HC Deb 27 May 1966 vol 729 cc951-74

2.0 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to Mr. Speaker for the opportunity to draw attention to a problem which I hope will be of interest to hon. Members from all parts of the country, including Northern Ireland, if it is in order to mention it in this context. The subject is the unreasonably high cost of living in Scotland. Certain major items of household expenditure in Scotland are greatly in excess of the comparable costs in England and Wales. This requires no explanation to Scottish audiences but, for the sake of argument in the British Parliament, I shall quote a few specific examples.

I have referred to the high cost of living as unreasonable, and that is so. The higher costs and lower wages in Scotland cannot be justified by any question of the Scottish people being less industrious or skilled than the English. Nor can it be attributed to profiteering or exploitation by shopkeepers and businessmen, for are not the big stores in England, particularly in London, usually owned by Scotsmen? There is a variety of reasons for the high living cost in Scotland, but I believe the principal one, and therefore the one that could most readily be put right, is due to Government policy and the policy of agencies and corporations coming under Government control.

I do not blame this state of affairs on any particular Government. While, as could be expected, the problem has become worse under the present Government, I do not believe that any Government of any party will go out of their way to help Scotland unless forceful and frequent efforts are made to spotlight Scotland's problems and to take appropriate action. This is a serious and vital problem. Last year, the rate of emigration from Scotland increased alarmingly, so that for the first time in a decade the number of people living in Scotland declined.

One of the main reasons for this massive exodus was the unreasonable cost of living and the low value in real terms of the average Scottish wage packet, and I ask the Government to take the appropriate steps to reverse the trend. What is the extent of the problem? The first factor is the basic household cost. The average cost of a new house built for sale in Scotland last year was just over £4,000. That is higher than the average for England and Wales, except for London and the South. I have checked these figures carefully and they have been confirmed by the recently published document by the Co-operative Building Society.

In the North-East of England, the average cost per house was under £3,000 compared with more than £4,000 in Scotland, while in the Midlands and the North-West it was about £3,300. It is true that some of the extra cost stemmed from building materials and transport charges for those materials, but I believe that the main cause was that in Scotland the Government and past Governments have not encouraged the building of owner-occupied houses and many local authorities have gone out of their way to discourage it.

Of the 550,000 houses built in Scotland since the war, less than 100,000 have been for owner-occupation. With he nation's dreadful housing problem, it is clear that a higher than average proportion of homes to let is required, but I believe that with proper encouragement, adequate land availability and financial incentives many of those occupying rented municipal homes would be glad to buy their own homes. At present, the prohibitive prices make this impossible.

It is not just the cost of the house in Scotland that is the sole cause. We have an outrageously complicated legal procedure for tracing and registering title deeds. The result is that while in England to purchase a £3,000 house will normally involve legal fees of about £50, the lawyers in Scotland would charge about £90. A simple Bill to revise and simplify the system of checking titles in Scotland on the English pattern would thus involve a saving of at least £40—perhaps more if some of the unnecessary complications in the English law were also removed at the same time.

In Scotland, we also have the feu system, under which a house purchase is not free of land burden. An annual feu is almost invariably charged. This is a fixed sum and in the past was normally a negligible amount like £2 or £3 a year. But on the new houses being built at present the feu duty is rarely below £15 per annum and in some cases well over £20. As such, it is simply a hidden increase in the price of the house. Any change in the system would obviously require some compensation of the individuals, charitable bodies and companies which have invested in feus, but the abolition of feus in respect of new homes purchased would at least prevent the continuance of what has become a scandal.

Having purchased a home at the inflated price, with the heavier legal fees and the peculiarly Scottish feu duty, the Scottish householder finds himself saddled with an iniquitous and exorbitant rates burden. In the Allen Report it was stated: The average rate payment in Scotland is greater than in England and Wales as a whole for all income groups, and very considerably so. According to the review published by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, the average rate burden per head of population in Scotland in 1965-66 was over £25, with the average for the cities being over £27 and the average in Glasgow being almost £29. This means that the average family of four must pay over £100 in rates, either directly on their homes or indirectly in the prices in the shops.

In England the average is much lower, and in the rural areas of England the average for 1965-66 was just £15 per head or about £60 for a family of four—about half the burden in Glasgow. While it is true that some of the cause of the disparity is the relatively low level of municipal rents in Scotland, this is only part of the story, and it seems inequitable that Scottish folk should pay so much more for the same municipal services as are provided in England. If the rating system must remain—and I would like to see is scrapped entirely, with regional authorities being financed entirely from the Exchequer—then let us have a system of Government grants which will remove or reduce this inequitable differential in rating costs.

