HOUSING AND TOWN DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

HC Deb 19 February 1957 vol 565 cc353-400

Considered in Committee [Progress, 18th February].

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Question again proposed:— That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session making new provision, among other matters, with respect to contributions out of the Exchequer and by local authorities in respect of housing accommodation provided or improved in Scotland and enabling Scottish local authorities to provide housing accommodation and other development in relief of the needs of districts other than their own, it is expedient—

1. A. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses Incurred by the Secretary of State in paying to a local authority, or in certain cases to a development corporation,—
1. (a) in respect of any approved house an annual contribution for a period of sixty years of the appropriate amount hereinafter specified, that is to say—
1. (i) in the case of a house provided by a local authority other than a house such as is mentioned under the four next following sub-heads, twenty-four pounds;
2. (ii) in the case of a house provided by a local authority in accordance with arrangements made with the approval of the Secretary of State as being desirable by reason of special circumstances for the provision of housing accommodation in any area for persons coming to that area in order to meet the urgent needs of industry, thirty pounds;
3. (iii) in the case of a house provided by a local authority by way of housing accommodation for the agricultural population, thirty-six pounds;
4. (iv) in the case of a house provided by a local authority in pursuance of any overspill agreement, forty-two pounds;
5. (v) in the case of a house provided by a local authority, being an exporting authority, in the district of another local authority, forty-two pounds;
6. (vi) in the case of a house provided by a development corporation otherwise than in pursuance of arrangements made tinder section eighty of the Act of 1950. forty-two pounds;
7. (vii) in the case of a house provided by a housing association under arrangements made under the said section eighty, such one of the amounts mentioned in subheads (i), (ii) and (iii) of this head as the Secretary of State may determine to be appropriate;
354
2. (b) in respect of any approved house which is a flat contained in a block of flats, an additional annual contribution for a period of sixty years of such amount as may be determined by the Secretary of State to be necessary to secure the amortisation over the said period of an amount equal to two-thirds of the sum, if any, by which the cost of the house exceeds such sum as may be so determined to represent the average cost of approved houses in Scotland (exclusive of such houses as may be so determined) at the time of the approval by the Secretary of State of the proposals in accordance with which the house is provided;
3. (c) in respect of any approved house (not being a house provided by a development corporation or the town council of a large burgh) an additional annual contribution for a period of sixty years of such amount as the Secretary of State considers just and reasonable having regard to the remoteness of the site of that house or the sites of other houses from centres of supply of building labour and material;
4. (d) contributions towards the expenditure incurred by a local authority in connection with—
   1. (i) the acquisition or appropriation of land situated within the area to which any town development scheme relates, or the clearing or preliminary development of land so situated, or
   2. (ii) the provision for the purposes of any town development scheme of any water supply or sewerage service,
   being contributions of such amounts and payable in such cases, over such periods and subject to such conditions, as may be determined by or under regulations made under any provision of the said Act of the present Session relating to town development schemes;
2. B. To authorise the payment out at moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in paying to the Scottish Special Housing Association,—
1. (a) in respect of any house (as defined for the purposes of any provision of the said Act of the present Session relating to the said Association) provided by them an annual contribution for a period of sixty years of an amount, in each year, equal to the annual contribution, or, as the case may be, the sum of the annual contributions, which would have been payable in that year under subsection (7) of section eighty-four and sections eighty-six, eighty-eight and eighty-nine of the Act of 1950, and any provision of the said Act of the present Session providing for the payment of Exchequer contributions in respect of houses provided by a local authority, if the house had been a house provided by a local authority;
2. (b) such further contributions as the Secretary of State may determine;
3. C. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums required or authorised under any other Act to he so paid;
355
4. D. To authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any receipts of the Secretary of State under the said Act of the present Session.

In this Resolution— Act of 1950" means the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950; approved house" means a new house which is—

1. (a) provided by a local authority in the exercise of their power to provide housing accommodation, or by a development corporation otherwise than in pursuance of arrangements made under section eighty of the Act of 1950, and in respect of which the proposals after-mentioned, accompanied by such information as is required by the Secretary of State as to the estimated cost of erection of the house, were or are received by the Secretary of State on or after the first day of August, nineteen hundred and fifty-six, or
2. (b) provided by a housing association in pursuance of arrangements made under the said section eighty on or after the said first day of August,

being a house for which proposals have been submitted to the Secretary of State and have been approved by him for the purposes of the said Act of the present Session; exporting authority" means a local authority, being a local authority for a district which has a need for housing accommodation which cannot in the opinion of the Secretary of State be properly and fully met by the provision of housing accommodation within the district, who propose to make or have made arrangements for the meeting of that need, in whole or in part, by the provision of housing accommodation outside their district; overspill agreement" means an agreement entered into between an exporting authority and another local authority or a development corporation for the provision by that other authority, or, as the case may be, that corporation, of housing accommodation to meet, in whole or in part, the needs of the district of the exporting authority; town development scheme" means a scheme made by a local authority and approved by the Secretary of State, and containing proposals for development to be carried out in conjunction with the provision of housing accommodation in the district of that local authority in pursuance of arrangements made by another local authority for meeting, in whole or in part, any need of their district for housing accommodation which in the opinion of the Secretary of State cannot be properly and fully met by the provision of such accommodation within their district:—[Mr. Maclavy.]

10.11 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

When this Resolution was put last night we sought to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland some questions, and also to make a few remarks about it, but were stopped, of course, because the rule had not been suspended. In the first place, I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have thought that he would get this long and very complicated Financial Resolution through the Committee without any discussion at all, and I can only assume that that action was taken in order to dampen down discussion. The Secretary of State evidently does not want too much said about it.

The first thing that strikes us about this Money Resolution is that it seems strictly to limit the extent to which we should be able to discuss in the Scottish Grand Committee the details of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, or even, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) reminds me, to move Amendments to some of these detailed proposals. What is the position? Can we, in fact, move any Amendments at all, if we pass this Financial Resolution, to the detailed proposals about subsidies? Can we move anything at all about subsidies? Can we move anything concerning the period of 60 years, which is very specifically stated?

We would like to discuss some of these things in the Scottish Grand Committee, but our fear is that the right hon. Gentleman is at least endeavouring, though he has not yet been successful, to restrict discussion which this subject merits and which the people of Scotland will certainly expect it to receive. Referring solely to the provisions for housing subsidies, I should like to know to what extent we will be able to discuss these provisions once we have passed this Financial Resolution.

The final part of paragraph A, if that is right—I do not know how one reads this; one has to be a sort of Californian lawyer to do so, and the trouble is that we are not in California—deals with town development. Once again, it seems to us that this Financial Resolution restricts very considerably the extent to which we shall be able to discuss Amendments in regard to town development.

10.15 p.m.

Great concern was expressed yesterday about the provision of industry. Questions were asked when the hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State was winding up, and I am bound to say that I do not consider that he clarified the situation very much. For instance, when my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) asked whether the Exchequer grants under Clause 14 would include factories, the hon. Gentleman replied, No, not factories. That is what he said, and that does not seem to us to be very satisfactory. We should certainly like to discuss that. The hon. Gentleman went on to explain how, under Clause 25, local planning authorities could for the first time undertake the building of factories, but earlier he had said that this was not included in the financial provisions. Where, then, is it included? We ought to have some information about it. He said: Under Clause 25 local planning authorities can for the first time undertake factory building, the cost of acquisition of which and the clearance and primary development of sites qualifies for grant",—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1957 Vol. 565, c. 156–7.] I am not certain where it qualifies. Does it qualify for grant under this Money Resolution? I have read this Resolution; it might be possible, of course, that it qualifies under paragraph C, where it says: To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums required or authorised under any other Act to be so paid". I do not know: I am not a lawyer. Does this include the expenditure about which we were greatly concerned yesterday?

We want some guarantee about this. The concern expressed was felt not only on this side of the House during the Second Reading debate. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were concerned about the provisions of factories, and it was generally admitted that the success of the Bill depended upon that. We must have some assurances from the right hon. Gentleman that we can, when this Bill reaches Standing Committee, put down Amendments and discuss these matters, although we have passed this Money Resolution.

I will not say any more now, because I am sure some of my hon. Friends have something to say. In conclusion, I will repeat what I said at the beginning. The right hon. Gentleman really must not expect to get away with a Resolution like this without any endeavour being made to explain it. After all, two pages of fairly complicated legal and financial jargon ought to be explained in language for the layman, because that it what most of us are. I suggest that when he comes to the House again with a Resolution like this, he should treat us with some courtesy and give us that explanation which we expect and require if we are to know exactly what it is we are doing.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland is deeply indebted to us for raising certain questions and asking him to supply further explanation of the Bill before we pass this Money Resolution. As far as we can gather, the procedure is that the Bill goes to a Committee. After it has been in Committee for a considerable time, the Guillotine is applied and there is no further discussion on it. Then later, after the Guillotine has been imposed, the Government suddenly decide to change their policy. This is what we want to avoid. We want to save the time of the House, to save the time of the Scottish Grand Committee, to save the time of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and to save the time of the local authorities, by getting clear and explicit answers to some of these questions now.

