§ Mr. SpeakerBefore I call on the Lord President of the Council to move his Motion, I should like to say something about the two Amendments which have been tabled to it by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. William Ross), the first being in line 4, leave out '27th day of April' and insert '18th day of May', and the second in line 7, leave out 'two' and insert 'three'.
For the purposes of discussion, it would be in order in the debate to refer to the subject matter of both Amendments. If
1034 it is desired to have a Division on one or other of the Amendments, it would be necessary for the Question on the Amendment to be proposed before the lapse of the three hours allowed for this debate under Standing Order No. 34. I suggest that when the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) replies to the debate, he should formally move whichever of the Amendments the Opposition prefer to make the subject of the Division. I should be grateful if the Chair could be informed in advance of the Amendment selected.
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Bill:— Committee 1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before the 27th day of April. 5 Report and Third Reading 10 2.—(1) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such 10 part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine. 15 (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolutions as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House. (3) The resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, and whether or not the resolutions have been agreed to by the House. 20 Procedure in Standing Committee 3.—(1) At a Sitting of the Standing Committee at which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the Proceedings have been brought to a conclusion. 25 (2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon. 30 4. No Motion shall be made to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule, but the resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee. Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee 35 5. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question. Dilatory motions 6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
§ 3.52 p.m.
§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr)I beg to move,
| 40 | Extra time on allot ted days |
| 7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Bill for one hour after Ten o'clock. | |
| 45 | (2) Any period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period under this paragraph. |
| Standing Order No. 13 | |
| 8. Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of select committees at commencement of public business) shall not apply on an allotted day. | |
| 50 | Private business |
| 55 | 9. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings. |
| Conclusion of Proceedings | |
| 60 | 10.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say— |
| 65 | (a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill); |
| 70 | (b) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government; |
| (c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill. | |
| 75 | (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House. |
| 80 | (3) If, at Seven o'clock on an allotted day, any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded. |
| 85 | (4) If, on an allotted day, a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over to Seven o'clock on an allotted day, or to any later time under sub-paragraph (3) above, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day at any hour falling after the beginning of the Proceedings on that Motion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion. |
| 90 | Supplemental orders |
| 95 | 11.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and the last foregoing paragraph shall apply as if the Proceedings were Proceedings on the Bill on an allotted day. |
| 100 | (2) If any Motion moved by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order is under consideration at Seven o'clock on a day on which any private business has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock, the private business shall stand over and be considered when the Proceedings on the Motion have been concluded, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so standing over for a period equal to the time for which it so stands over. |
| 105 | (3) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time, no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order. |
| Saving | |
| 110 | 12. Nothing in this Order or in a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee or the Business Committee shall— |
| (a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or | |
| 115 | (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day. |
| Re-committal | |
| 13.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal. | |
| 120 | (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question. |
| Interpretation | |
| 125 | 14. In this Order— |
| 'allotted day' means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day; | |
| 'the Bill' means the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill; | |
| 130 | 'Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee; |
| 'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House. |
§ Timetable Motions are never pleasant or welcome in this House, and I hope that they will never become so. It would be a bad day for the House if they ever became the rule rather than the exception.
§ I might have wished that my first duty as a new Leader of the House were of a different kind from that which I have to fulfil today. However, I assure the House that, whatever else my desires may be, I have no desire to carve out any reputation as a Robespierre of debate. On the contrary, I very much hope that as often as possible we shall be able to reach a voluntary agreement about the total time which it is reasonably necessary to provide for a piece of legislation and also about how that timetable can most usefully be distributed. I assure the House that I shall always try to use my influence to bring about such a situation and to take full and fair account of the needs and feelings of the Opposition in such matters.
§ Before I come to the substance of the Motion, I wish to take the opportunity to express my great sense of honour in assuming the leadership of the House, and to vouchsafe my determination to uphold 1038 to the best of my ability the high traditions of the office and the interests of all Members of the House, wherever they may sit.
§ I am sure the House would not wish this occasion to pass without my paying tribute to my predecessor in office, my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I believe the entire House feels appreciative of the debt we owe to him for his work as Leader of the House over the past 21 months.
§ I come to the Motion that is before us, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I assure the House that, although I have only just assumed responsibility for these matters, I have examined most carefully the necessity for this timetable Motion. The general arguments for and against the guillotine Motion have become somewhat timeworn. I hope the House will agree if I follow my predecessor's example and take such an argument as spoken. It is so easy to make endless quotations from hon. Members on both sides of the House and to contrast them with what was said by those same hon. Members when in opposition or when in 1039 government and to go over the whole matter again. Therefore, I feel it is better to take those matters as read.
§ Nevertheless, if I do so, I hope the House will accept that I realise it is always a serious decision to have to take to curtail debate in this House in any way, and that it is a matter not to be taken lightly. Oppositions have a duty to examine vigorously, and, indeed, to criticise equally vigorously, a Government's proposals and to expose them to public view. The Opposition always have a right to seek to delay Government business, and this is their proper task. Where vigilance and reasonable delay end and fractiousness and sheer obstruction begin must be a matter of opinion, and I have no doubt that opinion on such matters on the Government side will always be one way and opinion on the Opposition benches will always be the other way.
§ Governments have a duty and a right to get their essential legislation through Parliament. They must ensure that parliamentary consideration of a Bill is reasonably allocated between its various parts, and that as a result of excessive enthusiasm by the Opposition they do not allow the situation to arise in which large sections of a Bill may go virtually undebated.
§ Finally, and perhaps most important, the Government have a duty to ensure that they provide a fair, and even generous, opportunity to the Opposition of the day to scrutinise their legislative proposals. Wherever possible, these things should be arranged by voluntary agreement, and my predecessor tried to do just that on this Bill. It was only after the Government failed to get voluntary agreement on the reasonable timetable which we put forward that the Government concluded that they were left with no possible alternative but to introduce this Motion at this stage of the Bill.
§ At this point I must inevitably become somewhat more controversial. I must point out to the House that the Opposition sought to create a situation in which the Government either would be forced to introduce such a Motion or would have to drop the Bill. This has been quite obvious and is in character with the Opposition's approach to the Housing Finance Bill relating to England and Wales. From the outset Opposition Mem- 1040 bers raised objections to the normal Motion that the Committee should sit on Tuesday and Thursday mornings. Anybody who has been in this place for any length of time will know that if Standing Committees meet on Tuesdays and Thursday mornings this can mean only one thing; namely, that the Opposition has spilled over into obstruction. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"]
§ Debate on the sittings Motion, Amendments to it and related points of order took four and three quarter hours to complete. Similarly, the entire eleventh sitting of the Committee was devoted to debate on the Motion introducing a third sitting on Tuesday afternoons. Here again, any hon. Member on either side of the House with any experience knows that on any controversial Bill—and no one is pretending that this is not a controversial Bill—to suggest that one should have three sittings in the week is really not a very unreasonable or unusual proposition to make. Moreover, by the ninth sitting no fewer than 90 points of order had been raised—and that is an estimate made by an Opposition Member. Certainly since the ninth sitting points of order have continued at what I might perhaps call a brisk rate, and it would be interesting to see how many urgent seekers after parliamentary learning would argue that those points were always for genuine purposes either of elucidation or of the protection of the proper rights of debate.
§ No Committee stage on a Scottish Bill in recent years has exceeded 24 sittings. In this instance the Committee took 24 sittings to complete consideration of only 14 Clauses—considerably less than a quarter of the Bill—and, indeed, five sittings were taken on one single Clause. So progress has been considerably slower than on the equivalent Housing Finance Bill for England and Wales, for which the House considered a timetable Motion a few weeks ago. Such a rate of progress offered little or no hope that the Bill would be reported out of Committee before the Summer Recess. Let me repeat, because I think it needs repeating, that we tried to get the Opposition to agree to a voluntary timetable of reasonable duration.
§ This legislation is undoubtedly an important Measure. That is not controversial. What is controversial, of course, is 1041 that it is also, in the Government's view, an essential Measure for the long-term betterment of Scottish housing.
§ In view of the facts I have just given, I simply do not see how the Government could come to any other conclusion than that in order to provide for an adequately balanced consideration of the remaining Clauses and Schedules of this Bill and for the completion of such consideration within a reasonable time an allocation of time Motion is required. The Bill has already been debated in Committee for 86 hours. As my right hon. Friend reminded the House recently, this compares with the introduction of guillotines by the Labour Party when it was in Government on the 1967 to 1968 Transport Bill after 70 hours in Committee and on the Ports Bill of 1969 after 82 hours in Committee. So we are certainly not being precipitate or unduly restrictive by the standards which the Opposition thought it right to apply when they were the Government.
§ As I say, guillotine Motions should not be easy or welcomed, but they are sometimes necessary; both parties have found this, and I think the whole House recognises it. I can only say that in view of the facts that I have just given, both of what has happened on this Bill and on the action of the Opposition when they were in Government, we are not being unduly restrictive or precipitate in bringing the Motion that I am moving.
§ Mr. James Hamilton (Bothwell)Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us the Scottish Bills on which we at any time imposed the guillotine?
§ Mr. CarrThat is a question to which I must confess I do not know the answer, but no doubt in a few motnhs' or, as I hope, a few weeks' time I shall be better versed in these matters than I am on my second day as Leader of the House. I suspect that the answer is probably "None"; that is what I deduce from the various sounds I hear from opposite me and behind me. Of course, I suspect that the reason for that is that when my right hon. and hon. Friends from Scotland were in Opposition they always took a much more constructive and reasonable view than do right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
§ Mr. Gregor Mackenzie (Rutherglen)Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in 1042 mind that there are fewer of them and that one of the reasons for our attitude is that the majority of Scottish Members of Parliament have been excluded from this Committee and a number of us have put points to our hon. Friends that we wanted discussed in the Committee.
§ Mr. CarrI do not think I will go into that. One thing I am quite sure about is that, whatever may be true of the majority of Scottish Members opposite, the majority of Scottish people want to see housing in Scotland improved. We believe, and have made no secret to the whole country that we believe, that this is one of the essential Measures required to bring about that much-needed improvement, and we shall be very happy to rest on the record of this Bill when it has become an Act and has had time to take its benign effect.
I stress in relation to the timetable that it will be open to the Business Sub-Committee to allot as many sittings as it chooses for the further consideration of the Committee stage between now and 27th April. Taking into account the 86 hours that have already been given to this Bill in Committee and the opportunity between today, 11th April, and the date mentioned in the timetable, 27th April, and given the fact that the Committee can sit as often as it likes and as the Business Sub-Committee chooses between now and 27th April, I really do not believe that anybody with any objectivity at all can possibly claim that this Bill will not have had ample, indeed very ample, and generous time for debate and consideration.
But it is essential that we get this Bill out of Committee by that date—27th April. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] It is essential if adequate time is to be available for the completion of the remaining stages of the Bill and of the necessary administrative arrangements, including notification to rent payers, to be made by local authorities so that the provisions of the Bill can come into operation by the due dates. This is an urgent Bill. It is urgent in the interests of every single tenant in Scotland, whether a council tenant or a private tenant, and this House owes it to those people to get it into operation by the time laid down.
For these reasons I believe that the Motion is a reasonable one, and I commend it to the House.
§ 4.09 p.m.
§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)It falls to me to welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new rôle and to wish him well in it. He spoke, and rightly, about the high traditions of the office which he now holds. I think that from a House of Commons point of view it is probably the most important after that of Speaker ship to which any Member of Parliament can be called and I trust that he will bear in mind that his responsibilities are not only to the Government but also to the House of Commons and to the traditions of the House of Commons. I think and sincerely hope that he will fulfil the hopes that he has for himself in that way.
But he has made a pretty bad start. He said that he did not want to become a Robespierre. Realising what happened to Robespierre, I can well understand that. Why he should have started out with this bloody business, this guillotine, I just do not know. It may be his misfortune, but although he may have been briefed reasonably well we cannot expect him to be able to tell us the whole background to this decision. It is no good sizing up a Bill and comparing it with other Bills. Every Bill has its own particular features.
Of course, this Bill is very different from any other Housing Bill that we have had since this House first took an interest in housing the people of Scotland by resorting to public authority building. The first Bill was the 1919 Bill, after the Royal Commission on Housing, which was set up before the first World War and which reported throughout the war. I am sorry about the right hon. Gentle man's lack of knowledge of that. We cannot help it. But he will know that in respect of this Bill there has been a catalogue of mismanagement—
§ Mr. RossI hope that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) will allow me to make my speech. I am glad to see that he is in attendance and to know that he will be making his speech. He has been unswerving and unrewarded in his loyalty to the Government. We have heard his speech very often, and we look forward to hearing it again—
§ Mr. MacArthurThat is about the fourth time that the right hon. Gentleman has said that.
§ Mr. RossI am sure that the hon. Gentleman hopes that I shall not have to say it many more times. He had better think that one out.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we could have had a voluntary agreement. This is the one Bill on which a voluntary agreement was not possible, simply because of the nature of the Bill. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman appreciates it but, since 1919, all these Bills have been passed by this House, during which time we have had a succession of Ministers of Health, including Lord Addison, John Wheatley, Neville Chamberlain and Walter Elliot, and a succession of Secretaries of State for Scotland, including Sir Godfrey Collins, Tom Johnston and Joe Westwood. Every Secretary of State for Scotland in every Government honoured the financial obligations to the local authorities written in by previous Secretaries of State. They introduced new Bills, but they met the financial obligations which had been entered into with the local authorities by everyone else.
The difference with this Bill is that it is revolutionary. It tears up everything done under previous Bills and sets a completely new financial pattern. From that point of view, therefore, it requires very much more consideration than any other Scottish Bill that we have had before. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that.
Never have we met a more reluctant bunch of revolutionaries than right hon. and hon. Members on the benches opposite. The Leader of the House said how much time was spent on the sittings Motion. It is quite in order for an Opposition to oppose a sittings Motion. The trouble with the Government was that they could not move the Closure. We congratulate the Scottish Office on the strengthening that it has had with the resignation of the P.P.S. and the appointment of a new one. I am sure that friends of the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell) will be telling him that the nearest that he has come in Parliament to justifying his nickname has been in accepting this office. However, he must 1045 not be put off by that. He has very distinguished predecessors—
§ Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock)With the exception of one.
§ Mr. Ross—including myself. But let me remind the Leader of the House that on the first day that the Committee considered the sittings Motion the Government had not a majority. Two hon. Members opposite were not present. I am glad to see that they are both here today. They will have honourable mention from me. On that day there was no appearance of the new P.P.S., the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West, and the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). The result was that the Government had not a majority, and the poor Chief Whip of the Tory Party could not move the closure. That is why the Committee's consideration of that Motion went on. It was not because of anything that we did. It was because of the failures and mismanagement of the Government. But that was not the start of it—
§ Mr. MacArthurThis is nonsense.
§ Mr. RossI have the record before me. I have the attendance record. The two hon. Members to whom I have referred are here today. Let them deny it.
§ Sir John Gilmour (Fife, West)Surely this is the whole point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. We on this side are such reasonable people. We wanted to give right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite a day and a bit. That is why I did not come that day.
§ Mr. RossHon. Members will understand why I called them the reluctant revolutionaries. It was they who wanted this Bill. We did not want it. But where were they? When they had a sittings Motion in which they were involved they did not support it. It may be that the Tory Whip was glad that they were not present, in case they voted for our side of the Committee.
The other point which has to be appreciated is that the Government moved a similar Motion in relation to the English Bill after that Committee had had 45 Sittings. We have had 27. They introduced that Motion after the English Committee had had 200 hours of discussion. We have had 86. Why? The reason is 1046 simple. We could not begin considering this Bill until a bit of manipulation was done by the Government. They could not get enough Tories to man the Government Benches in the Committee. Although the Bill was printed on 9th November and although it was given a Second Reading early in December, we had to change the constitution of Scottish Committees. We had to reduce the membership of the Committee which was to consider this Bill to 26.
This is the most important Bill in relation to one of the social scourges of Scotland—housing—that we have ever had. It has been dealt with by the smallest Committee that we have ever had. On the Government side we have 14 members. On our side we have 12. Even so, the Government could not keen a quorum. I never saw such a trail. The man most active in the Committee was the Tory Whip, who spent all his time searching the corridors, peeping into telephone booths and into empty rooms, dragging in his supporters, while the Committee waited until the reluctant revolutionaries came in to support their Minister—
§ Mr. MacArthurrose—
§ Mr. RossThe hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his speech in a moment. We well know it. I want to make a very short speech in what is a very short debate—
§ Mr. MacArthurrose—
§ Mr. RossThe hon. Gentleman must not tempt me. One of the things which have held up the Committee is that the Minister has been unable to resist temptation. Even this morning he could not. Any time that any hon. Member interrupted him he strayed from the Amendment. The Leader of the House spoke about points of order. Many of the points of order that I have raised were attempting to bring the Under-Secretary back to the Amendment. He was very angry with me. That is what happened. He got on to me this morning for the same reason—
§ Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne (South Angus)Quite right.
§ Mr. RossThe hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) was not there at the time. But I will come to him in a moment.
1047 The Leader of the House spoke about points of order. What we had to contend with was no one's business. First, hon. Members opposite would not come. Very often instead of starting at 10.30 a.m., the Committee started at 10.35 a.m. When hon. Members opposite did come and as soon as a quorum had been formed, out they went again.
It was hon. Members on this side which kept the quorum. We did so because we know the people affected. We know the effect that this Bill will have in Scotland. The Leader of the House said that the Bill was essential for the long-term betterment of Scottish housing, and he added that the Scottish people wanted it. The right hon. Gentleman knows nothing about the Scottish people. At the moment meetings are being held all over Scotland to try to persuade the Government to drop the Bill. People all over Scotland are signing petitions against the Bill—and no wonder.
The Leader of the House should appreciate that the Scottish housing position is very different from that in England. In Scotland there are about a million public authority houses. At the moment there are about 200,000 tenancies of privately-rented accommodation. Every one of the tenants of those houses will be affected. Taking the average number of people in a family as three—and, generally speaking, working-class families tend to be larger than others—probably four out of five people in Scotland will be affected by the Bill. Private tenants and council tenants will have their rents raised.
In 1968, the total amount in rents being paid in Scotland was £31 million. In the first year, indeed, in the first seven months of the operation of this Bill, rents will rise by twice the amount by which rents rose under the Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman is fond of the quotation about the Labour Government. The Labour Government did not raise rents. We left it to the local authorities' discretion, and they raised the rents by 7s. in that time. This time they will not be increases at the discretion of local authorities; they will be increases at the command of the Government. In the first seven months one million houses will 1048 have to produce £24 million in rent. Set against the rents for the whole of Scotland in 1968, we get the enormity of it. Taking the first full year of this Bill, 1973–74, rents in Scotland will have to rise by £50 million. That, by a Government who are dedicated to stopping inflation, is a scandal.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to rebates. If he thinks that this resort to means test mania and inflicting on people the hardship and indignity of applying for rebates is the answer, he must understand that that is not the way to rule Scotland.
We in Scotland have become the victims of the Tory Party's failure to win seats in Scotland. They cannot man the Committee; they cannot manage their business on the Floor of the House. I do not entirely blame them. Things suddenly come in, as the new Leader of the House will probably discover, and as his predecessors have discovered, for which he has to make room. The fact is that we have been manoeuvred and manipulated into the curtailment of the one Bill that should never have been guillotined.
What about the management of the Bill? Was our opposition fractious? It was not. I have explained that the hon. Gentleman could not even curtail our proceedings, because he could not get his people there, limited as they were.
Have there been long speeches? I think that I delivered one of the longest speeches.
§ Mr. MacArthurAn hour and five minutes.
§ Mr. MacArthurIt was an hour too long.
§ Mr. RossThe hon. Gentleman was not there to hear it. If he had been present he would have heard his hon. Friend, after I sat down, say how good a speech it was, how helpful it was, and how lucky they were to have an able and experienced Member to give such an analysis of the housing position in Scotland. It was about that time—this was on the third sitting—that the hon. Gentleman told us that it had been a most interesting debate with helpful speeches. This was after the Leader of the House 1049 had been complaining that we had been holding up the proceedings. Later there was surprise that I combined so much information in that speech in such a short time. The Minister was lauding and congratulating me. Of course, this is not what we get now. The scene changes. Now the Government say that it was not such a useful and important debate. We have not been fractious. We have had to contend with quite a lot.
This is one of the most important Bills in generations for Scotland. Yet we had a Minister handling his first Bill, which is not a pleasant experience, and we had a new Whip dealing with his first Bill. The hon. Gentleman had trouble with his strays.
He dwelt among the voiceless strays,Behind the Minister and above.A Whip whom there was none to praise,And very few to love.That is an ode to Hamish Gray, with apologies to William Wordsworth and Lucy Gray.The hon. Gentleman, not satisfied with moving the closure, moved a leapfrog closure and then wondered why there were points of order. We got over that kind of thing.
It is not true to say that we have not been making reasonable progress. One of the troubles about lack of experience is to know what usually happens with Scottish Bills. Often a lot of time is spent on the early stages, and then we speed up. That is what has been happening with this Bill. It is not good enough to do it on a mathematical basis and say that we should do this and not do that.
The point is that we have still to finish discussion on the rent rebate and allowances together with Schedules 2 and 3. Schedule 3 in size is virtually a Bill in itself. We have to deal with the determination of rent increases and their timing, which are terribly important and, as they stand, very unfair, particularly in the first seven months. We have to deal with the whole business of decontrol. It is general decontrol which will bring people into rent increases in the private sector. This is important and demands time.
There is the extension of the fair rents system in the private sector. We are speeding that up as well as extending it. 1050 There is also the whole question of housing associations. The Schedules consist of 50 pages. We have been reasonably helpful to the Government, because we had to persuade them to take the Schedules with the related Clauses. If they had done that with Schedule 1 it would have been out of the way and we would have had a much more reasonable debate.
We have to deal with Clauses 70 and 71 in which the Government introduce special powers for the Secretary of State to wield the big stick against local authorities by reducing or withholding grants and putting in a commissioner to run the housing departments of local authorities. They are very serious questions which demand time.
It is not right to say that the Bill should be finished in 14 days which are effectively 11 Parliamentary days. If we miss out Fridays—I do not suppose that the Government want to sit on Fridays—there are nine Parliamentary days left in which to deal with all this legislation. This is an outrage. I am surprised that the new Lord President should even pretend that this is adequate time for this subject. I sincerely hope that the Government will think again about this Motion.
In Committee we have had to contend with the dietary eccentricities of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) and the physical disabilities of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)who, in order to get out of his difficulties about being in support of the Under-Secretary, brought his private secretary into the Committee and further held us up. This is the kind of thing with which we have had to contend.
I am sorry, too, about the Chairman. I apologise to our English Chairman, who has worked wonders in Committee, but he has had difficulties. He was drafted in. On the first four sittings we had three Chairmen. This does not do the reputation of Scottish Committees any good. I think that it was because there was one Chairman they did not want there that they got into this considerable difficulty. When we get this kind of thing, we get a certain measure of conflict in Committee.
1051 Considering the importance of the Bill, affecting more than one million households, the only sure and certain thing is that rents will go up. It is an absolute scandal that the Government should proceed with this Bill. This is about the only thing that is left of the Chancellor's great speech of 28th October,1970. The cutting down of Government expenditure has gone. The Secretary of State is running round looking for local authorities to spend money because of unemployment in Scotland. Investment and shipbuilding grants are back. U.C.S. is still there. I could go on. However, this is where it first appeared. It was to save money, not to improve Scottish housing.
I am sorry that the Lord President has been landed with this kind of thing. There was one speech made by the Under-Secretary at one of the early sittings in which he suggested that we must concentrate on the things that matter and give all our resources and attention to them.
It is interesting that the Government are doing nothing about the true scandal of housing, the cost of housing at the present time. We have the position in which even that rabid revolutionary paper The Times has a headline such as "Price of Houses Shoots Up By 7 per cent. in Three Months"—all houses by 30 per cent. per year, new houses by 28 per cent., and still rising. House prices are rising out of the reach of the people. That will have its effects on rents in the private sector, as well as on the buying of old and new houses.
How did the Under-Secretary of State concentrate his time and attention in the recent Recess? He appeared in my home town—for my sins he happens to be my Member of Parliament—and officiated at the opening of a show house built by a speculative builder. One house is finished and another seven are going up. I gather one has been sold and options on another three have been taken up. The poor and homeless of Ayr and Ayrshire are not queuing up to buy these houses. They cost at least £20,000 each. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is a wise use of his time?
§ Mr, MacArthurCome off it!
§ Mr. RossWill this meet the housing needs of Scotland? Of course not. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will come off that kind of development.
If the Government are serious about Scottish housing, they will drop this Bill and tackle one of the real problems of Scotland at the present time, the ability of local authorities to build houses for people at rents they can pay. I hope that we shall not only oppose the Bill but even persuade the Government to drop it.
§ 4.33 p.m.
§ Mr. Ian MacArthur (Perth and East Perthshire)I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Lord President on his new office. We are delighted to see him. We regret as much as he does the fact that his first appearance in his new and distinguished rôle was on the time-table Motion. But that, alas, is inevitable. Whatever our differences about this Motion may be, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in every part of the House will welcome my right hon. Friend today in the knowledge that he will protect the best interests of the House and will have no less regard for the best interests of back benchers on all sides who make up the majority in this House. We are very grateful to him for speaking today.
I should like to express my personal gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). This is not the first opportunity I have had to hear his gracious speech. I thank him for the way in which he unfailingly, whenever he has the chance, makes kind remarks about my parliamentary skill. It is one part of his speech to which I always listen with great pleasure. There are other parts to which I listen with less pleasure. But that part about me always gives me the greatest possible pleasure if only because nobody else speaks so generously about me as he does. I hope he will continue because it is the one bright point in his speeches.
I confess always to being in a position of some difficulty when the right hon. Gentleman gets up to speak, as he very often does in our Standing Committee, not knowing whether he is going to make a nice speech about me or not, because if he is not speaking about me he does tend to go on rather.
1053 As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out just now, I missed the larger part of his speech lasting an hour and five minutes. Frankly, after 10 minutes of it I could not take any more. I went out for a cup of well-sweetened coffee which I thought would do my soul more good, which indeed it did.
If I may leave my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman, I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend that it is profitless to bandy statistics about the House, as is so often done on unhappy occasions of this kind. We have had no fewer than 27 sittings of the Standing Committee to consider this Bill. If I may with great respect disagree with my right hon. Friend, I think he said we have sat for 86 hours. My count is 97 hours. We need not quibble: there has been the best part of 100 hours of debate on this Bill. The debates have covered more than 1,600 columns of the Official Report. What have we done? We have completed 17 Clauses of a Bill which consists of 78 Clauses. That is not speedy progress.
If any person looks through the reports of the 27 sittings he will recognise at once that the Under-Secretary who has been in charge of this Bill for the Government has handled the Committee with the utmost courtesy and with the greatest possible patience. He has listened to every argument. He has answered every point. With commendable restraint he has preserved his patient bearing throughout. My hon. Friends would join with me in congratulating him on the way he has withstood the second-rate dominie-like lectures he has had to bear from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock and the very lengthy speeches he has had to hear. He has performed wonders on the Front Bench. No one can fault him for his leadership of the Bill.
Any impartial observer would quickly have seen that the Opposition decided in the Committee to pursue a policy of sustained utterance. That was recognised early on by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), who said that some of his hon. Friends may have been spinning out time. One of the best things about the hon. Member is that he presents to us moments of great truth from time to time. This is one of them.
1054 Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were spinning out time, as is their right. There came a time when I thought that perhaps the amount of spinning might decline. That was the moment when the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) on the Front Bench, indicated to us that once we had completed Clause 6 things might move a little more quickly. We waited patiently—anyway, I did—until the end of Clause 6, and things moved much as before; that is, very slowly indeed. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member was not able to command the support of his hon. Friends.
I can understand some hon. Gentlemen opposite wanting to take things slowly. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), for whom we have the greatest affection and the most compassionate understanding, pointed out earlier that he hoped we would go slowly because he did not want to be outpaced. He had to take things slowly because he found things were a little difficult to understand. We have been very patient, but after 27 sittings of the Committee he must have understood what the form is in Standing Committee life. He has spoken regularly, and we are delighted to have him with us, but I do not believe it is reasonable to expect us to hold things back out of compassion for him any longer.
Hon. Members opposite have been spinning out time because they oppose the Bill. In their opposition they have grasped, even beyond the point of reason, the opportunities which our procedure allows to an Opposition. As is their right, the Opposition have delayed progress on the Bill to the point when they have invited this Motion. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock was having some fun when he said that on occasions there had not been quorums. He cannot wear a white sheet in terms of attendance at the Committee. Time and again I have seen the right hon. Gentleman engaged in his favourite pastime of quorum-bursting. I do not know what the English ablative absolute is, but, the signal having been given by the right hon. Gentleman or the Labour Whip, Labour Members have marched out of the Committee leaving one lone Labour voice on the back benches making an interminable speech. Time and again we have seen that lone Labour Member 1055 standing in the Labour wilderness with no one at all on the Opposition Front Bench. Time and again the right hon. Gentleman has been absent.
It would be useful, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to make calculations, to work out how much time he has spent in this Committee in which he professes to have so much interest. Is it half time? Is he a half-time leader of the Opposition in Committee? Is it perhaps three-quarters' time? It is certainly no more than that. It is not reasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to make these comments about us when he and the vast majority of his supporters have been absent over and over again. I cannot recall any moment when we were in Opposition when we deserted the Opposition Front Bench; we never deserted the Opposition Front Bench because to do so is a grave discourtesy to the Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman is at least here today and I would remind him that it was he who made it clear at our second sitting in Committee nearly three months ago that he and his hon. Friends did not want the Bill. He has gone on saying that and he and his hon. Friends have demonstrated their dislike of the Bill by their attempt to block it totally in Committee. Maybe the right hon. Gentleman does not want the Bill, but we on this side of the House want the Bill, and just as the Opposition have the right to delay matters in Committee, so we have the right to introduce the timetable Motion, much as we dislike being obliged to do so. We want the Bill and we are going to get it. I hope that when we come to consider future sittings we shall not go beyond the number we now have. Three sittings a week is perfectly reasonable, and if the Opposition have squandered the available time so far, that is their fault. I see no reason why we should go out of our way to make more time available just to be wasted.
I said that Scotland wants the Bill. The Bill is wanted because the present system of housing finance simply has not worked. It is not solving Scotland's housing problem. Yet the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, who have become extreme traditionalists in housing matters, do not want to move with the times. They want to cling to a 1056 system which has been seen not to work. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the impression he sometimes gives—and it is one which I know is deeply unfair to him and his hon. Friends—is that he has a vested interest in depression and decline.
The present system of housing finance in Scotland is unfair, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it as well as anyone. The vast majority of people want to see the unfairness removed. I would like to read from a leading article in the Scotsman which summarised the Bill as follows:
It cannot be maintained that all local authority tenants require to have their rents subsidised. It is wrong that persons well able to pay their own way should receive assistance from the taxpayers and ratepayers and that they should be helped by people not so well off as they are themselves. It is a mistake also to assume that only local authority tenants require to be helped and that all tenants of privately-owned houses are in the upper income ranges. All this, of course, has been said frequently in the past. But action has become urgent and the Government deserve credit for the lead they have given.That summarises the position very fairly.
§ Mr. John Smith (Lanarkshire, North)I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's statement that the people of Scotland wanted the Bill, and I waited patiently to hear some evidence of that. So far he has given no evidence other than that the Scotsmanwants the Bill. Would he tell us what evidence there is that Scots people generally, bearing in mind that they returned twice as many Labour M.P.s as Conservative M.P.s at the last General Election, want this Bill? What is the evidence to which he can point of great popular feeling for the Bill in Scotland?
§ Mr. MacArthurI am glad the hon. Gentleman raised that because he assists me in what I am about to say, not for the first time. What disturbs me very much, more than the time taken by the Opposition, is the way in which they have distorted the intentions of the Bill. It is no exaggeration to say that the Opposition have quite wittingly caused great and unnecessary alarm throughout Scotland. I hope that the Press and television in Scotland will help to redress the balance by calling wider attention to what the Bill will achieve.
§ Mr. MacArthurThe hon. Gentleman has interrupted me once and I have not yet answered him. One question at a time. He asked me why I believe the people of Scotland wanted the Bill. I have masses of evidence. Every week in my constituency I have this evidence, and if the hon. Gentleman would listen with both ears and not only with his left ear, he would hear the same arguments. What particularly disturbs me is the grave irresponsibility of the Opposition in misrepresenting the Bill. Scotland wants the Bill because Exchequer subsidies under it will rise, not fall. Who, listening to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, would believe that subsidies were to go up? They are, and that is a fact.
§ Mr. Frank McElhone (Glasgow, Gorbals)Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. MacArthurNo. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman week after week, day after day. The only time he listened tome was when I moved some very good Amendments in Committee which were rightly accepted.
People in Scotland want this Bill because subsidies are going up. They want the Bill, too, because subsidies will be handled fairly and sensibly. In future, subsidies will be directed to areas of need, and any good Socialist should applaud a Conservative Government directing public help to areas of need. These are the areas of high cost and areas where the housing need is greatest.
Even more, the people of Scotland want the Bill because subsidies to the individual will be directed to individuals in need; to people who are hard-pressed and who really need help. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite for once tell the people of Scotland that as a result of this Measure the hard-pressed will be paying less in rent than they are paying now, and that in extreme cases they will be paying no rent at all.
The people of Scotland also want the Bill because it is extending a system of rent rebate in a way that will ensure that the hard-pressed are genuinely helped. For the first time there is to be a statutory system of help for people in need. For the first time throughout Scotland tenants who cannot afford a reasonable rent will not have to pay the money themselves. They will be helped by subsidy, and rightly so.
1058 For the first time in Scotland, the new rent rebate system will be extended to tenants of private property, and why not? What is fair for a local authority tenant must be fair for a private tenant as well. At last we have made this major housing breakthrough.
For the first time we have true care, true compassion, true help and a system of fair, larger subsidies directed to areas and people in need. Every hon. Gentleman opposite knows in his heart that this is right and fair. These are the reasons why we want the Bill and why these provisions are required by the people of Scotland. This is why we welcome the Motion and look forward to the early enactment of a Bill which will mean a better housing future for Scotland.
§ 4.53 p.m.
§ Mr. Harry Ewing (Stirling and Falkirk Burghs)The hon Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) will not be surprised if I do not follow him into the wilderness which he traversed.
I wish at the outset to join those who have congratulated the new Leader of the House on his appointment. The right hon. Gentleman kindly complimented me on my maiden speech in October of last year. I am delighted to have this opportunity to offer him my best wishes and to congratulate him on his appointment.
By introducing this Motion on a Tuesday the Government are depriving the Opposition of 8 to 10 hours of debating time in Committee upstairs because if we had not been wasting our time dealing with such a trivial matter as the guillotine, we could have been occupied more profitably discussing the substance of the Bill and some of the excellent Amendments which the Opposition have tabled to it.
Despite the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, the Conservative Party in Scotland has no mandate for this legislation. That is the simple reason why we are debating this Motion. If hon. Gentlemen opposite need proof of that, they will get it on Tuesday, 2nd May, when Conservative candidates throughout Scotland will be the victims of this minority Government's decision to introduce this legislation.
My hon. Friends have been denied adequate time to discuss the Bill which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for 1059 Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) pointed out. affects perhaps 90 per cent. of the population of Scotland. That contrasts with the information given by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, though his remarks today were a change from our having to listen to stories about his love or horses.
§ Mr. MacArthurrose—
§ Mr. EwingNo. The hon. Gentleman was not keen to give way. Nor am I. I am anxious to be brief because many of my hon. Friends wish to speak. He will recall the many occasions in Committee when we were obliged to stop discussing serious Amendments while the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who I regret is not in his place, blew his nose, sneezed or otherwise had an allergic effect on his hon. Friends.
It is clear that the Government have no mandate for this legislation. Of the 16 Members of the Committee, only six are present today on the benches opposite. [Hon. Members: "Five."] I apologise to the Secretary of State for including him in my count. Only five Conservative Members of the Committee upstairs are interested enough to adorn the benches opposite to listen to these proceedings.
It is equally clear that the people of Scotland do not want the Bill. Some time ago I was told by the Secretary of State that 16 local authorities in Scotland had protested at the Government's intention to introduce these provisions. How many have protested to date?
There is a massive campaign going on in Scotland to convince the Government that this legislation is wrong. It will succeed not in solving the housing problem but in increasing the rents of private rented property as well as of municipal dwellings. It will also increase the rate able values of owner-occupied property, a point that is seldom made. It will have a far-reaching effect on housing in Scotland and will halt municipal house building.
§ Mr. MacArthurNonsense.
§ Mr. EwingIt is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say "Nonsense", but this is one of the hidden intentions of the Government. If hon. Gentlemen opposite feel that this is nonsense, why did so many local authorities submit housing 1060 plans before the deadline of 1st December? The Minister will say that they did that to receive the subsidies that were payable at the time, but that is only half the answer. The other half is that under this legislation it will be impossible for them to continue municipal house building. In future the revenue for building their houses will have to be raised from rents, and no local authority will put itself at risk by increasing rents to the levels necessary for that purpose.
§ Mr. MacArthurThat is scare-mongering.
§ Mr. EwingThe hon. Gentleman should have a look at what is really going on in Scotland, where Labour hon. Members are being invited to visit Conservative constituencies because Conservative hon. Members do not have either the knowledge or courage to put the facts of the Bill before the people they represent. Indeed, next Friday night I shall be in South Angus and Arbroath speaking about the Bill because the representative of the area—I regret his absence from this debate; his absence shows his interest in the matter—will not tell his constituents exactly how the Bill will affect them.
§ Mr. MacArthurrose—
§ Mr. EwingI have no intention of giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
Trades councils, local authorities and all sorts of organisations are campaigning against the Bill because of its iniquities. At my by-election the Conservative candidate did not campaign on the issue of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. It is significant that no mention was made in Scotland at the last General Election by the Conservative Party of the advantages that the Bill would give to municipal tenants, tenants of private rented property or owner-occupiers.
Hon. Members opposite know the serious impact that this will have on rent and rates in Scotland. They will see for themselves, after the municipal elections on 2nd May, just what the people of Scotland think about the Measure. What is probably more serious for those Conservative Members of Parliament who look a little further ahead to the next General Election—not much further, but a little—is that when the people go to the 1061 polls in Scotland on the next occasion, they will see what they think of the Bill.
We on this side of the House are pledged to repeal this iniquitous Measure. Against that background, I hope sincerely that the Motion will be rejected.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Sir John Gilmour (Fife, East)I am pleased to be able to address the House after the speech of my constituent, the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing). It is thanks to his support that I am a Member of the House. He put his finger on a great deal of the trouble. He asked about the effect on rates. Is not this one of the things which worry people in Scotland almost more than anything else? How does the burden on the rates arise? It is because we have had a housing finance policy under which no one has been able to balance their housing accounts, and consequently the balances have had to be made up from the rates. This burden had to fall on the rich and poor alike. We have a bad rating system, and the Green Paper which my right hon. Friend has produced is a pretty poor attempt to put it right.
We know perfectly well that the rate burden falls very unfairly. With two identical houses, side by side, one may be occupied by three members of a family, all working, and the other may be occupied by an old-age pensioner; but both occupiers pay the same level of rates. Because housing accounts are not balanced—the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs mentioned this—a very unfair burden falls through the rates on the general ratepayers of Scotland. That is what my right hon. Friend is seeking to put right. I believe that right hon. and hon. Members opposite believe this to be necessary. It is a lot of sour grapes that they are not supporting the Measure.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) trotted out all the Bills that all the Secretaries of State for Scotland had brought forward to try to get housing in Scotland up to the standard we all want. Together with hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have served on the Select Committee and visited cities such as Glasgow, seeing some of the housing conditions, and knowing that they are far worse than we ought to tolerate. 1062 Taking into account all the Bills produced by various Secretaries of State over the years but still having these intolerable conditions, surely it is right to break out from what we have been doing and say that we must have a new approach to this matter. This is what my right hon. Friend has done.
§ Mr. McElhoneI am grateful to the hon. Member for mentioning Glasgow. Is he aware that during the three years that we had a Tory Council, from 1968 to 1970, house building halved? Is he also aware that we are still awaiting the fulfilment of the Prime Minister's promise about the very special aid Glasgow is to get?
§ Sir J. GilmourBut would not the hon. Gentleman agree that although house building may have decreased, it decreased under legislation of a Labour Government? In other words, the Government of the day were not giving the local authority the incentive to build houses. All councils, irrespective of whether they be Labour, Liberal, Conservative or anything else, are prisoners of the legislation passed by this House. We as a Conservative Administration are now producing legislation which will give the opportunity for the burden to be spread more equitably. That will allow more houses to be built.
What has happened over many years in Scotland? Have houses been maintained as well as they ought to have been, or have they deteriorated and fallen into disrepair? Are the sort of conditions in places such as Glasgow the result of adequate rents being charged so that houses could be maintained and improved? I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that the answer is "No". Therefore, that is something else which is being done now. It is essential to maintain the existing stock of houses and to improve them. In certain cases it may be necessary to amalgamate houses. But whatever we do, surely we want to raise the level of rents, but with a rent rebate and rent allowance scheme which is fair to those who cannot afford to pay the rents, so that the properties can be maintained. If that is done, it will provide the opportunity for an adequate stock of houses to be maintained and improved. Also, because the housing accounts can be put into balance without 1063 an undue burden on the ratepayers, we can look forward to a day when enough houses will be built.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock quoted a headline from The Times. I imagine that it was probably published in the last few days. It was about the rising cost of houses.
§ Sir J. GilmourThis is the nub of the problem. What forces up prices? It is scarcity, and we have to get rid of scarcity to keep down prices.
I should like to protest about another thing. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) spoke about the size of the Committee. One of the reasons why we have a timetable Motion now is that the Bill applies equally to every constituency throughout Scotland and we have had far too many Members on the Committee. As a result, we have had the same arguments repeated over and over again. I can quite understand that some Bills have very different effects on different constituencies, so that the effect in the Outer Hebrides, in the Borders, in Aberdeenshire and in the big cities may be different, and that, therefore, a large Committee is necessary to discuss such Bills. But my right hon. Friend has produced a Bill which has exactly the same effect on every constituency in Scotland and, therefore, the need for such a large Committee to continue the discussion has been unnecessary. This is probably one of the reasons why we have a timetable Motion. I hope that we shall not have a Committee of such a size again, because it is wasteful of time and opportunity.—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]
I believe that the Bill will be welcomed by the people in Scotland because, after it is passed, they will begin to see its effects. At present, all they are getting is the propaganda for the local elections and the scaremongering, which has no relation to what will happen. I am happy to rest on what will happen and the effects the people will see when the Bill is passed. That is why I welcome the Motion. The sooner the Bill is passed, the sooner will the people see the effects of this legislation.
§ 5.8 p.m.
§ Mr. Alex Eadie (Midlothian)The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) should not assume that hon. Members who are not fortunate enough to be Members of the Committee would have no contribution to make in the Committee. That is an arrogant assumption. But perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who is an old political foe of mine, would not want to convey that to the House. We may all have something to say.
I believe that we have been deprived of rights in relation to the size of the Committee. This is the second occasion on which I have had to take part in a debate to defend the rights of my constituents and, to some extent, to try to articulate what I believe to be the rights of the Scottish people. The former Leader of the House came to the Dispatch Box on a Friday and tried to slip through a limitation of the numbers of hon. Members who would serve on the Scottish Standing Committee in the future. He attempted to do it not by argument, debate and discussion but by the clandestine means of trying to slip it through at about four o'clock on a Friday.
It was fortunate that some of us were here to prevent that. But now we have the guillotine Motion which again will deprive us of our rights. We have our rights and we will not be jeered out of them. The "We are the masters now" speech from the hon. Member for East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) will be noted in many constituencies in Scotland. It was an arrogant speech and he tried to shout his way through most of it. But we have rights, particularly on this Bill, and we intend to argue, debate and discuss the Measure.
§ Mr. MacArthurrose—
§ Mr. EadieNo, I will not give way. The hon. Member wishes to intervene in every speech, but he will have to learn to take it as well as to dish it out.
In October, 1970, the Chancellor of the Exchequer boasted that by introducing the proposed housing legislation there would be a saving of £100 million to £200 million so this is not social legislation. Its main purpose is to save money. If this much is to be saved it will be the council tenant who will be required to pay it along with people living in S.S.H.A. 1065 houses and, to some extent, private tenants.
As one of my hon. Friends has already said, owner-occupiers will be involved in the Bill. The more it is examined, the clearer it becomes that every person with a roof over his head in Scotland will be affected by the Bill to the extent they will require to pay more for their housing and shelter. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire may not like what I am saying, but he made no attempt to argue the case. He quoted the Scotsman. As my hon. Friend said, he did not indicate which Scotsman he was quoting. There were adverse comments in the Scotsmantoday of which no supporter of the Government could be proud—that people were getting money to speculate in housing while hundreds of thousands of others were living in scandalous accommodation.
I was referring to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was saying in October, 1970, but of course we can relate this in Scottish terms. The Public Expenditure Committee's Report boasts that there will be a saving of £10 million on housing. That figure represents about 4 per cent., but other public expenditure is increasing in the region of 14 per cent. The most dastardly thing is that the Government are taking powers away from local authorities. When the Government came to power in June, 1970, they said they would try to unite the nation, but Scotland has never been more divided than at present.
In opening this debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made an important point when he said that the Government had welshed on every financial undertaking by all previous administrations since about 1910 or 1919. During the General Election we were told the people would be set free and that local authorities would be able to use their own initiative and enterprise. We were told there would be more local government and less central Government.
It has been shown that the Government were elected on a lie. They introduced this legislation and they propose not only to reorganise local government but to take away the powers of local government to decide its financial position on rents and housing policy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should remember 1066 what was said by, I think, Mr. Nixon Browne, a former hon. Member of this House. He believed it was democratic for local councils to be elected and for them to decide how they would operate their housing policy and what the rents should be. He believed that was good democracy—and that was only in the 1950s. In 1972 we have an Administration which believes that is not good enough.
§ Mr. EadieThe hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) has had a hand in this and he will suffer for it because the people of Scotland will show their wrath to him. The position of government does not belong solely to the Tories. At the end of the five-year period they will have to go to the people and, while there are not many hon. Members opposite present now, I anticipate there will be even fewer after the next election, not only because of housing but because of unemployment and other problems.
There was some doubt about increased subsidies. I wonder whether some hon. Members opposite have examined the Bill, because some of the so-called subsidies are subsidies that never were. We have tried to examine the high-cost subsidy. It will benefit one local authority and only 47 houses. Other subsidies are transitional subsidies which will disappear. My constituents know how much the Bill will cost them. My constituency includes a new town and two or three boroughs and an electorate of 80,000. I tried to discover what the Bill will mean for us. The rents for my county council are about £82 on average, but, according to the county treasurer, as a result of the Bill, when the transitional period is over, rents of county council tenants will be in the region of £237. How in the name of goodness can any Government try to tell my electorate that they are introducing a piece of social legislation when, as a result of the Bill, rents are proposed to escalate to this level?
We are told that tenants in private property will be given a subsidy. I have never been happy about how private tenants were treated. I remember once when I contested the seat held by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), the 1067 Under-Secretary, in one General Election, saying that some of the rents charged in the town were an absolute disgrace. I felt that there was exploitation by private tenants. Not all private landlords are bad, but there seem to be more bad landlords than good ones.
It is obvious that as a result of the rent allowance scheme and the de-control under the 1957 Act we are creating a bonanza for landlords. It is perfectly clear from story after story that has been told, particularly in the big cities and even in my constituency, that the landlords are rubbing their hands in glee. They will welcome this guillotine Motion because they cannot have the Bill soon enough. It is certainly a new parliamentary principle that a Government should seek to interfere with local authorities in this way.
The Minister should tell the House why he hardly persuades, but nearly compels, local authorities to operate the Measure before it has the Queen's consent. It is surely a new concept to tell local government, "You will increase your rents now, because we are sure of getting a Bill passed which will make sure that the rents are increased by £24 to £26." That is what I mean by there being not only an abrasiveness but an arrogance about the Government. They assume that the politics of persuasion have gone by the board, that the campaign in Scotland to try to persuade them that the Bill is wrong, that they are wrong and that they must withdraw the Bill, can be ignored. They are telling people that they will not listen.
When a Government refuse to listen to the people and refuse to participate in the politics of persuasion they do harm not only to the people but to parliamentary democracy. I ask the Government to consider the road they are travelling along, because they are harming democracy, never mind council tenants.
§ 5.21 p.m.
§ Mr. Edward Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)I apologise most sincerely to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) for not having heard his opening speech. But I have had the great pleasure of hearing him in the Committee many times make the same speech week after week, and I presume that he did the same today. If he has made any 1068 minor amendments to it, I look forward very much to reading it in Hansard.
It is always a great pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), because although we have seen some remarkable turnabouts by Labour Members on various issues we know that the hon. Gentleman is straight in the way he approaches politics, that he adopts a consistent line which he keeps to despite the changes in party policy and policy within his constituency. However, I was astonished to hear him say that the Government will shortly face the people, who will have an opportunity of saying what they think about them—in other words that there might be a speedy General Election. The Labour Party would regard it as the worst possible thing to have to face a General Election at a time when they appear to be split from end to end on every major issue. I very much doubt whether they would have any conclusive policy that they could put to the people.
§ Mr. EwingCan we take it from the courage the hon. Gentleman is showing that at the next General Election he will, probably for the first time, display the word "Conservative" on his election posters as a result of the Bill?
§ Mr. TaylorI shall be only too glad to consult the hon. Gentleman before I put up my Conservative posters in Cathcart. Irrespective of what those posters will be, we know that in Cathcart as well as Stirling and other places the Conservative candidate will be successful.
We are discussing an important Motion for a guillotine. I have never liked guillotines, and I have sometimes opposed guillotine Motions. I remember taking part in important Committees, considering Bills on steel nationalisation, education and the nationalisation of ports, when vicious guillotines were imposed by a Labour Government to suppress reasonable discussion. The most notorious was the one on the Transport Bill, a Measure which would have had a savage effect on the Highlands of Scotland, the west of Scotland and many other areas. We were only starting the discussion, trying to be constructive at all times, when a vicious guillotine was imposed by the Labour Government, so the opposition have no right to complain about the principle of the guillotine. All they can 1069 do is to ask whether the Motion is justifiable, whether it is fair and reasonable.
No one who has taken part in the Committee proceedings can doubt that a guillotine Motion is fully justified. As some Opposition Members have admitted in the Committee—particularly the very honest hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown)—Labour Members have spoken at great length, repeating things and being not at all constructive in their approach to the Committee's consideration of the Bill. I hope that as a result of the Motion the Opposition will concentrate their endeavours and their speeches on constructive matters, discussing what is good for the people of Scotland and how the Bill can be used or improved to benefit all the people of Scotland.
I have been astonished at the way in which the Committee debates have been going. It has been obvious that Opposition Members have been trying to distort the Bill, to try to arouse unjustified fears in tenants in Scotland. They have been trying not to find out what the Bill does but to distort its intention. They have caused a great deal of unnecessary alarm to tenants, many of them elderly people.
If we carried on as we have been doing, I estimate that it would be about 1978 before we completed the Committee stage, which would mean that the Bill would be dead. What would be the consequences if the Bill were scrapped, if it were talked out? I know what the effect would be for private tenants. I speak with a little knowledge because I represent a constituency with as high a proportion of private tenants as any hon. Member. I have a substantial number. In the Kings Park and Croft foot areas of my constituency we have one of the largest private rented schemes in the whole of Scotland. In addition, we have many of the older properties which are privately rented.
Under the present law, as the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) well knows, because it was his legislation, there is not one private tenanted house in the whole of Scotland which can get a qualification certificate from a local authority—that just means that it must have certain basic standard amenities—which cannot be transferred tomorrow from control to rent regulation. In other words, under that legislation, as consolidated in 1070 the 1971 Act, there is not one house in the whole of Scotland which can get a qualification certificate which cannot be switched immediately from a controlled rent to a fair rent. There are people who have been tenants for 30 or 40 years and who have a controlled rent of perhaps 50p a week or 62½p. Under the fair rents legislation those rents might be increased to £4, £5 or £6 a week, not as a result of Tory legislation but as a result of the legislation passed by the previous Government and presented by the hon. Member for Greenock. Although the hon. Gentleman is very active in interruptions, T am delighted that he has not denied that. He cannot.
§ Dr. Dickson MabonWhy should I deny that description? It was endorsed by the Rent (Scotland) Act, 1971, which the hon. Gentleman passed as a Minister, consolidating the position. Is the hon. Gentleman saying it is wrong that those houses that are up to a satisfactory standard as laid down in the 1969 Act should not get the certificate or should not be taken out of control? Under the Bill they will all be taken out, no matter what state they are in.
§ Mr. TaylorI am complaining about Labour Members trying to give people the impression that the rent rises for private accommodation taking place now—today, this week, last week and last month—are the result of Tory legislation, when they know this is not the case.
I accept that this was consolidated in the present Government's 1971 Act, but what is blatantly dishonest is for the Opposition and some of their councillors and candidates to go round private rent areas and say, "Your rent is being put up by the Tories", when they know that the rents are being pushed up as a direct result of the Labour Government's 1969 Act, which was in addition to the Labour Government's 1965 Act.
Hon. Members opposite must know that every single private rented house in Scotland can have its rent increased under the Labour Government's Act. That is a fact which is not subject to qualification or argument. Both under this Bill and the Labour Government's Act, fair rents for private property are being introduced. But there is a difference. Under the previous legislation, the 1071 rents of some houses can go up from, say, 62½p to £3, £4 or £5 a week, and the tenants can either pay the increase phased over a period of three or five years or try to get supplementary benefit.
Supplementary benefit is a wonderful thing. It provides help to people in need, right on the borders of poverty—people who cannot afford to pay and who have little assets. But many people are excluded from it. In other words, for the vast majority of tenants no help is available from supplementary benefit because their incomes are too high or they have capital sums which they may have saved throughout their lives, perhaps £1,000 in the bank, which will cut them out. But this Bill introduces a rent rebate scheme for such tenants, which will mean that all those on limited income, which might be quite high, will be able to have a substantial part of their rent paid effectively by the Government.
§ Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie)If they take it.
§ Mr. TaylorThe hon. Gentleman is right, but surely he will accept that if we have a rent rebate scheme running on exactly the same basis as the rate rebate scheme, it will attract a far higher proportion of people than would perhaps consider supplementary benefit.
§ Mr. DempseyI appreciate that most applicants will accept supplementary benefit towards the cost of the rent or will accept the rent rebate scheme, but I have three cases in Coatbridge of pensioners who will not accept supplementary benefit; nor will they accept rent rebate.
§ Mr. TaylorI am sorry to hear that and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to persuade them to accept rent rebate. On the other hand, I hope that he will accept that, as against those three cases, there are hundreds who will accept rent rebate and that his constituents who are private tenants will, as a result of the Labour Government's legislation, be faced with substantial rent increases with no help available from a rent rebate scheme.
1072 It was not as if this fact was not drawn to the Labour Government's attention. We have all been re-reading the proceedings on the 1969 Act. The case for a rent rebate scheme under that Measure was specifically put to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, then Secretary of State, by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State in the Second Reading debate. My right hon. Friend specifically suggested a rent rebate scheme for private tenants. The response was no rebate scheme whatever. If the Opposition continue with their filibustering in the Committee, which is quite unjustifiable, they will bring about the situation where the rents of private tenants will go up, with no protection whatever from a rebate scheme.
§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) has been speaking for just over 20 minutes. He has not so far spoken at all to the Motion but entirely on the merits of the Bill.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) knows, that is a matter for the Chair. Quite a number of hon. Members have strayed in the debate, but the Chair is aware of the width of the speeches.
§ Mr. TaylorWe have had, I am afraid, that sort of thing in the Committee. We have had very wide speeches indeed, which has added to the length of the proceedings. But I think that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) would accept as directly relevant the point that if we do not pass the Motion and the Bill does not become law, the private tenants in Aberdeen will find their rents going up under the Labour Government's legislation with no protection whatever from a rent rebate scheme. The Opposition must face the straight issue that if they vote against the Motion they will be ensuring that the private tenants will have their rents increased without the protection of a rent rebate scheme.
§ Dr. Dickson MabonNonsense.
§ Mr. TaylorIt is not nonsense. I could introduce the hon. Gentleman to many families in my constituency whose 1073 rents are being put up at present under the Labour Government's legislation, under which there is no rebate scheme. But there is a rebate scheme in the Bill.
§ Dr. Dickson MabonThis has nothing to do with the Motion.
§ Mr. TaylorIt has everything to do with the Motion. The hon. Gentleman knows that if he and his hon. Friends carry on as they have been doing in Committee, this Bill will not become law this session—
§ Mr. David Lambie (Ayrshire, Central)Hear, hear.
§ Mr. TaylorThe hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) is honest. We know that he wants to stop the Bill. We know that if he had been in the last Parliament he would have tried, being honest, to stop the 1969 Act. This is another example of the appalling split in the Opposition. One thing which terrifies me is that if we had by any terrible chance a Labour Government there would be a state of anarchy in the country because they would not be able to get a majority on any issue, with people like the hon. Member for Greenock pursuing a right-wing policy and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and others like him constantly driving the Labour Party further to the left, towards the kind of Socialist policy he would like. We have the middle of the road people like the hon. Member for Greenock—the élitists—who are trying to make a social democratic policy, and we have others like the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire trying to get a full Socialist policy. It is this which has been holding up the proceedings in Committee and why the Motion is necessary.
One of the main reasons why the Motion is necessary and why we have to have so many such Motions is that, instead of discussing in Committee the real issues on Bills, we are constantly having the appalling and—to a true democrat—terrifying and perplexing spectacle of a constant cleavage and bickering between what one might call the left-wing of the Labour Party and the élitists of the party. We have intellectuals like the hon. Member for Greenock constantly putting forward one point of view and traditional Socialists like the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire putting forward another 1074 point of view. Instead of one Opposition, we have to deal with two. They are not only trying to fight the Conservative Government but each other. This is why we have to have the Motion.
I believe that, if we did not have this ideological cleavage in the Labour Party, we would have been able to get the Bill through, and many others, with no wasting of time but dealt with properly and expeditiously. We would not have needed a guillotine. I do not like the guillotine but so long as we have this terrible ideological clash in the Labour Party we will probably have to have the guillotine on almost every Bill. The hon. Member for Greenock could do something about it. If he and his hon. Friends could get together, in a Committee room upstairs, a meeting of back bench and Front Bench Labour Members, perhaps they could achieve a common Labour Party policy.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, who has just come back to the Chamber, could play a great part in this, because he has the seniority, the knowledge, the wisdom and the experience, having been here for many years. If he and his colleagues could get a Labour Party policy for housing, sound broadcasting or defence, we could get on with our legislation.
But in this Committee, every time that the right hon. Member for Greenock opens his mouth, he is constantly interrupted by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and others trying to put forward what they regard as the real, "auld licht" Labour policies. That is why our debates upstairs have not been as constructive as they should have been. That is why, although I regret it, we need this guillotine Motion. But so long as this dreadful situation continues in the Labour Party, a situation which is not good for democracy, we will have to have guillotines—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Greenock will have to face this. If, instead of trying to shout at me and at his hon. Friends the Members for Central Ayshire, and Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), he tried to find some way to smooth over the differences in the Labour Party, we could avoid this Motion and many others.
Without this Motion, our policy on council rents will not go through and the existing situation will remain. I have been appalled and perplexed to hear hon. Members opposite saying, "We do not 1075 want this Bill, we do not want the 50p per week per year rise in council rents until they become economic. The Labour Party is against it and will stop it." But we do not know the view of the party opposite.
If the Bill becomes law, will they bring down rents? [Hon. Members: "Yes."] There again we see it—the hon. Members for Central Ayrshire, and for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) say, "Yes," and there is stony silence from the Front Bench. Here again, the élitists are saying "We will carry on with the rent increases," and the "auld licht" Socialists, the men of the people, say, "We will not have any increases."
§ Mr. MacArthurWe also have the evidence of their performance in office.
§ Mr. TaylorThat is the thing. I have the pleasure of representing not only a large number of private tenants but also a large number of council and S.S.H.A. tenants. They know that the Labour Party in office had its own Government council houses, those of the Scottish Special Housing Association. The rents for those houses went up year after year as a direct result of directives pouring out from the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. He told the Chairman of the S.S.H.A. to raise rents.
We did not hear him do so, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie protested very effectively behind the scenes. I am sure that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, as a leading member of the Scottish Labour Party, said very effectively behind the scenes, "You must not do this". But they did. They put up the rents of the new towns and of the S.S.H.A. houses time after time. Will a Labour Government again say that the S.S.H.A. rents and the new town rents will rise, but that council rents will not? That is not a policy, and it would not be pursued by the party opposite.
My own tenants are concerned about this. I know that the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) also represents S.S.H.A. tenants. In Toryglen, a highly appropriately-named area in my constituency, there is a large number of council and S.S.H.A. tenants. S.S.H.A. rents were higher than council 1076 rents, since they were fixed by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, the Labour Secretary of State, while the council rents were fixed by a Labour and later by a Conservative Council. These tenants asked where the Labour Party stood on rents, and I am sure that they are still asking.
Without the Bill, we will have no consistency or agreement about a fair level of rents for council and S.S.H.A. tenants. The rate burden in Glasgow and other cities will continue to rise substantially. If we can make progress on this Bill, I hope that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will reform local Government finance. The rating system is creaking in every way. Of course it is unjust, and I hope that we can change it, but so long as we have it, we have this substantial burden shared by every ratepayer—and the burden of housing deficits is growing all the time.
As a result partly of the increased aid which will be coming from the Government and also as a result of changes in rents, we will be able to reduce this burden. This will help everyone—council tenant and owner-occupier alike. Otherwise, we will not have our rent rebate subsidy and local councils will have to carry the entire cost of their existing rebate schemes.
Like all Bills which involve increases in costs, this Bill is unpopular with some people. It is open to misinterpretation. I am afraid that that is why our proceedings have taken so long: the Bill has been misinterpreted and distorted. But I hope that hon. Members opposite will realise for once that this Bill is sensible, because it means that no one in Scotland will be asked to pay a rent he cannot afford. This is a great step forward.
I hope that hon. Members will try to resolve their cleavages and differences and that they will come back to the Committee determined to discuss, in a fair-minded, practical and responsible way, this very important Bill affecting many of our own constituents, many of the people of Scotland. But I fear that, even despite this Motion, we will still have unfair opposition, constant bickering and battling in the party opposite. But I hope, instead, for constructive and united opposition.
1077 Some of my hon. Friends, who have patiently sat through these Committee debates day by day, showing great responsibility, have found it very distressing to witness the destruction of a great party taking place on the benches opposite. We have not had discussions on housing or rents. We have simply had the self-destruction of what was once a great Scottish and British party.
Let us get on with the Bill. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite resolve their differences and let us have united opposition. I do not know whether we ever will have it, but if the Motion can play some part in it, it will be a job well done.
§ 5.48 p.m.
§ Mr. David Lambie (Central Ayrshire)I am grateful for the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor). I should first like to congratulate the Lord President, and also the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Colonel Colin Mitchell) on his first big important job in the House. When I saw him getting his orders from the Whip to search the tea rooms and smoking rooms for extra speakers I thought that he must be looking back with some nostalgia on his days in Aden, when he could order the troops and guns and tanks into the Arab quarters to sort out the battles. He will find greater difficulty in sorting the troops and the Arabs here, especially from the smoke rooms in the later hours of the night.
The hon. Member for Cathcart has spoken for more than 25 minutes and has done nothing but criticise me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kil-marnock (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon).
We in the Labour Party like discussion and debate, but at the end of the day we accept the majority decision. I accept the policy of the Labour Party as it is decided by the majority. If the hon. Member for Cathcart had showed the same loyalty to the Conservative Party he would still have been in the Government. If there is any hon. Member who can ride two horses at one time in this circus it is the hon. Member for Cathcart—
§ Mr. Edward TaylorAs the hon. Gentleman is so knowledgeable, will he tell 1078 me what is the Labour Party's policy on council rents? Will the Labour Party bring rents down again, or not?
§ Mr. LambieI do not want to be ruled out of order by moving away from the question under discussion.
When I read my Sunday Mail last Sunday I was nearly crying about the drastic increases being imposed on some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I was interested to know what he would do about it. Up in Glasgow he is a Socialist. It is hard to get to the left of him. When he goes into Castle milk he is against rent increases, but in Tory areas he is in favour of rent increases and against rate increases. He has a different policy according to the area he is in. No hon. Member can gauge the political complexion of an area more quickly than the hon. Member for Cathcart. He is even interested in developments at Hunterston now, but at the time I wanted to get a policy statement on Hunterston from the Government when he was a Scottish Minister he was not at all interested in the developments at Hunterston. He will get his just, deserts in the next General Election. The number of Tory supporters in Scotland is very low, and he will be one of the 23 Conservative Members representing Scottish constituencies who will lose his seat.
The Lord President said that the Government have the right to get their legislation through Parliament. As a democrat I accept that, with the qualification that that applies only when the Government have a mandate for the legislation. The Government have no mandate from Scotland for this type of legislation. The Scottish people at the last General Election voted overwhelmingly against the Government's policy.
The Government have recognised the difference between Scotland and England by publishing two Bills, one for England and Wales and one for Scotland, and rightly so. The housing conditions in Scotland are totally different from those in England and Wales. In Scotland 80 per cent. of the people live in tenanted property and are directly affected by the Bill. In England and Wales more than half of the people are owner-occupiers. The Government between now and 1975–76 are phasing into Scotland the conditions that will prevail from October of this year 1079 in England and Wales. Conditions in Scotland are different, and that is why I object to the guillotine Motion.
I have been consistent in my objection. When the Scottish Standing Committee discussed the first Sittings Motion I wanted the Committee to meet once a month and not twice a week. I wanted time to consult the local authorities within my constituency. Everyone in Scotland, including local councillors, has been brainwashed by the Government's propaganda into believing that the Bill is a good Bill. There have been programmes on television and radio and newspaper article after newspaper article telling us that for the first time the Government will help tenants. We heard this today from the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). But the main aim of the Bill is to spend more money. We have been told that the main aim of the Bill is to reduce the rates—
§ Mr. MacArthurThe two go together.
§ Mr. LambieThey do not go together. Until recently the Scottish people have been brainwashed by this barrage of propaganda, but now things are changing. During the weekend I attended two meetings, one in Irvine Newtown and the other in Stewart on in Ayrshire. We used to think as politicians that people would no longer come to public meetings now that they had television, but we are seeing a revival of public meetings and they are being attended by large numbers of people. The people of Scotland, because of the discussions in the Scottish Standing Committee, are beginning to realise that the Bill is not a Bill to enable the Government to spend more money but a Bill to increase rents for private tenants and council tenants.
We need more time, because there are many suspect Clauses. Only today when the Committee was discussing the Schedule dealing with rent rebate schemes we discovered that if a son or daughter has a salary higher than the parent's salary that son or daughter will be deemed to be the tenant of the house and any application for a rent rebate will not be based on the income of the tenant as it has been until now but on the income of the son or daughter who is deemed to be the tenant. This is a 1080 reversal to the means test policies of the hungry 1930s when sons and daughters were forced to move from their parents' house to allow their parents to qualify for the maximum benefit. All my hon. Friends must know the suffering which was caused to families when officially sons and daughters were forced to move but unofficially they remained within the house. To justify an allowance it was necessary to bring the means test man into the house to search out the sons and daughters.
The Under-Secretary of State said this morning that we were too concerned about this and that we need not worry because the Government Ministers were all responsible men. If we were dealing with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock or my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock I could accept that, but we are dealing with diehard Tories who do not look with favour on the people whom I represent. We are dealing with the most reactionary Tory Government this century. We must look at each piece of legislation as it will be applied by diehard Tories, and not by sensible Labour representatives.
There is another provision in the rent rebate scheme which we have not yet reached in Committee and which relates to Schedule 2. Let us take the example of a couple who have lived in a house for 30 or 40 years and who have reared a family there. They consider that dwelling as a family house. However, when the sons and daughters grow up and marry, the old couple are left in occupation of that four or five-roomed house. If their rent is increased as under the Bill it undoubtedly will be, that couple will not qualify for rent rebate because it will be considered that the house is under-occupied. The couple are likely to be told that all they need is a two- or three-roomed house for their present needs.
It is strange to observe the attitude of the Tories when dealing with the needs of working people as opposed to their attitude when dealing with the needs of others. When the Under-Secretary of State opens a housing development in his constituency, involving properties going at £20,000 and comprising 10 or 12 rooms for use perhaps by one couple, that is regarded by the Conservatives as good business. Furthermore, 1081 those owners will receive income tax relief. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Mother well (Mr. Lawson) said that on the present standard rate of income tax such owners would receive over £6 a week in tax remission. In such a case there will be no question of their being asked about the size of the house or about the number of people occupying it. However, when it comes to working people who occupy a four-roomed house, on which perhaps money has been spent over the years on modernisation, they are told to get out of that property into a smaller house and are not given a rebate.
For all these reasons we need more time to discuss the Bill's implications. We might lose in Standing Committee because there is a built-in Tory majority of two. And we shall soon be seeing hordes of English Members flooding into the Chamber at 7 o'clock having been summoned from the various tea bars and smoking rooms, and again we shall be defeated.
§ Mr. MacArthurSince we are a little confused about who speaks for Labour, would the hon. Gentleman make clear whether it is the Labour Party's intention to abolish tax relief on mortgages and on expenditure on house improvements?
§ Mr. LambieI am dealing with the point which I was trying to develop. The hon. Member will have plenty of opportunity in the Standing Committee, if he decides to attend it, to ask me such questions and I will attempt to answer them.
§ Mr. MacArthurWhat is Labour's policy on this?
§ Mr. LambieThe Labour Government's policy was to help all sections of the population, whether owner-occupiers or tenants. As I was saying, although we might lose Divisions both in Standing Committee and in the House, we shall not lose in Scotland. Following the results of the municipal elections on the first Tuesday in May, hardly a Tory councillor will be left in the central industrial belt of Scotland. Indeed in the Cathcart constituency no Tory councillor will be left.
§ Mr. RossMy hon. Friend will no doubt appreciate that even in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) four 1082 Tories have decided not to seek re-election.
§ Mr. LambieI believe they have a good deal of sense to take such a decision. We shall win the local elections on the first Tuesday in May. If that is not sufficient to make the Government change their policy on this Bill, and indeed to withdraw it, the people of Scotland will have to take some other action. The work people and trade unionists of Scotland will not see their standard of living reduced by increases in their rents and at the same time will not wish to see the Government seeking to enforce a wages norm. If the Government are concerned about inflation and wage increases, they must be concerned about rent increases
§ Mr. MacArthurrose—
§ Mr. LambieI will not give way again to the hon. Gentleman. If the Government want to see unrest in every area of Scotland, then let them go ahead with the Bill. But if they want a period of peace to consolidate the policies they are said to believe in, then they should withdraw the Bill and be fair to 80 per cent. of the people of Scotland. If they seek to pursue such methods as this guillotine Motion, then they are only leading for trouble in the streets of Scotland.
§ 6.6 p.m.
§ Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne (South Angus)I am delighted that I have been called to speak in this debate following the speech of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), who at least has the merit of having been consistent, in direct contrast to many Members on his side. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's attitude shines out like a good deed in a naughty world. He said that the Labour Government's policy was to help all sections of the community. I wish he had gone on to explain why the tenants of privately rented accommodation were not included in that category, because they got no help from the Labour Government.
§ Mr. LambieThe only reason the Labour Government did not need to help tenants of private properties in Scotland was that they did not need rent rebates. The average standard rent in the controlled sector of private property in Scotland was £16 per year, and on such a rent it is hardly necessary to have a rent rebate. Such houses are now being rented at £250 to £300 a year. This is 1083 why rent rebates are now needed. In the private sector the Labour Government carried out the policy which we have already tried to carry out in the town of Saltcoats.
§ Mr. Bruce-GardyneI did not know the hon. Gentleman was going to make a second speech. He should have listened more carefully to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who mentioned the effects of the 1969 housing legislation. Had the hon. Gentleman been in the House at the time I am sure that, in view of his well-known consistency, he would have voted against that legislation. However, he was not in the House in those days and we did not have the pleasure of watching that experience.
The hon. Gentleman was somewhat mystified by the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) that more money would be spent under the Bill's provisions. The hon. Gentleman failed to see how one could combine that suggestion with lower rates. Of course it would be impossible to combine if rate income were the only source of money for housing finance. The point my hon. Friend was making quite clearly, however, was that there would be a very large increase in the Exchequer contribution, which is the other element in housing finance. Therefore the two decisions are perfectly consistent, as I think the hon. Member will realise if he studies the matter a bit more closely.
I should like to join in the welcome which several hon. Members on both sides of the House have given to my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on his appointment. I think we all recognise that the reputation he has built up since June, 1970, in his previous appointment gives us every reason for full confidence in his ability to discharge his new responsibilities with a due sense of fairness towards both sides of the House. I am sure we all wish him all good fortune in the duties that have fallen to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart explained very clearly, I thought, several of the reasons for this guillotine Motion. He drew particular attention to the problem of cleavage. I 1084 am slightly concerned about this and I want to ask him about it afterwards. What concerns me is the question of presentation: if it is a problem of cleavage, how does one present the body to deal with the cleavage from the point of view of the guillotine? I am sure he will be able to sort this out for me. He undoubtedly drew attention to one of the reasons for the Motion that we have before us this afternoon.
I thought that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was in his historical vein this afternoon, which is always very agreeable. We were promised by the Leader of the Opposition last week that there would be tremendous sound and fury this afternoon. We did not have very much of that from the right hon. Gentleman, and that is very understandable because the reasons for the need to introduce the guillotine are fairly clear.
In the first place it is worth speculating what action in housing the party opposite would have taken if the country had been unwise enough to elect it as the Government at the last election. I believe it would have been found that as far as Scotland was concerned we would have had proposals which did not differ vastly from the legislation at present before us. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire would have been deeply disappointed, and perhaps bitterly opposed, but I think that is the sort of legislation we could have expected because the dilemma of housing finance in Scotland is broadly summed up by the existence of a situation in which, as the hon. Gentleman knows so well, there is an average level of council house rents in the Borough of Saltcoats of about the cost of two packets of cigarettes a week, while at the other end of the scale private landlords, elderly people and pensioners, in my constituency have single properties, newly built just before the war with all mod. con, which they are expected to maintain in a decent condition on a similar rent of the equivalent of two packets of cigarettes a week. Of course it cannot be done.
The third element in the housing situation which I understand the Bill is designed to remedy—and not before time, as I believe hon. Members on both sides 1085 of the House recognise—is the situation whereby the need to finance the deficits on housing revenue accounts pushes up the rate burden in the centres of our big cities to such an extent that industry and commerce are driven away, sometimes to areas in the South where the rate levels in the centres of the big cities are much lower. In my view, this background is one of the things that explains why we hardly had the sound and fury from the right hon. Gentleman that we had been led to expect in the trailer offered by the Leader of the Opposition last week.
I believe that the real reason behind the need for this guillotine today is that it was demanded by the English colleagues of hon. Gentlemen opposite who felt that in some sense their Scottish colleagues, for very good reason, did not have their heart in the operation the parallel of which they reckoned they were themselves conducting south of the Border. My right hon. Friend in his opening remarks referred to the attempt to arrive at a voluntary timetable. I submit that if it had not been for the pressures from south of the Border on the Opposition side of the House we should have had such an agreement, but any thought of such an agreement was anathema to the hon. Members opposite from south of the Border and therefore they were told that it could not be done.
I think we all know that there is invariably a great deal of hypocrisy uttered on occasions of guillotine Motions. None of us particularly likes having to secure the passage of a guillotine Motion through the House and it is invariably the subject of a great deal of hypocritical oratory. We have had a fair share of that this afternoon. I hope we shall soon come to an end of it. All I would say is that I am not surprised that this debate has lacked some of the excitement and fury that we were promised only a week ago.
§ 6.16 p.m.
§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)After the speech from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) I was almost at the stage of revising the old adage that one volunteer is worth two pressed men because he was pressed into the breach to fill up time for his side of the House—and he did a remarkably good job. But the speech of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) confirmed 1086 the rule that a volunteer is worth two pressed men because if ever there was a speech from a pressed man, that was it.
Many hon. Members have paid tribute to the Lord President of the Council and welcomed him in his new post. Some of this may have been normal parliamentary courtesy—I do not know; but I wonder whether it is perhaps significant that, having come from his previous job where his first objective was to curtail the power of the trade unions, the right hon. Gentleman now has it as his first job as Lord President to curtail discussion on the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. But perhaps I read too much into the coincidence—and perhaps not.
The right hon. Gentleman made some rather extraordinary remarks. He suggested, for example, that we could have as many sittings as we liked once this guillotine or timetable Motion was through. All we had to do was get together through what are called, I think, the usual channels and all would be well. That would be very nice. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to study the proceedings of the Committee upstairs he would have found that there has been the greatest difficulty in keeping his own side there. Time and time again it has been necessary for the Government Whip to go outside and drum people up in order to keep the quorum. There may have been some light-hearted banter aimed at Opposition Members for leaving the Committee, but it is not our duty to keep the Committee in being; it is the Government's responsibility to see that there is a quorum in order to get the Bill through.
If, as the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur)—who I am sorry is not in his place—says, the Government want the Bill, why the reluctance of Government back benchers to be present in the Committee? Why the reluctance today of Government back benchers to stand up for their Government and for the Bill? Why, when we had Second Reading, did we have the very same problem? Why, when we discussed the White Paper in the Scottish Grand Committee, was it very difficult to get Government back benchers to speak? The truth—and this is why the Government are bringing forward this Motion—is that Government back 1087 benchers do not give a damn. They are not concerned one way or the other whether the Bill goes through. That is why it is necessary to press this Motion—
§ Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith (Glasgow, Hill head)If the hon. Gentleman is really interested in having answers to his questions and if they are not simply rhetorical, I can tell him that the real reason is that we are bored to death listening to his speeches.
§ Mr. HughesThen there must be a split in the party opposite. Without wishing to appear immodest, perhaps I might point out to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill head (Mr. Galbraith) that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on a number of occasions has complimented me and other hon. Members on my side of the Committee for the quality of our speeches and the thoughtful manner in which we have presented them. The hon. Gentleman has thanked the Opposition for moving Amendments. On several occasions he has referred to the interesting debates that we have had. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's courteous remarks show that behind his bland exterior there lurks the true Tory that we always knew existed. To begin with, we were almost inclined to believe the hon. Gentleman. However, our belief in him has been dashed to the ground. We know now that what he says is all soporific nonsense.
The Lord President of the Council should appreciate what is happening under the Bill. The whole legislation from 1919 onwards is being examined. In Schedule 1 and Schedule 11 we find that something like 34 Acts are being repealed in whole or in part and something like 36 different pieces of legislation giving subsidies to build houses are all being changed and replaced. It is necessary to have lengthy discussions in an attempt to find out what is behind the Government's proposals.
Whatever right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may say, we are not getting answers to our questions. For example, the Government have not told us how much they intend to spend on housing in Scotland this year, next year or the year after.
I am not sure how much time remains to me. I do not wish to disturb the usual 1088 channels too much and to remove from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) and the Under-Secretary the right of reply. However, perhaps I might confine myself in the time remaining to giving what I believe to be the reason why the Government have now moved their Motion. In my view, it has nothing to do with the time. It is that we are now reaching the stage in the Bill where the truth will out. The early part of the Bill showed subsidies. Now we are coming to that part of it which deals with the determination of rents and the method by which rent rebates and allowances will be operated. The truth is beginning to come out. Because we are beginning to get at the truth, the Government are running away. That is why they have introduced this Motion. I hope they do not think that they can get away with this, because we shall fight them at every opportunity.
§ 6.24 p.m.
§ Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock)I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out '27th day of April' and insert '18th day of May'.
We on this side of the House have confined ourselves to short speeches making pertinent points against the Motion. That contrasts vividly with the lengthy, cumbersome and repetitive speeches we have heard from the Government benches. That in itself bears witness to what would have happened in Committee if hon. Members opposite had participated. However, most of the argument has been confined to Opposition Members and the Minister. Other hon Members opposite have participated only rarely. It has been left to Opposition Members to move the only constructive Amendments to the Bill.
I join in the congratulations offered to the new Leader of the House. May I point out to him, however, that the best test of a Committee is whether it is by synthesis making a better Bill? We have managed to do that on only three occasions, and they have been the result of the joint efforts of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
Unfortunately, at the beginning of our proceedings, we were put off by the Minister's attitude towards us. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill we have been cursed with novices. The Leader of 1089 the House is himself a novice in this matter. He has just assumed the office of Leader of the House and he inherited the present situation. However, I cannot understand why he was not able to respond to the two Opposition Amendments on the Order Paper. We were not told why the first Amendment was not reasonable. The Leader of the House spent time telling us that he wanted a voluntary timetable of reasonable duration. What is unreasonable about 16th May as opposed to the end of April? He did not even give us the courtesy of a reply.
What about the second Amendment, which asks for three days on Report? Again, nothing was said by the Leader of the House about it. Is it unreasonable to ask for three days on Report? This is a fundamental Bill. It is just as fundamental as the English Bill. Yet the English Bill's Report stage is given more time. I gave notice of our second Amendment on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends last Thursday, when I said that we should want three days on Report. Again the Leader of the House, no doubt because he is a new arrival, has made no comment. So we are treated badly.
When the right hon. Gentleman was appointed Leader of the House, I thought we should see an attempt to call off this Motion and that perhaps negotiations would be reopened through the usual channels. I see no reason why we have to persist with the Motion. There is no reason why we should not discuss a timetable and see how far we can get. I agree that the Government are entitled to get their Bill. All Government's are entitled to get their Bills. Equally, the Opposition are entitled to ask for and to get proper consideration of the time for discussion.
Putting aside Clause 1, which is an introductory, paving Clause, the initial Clauses in the Bill are vitally important. No one can deny, for example, that Clause 2 is vitally important. It represents £55 million. At the end of the time of the Bill is represents £75 million according to the rising level of subsidies, thanks to the structure of the subsidies created over the last 40 years which have added very year to the rise in subsidies in Scotland. Why should not we take a long time discussing what is the 1090 critical Clause of the Bill wiping out these subsidies?
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) warned us earlier that there will be many more Motions like the present one. He said that there would be a similar Motion on every Bill if the Opposition did not behave themselves. That, of course, depends on one's standards of behaviour. But no doubt the National Health Service (Scotland) Bill will be the next one. If the Leader of the House is to bring forward other Motions of this sort, he will have to make a qualitative as well as a quantitative assessment of the number of Clauses dealt with before doing so. I am sure he will accept that. After all, he is an intelligent man.
We have had our ups and downs in Committee. We have witnessesd the activities of the dormouse, the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who was again active today. He appears to suffer from some ear, nose and throat complaint. His explosions in Committee consistently distracted us from our duties.
The hon. Member for Cathcart has been guilty of extremely bad-mannered behaviour in the Committee. In the view of many hon. Members, he should have been expelled from the Committee on a number of occasions for the way he behaved. I thought that his manners today were deplorable. He did not hear the opening speeches. He made the longest speech in the debate and in that time he managed not to understand what the debate was about. He gave a long history of previous Acts, omitting parts which did not please him.
The hon. Gentleman never reads reports. He finds them embarrassing. However, perhaps I might point out to him that the Francis Committee pointed out on page 180 of its report, dealing with the level of registered rents, that the experience of the Committee up to the time that the report was published was that
The average increase for the whole of Scotland was £14, being lowest in Glasgow (£11) and highest in the Highlands and Islands (£26).These are not the figures that we are discussing today. Now that these matters have been swept away, these figures of 1091 rises in rents to the controlled and registered sector of private housing will go up enormously.We on this side have been accused by the hon. Member for Cathcart of creating alarm and despondency all over Scotland. It is extraordinary how one can create such alarm and despondency and yet be told by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) that this is the most popular Bill that any Government have ever produced. It is remarkable that in the same debate their two best debaters—admittedly it is a small team, but they are the best on their side—should get up and proclaim that the Bill, thanks to our machinations and wickedness, is unpopular. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire told us that Scotland wants the Bill. We had the MacArthur tones ringing through the House and down the glens," Scotland wants the Bill".
All I can say is that when the people of Scotland understand the Bill, they will hit back at those who have sought to impose it upon them. It will be the Rent Act, 1957, all over again. The party opposite will race like mad when election time gets near to ameliorate the rent increases which will come out of the Bill. Our case, which we have been denied pursuing in Committee to get a series of Amendments to the fair rents system, will have to be conceded.
The Leader of the House does not know of our proceedings. He is a novice Leader, and we have a novice Minister and a novice Whip. The novice Whip believed in the rule one, two, three: proposer, Minister's reply, move the closure. The hon. Gentleman did that five times. No wonder I became ill. I could not believe it. However, there was obviously a change of heart. The hon. Gentleman got to know the procedure and realised that somebody else was entitled to speak apart from the proposer, the Minister's reply and the closure. At that stage we got some sense. The novice Whip has become seasoned. However, the novice Minister's manner is on the record for all to see. At the beginning his manner was really cavalier. Only now is he beginning to realise that if he wants his Bill he has to bend to the views of the Committee, to the idiosyncrasies of 1092 different Members, and to the mood of the moment, and to listen to the general feeling in Committee rather than to his own preferences dictated by his own activity. The Leader of the House must know that we have been cursed by these matters all the time.
When arguing on the guillotine Motion we are bound to talk about the substance of the matter, but on the Bill we are faced with immense contradictions in the matters put before us. The Bill is apiece of flotsam, as the Leader of the House knows, washed up from the mini-Budget of 1970. It is a save-money Bill. The Minister—he made a speech on Saturday—rejoices in saying that the Bill will vote more money. However, the basic point of the Bill is to cut the housing commitment, not only in relative but in absolute terms, in housing investment in Scotland.
My authority for that is no less a distinguished person than the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, speaking in the Scottish Grand Committee on 27th July, 1971, said,
If I may make clear what I have said already"—that shows that he has not—
§ Dr. MabonYes, crystal clear—
what we are intending to do is redirect the money which is coming from the taxpayer, from the Government, to Scotland, and not to reduce it.That was one statement. Now comes the big bit:As I said, it is likely to be increased in the next few years "—that is quite true—but had the present system of subsidies continued"—Clause 2—it would have escalated into enormous figures which I believe no Government, of any colour, could have continued to bear."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee: 27th July. 1971, c 17.]The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to that belief, but he is admitting that if Clause 2 were not in the Bill and if the Bill were not cast as it is the figures would be too enormous to bear. In other words, when the period of the Bill is over, we shall see the housing subsidies from the public purse going down.
§ Mr. MacArthurNo.
§ Mr. MacArthurNo.
§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell)The hon. Gentleman read out precisely what I said and then read into it a completely different interpretation.
§ Dr. MabonI will read it again;
…but had the present system of subsidies continued"—these 15 subsidies sustained by the Acts of Parliament which my right hon. Friend showed the House today—it would have escalated into enormous figures which I believe no Government, of any colour, could have continued to bear.The right hon. Gentleman must realise that the value of money deteriorates. Surely he knows that has occurred under every Government since the time of Elizabeth I, so let us not argue about that. In real terms, we must judge one year's figures against another. In real terms this subsidy is going down. That is why I find it incredible that we should have a guillotine Motion and the Bill after the Chancellor's speech. The Chancellor made a proposal which was acceptable in all quarters of the House. It was the most popular proposal in the whole country. I refer to the proposal dealing with personal direct taxation. The right hon. Gentleman reminded us that our income tax system had got into such a state and our numerous subsidies and means tests, now numbering 43, of which this is the forty-fourth, should be married together and some sanity brought into the regions where the two systems exist side by side. The right hon. Gentleman said:…we have two systems existing side by side—a taxation system which embodies a set of reliefs and allowances based on one set of principles, and a social security system which embodies a different set of benefits and allowances based on a different set of principles."—[Official Report, 21st March, 1972; Vol. 833, c. 1383.]This is a matter on which the House of Commons agrees. The Select Committee is agreed by both sides. It was welcomed by the Opposition when the Chancellor proposed it. I hope that the House of Commons will deal with it man- 1094 fully. Why, then, do we have to debate other means tests? Why cannot we get on with this proposal? Why cannot we withdraw the Bill and get on with the wider issue dealing with housing expenditure? After all, this is supposed to be a Bill to save Scotland's housing. That is what the hon. Member for Perth and East Pet shire said. Are we having more houses built in Scotland today? The numbers are going down.
§ Mr. Gordon CampbellThere have been more starts.
§ Dr. MabonThe programme has fallen by one-third. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the figures for the first quarter of this year he will see that they are going down. The Bill and all that it represents will not get us more houses.
The Leader of the House should think again. He may not be able to withdraw the Motion now. However, I ask him to accept one or both of our Amendments at this stage. If he accepts one or both of them, it will be a real gesture towards getting the rest of the Bill through in a properly debated manner such as it deserves because, bad as the Bill is, it certainly deserves full examination.
§ 6.38 p.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger)The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) in his usual inimitable fashion has told us the good news and made clear that he is once more back in good form. We are glad to see him back after his illness for such a long section of the Committee stage. He seemed to be in good form today. He is so anxious to maintain his rather precarious perch on the Opposition Front Bench that he seemed at times to be more like a linnet sitting up there and singing his way, he hopes, to better things. [Interruption.] "Cheep" is perhaps the right comment.
The hon. Gentleman asked us to consider the first of his two Amendments. I should like to start by echoing what my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said at the beginning of the debate. I really think that, by any standards, the conduct of the Government in patiently waiting for the slowness of the first stages of the Bill has made the arguments against a guillotine extremely thin 1095 indeed. It is a wonder that the Government and my right hon. and hon. Friends have had the patience not to introduce a timetable Motion long ago.
We have sat in Committee and have listened Tuesday after Tuesday and Thursday after Thursday to a lot of speeches. Many of them covered the same ground as the previous speaker in a rather different way, and repeated points which were dealt with earlier. We have bent over backwards on the Government side of the Committee to give the utmost rope to hon. Gentlemen opposite to make the most they could of what they feel is the most important task of opposing the Bill. When the figures are looked at, to accept this Amendment and add another long section, which I calculate to be nine more days of debate, and a further goodness knows how many hours, would be gilding the lily.
When we think of the previous Scottish Bills we have had in recent years and see the time that has been taken for them, it will be seen that the present Government has bent over backwards to be fair. There was the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill in 1969, during the time in office of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). That had 106 Clauses and ten Schedules, a considerably greater number of Clauses and Schedules than we have in this Bill. That was completed in 11 sittings because the Opposition took a constructive attitude and debated it sensibly throughout.
The Housing (Scotland) Bill in 1968–69 had 70 Clauses—very nearly as many as we have in this Bill—and seven Schedules. That was completed in six sittings because the Opposition of the day discussed it sensibly and constructively throughout its passage in Committee. The Social Work (Scotland) Bill, a most important and wide-ranging Measure in 1967, had 102 Clauses and eight Schedules and was completed in 13 sittings.
With this Bill we have sat through 26 sittings in the Committee stage. [An Hon. Member: "Twenty-seven sittings."] Including today's sitting, we will make it 27. For a Bill which has 70-odd Clauses plus a number of Schedules, we have gone beyond what anyone could have asked us to do to be reasonable and fair to the 1096 Opposition and give them a chance to make a job of the opposition to the Bill.
The reason we have come to this trouble with the opposition to the Bill is that hon. Gentlemen opposite have found that the only way opposition to the Bill works is if one leaves aside the facts and stick to rhetoric. It is grand with rhetoric. It is grand when people produce fine phrases. It all sounds lovely, until one comes down to the facts in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who spoke this afternoon, covered a very wide field. He pointed out, as clearly as he did in the Standing Committee, the effect this will have on private tenants in Scotland. Private tenants, who get no rent allowances, now have to pay the full cost of fair rents being assessed on them under the legislation put through by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock in his time. Under this Bill they will get rent allowances for the first time. The party opposite would deny them those rent allowances and prevent them from getting them. I am sure everyone knows this very well indeed.
We have at least achieved something. We have shown and demonstrated to the House as a whole what we in the Committee have become very familiar with: that is, what it is like to be in a class under the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. That has been an experience. He has practised all the schoolmaster's arts on us. He has wagged his finger at us. He has accused us of muttering. He took his own hon. Friends to task when they were speaking for saying the wrong things. There was hardly a sentence the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) could get out one day without having his coat-tail pulled and a growling intervention from his right hon. Friend. At one point the right hon. Gentleman the schoolmaster even threatened to send me out of the room.
We have had a picture of what life would be like in holy Willie's academy. He has had in the common room behind him a talented staff as well. There is the hon. Member for Mother well (Mr. Lawson), who is not here, obviously heading the classics department, with his stern and unbending devotion to the great truths of ancient history and so on. We have 1097 the bouncing, ambitious second master to this academy, waiting for his chief to make way for him to take over, popular with all the pupils, governors and an absolute wow on parent's day. No mother can come to the school without having a chat with the second master and having things like that put right.
Then we have the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes). He must head the science department. He is a little inclined to be over-technical, a little inclined to disappear in a white coat and to conduct meaningless experiments, and appear in time for the Division. Nevertheless he is a valuable member.
Then there is the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), without whom no description of the party opposite is complete. He may be head of the geography department. His geography is pretty queer at times. If he did not indulge in his penchant for criticising the headmaster all the time, he might get on better in the school.
Finally, the most essential person in any school, posted strategically as always near the door—I do not see him here at the moment—is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone). He must surely be the janitor, a job I am sure he does better than anybody else.
§ Mr. YoungerThe House would not expect me to give way any further on that.
In considering this guillotine we have to bear in mind that there has not been any sense of urgency in getting on with the Bill from the party opposite during the Committee stage. When we started we discussed the first group of Amendments. We got on to those on the second sitting. After the long prolonged discussion on the sittings Motion, the right hon. Gentleman began moving his Amendments.
At the third sitting, at 10.40 a.m. just after it started, I rose and substantially accepted all that was in that group of Amendments. I said I would look at two of them. The other two I accepted straight off. I thought that was the way to get progress. That was at 10.40 a.m. At 1 o'clock we were still discussing that group of Amendments. That is the way 1098 I was rewarded for trying to help the Opposition to get on with the Committee.
§ Mr. YoungerThe headmaster cannot stop me speaking. I am allowed to make my speech just the same as he was.
The right hon. Gentleman said that I thanked him for his speeches. He started off the Committee stage by describing me as a master of the parliamentary arts. I thought that was overdoing it.
This guillotine Motion has been brought in very reluctantly by the Government. There are only two reasons why I think the Opposition must have felt it necessary to force us to this point. The first could be that they felt if they forced us to the guillotine, this was the only way they could make any impact on a Bill which was otherwise so complicated and which had a lot of discussion to it. There is another reason, touched on by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North. Those of the party opposite who read this will have realised very quickly that successful opposition to it depended on not too much detail in the Bill seeing the light of day. That is why the party opposite have pushed this guillotine through—
§ Mr. McElhoneNonsense!
§ Mr. Younger—before we come to the point of discussing the vitally important details of the rebate scheme which will affect so many people in need in Scotland and at the point where we are going to discuss the precise details of the needs allowances and their effect on the tenants in privately rented property who get no help at present. At this point the party opposite succeeded in forcing us into a guillotine so that the Bill cannot be as properly discussed as it ought to be. I hoped I should never have to come to the Dispatch Box in this House and propose a guillotine Motion.
I must tell hon. Gentlemen opposite that, the Government having bent over backwards to help them make a good job of opposing the Bill, they have made a thorough shambles of their job and they ought to be ashamed of themselves. We have introduced this timetable Motion in order to bring the consideration of the Bill to a conclusion. Even those 1099 in Scotland who are opposed to the principle of the Bill are begging us to get on with the job and complete it. If we get this timetable Motion through and get a sensible conclusion to the Commitee stage of the Bill we shall be thanked by everyone in Scotland, and particularly by those who will have to implement the Bill.
I am sorry we cannot accept the Amendment and that we must divide the House on it this afternoon, but we have
§ to bear in mind that this is legislation which we have put before the House and which the House has approved. It is our job to get the Bill through, and that we intend to do. The Motion is essential for that, and I ask the House to approve it this afternoon.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 287.
1101| Division No. 114.] | AYES | [6.50 p.m. |
| Albu, Austen | Edelman, Maurice | Latham, Arthur |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Lawson, George |
| Allen, Scholefield | Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Leadbitter, Ted |
| Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) | Ellis, Tom | Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| Armstrong, Ernest | English, Michael | Leonard, Dick |
| Ashley, Jack | Ewing, Harry | Lestor, Miss Joan |
| Ashton, Joe | Faulds, Andrew | Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold |
| Atkinson, Norman | Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. | Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood) | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) |
| Barnes, Michael | Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Lipton, Marcus |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Lomas, Kenneth |
| Beaney, Alan | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Loughlin, Charles |
| Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Foley, Maurice | Lyon, Alexander W. (York) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Foot, Michael | Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) |
| Bishop, E. S. | Ford, Ben | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Forrester, John | McCann, John |
| Boardman, H. (Leigh) | Fraser, John (Norwood) | McCartney, Hugh |
| Booth, Albert | Freeson, Reginald | McElhone, Frank |
| Bottomley. Rt. Hn. Arthur | Galpern, Sir Myer | McGuire, Michael |
| Bradley, Tom | Garrett, W. E. | Mackenzie, Gregor |
| Broughton. Sir Alfred | Gilbert, Dr. John | Mackie, John |
| Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) | Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) | Mackintosh, John P. |
| Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Golding, John | Maclennan, Robert |
| Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) | Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) |
| Buchan, Norman | Gourlay, Harry | McNamara, J. Kevin |
| Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) | Grant, George (Morpeth) | Mahon, Simon (Bootle) |
| Butler. Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) | Mallalieu. J. P. W. (Huddersfield. E.) |
| Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James | Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) | Marks, Kenneth |
| Campbell. I. (Dunbartonshire. W.) | Griffiths, Will (Exchange) | Marquand, David |
| Cant, R. B. | Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) | Marsden, F. |
| Carmichael, Neil | Hamling, William | Marshall, Dr. Edmund |
| Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) | Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) | Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) | Hardy, Peter | Mayhew, Christopher |
| Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Meacher, Michael |
| Clark, David (Colne Valley) | Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith | Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert |
| Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) | Hattersley, Roy | Mendelson, John |
| Cohen, Stanley | Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis | Mikardo, Ian |
| Concannon, J. D. | Heffer, Eric S. | Millan, Bruce |
| Conlan, Bernard | Hilton, W. S. | Milne, Edward |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Hooson, Emlyn | Mitchell, R.C. (S'hampton, Itchen |
| Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) | Horam, John | Molloy, William |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Howell, Denis (Small Heath) | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) |
| Cronin, John | Huckfield, Leslie | Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) |
| Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard | Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Moyle, Roland |
| Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) | Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| Cunningham. Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Murray, Ronald King |
| Dalyell, Tam | Hunter, Adam | Oakes, Gordon |
| Darling. Rt. Hn. George | Irvine, Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Kill) | Ogden, Eric |
| Davidson, Arthur | Janner, Greville | O'Halloran, Michael |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) | Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas | O'Malley, Brian |
| Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Oram, Bert |
| Deakins, Eric | Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) | Orbach, Maurice |
| de Freitas. Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Orme, Stanley |
| Delargy, H. J. | Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) | Oswald, Thomas |
| Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton) |
| Dempsey, James | Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.) | Padley, Walter |
| Doig, Peter | Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) | Paget, R. T. |
| Dormand, J. D. | Judd, Frank | Palmer, Arthur |
| Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) | Kaufman, Gerald | Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles |
| Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Kelley, Richard | Parker, John (Dagenham) |
| Driberg, Tom | Kerr, Russell | Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Dunn, James A. | Lambie, David | Pendry, Tom |
| Dunnett, Jack | Lamond, James | |
| Eadie, Alex | ||
| Pentland, Norman | Small, William | Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints) |
| Perry, Ernest G. | Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg. | Spearing, Nigel | Wallace, George |
| Prescott, John | Spriggs, Leslie | Watkins, David |
| Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) | Stallard, A. W. | Weitzman, David |
| Price, William (Rugby) | Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham) | Wellbeloved, James |
| Probert, Arthur | Stoddart, David (Swindon) | Wells, William (Walsall, N.) |
| Reed, D. (Sedgefield) | Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John | White, James (Glasgow, Pollok) |
| Rhodes, Geoffrey | Strang, Gavin | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Richard, Ivor | Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. | Whitlock, William |
| Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley | Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin) |
| Robertson, John (Paisley) | Swain, Thomas | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Roper, John | Taverne, Dick | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Rose, Paul B. | Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff.W.) | Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton) |
| Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Sandelson, Neville | Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.) | Woof, Robert |
| Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under Lyne) | Tinn, James | |
| Short, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) | Tomney, Frank | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne) | Torney, Tom | Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. James Hamilton. |
| Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) | Tuck, Raphael | |
| Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) | Urwin, T. W. | |
| Sillars, James | Varley, Eric G. | |
| Skinner, Dennis | Wainwright, Edwin | |
| NOES | ||
| Adley, Robert | Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. | Heseltine, Michael |
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Digby, Simon Wingfield | Hicks, Robert |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Dixon, Piers | Higgins, Terence L |
| Amery, Rt Hn. Julian | Dodds-Parker, Douglas | Hiley, Joseph |
| Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) | Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec | Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) |
| Astor, John | du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward | Hill, James (Southampton, Test) |
| Atkins. Humphrey | Dykes, Hugh | Holland, Philip |
| Awdry, Daniel | Eden, Sir John | Holt, Miss Mary |
| Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) | Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Hordern, Peter |
| Baker. W. H. K. (Banff) | Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) | Hornby, Richard |
| Batsford, Brian | Emery, Peter | Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia |
| Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Eyre, Reginald | Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) |
| Bell, Ronald | Farr, John | Howell, David (Guildford) |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) | Fell, Anthony | Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) | Fenner, Mrs. Peggy | Hunt, John |
| Benyon. W. | Fidler, Michael | Hutchison, Michael Clark |
| Berry, Hn. Anthony | Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) |
| Biffen, John | Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) | James, David |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) |
| Blaker, Peter | Fookes, Miss Janet | Jessel, Toby |
| Boardman, Tom (Leicester. S.W.) | Fortescue, Tim | Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) |
| Boscawen. Robert | Foster, Sir John | Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) |
| Bossom, Sir Clive | Fowler, Norman | Jopling, Michael |
| Bowden. Andrew | Fox, Marcus | Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith |
| Braine, Bernard | Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford & Stone) | Kaberry. Sir Donald |
| Bray, Ronald | Fry, Peter | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine |
| Brewis, John | Galbraith, Hn. T. G. | Kershaw, Anthony |
| Brinton, Sir Tatton | Gardner, Edward | Kilfeddor, James |
| Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher | Gibson-Watt, David | Kimball, Marcus |
| Brown. Sir Edward (Bath) | Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Gilmour. Sir John (Fife, E.) | King, Tom (Bridgwater) |
| Bryan, Paul | Glyn, Dr. Alan | Kinsey, J. R. |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M) | Goodhart, Philip | Kirk, Peter |
| Buck, Antony | Goodhew, Victor | Kitson, Timothy |
| Burden, F. A. | Gorst, John | Knight, Mrs. Jill |
| Campbell. Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn) | Gower, Raymond | Knox, David |
| Carlisle, Mark | Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) | Lambton, Antony |
| Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert | Gray, Hamish | Lane, David |
| Channon, Paul | Green, Alan | Langford-Holt, Sir John |
| Chapman, Sydney | Grieve, Percy | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry |
| Chataway. Rt. Hn. Christopher | Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) | Le Marchant, Spencer |
| Clark, William (Surrey, E.) | Grylls, Michael | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Gummer, Selwyn | Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield) |
| Cockeram, Eric | Gurden, Harold | Longden, Gilbert |
| Cooke, Robert | Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) | Loveridge, John |
| Coombs, Derek | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Luce, R. N. |
| Cooper, A. E. | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | McAdden, Sir Stephen |
| Cordle. John | Hannam, John (Exeter) | MacArthur, Ian |
| Corfield. Rt. Hn. Frederick | Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | McCrindle, R. A. |
| Cormack, Patrick | Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | McLaren, Martin |
| Costain. A. P. | Haselhurst, Alan | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy |
| Critchley, Julian | Havers, Michael | Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) |
| Crouch, David | Hawkins, Paul | McNair-Wilson, Michael |
| Crowder. F. P. | Hay, John | McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Hayhoe, Barney | Maddan, Martin |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj. -Gen. James | Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward | |
| Dean, Paul | ||
| Madel, David | Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis | Stuttatord, Dr. Tom |
| Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest | Quennell, Miss J. M | Sutcliffe, John |
| Marten, Neil | Raison, Timothy | Tapsell, Peter |
| Mather, Carol | Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Maude, Angus | Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter | Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart) |
| Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald | Redmond, Robert | Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.) |
| Mawby, Ray | Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) | Tebbit, Norman |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Rees, Peter (Dover) | Temple, John M. |
| Mills, Peter (Torrington) | Rees-Davies, W. R. | Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret |
| Miscampbell, Norman | Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David | Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth) |
| Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W) | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) |
| Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas | Tilney, John |
| Moate, Roger | Ridsdale, Julian | Trafford, Dr. Anthony |
| Money, Ernle | Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey | Trew, Peter |
| Monks, Mrs. Connie | Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) | Tugendhat, Christopher |
| Monro, Hector | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) | Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin |
| Montgomery, Fergus | Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| More, Jasper | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) | Vaughan, Dr. Gerard |
| Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) | Rost, Peter | Vickers, Dame Joan |
| Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. | Royle, Anthony | Waddington, David |
| Mudd, David | Russell, Sir Ronald | Walder, David (Clitheroe) |
| Murton, Oscar | St. John-Stevas, Norman | Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester) |
| Nabarro, Sir Gerald | Sandys, Rt. Hn. D. | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek |
| Neave, Airey | Scott, Nicholas | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Nicholls, Sir Harmar | Sharples, Richard | Warren, Kenneth |
| Normanton, Tom | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Nott, John | Shelton, William (Clapham) | White, Roger (Gravesend) |
| Onslow, Cranley | Simeons, Charles | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally | Sinclair, Sir George | Wilkinson, John |
| Osborn, John | Skeet, T. H. H. | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) | Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Page, Graham (Crosby) | Soref, Harold | Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| Page, John (Harrow, W.) | Speed, Keith | Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher |
| Parkinson, Cecil | Spence, John | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Percival, Ian | Sproat, Iain | Worsley, Marcus |
| Pike, Miss Mervyn | Stainton, Keith | Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R. |
| Pink, R. Bonner | Stanbrook, Ivor | Younger, Hn. George |
| Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch | Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper) | |
| Price, David (Eastleigh) | Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES |
| Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L. | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. | Mr. Bernard Weatherill and Mr. Walter Clegg. |
| Proudfoot, Wilfred | Stokes, John |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Main Question put:—
1104§ The House divided: Ayes 287; Noes 250.
1107| Division No. 115.] | AYES | [7.2 p.m. |
| Adley, Robert | Burden, F. A. | Eyre, Reginald |
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&Nairn) | Farr, John |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Carlisle, Mark | Fell, Anthony |
| Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian | Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert | Fenner, Mrs. Peggy |
| Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) | Channon, Paul | Fidler, Michael |
| Astor, John | Chapman, Sydney | Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher | Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) |
| Awdry, Daniel | Clark, William (Surrey, E.) | Fletcher-Cooke, Charles |
| Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) | Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Fookes, Miss Janet |
| Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) | Cockeram, Eric | Fortescue, Tim |
| Batsford, Brian | Cooke, Robert | Foster, Sir John |
| Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Coombs, Derek | Fowler, Norman |
| Bell, Ronald | Cooper, A. E. | Fox, Marcus |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) | Cordle, John | Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone) |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) | Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick | Fry, Peter |
| Benyon, W. | Cormack, Patrick | Galbraith, Hn. T. G. |
| Berry, Hn. Anthony | Costain, A. P. | Gardner, Edward |
| Biffen, John | Critchley, Julian | Gibson-Watt, David |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Crouch, David | Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) |
| Blaker, Peter | Crowder, F. P. | Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) |
| Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) | d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Glyn, Dr. Alan |
| Boscawen, Robert | d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj. -Gen. James | Goodhart, Philip |
| Bossom, Sir Clive | Dean, Paul | Goodhew, Victor |
| Bowden, Andrew | Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. | Gorst, John |
| Braine, Bernard | Digby, Simon Wingfield | Gower, Raymond |
| Bray, Ronald | Dixon, Piers | Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) |
| Brewis, John | Dodds-Parker, Douglas | Gray, Hamish |
| Brinton, Sir Tatton | Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec | Green, Alan |
| Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher | du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward | Grieve, Percy |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Dykes, Hugh | Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Eden, Sir John | Grylls, Michael |
| Bryan, Paul | Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Gummer, Selwyn |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M) | Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) | Gurden, Harold |
| Buck, Antony | Emery, Peter | Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) |
| Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | McNair-Wilson, Michael | Royle, Anthony |
| Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) | Russell, Sir Ronald |
| Hannam, John (Exeter) | Maddan, Martin | St. John-Stevas, Norman |
| Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | Madel, David | Sandys, Rt. Hn. D. |
| Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | Marples Rt. Hn. Ernest | Scott, Nicholas |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Marten, Neil | Sharples, Richard |
| Havers, Michael | Mather, Carol | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) |
| Hawkins, Paul | Maude, Angus | Shelton, William (Clapham) |
| Hay, John | Maudling, Rt Hn. Reginald | Simeons, Charles |
| Kayhoe, Barney | Mawby, Ray | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Heseltine, Michael | Mills, Peter (Torrington) | Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) |
| Hicks, Robert | Miscampbell, Norman | Soref, Harold |
| Higgins, Terence L. | Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire.W) | Speed, Keith |
| Hiley, Joseph | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Spence, John |
| Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) | Moate, Roger | Sproat, Iain |
| Hill. James (Southampton, Test) | Money, Ernle | Stainton, Keith |
| Holland, Philip | Monks, Mrs. Connie | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Holt, Miss Mary | Monro, Hector | Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper) |
| Hordern, Peter | Montgomery, Fergus | Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.) |
| Hornby, Richard | More, Jasper | Stoddart-Scott Col. Sir M. |
| Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia | Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) | Stokes, John |
| Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) | Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. | Stuttaford, Dr. Tom |
| Howell, David (Guildford) | Mudd, David | Sutcliffe, John |
| Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) | Murton, Oscar | Tapsell, Peter |
| Hunt, John | Nabarro, Sir Gerald | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Hutchison, Michael Clark | Neave, Airey | Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart) |
| Irvine. Bryant Godman (Rye) | Nicholls, Sir Harmar | Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.) |
| James. David | Normanton, Tom | Tebbit, Norman |
| Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Nott, John | Temple, John M. |
| Jessel, Toby | Onslow, Cranley | Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret |
| Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) | Oppenheim. Mrs. Sally | Thomas John Stradling (Monmouth) |
| Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) | Osborn, John | Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon. S.) |
| Jopling, Michael | Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) | Tilney, John |
| Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith | Page, Graham (Crosby) | Trafford, Dr. Anthony |
| Kaberry, Sir Donald | Page, John (Harrow, W.) | Trew, Peter |
| Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine | Parkinson, Cecil | Tugendhat, Christopher |
| Kershaw, Anthony | Percival, Ian | Turton, Rt. Hn Sir Robin |
| Kilfedder, James | Pike, Miss Mervyn | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Kimball, Marcus | Pink, R Bonner | Vaughan, Dr. Gerard |
| King. Evelyn (Dorset, S.) | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch | Vickers, Dame Joan |
| King, Tom (Bridgwater) | Price, David (Eastleigh) | Waddington, David |
| Kinsey, J. R. | Prior, Rt Hn. J. M. L. | Walder, David (Clitheroe) |
| Kirk, Peter | Proudfoot, Wilfred | Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester) |
| Kitson, Timothy | Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek |
| Knight, Mrs. Jill | Ouennell, Miss J. M. | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Knox, David | Raison, Timothy | Warren, Kenneth |
| Lambton, Antony | Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Lane, David | Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter | White, Roger (Gravesend) |
| Langford-Holt, Sir John | Redmond, Robert | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) | Wilkinson, John |
| Le Marchant, Spencer | Rees, Peter (Dover) | Winterton Nicholas |
| Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Rees-Davies. W. R. | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield) | Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David | Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| Longden, Gilbert | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher |
| Loveridge. John | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Luce, R. N. | Ridsdale, Julian | Worsley, Marcus |
| McAdden, Sir Stephen | Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey | Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R. |
| MacArthur, Ian | Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) | Younger, Hn. George |
| McCrindle, R. A. | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) | |
| McLaren, Martin | Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Maclean, Sir Fitzroy | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) | Mr. Bernard Weatherill and Mr. Walter Clegg. |
| Macmillan. Maurice (Farnham) | Rost, Peter | |
| NOES | ||
| Albu, Austen | Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur | Cohen, Stanley |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Bradley, Tom | Concannon, J. D. |
| Allen, Scholefield | Broughton. Sir Alfred | Conlan, Bernard |
| Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) | Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) | Corbet, Mrs. Freda |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) |
| Ashley, Jack | Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) | Crawshaw, Richard |
| Ashton, Joe | Buchan, Norman | Cronin, John |
| Atkinson, Norman | Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) | Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T | Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) |
| Barnes, Michael | Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James | Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) | Dalyell, Tam |
| Beaney, Alan | Cant, R. B. | Darling, Rt. Hn. George |
| Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Carmichael, Neil | Davidson, Arthur |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) | Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) |
| Bishop, E. S. | Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) | Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara | Deakins, Eric |
| Boardman, H. (Leigh) | Clark, David (Colne Valley) | de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey |
| Booth, Albert | Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) | Delargy, Hugh |
| Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund | Judd, Frank | Pandry, Tom |
| Dempsey, James | Kaufman, Gerald | Pentland, Norman |
| Doig, Peter | Kelley, Richard | Perry, Ernest G. |
| Dormand, J. D. | Kerr, Russell | Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg. |
| Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) | Lambie, David | Prescott, John |
| Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Lamond, James | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Driberg, Tom | Latham, Arthur | Price, William (Rugby) |
| Dunn, James A. | Lawson, George | Probert, Arthur |
| Dunnett, Jack | Leadbitter, Ted | Reed, D. (Sedgefield) |
| Eadie, Alex | Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick | Rhodes, Geoffrey |
| Edelman, Maurice | Leonard, Dick | Richard, Ivor |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Lestor, Miss Joan | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold | Robertson, John (Paisley) |
| Ellis, Tom | Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) | Roper, John |
| English, Michael | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Rose, Paul B. |
| Ewing, Harry | Lipton, Marcus | Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) |
| Faulds, Andrew | Lomas, Kenneth | Sandelson, Neville |
| Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. | Loughlin, Charles | Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood) | Lyon, Alexander W. (York) | Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) |
| Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) | Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne) |
| Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | McCann, John | Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) |
| Foley, Maurice | McCartney, Hugh | Sillars, James |
| Foot, Michael | McElhone, Frank | Skinner, Dennis |
| Ford, Ben | McGuire, Michael | Small, William |
| Forrester, John | Mackenzie, Gregor | Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) |
| Fraser, John (Norwood) | Mackie, John | Spearing, Nigel |
| Freeson, Reginald | Mackintosh, John P. | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | Maclennan, Robert | Stallard, A. W. |
| Garrett, W. E. | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) | Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham) |
| Gilbert, Dr. John | McNamara, J. Kevin | Stoddart, David (Swindon) |
| Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) | Mahon, Simon (Bootle) | Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John |
| Golding, John | Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) | Strang, Gavin |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. | Marks, Kenneth | Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. |
| Gourlay, Harry | Marquand, David | Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley |
| Grant, George (Morpeth) | Marsden, F. | Swain, Thomas |
| Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) | Marshall, Dr. Edmund | Taverne, Dick |
| Griffiths. Eddie (Brightside) | Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy | Thomas, Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.) |
| Griffiths, Will (Exchange) | Mayhew, Christopher | Thomas, Jeffrey, (Abertillery) |
| Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) | Meacher, Michael | Thomson. Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee. E.) |
| Hamling, William | Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert | Tinn, James |
| Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) | Mendelson, John | Torney, Frank |
| