from incurring expenses largely at the cost of the richer boroughs are sufficient. It is not unfair to say that generally the provisions have been very fairly worked, but there have been exceptions. That is the other point on which we think the scheme should be revised.

There is one question I wish to ask. Assuming that the investigating Committee suggests alterations in the 1948 scheme, will the House of Commons have any opportunity to discuss a proposed new scheme before it is put into operation? An assurance on that would also meet the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), and that would be a more appropriate occasion to discuss the matter at greater length.

I wish to deal with two points. But first I should like to apologise to the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) for not being present to hear the whole of his speech. A point was made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) with which I am sure every hon. Member must agree. There must be some scheme of equalisation of rates in the metropolis. If this is so, surely we ought to have the new scheme before the House of Commons before the present arrangement is abolished. That is only reasonable. Therefore, to introduce this new Clause to abolish all systems of equalisation of rates and to leave the whole matter in vacuo seems absolutely absurd.

It was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) that we merely put down the new Clause in this form so that we could have a debate on the matter at this stage. We have no intention of pressing it.

We can only judge by what is on the Order Paper. When a new Clause is proposed one imagines that those who propose it wish it to be accepted, although they may think it judicious to withdraw it later.

My second point is that we cannot divide London into parts. The hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South said that in his borough there were rich and poor parts. For the benefit of Kensington all those parts must have the same administration. Not only can we not separate the different parts of Kensington but we cannot separate Kensington from Bethnal Green. People who live in Bethnal Green may come to work in Kensington. If the health services are not as good in Bethnal Green as they are in Kensington the people may carry disease contracted in Bethnal Green to Kensington. What applies to health applies to many other services as well, perhaps in a lesser degree. Therefore, I say that we cannot divide London into watertight compartments. On that basis, some form of equalisation of rates is essential.

As one who has had responsibility as Minister of Health and also as one who took some part in the debates on the Measure under which the equalisation scheme was set up, it might be appropriate for me to make some observations on this occasion. I do not think that I should have done so but for the obvious impatience of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) that the matter should be raised at all. His interjection seemed entirely inappropriate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) with perfect propriety has taken the Parliamentary opportunity of raising a matter of great interest to his constituents, to the whole of the capital city and to the whole of the country. It is common knowledge that the exchange equalisation scheme throughout the country is working out in the most anomalous way, that it is ripe for investigation and that it is not in any way fulfilling the hopes held out by those who introduced it. This is not merely a matter between rich and poor but between city and city which in many cases requires urgent and immediate investigation.

Naturally, I do not intend to go into that aspect at length on this occasion, except to say that the city which I represent has sent forward from every quarter, both Conservative and Labour, the most urgent representations requiring the early examination of the equalisation scheme which is working out with startling inefficiency and startling injustice.

On a point of order. Is Glasgow in London?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is a little anxious to limit debate. I have no intention of doing more than bring in the point that it is not merely in this respect but in other respects that examination is needed. It comes a little ill from one who is a prominent and prospective landowner to suggest that Scotland should not be brought in even as an illustration.

This scheme is London is a very big matter. The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) spoke of the old days when the equalisation of Poor Law charges led to certain of the Poplar representatives going to gaol. I remember well how some of the mayors of the London boroughs pursued Mr. Lloyd George, as he then was, to Inverness in buses, demanding that some equalisation take place. That equalisation has taken place.

The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) seemed to me not to stress fully the fact that a great number of the services of London are already common services. They are L.C.C. services, The hon. Gentleman spoke of the domiciliary health service, which I think represents only a small sector of the people in which a great deal of equalisation has already taken place. There are, however, startling differences, and they are differences which require examination. I do not think anyone would deny that, and there could be no more appropriate occasion and time for discussing it, because the House is making good progress with the business before it. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington cannot have been here, or he cannot be aware that we have already dealt with and disposed of the previous Measures, and we are now engaged on this one.

The fact that hon. Members should take a Parliamentary opportunity provided by a Bill dealing with the powers of local authorities, and designed to amend the law relating to local authorities, in order to submit a proposal which raises a matter of great interest and importance is surely justifiable from every point of view. It is not in any way holding up the business, because, as my hon. Friend has said, we have no intention of dividing. The fact that a Parliamentary opportunity of importance should have been seized by those who are interested in the workings of Parliament as it affects their constituencies is surely not a principle about which any hon. Member, and particularly any right hon. Member, should possibly complain.

The differences in questions of local government in London, split up as it is, inevitably, into the great autonomous units of the boroughs, and, overriding them, the central authority of the County of London, has always been an adminisrative problem of very great interest and importance. It has puzzled this House for many years, but a reasonable solution has been brought about by combining the autonomy of the boroughs not only with the overriding authority of the L.C.C. but with these inter-changes of finance of which this is an example.

The whole thing is complicated just now by the fact that it has not been possible to carry through the re-assessments, and re-assessment is now held up for a considerable time. All this is making it all the more desirable that the working of the equalisation scheme between the various portions of London and, indeed, between the various portions of the country, should be examined by the Government at an early date and should be reported on, because this matter will certainly have to be reviewed, and the earliest possible opportunity of instituting that review should certainly be taken.

The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) gave as the reason for his intervention my apparent impatience at the slow progress being made.

Not with the slow progress being made, but with interventions by anybody on this side of the Committee at all.

I repeat that that was the reason the right hon. and gallant Gentleman intervened; that is what he said. If it had not been, presumably, for my apparent impatience, he would not have intervened. I hardly think that his contribution really mattered, but I take him up on the point he made.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that this is a most important issue. I agree, but if it is so important, surely it would have been possible for the hon. Gentleman opposite, or any other hon. Member on the other side, and even the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself, in the course of the Ballot for Notices of Motion, to have produced a Motion, or even a Bill, in order to deal with this matter, or even to have used their undoubted influence behind the scenes with the Government in order to bring this important matter forward. There was no reason why it should be interposed in the debate on this very minor local government Bill.

It is quite obvious that, even on the merits of the case, from what has been said by hon. Members opposite, that one of the major defects in the existing equalisation scheme—and, first of all, let it be noted that there were a great many other defects and much more serious defects before the scheme was put into operation, as we know——

The right hon. Gentleman is surely overlooking the fact that, under the Local Government Act of 1948, London lost the block grant altogether, and that the loss of that grant will alone make this necessary.

That seems to me to be irrelevant to the point before the Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) tried to camouflage the issue by pointing to the difficulties that presented themselves to the richer boroughs which would be placed at a disadvantage because of the way in which the scheme operated, but, in fact, all that the right hon. and learned Gentleman desires, all that the hon. Member who moved the new Clause desires—apparently supported by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents a Glasgow constituency and who is not concerned primarily with London—is to relieve some of the alleged burdens which they say fall on the richer boroughs. On whose shoulders are they to fall? They are to fall on the poorer boroughs, and what is the use of camouflaging it?

I tried to make it quite clear that my complaint was of the burdens between the richer boroughs. There was no suggestion that less money should be given to the poorer boroughs, but the allocation of the burden between the richer boroughs under the existing scheme is, in the opinion of people in Kensington, unfair and improper.

That may be, but all that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to do is to pass the buck to somebody else, and, in the end, he would prefer that the so-called poorer boroughs should have placed on their shoulders a larger burden than now exists. That is the issue. This is a very important matter, and it is a vital issue for London. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have taken some more appropriate opportunity of raising the matter rather than by holding up business which concerns a very large number of people in the provinces, which does not concern the London area at all, but which concerns my constituency, the miners and their wives and children, and I do not want to see that matter being held up.

Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to intervene now and try to act as a sedative in order that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) may have more chance of getting his Bill through. I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), but, if I say to him that I prefer the language of reason to the arguments of passion, I am sure that he will not take it amiss.

I think it should be explained that, under Section 10 of the Local Government Act, 1948, provision is made for making payments by the London County Council to Metropolitan borough councils whose rateable values are less than a certain standard rateable value, and the effect of the scheme, therefore, is that the richer boroughs contribute to the cost of local services in the poorer boroughs, and that is right and proper in principle. This scheme is broadly parallel to the system of equalisation grants to county councils and county borough councils.

I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) had no intention of proposing, either in principle or in detail, the abolition of the system of the richer boroughs helping the poorer boroughs, but that he was solely concerned with criticising the effects of its present working and with remedying its existing defects. My hon. Friends who support the new Clause will forgive me if I do not deal in detail with the criticisms they made, because that would only prolong the debate and, as the new Clause is not to be divided upon, it would not help the proceedings on this Bill a great deal.

12 noon.

The Ministry are aware that criticisms have been made of this scheme, criticisms which are claimed to be valid and justifiable, and the working of the scheme is at present under investigation as part of the review of the Exchequer equalisation grants which is now taking place. This review has been undertaken by a Committee appointed by the Minister with representatives nominated by the London County Council and by the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee. It is not possible at the present moment to give any indication of the results of the investigation, but, if any changes are found to be necessary in the London scheme, they will be made at the same time as any changes that may be decided upon in the scheme for Exchequer equalisation grants in the country as a whole.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing this scheme before it comes into operation?

That, surely, will depend on what the new legislation may provide. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the existing London scheme, under Section 10 of the 1948 Act, is not subject to any Parliamentary control. But, if I interpret, and sense, as it were, the feeling of the House, I think it would be the wish of hon. Members on both sides that, if possible, some sort of Parliamentary discussion on the matter should take place if and when any action is proposed by the Government. I think I am right in saying that, but, if I am not, perhaps some hon. Gentleman will correct me.

Surely a matter of this enormous importance, which is going to be coupled with the alteration of the country scheme, is one which this House ought to discuss before it becomes operative. I do press that point.

I think the best thing for me to do is, first, to refer what has been said in this debate to my right hon. Friend so that he may take into account the views expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and, secondly, to convey to my right hon. Friend the desire of hon. Members on all sides to have an opportunity of discussing the matter in Parliament at the appropriate time.

Perhaps it would shorten the debate if I were to suggest that any hon. Members who wish to put forward points for consideration should write in instead of making lengthy contributions now, because it would help the hon. and learned Gentleman with his Bill. On the other hand, it would be quite improper for me to suggest that any hon. Member who wished to do so should not speak on this Clause. But there is a lot on the Order Paper, and the right hon. Gentleman looked a little agitated from time to time, so it occurred to me that in order to assist him it would be better to keep the debate as short as possible. If anybody has any points they would like to put forward I shall be delighted to hear from them and will see that they are considered.

I shall not detain the Committee for many moments because I have no wish to add to the anxieties of the hon. and learned Gentleman responsible for this Bill. I do not regard this Bill as a very minor matter; I regard it as a Measure of great importance, and I think the House is very grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for having taken this opportunity of raising so many matters of such considerable importance. I hope I shall not be out of order, or unduly taking up the time of the Committee, if I say how glad we all were to see that the services of the hon. and learned Gentleman to this House and elsewhere were so suitably recognised the other day.

The reason for my intervention is that it so happens, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) recalled, that at the time when this scheme was adopted I was a member of the Finance Committee of the London County Council. At that time I ventured to make certain criticisms of the scheme in the form in which the Council adopted it. There is very little satisfaction in the situation of a prophet, but I hope it justifies me in making one or two observations this morning, particularly as this scheme is now to be reviewed. I hope that something I may say will perhaps be of value to those who are entrusted with this task.

It always seemed to me that the outstanding weakness of this scheme was the fact that those who prepared it attached much too much importance to differences in rate poundages. The scheme was primarily concerned to equalise the rate poundage in the different Metropolitan boroughs. One of the consequences of that was that to a very large extent it disregarded what is the true measure of the burden of the rates, which is the sum in rates raised per head of the population.

The result of that defect, or so it has always seemed to me, was that the scheme proved unduly favourable to those boroughs which had a high rate poundage and whose rateable value was composed largely of commercial and industrial properties, and unfavourable to those boroughs whose rateable value was composed to a greater extent of residential hereditaments. The result was that this scheme placed a burden, which proved to be quite unfair, on those boroughs which had a residential rather than an industrial character.

When I speak of boroughs with a residential character, I am not thinking only of Hampstead, or, indeed, of Kensington. Wandsworth is a borough with a very large residential population, Islington is a borough with a very large number of residential hereditaments, and I think that Lambeth has a very large proportion of residential properties. It always seemed to me, and I remember saying it at the time, that this scheme would work very unfairly in those boroughs which had a large amount of residential property.

This result arose primarily because those who prepared the scheme attached far too much importance to the equalisation of the rate poundage and disregarded the real burden of the rates. Of course, differences in rate poundage have become of much greater significance today than they were in 1948, because, as my right hon. and learned Friend reminded the House, when this scheme was prepared it was expected that within two or three years' time a substantial measure of uniformity in valuation would have been established, not only in the country as a whole, but in London as well.

Has the hon. and learned Gentleman any evidence at all to prove that valuations in London at the present moment are not pretty uniform?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was very familiar with conditions in London. I think it is common ground among all who know London conditions that there are great differences in valuations as between one part of London and another. I did not think that any hon. Member, particularly one with such knowledge of London as the hon. Gentleman opposite, would challenge that proposition.

It is because I have a fair knowledge of London that I challenge it. I am advised that nowadays there is no very alarming difference between valuations in one part of the county and another. The hon. and learned Gentleman, characteristically, if I may say so, is 20 years behind the times.

The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that it was only in 1948 that the Government which he supported introduced legislation for the express purpose of establishing a greater measure of uniformity, not only in the country as a whole, but in London as well. At that time it was not considered necessary to omit London from these proposals. That being so, if the hon. Member says that I am a little out of date in my ideas, I think he ought to apply the same criticism to some of his right hon. Friends who were responsible for that Measure.

Uniformity in rateable value was much nearer realisation in 1948, when this scheme was made, than it is today. Rateable value per head is the major criterion in distribution of the grant under this scheme. Now revaluation has been postponed. The earliest date when the new valuation lists can come into effect will, I suppose, be 1956. Boroughs which have benefited by the fact that their rateable value was lower than that of their neighbours are today receiving a greater sum in grants than they could have anticipated at the time when the scheme was made. I should have thought the prospect that these grants will now continue until 1956, was in itself a good reason for reviewing the scheme at the present time.