I would not have detained the Committee at this late hour, but certain questions are being asked in Ayrshire. As you know, Sir Charles, in Ayrshire we have certain difficulties, because only my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and myself are able to ask questions which need to be answered and the questions appertaining to this Financial Resolution. I understand that the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) is out of action, it is impossible for you, Sir Charles, in the Chair, to take part in our discussions, and it is impossible for the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Nairn) to take part because he has a majority of only 167. The local authority in his area is asking questions, but although the hon. Member goes into the Division Lobby he cannot come and put the questions on behalf of the local authorities in Central Ayrshire. So I have to do it, not only for the burghs in South Ayrshire, but for the burghs in Central Ayrshire, like Kilwinning, Irvine and Stewarton. In the absence of the hon. Member. I shall do my best to elicit the information from the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Among the questions perturbing the local authorities in Ayrshire is the question of the money payment that they are likely to receive. The Members for the various constituencies in Ayrshire have had certain questions put to them which require to be answered, and we are now passing on the questions which, we hope, will be answered.

I have, for example, a letter from the county clerk of Ayrshire, who puts the difficulties not only of the county council but of various burghs and small burghs in the county. These local authorities take their duties far more seriously than seemed to be indicated yesterday by the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George), who talked about the complacency of local authorities. I assure you, Sir Charles, and I am sure you will agree with me, that local authorities in Ayrshire are not by any means complacent. They are anxious to know how the terms of the Money Resolution will be interpreted in terms of hard cash.

Although the hon. Member for Pollok is, I understand, a displaced person. and lives in one of the burghs in Ayrshire, he has absolutely no right to talk about Ayrshire as if the local authorities were not very enthusiastic about the problems of local government and adopted anything like an indifferent attitude to the question of how the increase in rates of interest is likely to affect subsidies and the grants that local authorities are likely to receive under the Resolution.

I have to ask the Secretary of State to reply to the question which is contained in my communication from the Clerk to the Ayrshire County Council. He states that: In Ayrshire, after the current housing programme is completed, we know of over 1,200 families still to be rehoused: the position is constantly changing—usually against us. The assurance that we would like from the Secretary of State is that under the provisions of this Financial Resolution, the position will not constantly change still worse against the County Council of Ayrshire.

We are told: Taking the four-apartment house as the type of which we build the greatest number, the reduction in subsidy is £18 5s. per house per year for sixty years."— that is, until the year 2017. Surely, if we are discussing the terms of a financial arrangement which is to continue until the year 2017, we are justified in taking half an hour to discuss it. Indeed, the fact that we are deciding the fate until the year 2017 of the small burghs of Ayrshire should have been an incentive for the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire to be present to protect them. The clerk says: On our known needs of 1,200 houses the annual reduction in subsidy would therefore be about £22,000. Our concern at this position can well be understood. He goes on to say: With a substantial number of houses still to erect they"— that is, the county council— are of opinion that the cuts in subsidy as well as being much too severe are also premature. So the Clerk to the Ayrshire County Council takes the same position in relation to the Bill as the hon. Member for Pollok. The hon. Member for Pollok agrees in principle with the Bill, which will raise rents, but he thinks it is premature, and the clerk says that however much they may be justified the cuts in subsidy are premature.

I should like some assurance from the Secretary of State that the housing programme in Ayrshire is not to suffer as a result of our passing this Resolution. In Ayrshire, we are very anxious to proceed with the housing drive. Even the most Conservative of small burghs in Ayrshire has not taken up the position of, for example, the small burgh of Gourock. There, the people have been so perturbed about the precarious situation of housing subsidies as affected, among other things, by this Resolution that they have said, "We are going on strike and we shall not build houses at all." That is one of the most important burghs in the constituency of the Secretary of State. The start to the hard new housing drive the right hon. Gentleman was talking about yesterday is a sit-down strike. I hope that the Secretary of State will give re- assurances to our small burghs even if he cannot reassure his own.

I am very glad to see the Solicitor-General for Scotland here—[HON. MEMBERS: "And the Lord Advocate."]—because I should rather like an explanation of paragraph A (iii) of the Resolution, which says that in the case of a house provided by a local authority by way of housing accommodation for the agricultural population the subsidy is £36. As one who represents an agricultural area, I should like to know why the subsidy is fixed at £36 for housing for the agricultural population.

Indeed, I should like to know what the agricultural population is. What exactly is the agricultural population of Ayrshire? Why are some people in the county to get the benefit of a £36 subsidy while others in the same agricultural county are to get benefit of only £24? What I cannot understand is why, if all the arguments which have been brought forward to justify this Resolution are sound, there is not a reduction in the subsidy in the agricultural areas. I cannot draw a hard and fast line between agricultural and industrial people.

Who can be classified as agricultural people and who can be classified as industrial? Perhaps the hon. Member for Pollok would enlighten me on this. He used to be a constituent of mine. There are certain anomalies, which, of course, he skated over yesterday. He now represents an industrial area. However, I should like a member of the Government to justify the payment of a £36 subsidy for a house on one side of the street and a £24 subsidy for somebody living opposite to it. There are glaring anomalies, and we hope to enlighten the hon. Member for Pollok upon them during the Committee stage.

10.30 p.m.

I should like an attempt to be made to clear up the position about the subsidy for the agricultural population. I am glad to see the Lord Advocate, because I should like to know when a member of the agricultural community qualifies for the £36 subsidy or the £24 subsidy. When one speaks of the agricultural population, one immediately thinks of the farm and of the cowman. We all agree that it is justifiable to grant the £36 subsidy in order to rehouse the cowman.

No one talks about the rich paying the rates in the agricultural areas. All that argument breaks down when we come to this figure of £36. If we are justified in paying the £36 subsidy for the cowman, why are we not entitled to think that the same figure is justified for rehousing the milkman? What is the moral, financial and commonsense justification for saying to the cowman, "We will give you a subsidy of £36 to rehouse you," and then saying to the milkman, "You belong to a lower class of humanity. You are among the richer section of the community, and should have only £24"?

An attempt may be made to say that people who live in small burghs do not represent the agricultural population, but there are people in those areas who work on farms. Are we entitled to subsidise to the extent of £36 the man who drives the tractor, and who may live in a small burgh, and then say to the man who lives in the same place, and drives a lorry on the other side of the hedge from the tractor, "You are entitled to only £24"? How are these anomalies justified? Is the man who repairs the tractor entitled to the £24 or the £36 benefit.

I do not notice anyone on the Treasury Bench jumping to his feet and attempting to answer these questions. What about the unfortunate school teacher in an agricultural area? Surely, the agricultural population is entitled to be educated. One of the difficulties is to attract teachers to these areas. How can we do that if we penalise the patriotic teacher who volunteers to go there by charging him so much more on his rent?

In South Ayrshire there are farmers who have arranged to get what is called the agricultural subsidy for their sons. Some of these farmers' sons enjoy a very substantial income. They are at the receiving end of the other kind of subsidies for which there is no means test, yet the person who is not subsidised is suffering again by the allocation of this subsidy. Therefore, I ask the Lord Advocate to explain exactly how these £36 houses will be allocated. I know that all this causes immense difficulties in the rural areas.

Suppose that a county authority decides that the whole of its population is agricultural and, therefore, puts in a claim for the £36 instead of the £24. I can see the time coming when we may have a Secretary of State for Scotland from this side of the Committee. He will immediately raise the subsidy from £24 to £36 by simply accepting the commonsense definition of the agricultural population. I maintain that there must be included in the agricultural population everybody who, directly or indirectly, is associated with agriculture. Once we apply common sense to the problem we want to know exactly where we are. We want to know the position throughout Scotland, because the greater part of Scotland is agricultural, not industrial.

The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod) has thanked the Government for keeping the agricultural subsidy at £36, but there is an anomaly in the Bill. If the Government are justified in arguing in this way there has been a substantial hole in the argument for the Bill. There are certain other anomalies. Yesterday, we had the case put that rents in Dumfriesshire are to be much bigger than the rents in Ayrshire. In one of the more loosely drawn Clauses of the Bill, the Secretary of State is given powers to give higher subsidies to people who move from one part of the country to another. If the mining population of Dumfriesshire decides to emigrate to the more enlightened Ayrshire, does that mean that the Ayrshire County Council will be entitled to a greater subsidy?

The hon. Member for Pollok knows that the village of New Cumnock is on the borderline between Dumfriesshire and Ayrshire. Men work in the same seam and eat their meals together and it will be found that one miner will be paying three times more rent than the other as a result of anomalies in this Financial Resolution. I hope that the Secretary of State will use the opportunity to patch up the Bill now, before it goes through its later stages.

There is a little town called Stewarton, in central Ayrshire. Are the people of that burgh part of the agricultural population or not? Will they have the benefit of the £36 subsidy or of the £24 subsidy? I do not think that Stewarton can be ruled out on the ground that because it has a creamery it is an industrial area. Will the people in the creamery have the benefit of the £36 subsidy, or will they have the £24 subsidy? Will they be classified as industrial or as agricultural?

I put these points because they all come within the ambit of this Financial Resolution. The Bill is not so simple as it looks. It is not quite the beautiful, generous donation in respect of housing that some hon. Members think it is. I want to ask one or two questions of the Secretary of State about overspill. We are most worried about overspill in Ayrshire, because no one wants to overspill to us—

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay)

Oh, yes.

Mr. Hughes

Except in one part of the county.

