I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This is a short Bill containing only two Clauses and it is certainly not designed to have world shattering effect, but it is a Measure to make certain that the expressed wishes and desires of Parliament have full legal effect. Parliament in its wisdom has decided that no premiums or key money shall be charged as a condition of the grant, renewal, continuance or assignment of a tenancy, and all the Bill seeks to do is to prevent anyone from evading the law by going round by the back door.

One can well understand and appreciate that in certain circumstances it is in the interests of both the outgoing and incoming tenant that certain furniture and fittings should remain and that a reasonable financial adjustment should be made. Two obvious examples of this are fitted carpets and curtains. In both these instances the alteration required to fit a fitted carpet or curtains in new premises would reduce their value considerably. I believe that no fair-minded person would see anything sinister in anyone asking for a reasonable price, so that a satisfactory financial arrangement may be made in those circumstances in the interests of both parties.

Nevertheless, it must be realised that the incoming tenants, even in these circumstances, may still have to face double expense, because, just as we know full well that no kitchen is large enough to hold two women, I doubt whether there are two women in the country who would agree on the type of carpet or curtains that would be desirable. However, that is something which can be worked out and in the circumstances nothing sinister can be seen in this arrangement. The Bill is certainly not aimed at that type of transaction.

The Bill is aimed purely and simply at the case where, because of acute local shortage, a person will deliberately make it a condition that a large sum is paid for a piece of mouldy old linoleum and a few sticks of broken down furniture. These are obviously cases where the landlord takes advantage of a fortuitous situation to charge a premium in another way, so that he can avoid the law and the wish of Parliament as expressed in the past.

I think that two main types of people are affected, though no doubt hon. and right hon. Members will know of others. There are those whose job or profession means that they have to make frequent moves and therefore have little opportunity of making roots so as to be able to justify the purchase of accommodation. The second group comprises those who do not possess sufficient capital to be able to enter into a purchase arrangement so that they can own their own property. The first type, after paying an outrageous price for furniture and fittings, will certainly tend, human nature being what it is, to try to get their money back when they leave the accommodation, with the result that this whole practice will be perpetuated and extended if we allow it to continue. The second type comprises those who have to keep looking for accommodation, with little hope of success.

Another additional problem which both groups have to face is the agency percentage. The usual procedure is to charge the prospective tenant a percentage of the first year's rental, but in many cases this is also a percentage on the furniture and fittings that are offered. It means, therefore, that a considerable amount of capital must be laid out, and for that reason we should look at the position very closely indeed.

I should have thought that the main aim of any letting system was to cater for those with very small capital who find it impossible to enter into a purchase arrangement because they cannot put down the deposit. Some may say that this problem will solve itself, because the amount of capital which many people now have to put down by way of high prices for furniture and fittings plus agents' commission is reaching the point where it may be higher than the deposit demanded for the purchase of a house in one's own right. That may be so; but I want to regulate the position in the meantime until we reach that happy situation when supply and demand are properly in balance.

So much for the background of the problem. Now let us consider how we think that the Bill will help in the present circumstances. In theory the Bill will apply to controlled and decontrolled properties, but in practice as a tenancy ends the property becomes decontrolled, and the Bill will apply in practice to decontrolled premises. It is important to note that it will apply not only to landlords but also to tenants who reassign their leases to tenants who follow them into the premises.

Clause I (1, a) makes it an offence for anyone who knows or ought to know that the price is unreasonably high to seek that price as a condition of tenancy. Clause I (1, b) provides that where a price is asked a written inventory must be provided specifying the price sought for each item. It is hoped that this alone will have a deterrent effect on those who want deliberately to use this backdoor way of charging a premium. I believe that it will have that deterrent effect and will make evasion more difficult.

Subsection (2) of the same Clause gives local authorities which have reasonable ground to suspect that an offence is being committed the right to enter and inspect. I am one of many people in the country who believe that extension of the power of entry should not be made unless full inquiries have already been carried out and all efforts made to ascertain that the desired result cannot be achieved in some other way. In this case I believe that at the moment there is no other effective way of apprehending those who would be offending against the terms of the Bill. There may be another way of which we are not aware. If the Bill reaches the Committee stage we should be prepared to study very closely any suggested alternative which can ensure the apprehension of those who offend against the Bill.

It must be realised that it is to the local authority that the normal disgruntled seeker after accommodation goes first, because he believes that it is from the local authority that he can obtain most satisfaction. The local authority is called upon to act in many ways in relation to housing accommodation. I should have thought that if complaints were brought to the local authority and the terms of Clause I (1, b) were carried out, the contents of the price inventory would give the local authority a fair idea of whether an offence was being committed, without its having to exercise the right of entry.

Would my hon. Friend tell the House who on the local authority will decide which items, if any, arc priced too high? Whom will the local authority employ for that purpose? Will it have someone on the staff whom the hon. Member has in mind, or will it have to employ people from outside?

At the present stage of the Bill that is not laid down. The responsibility is just placed upon the local authority. In those circumstances I should have thought the local authority would be free to take whatever action it thought necessary. In normal circumstances a small local authority would probably call in a person it considered to be a qualified valuer, one who could be relied upon in a court of law to be recognised as reasonably expert in deciding whether the price asked was outrageous or not.

The main point we have to consider is that the Bill is designed to operate against tie man who is obviously charging an outrageous price which bears no relation to the articles there. In the case of a landlord who wants to let a flat, and who says that in the drawing room there is a Queen Anne table for which he is charging a certain amount, all the local authority would require to do would be to look at the inventory and decide whether this was a gross exaggeration of tie actual value of the furniture and fittings. However, as I have said, in Committee we can tie this a little tighter and can lay down what action should be taken and what officer the local authority could use to ensure that it was doing its job.

Even before deciding upon prosecution, even after looking at the inventory and feeling that there was a gross exaggeration of the value of the contents, one could not go forward with a prosecution without checking and inspecting the articles covered by the inventory. To do that, some responsible official, say a valuer, should be able to enter the premises in order to check whether at first sight the inventory is accurate or whether there is grave suspicion that an offence is being committed, whereupon the prosecution, could be put in train.

It is also important to note that in all these circumstances the premises concerned would be open to view. They would be available for prospective tenants to look at them and to decide whether they would care to enter into a tenancy agreement, which naturally they would not do until they had viewed the premises. In these circumstances, I should not think there was any more invasion of privacy than that caused by a prospective tenant. Certainly, where there is the opportunity to view. I should think that one of the persons allowed to view should be a representative who wants to find out whether the law is being broken.

As I have said, this is the only way we can see of apprehending the offender, but during the Committee stage we shall be happy to consider any suggestions which may be made for some other satisfactory way of apprehending the wrongdoer.

The House has been very patient with one who obviously is not well versed in the legal complexities surrounding this problem, but no doubt any deficiencies will be remedied by those who follow me.

I beg to second the Motion.

I would describe this Bill as endeavouring to remedy a minor complication which has arisen out of a major operation. The major operation was the Ren; Act, 1957, and the minor complication is that certain provisions regarding hidden premiums are being evaded. The history of endeavours to prevent demands for high premiums goes back a long way, to the beginning of the Rent Restrictions Acts. Even the 1915 Act contained provisions against demanding a premium for controlled property, and the 1920 and 1923 Rent Acts went a little further by forbidding not only the demanding of premiums for the transfer of controlled property, but also made it an offence to demand an excessively high price for furniture.

In the 1920 Act there was a specific provision relating to assignments of controlled tenancies. I mention that now, because I will come back to the point later. It is in Section 15 (2) of the 1920 Act, where it was first enacted that a tenant assigning his controlled tenancy ought not to require a premium and ought not to demand an excessive price for furniture sold with the controlled premises.

This was further developed in the 1923 Rent Act, so we have not only the criminal offence of demanding a premium for transfer of controlled premises but also a civil claim by the person who has paid the premium, or the person who has paid the excessive price for the furniture, to recover the money he had paid.

The present provisions relating to this point are in the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, which repealed and re-enacted the 1920 Act provisions relating to it, and repealed some of the 1923 Act provisions and re-enacted them. It is Section 3 of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, with which we are particularly concerned in this Bill. That is the Section which forbids the demand of an excessive price for furniture sold with a lease of controlled premises.

The Rent Act, 1957, by Section 13, applied those Sections of the 1949 Act to property which was decontrolled by the Rent Act, 1957. Up to that time those provisions concerning premiums and excessive price for furniture had applied only to controlled property, but, as the Rent Act, 1957, was decontrolling certain properties, it extended the provisions of the 1949 Act to those properties which it decontrolled. I will endeavour to explain what it was that Section 13 of the 1957 Act applied to those properties.

It applied provisions about demanding a price which exceeds a reasonable price for furniture sold with controlled premises or premises which became decontrolled by the 1957 Act. It also applied the provision of the 1949 Act that if the prospective tenant required a statement in writing of the price asked for the furniture, it was to be given. If it were not given, an offence was committed.

I come next to the properties to which Section 13 of the 1957 Act applied the provisions of the 1949 Act. They were two sets of properties. One was those which were decontrolled by the 1957 Act because their rateable value exceeded £30 in the provinces and £40 in London. Rt. hon. and hon. Members will recall that there was a period of transition for fifteen months after the Rent Act came into force when a three years' lease might be granted of such premises and they would thus, for practical purposes, be prevented from becoming decontrolled, although by law they in fact became decontrolled on 7th October, 1958. That is one class of decontrolled property to which Section 13 of the 1957 Act applied the provisions dealing with premiums and excessive prices for furniture.

The other class was where a new tenancy of controlled property was granted. Any controlled property becomes decontrolled under the 1957 Act if a new tenancy is granted, unless that new tenancy is to the sitting tenant, and it is to those properties also that Section 13 applied these premium provisions.

I admit at once that in many cases Section 13 of the Rent Act, 1957, has not been successful in preventing the demands for hidden premiums. I looked up what I said on Report in connection with this Section, and I see that I said I thought that it would be effective. In fact, I said so rather strongly at the time. I think that it has been effective in the cases which we then had in mind—those of the three years' lease granted to the sitting tenant. I think that it has prevented landlords from demanding any hidden premium in those cases, but other cases have arisen since then, to which I will refer in a minute, which makes it necessary to tighten these provisions.

May I endeavour to show how the Bill tightens these provisions? First, the 1949 Act used the words that if the excessive price for the furniture

"has been required as a condition of the grant, renewal, continuance … of a tenancy."

The courts have held that this is not proved unless the money has been paid. As the law stands now, it is only after the event that anything can be done. In the Bill, it is desired to do something before the event and the words used in the Bill are offers the furniture". Hon. Members will see in Clause I (a) the words

"offers the furniture at a price which he knows or ought to know is unreasonably high".

The second tightening of these provisions is that in the 1949 Act the words "exceeds the reasonable price" were used. In the Bill the words are

"a price which he knows or ought to know is unreasonably high".

Those may not be the right words to use, but what we are trying to do in the Bill is to penalise the man who is offering furniture at an obviously high price and to prevent him from persuading a prospective tenant—in these days an eager tenant—from paying an excessive price.

Thirdly, there is a tightening on the question of requesting a statement in writing. In the 1949 Act the seller of the furniture had to give a statement in writing of the price if requested to do so. Under the Bill, it would be an offence if he failed to furnish not just a statement of price, but an inventory setting out the price against each item, and it is not merely if he is requested to do that; he must do it with the particulars which he gives of the tenancy which he is offering.

That, I think, overcomes the reluctance of a prospective tenant in asking for a list of the furniture and the prices against it. Where the prospective tenant is seeking a tenancy of premises at present, when there is a short supply in many areas, he is reluctant to put himself in difficulty with the agents or the prospective landlord, and one hears of cases in which prospective tenants who inquire too much are put on a black list by agents. That is the sort of thing we want to prevent by the Bill, because it is a misuse of the protective Clauses of the Rent Act, 1957, and the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1958.

Surely, if a black list is maintained by agents, it is the duty of the professional body concerned with agents—and my hon. Friend knows very well which body it is—to take action against its members. If certain of its members are sending around saying, "So and so should not be given a house because he is not prepared to pay a high price", then it is a matter for the professional body.

I am glad that my hon. Friend pulled me up there, because I was, perhaps, using the phrase "black list" in a rather loose way. I do not believe that there is a black list circulated amongst agents. What I meant was that an agent will send a prospective tenant away who asks too many questions and will not endeavour to do any transaction with him.

There is not only that reluctance among prospective tenants to make too many inquiries but, if they enter into a transaction, take the tenancy and pay this hidden premium, then there is undoubtedly a great reluctance to bring any proceedings thereafter. For the ordinary person it sounds rather like blackmail when he goes to the landlord or the assignor and says, "You have taken from me too high a price for this furniture and I want the money back".

I say that it sounds like blackmail, because if he is successful in getting the money back from the landlord or from the assignor it follows that the landlord or the assignor has committed a criminal offence. If it is necessary to bring civil proceedings in which the tenant who has paid the money is successful, then criminal proceedings must necessarily follow. It seems to the man who is claiming his money back that he is not only claiming a civil debt, but is also threatening criminal proceedings, and there is a reluctance to do that.

This is surely one of the cases in which it is necessary to protect a person against himself. We recognise that principle in many respects in law. We recognise in moneylending cases and hire-purchase cases that certain documents, whether asked for or not, should be prepared and handed to the other party to the transaction. This idea of protecting the person against himself in certain circumstances particularly applies to subsection (2) of Clause 1.

My hon. Friend said that we might not have got the provision quite right. It certainly looks rather a frightening Clause at the moment in giving power to a local authority to enter premises. But surely we should prefer entry to be above board and open rather than that it should be by the subterfuge of pretending to be a prospective tenant. The local authority already has power to take proceedings. That power was given as long ago as the 1933 Act and it was applied again in the Rent Act, 1957. If the local authority has power to take proceedings, it must have evidence on which to take them if it suspects that an offence has been committed.

If we did not give power specifically in the Bill the local authority could send its representative secretly as a prospective tenant and get its evidence that way. It would be most unfortunate if we expected local authorities to do that. It is far better to give them specific power clearly laid down in the Bill, a power to be exercised with the knowledge of the person whose house is being entered.

Safeguards are provided in the Clause. First, the local authority has to have reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under Clause I (1, a) has been committed. That is at least some protection that the local authority will not act frivolously or oppressively in exercising its rights.

Who will decide whether the local authority has reasonable grounds? Will the local authority have to go to court and get approval of its grounds? Will it make a guess? To whom has the landlord an appeal if he thinks the grounds are unreasonable?

The local authority is given the right to decide whether there are reasonable grounds, with a possible appeal to the court eventually on the ground that it has trespassed because it had no reasonable grounds for entry. It 's a very familiar provision in the statutes. ft is used again and again in the case of police taking action and in other cases where local authorities have the right to enter, such as under the Food and Drugs Act.

Can my hon. Friend tell me of any other case in which the authority which is to launch the prosecution is the authority which decides that it has reasonable grounds compulsorily to enter premises for the purpose of obtaining evidence to launch the prosecution?

I think that that is so under the Food and Drugs Act. I believe the authority which launches the prosecution is the authority which has the power to enter and inspect and decide whether it has a reasonable case for doing so.

The second safeguard is that the authority must give notice to the person in possession of the premises. Thirdly, the local authority representative is not permitted to force entry. If it is not possible to obtain entry by being admitted, the process by way of search warrant, on the authority of a justice of the peace, would have to be taken. The Clause applies only to voluntary admission and certainly does not allow the local authority to break into premises. The fourth safeguard is that entry can be refused on reasonable grounds. With those safeguards I think the Clause might operate satisfactorily.

It may well be that hon. Members think that further safeguards ought to be introduced, but, as my hon. Friend said, this is not really an invasion of the privacy of a person's house. That person is the prospective assignor or lessor and he is already throwing his house open for inspection by prospective tenants or assignees.

The hon. Member suggests that the Clause will operate fairly and contains adequate Safeguards. He says that the local authority has to give notice to the occupier or the person offering the rooms that it intends to visit and inspect. Does he think that that will work in practice and that the occupier will, on receiving notice, agree that the local authority should enter?

If the occupier does not do so and has no reasonable grounds for refusing, he commits an offence under subsection (2, b). I imagine that the notice given by the local authority would draw attention to the fact that if admission is refused without reasonable cause an offence is committed. Indeed. I should think it absolutely necessary that the local authority should give that warning to the occupier.

As I have said, the local authority already has power to prosecute for this type of offence, but local authorities seldom have the material on which to prosecute and the Clause is intended to give them that material.

Against whom is the Clause aimed? The evil arises mainly in the following circumstances at present. The Rent Act, 1957, allowed fifteen months after it came into operation for three-year leases to be granted to sitting tenants of houses of £30 rateable value in the provinces and £40 in London to avoid those tenants being turned out. I imagine that those leases have been granted if they are to be granted and that that transitional stage has passed. I do not want to be controversial, but I would point out that that stage has passed without any real hardship as forecast by hon. Members opposite. Therefore, the Clause is not intended as a protection for previously controlled tenants who were seeking to retain control, for that stage is over.

During the transitional stage, however, considerable pressure was brought on landlords to grant such leases. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government made certain statements and eventually introduced the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1958. That pressure was brought on landlords to protect the tenant in his home. If, having got that protection and having got his three-year lease, the tenant now seeks to make a profit out of it by assigning the lease with furniture at an excessive price, we ought to prevent him from doing so. That is the main evil which is arising at present. It is the assigning of leases by tenants, who obtained them when landlords were being pressed to grant them. That is the main case with which we now want to deal.

There are other cases; for instance, landlords who have obtained possession by the tenant surrendering his three-year lease, or where a three-year lease has not been granted. Such landlords ought not to be allowed to evade the provisions of Section 13 of the Rent Act which applies the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1949. Nor should the landlord who obtains possession of controlled premises be permitted to put some furniture into them and then to dispose of the furniture at an excessive price.

On that point, it is worth drawing attention to the fact that the 1949 Act applied only to decontrolled premises; the 1957 Act decontrols controlled premises immediately a new tenancy is granted, so the 1949 Act would not have applied to those premises which became decontrolled under Section 11 (2) of the 1957 Act if Section 13 had not been enacted. There is evidence that landlords of such premises who obtain possession relet them and demand excessive prices for furniture put into the premises deliberately for the purpose of getting a hidden premium on granting a new tenancy.

Those are the categories in which the existing law is inefficient in apprehending the offender. This temporary Measure—because it will last for only three years after the Rent Act has expired—is perhaps a little drastic, but in present circum- stances it is necessary, so that a wrong advantage cannot be taken of provisions which were made for the protection of tenants under the Rent Act, 1957, and the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1958.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) who introduced the Bill and I hope that it will not prejudice his political prospects. The Bill deals with a racket in all the large towns, especially London, which has been missed when previous legislation has been enacted. I thank the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for his legal explanation of the background to the problem. He showed that the House has been concerned with the problem for years and has always been anxious to find some reasonable solution.

I am not sure that the Bill goes as far as I should like, but at any rate it is a good effort to try to give protection to people who are homeless, or who have to move their homes to other addresses. It will protect them from the sharks who are infesting the house-letting business these days.

The hon. Member for Crosby suggested that this was a minor matter. All I can say is that I do not hold a meeting at my "surgery" without having someone complaining to me about hidden premiums which they have to pay when trying to get empty accommodation. That that is true is shown by a list which I have in my hand. It is a list of empty properties in London. There are about 230 properties on the list, 70 per cent. of them with a premium attached. I can give the House the name of this firm which has allowed this list of properties to escape from its office. It is Centacom, 93 Jermyn Street, S.W.1.

I want to show that excessive and hidden premiums are being charged all over London and not only in those parts where one would expect such a racket to go on. I propose to give the House the districts, the amounts being charged, and the number of rooms in each flat. That should show how the Bill can provide assistance to poor devils who do not have a decent home of their own.

I shall not quote all the list, but I shall take a few scattered examples. In Kensington, there is a two-roomed flat, a basement flat at that, for which the premium is £650. In Lavender Hill, which is very near my constituency, for a two-roomed flat a premium of £400 is asked. Why anybody should pay any money to live in Lavender Hill I do not know.

Does the hon. Member mean that a premium is being asked, or that prospective tenants are being asked to buy some furniture?

The premium is camouflaged by having the initials F & F— furniture and fittings—on the top of the list. If there is a two-roomed flat in Lavender Hill containing £400 worth of furniture, I shall be very surprised.

In Lewisham there is a two-roomed flat with a premium of £300; in Holland Park, which used to be regarded as a salubrious part of London, there is a two-roomed flat with a premium of £420; in Hendon there is a two-roomed flat with a premium of £200—that is one of the low figures; in Bayswater there is a one-roomed flat with a rent of £234 per annum and the premium asked is £250. It is as plain as the nose on one's face that that is a hidden premium. In Victoria there is a two-roomed flat with a £400 premium; in Wembley, there is a two-roomed flat with a premium of £600 and the rent and rates are £216 per annum.

Has the hon. Member visited any one of these flats and can he assist the House by giving us any idea of the approximate value of the furniture and fittings?

I have seen places in Lavender Hill and I would not pay 6d. to live there, if I could help it. I have a letter from a constituent who went to that area and I propose to quote the latter later.

There are very much worse cases. In the Gloucester Place area there are three two-bedroomed flats. The rent and rates are £180 per annum, while the premium for one is £910, for another £1,656 and for the third £2,180. When this case was brought to my notice my comment was that the furniture must have diamonds on it, because it is obviously not a reasonable figure to ask for furniture and fittings, when it is remembered that if somebody lets accommodation with furniture and fittings he is entitled to be paid for their value in the rent. The Bill provides machinery for local authorities to enter premises in order to check up the situation, and, if necessary, to prosecute where excessive premiums are being charged.

I have two more cases concerning one-roomed flats. One is in Highbury, where the rent is £198 a year and where a premium of £250 is being asked for furniture and fittings. The other, again in Bayswater, carries a premium of £500. It is amazing how the value of furniture varies as one goes through the list. I want to give just two more examples from the list, supplied by the firm I have mentioned to one of my constituents. In the Marble Arch area an empty two-roomed flat is offered at £326 a year, with another £350 for the furniture in it. In the St. John's Wood area, for a four-roomed fiat with a shower bath—I suppose that that considerably increases the value of the furniture—£1,000 is asked for furniture and fittings. I could give many more examples.

These examples, in respect of premises scattered all over the London area, show how necessary it is to have a Bill of this kind in order to clip the wings of people who are deliberately robbing others who badly need accommodation. I have a letter from a constituent who applied for one of these flats. She was willing to pay the rent, and said that she would take the flat. Only then was she told that she would be required to pay £150 for the furniture and fittings, which she declared were not worth half that. Even if they had been worth it, she had not the money to pay. Many people in and around London and other large towns are in that position. This youngish widow says:

"In my opinion this is a monstrous imposition. Thanks to the Rent Act, and those who ordered it, my landlord wants possession because I cannot afford to agree to his terms to pay £48 extra rent, all rates and taxes and be responsible for repairs and decorations, out of £7 per week. I am now confronted with an impossible situation …. Something ought to be done about this racket. It is a case of Shylock getting fat on other people's misfortunes."

The Bill will to some extent help to prevent people like this lady from being rooked by unscrupulous agents.

I am not labelling all agents as unscrupulous. I have paid my rent to agents all my life, until recently. I have had good agents, and have never had any complaint against them. They have dealt with the property in which I have lived quite reasonably and well. But there are many crooks in this business, who are charging excessive premiums in order to make money quickly and exploit the dire necessity of people who must have somewhere to live.

I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Crosby admit that there is a shortage of accommodation, and that people who apply for these premises are in the hands of these agents. I hope, therefore, that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. Once the lawyers get at it a number of alterations may be made, but some effort ought to be made to provide protection for people who are being caught by this racket, and the Bill will go some way towards that.

I join with the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) upon the way in which he embarked upon the amendment of a difficult and complicated section of our law. I wholly support the intentions of my hon. Friend and of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who seconded the Motion, and also the attitude of mind displayed by the hon. Member for Clapham.

It is right that the sale of furniture should not be used simply as a dodge to enable people to obtain premiums for letting controlled premises, or premises which have become decontrolled in the last year or so. If that is done it is simply evading what Parliament has provided, namely, that premiums should not be taken upon the grant of such tenancies, or the assignment of a tenancy between an outgoing and an incoming tenant.

If the dodge is being widely used it is right that the criminal law should be strengthened. But I am bound to say that merely to read out a list of prices being asked for furniture does not seem to prove in the slightest degree that those prices are excessive. If those cases are genuine cases of excessive prices being asked for furniture I cannot understand why the local authorities concerned have not already taken active steps to launch prosecutions under the existing law.

The difficulty I feel about the Bill is that not only does it fail to strengthen the law in the direction in which it ought to be strengthened, but it creates new criminal offences which are unenforceable, thus weakening the present law in some respects. The provisions allowing local authorities to obtain evidence are highly undesirable when considered in relation to the enforcement of criminal offences.

In the first place, we must remember that it is already a criminal offence under the 1949 Act to ask a price exceeding what is reasonable. That is the aspect of the situation to which Parliament should devote its attention. The law should be so designed as to stop people from asking too much money for furniture.

I concede, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby has pointed out, that the law is defective in that it creates a criminal offence only where a person has entered into a contract which requires the payment of an excessive price. It ought to be made a criminal offence to offer furniture at an excessive price. If people were prevented from offering furniture at too high a price the root of the difficulty would be reached. That is the real offence, which should now be covered.

But that is not what this Bill attempts to do. It at present creates two entirely new offences. First, under Section I (1, a) it makes it a criminal offence for anyone to

"offer furniture at a price which he knows or ought to know is unreasonably high …"

I am quite unable to understand why that form of words is used. Prices and values of furniture are largely a matter of opinion. Within fairly wide limits the opinions of experts will differ as to what is a reasonable price for furniture.

It is true that there are occasions when people ask a sum of money which is obviously fantastic and grossly excessive, and when nobody could say that it was not. That is the circumstance which ought to be aimed at. Why provide, then, that it shall be a criminal offence, and that the prosecution must prove that the seller either knew or ought to have known that the price was excessive? If that is the sort of thing that is being aimed at it is wholly unnecessary. Why try to ascertain the knowledge of the seller?

If the price is excessive, then the seller ought not to have sold it whatever his knowledge. That is what we are aiming at. Therefore, the simple and proper way in which to have amended and strengthened the criminal law in this direction was to have made it an offence under Section 6 (2) not only to require but also to offer furniture at an unreasonably high price.

All of us who have practised in the courts know the utter difficulty of trying to prove what a man knew or what he ought to have known. Let us not do that, but stick to the main point, which is to prevent furniture either being sold or offered at an excessive price.

The second criminal offence which is created is that of failing to provide to a person to whom one intends to let or to transfer a tenancy a written priced inventory of the goods to be sold with the tenancy. I am bound to say that I think that my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes and Crosby have looked only at those who commit this type of offence, very frequently through agents, and have entirely forgotten the vast body of ordinary people who let or assign tenancies.

I suspect that well over 50 per cent., and perhaps 75 per cent., of the transactions in houses and flats are dealt with under what is known as the "old boy act" by letting to a friend. When one's tenancy is coming to an end, one meets someone who says, "Can you arrange for me to take over your flat?" One replies, "Of course". One may meet somebody at a party, or in a "pub", and there try to arrange terms to see if one can assign the flat to that person.

Many people, not big property owners, who have part of a flat or a cottage to let only want to let it to someone whom they know and whom they would like to have as their tenant and with whom they would fix up the transaction on a conversational basis. Yet by the provisions of the Bill as at present drafted every one of these quite innocent people will be committing a criminal offence unless they have in their possession, or produce, a written priced inventory of the goods in the property before they discuss terms with the person interested in taking over the property. If one has a nice little cottage in the village which one would like a worthy person to have, and it has a gas cooker or a piece of furniture in it which has to be transferred, and a prospective tenant asks to have it because the sitting tenant is about to leave, what is one to do? Under this Bill, one will be committing a criminal offence if one discusses any terms at all unless a written, priced inventory is produced.

It seems to me that the proposers of the Bill have fallen into the error into which so many people fall in thinking that the criminal law is strengthened in some way by the production of written evidence. That is a fallacious view which laymen often take. In fact, of course, the strongest evidence which the criminal courts usually have is the oral evidence of an honest, decent person. If such a person comes along and says, "I was shown round the flat and there was a dirty old piece of lino and a broken-down chair for which I was asked £500," how on earth does it strengthen any case to know that there is a written document which shows something quite different?

The courts can proceed quite easily upon the oral evidence of responsible people, and they are often very much better off if they do so. It does not necessarily strengthen the criminal law to insist on written evidence of a transaction. It is really a terrible burden to provide that everyone who is about to let or assign a flat, house or cottage must in all circumstances, if there is a single piece of furniture or fitting in the property, produce a written, priced list of what that furniture is and commits a criminal offence if he does not.

Therefore, I regard both the proposed offences in the Bill as, first, objectionable; secondly, ineffective; and, thirdly, not likely to strengthen the criminal law. I concede that the criminal law should be strengthened, but it should only be strengthened by making it an offence to offer furniture at an excessive price.

I turn now to what the Bill proposes concerning powers of entry. I am bound to say that so far as those powers are concerned they strike me as being most unusual for the purpose of enforcing the criminal law. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said he thought that there were such powers under the Food and Drugs Act. But those powers are powers of entry into business premises. They are general powers of supervision, to inspect how a business is being carried on and not powers to search people's private homes for evidence of a criminal offence.

Even the furnished houses rent tribunal which deals with the question of furniture in houses has no compulsory powers of entry into furnished houses in the discharge of its duties. I would also point out that the power conferred upon the local authority is almost without limit and could quite plainly be used for an oblique purpose. I do not suggest that it would be, but it might be. On occasion it might be used for gaining access to premises for an improper purpose, and it is undesirable that the possibility of that happening should be permitted.

There is also a very unsatisfactory provision as to the authority which the man who arrives and knocks at the door has to produce. All he has to produce is a piece of paper, and if it purports to be the notepaper of the authority and bears a signature which might be that of any officer of the authority, then he appears, to the householder, at any rate, to be exercising his powers under the Act. It opens up very considerable opportunities for people who, for dishonest or other purposes, desire to acquire access to private residences.

In addition, I think that this is the only occasion of which I know on which the person who is responsible for launching a prosecution is given the power of deciding in his own cause whether he should exercise compulsory powers of entry and whether the grounds on which he intends to do so are reasonable. Moreover, I am not at all happy that the giving of 24 hours' notice is a good idea as far as enforcing the criminal law is concerned. It gives the suspected person a good opportunity to refuse entry. A person is also given the opportunity of changing the furniture round or of getting up to a similar dodge which will enable him to evade the criminal law.

There is no limitation whatever as to the hours of entry, and persons could seek to enter premises under these powers by night or at any other inconvenient time within the 24 hours. I know that the Clause giving these powers as drafted is based upon Section 159 of the Housing Act. 1957, or so it appears. Of course, Section 159 of that Act deals with cases where a house is to be demolished or compulsorily purchased, or where a closure order is to be made, or something of that nature. These circumstances do not have any criminal consequence. They are merely an enforcing by the local authority of its right to enter into premises for civil purposes, those premises being premises which are, to a large extent, already under its own control.

I quite see that the criminal law requires strengthening in this respect to obtain evidence that offences of this nature are being committed. I should like to suggest that the correct procedure to follow is that which the criminal law usually follows, namely, that of a search warrant. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said that if there was a failure to obey the notice and the occupier did not allow an authorised person to enter, the local authority could, of course, always apply to the courts for a search warrant.

That is wrong. They cannot. Justices can only issue search warrants in specific cases for which there is a statutory authority and none now exists in these cases. The usual method of obtaining a search warrant is when one lays information on oath. The warrant is obtained from a justice of the peace. The procedure has to begin by someone laying the information on oath before a justice of the peace and he says whether there are circumstances in which a search warrant should be issued. There is a great difference between that procedure and the sort of procedure in which a local authority would decide, without any formal information being laid on oath or in any other way, that it was reasonable to enter private residential premises.

There are other examples of circumstances in which a search warrant may now be applied for, such as in connection with dangerous drugs, for Customs purposes, to search for illicit stills and spirits or intoxicating liquor, or in respect of children and young persons. Incidentally, the last named is a relevant example, because private residences are entered to see whether children are living in them under proper conditions and are being looked after properly. Search is also made for obscence books. There are a few other circumstances in which Parliament has held that it is essential that private residential premises should be entered in order to enforce the law. I cannot imagine why that principle should be departed from in this instance.

In the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, the provisions are strict. As is usual, a search warrant must be applied for by information on oath laid before a justice of the peace. The warrant must be executed by a constable in uniform to prevent any possibility of a breach of the peace. The constable may be accompanied by the informant and also by a qualified medical practitioner. Were that sort of procedure followed in this case, a constable would execute the search warrant. He could be accompanied by a representative of the local authority and the complainant. In such circumstances, and under the strict control of the courts, it might he possible to search for proof whether there was or was not evidence to support a prosecution.

In a more recent example the Protection of Birds Act, 1954, Parliament has provided that a search warrant should be issued by a justice of the peace following information on oath that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence had been committed under the Act, and that evidence was likely to be found on the premises which it was proposed to search. A warrant can then be issued and a constable can then enter and search the premises only for the purpose of obtaining evidence that such an offence has been committed. These well-known provisions of the criminal law are wise. They enable it to be said that an Englishman's home is his castle, which is something that we should all preserve. I believe that the law should be amended to make it an offence to offer furniture at an excessive price, without more being done to create additional criminal offences. The provisions in this Bill for searching houses for evidence are, in my opinion, wholly undesirable.

I sympathise with and consider it right, proper and necessary that steps should he taken to prevent these things. But I think that the new offences which would be created by the Bill, and the methods of enforcing the law proposed in the Bill, are wholly objectionable and, that being so, I must, with regret, vote against the Bill.

I am pleased to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) in congratulating the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) on introducing this Bill. I am certain that, although it may be a modest Measure, it is a step in the right direction. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been concerned with the hidden premium racket. I was surprised by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. John Hobson) which seemed to reveal a lack of knowledge of this social problem. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary, who represents a Liverpool constituency, and many other hon. Members will know of the great social evil created by the shortage of houses in the cities and towns.

It is not the case that all landlords or agents are bad, but there is always a certain section of the community ready to exploit any situation such as that caused by the housing shortage. There are many agents and sub-agents who operate this premium racket and who have come into existence since 1945. They must be dealt with, just as during the war Parliament had to deal with unpatriotic people who were operating a black market. It is no use anyone saying that the hidden premium racket does not exist. In places like London. Liverpool, Birmingham and Glasgow and in areas of Middlesex and in Greater London one can find evidence of this racket being operated in the form of offers of fittings and furniture at exorbitant prices, by unscrupulous persons who are exploiting the housing shortage.

The columns of any evening newspaper contain advertisements offering fiats comprising three rooms or four rooms complete with fittings and furniture at prices ranging from £400 or £500 up to £1,000 in the case of property in places like Kensington, Westminster or Mayfair. In other areas in Greater London, Middlesex and Surrey, at places such as Hammersmith, Islington, Streatham, Richmond and Twickenham, there are small flats of two or three rooms offered at £200 or £300 with fittings and furniture. Cases have been drawn to my attention where the fittings and furniture comprised two or three lampshades, with a square of lino on the floor. Surely no hon. Member would defend the practice of taking advantage of the housing situation in that way.

I hope that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the Bill in Standing Committee and to strengthen its provisions. As I say, there are good landlords and agents who do not charge premiums, but a bad element has come in since 1945. I could give the House many examples of the way in which people have been exploited in this way. Any hon. Member who operates a constituent "surgery" must have had experience of constituents coming to him at their wits end to find accommodation and complaining of the hidden premium racket.

Only recently I was approached by some old-age pensioners who had had to give up the house in which they lived and who were looking for a small fiat. They would have been content with two rooms in which to spend the evening of their lives, but they had been asked as much as £80 or £90 for such accommodation, including a few articles of furniture of no value. In other cases I know of people have bought the furniture and fittings and have had to remove the furniture because it was worthless and unsatisfactory. The Bill will not interfere with a landlord or tenant who wishes to sell furniture at its proper value.

Surely we should give the Bill a Second Reading. It will not harm the good landlord or agent and it will assist thousands of people who are searching our great cities for somewhere to live and who have not the means to pay the exorbitant sums demanded from them by those who operate this premium racket.

I will begin by apologising to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), because I was not able to be present when they moved and seconded the Second Reading of the Bill, which, I understand, they did excellently.

I fully support the principle of the Bill, but, as a practising solicitor—I should disclose that straight away—who has some experience of the Rent Restrictions Acts, I have to say, with great regret, that I do not think that the Bill as drawn will really assist in the problem, although, as I say, in principle, I consider that it should be solved. I should not dispute for a moment that if Parlia- ment, by legislation, thinks it proper to prevent premiums being demanded in certain circumstances, and it is found that, by jiggery pokery—if I may use that expression—the legislation is being got round, steps should be taken to put the matter right.

I do not think that the situation will be put right by this Bill. I should like it also to be on record that it is my view that, if the legislation is really being got round to any large extent, that is something which ought to be dealt with by the Government. In the course of my remarks, I shall seek to show—I have considerable experience of these matters—that, in practice, if one conies down to practical details, the problem is not half as great as some hon. Members seek to suggest.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. John Hobson) stated, in extremely fair terms, what he regarded as the legal position. I heartily endorse what he said. Indeed, in the few notes which I have prepared, I had put down a number of similar points which I had intended to make, but, since I do not wish to weary the House with repetition, I shall not now make them. I approach the problem in rather a different way, because my hon. and learned Friend is a member of the Bar and I am a solicitor. I, as a humble solicitor who has had to advise clients in the first instance ever since I qualified in the early 'thirties, have tried to persuade myself at one time or another that I understood the Rent Acts. I have eventually come to the conclusion that I do not understand them.

The Rent Acts, I think, are the classic example of piecemeal legislation which, in the end, does harm when it is put on the Statute Book bit by bit over a period of years. I shall not weary the House with details of how, from the legal point of view, the present rent restrictions have arisen. There has been a series of Acts, since before 1914, all half dealing with the problem. Since 1920, there have been many. This particular Bill, I feel, will merely add to the problem.

I want now to consider one or two broad principles. By Clause 1, the House is being asked to create two quite new criminal offences. Let us not deny that. I think I shall have the approval of everyone in the House when I say that one of our first tasks should be the protection of the liberty of the subject, ensuring that quite unpractical provisions creating criminal offences are not put on the Statute Book. I am sure that that will be accepted by both sides.

I believe that the two new criminal offences created by paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause I (1) are quite unnecessary at the present time. They would be totally incapable of enforcement or, if attempts were made to enforce them, they would create an offence which, in many cases, would cause great hardship. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington very cogently pointed out, we are here asked to impose restrictions on the sale of furniture which, in a great number of cases, will be quite impossible to enforce, and I do not think that any amending legislation, as this really is, should be introduced for that purpose.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman, therefore, suggesting that we should just leave this racket as it is and let people carry on as they are?

If the hon. Gentleman had studied the problem and had had practical experience, he would find that it is half the racket that some hon. Gentlemen suggest.

If people can be charged for it, is that all right then?

It is really quite easy. I will try at once to explain to the hon. Gentleman, to assist him, what steps can be taken to deal with a great number of these rackets. He obviously has been given extremely bad advice and, judging from what he has said, has not been giving people in his "surgery" the assistance they should have. I will deal with it straight away.

I had hoped not to go into details, but if the hon. Gentleman talks about "legal rackets," I must. I know that the hon. Gentleman is very well versed in this matter but, for the purpose of my explanation. I should read out the provisions of Section 13 of the Rent Act, 1957:

"As respects grant, renewal, continuance or assignment at any time during the period of three years beginning with the commencement of this Act, a tenancy excluded from the application of the Rent Acts by reason only of the provisions of subsection (1) or (2) of section eleven of this Act or of those provisions and of subsection (7) of section twelve of the Act of 1920 … shall be treated as one to which section two of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, applies."

Put in broad terms, that means that no premium must be charged. I do not want to read the provisions of the other Acts.

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that charging for furniture and fittings which are not worth what is asked for them makes a hidden premium?

If I am to be allowed to develop my argument, I shall give both the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) and the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), a little advice on how this matter can be dealt with quite easily, from the legal point of view.

I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is right.

Under the law as it stands at present—I will not go into all the details of house tenancies, because it would take me half an hour—we all accept that, in certain circumstances, a premium is chargeable. That is common knowledge.

If anyone enters into an agreement and an improper charge is sought to be made—I did not hear all that was said, but I understand that it was alleged that fabulous figures for premiums were being charged—the person concerned should consult a responsible solicitor. If a premium of, £200, let us say, is charged for what hon. Gentlemen have described as a few sticks of furniture, the tenant has a very easy remedy, because the contract is illegal. All he need do is to apply to the courts for such part of the contract to be rescinded, that is, the premium, and he will still have the tenancy which has been created. I think that that is quite clear and perfectly simple. All that the hon. Member for Clapham has to do is to advise his constituents to see a responsible lawyer.

Supposing a woman of about 55 conies to one and says, "I have not got a penny, and this is what they are doing," is one to advise her to spend a considerable amount of money, employing solicitors and going to the court? Even though perhaps she might win in the end, she will still have to pay; but she has no money. What can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say about that?

The hon. Gentleman is rather unlucky in his constituency. Either he has not had good advice or he has not set up a poor man's lawyer organisation. Perhaps he has not the assistance of a citizens' advice bureau. I am trying to help him. He should start an organisation known as the poor man's lawyer so that cases like that can be dealt with.

We have got one.

Why not send such people to it?

We do, and it does not come off.

I am following my hon. and gallant Friend's argument very closely. He seeks to show that, under the present law. the tenant has a way of overcoming the problem. But is it not true—or am I completely wrong —that, where money has changed hands, the tenant who has paid is just as guilty in law as the person to whom he paid it?

All I can say to my hon. Friend is that he is, in fact, completely wrong.

May I now continue? There is, therefore, a remedy under Section 13, for anyone who enters into such a contract. Something has been said about oral contracts. I have not read the rest of the Section, but, if hon. Gentlemen want me to do so, I will.

Yes.

Provided that this subsection"ߞ

this will take me back to the 1949 Act. because I shall then have to refer to that, but I shall do so if hon. Members want itߞ

"shall not affect the assignment of a tenancy granted before the commencement of this Act and not renewed or continued thereafter, being a tenancy to which subsection (7) of section twelve of the Act of 1920 applies."

Here, I must apologise to the House, because I have not the 1920 Act with me. Section 13 (2) of the 1957 Act reads:

"An order under subsection (3) of section eleven of this Act may provide that the foregoing subsection shall apply in relation to the order as it applies in relation to subsection (1) of the said section eleven, but with the substitution for the period mentioned in the foregoing subsection of such period, beginning with the date as from which the order excludes the application of the Rent Acts and ending not later than three years thereafter, as may be specified in the order."

I did not read the whole Section before; I tried to summarise it by saying that it means that, in certain circumstances, to demand a premium is illegal. My argument is that in the majority of cases where an illegal premium has been charged, the assignee—that is, the person who is getting the tenancy—has a remedy under the Section if he takes the appropriate legal action open to him.

The hon. Member for Clapham read out a great number of cases from the London area. I am a practising solicitor, and I do a lot of work in the London area, but I would not accept in their entirety all the cases that he has read out. It is quite easy to read a number of constituency cases, but one has to ask oneself how many have been settled on a satisfactory basisߞߞ

They were not constituency cases, but cases from a list supplied by an agent.

I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman's argument as far as I can, but if I can pursue my observations on the Bill itself. I think that I will give the House more assistance.

As I have said, paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause I (1) create two completely new criminal offences, with the large penalty of £100, but in my view. by far the most serious paragraphs are (a) and (b) of subsection (2).

Let me say about the subsection in general that it is my viewߞand I have stated it on numerous occasions in this Houseߞthat where a prosecution takes place it should be at the instance of the police. I appreciate that under the Food and Drugs Act there are certain cases in which, as the law stands, local authorities have to take action, but I still feel that any prosecution against the private citizen should, as a general rule, take place at the instance of the police. Here, as I understand it, the prosecution will take place at the instance of the local authorities.

I do not want to criticise my hon. Friend's drafting but, surely, if we are to say:

"Any notice under this subsection may be given by post"

we should, at least, add the qualification "by registered post".

Turning to subsection (2, a)—only twenty-four hours' notice having been prescribed, we have the words:

"… where such a notice is given "—

that is, the notice prescribed in the Bill:

"any person authorised by the local authority may at any reasonable hour on the specified date, on production, if so required, of some duly authenticated document showing his authority, enter the premises and inspect the Furniture therein;".

I must confess that that frightens me very much, indeed. I feel most strongly about this, and fully support what has already been said; that if there is to he any entry authorised by this House without a proper search warrant being issued in the normal way by the magistrates, it will be a most retrograde step and a gross interference with the liberty of the subject.

If the Bill gets a Second Reading— and I hope that it will not, because it is not a practical Measure at all, but if by some unhappy chance it does—I hope that the promoters will give very careful consideration indeed to Clause I (2, a) and (2, b), which I regard as highly unsatisfactory and a gross interference with the liberty of the subject.

I should like to mention another small point—and here I invoke, if I may, the assistance of those who are much more skilled than I in local authority affairs. This is a drafting point. Clause I (5) says:

"… and 'local authority' means the council of a county borough "—

I think that this is an important point, and it is one that affects my constituency—

"county district or metropolitan borough or the Common Council of the City of London, or as respects Scotland …."

There I will leave it as I am not well versed in what applies to Scotland. Is it quite clear to the promoters that that wording includes an ordinary borough council and, if so, which is the wording? I am advised that it does not, and I should like someone to clear up my difficulty on that score.

I conclude by once again placing on record my view that this is a totally impractical Measure. It will create more difficulties in the interpretation of the Rent Restriction Acts and—what is, perhaps, most important of all—it will entail a gross interference with the liberty of the subject.

When, yesterday, I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) about this Bill, it seemed to me that he was introducing a necessary social Measure with which I, and, perhaps I might say, the majority of my hon. Friends, had a great deal of sympathy. They, too, wish to remedy the rackets that are taking place in our cities, and they also wish to give some answer to constituents who come to their offices and say, "Look at what is going on here. What shall I do about it?" In such circumstances, a Member of Parliament can advise the aggrieved person to consult a lawyer; and we have just heard a reasoned dissertation on the law by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach).

Yesterday evening, however, as I read the Bill very carefully, and considered the other advice that I was given, I found that, while the object of the Bill is wholly desirable, the way in which it is drawn, and the way in which it provides some new forms of crime, simply horrified me. This morning I had made special note of the powers to be conferred on local authorities by Clause I, subsections (2, a) and (2, b). Surely we in this country have already given local authorities and the local authority officers too much power. Indeed, far too much power is delegated to them.

I want my hon. Friend to realise that I have every sympathy with what he seeks to achieve, but that the Bill will actually empower a local authority officer, acting with the permission of the chairman of the council, to decide whether he thinks that there is reasonable ground for sending a letter to say that he intends to search someone's house to find out whether an offence has been committed, after which that council and that officer will be able to bring criminal proceedings. I am sure that the House must really agree that the Bill, in its present form, would be bad legislation, and should not be given a Second Reading.

Another important point is the compulsory inventory. The speech by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. John Hobson) was extremely important. How many people dealing with small houses actually make a full inventory? Inventories are made by people who can afford to appoint a valuer or agent to prepare one. It is an additional cost. The Bill, therefore, places an additional cost upon small people who will not be able to afford it. Not all landlords are the wealthiest of men.

On looking at the Bill again I see that Clause 2 (5) states:

"In this Act 'furniture' means fittings and other articles …"

To my mind, that will cause even more complications in the interpretation of the law between furniture, fittings and all the other matters that one has to deal with in the courts in connection with furniture, fittings, tenant's fittings, and so forth.

Neither myself nor any other hon. Member in any way seeks to prejudice any action that the House wants to take to bring to book people who are committing these acts of private piracy, but I believe that for the House to give a Second Reading to a Bill of this nature would be a mistake. If we are to have another Bill dealing with this subject, I suggest that subsection (1, a) of Clause I should remain, but that subsection (1, b), as well as paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) concerning the local authority, should be taken out. If a prosecution under subsection (1, a) is to be brought, it should be done in the normal way by search warrant sworn before a justice of the peace and in no other way.

I am very sorry that I have been unable to give support, as I would like to have done, to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby. I have explained my reasons for not being able to support them in a Measure which, I believe, is designed to do good but which, in its present form, is unsuitable.

I should like, first, to add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members who have paid tribute to the skill with which my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) has introduced the Bill. No tribute from me is necessary to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who is well known for his activities here on Fridays and in Standing Committee C, for the skill with which he has seconded the Motion for Second Reading today.

Let me say, at the outset of my re marks, that I have a personal interest. I live in a basement flat in Kensington, although not the flat to which the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) referred. I hope shortly to move to another flat and I hope also to dispose of some of the furniture in my Kensington flat to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster). The price that he pays will be a fair one.

The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes was in many ways quite powerful in favour of his Bill. Once or twice, however, he got on to rather thin ground—for instance, when talking about the prices paid for curtains and carpets which may be disliked by the incoming tenant. Under the Bill as my hon. Friend has drawn it, it would appear to be possible for an incoming tenant to say that the price was unreasonable even if he did not dislike the curtains. Everyone knows that what is good value for one person may be very poor value for another.

My hon. Friend made the point that his Bill would protect people who did not have sufficient capital to put down to buy a house. From the figures we have heard mentioned today, I would have thought that if people had enough money to pay these relatively high premiums they would have sufficient money to put down to purchase a house for themselves, especially when one considers the great benefits that the Government are giving to house purchasers. I would not have regarded that as a valid reason for saying that the Bill was particularly necessary.

The Bill is far too vague to command the support of a majority of the House. Vagueness in matters of the law can lead to serious trouble. I am reminded particularly of the Diplock case, I think it was, in which a gentleman died leaving a considerable sum of money to charitable or benevolent institutions. When the executors wound up the estate, they proceeded to distribute the money to what they thought were charitable or benevolent institutions. Some of it went to build wings of hospitals and some of it for other purposes.

In due course, a relative of the deceased wrote from Australia and said, "I have no money. In fact, I am a charitable or benevolent institution. Where do I come in?" There was quite an uproar when the communication was received by the executors and the unfortunate relative in Australia got a dusty answer. However, he was not entirely set back by this rebuff and he hurriedly went to a reputable and expert solicitor in Melbourne, who sent a telegram to the executors instructing them to take no further action in distributing the money and stating that it was proposed to bring an action in the courts.

The court held that the will was void because it was too vague and all the money which had been distributed had somehow or other to be got back again to go to the next-of-kin of the deceased. I believe I am right in saying that the probem has not yet been settled. Nobody knows how to get the money back. That is the sort of difficulty which is encountered when anybody introduces into the House of Commons legislation which can be knocked out on the basis of being vague.

This is a very vague Bill indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) made what I considered to be a valid point. He said that the Bill refers only to the price for furniture. When one moves into a new flat or house one often has many things done to it. When I took my small flat in London I had to have a considerable amount of electrical wiring done so that I could have a lamp standard here and there and other appliances. This can mount up to a heavy sum. Under the Bill, anybody would be entitled to say, "You can have the furniture at the price the valuer puts upon it, but my value for the electrical improvements which I have done will be extravagant."

So I think it would be a Bill which it would be very easy for any disreputable person to get round. I do not think that it will achieve the object which the hon. Gentleman obviously is seeking. I think that that is a point which ought certainly to be considered when we consider the question of sending the Bill to Committee.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that there are fewer than 40 Members present?

I am sorry that hon. Gentlemen are not staying to hear the further remarks I wish to make about this Bill.

I have been dealing with the question of getting round the Bill and how that can be done. I have no doubt that there are many methods by which the Bill could be got round. One could say that an incoming tenant must purchase, before taking over the flat, not only the furniture but some of one's clothes, and that the clothes were all excessively valuable, and so on.

Now I come to the use of the word "unreasonable" In Clause I (1) there is the statement that it shall be illegal for a person to offer

"the furniture at a price which he knows or ought to know is unreasonably high".

This, I think, will raise very considerable difficulties for all the people concerned. The word "reasonable" constantly comes in a later part of the Bill, too, to which I propose to refer shortly later on in my speech.

But what does the expression "unreasonably high" in Clause I (1, a) mean? Who is to discover whether it is an unreasonably high figure or a reasonable figure? I think great difficulty will be caused by this. What are we to do? Presumably the information is to be laid by someone that a man is going round offering to sell furniture upon leasing premises.

Let me make myself perfectly clear. I am not in favour of being swindled by having to pay £500 for a curtain rod and a bit of linoleum. I am not in favour of that at all. I am against the Bill only because I think it is a clumsy method of attaining the desirable objective, the absolutely desirable objective, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes wishes to attain.

Does my hon. Friend realise the impossibility of making what one would think a fair valuation of the furniture? Is the value to be that which it would have at an auction? Or is it to be its original value less so much for every year that has passed since it was purchased? Is it to be its value to the person who sells it, or its value to the person who buys it? There is no definition of valuation or reasonable price in the Bill.

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. It is extremely difficult to decide what is a fair value. One could say that if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were to get into power again the price of any furniture ought to be doubled because we should have inflation back again ripsnorting right through the economy and that, therefore, it would be reasonable to charge double what one paid for the furniture oneself. I do not know what the word "reasonable" means at all.

What I think will be extremely difficult under this Bill is this. First, somebody has to lay information before the local authority that he thinks that some person is offering furniture at an unreasonably high price. How is he to find out that it is unreasonably high? Is he to have to take professional advice, and have professional experts look at the furniture before he buys it or before he makes this allegation?

It. is a dangerous thing to go round saving that someone is committing a criminal offence, and saying that to the local authority. I think I am right in saving that that would not be protected by privilege. One may say that sort of thing in this House of Commons, but if someone in my constituency came to me and said that lie was being asked an unreasonably high price for furniture, and would I take the matter to the local authority and get a prosecution instituted. I should be very cautious about doing it. I should be very careful indeed, because I think I could well find myself in serious trouble in saying that a landlord was committing a criminal offence.

One has to be very cautious. I do not believe myself that people will go to the local authority and make that allegation, even if the Bill becomes law, because it will be too dangerous, unless there is an absolutely flagrant case of a man having to buy a curtain rod and a bit of linoleum for £500 to get into a flat.

It would be a very dangerous thing to leave this expression "unreasonably high" in the Bill. Presumably, the Bill will have fairly exhaustive examination in Committee—

I thought that lawyers liked the word "reasonable". Do they not?

The hon. Gentleman knows more about these things than I do. I am not a lawyer. I would not like to say that lawyers like the word "reasonable" What I like, and what, I think, the public like is to see clearly defined laws, so that we know where we are and whether one is infringing them or not. It may be that lawyers like the word "reasonable" I should think it gives great opportunities for argument in the courts—

Yes.

and possibly they get large fees from anyone so unwise as to act under a vague law such as the one now proposed to us. We should try to protect ordinary citizens from being subjected to attack in the courts because of vague law which Parliament may pass, such as this law which is now proposed. I think that it would be very unwise and unfair to pass it for that reason.

I come now to the question of who decides what is reasonable. We have got to the stage where someone has been sufficiently impetuous to go to the local authority and accuse a landlord of committing a criminal offence by offering furniture at an unreasonably high price— a very dangerous procedure, as I said earlier.

It is not only a question of saying whether the price is reasonable or unreasonable. There need be only "grounds for suspecting"—that is, all sorts of denunciations by unknown denunciators, secret information, letters slipped through the letter box, unsigned, anonymous letters.

Yes, that is true, in Clause I (2) there are the words:

"reasonable grounds for suspecting."

From anonymous letters.

Anonymous letters, slipped through the letter box, as my hon. and learned Friend points out.

So we come to the stage that an allegation has been made. Presumably, there must then be an investigation, so we come to Clause I (2, a), by which, when the local authority has given notice to the landlord that it wishes to inspect his premises and furniture, it may send persons to inspect.

We are still left not certain whether a criminal offence has been committed. The person authorised by the local authority to make the inspection may get to the premises only to find that the furniture which is put in for sale with the lease of the property has a fair and equitable price put upon it. Meanwhile, of course, the subject has been attacked; he is the target of this; there is invasion of his home by the local authority. And then he is cleared, because it is found that there is nothing wrong, and everything is properly priced, and he has committed no criminal offence. The local authority has acted, as my hon. and learned Friend says, on information possibly stuck anonymously through the letter box.

I do not think that this is the sort of law Parliament ought to pass. Moreover, I think that the powers proposed to be given to local authorities by this Bill would not be favourably received by many of the local authorities. I am quite certain that my own local authority in Exeter would find it would not wish to operate this Clause. Furthermore, having decided to take action against the landlord or the tenant concerned it would, of course, be faced with this difficult problem of finding out whether or not the furniture offered for sale was offered at an unreasonably high price.

It is a very heavy burden to put on local authorities. Presumably, they will have to employ licensed valuers to find out whether the property was worth the money that was being asked. The hon. Member for Clapham, whom I am sorry to notice is not now in his place, spoke of a lady who had been asked £150 for the contents of a single-room flat and who said that they were not worth more than £75. That is probably not an unreasonable figure, because in the opening negotiations the tenant probably never expected to get the £150 he was asking and the lady put the figure as low as possible. If she had gone on, she might have closed on a figure somewhere between £75 and £150 which both parties would have looked upon as reasonable.

I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Clapham was rather spoiled by the fact that although he said people were asking £400 for the furniture of a two-room flat he did not say anything about the quality of the furniture. I can tell the House that when I furnished my flat it cost over £800, and for the quality of the furniture I do not think that it was unreasonable. That figure might be unreasonable if the furniture was of inferior quality.

If the hon. Member for Clapham had told us something about the quality of the furniture, which, I think, in one case, he said was valued at £1,000, more weight would have been attached to his speech. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin made a more forceful speech, inasmuch as he gave examples of the actual furniture that would be handed over with the lease in due course. I thought that his was a more powerful appeal because, obviously, the amount of furniture that was to be handed over was worth nothing like the sum asked for it.

I feel that the Bill is not only undesirable in the way in which it is framed. but that it is unnecessary. There is not the slightest doubt that great benefits are accruing to the country owing to the wise legislation that has been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, especially where the renting of properties is concerned. We know about the difficulties raised in the House when the Rent Act was going through its stages, but I have always maintained that there will not be very much profit in the way of votes for the party opposite when the Rent Act has made its full impact.

I must not go too far on that subject, Mr. Speaker, otherwise you will intervene and say that I am "off the beam". I hope that you will not rule that expression out of order. I was, as you know, brought up in humble circumstance in the Royal Air Force and from time to time the vernacular of that Service creeps into my speeches.

The Rent Act has already had a very strong impact and I do not think that those gentlemen who ask extravagant sums of money for furniture and fittings will have very much longer to profit by that sort of disreputable technique. I am not a London Member and I freely admit that the impact of the Rent Act is mare severe in London than in any other part of the country, but everywhere I go in London I see more and more "Flat to let" notices going up. The situation is getting very close to what it was before the war, when there was a wide variety of accommodation available at reasonable cost. No one can say that some of the prices paid for flats before the Rent Act became operative were reasonable. They were unreasonably low in many cases. I know of somebody who was living in an eight-room flat in the West End of London and paying £60 a year. That is an unreasonably low figure. I understand that the flat is now vacant and that it is the intention of the landlord to split it up into two or three flats to provide accommodation for some of our homeless families.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes has said, and in this has been supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, that the Bill will have an effect during the interim period while the Rent Act works itself out. I do not think that we should pass laws to cater for this short period of time. The time is running out for the men who try to swindle tenants. I do not mean that the time is running out for discussion of the Bill. We have plenty of time to discuss it between now and four o'clock. Although I regret that I shall not be able to take up all the time available, because I have to attend to other matters, I will, if I may, take a little more of the time of the House before I sit down.

This is a problem mainly for London and the larger cities. I do not believe that all over the country this is a practice which can be reflected upon in the way that some hon. Members have reflected upon it today. It will he quite impossible, for instance, in the constituency which I represent, to make an extravagant demand on an incoming tenant for a piece of carpet. There would not be any chance of his paying it, and I do not think that this practice is being indulged in. I assure the House that to the best of my memory no case of that kind has been brought to my notice in the whole time that I have been the Member of Parliament for Exeter.

When the Conservatives were returned to power in 1951 the housing problem in that city was deplorable. I am glad to say that owing to the activities of the Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government, which have been admirably maintained by his successor, there has been an improvement in the housing situation. There is less opportunity now for people to make extravagant demands for furniture and fittings. That applies all over the country, with the exception of some of our larger cities. In particular, of course, the most acute problem is in London.

Here I stand with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach), who took the point that if we are to have legislation of this nature, which infringes very seriously upon the liberty of the subject, it should be brought in as a result of action by the Government and not by a private Member. It is too serious a matter for a Private Member's Bill to be used to put a law about it on the Statute Book. Any such Bill should be brought in by the Government. If the Bill receives a Second Reading today, and I should not like to say whether it will get through or not, there is no doubt that very considerable alterations will have to be made to it in Committee.

It would be unfair, for instance, for the landlord or tenant who is selling furniture and fittings with the lease of a property, provided he is behaving in a fair way, not to be able to come to some agreement whereby both parties agreed that the price paid was fair. I do not know how such a provision would be worded. It would be a difficult thing to do. That is why I believe that a Bill on this subject should be brought in by the Government and not by a private Member. I should think that we could make a provision whereby, if the value of the furniture is over £100, it would be possible for the two parties concerned to get together and agree that the price was fair. Then no action would be taken under the powers given to the local authority.

The Bill is a serious infringement of the rights of the individual and I do not like it for that reason. This is an obnoxious power to give to the local authority, who will not, I think, like to operate it. I do not think local authorities have facilities for valuing furniture, and I certainly do not like legislation to be passed by the House in which action can be taken by a local authority on receipt of an unsigned letter. I think it wrong for that kind of legislation to go on to the Statute Book.

As regards the danger to anyone who makes allegations about an individual to a local authority under the Bill, it would be wise for it to go out from the House that if the person concerned makes allegations which are subsequently found to be unfounded, he lays himself open for action for defamation. So I think it would be unwise for the Bill to be given a Second Reading without that caveat to anyone who perhaps proposes to take advantage of the powers under the Bill. It would be wrong for anyone to think that after the Bill became law he could say anything he liked about individuals without running the risk of being called into the courts to answer for it.

Surely it would be an occasion of qualified privilege. If the statement were made without malice, there would be no defamation.

Malice would have been assumed and it is a question of fact for the jury. It is dangerous to say that malice might not he found.

We have had that argument recently in this House on the question of the Strauss case, if I may be allowed to use that phrase. There, hon. Members were not concerned that they would lose a case for defamation. I think we all agree that if there was no malice we would win the case if we wrote to a Minister about a problem which reflected on the integrity of someone. What hon. Members did not want was for the other party to have the power to issue a writ, because once that is issued there is the cost of defending it. Anyone might find that he had qualified privilege and would win the action, but that would not stop him having to defend the writ and having to pay half the costs because the taxed costs might not cover the costs of the action. I have made the points that I thought it desirable to make. I shall not support the Bill but if it goes to Committee, fortunately I am on Standing Committee C, so I shall then have the duty of seeing that it is carefully examined and suitably amended.

I have no desire to curtail the discussion, but it might be for the convenience of the House if I say a few words at this point.

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) on his fortune in the Ballot and on the excellence of his speech. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) on his speech in support of the Motion. It was to be expected that some critical voices would be raised against some of the provisions of my hon. Friend's Bill. Fortunately it is not my responsibility this afternoon to deal with those criticisms, but I will make one or two comments of a general character which may be helpful.

It has been made clear in most of the speeches to which we have listened today that hon. Members on both sides of the House have become increasingly concerned at the growth of this malpractice, as I think it is, of insisting on the incoming tenants purchasing furniture and fittings at an extortionate price as a condition of the granting of a lease. There is not much doubt that with a certain type of landlord, especially in the London and Middlesex area, this practice has become general. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby rightly said earlier, it is by no means merely a landlords' racket since it is not uncommon amongst tenants, who themselves are trying to assign the unexpired period of a lease.

As hon. Members well know, the position is that the ban on straight, direct premiums seems to be reasonably effective; but disguised premiums, in the form of excessive charges for furniture and fittings, are now being freely asked. The ineffectiveness of the law as it stands is due partly to doubt as to whether the offence has been committed until the money has actually been handed over.

Many of the criticisms this morning are ones of detail which ought to be considered during the Committee stage, assuming that the Bill receives a Second Reading. I am certainly not standing at this Box claiming for my hon. Friend that the Bill is perfectly drafted since that may not be the case. In the view of my right hon. Friend, who has naturally looked at the provisions of the Bill, any Measure on this subject is bound to be somewhat in the nature of a compromise. We must be careful that in our anxiety to check these malpractices we do not put too great a burden on other people. Particularly we must not discourage the letting of furnished flats and houses because of what we are here seeking to do.

A good deal has been said critically— I do not complain of that—about the provisions referring to the power of the local authority to enter the premises in question. Those criticisms are natural and I am sure that my hon. Friend expected them. It is right that the House of Commons should look critically at provisions of this kind, and I say frankly that my personal prejudice is certainly against them rather than for them as a matter of principle.

The difficult question that my hon. Friend and his supporters have to face is whether, without some such provision ⁁I do not say the provision as it stands—the Bill would be worth while and whether it would achieve anything. I am not sure how in the absence of some such provision, the idea behind my hon. Friend's Bill could be enforced. We ought to remember that the Bill has been brought forward only because the existing legal provisions, which make it unlawful to demand an excessive price for furniture and fittings, have been ineffective. Hon Members know as well as I that in a matter of this sort good intentions are all very well but they are not sufficient.

I am bound to say that I think, personally, that Clause I (2) or something like it is necessary if the Measure is to work, and I say that because it does not seem to me that any local authority can be expected to embark on a prosecution until it has had the furniture inspected and a value placed on it by a competent valuer. It can hardly be expected to proceed merely on the word of the complainant. The complainant may be biased; he may dislike the person with whom he is trying to do a deal or he may have little or no idea of the market prices of furniture and fittings. The prices given in the inventory may, on the face of it, look suspicious to the local authority, but only an inspection is likely to show whether they are fraudulent, and I do not see how that can be done unless there is an inspection, and I do not see how that can be carried out unless the question of access to the premises is satisfactorily settled.

We must bear in mind all the time that we are not trying to penalise the individual who puts a price of £100 on furniture and fittings which, strictly speaking, are worth perhaps only £70, £80 or £90. The person whom my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes is trying to catch is the man who embarks on a deliberate fraud through this malpractice.

On the question of entry, I also think that the House would be well advised to remember that here we are dealing with properties or premises which are on the market. Members of the public who wanted to inspect the house or the flat would, in the ordinary nature of the case, be admitted to the premises. Often—I agree not always—these premises will be vacant except for the furniture and fittings which the owner is trying to sell. That being so, I do not think that it is such a gross invasion of the individual's privacy that the local authority should have the right to inspect the premises if— and this is a proviso—it has reason to believe that too high a price is being asked. There are precedents for this in the Housing Act, 1957.

I know that some hon. Members think that if the Bill becomes law it will be very easy for unscrupulous and unprincipled persons to circumvent its provisions. As one hole is plugged another will appear. That may be true in the event, but the fact is that this dishonest practice is going on, to the knowledge of hon. Members, and Parliament has a duty to do all it reasonably can to stamp it out. Some people will always find a way round the law. The fact that some people devote great exertions to evading taxation, and sometimes succeed, certainly does not discourage the Inland Revenue from trying to tighten the provisions against tax evasion.

What the Bill will do—and I think it will do this—is to make it more difficult for people to run this racket than it is at present. That may be a limited purpose, but it is some purpose, and I think that there is a moral obligation upon the House to do what it can in this respect. As I said, there will clearly be a number of points of detail which will need to be considered very carefully if the Bill reaches Committee. I do not for one moment believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes is wedded to all the provisions of the Bill and I am sure that he will welcome constructive criticism, and help, at the Committee stage.

indicated assent.

Speaking also for my right hon. Friend, I can say that we regard the Bill as a worthwhile Measure and we hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.

I do not want to take long, because we have had a very full discussion on the Bill and there are many other important matters which the House wants to examine this afternoon. The whole proceeding has made me feel that at any moment I might wake up. It has been like a Christmas dream. I never thought that I should sit and nod with approval when the Parliamentary Secretary was making a case for giving to local authorities greater powers for intervention.

The Bill is a recognition of a need, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) has used his good fortune to introduce it. I am also glad that he was able to obtain the support of his hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). That, again, was unexpected. It rather takes the wind out of my sails. Again, it is a little like Christmas, because it was rather like having to cope with Scrooge introducing a Private Member's Bill for holidays with pay.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Crosby has been big enough to admit that some of the things he said on the Rent Bill in Committee have not proved correct. When the original new Clause dealing with premiums was introduced into the Rent Bill in March of last year, my hon. Friends made it clear that, although they welcomed it, they doubted whether it would be effective, and I believe that many of these doubts have been proved to be correct.

The hon. Member for Totnes talked about an acute local housing shortage. These are rather bad words to use. Surely there cannot be an acute housing shortage in these days, after so long a period of careful Conservative administration. Surely all that must have disappeared. He talked about the normal, disgruntled seeker after accommodation going to the town hall. I thought that nobody ever had to go to the town hall these days, looking for accommodation.

Nevertheless, I am glad that the hon. Member has recognised that these needs exist and has taken this opportunity to introduce the Bill. It is not a new principle—and that is a very important aspect of the Bill. The criticisms which have been made of it have either been criticisms of detail for Committee, or a challenge to the whole idea of doing something about the furniture racket. The principle was established a very long time ago, as the hon. Member for Crosby said. There is nothing new in trying to deal with extortionate charges for furniture.

The only issue is whether we can make this effective. I think it is common ground among most people who know what is going on that the present provisions have not proved effective, and I therefore think that we ought to do what we can to extend the powers to enforce what everybody agrees ought to be the law. It would be rather feeble of the House, faced with the obvious fact that the law is not working, to back out of it and to say, "We will do nothing about it." I think that it is right that we should try to strengthen the law.

There are points in the Bill on which I agree that examination in Committee may cause substantial changes. For example, I am not convinced that Clause I (1, a), introducing the fact that the offer is at a price which he who made the offer

"knows or ought to know is unreasonably high"

will strengthen the law. I should have thought that the test is whether the court holds that it is unreasonable. To have to go into what the owner ought to have known will introduce further refinement which, if anything, will weaken the enforcement of the law.

I cannot see that all these objections to the written inventory have much foundation. If two people are making a deal about furniture on an amicable transfer of interest it does not seem difficult for them to get a sheet of notepaper and jot down how much furniture is involved and make an inquiry as to what the items are worth. The danger is that people apply a global figure, perhaps £500, which does not really bear any relation to the item. It is reasonable to ask them to itemise the articles.

The picture of local authority officers bursting into houses in the middle of the night to see whether a carpet has a tear in it is a fantastic distortion of what happens. The Bill makes it clear that the entry must be in reasonable time.

The hon. Member says that it is a fantastic picture of local authority officers bursting into houses in the middle of the night. That does not happen because the law does not allow it to happen.

I was about to say that the law allows it to happen. Public health inspectors have considerable powers for enforcing the Public Health Acts, such as in looking for overcrowding. I suppose there is nothing to stop a public health inspector bursting into a house to count the number of people sharing a bed, but it is unusual for that to be done in the normal practice of local authorities. Local authorities normally behave in a sensible way.

Is there not one very good practical reason for local authority officers not breaking in at odd hours in that they work normal hours and would customarily carry out their duties during their normal working hours?

From time to time wage claims are made by local authority officers, and I should not like to say anything to embarrass those claims. Many local authority officers have to work overtime to catch people in when they want to obtain entry to a house in a perfectly proper way. We must recognise that local authorities are sensible, responsible people who carry out their duties in a sensible, responsible way and can be relied upon to do so.

Subject to the improvements which will no doubt be made in Committee, I suggest to my hon. Friends that the Bill is a worthy attempt to tighten up the law dealing with what is generally agreed to be a deplorable racket which we all want stamped out. I therefore hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) on his efforts to deal with what everybody agrees is a racket, but my congratulations cannot go any further because the drafting of the Bill is something which the House ought not to pass as lightly as it appears to be doing. Saying that there is an evil and that the Bill is being introduced to cure it does not necessarily make the Bill a good one. We have here an evil which ought to be cured, but this is not the way to do it.

I share the surprise felt by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) that the Parliamentary Secretary should express approval of a Bill which gives local authorities a right to enter a person's house by law. This is contrary to all my principles, unless there are very strong grounds, such as ill-health or sanitary reasons. The proposed extension is not one which I could approve.

We all know that this racket exists. We cannot just say that we know it exists, nor is the matter carried very much further by reading out a long list of houses and the prices asked for furniture and fittings, as was done by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson).

It proved that the racket exists.

It does not prove that it exists. All it has proved is that here are flats vacant and that prices are being asked for furniture and fittings. There are two fundamental flaws in that argument. First, those were the prices which were being asked, but there is not the slightest reason to suppose that some figure far less would not be accepted. If the hon. Member had ever dealt in horses he would know about the prices asked and the counter offers which are made for a long time.

Secondly, one has never seen the furniture. Some furnished flats, if they are fully furnished and fully carpeted and curtained, are necessarily very expensive, and some of the figures read out by the hon. Member do not, prima facie, appear to be at all extraordinary. In saying that, I am not stating that this type of extortion does not exist—we all know that it does—but this is not the way to deal with it.

When we look at the Bill to ascertain whether it deals with the problem we want to know what the position is at the present time. There are at present ample powers provided by the Labour Government in 1949. The Measure introduced then was a renewal and extension of old powers, and the 1957 Act was a further extension to houses which are decontrolled. The powers are perfectly simple. Section 3 of the 1949 Act reads:

"Where … whether before or after the commencement of this Act the purchase of any furniture, fittings or other articles has been required as a condition of the grant, renewal, continuance or assignment of a tenancy to which the last foregoing section applies, and … the price exceeds the reasonable price of the articles, the excess shall be treated … as … a premium …."

In other words, by asking too much one has asked for a premium.

So that there shall be no ambiguity about it, the next subsection reads:

"where after the commencement of this Act any such purchase as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection is required as therein mentioned, the price demanded shall, at the request of the person on whom the demand is made, be stated in writing; and if, without reasonable excuse, a person required to give such a statement in writing fails within fourteen days to do so, or knowingly gives a statement which is false in any material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds."

A premium, including one given in a disguised form as an excessive price for furniture, can be recovered by the tenant and the tenant can also remain in the premises, and the person who has demanded the premium is guilty of an offence for which he is liable to a fine of up to £100.

With the coming into operation of the Rent Act, 1957, in respect of decontrolled dwellings the security of tenure has now disappeared. If a tenant took such action as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests can be done, the owner would get his own back by serving notice to quit on the tenant, and the tenant would have to get out because he was living in a decontrolled house.

The provision is under the 1949 Act, and it applies to houses which are controlled. It is not a question of decontrolled houses.

My point is that the circumstances today are completely different from what they were then, because a large number of houses have come out of control. The value of that part of the Act is slowly disappearing as the decontrol of houses progresses.

That is dealt with in another part of the 1957 Act. Certain houses which are decontrolled remain covered, but there are nearly always three-year agreements.

Of course, there will be times when, as the houses become decontrolled, there will be ordinary contracts as a matter of bargaining between the parties. That is fundamentally a very good thing. The fewer artificial restrictions that there are on private bargaining the better, if there is no distortion by shortages.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Bill required alteration in a few details. It wants to be scrapped and rewritten. That can be done in Committee, but the Bill does require a great deal of amendment. The points to which I propose to refer are matters of principle and not Committee points. Some of the Bill's provisions are thoroughly bad and must be remedied if the Bill is to have the slightest chance of reaching the Statute Book.

There are two fresh criminal offences in the first Clause. Under the first of them, any person who

"offers the furniture at a price which he knows or ought to know is unreasonably high …"

is guilty of an offence. I have already discussed horse dealers with the hon. Member for Clapham. For all he knows, and for all I know, the figures which he read out may have been excessive and may have constituted an offence under the Bill. However, would it be a defence for the landlord to say, "That was my asking price. That was what I was asking. As a matter of fact, I did not get anybody to look at the premises. I had it on my hands for a long time and I would have taken anything I could have got. I asked £450, but I would have taken £50."? According to the Bill, such a landlord would have committed an offence by making that opening bid. That is making something criminal when it was never intended.

As I have frequently pointed out, although a licensed valuer may be asked to value the furniture, there would still be very great difficulties. The first questions he would ask would be, "On what basis do you wish me to make this valuation? Is it what you will expect to get for the furniture if it is sent to an auction room? Is it the original cost of modern furniture, less so much depreciation? Is it to be taken as being of a higher value because it is situated in rooms which it suits and where the carpets and curtains fit the floor and windows?" It is an almost impossible task and a task on which people can honestly differ.

The second offence is failure to furnish

"to any person seeking to obtain or retain accommodation whom he provides with particulars of the tenancy, a written inventory of the furniture, specifying the price sought for each item."

On a strict reading of that paragraph, all the particulars in the list of the hon. Member for Clapham constitute an offence, because in each case a total sum is given.

Suppose that a house agent has to send out lists of houses and flats where the furniture is to be sold. In such a case he will have to send out lists of the furniture in the flats. The list of the hon. Member would run not to three or four pages, but to 300 or 400 pages, because, instead of having the expression "F. and F. £400," there would have to be a list of everything from the sofa to the curtains. To put it mildly, that would be ridiculous.

Having dealt with the first part of Clause 1, let us consider the thoroughly objectionable part of the Bill, the part which must be excised. That is the snooping, the encouragement to snooping. Someone who has a grudge against another person can indulge in such a practice. I hope that when the Bill returns from Committee this part of it will have been totally changed.

In ancient Venice, there used to be a lion's mouth into which people were encouraged to put denunciations of each other. Even in certain modern States, I believe, that is still the case. This is exactly the same thing. This is encouraging the slipping of denunciations through the lion's mouth. [An HON. MEMBER: "Good idea."] It is a rotten idea. It is a horrible idea that people should be encouraged to go to local authorities with tales about each other, or even send an anonymous note—and there is nothing to prevent that—and, in any case, nearly always actuated by spite.

The Bill says:

"Where a local authority has reasonable grounds for suspecting …."

Is the local authority to employ somebody to look through the papers every day and to decide whether advertisements constitute prima facie evidence, or is it to wait until a complaint is made? If a local authority has to wait until a complaint is made, my remarks about snoopers and denunciations are entirely justified. That is why that part of subsection (2) is something to which I take the strongest objection.

As a result of that suspicion, a local authority is to be able to demand the right of entry into somebody's house. [An HON. MEMBER: "Unoccupied."] It is no good saying that it may be unoccupied. What does it matter? It belongs to somebody and, in all probability, since we are considering furnished premises, it will not be left unoccupied with all this valuable furniture inside, for that would be most unwise. A tenant who is considering leaving when a fresh tenant is found tells the landlord and the landlord says that he will try to find another tenant.

The occupying tenant, with no interest in the bargain, is then served with a notice by the local authority to say that the local authority intends to come in to value the bed on which he sleeps and the chair on which he sits and the carpet over which he walks. That is highly objectionable.

Like reading the gas meter.

The gas meter belongs to the gas company.

Men come to look at the gas meter. What the hell!

They do not value the gas meter.

On a point of order. Is it in order for the word "hell" to be used in the House? I heard the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) make use of that word and I suggest that it is not Parliamentary.

There is abundant authority to say that the word "hell" is Parliamentary and that it has been used on a number of occasions.

It depends on how it is used.

Even the place to which the hon. and learned Member refers, at any rate, in the context in which he used the word, causes me no fear.

The gas meter is not valued, nor does a man enter a house to read a gas meter, except by contract with the occupier, who is entitled to have the gas meter taken out and to tell the gas man to go away.

If the entry is obstructed or refused, by a person who may have no concern or interest in the bargain, the landlord is liable to a fine not exceeding £20. I am strongly opposed, as I am sure are many of my hon. Friends, to this right of local authorities to demand entry and to have the right of entry into people's homes.

During the whole of this debate we have had no protests of this nature from hon. Members opposite. It appears that they have no regard whatever for the liberty of the subject.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It is clear that they wish to encourage public authorities to enter people's premises and inspect their furniture. It is the hon. Members on this side of the House who wish to protect the individual and the rights of the subject, and who will continue to do so.

Did not the Bill come from an hon. Member opposite?

I am pointing out to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes that his Bill contains certain defects, which we shall no doubt be able to put right in Committee. But certain major alterations are required. I compliment my hon. Friend on his general idea, which I support. I say again that the general idea is a sound one.

The hon. and learned Member merely wishes to make sure that the Bill does not work.

On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, of any tedious repetition going on in the Chamber? It appears to me that we have heard this argument over and over again, and that the Minister has replied to it. I submit that we are now having tedious repetition.

Surely it is not in order for hon. Members to say when there is tedious repetition. This is a matter which is entirely at the discretion of the Chair. Am I not right?

I have been listening to these legal arguments, which are very complicated. It does seem that the arguments are being put at rather great length.

That is because of the interruptions, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. They make my speech longer, although they do not put me off my stroke. I am thankful to hon. Members opposite for drawing my attention to various points, which I hope I have dealt with to their satisfaction.

I have now come to the end of my serious criticisms of the Bill. There are other more technical matters with which we need not concern ourselves today. The Bill seems as if it will obtain a Second Reading, which makes it necessary for me to point out that it requires a major surgical operation when it goes to Committee. When it comes back to the House I hope that it will do what my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes and many other hon. Members, including myself, wish it to do, but in a very different form from its present one. I hope that the Committee will strike out the very objectionable subsection which gives a local authority power to receive anonymous information and then enter the homes of our people as of right.

On a point of order. As the Bill has the general approval of both Front Benches, and the debate on one side of the House has exhausted itself, will you accept the Motion, That the Question be now put, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

I am not able to do so under the Standing Order.

I intended to speak in support of the Bill, but I have been considerably disturbed by the arguments used against it. Nevertheless, I still think that there is a need for some sort of legislation in this matter. The House will recall that it has supported the idea of the continuance of controlled rents, for the time being. We have had the Rent Act, which was obviously designed to free property from control at the earliest moment, but that Act recognised that some properties still needed to be controlled, purely because of the extreme shortage of accommodation. As time goes on, however, and those properties are vacated and new tenants come in, they will be freed from rent control.

So long as we recognise a need to have some control of rents we must prevent this back-door method of extracting money. In 1945, after the election, I was forced to obtain living accommodation in London, and I had to pay several hundred pounds for the furniture and fittings in a flat. I recognised that the rent of the flat was extremely low and was certainly not yielding a profit to the very good landlord, and that the tenant at the time had just cause to ask me for double the value of the furniture, because he had paid a considerable sum to the previous tenant and he was not making a profit out of me. When I averaged out the price of the rent and furniture, including depreciation, over the term of the lease, I found that it was still a very cheap flat. I could not see anything wrong in the sum asked.

That would be a criminal offence now.

Recently I wished to dispose of the flat and, with an expert, I worked out a figure which took account of fair depreciation of the furniture and also the depreciation of the value of the lease, and finally asked £150 less than I had paid. It was a fair price by those standards, but it could have been claimed that I was asking more than the furniture was worth. However, we all know that some people would act with different motives, and would have sought to extract another £50 or £100 from the incoming tenant. It is therefore clear that some protection must be provided to would-be tenants. This will be only a temporary Measure, since, by virtue of the continuing decontrol of property, the need for it must ultimately fade out.

I have been extremely disturbed by the arguments submitted by my hon. Friends against the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) will probably agree that the Bill could have been better drafted. Nevertheless, it is fair comment for him to say—as he has said to me in private—that he is quite willing to have the Bill very fully considered in Committee, and perhaps to accept some Amendments. It is because of that that I support the Bill. I could not support it otherwise, in view of the arguments put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) about snoopers. If it were not for the fact that I believe that we can evolve something in Committee which will make the Bill acceptable to the House at a later stage, I should not be able to vote for it. The rights of the individual must be protected. If two people wish to enter into a contract—

The hon. Member can say all that in Committee.

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

No, I do not want to waste time.

I am trying to make a short speech, and I am at least supporting my hon. Friend in this matter. It is not my wish at all to waste the time of the House. After all, it is only ten minutes past two o'clock, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and both you and I have known occasions when hon. Members opposite have filibustered throughout the debate.

I was saying that I believe it is most important that Members of the House should protect the freedom of the individual to enter into a contract if he so wishes. It is because of the control from which we have suffered for so long in the past that we have to have this sort of thing. We should make the matter complete for the time being. At a later date, as I have said, it will automatically fade out.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes will accept the Amendments which will undoubtedly be put down during the Committee stage. If they are not put down, then, of course, there may be many of us who will have to oppose the Bill on Third Reading. Whatever the ultimate result of this debate may be, I hope that my hon. Friend will be encouraged to pursue the matter as far as he can.

I propose to say only a very few things about the Bill because, like other hon. Members, I look forward to the debate which will take place on the next Measure. However, having supported the Bill from the outset, I wish on this occasion to add a few words in its support.

It has been described as a snooper's Bill, but, of course, local authorities must be given the right of entry into premises if they are to be given the duty of bringing the prosecutions.

They ought not to be given the duty of prosecuting.

My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) says that they ought not to be given the duty of prosecuting. I believe that it would be very unwise and a very great mistake if private prosecutions were brought by would-be purchasers and others who would really have no standing in the court to prosecute.

My hon. Friend is arguing entirely on the wrong basis. Why should not the duty be placed upon the police to carry out the prosecuties?

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) knows well enough that private persons bring many prosecutions. It is not only the police who prosecute. Prosecutions concerning houses and matters of that sort are far better left in the hands of local authorities than in the hands of the police. The police are concerned primarily with criminals in the ordinary sense of the word and not with people who have been acting wrongly as landlords.

It is all very well for my hon. Friend to say that, but, in fact, under the Bill the local authority is empowered to enter a person's property if some one decides to push a letter of complaint, perhaps a mischievous letter of complaint, through its letter box. It is absolutely monstrous that such a power should exist.

On a point of order. May I point out, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that all these arguments are absolutely synthetic?

That is not a point of order.

Further to that point of order. Surely, Mr. Deputy- Speaker, it is not the usual view of the House to suggest that one should not argue on a Bill.

On receipt of a letter through its letter box, a letter probably sent only for mischievous reasons, the local authority is entitled to burst into someone's house and start valuing the furniture.

I believe that the matter could properly be left to the local authorities. All that the Bill seeks to do is to make it possible to institute proceedings against an erring landlord.

Would my hon. Friend give one reasonable ground on which a local authority might take such an action?

The answer to that seems quite simple. A reasonable ground would be if a bona fide prospective purchaser, having been confronted with a bill for furniture and fittings, went to the local authority, to its housing department, for instance, and said, "Look here, this prospective vendor is asking £500 for some curtains and a few sticks of furniture". If it is palpably a false matter and obviously designed to circumvent the existing legal protection for prospective purchasers, then there on paper is a prima facie case against that prospective vendor.

In those circumstances, the local authority would be absolutely entitled, in my submission, to go to that prospective vendor and ask him for some explanation, to go in and see for itself whether the figure of £500 bore any resemblance to the true value of the articles. Only if the figure were out of all proportion to the real value would the local authority consider bringing a prosecution.

My hon. Friend must realise that once one takes a defendant to a court all the rules of evidence and procedure balance down in his favour. The prosecution must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the guilt is on the shoulders of the defendant. Unless it could be established quite clearly by independent valuers that the furniture and fittings were worth very much less —very much less, I emphasise that—then no prosecution would stand.

I believe that once enacted the Bill would be a sufficient threat against those people who, acting in bad faith, try to make an undue and unfair profit out of the housing shortage, and, in particular, against those people who seek to abuse the existing legislation. It is for that reason that I have supported the Bill all the way along the line.

All who live in the London area must know of instances where the existing law is abused in this manner, instances of a few sticks of rubbish being sold for £500 or some other amount on the pretext of being furniture and fittings. That is no more than asking a premium, and it is a dishonourable way of getting round the law.

There is only one thing that I have against the Bill. It is that there are many people who have had to succumb to these

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This Bill is designed to

"provide for the payment of allowances out of the Industrial Injuries Fund with a view to supplementing workmen's compensation and benefit, to amend the Workmen's Compensation and Benefit (Supplementation) Act, 1956, to increase benefits under the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Act, 1951, and the Industrial Diseases (Benefit) Act, 1954"

and

"to amend the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Act, 1951."

There are many hon. Members in the House today who have themselves spent a great deal of time working in industry and who have colleagues and friends who were maimed while at work. This Bill seeks to try to assist people who find themselves suffering from pecuniary hardship when compared with others who may benefit under the industrial injuries legislation. It represents one of many attempts to assist men and women affected by injury or disease as a result of their employment between 1897 and 1948.

Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, when a workman was totally or partially incapacitated he received a weekly benefit equal to half the difference between his pre-accident and his post- accident earnings. The maximum was £1. Although the 1897 Act was a start, there were many restrictions, and, for one reason or another, many accidents or industrial diseases did not have recognition. After many weaknesses had been disclosed, the position was improved by the Acts of 1906 to 1926, when the maximum compensation which could be obtained was 30s.

It is because we have in mind the need for improvement that we wish to drive home with emphasis today our argument that something should be done for those people who, unfortunately, met with an accident at work before 1948. In 1943, a little was done to alleviate distress for those receiving partial compensation. That was fifteen years ago. Today, many men and women, whom we know because we live among them, should be receiving proper recognition for the service which they gave in industry before meeting with an accident.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary may say that there are difficulties, but he must know that if we really face the issue, and understand the human problems, the difficulties can be overcome. It is easy for us as legislators, well away from industry, to develop academic points about the impossibility of enacting legislation which will do the job well, but, when we see these people, who have no hope in life at all, we realise at once that it is not beyond the wit of man to see that they get a square deal.

The Government have been speaking about an expanding economy and talking of our standard of life being doubled in the next twenty years. For the people with whom we are concerned this morning, the future is dark and no one is helping them. Only hon. Members who represent the industrial areas are prepared to put on one side any personal ambition they may have and introduce a Measure of this kind. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible for the Minister to be accommodating today.

It is often contended that administrative difficulties impede the path of progress, but, if I may say so, this Bill— if I may use a mixed metaphor—would do much to iron out all the bottlenecks. If I am any judge at all of the Bill, it is the simplest out of the five which have been introduced by my colleagues during the past few years. I remember the efforts made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies), by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), and my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Deer). The efforts of all my hon. Friends surely indicates the sincerity of all of us who are determined to deal with this very vexed problem.

The Bill proposes a flat-rate supplement of 17s. 6d. for the totally disabled, and a flat-rate supplement of 25s. for the partially disabled. These are the people, I remind the House, who were disabled before 1948. No medical examinations are called for, and, in consequence, the administrative burden placed upon the Ministry will be very light indeed.

There remains the very vexed question of hardship. There are many and various definitions of hardship and the degrees of hardship and, no doubt, the Minister will point out some of these. But we believe in fair compensation. The Government themselves say that they are the champions of fair compensation, particularly when they are dealing with the acquisition of land and the loss of profits. They are quite ready to see that adequate compensation is given in those cases, but it is always said that there are difficulties in the way of giving proper compensation for those who have been maimed for a number of years as a result of an accident sustained while they were following their occupation. I hope that the Government will readily accept this righteous claim which we make on behalf of those who are unable to help themselves.

Anyone with experience of compensation will condemn the old Acts to some extent as reacting unfairly against the injured workman. The Industrial Injuries Act, which replaced them, was largely an agreed Measure, developed towards the end of the last war. No effort has been made for injured workers of the pre-1948 era to secure for them just compensation for loss of faculty. If we take the 1948 Act, loss of faculty is recognised, but those who lost faculty particularly in the days before the war have not had the same recognition by a long way.

Many maimed miners and industrial workers get in touch with their Members of Parliament from time to time and ask what can be done. We realise that we are up against a stone wall at present, but we ask that some equality should be brought about between those injured before 1948 and those injured after.

No real attempt has been made to calculate pre-accident earnings on a fair basis. I know that it may be extremely difficult to estimate what a man would have been earning today had he not met with an accident, let us say, in 1934 or 1935. That is why the Minister finds it easy to evade his responsibilities. But, by evading it, he is leaving people in definite hardship. Real hardships exist in both partial and total compensation cases.

It was only during 1956, after continual pressure from the trade union movement and from the Opposition, that recognition was given to those who were receiving compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Minister then introduced legislation to give a supplement of 17s. 6d. a week to the totally incapacitated. What was the effect? Those married men on workmen's compensation were on an equal footing with those deemed to have 100 per cent. loss of faculty under the Industrial Injuries Act. Single men remained at 10s. a week less.

I believe that the Minister acted as he did because he realised that the increase in the cost of living had badly affected the workmen's compensation cases, and the 17s. 6d. that he then awarded brought about some equilibrium. It was, perhaps, consternation in the Ministry that led him to say that there was a moral case for the old compensation cases, and we on this side rejoiced when the 17s. 6d. was given to them.

Today, the gap between the workmen's compensation and the Industrial Injuries Act cases has widened and, no doubt, will continue to widen unless something is done and it is for that reason that we feel that it is high time that the Minister gave his particular attention to this issue. Since February, 1958. married men on compensation have been in a far worse position in comparison with those receiving industrial injuries benefit, and we believe that the time is now opportune once more to seek an equilibrium.

I appreciate that only recently there has been consultation and correspondence between the Trades Union Congress and the Ministry of Pensions, but I state, quite categorically, that when the Minister gave the 17s. 6d. in 1956 he recognised a very important principle. But what has the Minister said recently? He has tried to evade his responsibility, to evade what he said in 1956. Speaking recently, he said:

"Neither I nor my predecessors have, of course, taken an absolutely rigid line on this"—

he is referring to the Industrial Injuries Fund:

"and payments are, therefore, being made from the Fund under various provisions, the most recent being the Act of 1956, to people suffering from industrial accidents or diseases dating back before 5th July, 1948. The justification for these measures was the existence of real hardship. I am very doubtful whether it would ever be right to use the Industrial Injuries Fund for the quite different purpose of satisfying a predetermined concept of equality.

During the Second Reading of the Supplementation Bill, of 1956, I pointed out that its object was not 'merely to obtain exact symmetry or equality' but to meet a point of substance, which was that I was satisfied that real hardship then existed among the totally incapacitated men on workmen's compensation."

That is a complete denial of what the right hon. Gentleman said in 1956.

The following is the difference that exists between married men in the two classes of people to whom I am referring. In September, 1956, married men received as workmen's compensation, 50s.; supplementary, 17s. 6d.; sickness benefit, 40s., and wife's allowance 25s., a total of 132s. 6d. Married men receiving industrial injuries benefit also receive 132s. 6d. In December, 1958. those on workmen's compensation got 147s. 6d., while those receiving industrial injuries benefit got 165s.—a difference of 17s. 6d.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not say that there is no real hardship there, when that principle was accepted in 1956. Those of us who once worked in the pits realise the intimidation that often took place in colliery surgeries. Men were more or less compelled to go back to work, and are suffering from the consequences to this very day.

What about the partially disabled? I am myself now suffering from incapacity sustained in 1933. I am completely deaf in one ear, and I suffer from severe headaches. All that I received for that incapacity was £16. I know that in some respects I have been rather fortunate, but there are thousands suffering like me who have not been so fortunate.

As I say, I received £16 for a severe accident, and before I could go back on workmen's compensation my weekly income would have to fall below 38s. a week. The one thing of which the Minister never takes cognisance is that workmen's compensation was based on one's earnings, and at that time we in the pits were working only eight or nine days a month. For 16 weeks I received 19s. a week in compensation.

I have given a personal illustration, but similar cases can be met with at any coalfield one cares to visit. Some of the men, as a result of a restriction on their working capacity, are living close to subsistence level only, so I hope that, whatever is done, sympathy will be shown for them.

Totally disabled persons are at present allowed to earn 52s. or 53s. a week, and the Bill seeks to increase that amount. We are trying to get a general levelling up. I hope that I will not be misunderstood if I draw a parallel between the serving soldiers wounded in the First and the Second World Wars, who have, to some extent, been given equal recognition. Those wounded in industry have not been recognised in the same way, and I trust that it will be possible, once and for all, to remove these obnoxious obstacles to fair treatment. It can be done if the will is there, and I hope that we shall get some reassuring words from the Government Front Bench today.

I have tried to put the case on behalf of those who need this help. Coming, as they do, under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, they belong to an army that is gradually decreasing. I hope that it will not be the policy of the Government to waste time until these people have completely died out, because I am one of them. What I say is that we should live and let live. When I am in London, I think about those in all parts of the country who are struggling hard to make ends meet. I hope that the Bill will receive the universal approval of the House.

I beg to second the Motion.

It is indeed a proud privilege for me this afternoon to second the Motion in support of the Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) has so eloquently, sincerely and very ably moved. He has done so because of his direct experience of the mining industry and I hope to show that that applies also in my case. It is, however, somewhat difficult to expatiate further upon the points that my hon. Friend has raised, because he has covered the provisions of the Bill so well.

In my own defence, however, I feel that I am particularly qualified to speak and to support the Bill, because I come from a completely industrial constituency where there are approximately 10,000 miners and their wives and families. Since the day I left school, at the age of about 18, I have shared their problems with them and I had experienced with them the vicissitudes of the 'twenties and the 'thirties. I feel, therefore, that I can today express from my own experience the impact of the Workmen's Compensation Acts upon an industrial community, particularly when the industry is chiefly mining.

I suggest that in the case of the totally disabled, there is no problem for the Minister, because the supplementary Workmen's Compensation Act of 1956 created the necessary precedent, as my hon. Friend pointed out. I want, however, to say something further on that and I should like to quote what the Minister said at that time:

"I would suggest that there is no doubt that we ought to take action in this matter. After all, the date of the accident has, in general. determined whether a man receives his compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts or his benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act.

As time has gone on, the amounts payable under the one scheme, certainly in cases of total incapacity, have diverged substantially from those payable under the other. There has been felt to be therefore-I think the feeling has been pretty general—some considerable element of hardship, at any rate in the case of certain of these old workmen's compensation cases, because the payment these men receive is now out of line with what would be received by a man similarly injured since the Industrial Injuries Act came into effect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 1912.]

The only point, therefore, that arises today is whether, since the 17s. 6d. was given on such a premise as I have stated and which the Minister himself used, the position has changed so that the totally disabled are today out of line, as the Minister said. with those who receive benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act. The answer to that is a completely unqualified "Yes". I feel, therefore, that the 17s. 6d. which was produced by the 1956 supplementation Act has now ceased to have an effect, because since the 1957 Act industrial injuries benefit has jumped another 17s. 6d. If the moral justification existed in 1956, it certainly exists today.

I remind the Joint Parliamentary Secretary of what his predecessor in office stated on 7th March this year:

"… my right hon. Friend will watch their position closely." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1958; Vol. 583, c. 1662.]

That was a reference to the position of people who were receiving payments under the 1956 Act. I wonder whether the Minister's eyesight, which is so discerning in other directions, has become short in this connection. I am certain that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will bring to his notice what we are saying.

It is important to refer to what the Minister said on the introduction of the National Insurance Bill on 13th November, 1957. I quote:

"But we believe that measures of this kind, although they involve as I said in the House last week, some sacrifice by many people, are right, not only because they give comfort and help where they are needed, but because it serves the true health of a community such as ours to make sacrifices in order to make proper provision for its elderly, its sick and its disabled" [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1957; Vol. 577, c. 990.]

From the two quotations I have used from the Minister today, he could not conceivably offer any objection to what we are trying to provide in the Bill, other than, possibly, a legal quibble.

I do not propose to weary the House with figures. We must, however, remember that at least 70,000 of the totally disabled are miners. This is one other side of the price and cost of coal, a fact which we are too apt to forget. This figure does not include those who have commuted their claims, with whom I shall deal shortly. I believe, therefore, that further delay in supplementing these men by an extra 17s. 6d. is quite indefensible.

I turn now to a class of injured workmen who have still to be recognised by post-war legislation. I refer to the so- called "partials", who were dealt with by my hon. Friend. These people, who are partially disabled, were assessed on the basis of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Many of these men suffered serious loss of faculty. I impress upon the House that they have not received a single farthing for the loss of a limb or arm, or whatever it might be. Apart from this, the basis of loss of earnings is quite inadequate for present-day standards.

My hon. Friend referred to his own case. Before the war, in the 'twenties and 'thirties, areas such as mine were based on, say, a twelve months' average. The men did not work twelve months. I remember, as a union secretary at that time, having to tell men that there would be no work for them the next day or the day after. They were averaging about three days a week. The loss of earnings was based on that average. Compensation was diminished accordingly because of the low earnings factor that was assessed.

Another aspect is that before the war, the men who were injured did not have the umbrella of the comprehensive protection of the health services such as we enjoy today. In consequence, men who were partially disabled became permanently disabled. Today, however, people who are injured in industry have the protection of the health services and are able to get back into industry in normal fashion. What happened in the 'twenties and 'thirties was that a partial disability became virtually a disability for the rest of a man's life.

There is one other point to be stressed concerning the partials. I said earlier that they have not been recognised in post-war legislation. It is now sixteen years since the partials have received any increase. I refer, of course, to the 1943 Act. From my figures, I estimate that there must be about 25,000 of these cases.

In these days— and this has been going on for some time— despite the use of Remploy, which I fully appreciate, despite the use of the 3 per cent. statutory requirement upon industry in employing disabled persons, in my area, especially now that there is growing unemployment, there are thousands of these men who are partially disabled and who are unable to obtain employment because of their partial disablement. It is very important to remember that, and also that they have become in the labour market the legion of forgotten men.

I come to the third category of men, who are known as the lump-sum men. These are the men who have commuted their claims. As my hon. Friend said, it is so very easy to dismiss this problem by purely legalistic argument, but when we look at it from the moral standpoint we see that these men have certainly a case to put. I wonder whether it is generally realised outside the House— indeed, in some quarters even in the House—why these men commuted their claims.

I refer now to an hon. Gentleman who sits on the opposite benches, who was responsible for the 1935 Act which is called the Nicholson Act. I am sorry that that hon. Gentleman is not in his place today, because I should like to pay him this compliment. That hon. Gentleman, who then represented a mining constituency, is a Conservative. This is important, for if more Conservatives represented mining constituencies, though they never will, as far as I can see—

I should like to draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that in The Wrekin division there are two of the finest collieries in this country, the Granville and the Kemberton.

I am sorry if I gave the House the wrong impression.

Then the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) should vote for the Bill.

I was just going to say that I hope that the hon. Member will follow the example of his hon. Friend who is now the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson), who was responsible, through his tenacity and persistence at that time, in persuading the Government, against all the advice of the pundits, to pass the 1935 Act through this House. I pay great credit to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham for that.

There was something in that Act which we must remember. There were people who were receiving benefit for total disability subsequent to the passing of that Act and who, when a firm in the mining industry became bankrupt, or went into liquidation, received nothing in consequence of that Act, except the liquidation payment. Instances have been made known in this House of men receiving as little as 6d. in the £ in settlement of their claims.

I want to say this about those men who commuted their claims. We must not forget that many of them, even if they received the full benefit of £300, or £350, and so on, at that time, were forced to do so because of the intimation or feeling that the industry might go into liquidation and because they could not face the gruelling time through which the industry was going at that time. They felt they could not because of their disablement, and that £300 or £350 was attractive to them as a means of escape from the industry. Some of them and I think that this is a tribute to them—succeeded in doing so, but for many the capital of £300 or £400, as the case may have been, proved quite inadequate, and, of course, they became a charge upon the community without any recourse to any other source of income. They have suffered financially and physically ever since.

Of course, there is the anomaly, which my hon. Friend pointed out, that those people who commuted their claims after the 1956 Act are in receipt of the 17s. 6d. which the Minister gave them at that time and are still receiving the 17s. 6d. That anomaly makes the position worse for those hundreds, if not thousands, who commuted their claims under the old Act. I think we should hesitate long before we dismiss the claims of those men only because we feel that, constitutionally or legally, they cannot be included.

I will end my speech, because we who represent industrial areas and have had lengthy experience of this matter know the need, but I do ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary this and I know that he will be sympathetic. I do not think there are any hon. Members on the other side of the House, as there are certainly not on this, who are not sympathetic to these cases. However, I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not content himself with expressing sympathy only, but will go further, and give practical expression to it by supporting the Measure that we are proposing today.

One cannot speak third in a debate like this without beginning by congratulating the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) who moved the Second Reading upon the clear and moving way in which he stated his case. It certainly impressed the whole House. If I may say so without impertinence, the same is true of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert).

It is always difficult, and frankly rather invidious, to say anything against a Bill which seeks to help people who obviously are not in a position to help themselves. I remember that the last time that a Bill of this nature came before the House and I took part in the debate was about two years ago. It was the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill, the Second Reading of which was moved by the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). When I resumed my seat somebody said that it was a Bill which dealt with men and that I had merely dealt with mathematics. I do not know whether I am a desiccated calculating machine or not. At least, few people have called me desiccated. But one has to look at the financial background of any Bill, and, even if one considers that it is worth the cost, that cost should he counted before one comes to vote on it.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Normanton upon his ingenuity in being able to propose giving out public money without having to get the Government to support him by a Money Resolution. He is able to do it with the Industrial Injuries Fund whereas I was informed some weeks ago that I could not do it with the National Insurance Fund. But if one intends to put out public money one ought to show, first, how much will be involved.

I cannot tell from looking at the Bill and reading the Reports of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance what the cost will be, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry will be able to give some indication when he replies to the debate. I should have thought that it might be fairly substantial, particularly as the total amount of the claims which are falling upon the Industrial Injuries Fund are increasing year by year and in about fifteen years' time will be very substantially heavier than they are today.

It is, of course, arguable that the Industrial Injuries Fund is in a very healthy position at the moment. I believe that it has about £155 million in capital reserve and I understand that this is likely to go on rising for the next five years or so. It has been rising at between £12 million and £16 million over the last five years, but from about 1965 to 1970 that surplus will probably disappear. The difficulty is that between 1970 and 1980 the capital reserve of the Industrial Injuries Fund is expected to diminish by at least half and by 1990 probably disappear altogether. That may be regarded as looking too far ahead, but it always seems to me wrong to have a scheme which calls itself an insurance scheme— and the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act is part of an insurance scheme—and at the same time so act as to make certain that the fund or account at some foreseeable date will cease to be in a position to meet the claims upon it.

After all, the whole aim of my right hon. Friend's proposals regarding retirement pensions is first and foremost to get rid of the growing deficit in the National Insurance Fund. The party opposite, in their superannuation scheme, have also put as one of their aims the elimination of the burden upon the Exchequer in the next fifteen or twenty years.

What is sought to be done here would make financially unsound a scheme which is now fairly financially sound; at any rate it is in a much better position than is the National Insurance Scheme. It seems fairly clear that one of the reasons for the apparent health of the Industrial Injuries Fund is the fact that there was a difference made between the pre-1948 and the post-1948 claims. In the National Insurance scheme the pre-1948 beneficiaries received, in general, the new rates of benefit. Indeed, now we have everybody retiring on practically the full pension despite the fact that they may have contributed only for some ten or twelve years.

In the National Insurance Scheme this has resulted in the scheme being financially unsound since it started, and it has also resulted in the present deficit into which it has run this year and will go on running until the scheme is drastically altered. With the Industrial Injuries Fund we are in a much healthier position and we ought to consider seriously before we increase the burdens upon that fund, particularly the burden that will accrue as the years go by—

But would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this burden will diminish as the years go by? The people concerned in those old compensation cases are getting odder and passing away and no more cases will arise under the old Workmen's Compensation Act.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for expressing myself badly. Perhaps I should have said, in a fund where the total demands upon it will increase progressively as the years go by.

It all depends upon the incidence of accidents that take place in the future. If factories legislation and safety measures in mining and other industries reduce the incidence of accidents then the argument of the hon. Gentleman would prove to be fallacious.

I hope very much that I shall be proved wrong on this point. In practically every Parliament we pass one or two major Acts aimed at reducing the number of industrial accidents. Indeed, in the present Parliament there has been an Agriculture Act upon this subject, and the Factories Bill now before the House may help in this connection. We all hope that the number of accidents will be decreased, but the fact remains that it is not showing great signs of decreasing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes"] Not great signs, and also the Government Actuary took into account the general trend—if I am wrong on this point I hope my hon. Friend will tell me—when he made the forecast to which I referred earlier in my speech.

I want to insist upon the principle of insurance which I believe to be vitally important. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense"] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say "Nonsense" The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) once spoke slightingly of the National Insurance Fund, saying that it did not exist. He was answered very soon afterwards at a Labour Party conference or at a Trades Union Congress conference by somebody who reminded him, pertinently I thought, of what happened in 1931 when the Unemployment Fund ran out and the entire burden fell upon the Treasury.

The great danger, once we leave the insurance principle is that we are left with a fund which is bankrupt, and either the Minister or the trade unions have to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and say, "The fund which has to pay out these benefits is bankrupt. Will you please give us the money out of general taxation?" If the situation is bad, as it probably would be if we reached that kind of bankruptcy, then it would be very difficult for the Chancellor to meet the request.

How can the hon. Member use such an argument with logic when all the statistics show that the number of notifiable accidents is diminishing and that manpower in industry, which is a vital factor, is falling rapidly? How can the argument be adduced that the burden on the fund will be increased rather than reduced?

The fact remains that since 1948, when the Industrial Injuries Scheme was introduced, a large number of other benefits have been added to the fund— widows' benefits, for example. These will not reach their maximum until 1970. That is why the increase in expenditure will take place. This is why I am quoting from the Government Actuary's Report, which is the best document I can obtain and which in general proves fairly reliable.

The hon. Member has insisted on the principle of insurance. Does he mean that the infringement of that principle by his own party in 1956 ought now to be repealed?

I am not saying that anything should be repealed. I am arguing against making further infringements of the principle, which is a very different thing. There are times when it is right to depart from a principle such as the insurance principle, but one should never do so without being absolutely certain that one is not worsening the position. Nor should one depart from it unless one believes that there are grounds of hardship sufficiently great to make one break through the principle.

For example, I think that hon. Members opposite were in general right in the National Insurance Scheme to allow for the late entrant. That was a breach of the general principle of insurance, and it was done because otherwise there would have been hardship and it would have been many years before the National Insurance Scheme was going properly. When one does something like that it is for a definite reason—because there would be hardship, for instance; and one does not do it unless there is that great hardship. That is why I think that when considering the general principle of the old cases and the post-1948 cases one has to consider, before one increases the various benefits and places an increased burden on the Industrial Injuries Fund, exactly how much the scheme will cost and how much extra will have to come out of the fund.

The Bill concerns basically the difference between the pre-1948 and post-1948 cases. When we have two compensation schemes based on entirely different principles—in one case loss of earnings and in the other case loss of faculties—complicated by the fact that the loss of earnings was calculated at times of industrial depression, such as those mentioned by hon. Members opposite, it is very difficult to keep two such very distinct schemes in any kind of general line. In fact, we cannot keep them in line, because as long as the schemes remain different we shall always find that one or the other is getting out of line.

When my right hon. Friend in 1956 introduced the 17s. 6d. supplement, I do not think he did so with the idea that ever after we should have to try to make both the old scheme and the new scheme progress continually in line. After all, the position of those in the old scheme has been improved materially in real purchasing power since 1948, and both sides of the House can take their share of credit for it. The fact that today it is lower than for the equivalent disabled person under the Industrial Injuries Scheme does not detract from what we have done in the past. Equally, the fact that one is lower than the other is not necessarily a reason for making certain that the two are brought back to run in parallel again. It is only if the lower case is in a position where great hardship is caused. In 1956 there was a definite argument to that effect, and that is why my right hon. Friend introduced his Measure giving the 17s. 6d. supplement, but it has yet to be proved today that there is such hardship or that the gross national product has so increased as to make possible an increase in real terms again.

It is true that in 1956 the Minister emphasised the hardship existing among the totally incapacitated, but he also said something else, that the 17s. 6d. proposal was not merely to mitigate hardship but was to bring the totals received by those under the old Workmen's Compensation Act more into line with those received by their comrades and colleagues receiving benefit under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act.

I fully agree. It was to bring them roughly into line. However, as I say, I do not believe that, unless there are cases of hardship so that we have to act or unless the gross national product is increased so that we can give more in real terms, every time the two get out of line it is necessary to bring up whichever happens to be the lower, which I admit will nearly always be those under the old scheme.

There is something which can be said on the case against the allowance for the partially disabled. Frankly, it is very difficult to make another charge upon the Industrial Injuries Fund to give the benefit to people who have never contributed anything to it. It seems yet another breach of the insurance principle. I should like very much to stand by the insurance principle. I am not saying that the aims of hon. Members opposite are such as perhaps should not be implemented, but I do not think they should be implemented without an increase in the national insurance contribution. If as part of a general increase in benefits and contributions this was suggested, I should support it, but when it is by itself, unless someone is able to persuade me to the contrary, I cannot give my support to the Bill.

I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Freeth) in his arguments about the financial position of the Industrial Injuries Fund. We are not asking that the compensation should be from the Treasury or the National Insurance Fund. We are asking that it should be from the Industrial Injuries Fund, a large part of which has been contributed by the workers.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) upon his success in the Ballot after waiting seven years—the hon. Member for Basingstoke waited eight years before he was successful—and I also congratulate him on his selection of subject.

I am the last person to accuse the Minister or his Department of lacking in sympathy. I know I am misunderstood sometimes because of my straight speaking. They do not lack sympathy, but we have a saying in Lancashire, "Sympathy without relief is like mustard without beef. It is very sharp" What we are asking is that immediate relief should be given to those unfortunate men who have been waiting so long, and that is what the Bill does.

It is sixty years this year since I left school—and that is going a very long way back. I left on the day I was 12, and the next day I started work in a pit. I well remember the words on a book which was handed to me by a schoolmaster:

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try try again"

We have been trying for many years to get something better for these unfortunate men. This is the fifth occasion in the last few years on which Measures have been introduced with that end in view.

It is true that the Department has helped us. I do not deny that we have had succour and assistance from the Department. Our trouble has been that we have not gone sufficiently far and that there are still men who have been injured or who have contracted disease and who have been left by the wayside. We want those men to be included within the scope of our compensation legislation. As I said a few days ago, when speaking not far from the House of Commons, there was a cry which came from Macedonia. This time the cry is not from Macedonia, but from injured workmen who have been forgotten, however unintentionally. As we have rumbled through our legislation, we have forgotten these men and we are now anxious that they should be brought within the ambit of our compensation law.

I know that there will be difficulties. Any Bill has its difficulties and complexities. It is our job to surmount them. I remember that when I went to technical school, a professor there used to tell me that difficulties were a means of progress if they were tackled in the proper way. The difficulties in this case can be overcome if they are tackled properly. Instead of wearying our minds with statistics and with wondering whether we can afford these provisions, we should keep the human aspect of the problem uppermost in our minds.

We are here considering the men who, at one time, had to content themselves with what I call meagre earnings, which were based on the legislation of 1897, 1903 and 1925. That legislation prevented those men from receiving the compensation to which they were entitled. Workmen were always opposed to compensation being determined by a man's pre-injury earnings. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, I bear the scars of an accident received in industry. Because of the formula, I had to be content with small compensation which eventually diminished and then disappeared.

It was not because of any inefficiency or incompetence at their work that the men for whom we are appealing today had such low earnings. It was due to the fact that they could work for only so many days a week. The formula was simple. If the pre-injury earnings were £2 a week, and the earnings on night work were £1 10s. a week, the partial compensation was 10s., and 50 per cent. of 10s. was added to the night earnings, making £1 15s. Can any right hon. or hon. Member justify a formula of that description? Slowly, but surely, when those men returned to work, their partial compensation vanished owing to the increase of wages. These men should be given some assistance in view of the position in which they now find themselves.

Coming from a mining district I know what these men are suffering, what they have suffered in the past, and what their families have suffered, socially, physically and economically. Since these men sustained their accidents their lives have been ones of drudgery, insecurity and monotony. Surely in these days, when we are putting forward the argument that the standard of living of our people is increasing—and I do not challenge that it is for many people—we must remember that these men have never had any increase. All we ask is that there shall be a deliberate attempt by the Government to give these people a slightly higher standard of living than they have experienced in the last few years.

I recall starting on the pilgrimage to secure compensation in respect of silicosis—now pneumoconiosis—cases, in 1922. That is a long time ago. I was a member of the Select Committee which had to consider the advisability of these men being brought within the scope of our compensation laws. After that, we waited for seven long and weary years. It was not until 1929 that the first Order was made, becoming operative on 1st February, 1930. Since then, on and on we have gone, and at every step we have taken we have left by the wayside one, two or three injured men, or men suffering from industrial diseases. Surely we ought not to do that. Surely the time has come for us to look back upon our apparent neglect and to realise that we have missed these men, whom we should have carried with us. Is it too late in the day to bring these men within the scope of our compensation laws?

This Bill is long overdue. We ought to have brought in these provisions years and years ago. We have to remember that although some of these men who have been unfortunate enough to contract an industrial disease pass away very quickly, others linger on for a long time, and some of them are experiencing untold agonies. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not misunderstand me, but I want to impress upon him the importance of this Bill.

I have had experience of attending inquests on men who died as the result of industrial injuries. When a man is certified to be suffering from, say, silicosis, or pneumoconiosis, it is equal, as surely as night follows day, to a sentence of death. The two Parliamentary Secretarys sitting on the Front Bench opposite can shake their heads, but I am speaking from experience. I challenge anyone to tell me that a man who contracts silicosis or pneumoconiosis ever recovers, because there is no known cure for those diseases. A man can have a mild attack. a medium attack, or an acute attack.

To prove what I have said, that when a man is certified to be suffering from an industrial disease it is tantamount to a sentence of death, I will will quote four cases. Case No. I is of a man aged 60. His date of disablement was 29th May, 1937. He died on 5th January, 1939. He lived for 84 weeks after the date of disablement. Case No. 2 is that of a man aged 59. His date of disablement was 5th December, 1937. He died on 1lth June, 1938. He lived for 27 weeks. Case No. 3 is that of a man aged 43 whose date of disablement was 1st November, 1939. He died on 21st January, 1941. He lived for 69 weeks. Case No. 4 is of a man aged 51 whose date of disablement was 23rd November, 1940. He died on 10th February, 1941. He lived for eight weeks. The average period lived by those four men was 47 weeks.

I could quote case after case of men who have passed into the great beyond without having justice rendered to them by the Government or by industry. The people of whom we are speaking have suffered long enough. They have suffered social, physical and economic disadvantages. Apart from their personal suffering, their dependants also have suffered. Surely the time has come when we ought to bring the suffering of these people to an end.

It is said, and I repeat it with all emphasis at my command, that as long as we have wars we shall have sick and wounded men. So long as we have industry, we shall have broken and bruised men. So long as that state of affairs continues it is the duty of the House whatever people may say and whatever arguments may be evinced from either side, to bring immediate relief to the unfortunate men who have borne the heat and burden of the day. We must not run away from that responsibility.

It might help if I intervene briefly at this stage in the debate to say that I have listened with interest to the speeches made by hon. Members opposite and noticed that all of them have been made by hon. Members representing mining constituencies.

That is natural.

I spent my childhood years on the edge of a mining district and, I understand the conditions that have been described. I think that everyone in the House will understand too, that the mining industry has from the very nature of its work an injury record and a history of misfortunes which many other industries are fortunate to have escaped.

Today, in general, we seem to have been speaking more about the general topic than the Bill whose Second Reading is being debated now. It is not an easy subject, but even though it is not easy, we should not let ourselves be discouraged, nor should we turn our eyes from real, marked hardship. There is reference in the Bill to a number of Statutes and schemes, which make dry enough reading—I am sure that the promoter will not object to my saying that but behind that dry language there is a story of men and women who are injured at work, and who carry the results of those disabilities about with them, it may be for many years.

Some of those disabilities will be slight, but some will be serious, but, at the same time, we must not forget that a big principle is involved here. None of the injuries about which we are thinking today has happened recently. They all happened—or were all incurred, if it was a question of the on come of disease— before 1948, the date of the introduction of the Industrial Injuries Act. We can, therefore, use the jargon, and refer to them as the old cases.

Forgetting certain supplements—and there have been supplementations when both parties have been in government—they were, or are, all in receipt of compensation from their employers, or had, or have, a claim against their employers, and the compensation that they have been drawing was based on calculation of loss of earnings. There have been several recent Measures to meet real hardship amongst them, so that it is wrong to stress that these are forgotten men.

Both parties have tried to meet their responsibility in this connection. Yet there are many and we have heard these views expressed today—who feel that more should be done, and that if it is still not possible to achieve a complete merger between the old cases and those coming within the scope of the Industrial Injuries Scheme—which is the ideal— there should be additional provision for some, if not for all.

In particular, there are, I believe many in the trade union movement who accept, at the present time, that everyone has not an equal claim, but who would like to see something done, especially for the "partials" as they are called. The supporters of the Bill go a great deal further than that. They are claiming an increase for everyone who can claim any residual effect, however slight, for any injury—

indicated assent.

The hon. Gentleman nods.

That is a formidable undertaking, and it is not entirely clear, either from the Bill or from the speech of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts), how all this is to be financed. However, I am assuming that he intends all the charges to be borne on the Industrial Injuries Fund.

I have just mentioned the word "merger". The Bill is merely an approach to the same objective but by another road. It proposes to give benefit from the fund, which was set up to compensate post-1948 misfortunes on the basis of loss of faculty, to those whose claims have been considered, and sometimes settled, on a different basis.

Last year, my predecessor, speaking during the debate on a similar Bill, explained at length the difficulties of doing this. I do not want to go over the ground again, but if it had been possible to do this, surely it would have been effected in the 1946 Act. It was certainly riot overlooked. It was debated both in this Chamber and in Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was at that time quite open about the difficulties.

Some may imagine, and it has been said this afternoon, that as time goes by the operation will become simpler, but that is a bit deceptive because, although the numbers may drop, that does not necessarily say that the cases will become less difficult. Moreover, the basic difference still remains. Under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, the claim was, and remains, against the employer, and the compensation was calculated on an earnings basis. We have now superseded that scheme by State insurance, financed from contributions from employer, employee and the State, and the benefit is paid on an entirely different basis, which is loss of faculty. It is not disputed that the new basis is proving more favourable for the great majority, but I believe that there are a few—perhaps more than a few—to whom the transfer would not be an advantage.

Further, at the time of the injury, no one in these old cases could have contributed, nor could his employer have contributed, in respect of the particular accident, because the fund did not exist. It is a little like making a claim on an insurance company for a fire when one only started paying the premiums after the fire. However, one does not want to put too much emphasis on that.

Some people may say that this is all very well, that the Industrial Injuries Fund, unlike most Government funds, has something spare in it and is not in deficit. "Surely the fund could stand it", it may be said, "it will not be very heavy. It is a human problem, and the money would go to meet great hardship". It could be said that the principle has already been breached, so that one cannot stand on principle. In fact, however, to argue thus would be to go wider of the mark than at first sight might appear. The charge would not be small. I notice that the hon. Member for Normanton did not venture any suggestion as to what it might amount to. It certainly would be enough to upset the calculations on which the Industrial Injuries Fund is based.

Whereas it is always possible to cite hard cases, categories and groups—I do not dispute what has been said this afternoon—the fact remains that there are tens of thousands of men covered by the Bill who, it cannot possibly he said, are suffering any great hardship, if any hardship at all. I ask the House to bear that in mind.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the estimate of what it would cost?

Yes; I want to give the House an idea about that, but I do not want to take up more than a few more minutes. I want first to take a closer look at the Bill.

Clause I would change the test of total incapacity from £52 to £156 per annum. That, again, has not been mentioned. If my right hon. Friend had evidence that the present figure was badly out of date, he would not defend it obstinately, but it 'has not been criticised by the Piercy Committee, and no evidence has recently been put to him on this score. In fact, in the Department, we have been looking at it in another context. Would the House really agree that, if a man can earn £156 per annum—not a great deal, but still it is something—he can be regarded as totally incapacitated? I think that would be going a little far.

The second part of Clause I is really the crux of the Bill because, in effect, it claims parity for the "totals" with the 100 per cent. disabled man on Industrial Injuries benefit. Here, I must make my right hon. Friend's position and intention quite clear. The hon. Member for Normanton said that one of the main objects in bringing forward the Bill was to achieve this parity. My right hon. Friend is concerned to relieve hardship but not to achieve parity. During the Second Reading debate in 1956 he said:

"I stress that, we ought not to put on the Industrial Injuries Fund—that is to say, the contributors to that fund—a charge in respect of an injury not within the scope of that fund, except where we are really satisfied that some real hardship or real injustice arises. In other words, we ought not to do this merely to obtain exact symmetry or equality, but only where there is a point of substance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 1912.]

May I quote what the right hon. Gentleman said during the same debate:

"However, the broad purpose is, I think, clear and will, I hope, prove acceptable; it is that we should use the Industrial Injuries Fund in order to provide a supplement for the 13,000 or 14,000 men who, because, and only because, they draw their support from a workmen's compensation system which was superseded in 1948, have found that the money that they draw from that is not only insufficient for their needs but is out of line with what is drawn by their friends and colleagues who may have suffered an industrial accident a year or two later."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 1916.]

I do not think that that really detracts from the main point. The object is not to achieve parity. I must say also that, leaving the "totals" on one side, when we come to the question of the "partials," they, or the great majority of them, are now eligible for the advantage of an increased sickness benefit or retirement pension.

Clause 3 deals with the "latents" and there we have a different problem. These are probably the largest number of people with which the Bill is concerned. Admittedly, we have very few records of the size of this problem but, as drafted, the Bill will include those with trivial injuries and with, presumably, no loss of earning power. They would automatically become entitled to an allowance of 25s. a week. The House might bear that in mind.

The "partials" appear to be divided into two classes. I think I can see why. One class is to be given a supplement of 17s. 6d. and the other a supplement of 25s. That again, I think, is a point which the House might care to look at rather more closely.

It is suggested that the cost of these proposals and the administration should be borne by the Industrial Injuries Fund, thus avoiding the need for an annual Vote and Financial Resolution. That would be admirable and simple, both for the Government and for Parliament, but hardly in accordance with our hallowed traditions and practice.

I have been asked about the total cost. It is not easy to be precise with the statistics available, as hon. Gentlemen will appreciate. Speaking on a similar Bill last year, my predecessor gave a figure of £4 million per annum. I am advised that that figure is too low, since this Bill goes considerably wider and that a figure in the neighbourhood of £6 million would be more appropriate. Half of this would be incurred in respect of the "latents," who have the weakest claim, and in some cases, as it must be admitted, no claim at all. My right hon. Friend realises that there is a good deal of conjecture in arriving at this figure—

Can the hon. Gentleman break down that figure?

I have told the right hon. Gentleman that half of it represents the cost of the supplements to "latents"

My right hon. Friend realises that there is a good deal of conjecture and difficulty and he will see if it is possible to get a better picture of the current position, but he would not like to make any promises.

Do we understand that the global figure of £6 million will be divided in the form of £3 million for the "totals" and "partials" and £3 million for the "latents"?

Yes. Roughly half of the amount will be for the "latents" and the other half for the "totals" and the "partials".

Reference has been made to the importance of not upsetting the balance of the Industrial Injuries Fund. A figure such as has been mentioned represents between 8 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the outflow from that fund. Admittedly, there has been an extra burden put on the fund this year, but there have been increases in contributions to balance that.

I do not say that, whatever circumstances arise, my right hon. Friend would not do as he has done before, and meet a group whom it was demonstrably shown were in circumstances of real hardship. But I do say that there is no case made out for the comprehensive operation which the Bill must be admitted to envisage. In addition, the financial implications are heavy, and so in all the circumstances I cannot advise the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

May I make a suggestion to the hon. Gentleman? Surely this is a Bill which could be considered in Committee. Will he ask his right hon. Friend whether the employers do not have a responsibility here? One reason why I could not do what I wanted in 1948 was because the employers would not pay, as I thought they should, a lump sum into the fund. Will the hon. Gentleman consider, with his right hon. Friend, asking the employers to put an extra 1d. or 2d. into the fund to meet the position of these men, for whom they have a responsibility? Their responsibility for accidents since 1948 has been much lighter than it would have been but for the old Workmen's Compensation Act. I hope that the Minister will consider this suggestion.

In the few moments that remain, I would like to say that I regard the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) and the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert), who moved and seconded the Motion, as two good Samaritans who are anxious to help all those who have been concerned with mining—an industry within my constituency. There is a maxim which I was given for politics, "Never tell a lie when the truth will do" Earlier this afternoon. I said that there were two great collieries in my constituency. In fact, there is one. The other is about a mile from my house and the pithead is not in my constituency.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

I consider this an extremely good Bill and I would like much greater time to elaborate on it. At this juncture, all I can say is that when the House has more time and gives an hon. Member like myself an opportunity to express myself more fully and to deal with these complications of the elderly and the sick, and those who are suffering because they do not have sufficient pension, I hope we shall consider this matter again. In the meantime, I am grateful for what my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said.

Earlier in the debate, hon. Members opposite said that this question cannot be decided upon a legalistic issue. To a certain point, I agree. I regret that I was not present to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) in introducing the Bill, although I heard the moving speech of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown). One knows these cases well. I do not have time to go into the details of the Bill. I think, however, that it goes much too far. If hon. Members will allow me—

rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

One wants to consider what is being suggested. I am one of the few Members of the House—perhaps the only Member—who takes the view that in 1948 a mistake was made. The basis of compensation was changed—

A fair charge can be made against the hon. and learned Member that consistently, every time a Member of the House has brought in a Bill to alleviate hardship and financial stress of workmen injured in industry, he has either delayed the Bill or purposely talked it out.

That charge is entirely groundless and is made simply because it looks as if I shall not have time to finish my speech today. If it gives the hon. Member any great pleasure to make inaccurate charges of that nature, it does me no harm. It is likely to harm only the hon. Member himself.

He is never here on Fridays.

That is the only time that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) looks in.

The basis of compensation that we have been discussing this afternoon, based upon loss of earnings, was far and away the best basis of compensation— —

rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

I have already told the hon. Member that I am not seeking to do any harm. I desire to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide"] I can assure hon. Members—

On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for hon. Members to try to delay discussion of the Bill by making so much noise?