Having bought the house and paid the rates, the Scottish householder now has to turn his mind to heating the home. He has three alternatives, and in each case he will find an extra charge.

My first example here is gas. Up-to-date figures are impossible to obtain. When I asked the Minister of Power at the end of April, he explained that the most recent figures were for the year 1964-65. In that year, the average revenue per therm for domestic sales in Scotland was over 2s. 5½d., but the national average was just 2s. 2d. This is bad enough, but the fact is that a 6 per cent. increase on the Scottish prices came into effect in February, 1965, and that only three months of the figure quoted by the Minister included this increase. So the position is probably much worse. On top of this steep rise on an already excessive cost, we have had in the last few weeks yet another alarming and unprecedented increase of 13 per cent. in Scottish gas prices. The Ministry says that an exact comparison cannot be made at this stage, but it seems clear that the Scottish householder pays about one-fifth more for his gas supplies.

The differential in coal is well known and the figures of zone delivery prices showing Scotland's central belt coal prices only about 6d. per ton above those of the north of England and ls. per bag above the central areas of England seem nonsense when we see the price which the housewife has to pay. For industry, the extra cost is more alarming. For one big Scottish works, 10s. extra per ton can mean £1 million on its annual costs. The actual differential compared with some of its competitors is 35s. per ton. Can we wonder why Scottish prices are higher and wages lower?

The high cost of electricity in Scotland was not so serious when it was simply one of a range of heating systems which could be freely selected by the householder. But with so many local authority houses now being supplied only with electricity and, in some cases, with electrically heated floors, any excess can impose a heavy extra burden on living costs which it is impossible to avoid. I have not detailed figures about electricity, but I am assured that the story is not all that different from that of gas.

Travelling to work in Scotland can be much dearer than in England, and usually is. To travel short distances of between two miles and four miles in Glasgow on public transport costs about 20 per cent. more than in Manchester and Birmingham. Glasgow is bad, but I understand that, as in everything else, Edinburgh is worse.

Groceries also are generally dearer in Scotland. According to a reputable national newspaper, a Scottish housewife recently purchased a basket of messages in a London supermarket for £1 3s. 2d. On the same day, in Edinburgh, the same items cost £1 5s. in one shop and £1 9s. in another, a substantial differential. Transport costs of course add to the price of food, and it is interesting to note what happens to Scottish prices whenever there is any difficulty with transport, as in the present seamen's strike.

In the Financial Times on Monday there was a list of shopping prices in various cities for items such as meat. Scottish prices were shown to be so fantastically higher than in England that I believed the classifications of joints could not possibly have been the same. For a simple item like a lemon the London price was 4d., the average English price was 5d., and the Scottish price was 8d.

All these high costs and charges would not be so intolerable if wages were higher too, but the most recent Ministry of Labour Gazette shows that the average earnings of adult males in England are £19 1ls. 9d. per week, whereas in Scotland the average is only £18 9s. More than £1 a week is a lot, even when prices are identical, but the figures which I have quoted show clearly that the differential in real terms is much greater.

So much for my complaints. What can be done about them, and what should the Government in particular do?

The first task, I believe, is for serious consideration to be given to charging the same price throughout Britain for the products of nationalised industries. I cannot see any justification for making people pay more just because, by an unlucky accident, they live in an area which, for administrative reasons, the nationalised boards have given commercial autonomy. To establish the same price for gas, electricity and coal, whether it is sold in London, Glasgow, Manchester or Derby, would make sound sense, and I believe would be much more just.

The second job which the Government must tackle is the rating differential. If, for identical services of local government, and after making allowances which must be made for self-imposed special circumstances such as London rent policies, Scottish folk are paying more in rates, the Government should put this right through the general grant.

Next, by their own efforts, and by exhorting local authorities in particular, the Government must encourage owner-occupancy in Scotland, thereby facilitating the building of more and cheaper houses for sale. I believe that unless we can have more houses we cannot try to sort out this differential in prices and costs which exist at the present time.

I also hope that the Government will spare no efforts to try to attract to Scotland and industries and Government establishments which can offer employment of a highly skilled and highly paid nature. As hon. Members know, Scotland produces a relatively high number of university graduates, and we simply cannot expect the best from our own people when so many of them have to go south or abroad to look for highly paid jobs, which they cannot find in Scotland.

Fifthly, I hope that Scottish Ministers will take every possible step to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to exempt Scotland from the Selective Employment Tax. Whether this is a good or a bad tax, whether it is a fair or an unfair one, there is no doubt that it will add considerably to the cost of living and the costs of industry in Scotland.

Nearly six out of ten Scots at work are in the service or construction industries. This is well above the national average, and the inevitable consequence is that Scotland will pay more than its share of this tax. Quite apart from the fact that this will be the first clear breach of the Act of Union of 1707 between England and Scotland, which states that the incidence of tax should be equal in the two nations, the extra costs will be felt hardest of all in places like the Highlands, where a high proportion of the population works in the service industries, and where transport charges already add considerably to the cost of living.

The problem is a very serious one, and unless the Government are prepared to act along the lines I have suggested, Scottish folk will continue to leave our land in increasing numbers, and those remaining will be deprived of the justice to which I believe they are entitled.

2.15 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)

I think that the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) for raising the issues which he has and for doing it so well.

I confess that I was surprised at some of the figures given by the hon. Gentleman. I am not challenging them in any way, but I have done a little research into the population matters to which he referred, and I have not found that Scotland's population has declined. As a matter of fact not only has the population of the United Kingdom increased by about 4 million over the last five years from 51 million to 55 million, but the population of every part of the United Kingdom —England, Scotland and Northern Ireland —has increased, most of all in England.

The growth has not been so marked in Scotland. I think that the increase here has amounted to less than 1 million over that period, and if my recollection is correct there has been an increase of one or two in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless. all the areas are thriving, in numbers at least, although the numbers vary.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

The reduction in population to which I referred was in 1965 only, not over the four years.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon)

I think that the hon. Gentleman said in 1964-65.

Mr. Rankin

I think that one has to consider the population variations in a somewhat wider perspective than a year.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the fundamental problem of Scotland lies in England. It is very difficult for a small country with little natural national wealth to live in elegance alongside a large wealthy country. England has great natural wealth. From north to south her soil can be cultivated. There is no part of England where big towns do not exist. The sparsity which we find in the North of Scotland is unknown in England. In the Midlands, in the West, in the East and in the South of England there is a fair amount of natural prosperity and there are well populated towns.

The result is that this great magnet continually attracts people from Scotland. Coventry has a large Scots population, and so, too, has London. This is our problem and this is what we have to contest. Special Government measures are needed to deal with it, and the Government are doing just that. They are bringing more hope to the Highlands of Scotland and to the Border counties than any previous Government ever did.

The hon. Member referred to one matter which has my special sympathy, because I am a house owner, having achieved that dignified status by paying a certain amount every year out of my salary for 18 years. Ever since I became an owner, I have been suffering from the tax called feu duty. Perhaps I am fortunate, in that my feu duty is only £3 15s. a year as compared with the £15 mentioned by the hon. Member, but this is an indefensible tax on savings and on the encouragement to live a sober and upright life in order to collect sufficient money to buy a house. There is little incentive when one is taxed for the rest of one's life.

But that is the system which the hon. Member and his party have supported all the years of my life. They are the party which looks after the landlords and the private vested interests. That is what keeps their party alive, politically. Many of them would not be here if it were not for the landlords' subscriptions which are being obtained from many people, including me, who does not believe in landlordism. The hon. Member waxed very indignant about this tax.

Through this tax my landlord—a respected gentleman in the City of Glasgow while alive, who has now gone to a higher and, I hope, a better place—charged me £3 15s. a year, and the income which he received from the community drew in £700,000 a year in feu duty alone. The hon. Member for Cathcart agrees with me that this system should be ended. Am I right?

Mr. Edward M. Taylor indicated assent.

Mr. Rankin

Then the sooner the hon. Member comes across here the better for him, if he wants to end it.

I shall not talk for too long today, although I have not spoken at all this week. I shall cut out a lot of what I intended to say. I merely say that I have some sympathy with the hon. Member on the question of rates and charges in the nationalised industries.

The sooner nationalised industries such as the gas and electricity industries appreciate that in a city like Glasgow, from which both the hon. Member and myself come, and also London and the other great cities, they cannot each have their own magnificent showrooms displaying their products in rivalry to each other, the better. That is bound to add to costs.

The sooner they realise that they are both nationalised industries and should work together, using a single showroom, with just the staff necessary for that showroom to let the public see the products they have to offer, the better.

The hon. Member wanted to see the same price for coal in England and in Scotland. But we cannot wish to see the same price for coal in England and Scotland without wanting to see the same price for food, because food is more necessary than coal—and if we have the same price for coal and food we could have the same price for clothes, because they are also necessary. We cannot go about without clothes and we cannot exist without food, although we can do with less coal.