I cannot understand why the Secretary of State should be so complacent about the financial arrangements to clear the slums of Glasgow. I read a speech of the Minister of State, who used to represent Pollok in this House. It was a ceremonial speech in which he announced the clearing of the slums of the Gorbals. I read it with a great deal of interest and thought that here we had some push and go—until I saw the time that that is to take. It is to take twenty years. There is complacency in getting so enthusiastic about housing and then announcing that the wonderful scheme for clearing the Gorbals is to take twenty years. I also understand that only 7,000 people are to be rehoused. That is only a small section of the population of Glasgow.

The Chairman rose—

Mr. Hughes

I am coming to my peroration, Sir Charles. I know perorations are always in order; in fact, you look forward to them.

I suggest that we ought to take this opportunity to examine the financial implications of this Resolution in detail, because that would save us a great deal of trouble later.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that perorations are always in order, provided that there are not too many in one speech.

I want, first, to protest against the inordinate length of this Financial Resolution. It is so long that it could have been referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for Second Reading. I am most disappointed that the Secretary of State did not see fit to explain the Resolution to us in detail. [Interruption.] If we are to have three speeches from the Government Front Bench that will be too much.

Mr. Willis

Does my hon. Friend not think that we should have present a representative of the Treasury, also, to explain the Resolution? After all, the Treasury is responsible for the money.

Mr. Ross

I am sure that about three o'clock someone at the Treasury may be sent for to explain the Resolution. The Secretary of State had a duty to explain it and also to explain why the Resolution is in this form. All I can suggest is that probably he read the speech he made yesterday and thought that he had better not make another tonight.

The Resolution goes into meticulous detail. The very fact that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire was able to make his speech and keep in order shows that much. We can seldom get very far on a Financial Resolution and keep in order. Instead of giving us the usual general covering Resolution, the Secretary of State has gone out of his way to go into the detail of every conceivable type of house that could be built under the Bill, and give us the actual figure.

That means that if we pass this Money Resolution tonight we may be able to discuss it in Committee, but we shall not be able to amend it upwards. Is it the intention of the Secretary of State, in presenting the Money Resolution in this form, to prevent the Scottish Grand Committee acting in such a way as properly to discuss it and show that there might conceivably be something wrong—in other words, that there may well have been a mistake?

10.45 p.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire mentioned the question of the differential of £12 between the house for general need and the agricultural house. That differential has always existed. But there is something very much more radical in this change, in that we have for general need a subsidy of £24, whereas with regard to overspill the Money Resolution says: (iv) in the case of a house provided by a local authority in pursuance of any overspill agreement, forty-two pounds. That means that if the town of Kilmarnock, to which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. is hoping to take anything up to 15,000 people from Glasgow for overspill, clears its own slums, by this Money Resolution Kilmarnock is to get a subsidy of £24 per house, but if it undertakes to clear the slums of Glasgow it is to get a subsidy of £42.

Surely it would be possible, in the Scottish Grand Committee, to pursue the argument that one slum is as bad as another to the people who live in them, and that the urgency of rehousing is such that the subsidy should be the same. The framing of this Money Resolution in this way, means that this is the only time that I can effectively protest against this anomaly. If this goes through unchanged tonight, it means that Kilmarnock will never get any more under the Bill than £24 per house.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

May I point out that there is a further anomaly? Moscow will get only £36 compared with Kilmarnock.

Mr. Ross

Yes, they will only get £36 in Moscow, provided that the housing is for an agricultural worker. That is another anomaly.

I am very glad to see that the Lord Advocate is here—

Miss Margaret Herbison (Lanarkshire, North)

He is hiding.

Mr. Ross

I do not think that he is hiding. I think that, originally, he did not intend to come to this debate, as a tribute to our powers of elucidation of this legal jargon, or else in the belief that any intervention by him would lead not to enlightenment but to confusion.

We must be given considerably more information about what this Money Resolution means. It begins by saying: That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session … and then goes on: … in respect of housing accommodation provided or improved in Scotland … I should like to know where in the Money Resolution—indeed, where in the Bill—is there any reference to money being paid for improving housing accommodation. The Government have been meticulous; they have, I think, put in something which is not necessary. They want to cover themselves while, at the same time, gagging and limiting the Committee when it eventually comes to deal with the Bill.

There is another point on which we want enlightenment. Paragraph A (d) of the Money Resolution refers to contributions towards the expenditure incurred by a local authority in connection with … the acquisition of land and the provision of water and sewerage. We want very much more enlightenment than we had last night as to what is meant and what is covered by that—the extent of the grant envisaged.

I think that a suggestion was made last night by the Joint Under-Secretary that it would be 75 per cent., leaving 25 per cent. to be paid by the local authorities. Does this in any way tie us to that formula? If it does, we obviously cannot accept it. Last night the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) spoke of the kind of place he envisaged undertaking this work; a dying area, with practically no, or little, valuation at all—maybe a small burgh. How can such places provide for an incoming population of perhaps 20,000 and pay 25 per cent. towards these services? I hope that we shall get information on that—and in asking for this information we are also protecting the interests of hon. Members opposite.

We have been told that new powers are to be given to local authorities in respect of building factories and work of that sort. I think that Clauses 25 and 17 of the Bill refer to that. I have looked through the Money Resolution carefully and have not found any reference to moneys being provided for the use of this new power. Reference is made to the different types of houses, overspill and the rest, but never once is mention made of industrial development, never once does it mention factories. It is no use having these Clauses in the Bill and suggesting great new development if no money is to be provided.

We want to protect the Government from themselves. It is not the first time that they have brought forward a very clever Money Resolution and have later had to take it away and bring back a new one, because they have forgotten some- thing, or have been persuaded in Committee that they could not do what they sought because the Money Resolution would not allow them to. We want more information. In the meantime, I will reserve further comment until I hear the Secretary of State, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland—I am quite sure that we shall require all three properly to explain this to us.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

The point on which I want an explanation I can, I think, put more briefly than my hon. Friends have put theirs. After all, they had the initial chance of clearing the ground, and have left me with just the one small but very real point. I am sure that the Committee will agree that it is a perfectly legitimate one, and one on which the Secretary of State should vouchsafe an explanation.

It will be seen that there is some overlapping between paragraphs A (a, ii) and (a, iii) of the Money Resolution. Subparagraph (iii) relates to the case of a house provided for the agricultural population, £36. The question I wish to raise is this. Is agriculture not an industry? I want to know what the difference is between sub-paragraph (ii) and sub-paragraph (iii). I want to know to what class each applies. Do they not overlap?

Mr. Emrys Hughes

What about fishing?

Mr. Hector Hughes

I should hate to mix up food, agriculture and fisheries. I am always trying to separate fisheries from food and agriculture. The Government treat them as if fisheries were not some kind of food, and they say, "Food, Agriculture and Fisheries". My hon. Friends are trying to induce me to talk about fisheries, but I am not going to do so. I am talking about agriculture.

Is agriculture not an industry? Subparagraph (ii) is drawn as if agriculture were not an industry. It relates to persons coming to that area in order to meet the urgent needs of industry. … But is agriculture not an industry? Is it not included in that generic term "industry"? Apparently not, judging from the manner in which this is drafted.

Sub-paragraph (iii) refers to …the case of a house provided … by way of housing accommodation for the agricultural population". Are they not obviously and logically the same thing? Is there not a case of overlapping there, and is there not an obvious need for the redrafting of this provision?

Mr. Ross

I would advise my hon. and learned Friend not to pursue that, because if he gets agriculture put into the industry provision he will find that it only gets £30 instead of £36.

Mr. Hughes

My hon. Friend has apparently not considered these details with the care he usually devotes to the construction of Acts of Parliament.

Mr. Ross

Why?

Mr. Hughes

He will see that subparagraph (i) provides for £24; sub-paragraph (ii) provides for £30; gradually creeping up the ladder, sub-paragraph (iii) provides for £36, sub-paragraph (iv) provides for £42 and then (v) and (vi) still remain at £42.

Mr. Ross

I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to interrupt again? If he looks at sub-paragraph (ii) he will find that for a house provided to meet the urgent needs of industry the amount is £30, whereas agriculture gets £36. He had better keep agriculture in its own sub-paragraph if he wants it to keep its amount separate from industry.

Mr. Hughes

Yes, I agree that industry seems to be at something of a disadvantage there. But I am not on the question of the amount so much as the question of whether there is overlapping.

May I put it in this way? My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the fact that sub-paragraph (ii) deals with houses for persons coming into an area to meet the urgent needs of industry but the question I want the Secretary of State to answer is this: is agriculture not an industry? Are not persons who will, under sub-paragraph (iii), occupy houses provided for the accommodation of the agricultural population exactly the same persons as those connoted by sub-paragraph (ii), namely, persons coming to an area to meet the urgent needs of industry?

I am not asking the Secretary of State to enter into the mathematics of it, as my hon. Friend sought to induce me to do. I am bad at mathematics, and I am not going to discuss mathematics. I am on the construction of these sub-paragraphs. In my submission, they overlap.

There is something radically wrong with the drafting. They should be redrafted.

11.0 p.m.

Miss Herbison

Surely my hon. and learned Friend is arguing for a higher subsidy rate, for the £30 for all houses?