I would not regard this matter as a contest between the richer and the poorer boroughs. Indeed, much of the force of the argument used by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) has exhausted itself by the changes made in recent years in London government. In London the major social services today are not borough services but London County Council services. Education has always been a county council service; to that have been added welfare services and, in more recent years, the domiciliary health services.

The contest between what are called the poorer and the richer boroughs is now to a very large extent based upon what I may call the local expenditure of the borough and not upon expenditure on the social services. This is one of the factors which abundantly justifies my hon. Friend in raising this matter today, and I am sure that the House will be grateful to him for the opportunity of this short debate on this very useful matter.

I am grateful to my hon. and right hon. Friends for the support they have given to me, and I am grateful particularly to the Parliamentary Secretary for his assurance that revision of this scheme will receive the attention of the Government. I think that on all sides of the Committee we welcome his promise that any new scheme will be made subject to Parliamentary control, which the present scheme should be and is not. Having said that——

I did not make that promise. I was careful to say that I would convey to my right hon. Friend the feeling on all sides of the Committee that hon. Members would like to have this matter discussed in Parliament and that the question whether it was discussed would depend upon the legislation which was introduced. The feeling of the Committee will be borne in mind, but I am not in a position to commit my right hon. Friend in such a way.

The Parliamentary Secretary has detected my jumping the gun a bit, but that reflects the confidence we have in his right hon. Friend. Having said that, I will fulfil my promise, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

On a point of order. Is it your intention, Sir Charles, to call the proposed new Clause (Insurance of officers) standing in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay)?

That Clause was put down for the Committee stage.

I thought we had resumed the Report stage.

Yes, we are on the Report stage now, but the proposed new Clause to which the hon. and learned Member referred is a Committee Clause.

It was put down for the Report stage of the Bill.

It is down for the Committee stage. The Report stage begins in the middle of page 1569 of the Notice Paper.

I do not know what change has been made in the Notice Paper since last night. There is a Motion that certain new Clauses should be recommitted. In certain circumstances, that recommittal might be unnecessary. The proposed new Clause to which I refer was put down for the Report stage in the first place.

It is not now on the Paper for the Report stage.

I do not know whether you have the Paper available, Sir Charles, but on page 1553 of the Notices of Motion relating to the Order Paper are notices given up to and including 10th June. Proposed new Clauses, including the one already moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) and disposed of, were all put down for the consideration of the Bill, as amended. Subsequently on the Notice Paper this morning, these new Clauses appear as being taken on the Committee stage on recommittal, on page 1568. As the proposed new Clause was put down by my hon. Friend and myself for the Report stage of the Bill, it should now be taken, as the House has resumed consideration of the Bill.

There is no notice of that on the Paper, and I have no power to do anything in the matter. I am very sorry, but I cannot possibly do anything.

It seems a little unfortunate that, because of the rearrangements made, we cannot have an opportunity of discussing this Clause and matters which arise on it and which are of some importance.

I am very sorry, but I must go by the Notice Paper. I have no option in the matter at all.

May I ask for your guidance? What are hon. Gentlemen to do in these circumstances? We put down a new Clause for consideration on the Report stage. The Order Paper, on page 1553, makes it clear that that is so. The Notice Paper appeared this morning showing that this particular Clause is placed in an entirely different category consequent upon a Motion, or an Amendment to a Motion, being put down that these proposals should be considered when the Bill was recommitted. Mr. Speaker, when he was in the Chair and took that original Motion, did not call the Amendments to the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead. If that is the case, I submit that the proposed new Clause should revert from that category to the former category that it had and for which it was originally and properly put down, namely, for consideration on the Report stage of the Bill. I submit that we are entitled to ask for the proposed new Clause to go back into the original category, under the heading for which it was originally put down.

I think that the hon. Member is trying to get the best of both worlds.

No.

Yes, if I may be allowed to finish my sentence. If the hon. Member refers to the Standing Committee stage, he will find that the new Clause in which he was interested was ruled out of order because it proposed a charge and therefore it would have to be recommitted. It could not be considered on Report if it increased a charge. He must have known that, for there is a Motion in his name asking that it be recommitted, and surely he cannot have two shots at it.

The difficulty is due to the fact that the Amendment to the recommitted Motion, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), was not selected. The result of that is that all these Clauses which, as my hon. Friend has said, were set down in the first place for consideration on the Report stage, and to which the Amendment which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend refers, have now been automatically cut out. We have had no opportunity of making certain submissions to the Chair as we desired to do.

The power of selection and the question of whether Mr. Speaker selects any or all of these Amendments are, of course, entirely in Mr. Speaker's hands. They have not been selected and there is no possible way of dealing with these new Clauses now on the Report stage. I am sorry, but there is no possible way at all.

If I may resume what I began to say a long time ago, this new Clause seeks to give powers to local authorities to impose a charge for street parking places. It may be for the convenience of the House if I read Section 68 (6) of the Public Health Act, 1925. It may enable hon. Members to follow the argument that I seek to put forward. That subsection reads:

"A local authority may make regulations as to the use of parking places, and in particular as to the vehicles or class of vehicles which may be entitled to use any such parking place, as to the conditions upon which any such parking place may be used, and as to the charges to be paid to the local authority in connection with the use of any parking place not being part of a street, and a copy of any such regulations shall be exhibited on or near any parking place to which the regulations relate."

It will be noted that the subsection does not enable a local authority to use any part of a street as a parking place.

A situation has now arisen in which in certain circumstances, in my view, it would be in the public interest that local authorities should have power to designate part of a street as a parking place. It is of interest to note that in the very useful Report of the Working Party on Car Parking in the Inner Area of London, 1953, which was recently published, par- ticular attention is paid by the Working Party to the suggestion that parking meters should be installed. In fact the Report recognises the installation of parking meters, and states:

"To ensure that drivers have a fair chance of finding parking space in streets where interference with traffic is avoided, we recommend that when the garages have been built,"—

These are garages under the squares of London—

"an experimental 'Parking Meter' system should be introduced."

It is, of course, true, and I readily admit it, that motoring organisations were in 1925, when the Public Health Act was passed, and are at the present time opposed to the general principle of making a charge for parking on the public highway. It is significant, however, that the Working Party's Report went on to say:

"The representatives of the motoring organisations and the commercial vehicle users' organisations … do not object to the experimental installation of parking meters in the special case of limited parts of central London, so that the advantages and disadvantages of their use may be assessed."

This new Clause does not relate to London, where I readily admit special conditions prevail. The new Clause will enable local authorities outside the London traffic area, if they so wish—there is no compulsion—in suitable circumstances and in co-operation with the Minister of Transport, to install parking meters. At present they have not that power. The facts at our disposal at present show that where parking meters have been used—and they have been used extensively in the United States since 1935—the experiment has proved a success. It appears that in over 3,000 cities in the United States these parking meters are now being operated. The Working Party's Report pointed out:

"We have been particularly impressed by the widespread increase in their use since the war and by the general acceptance they seem to have won. Initial opposition in particular cities has usually changed to approval after a short trial."

Those are the views of this highly competent Working Party.

I want to allay any anxiety which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), the author of this Bill, may have by saying I do not propose to press this new Clause to a Division. I do not propose to use such influence as I have to wreck this Bill if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport says that for the moment, at any rate, this new Clause cannot be accepted. I am merely seeking to open out the general issue as briefly as I can, in the hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport may give the House and the country the benefit of such views as he can give to us at the moment. I hope that on this occasion the hon. Gentleman will be a little more benign than he has been on previous occasions when I have sought to take part and put questions in debates on transport. I hope that today he will not treat me with the same robust asperity as he has treated me on previous occasions.

I hope that some hon. Member will second my Motion. I have not taken any steps to whip up any support for this new Clause. I should like this proposal to be discussed purely on its merits and not as a result of a lot of lobbying and working up of agitation. I hope that if the Motion is seconded we shall have the benefit of some sympathetic words from the Parliamentary Secretary, who is perhaps present for the purpose, among other things, of hearing what I have to say.

I beg to second the Motion.

As this proposed new Clause affects very considerably the Ministry of Transport, perhaps I should indicate briefly what our attitude is. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) has received the impression of robust asperity when I have replied to him on previous occasions. I am sorry that I have created that impression.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has, on this occasion, correctly anticipated the line which I shall have to take this morning on this matter. This is a power which has been discussed by the House on very many occasions, and when I saw this new Clause on the Order Paper, I looked up the debates which took place on the Public Health Act, 1925, and on Section 68 in particular. I find that on no less than six occasions the House discussed this matter—it is true, some years ago—but were not in favour of the proposal.

Incidentally, it is interesting to find that in another place there was proposed an Amendment which would have provided for a charge being made by local authorities for the services of an attendant. When the Bill came back here, we did not agree with their Lordships on the Amendment, and out it went. That is what happened in 1925.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the recent Report of the Working Party on Car Parking in the Inner Area of London, and this was one of their suggestions. The view of my right hon. Friend is that any such experiments should be made only after the most careful thought and with vigorous safeguards. He does not consider that it would be appropriate to insert this power in this Bill, which I know the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who has worked so hard on its various provisions, is anxious should be as non-controversial as possible.

We have no intention of closing the door once for all upon this proposal. We feel strongly that this is not a power which should be granted to local authorities generally all over the country until there has been an opportunity of making the experiment which I have mentioned, if at some future time the House decides that that is desirable. If such an experiment is carried out, the House will then have an opportunity—this is rather like the matter which we were discussing earlier on the new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke)—to consider its detailed results, and in the light of that knowledge we should—and this is my view—surely then be in a much better position to consider a proposal on the lines of this new Clause.

If I recommend to the House on this occasion that this new Clause should not be accepted, I should at the same time like to take the opportunity of assuring the hon. and gallant Gentleman that his proposal will be borne carefully in mind with a view to experiments being made at a future date so that a more favourable opportunity may be taken of considering the proposal.

May I put this question? I quite appreciate the value of experimental tests. Would it be likely that any local authority wishing to carry out an experimental test of this kind would be able, with the approval of the Ministry of Transport and subject to necessary safeguards, to obtain the necessary powers which would enable that local authority to conduct the experiment?

I think the first step must be to look at this recommendation of the Working Party. I think the experiment will begin on that basis. I should not like at this moment to commit my right hon. Friend beyond that. I know that he is studying the matter very carefully.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out "all or any," and to insert "either or both."

This is a drafting Amendment. May I, Mr. Speaker, be hopelessly out of order and thank the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) for some kind remarks that he made earlier this morning?

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, at the end, to insert:

"either generally or in any particular case."

This and the similar Amendments to page 3, line 23, and page 4, line 3, are intended to give the Minister, who has the power of determining certain limits in connection with these funds, an express power to do so either generally or with regard to each particular case.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, at the end, to insert:

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in column 1, line 22, after "existing," to insert "or future."

The House will see that the particular section of the table concerned in this matter requires the consent of the owner

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

I very much appreciate the way in which this Amendment has been moved by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), but I am afraid I cannot accept it. If the hon. Member would consider the effect of it he might see there would be difficulties. There is no limit as to the future in this case. There is no indication of this being some place particularly suitable for an access. What happens is that the need to do something in certain circumstances is defined with reference to any future access to any land or premises abutting on the highway. I do not believe that it would be possible for anyone to work on a phrase of that sort, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel able to accept from me that it is impossible as a matter of practical sense to put those words in, and perhaps he will then withdraw the Amendment. We dealt with a rather similar point though not quite the same in Committee about accesses to dock undertakings or factories, and he will probably recall the arguments that were developed.

I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have not gone so far in considering this matter as obviously the hon. and learned Gentleman has, and in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in column 2, line 22, after "1936)," to insert:

"and, where the land or premises concerned consists of business premises and the owner is not the occupier, the occupier."

This Amendment is somewhat similar to the one which was moved and discussed at some length in Committee and I will not detain the House with a long discussion on it now. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) gave a promise that he would look at it again although he gave no definite undertaking. Since then I have reconsidered the matter myself for this reason, that during the Standing Committee proceedings several hon. Members pointed out that it would be quite impossible if one required the consent of the occupier of the premises as well as the owner, if the two persons were not the same, before a bus shelter could be erected. It would be quite possible for one person occupying one room in a large block of flats to object to a bus shelter being put up outside. Therefore, the Amendment proposed in Committee was much too wide.

The basis upon which I moved that Amendment was not so much with regard to residential premises of that kind, but rather the difficulties of some business people. For example, I had in mind the situation of a parade of shops with a narrow pavement, where the erection of a bus shelter would cause inconvenience to the shopkeepers and it would seldom be the case that the occupiers of the shops would be the owners as well. Therefore, I felt that it would be necessary in such cases to get, not only the consent of the owner of the building in which the shops were situated, but also the occupier. That was how the matter came before a Standing Committee and the Amendment was then withdrawn.

12.45 p.m.

The House will now see that we have limited this matter to land or premises consisting of business premises. The purpose of the Amendment is clear. Its effect would be that the occupier would have to be consulted by the local authority before the bus shelter was erected and his consent would have to be obtained. Lest hon. Members might think that this would place an intolerable burden upon local authorities who wish to put up bus shelters and, to use a colloquialism, would make the game not worth the candle, I would point out again, as I pointed out in Standing Committee, that the later provisions of the Bill make it clear that consent to the erection of a shelter is not to be unreasonably withheld by the owner, and, if my Amendment were accepted, by the occupier, too. I believe that would act as a considerable deterrent to people who have no real and satisfactory reason for objecting to the erection of a bus shelter outside the premises.

I would point out again that it is not every shopkeeper who objects to a bus queue outside his shop. It might have certain commercial advantages. But there is a possible risk, and I see no reason why we should not bring the occupier into the matter if he is not the owner. I hope the House will accept that situation, otherwise I am afraid we may subsequently be frequently worried by constituents where these bus shelters are erected in front of business premises.

I beg to second the Amendment to the (proposed Amendment.

I entirely agree with the clear account that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) has just given of what happened in Committee. I did, in fact, look into the matter as I promised to do. I think I proposed to look into it sympathetically, but whether I did or not, I certainly considered it sympathetically. But I am afraid I must tell the hon. Member that the difficulties that I mentioned in Committee with regard to a block of buildings seem to be insuperable in a case of this kind. It is for that reason perhaps that we find that in similar legislation the occu-

I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, to leave out from "1878," to the end of line 45, and to insert:

"and the Postmaster General notifies the local authority that he requires to obtain access to that line, the."

This is one of a series of drafting Amendments which hang together and are the remaining Amendments in my name on this page of the Order Paper.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 23, to leave out from "requiring," to the end of line 33, and to insert:

the owner or occupier of a building to provide a dustbin, and the grounds upon which the appeal is brought include the ground that the notice ought to have been served on the occupier of the premises instead of on the owner, or on the owner instead of on the occupier—

(a) the appellant shall serve a copy of his notice of appeal on the other person upon whom he alleges that the notice under the said section seventy-five ought to have been served; and

(b) on the hearing of the appeal the court may make such order as it thinks fit with respect to compliance with the last-mentioned notice either by the appellant or by the said other person.

Hon. Members will see that the effect of the Amendment is to restore the original wording of the Bill. In Standing Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) moved an Amendment which had the effect of taking out the major part of subsection (4) and inserting the words which now appear in the Bill as printed. The essence of the change is that if when a person who is served with a notice to provide a dustbin wishes to appeal, he includes as one of his grounds of appeal that it was not equitable that notice should have been served upon him, the court, if it chooses to do so, may make an order that the other party, whether it is the occupier if the owner appeals or the owner if the occupier appeals, shall have to provide it instead. That is my understanding of the present wording of the Clause.

As I see it, under the new wording this would be the sequence of events. Imagine that it is the owner who is served with a notice under Section 75 of the 1936 Act to provide a dustbin. He does not think it is fair that he should have to provide it and, therefore, he appeals. He puts forward as one of his grounds of appeal that it was not equitable for him to be called upon to provide the dustbin. If he does that, if he happens to choose that ground of appeal, the Clause says that he must serve notice upon the occupier. When the court eventually has to consider the matter, it must have both parties before it and it makes such order as it thinks fit, saying which of the parties shall provide the dustbin.

There are a number of questions, however, which are left unanswered, and it is for this reason that my Amendment proposes to restore the original wording. Suppose, for example, that it is not equitable for the occupier to provide the dustbin either. The owner appeals and says that it is not equitable for him to provide it. Perhaps he is in grave financial difficulties. He may be getting quite insufficient revenue from the property to enable him to provide a dustbin, as is often the case in these days. But suppose equally that it is inequitable, unfair and unjust for the occupier—the other person envisaged by the Clause—to have to provide one. He may be unemployed and in great financial difficulty himself. If that happens, there are two people before the court and it is inequitable for both of them to provide the dustbin.

The court is, therefore, faced with what I conceive to be an almost impossibly difficult task. Presumably, although the Clause does not say so, the court would be obliged to decide between them, and we would be getting a repetition in this field of the miserable sequence of events, with which so many of us are familiar, when the county court has to make possession orders in Rent Restrictions Acts cases, deciding whose hardship is the greater, whether the owner's through being kept out or the tenant's by being turned out. It is quite wrong that we should bring forward this new wording.

Let me contrast the new wording in the Clause with the original wording upon which the House gave the Bill a Second Reading. The original wording was to provide that it is only where the appellant—the person complaining about the notice served upon him—specifically claims that it should have been served on the other party, that that other party comes before the court. If he appeals because he says, "It is not fair that I should have to provide it," that is an issue which the court can decide; and it is an issue quite uncomplicated by the question whether or not it is equitable that somebody else should provide it.

In Standing Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering mentioned a case from Yorkshire in which an owner, having been served with a notice, appealed on the ground that it was not for him to provide the dustbin. The hon. and learned Member said that that went only half-way. What in effect was being done was to say, "It is not for me to provide it. It is for the other fellow to do so." That, however, is not so. What was being said by that appellant was precisely what he did say: "It is not for me. It may be for somebody else, it may be for the occupier, or it may be for the local authority as the guardians of the public health, but it is not for me."

I suggest that that is a far more satisfactory way of dealing with the matter. It is much more satisfactory than a confused hearing before magistrates as to whether it is equitable that A should provide a dustbin or whether B should provide it, and whether A's equity is greater than B's equity. I think that we should adhere to the original wording of the Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading, and for which, incidentally, there are a number of precedents in Private Acts and local legislation. I prefer the original wording and I hope that the hon. and learned Member, having listened to what I have said, will agree to go back to his own first thoughts on the matter, which I believe to be very much better than his later second thoughts which now appear in the Bill.

I beg to second the Amendment.

As the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) has reminded us, this is exactly the point which arose in Committee. What happened then was that the words which the hon. Member now seeks to put back into the Bill were taken out of the Bill and the words that now appear in it were inserted. That decision was come to, without a Division, after the hon. Member had put forward what, although rather differently expressed, are substantially the same points as he has put forward today.

I hope the hon. Member will feel that having consented, as he did consent in the Committee, by silence or otherwise, to the present language, he might at any rate not push his disagreement with the present language so far as to persevere with the Amendment now. I do not think that there is any substantial difference between the effect of the two forms of wording. As I said in Committee, I very much doubt whether the police court concerned in the case I mentioned came to a right decision. It is not my business to criticise the administration of justice, but I am entitled to say that I regarded it as a rather doubtful decision.

The decision was made and this wording was put in to meet it. I think it does meet the difficulty felt by the local authority associations, particularly the Association of Municipal Corporations, with regard to the wording which the hon. Member opposite wishes to reinsert in the Bill. I feel that on a matter of this sort, if I may again quote the unusual combination of the late Miss Marie Lloyd and the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson), "A little of what you fancy does you good," even in the provisions which local authorities will have to deal with and which they ask should be worded in some such way as this.

Will the hon. and learned Member not agree that while it may well be that local authorities would very much like to have this form of wording because sometimes they are a little embarrassed by the fact that they serve notices which are not complied with, local authorities are not the only people to be considered? It may be that it would be proper and right for the local authorities themselves to provide dustbins, as they are guardians of the public health. It is a great pity we did not have an opportunity of discussing the matter this morning.

I am much obliged to the hon. Member for his comment, and. this being a Friday morning, I will refrain from making any observations about the point of view which seems to appeal particularly to him. I hope he will remember that he did agree with, or at any rate did not dissent from, the present form of wording being substituted in Committee for that which he now seeks to have reinserted. Having regard to the fact that this does not involve any question of principle but is a question of language, and the drafting was inaccurate in Committee, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.

I do not propose to ask hon. Members in other parts of the building to leave what they are doing and come to vote in a Division again so soon. I accept what the hon. and learned Member says, but I am not altogether happy about this. As a matter of personal explanation, I would point out that when we discussed the matter in Committee I made a protest, but we did not necessarily divide the Committee on every matter on which we felt at variance. I believe we had only two or three Divisions in the whole of the proceedings.

The actual form of words in the Bill was a somewhat complicated matter when it appeared before the Standing Committee. Now that we have had a chance of seeing the Bill reprinted with the new form of words, I must admit that all my fears have been revived. I do not wish to detain the House now, but I hope that in another place there will be an opportunity of looking at this matter again. I feel there is a certain difficulty in which persons may be placed, particularly magistrates, when they have to decide between two persons, both of whom say that the requirement is unfair. It may be unfair that they should have to provide a dustbin. I think it would be better to leave the law as it stands, if that is the case. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 17, to leave out from "eleven," to the end of line 18.

We have moved very quickly to an entirely different Clause and a much different matter. Clause 10 gives local authorities power, which they do not at the moment possess, of making closing orders in respect of the whole of a building under the Housing Act, 1936, Section 11, whereas up to now they have had power only to make closing orders for part of a building. The subsection of the Bill to which I draw the attention of the House is subsection (3), which provides:

"Where a closing order has been made by a local authority under this section in respect of a house, the authority may at any time revoke that order and make a demolition order under the said section eleven."

Then come the words I seek to omit—

"without further compliance with the provisions of subsections (1) to (3) of that section."

Subsections (1) to (3) of Section 11 of the Housing Act, 1936, contain the provisions for objection to an order being made by an owner or by an occupier if a closing order is sought to be made by a local authority. Those subsections provide the check between the decision of the local authority to make an order and its final carrying out. By the two lines of the subsection with which we are now dealing that check is completely removed.

1.15 p.m.

We discussed this matter in a roundabout way and not directly in Standing Committee, but now we ought to look at it with greater care. I think this check is an important one. If an owner is suddenly to be deprived of the use of his property because a closing order is to be made, everyone would agree that it is right—and Parliament has assented —that there should be some appeal procedure if he thinks the local authority are acting unfairly. He may think the property is not in such a bad condition. The Bill would give the local authority, having gone through that procedure and made a closing order, power to convert that closing order into a demolition order and to pull the whole building down without the owner having any further right of objection.

It may often be that an owner is not averse to a closing order being made in respect of a house he owns. The house may have become thoroughly insanitary because it is old and decrepit, but it may not necessarily be unfit for any use. It may be unfit for use as a house for people to live in, but not completely unsuitable as a warehouse, a garage, a store, or something of that kind.

If this Clause goes through without these words being taken out, the local authority may make a closing order because the house is unsuitable for occupation. The owner may not object, and the tenant may be rehoused by the local authority in other premises; and the owner has the right to use the building which continues to exist. But then this subsection may give the local authority power without a word of warning to convert that closing order into a demolition order to pull down the building, whatever use the owner may be making of it. I therefore think we ought to reimpose this check, which is not a difficult or substantial one and places no hardship on local authorities.

I do not need to detain the House by dealing at length with the position of an owner who will be deprived of the investment value of the property, although it is not a big value, nor with the question of the mortgagors dependent on the owner's right to the building. But where a demolition order is made there ought first to be a further opportunity for the owner to complain or appeal. As I said in Standing Committee, demolition is a step from which there is no retreat. Once the building has been pulled down, that is the end of the matter. An owner who might not have objected to a closing order ought not to be deprived of his investment and rights of occupation of the building without so much as "By your leave" by the local authority.

I beg to second the Amendment.

This Amendment has some substance in it. It is not a mere question of language. It was discussed in Committee. Let me reassure the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) at once; I distinctly remember him saying, when the Amendment was withdrawn, that he would raise the matter again on the Report stage.

We are here dealing with houses which ought to be demolished, that is to say, houses in respect of which the statutory conditions are fulfilled and which are not demolished only because the effect of pulling them down would or might be to let down the house next door also. That is what this Clause is about. Accordingly, before any question of the order being made is reached, there has to be a report that the house is unfit for human habitation and that it cannot be made fit at any reasonable cost.

In those circumstances it is then contemplated, by this Clause, that because the pulling down would damage or endanger the buildings next door, that a closing order should be made for that reason and in that type of case instead of a demolition order, which would otherwise be made. The closing order having been made, the house is no longer used for human habitation, but it can be used as a garage, or the like.

What the hon. Member is seeking to do is as follows. When the matter is first gone into and the question arises of making the first order—generally a demolition order under the Section— the owner of the house has an opportunity of coming to terms, if I may summarise the position, with the local authority by making such repairs, etc., as will satisfy them. It is only if that opportunity under the statute is not taken that any order is made, whether for demolition or closing. We are dealing with a house in respect of which, when the opportunity has been offered it has not been taken, and in respect of which a demolition order would in an ordinary case be made, and in respect of which the owner knows perfectly well that if a closing order is made it is made under the provisions of the Section and in substitution for a demolition order only because of the risk to adjoining premises.

All that having happened, what is asked by this Amendment is that when this order is turned—I summarise the procedure—into a demolition order, all the hoops should be gone through again. That is quite unnecessary. I think it is putting a quite unreasonable burden on the local authority, which would have pulled the house down long ago in the case which the hon. Member has in mind but for the fact that that would have let down the house next door. What is there that leads one to suppose that that which was unfit for human habitation before, which the owner did not think worth repairing or mending in order to avoid any of these orders, will become fit for habitation by reason of being used as a store?

Not fit for habitation; the hon. and learned Member does not understand me. It may be much more useful or valuable as a store, warehouse or garage. The owner does not want it to revert to use for human habitation because it is old and decrepit and he has converted it to a different purpose. Why should that purpose be completely frustrated without so much as "By your leave" by the local authority?

Because we need new houses in this country; I ought not to have to tell the hon. Member that.

Further, the hon. Member talks about the house having been converted by the owner. I think he has forgotten that that can only be done if the local authority allow it, and for such purpose as they think suitable. In practice this is a question of whether, when a closing order has been made, any use can be made for the time being of what is really meant to be a house which has proved to be quite unfit for that purpose in the course of time.

I ask the hon. Member to remember the interests of the people concerned with housing in this country, and the duties that local authorities have to discharge, and not seek to put in the Bill a double set of precautions, as would be necessary if this Amendment was carried, in a case in which the one set provided by statute is really ample protection. As to whether these two rather elaborate sets of precautions should be gone through twice in every case, when it would only be in the most exceptional case that the existence of this second set of precautions would be of any avail whatever to an owner, that is something about which, on balance of public convenience and private interests in this matter, I have no doubt whatever: the right thing to do is to treat the single set of precautions, which is what the owner would get if there were no risk to adjoining property, as fully sufficient for the purpose.

I hope that the hon. Member will, in the light of that explanation, withdraw his Amendment. I cannot possibly accept it, and I feel certain that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who is in his place, will feel the same about this matter from the practical point of view as well as from the administrative one, and having regard to the vital responsibility of his Ministry in housing matters.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) will withdraw his Amendment, because the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is making in this Bill a substantial advance on the present law. If a house is unfit for human habitation, a demolition order is made and it is pulled down. That has happened at Portsmouth in particular and has left the retaining wall—the party wall—exposed to the wet. These walls were never built to be weather-proof and are in danger of coming down and certainly are in danger of letting in the weather and the rain.

Under this Bill that position is altered, and the local authority, instead of being compelled to demolish the house, can now say, "We will close it for human habitation but to pull it down would destroy or damage the houses on each side. We will allow it to stand, and we may allow it to be used for some other purpose or allow it to stand empty as protection for the adjoining houses." If a house is not fit for human habitation and should be demolished, and that has been decided, and it is allowed to remain standing for a number of years longer, it is hardly likely that it will then suddenly become fit for human habitation unless a great deal of money is spent on it. It would impose an unnecessary burden on local authorities to ask them to go through the procedure again when the owner has had a fair crack of the whip, if I may put it that way, in the first case.

I can assure my hon. Friend, who has moved this Amendment with persuasiveness—I know he goes into these matters very carefully indeed and gives great thought to the question of local authorities and property—that administratively his Amendment would make matters extremely difficult for local authorities. I hope that with that explanation he will withdraw the Amendment.

The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said I did not appreciate the difficulties of housing authorities. I appreciate those difficulties very much. I think the argument which he put forward would be much stronger if we did not see so many of these vacant sites all over the country. How often does the local authority demolish a house which is unfit for human habitation and promptly put up a new one on the same site? Very rarely. As we go through the streets we see very many vacant spaces, like gaps in a row of teeth. They are not being used and built up as they should be. Thank goodness that under the guidance of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and his Parliamentary Secretary that state of affairs is speedily improving.

I certainly appreciate the difficulties of local authorities and housing authorities, but I also appreciate the difficulties of people who may have made an alter-natve use of the unfit house—a use which is of value to the community as a whole as well as to him personally. That is why I put down the Amendment—which is my last. In view of what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, rather than in view of what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering said, I will not press it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 9, line 11, at the end, to insert:

(2) Where a demolition order has been made in respect of a house under Part II of the Housing Act, 1936, at any time before the commencement of this Act, and it appears to the local authority by whom that order was made that compliance therewith is inexpedient having regard to the effect of the demolition of that house upon any other house or building, they may, whether or not that order has become operative and whether or not the period within which the house is thereby required to be demolished has expired, revoke the demolition order and make in respect of the house such a closing order as is authorized by subsection (1) of section ten of this Act.

(3) Subsections (2) to (5) of the said section ten shall apply to a closing order made under the last foregoing subsection as if it were made under the said section ten, and as if the reference in subsection (2) of that section to a copy of the closing order included a reference to a notice of the revocation of the demolition order.

This was one of those cases which are so often left out of a Bill and which in this instance fall into the smaller category of cases of omission which are discovered just in time. Apparently in Islington, and I dare say in other parts of the country, too, demolition orders have been made in cases in which, if they are carried out, the house next door will collapse. By this Amendment we seek to extend what I hope I may call the beneficial operation of this Bill to that type of case and to enable the local authority at the last moment, by the magic intervention of this Clause, to make a closing order instead of allowing the house next door to crash to the ground. I feel sure that these laudable intentions will appeal to the whole of the House.

I beg to second the Motion.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I am conscious of the farmyard of pigs and dogs behind me, following, I understand, with a great deal of general support, and I will not trouble the House again with a speech about the substance of the Bill. We dropped one provision in Committee; the omission is accepted by me now as it was then. Otherwise, we got through the substance of the additional Bill with some very useful additions in the form of new Clauses, made by general agreement, particularly one which removed an obsolete limit on the financial loss allowance which can be made to councillors, substituting the more elastic and in this case, I think, better method of Ministerial discretion.

There were other matters, too; we removed the difficulty of the towns and the countryside of England being filled with masquerading aldermen who have never been properly elected because the clerk of the council, impatiently but reasonably, omitted a tedious form of statutory procedure in the process of election. We legalised them, as it were; we legitimated them. Those and other changes were made, and I will not talk about them now.

I should like, if I may, to indulge in a positive orgy of thanks. May I begin with the local authorities themselves? I have said it before and I will cut it short, but I am quite certain that all in the House and all in the Committee, when we were going through this rather detailed, in some ways minor, in other ways perhaps not quite so minor, Measure, had in mind those who do this public service up and down the country, including, for this purpose, Scotland, and who do it on the whole out of public spirit and not for any advantage which it may bring to them. I cannot help taking this opportunity of saying that if, by this Bill, we have made their job in any way easier and have given them powers and authorities which they ought to have and which they need, then I am quite certain that all hon. Members will be glad to have done so.

Next I should like to thank the Members here today and the Members of the Committee, including the Ministerial Members of it, for the way in which they have taken an Opposition Private Member's Bill. An Opposition Private Member has to take what he can get and be thankful. I have taken what I could get and I am truly thankful; and I mean that not only about the substance of the matter but also about the fact that everyone on both sides of the Committee and on both sides of the House today has been reasonable. We did not always agree but some very fair arguments were advanced, and I take no exception whatever to anything which has been moved or said today. I much prefer to thank everyone.

Since my baby seems to be getting on so well, I should like to thank its nurses and medical attendants. There have been moments when its health was rather doubtful from one point or another, but they helped me to draft the Bill and in other ways. It would be exceedingly ungracious not to repeat the thanks I tried to give them on Second Reading and which by now have become a much larger package of thanks.

I am glad to say, "Thank you" to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, as well as to their Scottish colleague who sat in silence through the Committee proceedings and made the one comment at the end that he had learned a great deal about the way in which the English transacted their business. I was not quite sure whether it was a complimentary comment or not. It may have been: let us hope so.

As one who has been a pretty strong opponent of some parts of the Bill, I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) on having piloted this baby of his through the very many trials and difficulties which could have beset it. He mentioned earlier that this seems to be animals day. We have pigs and dogs and other livestock to consider later. Therefore, I do not think that it will be altogether out of order or inappropriate to say that at last this Bill is a horse that smells the stable. It has not got very much further to go. I hope that its journey there will be speedy.

I think that this will be a useful Measure when it reaches the Statute Book. We on this side of the House wish it well. There is one point I wish to make. I regret that the financial loss allowances and other financial allowances to local authority members are included. I should have preferred the machinery which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) wished to incorporate in the Bill.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to create any misunderstanding. These are two quite separate factors. The financial loss allowances are under one Section of the Local Government Act. The subject he refers to. which is not in the Bill—travelling and subsistence allowances—are in a separate Section. I hope that he will not say that he disagrees with what is in the Bill though he might wish to put something more in.

I was trying to paraphrase as shortly as I could a rather protracted discussion that we had in Committee. It is about time that somebody looked at the other problem which the new Clause of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North would have enabled us to discuss.

I would address a plea to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. It is that when the Ministry comes to deal with local authority Bills of this kind they should draft their Money Resolutions in a wider form, as was promised would be done by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) when he was Lord President of the Council in 1949, so that hon. Members have an opportunity to raise cognate matters which are not necessarily completely outside the scope of the Bill. I am sure that all of us on this side of the House support the hon. and learned Gentleman and wish the Bill a speedy voyage to the Statute Book.

The only reason I wish to speak is that only a couple of hours ago I was most unjustly suspected of seeking to impede the progress of this Bill towards its happy end. The fact that it has reached the winning post more than two hours ahead of time will disprove those insinuations against me. I am glad to be one of those who can join in congratulating the hon. and leaped Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) on his success not only today but during the earlier stages of our deliberation. He will be the first to agree that this is not likely to be the last Bill introduced to improve the law relating to local government. Local government law will never be like the law of the Medes and Persians.

As a member of two local authorities I should like to say that, though I do not agree with everything in this Bill, on balance I have no doubt whatever that it improves the law relating to local government. Not only the House but many members of local authorities, including the masquerading aldermen to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, should be grateful to him.

I cannot let this Bill pass without some measure of congratulation to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) from this side of the House. Like every Bill, this Measure does not satisfy everyone in every detail. There are certain points which I should have liked to change. Contrary to the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), I would not try so much to restrict the powers of local authorities. I should be prepared to give them even more discretion than they are given now.

This is an important Measure and everyone will agree that my hon. and learned Friend should be congratulated upon his work. I do not know whether the Bill is two hours ahead of time: it might even be weeks ahead. The fact that it has gone through so smoothly is due in large measure not only to the skill and ability of my hon. and learned Friend but also to his charm and the way in which he deals with problems as they arise. I do not want to delay the proceedings, because there are other Measures to be considered today, but it is important that the great contribution of my hon. and learned Friend should be recognised.

In the temporary absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) I wish to say something which I am sure he would like me to say on behalf of the local authorities in the North-East. We should like our voice to be recorded as congratulating my hon. and learned Friend and his midwives for what they have done in meeting two strongly held points of view of members of local authorities in the North-East. The first was on the provision of bus shelters against the peculiarly inclement weather we endure there, and the second was the introduction of greater elasticity in the system of allowances to members of councils.

As the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will remember, we obtained every co-operation and assistance from him. Our spokesman was my late hon. Friend, Mr. Ewart, who was then the Member for Sunderland, South. I am sure that all members of local authorities in the North-East, regardless of their political point of view, would like to thank my hon. and learned Friend and, of course, the Parliamentary Secretaries who have given that assistance which is absolutely indispensable if a Bill like this is to get on to the Statute Book.

On behalf of my fellow Parliamentary Secretaries—the bevy which has attended this Bill from beginning to end—I should like to thank the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) for his kind remarks. I am not sure who was the doctor and who was the midwife at the birth of the child. Amid good temper from both sides we have managed to get to the Third Reading of the Bill.

On behalf of my right hon. Friend and the Government I wish to say that we consider that this is a small, limited but extremely useful Measure for local government, both for the local authorities and the central administration. We heartily welcome it and are most obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the assiduity, the work and the time he has devoted to this Measure. He spent a great deal of time not only in Committee but behind the scenes ascertaining opinions and making approaches. I heartily and sincerely congratulate him for getting on to the Statute Book a Measure bearing his name.

He is also to be congratulated by the local government officials—the aldermen whom he has legalised—because local authorities frequently suffer unjust and adverse criticism in a job which is thankless. In one paper, I think in the North-East of England, it was stated that 50 per cent. of the councillors were crooks. When the paper was asked to amend that statement the following week, it said that it was an error and that 50 per cent. of the councillors were not crooks. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman has gone some way to atoning for the mistakes made by journals in the North-East, and I sincerely congratulate him, not only on the passage of his Bill, but on the honour he recently received.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, at the end, to insert:

"and that he took all reasonable steps in the circumstances to prevent the infliction of unnecessary suffering."

The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the two exceptions which appear in Clause 2 are not enabled to result in the infliction of unnecessary suffering on the animals concerned. If the proviso to Clause 2 is examined, it will be seen that there are two defences which can be raised which would exempt the persons referred to from the effect of this Bill altogether. Without this Amendment, it is clear that there will be no safeguard at all in relation to the two defences in the proviso to Clause 2 if those defences were raised as regards the question of whether there was the infliction of unnecessary suffering to the animal or not. In that way the Bill, which has a very good object, which I personally fully support, could not only be stultified but substantially defeated.

The object of the hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner), the promoter of the Bill, is of course to ensure humane killing, and everybody will want that to be so, but the proviso in Clause 2 might, and probably would, produce the very contrary result. What this Amendment seeks to do is to establish the same safeguarding condition as was established in the Act of 1933. In that particular Act, there were also several exceptions, and certain cases were exempted from the operation of the Statute, but these cases were explicitly made subject to the condition that all reasonable steps should have been taken to prevent the infliction of unnecessary suffering, and that is precisely what is sought by the Amendment to be done here. I understand that the Amendment is approved by the hon. and gallant Member for Totnes.

May I accordingly say in conclusion that I welcome this Bill, and that I view it as a progressive contribution to the humane slaughter of animals where slaughter is necessary?

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am sure that almost all hon. Members in this House deplore any single case of the infliction of suffering upon animals. We felt, when we considered this Bill, that there was this weakness in it, and it is for that reason that we put down this Amendment. I am sure that we all recognise that, up and down the country, we hear of appalling cases of the infliction of suffering on animals by callous persons.

This Amendment will give the House the opportunity of establishing beyond doubt the fact that this House of Commons takes a serious view of the infliction of suffering on animals, and, therefore, we ought not to lose any single opportunity of demonstrating to the people of the country that the legislature does, in fact, consider it a most serious matter. The insertion of this form of words would not only serve a very necessary purpose and be an essential improvement in the Bill, but would once again establish to all to whose attention the Bill may be drawn that the Legislature considers that no act should be done to animals which would cause unnecessary suffering.

I cannot help feeling that any infringement of the provisions of this Amendment would be rather difficult to prove, but the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) has pointed out that that would bring the Bill into line with the parent Act already on the Statute Book, which was introduced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) in 1933, and I am. therefore, delighted to accept it.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

This Bill has been carefully checked and re-checked by the experts of that fine and efficient society, the R.S.P.C.A., and by other experts of the National Fanners' Union, and it has been not only approved but improved by hon. Members on both sides of this House. I feel that it brings some relief to the consciences which some of us normally carry. There is no doubt that the average Englishman and Scotsman is not by nature a cruel person, rather the reverse, indeed, I am quite certain that from John O'Groats to Land's End, the milk of human kindness flows more freely than in any other country in the world, but there is also no doubt that, in the hurly-burly of modern life many people are inclined to be casual and forgetful. The idea of the Bill is to remind people that animals, and in this particular case, pigs, fear as we fear and feel as we feel, and I therefore hope that the House will accept the Bill.

I rise to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner) on his success in getting this Bill through the House and to express my regret that I was unable to attend the proceedings of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill. I also take this rare opportunity of congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food on the public spirit he has shown in supporting and helping through this Bill, and I express the hope that the hon. Gentleman will show similar enlightenment on the wider responsibilities which fall upon him as a result of his office.

May I add my congratulations to those already proffered to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner) on having brought before the House a Bill which I think has the approval of the entire House and of everybody outside?

I take this opportunity to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary one question which he himself raised during the Second Reading of the Bill. He mentioned on that occasion that no reference had been made to the authority which was to administer the Bill when it became an Act, I imagine that his Department will be called upon to see that the Measure is brought into force in the near future, and I wonder if he has yet made up his mind whether it will be the police or the local authori- ties who will be responsible for its administration.