This is a strange doctrine, coming from the hon. Member. He is preaching the doctrine of sameness, although I always thought that the Tory Party wanted variety. I thought that the Tory Party was the party of competition, which would applaud the shop which, last Saturday in Strathaven, was selling spring cabbages at 2s. 4d. each, whereas before the seamen's strike they were being sold at 1s. That is competition. That is not a case of sameness for Scotland, as the hon. Member is preaching. Competition is what Toryism has always stood for. In other words, "Here is your chance. Take it. The strike has created scarcity." So the spring cabbage which the housewife thinks is a nice adornment for the table at which I was to eat on the Sunday—the cabbage which normally costs ls.—cost 2s. 4d. last Saturday, because of the seamen's strike and the scarcity that it had brought about.

Few Tories have not thrived on preaching the doctrine of taking one's chance when the opportunity offered itself. I was therefore interested to hear the hon. Member for Cathcart talking of uniformity, conformity and sameness, and to hear him getting away from the competitive spirit which has caused the Tory Party in Scotland slowly to decline until in Glasgow only two out of the 15 Parliamentary seats are held by them. I still thank the hon. Member for raising this subject.

2.26 p.m.

Mr. George Younger (Ayr)

I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) for raising this most important subject today, and for the interesting way in which he presented to us a lot of facts and figures, showing how the cost of living in Scotland is in some respects considerably higher than it is in the rest of the country.

I was sorry when I heard the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) say that he would curtail his remarks. That is not a feeling that I always have when I see him about to embark on a speech, but I was very much enjoying what he was saying, even if I found some of his statements somewhat startling and strange.

It is useful to have this debate today, because it fills in a notable gap in the series of debates that we have been having during the last six weeks. During that period we have covered a wide range of subjects, and I suggest that one theme has run through them all. Behind them has been the question of the Government's regional policy—what it is, and what it should be.

Both in this Chamber and upstairs we have debated the question of housing completions in England and Wales as compared with Scotland. We were given a picture for Scotland showing that the number of completions in March were down by 16 per cent. as compared with the same month last year, whereas the number of completions for England fell by only 4 per cent. This is a clear case of difference between the regions.

The same thing happened in school building. Although assurances were given all through last year that the Government's economic restrictions would not apply to the building of new schools, we have been discussing in Standing Committee this week the drop of over a third in the number of approvals in the past year. On the question of industrial incentives, the whole problem of how best to attract new industries to Scotland and the other regions was discussed. In this case, too, less money has been made available—even if not much less—and the fact that it is spread over a very much wider area makes clear that individual places in those areas will get less special treatment than before.

We have already had debates, and will have many more in the coming weeks, about the Selective Employment Tax. Yesterday, the Minister of State for Scotland admitted in Standing Committee that if one calculated the likely effect of the tax, one would find that it would fall more heavily per head of the population on the Highlands of Scotland than on the rest of Scotland or the rest of the United Kingdom. My reason for mentioning these points is to try to fit this debate into the general picture, which is that all these questions affect the cost of living. The lives of ordinary people are bound to be adversely affected by all these Measures.

We are not, of course, discussing the general rise in the cost of living. That is not the subject which my hon. Friend chose, and in any case we have debated the subject frequently and we all know the facts and figures. There has been a rise in the general cost of living of 6.7 points since October, 1964, which in simple language means that £1 in October, 1964, now purchases approximately 18s. 9d. worth of goods. But what we should consider today is the extra rise in the cost of living for people in Scotland because of the difficulties associated with living far away from the South-East.

We may well ask, why should there be a higher rise in the cost of living in Scotland than elsewhere? There are several reasons. The first, which is fundamental to all the others, is the fact that, being a widely-scattered and sparsely-populated area, Scotland, more than any other part of the United Kingdom, is bound to depend more on the costs of transport and travel and the service industries generally than the rest of the United Kingdom. In a scattered countryside, all goods have to be transported over greater distances. If people wish to travel, they have greater distances to cover and, therefore, greater costs to meet.

During the last 18 months or so there has been a truly remarkable rise in the costs of all forms of transport which are needed in Scotland, where this is particularly harmful.

The increase in the petrol tax immediately put up the costs of every undertaking which used road vehicles of any kind and the costs, even though in some cases by a small amount, of virtually every product in the shops.

The licence duty for private cars was raised by only £2 10s., but for commercial vehicles it went up by 50 per cent. I remember that we on this side said at the time that this would put up the costs of transport and that prediction has proved to be justified.

The reduction in the total value of the investment allowances and the special treatment given by means of free depreciation and otherwise in 1963 by the previous Government may not in itself be a dominating factor, but added to all the other factors there is no doubt that it ultimately increased prices of goods produced by industry and, of course, ultimate prices in the shops. This is the first and fundamental reason for the tremendous amount of increased costs in the service industries in Scotland.

Secondly—this may appear to be obvious, but it must be recorded—the general increase in taxation all over the United Kingdom has applied exactly the same to Scotland as the rest of the country. Although this may seem obvious, many things have been said in the last four or five years about the necessity to try to exempt the development districts or those parts of the country which were in a low state of economic growth from at least some of the tax burdens placed on others. A small start was made on this in the 1963 Budget, when the principle was introduced of a lower form of taxation in Scotland and development districts than in the country as a whole.

We should also consider the question of increased interest charges. It may, at first sight, seem that a high Bank Rate affects the whole country indiscriminately and absolutely equally. However, I suggest that, when considered in detail, this will be found not to be so. It is almost always in the remote and underpopulated areas and those where business and industry have to work on smaller margins that high interest charges have a heavier effect than in the more populated parts.

The selective increases in the price of coal have also been mentioned. That was bad enough when it was a special increase of 10s. a ton, introduced some years ago, but to increase coal prices by a further 15s. in Scotland at this time, just when regional policies are most urgently needed, is the absolute negation of a sensible policy of diverting resources to the under-used regions.

I suggest that the question of coal prices throughout the United Kingdom has to be considered not only from the point of view of the Coal Board. Obviously, from the Board's point of view this policy is satisfactory and sensible. It is up to the Government, and particularly Scottish Ministers, to represent the fact that the interests of the regions as well as those of the Coal Board must be taken into account. I yield to none in my insistence that, from the Coal Board's point of view, this is a natural step to take. I consider that a regional policy, if it is to work and make sense overall, should have some influence on selective regional increases in the price of coal.

The debate has been useful. It fits into the general consideration of the question mark which hangs over the Government's regional policies. We have heard a good deal about the need for regional policies in the last few years—particularly two years ago, when the previous Conservative Government published the South-East Plan, which was greatly criticised by hon. Members opposite and particularly by those representing constituencies in the more remote parts of the country.

It was felt that, when the South-East of England is—as it obviously is—very much overcrowded and suffering from lack of space and labour in its main industries, it was a highly sensible policy to try to steer as much as possible away from that area and into the regions. We were very much criticised for having made a plan for the South-East at all. I did not agree with that criticism. We have to accept life as we find it, and it was clear that someone had to do something to sort out the problems of the South-East.

But today a question mark hangs over the whole idea of steering new industries to the regions. There has been much talk about it, but every time action has been seen to be required, the Government seem to have done the opposite of trying to encourage new industries to go to the regions. We now have less money for incentives and we have a larger area for the incentives, so that there is less individual help in the areas which need it most. Taxation carries on uninterrupted in the bad regions as well as the good. All we have—and I hope that we have these figures correct—is the fact that in mid-1965 there was the first overall drop in the population of Scotland which has been recorded for a long time, a drop of 3,000, showing that migration overseas is faster than it has been for many years.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will take it in the intended spirit when I say that he has a problem as a representative of the Scottish Office. Unless the Scottish Ministers can hammer home to their colleagues in the Government the need to consider the regions over and above the commercial considerations of the nationalised industries, they will fail Scotland. I am sure that it is not the hon. Gentleman's wish to fail Scotland, but he has to do a great deal better than he has done during the last 18 months.

2.42 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon)

I should have been able to do a great deal better in the next few minutes if I had been able to deploy all the comments which I wanted to make in order, in courtesy, to answer all the arguments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). I am disappointed with the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). We did not expect him to fall into the fault which the hon. Member for Cathcart often exhibits to our delight and amusement from time to time. I do not say this in any nasty way, but the hon. Member for Cathcart has a considerable talent for fusing hyperbole of expression and paucity of fact, and I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Ayr should have done the same thing when talking about transport costs. In the work which has been done in deference to the House to make sure that we covered most of the issues likely to be raised, we did not find any evidence to justify the hon. Member's remarks about transport costs. Being a very open-minded Government, we always welcome evidence, but at present we do not have evidence to justify what has been said. If we have another opportunity, here or elsewhere, perhaps we shall be able to pursue the matter further.

In courtesy to the hon. Member for Cathcart and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), I want now to turn in detail to some of the matters which have been raised. I will not say too much about the drop in population. I point out that the estimate for 1965 is sill only an estimate—which is always the position at this time of the year—and the figure still has to be assessed more precisely. It is a drop of 0.06 per cent., representing some 3,000 people out of a population of more than 5 million.