Mr. Hughes

My hon. Friend is, of course, quite right. If I were to enter into mathematics, that is what I would be saying. But I am so bad at mathematics that I prefer to leave it to someone like her, who is much better at it. As a lawyer, I am content to confine myself to the construction of these two sub-paragraphs. It seems that they overlap, and should be taken back and redrafted.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Does my hon. and learned Friend not agree that there is also an anomaly with the fisherman who goes out to fish in Icelandic waters, who braves the dangers of the sea—that he should be subsidised to the extent of £24 while the agricultural worker who produces barley for whiskey gets £36?

Mr. Hector Hughes

I certainly agree it is a great injustice, because it seems that the fisherman would come under sub-paragraph (ii) persons coming to that area in order to meet the urgent needs of industry. I submit that fishing is quite entitled to it, but cannot be included under the term "agricultural population." Clearly, they come under the expression "industry."

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Does my hon. and learned Friend think that there should be a bigger subsidy to the man who produces the chips than the man who produces the fish?

Mr. Hector Hughes

That is a very nice question. Should the man who produces the ships—

Hon. Members

Chips.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche)

The hon. and learned Member could discuss this on the Bill, but not on the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Hughes

If you look at the Money Resolution, Sir Gordon, you will see the words, in sub-paragraph (ii) persons coming to that area in order to meet the urgent needs of industry. My hon. Friend's question related to shipbuilders, who are obviously in industry.

The Deputy-Chairman

That is all right on the Bill, but not on the Financial Resolution.

Hon. Members

Chip builders—potato growers.

Mr. Hughes

That is another very nice point. There are two expressions in common circulation. One is "fish and chips" and the other is "fish and ships", and the shipbuilder surely comes within the term "people engaged in industry".

The Deputy-Chairman

That is all right on the Bill, but has nothing to do with money.

Mr. Hughes

But the money is provided for the people who live in these houses, and this sub-paragraph provides £30 for people engaged in industry. I am discussing people engaged in that part of industry which builds ships.

The Deputy-Chairman

That is arguable on the Bill, but not on the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Hughes

But the words are in the Financial Resolution, though I bow to your Ruling, Sir Gordon. The Financial Resolution refers to "industry", and shipbuilding is clearly an industry.

The Deputy-Chairman

What hon. Members are arguing about is £30.

Mr. James H. Hoy (Leith)

On a point of order. The Money Resolution states clearly that in the case of a house provided by a local authority in accordance with arrangements made with the approval of the Secretary of State as being desirable by reason of special circumstances for the provision of housing accommodation in any area for persons coming to that area in order to meet the urgent needs of industry, thirty pounds". Surely it is quite competent for my hon. and learned Friend to ask whether a particular type of industry is included and would qualify for the £30 grant.

The Deputy-Chairman

Not on the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Hoy

He is not arguing it. What my hon. and learned Friend is asking, and what, I think, would be quite in order, is whether that industry is covered by the Financial Resolution. If there were an urgent need, would it come within the Financial 'Resolution as drafted? Surely that is a question which is quite in order and one on which we should expect a reply from the Secretary of State.

The Deputy-Chairman

Only the question of money is arguable on the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Thomas Fraser (Hamilton)

Further to that point of order. I dislike putting these questions to the Chair, but we are discussing a Money Resolution which will affect hon. Members, on both sides, in the Amendments that they may be able to table in Committee. The quarrel that some of my hon. and right hon. Friends and I have with the Resolution is that it would seem unnecessarily to restrict us in the Amendments that we will be able to move in Committee.

My hon. Friends are urging the Secretary of State to take back the Money Resolution, for the reasons that some of them have given, so that another Resolution might be introduced to enable us to amend the Bill upstairs in Committee. If hon. Members are not able, at this point, to draw a comparison between the subsidies payable in respect of a house occupied by one type of worker and a house occupied by another, they will be unable to make a case for the withdrawal of the Money Resolution. That, I should have thought, was precisely what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) was seeking to do.

The Deputy-Chairman

I do not think that the hon. and learned Member was doing that.

Mr. Hector Hughes

Perhaps I may put my argument briefly, Sir Gordon, in this way. In effect, I am asking the Secretary of State this question, as I have been asking it since I first rose to my feet: what is the meaning of the word "industry," in sub-paragraph (ii)? Surely that is quite relevant and permissible. I am asking him whether "industry" includes agriculture, because industry is referred to in sub-paragraph (ii) while agriculture is referred to in subparagraph (iii). If agriculture is an industry, then, in my submission, sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) overlap and should be taken back to be redrafted.

A little complication was introduced—and, I believe, quite relevantly introduced—by my hon. Friend, who talked about shipbuilding. I submit that shipbuilders are engaged in an industry. I am asking the Secretary of State whether shipbuilders are engaged in an industry and are included in sub-paragraph (ii) and, therefore, are entitled to the grant of £30 instead of £36 for the houses which they would occupy.

It is manifest to me—I am not saying this for the purpose of delay or of obstruction—that there is an overlapping between sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii). Therefore, I want the Secretary of State to explain the difference between the two sub-paragraphs, and to say whether there is not overlapping between them. If there is, in common honesty he should take back the Money Resolution and have it redrafted.

Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East)

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) has been concerned about this agricultural industrial question. It is one pertinent to the sub-paragraphs of the Money Resolution. It is a pertinent question whether the man who works on the land, and produces the chips that go with fish, should get a higher subsidy than the man who produces the potatoes from which come the chips which go with the fish. One who produces the ships which carry the fish gets a smaller subsidy for his house than the fellow who produces the potatoes which make the chips which go with the fish, and I think that my hon. and learned Friend is entitled to pose that very important question.

We know very well that it is a good thing to encourage people to go on to the land to produce more potatoes to produce more chips to go with the more fish which my hon. and learned Friend's constituents will catch in the North Sea provided that we encourage industrial workers to produce more ships to go to get the fish which go with the chips which come from the potatoes more of which we encourage workers to produce. I could elaborate the matter, but I will not detain the Committee. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer the very important question put by my hon. and learned Friend.

I am very concerned about this Money Resolution and I am concerned about the regulations which undoubtedly will flow from it. Most local authorities in Scot- land—and, I suppose, most in England and Wales, too—the small burghs, the town clerks and provosts receive from the Scottish Office in Edinburgh regulations and other documents which very often cause them a good deal of confusion. Indeed, some of them do not understand them and give up in despair trying to act upon them. I will tell a story, not directly related to this matter, but which illustrates—[HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member will be out of order."] The relevance of the story is that it illustrates—[Interruption.]

The Deputy-Chairman

Order. The hon. Member had better not tell his story, as it would not seem to be relevant to the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Bence

It is relevant to the figures issued by the Government to the local authorities, and regulations under which they can claim certain moneys. It is a very moot point, especially when one has a different monetary grant for different purposes and for different types of things. It happened in the Burgh of Milngavie, where a man raised the matter by complaining that he had been on the list for eight years—

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member is going very far from the Money Resolution.

Mr. Bence

I am sorry, Sir Gordon. It is a very good story. If I could tell it it would illustrate how many of our Tory and so-called progressive councillors are unable to do the things which the Government desire them to do because they just do not understand some of the documents issued from St. Andrew's House, in Edinburgh.

However, as you have forbidden me to tell it, Sir Gordon, I will come to a question about which many of my constituents in Clydebank are very concerned. They are glad that agricultural workers will get the £36 subsidy. They wish they were getting it. They want them to get that subsidy. But what are agricultural workers? Who are they? There are blacksmiths and all sorts of other people. Men who work in John Brown's pose this question to me. Many of them are anglers and go out fishing and when they go fishing they come across water bailiffs and many of them have been picked up by gamekeepers. Is a gamekeeper an agricultural worker?

Mr. Emrys Hughes

He does not work at all.

Mr. Bence

Is he a member of the agricultural population and entitled to a £36 subsidy? Is he? A gamekeeper? A plater in John Brown's shipyard in Clydebank is to have a subsidy of only £24, while a gamekeeper in the county of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—

Mr. Hughes

Gamekeepers are extinct in that part of the world.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Bence

I am glad that the poachers in Ayrshire are in so enviable a position. But here we have an important point. Surely we are not going to have a situation where coal miners have to have houses with a cut subsidy of £24 while gamekeepers are going to be put in houses with a subsidy of £36. Miners live in houses in rural areas; the districts are agricultural, and are the miners at Twechar and Cardonald going to have their housing accommodation cut to £24, while gamekeepers in Stirlingshire and round about will benefit from the £36?

Another question is the Burgh of Kirkintilloch. That burgh is going to take two thousand people from the Glasgow slums.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

They are talking about it.

Mr. Bence

Well, they are discussing it, and they may be selective; and although the spirit of Kirkintilloch is excellent, it is not provided in bottles. It is not that sort of spirit, and when the selection is made for people from Glasgow for Kirkintilloch they will no doubt be informed that it is a "dry" burgh, which will be welcomed; but if I talk of the imperfections of "wet" towns as against "dry", once again I shall be out of order. The fact is that Kirkintilloch builds houses to help clear the Glasgow slums, and the people coming in have the benefit of a subsidy of £42.

Kirkintilloch has slums of its own; and the people in them will be rehoused by the Burgh of Kirkintilloch. Yet they will have a subsidy of only £24—and all this is in the same burgh! We have, in other words, two families. One moves from Glasgow, and another from one part of Kirkintilloch to another part. The first family has £42 and the other, £24. It is absolutely absurd. It will also be the position in Milingavie if they accept overspill population from Glasgow.