It has been suggested that it would be far more desirable if the local authorities were to be made responsible, because I know that whenever a policeman comes walking towards me I always have a guilty conscience. I think that many people are apt to assume, if they see a policeman entering the premises of a neighbour, that that neighbour might conceivably be guilty, whether he is or not. For that reason, I think that the local authorities—the sanitary inspector, or whoever it may be—would be the right people to see that this Measure is properly carried out. I believe I am right in saying that under the 1933 Act it is the local authorities who are responsible, but I hope that before we finally part with this Bill my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will give us his advice on the subject.

There were so many words of congratulation from the other side of the House to the promoter of the last Bill we discussed this morning that I think we might be considered somewhat churlish if another voice were not heard from this side of the House congratulating the hon. and gallant Member on getting this Bill through. Indeed, as far as its merits are concerned, I think this Bill is of equally high value as the preceding Bill. Indeed, I am not sure that there is very much difference between the statutory preservation of aldermen and the humane slaughter of pigs. It is perfectly clear that both objects are good, and that both Bills are valuable. That being so, I wish to convey my congratulations, and, I am sure, those of every hon. Member on this side of the House, to the hon. and gallant Gentleman on taking his Bill as far as he has on its journey to the Statute Book.

I will reply, first, to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge (Mr. G. Williams) in regard to the enforcement authority. The Bill does not specify the enforcement authority, and I am advised that, as a result, enforcement will normally fall to the police. But it will be open to anyone to lay the necessary information. There might be—I will put it no higher than that—some disadvantage in specifying the local authority as the enforcement authority lest the impression be gained that only that authority can take the necessary steps of enforcement.

Secondly and finally, may I join in the congratulations offered to my hon. and gallant Friend for having chosen, when successful in the Ballot, so limited but yet so important a theme for his Bill? I will not claim that he has had a difficult task either in Committee or in the House because both sympathy and support have been widespread, but he has done a really useful job of work and we can all congratulate him on steering his Bill to the Statute Book.

I, too, wish to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on having got through this Bill which will give a great deal of pleasure to many of his constituents. I, as one of his closest neighbours, think he is one of the best Members we have ever had.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from the beginning, to the first "or," in line 11, and to insert:

(a) attacking livestock, or

(b) chasing livestock in such a way as may reasonably be expected to cause injury or suffering to the livestock.

It falls to me to move the Amendments to this Bill owing to the unhappy circumstances, and for reasons with which we all deeply sympathise, which have caused the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling), who initially brought forward this Bill and who would have been in charge of it today had it been possible for him to be present.

This Amendment, which perhaps is the most important, together with the other Amendments on the Paper, have been greatly helped forward since the Committee stage by the good offices of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. I have had a good many discussions in order to try to reach agreement on some outstanding points of view which we felt could be resolved, because everyone, I think, wishes to see this Bill placed on the Statute Book in as good a form as possible.

This Amendment will make the offence a more definite one. Many hon. Members on the Standing Committee, including the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West), felt that the Bill as originally drafted went too wide and that there might be cases where a dog was merely barking at sheep, harassing them perhaps to a very small extent, but not attacking or chasing them in the way in which we all understand. Therefore, I think there is general agreement that the Bill would be improved by narrowing the terms of the offence and making it a more definite offence that can be proved with more reliability in the courts. It is with those considerations in mind that I have moved the Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I rise to support the Amendment. It is one which meets some very strong criticisms that were expressed in Committee on the Bill as originally drawn, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) for the consideration he has given to the points of view then expressed. I am sure the whole House will join with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) in expressing sympathy with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion for his absence today, and particularly for the reason for his absence. I am sure we all sincerely trust that his anxieties will be removed and that his absence from our deliberations will be only of short duration.

It is clear that the Amendment will substantially improve the Bill. On the Standing Committee my hon. Friends and I put down about 18 Amendments to the Bill. The view was expressed that the Bill was too widely drawn, and that has proved to be a view acceptable to the promoters of the Bill. I would welcome the acceptance of the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, at the end, to insert:

(3) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this Act by reason of anything done by a dog, if at the material time the livestock are trespassing on the land in question and the dog is owned by, or in the charge of, the occupier of that land or a person authorised by him, except in a case where the said person causes the dog to attack the livestock.

Again, this is an Amendment giving expression to the wish and the common sense of the Committee who considered the Bill. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West) was anxious that it should not by any chance become an offence for a man to set a dog on to sheep or cattle which were trespassing on his ground. I know, as a sheep farmer, that fences are sometimes not good enough and that sheep stray and do considerable damage to people's gardens, particularly in the spring when the grass is rather short and they think there is something tempting in the village gardens. It is only right and proper that it should not be an offence for a man to clear sheep off his own land, and that the action should not be interpreted under the Bill as his dog attacking or chasing sheep.

The Amendment also applies to a person authorised to have a dog on the land. It may be that a member of the family or some employee is charged to see that sheep do not stray on to other land and it will be perfectly proper for him to see the sheep off that land without committing any offence. I hope that I have made the position clear.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I support the Amendment and thank the promoters for their acceptance of the views expressed in the Committee. I support the Amendment for rather different reasons from those put forward by the mover. It meets in some measure my view that if a man in the lawful enjoyment of his own property has dogs exercising upon his land, and if sheep stray upon it and the dogs chase or worry the sheep, it should not be said that the owner of the dog was guilty of an offence, although we are trying to prevent the infliction of unnecessary suffering upon animals. The owner of the dog was using his property in a proper and lawful way. The person who caused the suffering to the livestock was he who allowed them to stray. If we make the owner of the dog liable in those circumstances to conviction and penalties under the Bill, it is only right that the person who, by negligence or carelessness in allowing the livestock to stray, caused them suffering, should also be brought within the Bill.

It has appeared that because of technical difficulties it is not possible to bring this negligent person within the scope of the Bill. If that is so, obviously it would be wrong to bring an innocent person into it. The Amendment makes it possible to give protection to an innocent dog owner in those circumstances, although it does not entirely meet the point we had in mind.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, at the end, to insert:

(3) The owner of a dog shall not be convicted of an offence under this Act in respect of the worrying of livestock by the dog if he proves that at the time when the dog worried the livestock it was in the charge of some other person, whom he reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of the dog.

The Amendment ensures that the dog owner who takes proper care to see that his dog is in the charge of a proper person shall not be affected because he has not taken the necessary steps to see that his animal does not run amuck. Members of the Committee felt that protection should be provided for the owner of a dog which, at the material time, was in effective charge by a fit and proper person. If he allows a child or an incompetent person to take a dangerous dog out, he should be held responsible. Otherwise, any offence should lie at the door of the person who had charge of the dog, and the owner should be clear of responsibility. That seemed to Members of the Committee a sensible line to take. We do not want a multiplicity of prosecutions, but responsibility put fairly and squarely where it should lie.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do not like this Amendment at all and I think that when it was proposed in Committee we were rather carried away. I had hoped that when it came to be discussed on the Floor of the House we would use our better judgment and not insert the proposed words. The Amendment seems to me to weaken the Bill very considerably. If an owner has a dog, he should be responsible for it, and if he is responsible for it he will then see that if he sends it to a boarding kennel or allows another person to take charge of it, those concerned are responsible people. If the responsibility is divested from the owner, he will not take the necessary care.

My hon. Friend, the Member for New-bury (Mr. Hurd) mentioned children, and a great problem is involved in respect of them for, if the words in this Amendment are inserted in the Bill, it is left to the owner to decide whether the person in charge of the dog is a responsible person or not. Provided he believes that a child is a fit and proper person to take charge of the dog, he is exempt from all further responsibility. Surely we are going too far if we leave it to the owner himself to decide whether a child of nine or ten years of age is a fit and proper person to have charge of the dog.

I pointed out on the Committee stage that, after all, it is the owner who is responsible for what happens to his property. If a ship founders—and we had the report of a case only yesterday—it is the owners who are responsible. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West) will no doubt point out that that is a case of civil liability; but if a man has a motor car and allows someone else to drive it, he is responsible for insuring the vehicle in case that driver does any harm. It is the owner of a business who is responsible for anything that his manager or other people may do. I am quite sure that the lawyers in the House will agree with me that if a farmer is running a milk business and one of his servants causes adulteration of the milk, the farmer is responsible and has to foot the bill. In the same way, if one is the licensee of a public house and an employee sells drinks after hours, one has to take the blame as licensee.

Surely it is contrary to all our traditions to take away responsibility in this case from the owner of a dog and to leave him free from liability to be summoned simply because he has asked someone else to look after the dog for him. In Committee the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture said that that would be all right and that the police would use their discretion as to whom they would prosecute. That is desirable, but if I read the words of the Amendment rightly the police will not have discretion. They will not be able to prosecute the owner but only the person who was in charge of the dog at the time.

I am not a lawyer and I see that there are some hon. and learned Members in the House, but unless they satisfy me that I am wrong in my contention, I shall feel very inclined to oppose this Amendment in the Lobby. I can foresee in practice that if the dog worries sheep it is pretty obvious that it will not have been encouraged to worry sheep by the person looking after it at the time. But it might be the case that the owner knows that the dog has been in the habit of worrying sheep in the past.

If the responsibility is taken from the owner and he sends the dog to a boarding kennel, he might not even bother to say that the dog is accustomed to worrying sheep. It is his job to do that, but if he has no responsibility for the dog he probably will not do it. In this Amendment we are going very far away from the normal practice in this country of making the owner of a thing responsible for it. I think that the situation should remain as it is at present.

I find myself very much convinced by the argument which has just been advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams). This Bill is not directed against dogs. It is directed against irresponsible owners of dogs. It seems to me that one is taking a grave responsibility in placing on the courts the duty of deciding when an owner can reasonably believe that someone else is a fit and proper person to be in charge of a dog.

How on earth can the words "reasonably believed" be properly interpreted? What does "reasonably" mean in technical and legal jargon? I do not know. It may have some meaning in the courts that it does not have for me. I know that if I were asked to decide whether a man was a reasonably fit and proper person I should have to know all about the man, all about the task entrusted to him, and all about his antecedents, to find out whether he was likely to conduct himself as I would reasonably expect him to do. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge has established a case that this wide discretion would not be put into effect without great difficulty. Perhaps the promoters of this Amendment will now be inclined to withdraw it.

By leave of the House, I should like to reassure my hon. Friends on this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) need not fear that it is entirely a matter for the owner to decide whether the person to whom he has entrusted the dog is a reasonably fit and proper person. It is quite clear from the wording of the Amendment that it is the court which decides that. I should like to reassure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) that the courts have considerable experience in interpreting the word "reasonably." The courts do not have to investigate the antecedents of the person, because in law there is an entity known as a "reasonable man" whose antecedents are lost in antiquity but whose behaviour is reasonably well established. The courts, therefore, would have no difficulty in interpreting the form of words which is used in the proposed Amendment.

It is common in the law for civil liability to be indirect, and the civil liability of the owner will continue in spite of this Amendment; that is to say, if a dog does damage in such a way that the owner of the dog would be liable under the law for the damage, this Amendment will not alter that liability in the least. It is unusual in criminal law to make someone who is indirectly responsible guilty of a criminal offence. To a slight extent we are departing from that already in this Amendment, because we are saying that in the normal course of events not only the person in charge of the dog but also its owner shall be guilty of a criminal offence. That is running a little contrary to the general practice of the law.

We are only allowing the owner of the dog to establish a defence. If he does not establish it he will not succeed in avoiding a fine; but by this Amendment he has to establish affirmatively that he entrusted the dog to someone who, in the opinion of the court, was thought to be a reasonable person. If he does that I think that we must excuse him from criminal guilt as distinct from civil liability. I hope that in the light of that explanation my hon. Friends will feel that this is a reasonable and acceptable Amendment.

I am extremely sorry that the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) was not convinced by the arguments on this point which were stated in the Standing Committee. We had a very long and interesting discussion on this question of criminal responsibility, and I think it was my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) who referred to the motor car case which raised the question, if an owner of a motor car allows the car to be used by someone else who drives it dangerously, whether the owner of the car is also to be held guilty of an offence. That is what the hon. Member for Tonbridge is arguing—that it is the responsibility of the owner.

As I understand them, the hon. Gentleman's objections to this Amendment fall into two parts. The first is that the police will not be able to prosecute the owner—and I hope to satisfy him that that is not so—and the second is that the owner will not take care. I hope to satisfy him that that ground of objection is also invalid. In the first place, it is quite clear that if an offence has been committed under the Bill the prosecution will be able to bring their proceedings against the owner. They will be able to bring their proceedings against the person who is in charge of the dog.

But if the owner goes to the court and defends the proceedings, and can satisfy the court that at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed the dog was in the charge of a person whom the owner reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person, then the court can accept that explanation and can acquit him, because the man has taken reasonable care and the dog was in the charge of a person whom he reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person.

We had a discussion in this House not long ago on the question of subjective and objective tests, and I think it has been established that the expression "reasonable cause to believe" or "reasonably believes" means that the court will have the right to investigate the grounds upon which the man believes that the person who had charge of the dog was a fit and proper person. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman who is objecting to this Amendment does not want both the owner and the person in charge of the dog to be convicted. There is no point in having both convicted. One has been guilty of an offence, and surely a conviction against one is quite satisfactory.

It is strange that I should be appealing to the hon. Member for Tonbridge not to delay the proceedings of this Bill by persisting in his objection to this Amendment. I hope, therefore, that on further consideration he will agree that this Amendment is very satisfactory and should be accepted.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, to leave out "twenty," and to insert "ten."

The purpose of this Amendment is to substitute a fine of £10 for a fine of £20 in the case of a first conviction. The Standing Committee had some discussion on this point, and I think we all left that Committee feeling that it would be more reasonable to have in the Bill a figure of £10 instead of£20.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I would only say that I am sorry to do so because I did think that £20 was a better figure, but we have had a great deal of co-operation and accommodation all round on this Bill, and in the circumstances I am happy to second the Amendment.

May I say that we on this side of the House are glad to accept this Amendment? We think that the figure now proposed is far more reasonable in the circumstances. For that reason, we are grateful for the promoters for accepting the Amendment which was discussed in Committee.

As a rule I think that in these matters a big penalty is better than a small one, because we should drive home the gravity of the offence in the first instance and thereby avoid having a repetition of the offence. But in this case the average owner of a dog which will possibly be committing offences under this Measure are poor people and, therefore, I think they should be given a warning rather than be subject to too great a financial penalty. Accordingly, I think it is better in this instance to accept the Amendment and insert £10 instead of insisting on the higher penalty.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, to leave out, "or any other person."

As the Clause stands, it provides that the present owner of a dog which has been a previous offender, although he may not have been the owner of the dog at the time at which the offence was committed, would be liable to the full penalty of a fine of £50. In Committee we had a good deal of discussion on this matter because we wanted to let the courts have a pretty strong and effective sanction against the dog owner who habitually allowed the offence of sheep worrying to be committed. I do not think there was any disagreement that where there are habitual offences the maximum penalty should be a fine of £50.

But we realise that there might be exceptional cases. For example, an Alsatian which had started its life in Sussex might have caused trouble to sheep in the constituency of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) and, for that reason, been sold in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane). The new owner would probably not know anything about the earlier offence. Indeed, the vendor of the dog would probably be very careful to extol the dog's virtues and to conceal that black mark, and the new owner would have no means of knowing that the dog had got this vicious streak in it. Nevertheless, he would be charged as the owner of a vicious dog which had offended before.

We felt that that was hardly reasonable, and so this Amendment is being moved to relieve the new owner of the dog of that liability. I should like to make it plain that the court would be quite justified in proceeding to deal with this dog which was becoming an habitually vicious offender under the Dogs Acts. It could order a dog to be kept under control or it should be destroyed, but under this Bill the owner would not be branded as the owner of a dog that was an habitual offender and thereby become liable to the full penalty of a fine of £50.

I beg to second the Amendment.

During our debates in Committee we canvassed the possibility of meeting this problem by inserting words requiring knowledge of previous convictions. Had that been possible it would have been a preferable way of dealing with the matter, because the Amendment now proposed cannot, of course, deal with the position that arises if there are transfers of ownership inside a family. That is a real disadvantage, but the difficulties of proof, if one relies upon the test of knowledge, seemed to be insuperable. Therefore, this appears to be the best practical alternative.

I hope the House will accept the Amendment which has been proposed because there is something very objectionable in legislating for a man being held responsible and held guilty of an offence and subject to a penalty when he may perfectly well have acted in complete innocence. The case I cited in Committee, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), was that a man may buy a dog which is warranted to be quiet, in good condition and so on, but it may be a false warranty. As the Bill was originally drawn, if the dog had committed an offence of which the purchaser was in complete ignorance, and had then committed a subsequent offence the innocent owner was liable to the increased penalty. That is entirely contrary to the conception of the law passed in this House time and time again.

Therefore, upon that point it is right and proper that this Amendment should be accepted. It brings the position into line with the general provisions of our law, that if a man commits an offence he has had a warning and been punished for it. There are many statutes that provide that if a man is guilty of the same offence on another occasion he suffers an increased penalty. No one objects to that, because there a man is acting contumaciously and with intention to defy the law. But to make a man subject to an increased penalty when he has been acting perfectly innocently in the matter seems to be so absurd that I was not able to accept it in its original form. I am glad that this Amendment has been moved, and speaking for my hon. Friends on this side of the House, we accept it.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, to leave out from "it," to the end of line 15.

The purpose of this Amendment is to make it more practicable for a police officer to take charge of a dog when he has reasonable cause to believe that the dog has been worrying livestock. We felt that whether or not there was a collar on the dog bearing the name of someone, the police should have this authority to apprehend the dog and they should not be worried in deciding whether or not the name on the collar was that of the owner.

2.45 p.m.

This Amendment simplifies the Bill to the extent that the police will be able to seize the dog whether or not it is wearing a collar with a name and address on it if there is no person who admits to being the owner of the animal or in charge of it. We feel that the task of the police will be made more straightforward, and it is wholly desirable that a dog, which has been worrying livestock, or is worrying livestock, should be caught hold of merely as a preventive measure to stop the animal continuing its worrying, quite apart from the possibility of the owner of the dog being pursued and possibly fined.

We felt that it was introducing good sense so to propose, because this Bill is intended to stop cruelty to animals, and an animal, which was causing cruelty to other animals, should, as quickly as possible and with the least possible complication, be apprehended and stopped from pursuing that activity.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I welcome this Amendment. I think it is a sensible provision and improves the Bill. The Bill as originally drawn created this situation, that if a police officer, who had reasonable grounds for believing an offence was committed, seized the dog, if the dog were wearing a collar with the name and address of the owner upon it, then he had to let it go. He had no right of seizure, and it mattered not whether the name and address on the collar was a false name and address or not, the dog had to be released. That seemed to be an absurdity in the circumstances, and I am very glad that this Amendment has been brought forward, because it gives the police officer the power of seizure and detention until the true owner can be ascertained. We on this side of the House think it improves the Bill.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) and the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West) are quite right about this. Surely it cannot be the intention of the promoters of the Bill to prevent the police from carrying out the provisions of the law. As I understand it, it is the law that every dog is to wear a collar with the name and address of the owner upon it. We should be teaching people to observe and carry out the law, but if we cut out these words freedom is implied to the owner of the dog not to observe the law by putting on the animal a collar with the name and address of the owner upon it. I am open to conviction, but it does not seem to me to do any harm to leave the words in the Bill and it gives the police a stronger backing in their attempts to ensure that the law is carried out.

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman believe that a dog which has a collar round its neck, bearing the name and address of a person who may or may not be its owner, should be released or that the police officer should have power to retain it if it has been guilty of worrying livestock?

If those words are not inserted and the police seize the dog, they will retain it until the owner claims it. They do not know who the owner is and the owner may be conscious of the fact that he is now open to penalty and therefore refuses to claim the dog. The dog is then left in the unhappy position of being at the police station for the rest of his life.

If a police officer seizes a dog which he has reason to believe has been worrying sheep, and the dog is wearing a collar upon which may be a true or false name, does the hon. and gallant Gentleman believe that the dog should be released or should be detained by the police officer if there is no other person there to take charge of it?

I think that is the intention of the Bill, but I will not pursue the matter.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling), may I say that it is only through the cooperation and understanding which he has received from all parties in the House that this small but important Bill now goes on its way. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) will recall that the Minister of Agriculture, not only in the time of this Government but in that of the previous Government, has been much concerned about the losses of sheep caused by dogs, and the bad psychological effect that sheep worrying has had on an important section of food production. In my view the psychological effect is greater than the practical effect.

In my own part of the country we have now only a little more than one-third of the sheep we had before the war. In other counties where perhaps everybody is better behaved, Hereford, for instance, they have about two-thirds of the numbers they had pre-war, but, taking the country as a whole, we have far fewer sheep, although lamb, mutton and wool are products of which we want more. One of the reasons always put forward by farmers when asked why the numbers of sheep have fallen is that there is so much anxiety caused by the activities of vicious dogs, particularly in the neighbourhood of towns.

We have all read newspaper accounts, with some pretty gruesome photographs, of the horrible cruelty which vicious dogs can cause to sheep. Sometimes these cases occur near south coast towns and sometimes close to industrial centres in the Midlands. The damage is not only immediate in the mauling and death of the sheep but, if they are ewes in lamb, the damage may not become evident until a month or so afterwards. The increased losses which farmers have suffered, and the greater worries attaching to sheep-keeping, have undoubtedly militated against sheep, alone among farm livestock, increasing since pre-war days, whereas we have many more pigs, poultry and cows.

I believe, therefore, that not only in the cause of the humane treatment and prevention of cruelty to animals, but also in the cause of increased food production this House is performing a useful function by passing this Bill and hoping that another place will give it a speedy passage into law. It is not the baby of any one organisation. The National Farmers' Union, for instance, would like a much more comprehensive Measure and asked the Government to take other steps to ensure that all dog owners take their responsibilities more seriously. They have suggested increases in the dog licence fee and so on. The Canine Defence League and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have both been conscious of this problem and, in principle, have been willing to help to find means of overcoming it.

This is a modest and short Measure but it probably achieves the greatest possible agreement between the various people and organisations concerned with farm livestock and with dogs. It will have a good effect in so far as it brings home to the public that livestock-worrying is an offence which can be punished by a fine of£10 in the first instance and up to£50for subsequent offences, and particularly that it is a criminal offence to have a dog which causes cruelty to sheep. This Measure, in addition to the Dogs Acts, will strengthen the law.

It is also important that magistrates should consider these cases carefully and search their powers of punishment a little more thoroughly than they have done in the past. The fanning community have often felt it to be hardly worth while to bring forward a case under the Dogs Act because the punishment awarded has often seemed almost derisory and had not the desired effect of making the local people realise that a vicious dog, or even a mischievous dog that took its pleasure in worrying and harrying sheep, was a responsibility and that it was not fair to the community to let that dog have its run without proper care being taken.

I say on behalf of the farming community that the Bill is welcome. Many farmers would like Parliament to go much further. In fact, they take the law into their own hands, as they are fully entitled to do, in safeguarding their sheep. They take out a gun with them and if a dog is worrying, harrying or killing their sheep, they shoot the dog to save further cruelty to the sheep.

They break the law.

As long as they kill the dog clean, I say that that is the right way of settling the problem, The dog ought to be out of the way and might very well have been the subject of a court order under the Dogs Acts.

The Bill gives a further way of dealing with the problem. Farmers will feel that the courts have this additional power and they need not so often take out a gun. I do not myself care for the idea of shepherds and farmers always stalking about with guns, for some of them are not very safe shots. I should not care for my own shepherd always to be out with a gun. I would much rather he knew that he had the law on his side and that a case could be brought if he found that a dog was worrying or harrying the sheep in his charge. I hope that the Bill will achieve some further education of those dog owners who are not always as careful as they should be.

As a Member who represents a constituency where sheep farming is a most important industry, I am sure I can say that the Bill will be very widely welcomed and that there will be many people who are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) and others who have taken so much trouble to bring the Bill forward and get it into its present shape.

There is no doubt whatever that greater protection was needed for the owner of sheep. I can take an objective view, because I am both a dog and sheep owner. The Bill provides that greater protection which was needed, and it is not unduly weighted against the dog owner. The dog owner must accept certain responsibilities. In far more cases than many dog owners are anxious to recognise, a dog can quite easily become a great nuisance and worse.

There is, however, one part of the Bill to which I should like to draw attention before we part with it. That is Clause 1 (3), which is a kind of escape Clause. During the Committee stage, reference was made to this subsection and I understood that it was not—at least, at present —the intention of the Government to call this subsection in aid except, perhaps, where there might be some special areas on the outskirts of towns traditionally favoured by the inhabitants of those towns as exercise places for their animals and where the agricultural value was only very small.

But there is another very large area which we ought to consider, the sort of area that forms a large part of my constituency. That is the heathland and moorland of the national park. Whereas lip-service is frequently paid to the importance of maintaining agriculture in its fullest possible extent in those areas, there is also the feeling that it is endangered by the many other interests, claiming first one privilege and then another. I hope that as the years go by, we will not give way on this point, but I am quite certain that attempts will be made.

The large areas of moorland—some common land, and some in single ownership—all offer facilities for grazing of varying quality. Practically all of them could carry more stock than they do at present. It would be a great pity if it ever came to be recognised that the Bill would not operation in all its strength, and, at the same time, in all its fairness, in such areas.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) has mentioned, we have not at present the same number of sheep as we had a few years ago. My hon. Friend suggested that this was possibly due to the reasons I have given. Another reason is that farmers in counties such as his no longer have as many sheep between the hurdles on the arable land as they used. But do not let us forget to consider subsection (3) of Clause I as applied to national parks and their special circumstances, and remember that increased agricultural production in those areas does come first.

I am glad to have been called at this time because it may perhaps relieve some anxieties with regard to the outcome of the Bill. Remembering the unfortunate experience we had on Second Reading, I might perhaps say a word about that. It will be remembered that on that occasion, as the result of an intervention of mine, the debate was adjourned. I hope I shall not have many interruptions this afternoon. I had no intention of preventing a vote on that occasion, but I was anxious to put before the House certain arguments in regard to the Bill which I thought the House ought to consider.

I am very glad to say that in Committee and in discussions out of Committee the points of view which I wanted expressed to the House have been expressed. The criticisms I offered on that occasion—that it was ill-considered —have been amply justified because the Amendments which have now been moved indicate that the Bill has to some extent been improved over and above the Bill which was originally considered on Second Reading. Having said that, I wish to take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) on his good fortune in having the privilege of bringing forward the Bill and being successful in getting to Third Reading today.

I do not think the cause of the farmer is served by hon. Members expressing the view in this House that it is dogs which are causing the diminution in sheep farming, or the reduction in stock. It does not do a scrap of good to exaggerate the case. I think the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) indicated that there were other reasons for this fall in stock than that of sheep worrying by dogs.

I think we are all of one mind on this. I was very careful to say that that was one of the reasons always put forward and I thought it was more a psychological than a practical reason. Those are the words I used.

I am glad the hon. Member has at this stage vindicated the dog, because that is one of the things we have been seeking to achieve. There has been far too much exaggeration on the question of dogs worrying sheep. On Second Reading I indicated that if this Bill, or any other Bill, would succeed in preventing a single case of cruelty to an animal, I would support it, and I support it on that basis today. If this Bill may in its result prevent suffering being caused to any livestock I wholeheartedly support it.

But the fundamental problem which has been posed by hon. Members opposite with regard to sheep and livestock generally and the worrying of them by dogs has not been touched by this Bill. This Bill does not deal with the fundamental problem of the unidentified dog. That is the problem with which the House ought to deal. All we are seeking to do in this Bill is to inflict certain penalties upon the keeper of a dog if his dog in fact worries sheep. No one has any objection to that, but that does not meet the point of the reasons for the Bill being brought forward——

To the extent of nine-tenths.

With great respect, I do not think that is so. I hope the Government will view the matter with a little more seriousness than does this Private Member's Bill and will give serious consideration to the Report of the Committee which considered the matter and will bring forward legislation to deal with it. I hope they will deal with the question of trespassing by sheep. I do not intend to deal with that question further because that would be out of order on Third Reading. The Minister knows the problem which exists in South Wales about that, and something must be done about it. I hope that when the Report of the Committee is considered, some provisions will be introduced to bring home to farmers their responsibility in the matter.

Having said that, however, I can only express the hope that, as a result of the passage of this Bill, we shall find that there have been at all events some cases in which suffering to animals has been prevented. In those circumstances, I most heartily support the Bill.

I wish to make a short intervention to offer my congratulations to the promoters of the Bill for sending on its way what I think will be a small but very valuable piece of legislation. I should like to combine with my congratulations and thanks to them, as this is a Measure in which the Government are very interested, my thanks to the Opposition for the help and co-operation they have given in bringing the Bill into the shape it is in now. I think that in the difficult matter of sentiment which is involved in any legislation dealing with dogs it is of the greatest value that when the Bill leaves the House it should go with the support of all sides of the House, as in doing so it will carry a great deal more weight in influencing public opinion in the way we wish it to go.

I believe that this Bill will have considerable value in reducing the amount of worrying of livestock by dogs, and particularly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) has said, of sheep worrying. While I agree with the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West) that the serious decrease in sheep numbers which we have today compared with pre-war—from about 18 million in England and Wales in 1938 to about 13½ million today—is not entirely due to the increase in worrying, it is right to say that the amount of worrying which there is today is quite a serious factor in the picture. I think all sides of the House would agree on that.

In the Home Counties in particular and near big towns dogs stray, and there are many farmers today who in weighing up the proposition whether they will start keeping sheep again, are influenced considerably by the additional danger and worry which they have to cope with from the marauding dog. Therefore, it is an important factor. If I again cite the figures to the House they add weight to what I have said. Annually there are about 5,000 sheep killed and an equal number injured by dogs, and between 20,000 and 30,000 poultry are either killed or injured annually through worrying. These figures are quite large enough to indicate that the scale of the visible injury or death of livestock is substantial indeed, and anything we can do to reduce it we naturally wish to do.

It would be wrong to convey the impression that we or that I think that all dog owners are irresponsible; they certainly are not. I am quite certain that the average dog owner is a most responsible person, that he is anxious to make his dog's life a happy one and that he looks after it, gives it exercise, takes care of it and takes every care to see that the dog does not get into mischief of this kind.

What we are particularly concerned with in the Bill is to try to educate and influence the minds of the relatively small section of dog owners who do not have a sufficiently responsible state of mind in taking care of their dogs—who do not take their dogs out for exercise but leave them to roam about on their own so that eventually they get into mischief of this kind. The fact that there is a penalty overhanging the dog owner who behaves in such an irresponsible way will have a restraining effect.

On all sides we have heard expressions of concern about animal suffering. We are pre-eminently a nation of animal lovers and it is reassuring that those who are fond of dogs have on this occasion thought equally of the suffering of livestock and, particularly, of sheep. I am certain that if we could influence public opinion, particularly the very large section of public opinion comprised of dog lovers, to think and feel about sheep as they do about dogs, we should get a very different climate of opinion in the consideration they would show and the care they would take in restraining their dogs from this kind of violence and attack.

I believe that this small Measure, which has the support of all sides of the House, will make a small but valuable contribution towards educating and influencing public opinion so that those who in the past have not been quite as careful as they might have been in taking care of their dogs will be more careful in the future and, in so doing, will not only reduce animal suffering but will make a valuable contribution to increasing the food stocks of this country.

I should like to join those who have already spoken in congratulating the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) on his selection of this as a Private Member's Bill. I should also like to thank him for the way in which he has received the Amendments moved to his Bill on Committee stage. He was most helpful; promises of further consideration were made and have resulted in some of the Amendments we have had before us today.

I join with the Parliamentary Secretary in saying that this is a small but very useful Measure. I believe its effect will be psychological, and I hope it will do something to check this menace—I certainly regard it as a menace—to sheep-keeping in this country. I have seen the result of worrying upon the animal and I have seen something of the result to the sheep owner. I realise that the Bill will not put an end to the problem. All we can hope is that it will make dog owners a little more careful and cause them to act in such a way as to look after the animals which are in their charge in a reasonable way. In this connection I have some diffidence in supporting the Bill because I fear that as a result of it some dog owners might chain up their dogs for long periods. I hope that will not be the effect although I realise that it enters into the consideration of the prevention of sheep-worrying.

We are glad that, despite a worrying start, the Bill has reached its Third Reading. It was certainly a worrying start for some of us, but in the long run everything has turned out for the best. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), who moved the Third Reading, for his reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who was interested in this subject when he was at the Ministry and who expressly charged me yesterday with wishing the Bill welcome. It is the sort of thing he would very much desire to support.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) for the way in which he helped us in our efforts to improve the Measure. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. West). We are glad that he did nothing at all— as he might have done—to block the progress of the Bill. Instead he set about the task of improving it. That is something for which the House as a whole should be grateful. My hon. Friend gave a great deal of his valuable time to a consideration of these provisions and their effect. He brought to that consideration a wide experience in the courts and of life in an area where people suffer tremendously from these difficulties.

I wish to add my thanks to all sorts of people. This is a day when we thank all those who have assisted. I should like to say how grateful we are to the Parliamentary Secretary for his assistance. Finally I thank the hon. Member for Newbury who has guided us through the Report stage. I wish the Bill well and I hope that it will have the result which we all wish to see.

Mr. Speaker, as you gave an indication that you intended to call me just before the Parliamentary Secretary rose, I should like to express a few valedictory words before this Bill finally leaves us. I support it from two points of view, one as the representative of farmers and as a farmer myself whose sheep are worried; and, two, as the owner of dogs who worry those sheep. I feel that I can bring a dispassionate view to bear on the problem. I also speak on behalf of the great humane societies which have spent many years trying to find a solution to the problem of sheep worrying.

Just as the last Bill which we discussed about an hour ago completed the task of releasing some 16 million animals a year from the torture of the pole-axe, so this Bill will go a step further and release sheep from the mauling, the hardship and pain of indiscriminate worrying. I believe that we have done a good job of work, but I hope that it will not be thought that anything in this Bill seeks to attack dogs. That is not the purpose of the Bill. We are anxious only to attack the few irresponsible owners of dogs who do not carry out their proper functions in respect of their ownership.

Speaking on behalf of the humane societies, I would say that we care for all animals irrespective of whether they are dogs or sheep. They all have their claims and we seek to do our best to protect them. With those valedictory words, I hope that the Bill will get to its final conclusion without further difficulty.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) rightly described this Bill when he said that it was not wholly against dogs. It is primarily a Measure to help sheep and other livestock, but in its outward form it is pre-eminently a Bill to punish bad or careless dog owners. In that respect it marks a departure in the law. Up till now we have always punished the dog. If a dog attacked sheep, then under the Dogs Acts it was possible only to discipline it or to order the destruction of the dog. The owner escaped scot-free.

Under this Bill, in relation to the same offences, we impose fines upon owners, and this will have an effect, not only by virtue of the fines, but because it will show in clear form to the public that Parliament feels that the responsibilities of dog owners in this Measure ought to be underlined at the present time, and that, both for the sake of food production and of avoiding cruelty to animals, there should be a very great diminution in attacks upon livestock.

I think we axe also grateful to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West) first of all, for his forbearance, and, later on, for his active and useful support. We all know the propensities of the sheep in Pontypool, but it would have been a pity if sheep in other parts of the Kingdom had had to suffer for the ingrained wickedness of sheep in Pontypool. After that, perhaps I should say that, if the hon. Gentleman is fortunate in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills in the next Session, he can bring forward a Sheep (Protection of Horticultural Produce) Bill, and I can promise him that hon. Members in all parts of the House will do their very best to improve that Bill in every imaginable way.

It is quite true that the scope of this Bill is rather narrow. It is primarily a Bill to impose monetary penalties on the owners of dogs which would be subject to the provisions of the Dogs Act, and, because that is its real nature, it is bound to miss one of the worst causes of the slaughter of livestock, which is the dog that is not caught. That is the great problem, and it is not, of course, peculiar to dogs. We have not yet passed legislation which successfully deals with burglars who are not caught, and, indeed, it is one of the perennial difficulties of those who try to repress crime.

This Bill is, at any rate, one step forward, and I join in the hopes which have been expressed that the Government will shortly turn to the consideration of the Report of the Goddard Committee and the very valuable comments and suggestions which it contains, because the production of food in this country is very important, and we ought not to neglect any steps that will encourage it.

With these few words, I wish only to join in the already expressed congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) on having chosen this extremely useful Measure, and upon the skill with which he has manoeuvred it past the not inconsiderable obstacles which it has met in its course and on having brought it reasonably close to haven so that the sheep, represented by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr can, in his own phrase, feel less worried.

In order to complete the trinity of rural subjects we have been discussing today, which commenced with the slaughter of animals and proceeded to the protection of livestock, I think it is appropriate that we should discuss, on the Motion for the Adjournment, a matter of great importance to agricultural production throughout the United Kingdom, namely, the progress of rural electrification. It is perhaps unusual that on two successive Fridays, both this afternoon and next Friday, we should be discussing this subject. I am confident when I say that we shall not then have had sufficient time in which to explore all the complexities of an economic, technical and financial character which are inherent in this problem.

Though my constituency bears the name of a famous industrial town, it nevertheless embraces within its boundaries more than 100,000 acres of agricultural land, and in the more remote parts of rural Worcestershire there is very great concern today at the apparently slow progress being made in rural electrification, and that sentiment is shared in many other parts of the country, as well. Therefore, this afternoon I shall not speak from a constituency point of view on this problem, but rather from a national point of view, and shall endeavour very briefly to study the principal financial and economic problems that are concerned with the progress of rural electrification.

It is a significant fact that in the last year or two little or no time of this House has been devoted to debates on the nationalised industries, and the only way in which hon. Members can draw attention to the affairs of these Corporations is, generally, through Private Members' time or through an Adjournment Motion. It is true that on 4th February last my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Sir H. Roper) had a little to say on rural electricity in connection with the affairs of the Southwestern Board, and that more than a year ago, on 30th May, 1952, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) discussed the progress of rural electrification in their respective areas. But this is the first time, I think—and next Friday will be the second time—that we have attempted to discuss the progress in this important matter over the country as a whole.

The Economic Survey published at the time of the last Budget drew attention to the fact that in 1952–53 agricultural production had increased by only a trifle over 1 per cent. compared with the total of agricultural production in the previous year. In fact, only small progress was made during the last full year to which I refer in raising the total of agricultural production in this country to the 60 per cent. above the pre-war level that has been defined as our national objective.

The Economic Survey also drew attention to what I consider is a most signifi- cant figure, and one intimately connected with this problem of electrification. It said that agricultural manpower had declined by 22,000 in 1952–53 compared with the previous year. There was a greater drift of manpower from the countryside to the towns last year than at any time since the beginning of the century.

I believe that electricity has a very important part to play in improving amenities in rural England and thereby retaining manpower on the land. In addition, of course, there is the all-important question of farm mechanisation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was at pains in his Budget to introduce fiscal reliefs which would encourage re-equipment in all our industries, not least in agriculture. The combined effect of a reduction in the standard rate of Income Tax, the ending of the Excess Profits Levy, the reduction of Purchase Tax and the re-introduction of initial allowances will, of course, encourage mechanisation on our farms still further in order to replace the drift of labour to the towns. But, quite clearly, it is futile to encourage further steps in mechanisation——

I have just noticed that an hon. Member has a Motion down on this very subject for next Friday. That Motion cannot be anticipated. We cannot cover the ground of the Motion for next Friday in this Adjournment debate.

I had the good fortune to win the Ballot for this Adjournment before my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) won the Ballot for the Private Member's Motion.

That may be true, but it is not relevant to the Rule, which provides that we cannot anticipate a debate for which a Motion has already been put down. A Motion was put down before this debate takes place, and we cannot therefore anticipate it today. Therefore, the matters which the hon. Gentleman can raise on this Adjournment are not those which will be covered by the Motion which is on the Paper for next Friday.

I will of course bow to your Ruling, but with very great respect I would make this reply. If my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury cares to put on the Order Paper, after I have won the Ballot for this Adjournment debate, a Motion which deals with the same matter, surely I am to be given precedence.

The Motion to which the hon. Gentleman is now speaking is the Motion for the Adjournment and there is no Motion on the Order Paper. The other Motion is on the Order Paper.

The Speaker's Office notified me in this matter, and I informed the Speaker's Office at once of the subject that I intended to raise. Then, a good time afterwards, the Motion by my hon. Friend was put down.

I know nothing about that. I must enforce the rule. The Motion is on the Order Paper, and the rule is quite clear that a debate on that subject cannot be anticipated on a Motion for the Adjournment.

I am loath to intervene in this matter, but I desire, if I can, to be helpful. I entirely appreciate the point that you have made, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I have provided myself, thanks to the courtesy of the learned Clerk, with a copy of the Motion for next Friday. I am wondering whether the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) have been recognisable as impinging upon the subject of that Motion. Possibly if he were to continue upon the lines which he has adumbrated it might put me into a difficulty in replying to his speech but he might possibly not go outside your Ruling.

Provided that the hon. Gentleman frames his speech without impinging upon the Motion for next Friday, he will be perfectly in order. He must not impinge upon next Friday's Motion.

I am not quite sure how your Ruling can be interpreted. My subject this afternoon is "Capital Investment for Rural Electrification." The subject for next Friday is "Policy in regard to Rural Electrification." The two subjects are so nearly identical that you are, by your Ruling, telling me in effect that I must not discuss rural electrification.

It is not for me to get the hon. Member out of his difficulty. I am pointing out the difficulty to him. If he cannot get out of his difficulty, that is not a matter for me.

I will proceed with my speech, the whole of which is in connection with rural electrification. If you consider that it is out of order I must resume my seat and protest through the proper channels that the least that could have been done in the circumstances would have been for the Speaker's Office to inform me that it was not possible for me to take advantage of the Adjournment opportunity which, I emphasise to you again, I won in a ballot some considerable time before my hon. Friend put his Motion on the Order Paper.

I am bound by the rules of the House. There is a Motion on the Order Paper and my attention has just been drawn to that fact. The rule is quite clear that this debate on the Adjournment cannot anticipate the subject of the Motion which is to be debated next Friday. The hon. Member's speech would be in order next Friday, but he cannot raise it now, and if he cannot frame his observations this afternoon outside the scope of that Motion, I am afraid he has no alternative but to resume his seat.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I will proceed with my speech and ask as an aside if one of my hon. Friends will kindly obtain for me a copy of next Friday's Motion.

I was passing to the sum of money which is devoted under current arrangements to rural electrification. I have now a copy of next Friday's Motion and I can see nothing in it which refers to capital investment in the countryside for rural electricity purposes. I presume, therefore, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you will allow me to be considered in order.

In the course of the last six years, since vesting day for electricity, only measured progress has been made, in my view, in the extension of electrification for the countryside. The number of farms on 30th June, 1948, that were supplied with electricity, that is shortly after vesting day, was 80,849. Nine months later, by 31st March, 1949, the figure had risen to 89,730, an increase from 25·9 per cent. on 30th June, 1948, to 28·7 per cent. one year later. In the following year, to 31st March, 1950, progress continued at approximately the same speed and by that date 100,029 farms had been connected to the electricity mains, or a percentage of 32·1.

In the ensuing year, by 31st March, the figure rose again to 110,337, a total of 35·3 per cent. of all the farms in the United Kingdom. By 31st March, the figure had increased again by approximately an equivalent number to 120,121, or 38·5 per cent. The last available figure sent to me by the British Electricity Authority, on 31st March, was 129,493, or 41·4 per cent. of all the farms in the United Kingdom. When I refer to all the farms I mean, numerically, a figure of 312,500.

The hon. Member will see that farms are specifically referred to in the Motion for next Friday.

Farms are referred to, certainly. I shall be referring to capital investment in the rural areas, and of course farms are to be found in the rural areas. I hope, therefore, that I shall be considered in order in talking about rural areas and farms, because the one is dependent upon the other.

I find it very difficult to deal with this. The Motion takes precedence over the Adjournment in its importance and therefore cannot be anticipated. I find it very difficult to see that what the hon. Member is now saying does not impinge upon that Motion.

I can only repeat my statement. I did not come equipped to argue this particular point with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if it is in order for me so to argue, for, as I said, I should have thought that the Speaker's Office would have kindly advised me on this point. But, as I see the position, I am talking about a subject which I notified for the Adjournment and I do not consider that it can be in order for one of my hon. Friends to try to invalidate my Adjournment by placing the same subject in a Motion on the Order Paper.

The hon. Member may have an objection, but it is not valid. The Motion takes precedence and I cannot see how the hon. Member can proceed.

Statistics show measured progress, but progress quite inadequate to meet the paramount need for greater food production. There is a great deal of misunderstanding and controversy as to who is responsible for the allocation of funds for capital investment in rural electrification matters. As the subject matter of the Adjournment is "Capital investment for rural electrification" I hope that I shall be in order if I quote from former Ministerial statements on the subject of capital investment allocations.

It seems to me that the Ministry of Fuel and Power take the view that they are responsible for the allocation of funds to the British Electricity Authority for the whole of the electricity development of the United Kingdom, including that of rural electrification. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power takes the view that, having made that global allocation of funds for capital investment, it is then within the autonomy of the British Electricity Authority to parcel out or divide the sum of money so made available among the area boards, and then leave it to the area boards to decide how that money shall be applied.

On the other hand, the area boards and the British Electricity Authority claim that they are unable to proceed with rural electrification at the required speed because of capital investment restrictions imposed upon them by the central Government authority, and in this connection there are many conflicting statements which I hope I shall be allowed to quote.

In the British Electricity Authority's fourth Annual Report for the year ended 31st March, 1952, these words appear in paragraph 222:

"As in the previous year, the restrictions on national capital investment severely limited the amount of rural electrification which could be put in hand. Nevertheless, the Area Boards connected 9,744 farms, which was well up to the average of recent years."

They proceeded in paragraph 223 with these words:

"In August, 1951, the Government decided "—

I emphasise that—

"that no new rural electrification schemes should be started during the remainder of 1951 or in 1952, and it was estimated that this would save about £2 million in 1952. In fixing the 1952 civil investment allocation the Government decided to restore £1 million of this cut to enable the area boards to start some new rural schemes of an urgent character."

Therefore, the British Electricity Authority lay fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government the responsibility for making cuts, and restoring them as necessary in the rural electrification programme. But that was not the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in his recent reply to a Question of mine on this subject, for on 11th May, 1953, he said in reply to my Question:

"The investment programme approved each year contains a global sum for the electricity industry and the Government does not make specific allocations for rural supplies. My right hon. Friend expects that the allotment this year will permit more rural electrification than last year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 60.]

Here is a direct contradiction. The area boards and the Electricity Authority are blaming the Government for the restriction on capital investment specifically for rural supplies—not a global restriction but specifically for rural supplies—whereas my hon. Friend says that it is nothing at all to do with him and that this question is settled within the autonomy enjoyed by the area boards and the British Electricity Authority.

Again I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 30th May, 1952. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was replying on that occasion for the Government, and he said:

"The House will recall—there is no need for me to elaborate it—the serious economic situation of the country at the time. It would, therefore, I think, have been justifiable for the Government to have continued the same policy of restriction with regard to rural electrification that the late Government had decided upon last year; but, despite the even greater need of the country of limitation of capital investment, the present Government"—

the Government of which my hon. Friend is a member—

"attached so much importance to the needs of the country districls as a whole, and to the acceleration of the development of electricity in country areas, that they decided to restore for the current year £1 million of that which had been cut by the late Government, so as to increase the total sum to £4 million and enable the boards to start fresh schemes to that amount."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 30th May, 1952; Vol. 501; c. 1796.]

I shall have to limit my objective this afternoon in view of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and hope to catch your eye or that of Mr. Speaker next Friday when the Motion to which you referred, is debated. Within that limited objective I should like my hon. Friend, when he replies, to clarify these extremely contradictory statements. What has, in fact, occurred is that the British Electricity Authority and the area boards have thrown the buck to the Government. They have blamed the Government by restricting capital investment for the slow rate of rural electrification progress, whereas the Government have thrown the buck back to the B.E.A. and the area boards and said that B.E.A. and the area boards are themselves responsible for the position of rural electrification of development. It is pertinent at this stage, and it is within my limited objective, to compare the sums of money that have been expended on rural electrification in the last few years with the whole of the capital investment programme for electricity.

The hon. Member has succeeded so far in keeping outside the terms of next Friday's Motion, but it seems to me that he is now getting perilously near that Motion.

It is part of my purpose to adhere to it as closely as I dare this afternoon: but in view of your Ruling I shall try very hard to keep within the bounds of order. It is a perilous business.

The total investment programme of the British Electricity Authority—and there is nothing in next week's Motion about the capital investment programme of the British Electricity Authority— during the year 1950–51 was £142 million. In the following year, 1952–53, the sum of money spent was £160 million. The amount out of that global investment figure that was devoted to rural electrification was. in 1949, the sum of £4,400,000: in 1950, £4,800,000; in 1951, £4,900,000 and the figure for was of the order of £5 million. In it is anticipated that it will be to the order of £6 million.

Taking an average ratio during each of the last four years between rural elec- trification expenditure and the total capital investment programme as expended by the British Electricity Authority, we find it is of the order of three to 100, or 3 per cent. I say that, in present circumstances, it is grossly inadequate that, of the enormous sums of money which we are devoting to capital investment in electricity, only £3 out of every £100 expended should be devoted to the rural electrification programme which is so vital to the stimulation of food production. The area boards are dragging their feet in that regard. They have a statutory responsibility within the 1947 Statute to develop rural supplies as far as they are able. I believe they are only carrying out as much rural electrification as is necessary for them to be able to say that they are conforming to the requirements of the Statute.

I believe that the area boards regard rural electrification as being a largely uneconomic operation because they can often make approximately only 10 connections per linear mile. In an urban area an area board can often make 300 connections, on an average, per linear mile and, proceeding on the basis of what is most easy and convenient for them, they are neglecting the countryside and devoting a disproportionate amount of their endeavour to the development of electricity in urban areas.

Next Friday my right hon. Friend will no doubt be replying to the Motion on the Order Paper. I hope then that I shall be able to develop this argument a good deal further and get from him replies to a number of aspects of the problem. This afternoon I am only anxious, as a matter of important principle, to obtain from the Parliamentary Secretary a clear definition as to who is responsible for the allocation of funds for capital investment purposes.

You will know, Mr. Speaker, of the grave dilemma with which I am faced during this Adjournment debate; how extraordinarily difficult it is for me to keep within the rules of order without trespassing in any way upon the Motion on the Order Paper for next Friday. From the general issue, therefore, I want to pass to the local issue of Stoke Bliss, Worcestershire, because the local issue is not referred to in that Motion.

It is significant that there are scores of similar examples all over the country. It denotes the tremendous waste of time in which Members of Parliament are becoming involved, in which Ministers are becoming involved, in which local authorities are becoming involved and in which the area boards are involved. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary knows something about this as his Ministry dealt with the case of Stoke Bliss 12 months ago. It attracted so much attention that it eventually occupied a column in the "Daily Express" last August.

Stoke Bliss is a remote rural parish 15 miles west of Bewdley. It is a highly productive agricultural area mostly concerned with dairy farming. The local authority wanted to build new houses there for farm workers. In order to do so they had to get water pumped from a deep bore some distance away from the site and, in common with the people who resided in the parish, they applied to the Midlands Electricity Board to give them a supply of mains electricity. Whereupon the Midlands Electricity Board demanded a sum of £1,131 per annum as a minimum guarantee for seven years for only 43 premises in the parish, including the new council houses.

The occupiers of half the established premises agreed to accept their respective apportionments of the total sum to be guaranteed, but the other half said that they could not afford it. Therefore, the scheme became stultified and the Midlands Electricity Board said that they must decline to proceed with it until they had a guarantee for the full global amount of £1,131 per annum for seven years. The parish, urgently requiring new houses for farm workers and requiring electricity for farm mechanisation, then approached me, as the local Member of Parliament and asked me to take up the matter with the appropriate Ministers.

I thereupon approached my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power and asked what he was going to do about it. He said really that he did not know, but that he could not interfere with an area board's apportionment of its capital investment allocation for rural electricity supplies. I thereupon took the case to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and said to him, "It is your responsibility to build houses. Will you please tell me how the local authority can build houses in this remote rural parish without electricity to pump water from a deep bore, in order to provide a piped water supply for these houses?"

The Minister then said that he would consult the area electricity board. Two conferences followed in Birmingham. No satisfaction or settlement was reached and the area office of the Ministry referred the matter back to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and said that they had been unable to find a solution; whereupon—mark these words—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government tells me that the local authority should build houses with oil lamps for lighting and should buy a little diesel engine of their own to pump water.

But the Chairman of the Midlands Electricity Board goes much further. He says, "You can erect the new houses without piped water." That is an extraordinary statement for the chairman of a nationalised board to put in a letter to a Member of Parliament, because he will not provide the electricity. The fact of the matter is that no solution has yet been found for carrying electricity without exorbitant charge to the more remote rural areas.

It was my purpose this afternoon, before, on a technicality, I was ruled largely out of order, to try to find a solution through certain recommendations, but I fear that I should be out of order in doing so and I shall defer my efforts, therefore, until next Friday and sit diligently in my place in the hope of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker. All that my right hon. Friends have been able to suggest so far has simply been this. The Minister of Housing and Local Government said that he did not know how to provide a solution to get electricity for pumping water from a deep bore to these houses in a remote parish, and so he sent all the papers to the Ridley Committee.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will remember the purposes of the Ridley Committee. They examined all the aspects of this problem and evidently could find no solution to it, because they published no recommendations in their Report as to how to overcome problems of this kind in rural areas. It may be the responsibility of the British Electricity Authority and the area boards to carry electricity to the rural areas in accordance with the Statute of 1947, but none can deny that it is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Ministers to encourage home food production by every available means.

If the area boards are in fact restricted by an insufficient sum for capital investment, if they are inhibited as to the number of rural schemes that they can carry out, it is surely the overall responsibility of the Government, in the interests of enlarged food production, to smooth out those difficulties and to allocate for capital investment the increased sums of money which are so urgently wanted. It may be interpreted from what I have said that I am somewhat critical of the area electricity boards. Next Friday, if I catch Mr. Speaker's eye, I shall say precisely why I am so critical of the way they carry on and of the way they are needlessly wasting money in the extension of electricity supplies to the countryside.

We are not doing very well in this country with rural electrification. The United States of America, with much greater distances to be covered, has 84 per cent. of all her farms connected to the electricity mains. France has 86 per cent. We in this country have only 41 per cent. If we are in earnest about growing more food, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary should carry back to the Minister of Fuel and Power, before next Friday, an urgent message from this House that not only do we want more money for rural electrification; we also want a clear definition as to who is responsible for deciding what schemes shall be proceeded with. Also we want a good deal of new thinking in the next few years, so that we do not take a period of 20 years or more to secure universality of electrification in the rural areas.

My objective this afternoon has indeed been severely restricted. I have been stringently inhibited in what I could say. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to respond to the major matters of principle in connection with capital investment responsibility and, what is more, give me a firm undertaking that he will look at the specific case of the electricity supply for Stoke Bliss, which is so typical of hundreds of cases all over the country. I hope he or his right hon. Friend will undertake to endeavour, next Friday, to give the House a formula for the solution of these virulent problems in the agricultural areas.