Of course, I do not make light of it. It shows that the wave of migration which has continued from our country since the great depression after the First World War has not been abated. The latest figures for migration cover the year June, 1964, to June, 1965. It has to be realised that, with the best will in the world and with the Government dedicated, as they have publicly announced in White Papers, to lowering the migration rate in a specific time and trying to halt it altogether and even to reverse the drift to the South, we cannot make our analyses of the population reflect themselves on the very day or in the very year in which we announce our intentions of doing so and providing the instruments by which it can be done. It may not seem unreasonable to the hon. Member for Cathcart and no doubt it is a matter of opinion. I could not square his remark about exploitation and profiteering by Scottish business men and shopkeepers with what he had to say about feus and prices and so on. I did not understand that and perhaps we can have an explanation at some later time.

Of course we have recognised for a long time that we ought to find out why there is a considerable differential between the price of housing in Scotland and that in England and Wales. In 1951, there existed the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee of which one of tin y predecessors was the chairman. It was a great pity that when the Labour Government left office that Committee was abolished by the Conservatives, of their own accord. We have reconstituted it and the Committee is going into the subject of the cost of housing, and working very hard doing so.

Apart from the former Under-Secretary of State, the father of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), no Minister before has ever managed to meet the private builders—I say this not out of any pride in myself, but to show the good sense of the builders—and to get them to offer their facts and figures from their own accounts and so on and to give their view of the Scottish position with materials, prices, processes and so on.

I cannot anticipate the nature of the report which we shall make to my right hon. Friend and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to make a statement at some time, if not to publish what material we have. I accept the criticism that our costs are greater and I should like to find the reason. I do not accept that the reasons are simply bad organisation, or bad management, or anything like that. I think that much of the differential is due to the fact that in Scotland we build houses much more robust than those in England, and one can understand that in view of our vigorous climate.

Although it is true of former Governments, to say that the present Government are not encouraging the building of owner-occupied houses is to fly in the face of fact. We have done everything possible to encourage private builders. It has not just been a matter of meeting the private builders once. We are now meeting them regularly and we have established a dialogue between the Government and the private builders to see whether we can help them in many ways.

In the White Paper on the Scottish housing programme, there is a definite statement that local authorities must help private builders, who want to build for sale, to get land to do so. We do not want to go to the extreme of shutting out necessary council house building, nor do we want to go the other way of devoting all land to council houses. We want a fair balance between private building for sale and building by private builders for the public sector. I have told the builders many times that there is no ceiling on this. The announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about easier home ownership is a reflection of the fact that Ministers have been hard at work to make sure that as many people as possible are able to buy a private house on mortgage.

The hon. Member for Cathcart went on to talk about our legal system. I can remember sitting almost in his place arguing this matter with a Conservative predecessor of mine over many years, right from the time when I came into the House in 1955 until the famous night in 1959 when the delightful Under-Secretary of the time, now Lord Craigton, conceded that he would advise the Secretary of State to set up a committee on conveyancing. I recall that he got a very good report in the Sunday Mail, which at that time was leading a commendable campaign. That Committee has done a lot of work and it has revealed that certain other intensive investigations should be carried out.

Two expert committees were recommended by the Reid Committee; the Halliday Committee, to look into conveyancing costs—and I hope that that Committee will report this summer—and the Hendry Committee, to consider the registration of title, though unfortunately that Committee's report might not be available until the end of next year. It will, therefore, be some time before we are able to consider matters which might prompt the Government to put a Measure on to the Statute Book.

I do not agree that it would require a simple Measure to revise and simplify the system of checking title in Scotland. I suggest, nevertheless, that as the Government are anxious for these Committees to report, we should first see what they have to say and that, in the meantime, we should get on with reducing the number of legal tangles and the expense of those tangles.

Much has been said about the feudal system. The builders are, of course, charging feus which are substantially higher than those charged pre-war. I am not sure if the figures which have been given represent averages. Perhaps they were only examples. However, the builders say that the present position is a reflection of the price of land and that if they did not charge feus they would have to demand even higher prices for the houses they build in Scotland.

The Government must, therefore, consider all these points. Perhaps there is some truth, or complete truth, in what we have been told, but we must go into these matters thoroughly. We have brought forward a Measure which applies to Scotland in the Land Commission Bill, which, we hope, will make land more readily available. We also hope that any development value in the land which takes place as a consequence of the land being used for building will not be burdened on the consumer, so to speak, of that land, who is the occupier of the house built on it.

Mr. Rankin

Would my hon. Friend not agree that the landlord does not always get rid of his feu? The landlord is still charging feu. He is still charging me.

Dr. Mabon

Perhaps this is another reason for backing up the complaint of the hon. Member for Cathcart. I do not completely dissociate myself from his remarks on this subject. Perhaps these feus should not be so high, but this is really a matter for the business men, about whom the hon. Member for Cathcart did not complain. Indeed, he specifically exempted them from his catalogue of complaints.

I apologise to hon. Members for racing through my speech. I do so because many points have been raised and I feel obliged to refer to them all. The Rating Review published by the Scottish Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants has been mentioned. The Secretary of that organisation is a constituent of mine, an admirable fellow. I was able to address the Institute last March and I enjoyed myself very much. I mention the organisation because I have studied a number of the figures it has given to us, not only in its various publications, such as the Rating Review, but also the statistics and evidence contained in its submissions to the Scottish Office. We have been glad of the Institute's help in the work we have been doing on the local government Measure, which will come before the House shortly.

Having said that, I must make it clear that I cannot square any of the figures I have received with the figures supplied by the Institute. I can only say that I am prepared to consider whatever evidence hon. Members have and that I will look at the whole matter again. I suggest that the best figures to study in relation to objective fact are those contained in the Allen Report. They show that the English rates figure for 1963-64 averaged out at £30.2 as against the Scottish figure for that year of £34.6.

In the preparation of the Local Government Bill we have had to study a great many figures. We have noted that if one examines the rates in Scotland as against those in England and Wales one could probably calculate them in three different ways. If one takes the data published for rates and rateable values for both England and Wales and Scotland respectively, and divides the total domestic rates by the number of houses, then for 1965-66 the rates in Scotland averaged £35 18s. and in England and Wales, £36 7s.

If one takes the Allen Committee's method of doing the calculation and one projects it on to the knowledge which we have of 1965-66, then by multiplying the average rates of a house by the averate rate poundage—a method which, I am told, is more open to inaccuracies than the first method—one arrives at the figure of £36 17s. for Scotland and £36 8s. for England and Wales, a differential of 9s. The Allen Committee did not, of course, refer to the rates per person, as the house is supposed to be a rating unit as such. Thirdly, to divide the total household rates by the total population gives the figure of £l1 14s. for Scotland and £11 8s. for England and Wales for 1965–66.

It is difficult, in other words, to get this point in perspective. I am sufficiently enough of a Scotsman to believe that there is a margin against Scotland in this matter. If it has corrected itself this year, then that is a good thing and it is a long overdue happening. But I would like to go into the matter in more detail before pronouncing upon it. Suffice to say that it is wrong of the hon. Member for Cathcart to believe that the burden of rates is, to quote his more restrained language, "fantastic, out rageous and a national scandal". We must be reasonable about this and consider the matter in greater detail before speaking in terms of that kind.

On the question of fuel costs—and have a considerable amount to say about this so I trust that hon. Members will excuse my speeding through my remarks —a case cannot be made out about electricity such as the hon. Member for Cathcart attempted to make when he said that the story concerning electricity is not all that different from that concerning gas. We have an appreciable advantage in Scotland in the price of electricity. The prices of electricity show that while compared with England and Wales generally we have an advantage of about ¼d. per unit—and compared with the London area Scotland has an advantage of about ½d. a unit, which is a considerable difference—in the use of gas the margin is higher in Scotland.

For coal, one must compare the various gradings, which are different in Scotland. To take the nearest grades, of the Scottish group 4 house coal compared with the English group 3, the current delivered price in Glasgow and Central Scotland is 153s. 11d. while in England it varies from 130s. 4d. in the zone immediately adjacent to the low-cost collieries of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, to 191s. 6d. in Cornwall.

It is, therefore, difficult to make comparisons in domestic terms, and I would not like to make any comment on what was said about the industrial coal differential because that was introduced by the party opposite in 1962 and we are merely perpetuating that differential. We are not adding to the differential in any way. We are simply maintaining that position. That does not mean that my right hon. Friend is not aware of what the consequences could be if we did not keep a close eye on the differentials as they exist in all these respects.

Passing quickly to the hon. Member's claims about incomes, I readily concede his figures. He is absolutely right and the figures he has given are quite fair. He made the point that if there are differences in prices in Scotland—which I do not accept generally as being true—the impact on lower wages is all the greater, as the economists tell us, in real terms. He asked for five assurances on points of policy. I shall take them in order and hope by that means to serve the House. In relation to average incomes and earnings the present position is that in all industries the average in Scotland was £18 9s. a week by October, 1965 which is 5.8 per cent. less than the U.K. average and for manufacturing industries in Scotland it was £19 0s. 5d., 5.7 per cent. less than the U.K. average.