Let us now have a look at paragraph A (a, ii), which states that in the case of a house provided by a local authority in accordance with arrangements made with the approval of the Secretary of State as being desirable by reason of special circumstances for the provision of housing accommodation … in order to meet the urgent needs of industry, thirty pounds". A new factory goes up at Cumbernauld, and the allowance for a worker in that factory is £42. But if houses are built in Clydebank to take specialists for industrial needs—I think some have been taken by the Admiralty—the allowance is £30, and not £42. Why is it that in a burgh or county area, where an industry needs specialist workers, whatever they may do, there is a subsidy of £30? In a new town a worker will come, not from the Glasgow overspill, but from some other part of the country, but they will enjoy the subsidy of £42.

In an ordinary burgh or county area where new industry is built and specialist workers have to be brought in, and the local authority is empowered to build houses for them, they will benefit only from the lower subsidy. I can understand the £42 for town development for overspill, but when houses are provided for the special needs of industry they are provided not only in the new towns but in the old towns as well.

Only a few years ago workers were coming from the south—engineers, technicians, designers, tool makers and so on—to Airdrie and Coatbridge and even into the Clyde Valley area, into Glasgow. Firms were given special allocations of houses to accommodate key workers. Why the houses of key workers who come to Airdrie, Coatbridge, Clydebank, Milngavie or Kirkintilloch should bear a subsidy of only £30 when the houses of the agricultural workers bear one of £36 and those in the new towns one of £42, I do not know. Why the differentiation?

The urgent needs of industry may be given as the cause, but every house which is built in Clydebank is in the interests of industry. It is the urgent need of the big factories, the shipyards or Singer's that their workers should live as near to their work as possible. They are always urging the town council to build more houses, because every family house is good for the industrialists and for industrial production. Every house is part of urgent industrial need.

I ask the Secretary of State to cut the Money Resolution down. I do not see why we should have all these varying rates of subsidy for divisions of houses and classifications which it will be most difficult for him to deal with. It will certainly be most difficult for the local authority, which must seek the agreement of the Secretary of State. If a local authority has a plan to build 40 or 50 houses, it will say that they are for the urgent needs of local industries which wish to house workers coming into the area. Will the Secretary of State accept that? What is the position?

These questions should be answered so that the local authorities will know exactly what is meant by all these different classifications of houses. In Dunbartonshire, and, I am sure, in Ayrshire, there are areas which are part agricultural and part industrial. There are many miners and railwaymen who not only do their jobs on the railways and in the mines but also do some agricultural work as well. It is often the practice of some railwaymen, especially the gangers who work on the lines, to have a house alongside the line and a smallholding as well. What are they—agricultural or industrial workers? They are a bit of both. On which basis would they claim the subsidy? One need only go on the West Highland Railway to see the little stations where the station master and the signalman each have a croft. What are they—industrial or agricultural workers? If they want a new house under which head do they claim a subsidy—as crofters or as railwaymen?

Mr. Emrys Hughes

My hon. Friend has touched on a very important point. The railwayman in a small signal box in a rural area may qualify for a subsidy of £24, and a comparatively wealthy farmer on a farm adjoining the station may qualify for the £36 subsidy.

Mr. Bence

if that is so, it is extraordinary.

Mr. Hughes

Actually, the farmer is subsidised twice.

Mr. Bence

He gets his cowshed subsidised as well as his house. I do not want to go out of order, but my hon. Friend shocks me when he says that the local authority will get a subsidy of £36 to build a house for the farmer.

The farmer will have the house built for him by the local authority and the local authority will receive the £36 subsidy to built it for the farmer to house his worker. Yet when the local authority builds a house for a railwayman to work for the nationalised railway it will receive only £24. That, of course, is the Government's bias against a nationalised industry. It is a shocking thing, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire for pointing it out to me.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Is my hon. Friend also aware that the farmer might be getting three times the income?

The Deputy-Chairman

Will hon. Members please address the Chair and not have private conversations?

Mr. Hughes

I beg your pardon, Sir Gordon. This is a very important point. My hon. Friend is pointing out the various anomalies in the Financial Resolution. The railwayman may be paying in his rates the subsidy to the farmer who may have three times his income. The anomaly that we are trying to get at is the definition of an agricultural population. Is a porter or a comparatively poorly paid signalman who helps to get the lime to the farmer and get his potatoes away a member of the agricultural population? If so, what justification is there for giving the farmer a benefit which will result in a lower rent for the farmer's son than for the signalman?

The Deputy-Chairman

The definition of "agricultural population" is a matter for the Bill and not for the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Hughes

it is also in the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Bence

That is the difficulty, and I want to know what exactly is meant by "agricultural population." The more points I hear about these classifications the more worried I get about the definition.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member can put forward any definition of agricultural population he likes on the Bill, but he should not argue that at the moment.

Mr. Bence

That means that if we approve the Money Resolution and then in Committee we are told by the Secretary of State that the agricultural population includes only certain elements, we cannot suggest that other elements should be brought in.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

We can.

Mr. Bence

And certain elements like gamekeepers can be thrown out. I am much happier now, because we shall know what Amendments to propose in Committee. We shall exclude gamekeepers and perhaps a few poachers.

Mr. Hector Hughes

May I point out, with the greatest respect, Sir Gordon, that you have ruled that the definition of an agricultural worker is in the Bill?

The Deputy-Chairman

I have not. I have indicated that it can be discussed when we debate the Bill. That is the proper time to discuss it and not now.

Mr. Bence

I thank you very much for those last remarks, Sir Gordon. They have helped me considerably. I shall now feel better armoured to move Amendments in Committee so that we shall have a better definition in the Bill.

11.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay)

I am extremely pleased that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) is now happier.

Mr. Woodburn

I take it that the Closure will be moved when the right hon. Gentleman sits down. There were one or two points on factories which I raised yesterday and which I wanted to have cleared up, not from the point of view of any fillibustering but of making the Bill a success. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's rising to speak does not mean that the Closure will be moved immediately he finishes and that we shall not be able to put the points that I had in mind. I refrained from rising in deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon).

Unless the right hon. Gentleman wants to stop further discussion, I think that it would be wise to allow my hon. Friend to speak and allow me to put my points, and then the right hon. Gentleman can close the debate in the proper way.

Mr. Maclay

I rose in complete innocence because I thought it might be helpful to the Committee to speak now. Far be it from me to wish to stop expression of opinion, but there have been so many questions asked that if I get many more it will be almost impossible to deal with them. It is already difficult—

Mr. Woodburn

With great respect to the Minister, that means that the Secretary of State is either going to answer in two bites or is only to answer the questions which have been put so far and not to answer the rest which may be put subsequently. I would take a dim view if, after I put some points to him, they are not mentioned in his reply. There are one or two points I want to put in view of his very kind response last night in trying to clear up the points I put then. There are one or two more on the Resolution on which I should like clarity.

Dr. Dickson Mabon (Greenock)

I wish also to associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). I have sat patiently in the Committee and hoped to draw attention to some matters.

Mr. Maclay

I have taken part in a fair number of these debates, particularly in Opposition, and it has been quite normal for the Minister to get up and to try to help the discussion. So far as I know, that does not preclude further discussion.

Mr. Hector Hughes

On a point of order. Is it not manifestly impossible for the Secretary of State to reply to points which are made after he has spoken?

The Deputy-Chairman

That is not a point of order. The Secretary of State can speak as often as he likes.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. Maclay

With this rather hesitating start, not through my fault, I will try to give such help as I can to the debate. I assure hon. Members opposite that it is far from my mind that they should not make any further remarks they wish and, if necessary, I will try to deal with them in due course.

There seem to have been certain misunderstandings. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East expressed some doubts, but he will realise that Financial Resolutions are drawn according to precedent in certain ways. I hope that everything I have to do will be as generous as possible. The hon. Member will have to explore that when we reach the Committee stage on the Bill.

I was asked to give an explanation of the Financial Resolution. I do not think the Committee would expect me to go into the greatest of detail. I was asked why it was so long and detailed. Quite obviously it is in the form we thought best—the main purpose is to seek authority for the payment to local authorities of monies in respect of housing accommodation and, in particular, the new housing subsidies under Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill and the town development grant which will be payable in accordance with regulations under Clause 14. That is a simple explanation of what the Resolution is about.

The new subsidies are dealt with under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of head A. Under (a) there is a subsidy of £24 for 60 years for houses to meet approved needs; of £30 for houses to meet the urgent needs of industry and £36 for houses provided for the agricultural population; and £42 for overspill purposes within the meaning of Part II of the Bill. That is a straightforward explanation which I think hon. Members wanted. Paragraph (b) relates to the new subsidy for high flats which I explained yesterday will be calculated on the Exchequer bearing two-thirds of the additional estimated cost over that of ordinary houses. Paragraph A (c) deals with the additional subsidy payable in remote areas, and, as the Committee knows, no change has been made in this respect. The general considerations underlying the new subsidy structure were explained fully yesterday by my hon Friend and myself, and I do not think I need add anything at this stage [Interruption.] I was asked for some explanation of the length and detail, and I have been giving that explanation.

Mr. Ross

The right hon. Gentleman is now explaining the detail. I asked him to say why we have the detail and why we have this form. Why is the Money Resolution in this form?

Mr. Maclay

Because if we are dealing with a large number of things this is the best way to get the money which we need for the Bill, so I am informed.

Mr. Ross

But the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Maclay

I have not given way again.

Mr. Ross

Very well I can speak again later.

Mr. Maclay

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene now, I will give way.

Mr. Ross

No, I will wait till later.

Mr. T. Fraser

If my hon. Friend does not wish to intervene now, perhaps I may do so. The right hon. Gentleman has told us what is in the Money Resolution. What we did not learn yesterday, and what we want to know tonight before we approve this Money Resolution, is how the Secretary of State arrived at the figures set out in it. As I said yesterday, we know how the figures were arrived at under previous housing subsidy legislation, but we have not been told how the figures in this Money Resolution were arrived at.

Mr. Maclay

The hon. Gentleman is raising a point which was mentioned yesterday. I think that between my hon. Friend and myself, as well as by means of other speeches from this side of the Committee, very detailed explanations were given of the whole structure of the Bill, and I think that the hon. Member may be able properly to pursue that point in Committee. I do not think it is relevant to this point. We have set out the sums that we believe are correct for the job to be done. and that is the full explanation.

Mr. Fraser

But the point is that if the Money Resolution goes through in its present form I shall not be able in Committee to move that the sum of £24 should be £34, £44, or £54. It may well be that if we make any sort of calculation such as was made before the previous subsidies were determined, the figure would be one of those figures that I have just suggested. But since we shall not be able to discuss those matters in Committee if this Resolution goes through, surely it is all the more necessary for the Secretary of State to explain to the Committee why he has written these figures into this Money Resolution.

Mr. Maclay

The answer to that question is that the figures have been arrived at in a most genuine endeavour to get a proper balance between the tenant, the ratepayer and the taxpayer. We worked on that and produced a figure which we believe is the correct one in the circumstances.

Mr. Fraser

Was there any calculation?

Mr. Maclay

Obviously, there were calculations, and it is a question of how to get a balance. We believe that we have got a proper balance.

I will go on with a little more detail. Paragraph A (d) is concerned with the grant which will be payable on the basis that I explained yesterday in connection with town development. Then one goes on to the other details in which I gather the Committee is not particularly interested, although I thought they might be.

Let me come to the question of Amendments. Of course, I cannot possibly lay down at this moment what Amendments are going to be accepted in Committee. It is entirely for the Chair to decide in due course what Amendments will or will not be admissible in Committee. But it is inevitable—and I should be less than frank if I did not say this—that there are some good precedents. I would mention only one of the earlier precedents set by the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946. If one looks at that Financial Resolution, it will be realised that it was drawn in a very wide form. That is the precedent.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

The Secretary of State is referring to some obscure Clause of the Act of 1946. I wonder if he could read it out to the Committee?

Mr. Maclay

It is by no means an obscure Clause, but a very long and detailed Financial Resolution which, if he will look at it in the Library, the hon. Member will find is highly relevant to what I say. It would, indeed, become tedious repetition if I were to repeat something of that length dealt with in 1946.

It is inevitable, and in accordance with precedent, that in subsidy and other money Bills the Financial Resolution should closely reflect the money provisions of the Bill, and if the Government of the day are to be able to discharge their responsibility to the taxpayer that is the basis on which Financial Resolutions must be drawn. In fact, the present Resolution has been drawn as widely as is reasonable and possible. If hon. Members will look at A (c) and B they will see that the references to remote areas and to the Scottish Special Housing Association are in very wide terms.

Mr. Willis

Does what the Secretary of State is saying mean, in plain language, that we shall not be able to move any Amendment to any of these amounts in the Bill? Is that what it means?

Mr. Maclay

I have stated that I am not prepared to prejudge what the Chairman of the Committee will say, but it is quite clear that certain parts of the Financial Resolution are drawn in such a way that we cannot increase the sum of money under the Bill. That is a provision that all Financial Resolutions include.

Mr. Hughes

Sir Gordon, could you not guide us here? If we, in this Committee, accept the figure of £24, would it, in your judgment, be in order to move an Amendment in Committee, after passing the Financial Resolution, to increase the £24 to £34?

The Deputy-Chairman

It is impossible for me to tell. It is a matter for the Chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Hughes

With due respect, Sir Gordon, I am seeking your guidance. If we pass this Financial Resolution, does it mean that we agree to the £24 and will not be able to discuss it further?

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member can judge that situation as well as I but what Amendments will be in order on this Bill is a matter for the Chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Maclay

I repeat that hon. Members will find that this Money Resolution is drawn as generously as possible, and on the proper lines on which such Resolutions must be drawn.

Perhaps I may now come to deal in detail with some of the questions that have been asked. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), and certain other hon. Members, was particularly concerned about factories, and it is the point which was, I think, in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Woodbunn

I was not able to intervene.

Mr. Maclay

I am sorry. I did not realise that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to get up.

Mr. Woodburn

if the Secretary of State wants to deal with the point, I will put it now. The Joint Under-Secretary yesterday gave us some information about what was possible under the Bill. This Financial Resolution, as I gather, controls what is proposed in the Bill, but I gather also from what was said yesterday by the hon. Gentleman that by Clause 25 the local authority will be able to take advantage of the Distribution of Industry Act, and will also be able, by the same Clause, in the building of factories, to have exactly the same advantages as a new town or a Development Area has. Under Part IV, by Clause 25, it provides: Section nineteen of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945 (which confers on local planning authorities power to carry out certain development) shall have effect as if the reference in subsection (1) thereof to Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947 included a reference to the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. 11.45 p.m.

If I understand that correctly, it means that in regard to the factories being built in a town for the overspill, the financial conditions of the Distribution of Industry Act will apply; and, therefore, while it is true that this Money Resolution may not provide for money for the building of factories in the overspill receiving areas, it is possible, because of this particular Clause in the Bill, that the receiving town will be able to take advantage of the financial provisions of the Distribution of Industry Act.

That is a very important point. If that is clear—and that is what I gathered from a study of the Bill and from what the hon. Gentleman said last night—then, of course, it meets a great deal of our difficulty. Anything we might move which was going to help the Secretary of State to carry out the purposes of his Bill, provided the finance is available under the Distribution of Industry Act, does not need to be provided for under this Bill.

I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman that we want the Bill to work. We see one or two possibilities of there being hitches on the financial side that would, perhaps, sterilise its operation. We, therefore, want to he sure that when we come to move helpful Amendments in regard to the town development Part, they will not be out of order simply because the Money Resolution for this Part of the Bill is drawn so tightly.

There is one further point I should like to raise in regard to compensation, which the hon. Gentleman said, under the Inland Revenue, was going to be payable for industries which were removed. It is not quite clear who pays that compensation. There was talk of the Inland Revenue. I take it that the Inland Revenue is not going to pay. Does that mean that the local authority pays it? If the local authority pays it, is there anything in any of the Acts which we have been discussing which provides for the local authority getting some assistance from the Government? Quite clearly, the whole Bill might break down if the local authority on the exporting end or the receiving end finds itself burdened with sums like £200,000 for one factory. Obviously any authority in such a situation would simply wash its hands of the whole affair, and even the Secretary of State would not be able to get it to move.

The question is: Has the State or have the Government any power under this Act or under the Distribution of Industry Act, which is provided for in Clause 25, to give financial assistance to either the local authority which is exporting or the local authority which is receiving, in regard to the purposes of the Bill?

I was very grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary yesterday, because he made quite clear that factories were not provided for under Clause 14, but it became clear, I think, at least to me, that Section 25 really meets our point. But if it does not, then I would ask the Secretary of State seriously to consider holding this Money Resolution back just for a little while until he makes sure that the thing is not going to frustrate his own Bill. That is, surely, the purpose which has been behind a good many of the speeches which have been made tonight. It is simply that we should like the Money Resolution to be such that it will not frustrate the Bill and will allow the Secretary of State to carry out the purposes of his own Bill.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is now in a position to reply to my questions. I think I have given him sufficient time to find out the answers.

Mr. Maclay

On the first part of the question, which deals with matters raised by other hon. Members, I think it is essential to get clear the difference between the Distribution of Industry Act and this Bill. My main point is that the Distribution of Industry Act deals with Development Areas, and what is possible under that Act continues but it has nothing to do with this Bill. This particular section deals with a very curious situation that arose in the past. Whatever the reason, it emerged that the Planning Acts could not be used in a Development Area: only the Distribution of Industry Act could be used there.

So this situation arose—that where there are certain powers under the 1945 and 1947 Town and Country Planning Acts, for local authorities to provide certain factories under certain conditions, they could not, because of some curious thing that happened in past legislation, do it in a Development Area, because the Distribution of Industry Act was the only Act that could operate in a Development Area. The reason for that Clause of the Bill is to put that anomaly right. I hope that is clear.

Mr. Woodburn

Perhaps I can put it this way. So far as I can see, Section 19 of the Town and Country Planning Act, confers on local authorities power to carry out certain developments. Quite clearly the Town and Country Planning Act does not refer to Development Areas. But the part of that Act is now going to read as if it included the powers of the Distribution of Industry Act. There- fore I take it that the Secretary of State is saying that if they have power to do something under the Town and Country Planning Act the money available will be the sums given under the Distribution of Industry Act.

Mr. Maclay

No. The right hon. Gentleman has not really got it straight yet. The trouble is that a combination of the Distribution of Industry Act and the Planning Acts produced an anomaly. Outside the Development Areas local authorities could, if they wanted to, use the powers given them under the Planning Acts. But they subsequently found they could not use these powers inside a Development Area. The only way of functioning inside was to use the Distribution of Industry Act, and this puts that anomaly right. But what my hon. Friend said yesterday is correct. This Bill now makes possible the provision by local authorities of factory space under the Planning Acts, and with the approval of the Secretary of State, to be let as a rule on an economic basis, inside the Development Areas as well as outside as at present. That is the explanation of that Clause. But I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to be under any illusion. This does not change the Distribution of Industry Act.

Mr. Woodburn

This only refers to Glasgow so far as exporting industries are concerned. The main overspill is coming from Glasgow. Glasgow is a Development Area, and therefore I gather it will now be possible for Glasgow Corporation in this development inside Glasgow to have the benefit of the financial assistance of the Distribution of Industry Act to give compensation and to let the factories at an economic rate.

Mr. Maclay

This is a complicated question, which we must not get confused. The position remains completely unchanged. If the Board of Trade, under the Distribution of Industry Act, wants to do something inside a Development Area, it does it. This does not transfer the Board's powers. It merely says that the local authorities can do what they could not do before inside a Development Area—they can use the powers of the Planning Acts, which are not the same powers as the Distribution of Industry Act.

I think I have made the position as clear as possible. It is a curious, mixed-up history, but it was a ridiculous situation where it was found that the local authorities could function outside the Development Areas but not inside the Development Areas; that was the prerogative of the Board of Trade under the Distribution of Industry Act. I think that that makes the position clear, because, as I say, there are no powers in the Bill to provide Exchequer money for what, I think, the right hon. Gentleman wants. If it is done in future, it must be done under the Distribution of Industry Act in the way that that Act works. There is no change in the position of local authorities.

Mr. Woodburn

That brings us to the criticism with which we started. Does the Financial Resolution make it possible for the Government to help the local authorities in any way with compensation and the building of factories? That is a necessary part of the scheme. If the town development part works, there will be the export of population and of factories. Has the whole burden of this to be borne by the receiving authority in regard to factories, or is it possible for the Exchequer to give assistance to the receiving local authority?

When we come to make Amendments, will the Financial Resolution permit that to be done? If not, surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that from the viewpoint of making a success of the Bill the right thing is to take the Financial Resolution away and bring it back in a form that allows the Secretary of State to make his own Bill work by helping these local authorities.

Mr. Maclay

It is dangerous to get into this amount of detail in a discussion on the Financial Resolution, because we dealt with it yesterday. I am trying to deal with it as well as I can, and I have given, up to now, a full explanation of the position. I am interpreting as quickly as I can at short notice a subject in which I was more expert yesterday than today, and one must be careful in trying to define what happens in complicated Clauses. The fact is that as far as concerns site clearance and development in accordance with a development scheme, of course the Bill provides for it; and that can be discussed under the appropriate Clauses of the Bill in Committee.

On the question of industry moving out of a town, I think that this is the position. If industry has to move, we are by no means convinced that the inducement of the type that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is necessary or desirable under the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman thinks of the inducing factors in the Distribution of Industry Act. The way that the Bill is drafted is to try to provide for all reasonable facilities to move industry with overspill population. As was pointed out yesterday, it is believed that the compensation payable for disturbance and the rest should go a long way towards this.

Mr. Woodburn

Who pays the compensation?

Mr. Maclay

It is described in the Bill. I have not been able to check exactly the Clauses to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. It is dealt with on the 50 per cent. basis, but I want to check the point accurately.

On the whole question of how industry is induced to move, we believe that the Bill will help enormously. I repeat, however, because I want there to he no misunderstanding, that the Distribution of Industry Act powers are not brought within the Bill, neither are local authorities being given powers at present possessed by the Board of Trade.

Mr. Woodburn

I am not clear about the Distribution of Industry Act. Obviously, there will be a considerable resistance from local authorities who are receiving factories in their areas if they have to be involved in the expense of building them without assistance. What is the position? Who is to pay the £200,000 compensation in the first place? Who is to pay for a factory when it is to be built in the new area? Is it to be the expense entirely of the firm, or is the local authority to build the factory? If the local authority builds the factory. have the Government any power under the Financial Resolution to help where necessary?

12 midnight.

Mr. Maclay

I take the second matter first. If the factory is moved and the local authority wants to use the Planning Acts powers it builds the factory but lets it at an economic rent. It has to rent it as an economic proposition. It does not get help for that because this is presumed to be done as an economic job. The only restriction on its activities in that matter is that it has to get the approval of the Secretary of State who has to consider the project to see that it is likely to be economic.

As to the right hon. Gentleman's other question, if the local authority acts under the Planning Acts it gets 50 per cent. grant.

Mr. Woodburn

What about the £200,000?

Mr. Maclay

That comes under the 50 per cent. grant. I think we are becoming rather confused. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Ross

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me where in the Money Resolution there is any reference to the increase which is necessitated by this overspill provision for compensation for factories which are moved? That is a simple question.

Mr. Maclay

Paragraph C, which says: To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums required or authorised under any other Act to be so paid. Then the hon. Gentleman has only to read through the rest of the Resolution.

Mr. Ross

That is what I said. The right hon. Gentleman is not making the matter any easier.

Mr. Maclay

I turn to some of the other questions raised. It is getting rather late.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

The right hon. Gentleman speaks for himself.

Mr. Maclay

I am thinking of the convenience of the Committee.

Questions were asked on the definition of an agricultural house. The definition of what qualifies as an agricultural house of the classes we are dealing with is in Section 85 (3) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, which states: Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the annual expenditure likely to be incurred by the local authority in respect of any house is, in consequence of the remoteness of the site thereof from centres of supply of building labour and material, substantially greater than the equivalent of "— so and so. It is a question of remoteness and comes to the Secretary of State for consideration.

Agricultural population is defined in Section 184, the Interpretation Section, of the same Act, as meaning:

1. "(a) in relation to persons resident within a large burgh, persons who are engaged in agriculture, and includes the dependants of such persons; and
2. (b) in relation to persons resident outside a large burgh, persons who are, or in their latest occupation were, engaged in agriculture or in an industry mainly dependent on agriculture, and includes the dependants of such persons."

That deals with the chips as well as the fish, I think.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question about the cowman and the milkman. Is a milkman engaged in agriculture?

Mr. Bence

Or a gamekeeper?

Mr. Maclay

I have read the definition, and I shall not now attempt to redefine it. It would be quite improper for me to do so. The definition is quite clear. If the hon. Member wants to question it, he can, perhaps, do so in Committee on the Bill.

I come to another question, which was, what do the words "or improved" mean?

Mr. Hector Hughes

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question with which I was dealing. I dealt with the overlapping. My submission was that paragraphs A (ii) and (iii) overlap because they relate to the same kind of classes of persons coming to an area to meet the urgent needs of industry. My submission was that agriculture is an industry. It manifestly is an industry, and sub-paragraph (iii) deals with the agricultural population. That overlaps with the previous sub-paragraph. It deals with the same class of people.

Mr. Maclay

I do not agree that there is any overlapping, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman is in doubt, he knows very well that it can be dealt with as a Committee point. In any case, it is not a Money Resolution matter. I do not think there is any substance in his point.

May I just say something about this word "improvement"? That reference is necessary because of the provision in paragraph 10 of Part II of the First Schedule of the Bill—where it deals with improvement grants to local authorities. If hon. Members will look that up they will find a full and adequate explanation.

I should hate to get into any discussion between Aberdeen and Ayrshire as to what might be proper to ask, but I think that we have dealt with the fish.

Mr. Bence

What about potatoes?

Mr. Maclay

I do not think potatoes come in; but here again, if there is doubt in the mind of any hon. Member, the matter can be fully discussed in the Committee. In the circumstances I think it fair to hope that, having given full explanations, the Committee will now pass this Money Resolution.

Mr. Ross

On this question of the word "improvement"> although it is mentioned in the preamble to the Money Resolution—there it is "improved"—when one comes to look at the Resolution itself, there is no reference at all in sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c), or (d).

Mr. Maclay

The reference I have made is to paragraph 10 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Bill. Hon. Members will see it there in the fourth line.

Mr. Ross

But there is no reference to it in A, B, C, or D.

Mr. Maclay

The word is explained by the explanation I have given. That is the answer, and that is that.

Mr. T. Fraser

It must be said that the right hon. Gentleman has been painstaking in his reply. He has endeavoured to reply to all the points which have been raised, but the words with which he resumed his seat were evidence, in themselves, that this Money Resolution ought not to be proceeded with tonight. He has conceded that it is necessary to have it to permit the provision of money for the improvement of houses. Yet he has failed to show us where there is any provision for the allocation of money for the improvement of houses of any sort or any kind.

There are a few other things which he failed to do in justification of his Money Resolution. I was unwilling that this Resolution should go through in its present form unless I could have some justification for the precise subsidies set out in the Money Resolution. The precise sums which will undoubtedly limit us in the matter of the amendments which we shall be able to submit during the Committee stage.

The right hon. Gentleman called attention to a Money Resolution submitted by the Labour Government in 1946. I think I am in order in saying that on previous occasions the Government of the day have demonstrated to the Committee in offering a Financial Resolution —and this applies to the Conservative Government of 1952—the formula adopted in arriving at a particular subsidy figure, but this time the Government have given no formula at all. In reply to a question by me a little while ago, the right hon. Gentleman said he thought that this figure provided a right balance; but he submitted the figure only as one which provided a right balance. It seems not to have been arrived at by the adopttion of any formula, and it is necessary for us to have a formula.

We think that the figure in the Resolution should be higher, but we are not able to put down an Amendment to increase it. That will undoubtedly limit us in what we shall be able to say during the Committee stage of the Bill, and of course it will definitely limit the Amendments which the Chair will see fit to call. Does not the Secretary of State agree that the passage of the Resolution in its present form tonight makes virtually redundant the Committee stage of at least Part I of the Bill? There will be no possibility of amending the Bill in any material way.

The right hon. Gentleman had a little to say about the definition of the agricultural population. My hon. Friends wondered why the Resolution offered a different subsidy for houses for agricultural workers from that offered for other workers' houses. I had always understood that the reason for paying a higher subsidy in respect of those houses was twofold: first, that normally they are built in small groups in rural areas and cost much more to build: and, secondly, usually the tenants are workers with low wages and therefore must be offered houses at reasonably low rents.

We understand that the annual burden on the average house built in the towns in Scotland will be about £117. For an agricultural worker's house it will be considerably more—even £126. That would leave a sum of £90 to be found by the local authority. If it is not paid in rent we wonder who will subsidise the agricultural worker or the farmer who employs him. If the figure of £36 is written in the Resolution, and if it is passed tonight, we will be prevented from seeking to increase it in Committee upstairs. We will, therefore, be requiring that the tenants of the other council houses within the area will subsidise the farm worker in the house he occupies instead of the subsidy for that house coming from the same source as the subsidy for the farmer's pig sty—the central Government.

When he sought to deal with the provision of money to facilitate the town development proposals in the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman showed quite clearly the hopeless inadequacy of the Money Resolution. He said. in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) that there was the provision in paragraph C, which says that the Resolution is: To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums required or authorised under any other Act to be so paid. The Secretary of State then gave the impression to the whole Committee that under this part of the Financial Resolution he would be assisting the local authorities in the compensation that they would pay to the industries displaced in Glasgow to facilitate the transfer of the overspill population. He would also be able to facilitate the building by the receiving authority of the necessary factories to accommodate the industry that was moving with the overspill population.

12.15 a.m.

The right hon. Gentleman, however, was so hesitant in his references to this part of the Financial Resolution that he certainly left me in the gravest doubt as to its adequacy. Glasgow is asked to spill its population into another area. It might be into Blantyre or into Hamilton, which has been suggested as a possible town for the purpose. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman was saying that if Hamilton took 10,000 of Glasgow's population and Glasgow felt obliged to send some industries with the population, the Secretary of State would make a contribution to Glasgow Corporation if it decided to clear an industry, as it cleared part of the Gorbals. The contribution would be sufficient to encourage Glasgow to pay compensation to the industry. The Joint Under-Secretary gave as an illustration yesterday the payment of £200,000 to an industry employing 300 workers.

Inasmuch as there is some assistance here for the sending authority, it is hopelessly inadequate. Glasgow will find it difficult enough to find £14 per house per annum for ten years to export its rateable value, without finding in addition £100,000 for the employment of its workers. And it is not 300 workers who will have to be exported but 300,000 of the population. Glasgow will not be able to face that, and the provisions of the Financial Resolution are hopelessly inadequate to facilitate the operation which the Secretary of State hopes to carry out.

I can assure the Secretary of State that if the town of Hamilton is to take 8,000 or 10,000 of Glasgow's people—and Hamilton is very highly rated at present —it will certainly not be able to undertake to borrow £500,000 to build factories to accommodate the industries corning from Glasgow. I doubt very much whether the Secretary of State would give his approval to any such application by the burgh of Hamilton if it were so misled as to make it.

The smaller local authorities in Scotland are not able to raise money to build factories. If the overspill industry is not going to Hamilton but to Bellshill, Shotts or even out to Strathaven—and that idea has also been canvassed—does the right hon. Gentleman imagine for one moment that Lanark County Council will raise the money to build factories in those places? It, of course, will not. The right hon. Gentleman's town development proposals will be facilitated only if the Financial Resolution is sufficiently widely drawn to enable us to move Amendments in Committee which will put the financial responsibility fairly and squarely where it belongs.

This is a matter of great national concern. It is a matter that must be faced by the nation. It has been faced by the nation in the case of London by the provision of eight new towns. I submit to the Secretary of State that all he has said in justification of the Money Resolution this evening has only convinced some of us and confirmed us in our former conviction that it ought not to be pressed tonight.

Mr. Bence

This morning.

Mr. Fraser

This morning. It ought not to be pressed at this sitting of Parliament. It ought to be withdrawn. By insisting on this Money Resolution, the Secretary of State is making it impossible for the Committee upstairs either to amend or seek to amend Part I of the Bill as the local authorities, with the sole exception of Edinburgh, wish to see it amended. It will make impossible amendment of Part II of the Bill in the way local authorities principally concerned with town development are anxious to see the Bill amended and certainly impossible to amend Part II so as to give effect to proposals made to the Secretary of State in a letter in a publication by the Town and Country Planning Association asking for town development. That letter asked straight and plain that the Government should accept financial responsibility for the transfer of industry with the transfer of population. That clearly is not provided for in the Financial Resolution.

There is a sum of money provided to help local authorities with deficits accruing from the acquisition of land, the clearing of land, and, I think, for the provision of water supplies and sewerage services. I believe there is some provision for a contribution towards compensation which will be paid by the planning authority if factories have to be cleared under the planning Acts, but I think that kind of compensation is hopelessly inadequate. If that is all the compensation provided for in the Resolution, the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) in the House yesterday, which would have the support of my hon. Friends, will not be able to be put to the Committee upstairs in the form of an Amendment to the Bill.

It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman will be frustrated in what he seeks to do and will be unable to consider helpful Amendments from both sides of the Scottish Grand Committee if he proceeds with this Resolution in its present form. In all these circumstances, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to take the Resolution back. He has nothing to gain by pressing it on the Committee of the whole House tonight; he has everything to lose by having it passed tonight. Let him seek to ensure that Scotsmen will be given more control over Scottish affairs by allowing the Scottish Grand Committee to speak for the Scottish local authorities when we get the Bill upstairs. Let the Scottish Members of Parliament in Scottish Grand Committee seek to work out their own town development legislation suited to the needs of Scotland. That will be possible only if we get a vastly different Money Resolution from this which we are considering tonight. Let the right hon. Gentleman take this Resolution away. Let him bring a more generous Money Resolution which will allow Scottish Members to discuss the real needs of Scotland and produce legislation accordingly.

Dr. Dickson Mabon rose—

Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—

The Chairman (Sir Charles MacAndrew)

I think the Committee is ready to come to a decision.

Mr. Edward Heath rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. T. Fraser

All Scottish legislation is gagged.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 106, Noes 0.

Division No. 66.]	AYES	[12.27 a.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Alport, C. J. M.	Bryan, P.	Errington, Sir Eric
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Chichester-Clark, R.	George, J. C. (Pollok)
Arbuthnot, John	Cole, Norman	Glover, D.
Armstrong, C. W.	Corfield, Capt. F. V.	Graham, Sir Fergus
Barber, Anthony	Crouch, R. F.	Grant, W. (Woodside)
Barter, John	Currie, G. B, H.	Green, A.
Baxter, Sir Beverley	Dance, J. C. G.	Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Bidgood, J. C.	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Bishop, F. P.	Doughty, C. J. A.	Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Body, R. F.	Drayson, G. B.	Hesketh, R. F.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)	du Cann, E. D. L.	Holland-Martin, C. J.
Hope, Lord John	Mathew, R.	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Hornby, R. P.	Maude, Angus	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)	Mawby, R. L.	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.	Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.	Nairn, D. L. S.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry	Neave, Airey	Storey, s.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Nugent, G. R. H.	Studholme, Sir Henry
Johnson, Eric (Blackiey)	Oakshott, H, D.	Teeling, W.
Joseph, Sir Keith	O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	Temple, J. M.
Kaberry, D.	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.	Page, R. G.	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)
Kirk, P. M.	Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)	Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Leavey, J. A.	Partridge, E.	Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Leburn, W. G.	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Pitt, Miss E. M.	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)	Pott, H. P.	Vane, W. M. F.
Linstead, Sir H. N.	Powell, J. Enoch	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Longden, Gilbert	Price, Henry (Lewisham, w.)	Wall, Major Patrick
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.	Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith & Border)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry	Renton, D. L. M.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Maddan, Martin	Roper, Sir Harold	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.	Schofield, Lt.-Cot. W.	Mr. Redmayne and Mr. Hughes-Young.
NOES
Nil
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:	Mr. Bence and Mr. Emrys Hughes

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported this day.

c400
1. ADJOURNMENT 16 words