The discipline imposed on nationalised industries is founded on the White Paper published by the Conservative Government in the early 'sixties. It was a discipline which demanded a return on capital. If one were to argue as the hon. Member did—there may be a case for that and certainly Ministers are willing to listen to it—it would be fair to say that while there is a case for equalising prices there is also the question of judging capital investment on the same basis. Whether that would accord with regional development, I seriously doubt. I think the different demands of the regions would be distorted by this U.K. treatment of investments and priorities on a commercial basis. Taking the island as a whole and ignoring regional differences would cause in the long run more suffering for Scotland. However, I am not asserting this, but taking the other side of what the hon. Member said. Ministers are prepared to look at it, but as our predecessors did not take it as an option I doubt whether we would do so now when the accent is on regional development.

On the question of rating differentials, there is a Bill before the House and we hope to argue that matter, debate and cope fully with the problem when we discuss the Bill. On the question of exhorting local authorities to help in home-ownership, this Government have tried harder than any in Scotland to promote home-ownership and we shall try harder still, not only in relation to home ownership, co-operative owning and local authority housing. Because of the time I shall not deal with the effect of the Selective Employment Tax, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State made a statement yesterday which shows that this matter is being considered by Scottish Ministers. Whatever decision is made it will be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or one of the finance Ministers in discussions on the Finance Bill.

Anyone who listened to the hon. Member for Cathcart or the hon. Member for Ayr may have been given the impression that the real reason why Scotland has not been doing quite so well in the past and is not doing so well at present—which, by the way, I do not accept—is due to the considerably higher cost of living. That is quite untrue. Scotland has many problems. We do not have to look around for them. Nor do we need to inflate them nor advertise them. Some of them have been with us for a long time, 13 years at least, but we are getting rid of many of them. Nor can we go through a period of rapid change without experiencing growing pains of some sort. It does not do any good to explore the foothills or difficulties without venturing further up the slopes to look at the growing achievements which are spreading around the country.

Despite the points made by the hon. Member, there is no doubt that the Scots are more prosperous than ever before. The significance of his criticisms is better measured by the fact that English and American industrialists, who are as sharp as anyone in spotting weaknesses in the national economy are for the most part convinced that Scotland gives a better return for money than most places. May I quote the Scottish Council's experience in this matter of the cost of living——

Mr. Speaker

May I remind the hon. Gentleman that this debate was supposed to have finished at 3 p.m.

Dr. Mabon

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was unfortunately curtailed in what I had to say. I thought that the understanding would be, in view of the immeasurably important points I have to answer, that I should try to get through as quickly as possible. I understand that I am not speaking slowly. I shall come as quickly as I can to the end of my remarks.

The Scottish Council said this, and it is worthwhile quoting this because we do not want a bad picture of Scotland to go out falsely to those whom we wish to come to Scotland: We have not found that the balance of factors which are involved in the cost and standard of living work to the disadvantage of Scotland as a location for manufacturing industry. I have talked to the Council's people who are concerned in bringing industrialists into Scotland and they tell me that it is the quality of living in Scotland which attracts managers and workpeople to us.

A great deal of market research has been done on finding where the attrac- tions are and how best we can enhance them. The English have discovered industrial Scotland only recently. The best champions we have nowadays are not the Scots themselves but the managers of English and American factories who have recently settled among us. We should invest in the generous efforts which they make to publicise us. We are gaining in strength all the time and the rebirth of Scotland is not so very far away.

Industrial production is forging ahead. There has been a tremendous improvement in the issue of I.D.C.s for manufacturing industry in Scotland. Let us not hesitate to recognise and welcome it. Last year 10-7 million sq. ft, of industrial space was approved—twice the annual average of the previous few years. It represents work for 25,000 people, about half the figure for the previous five years put together. This is very good, but we must all help it along. This year so far over 2 million sq. ft. have been booked. Nevertheless, we want to get some more. Our own people, who might otherwise be drifting off south looking for jobs, will start to find them here. Then the drift south from Scotland will be reversed. If we can get more manufacturing industry to come to Scotland, the differential between the wages in Scotland and those in England will fall, as it has fallen quite considerably in the last year at twice the rate at which it fell from 1960–64.

Finally, there is fresh evidence this year of this rediscovery of industrial Scotland, such as Chemstrand's further development at Irvine, the pulp mill at Corpach and Hewlett Packard's extension at South Queensferry, each of them to employ over 1,000 workers. This week in my own constituency I.B.M. announced a new £350,000 extension. Earlier this year came the Plessey Company's £2 million factory at Dundee. The Government, too, have shown their faith by siting the prototype fast breeder reactor at Thurso. This industrial advance, with its positive effect on incomes, must continue to raise the quality of life in modern Scotland.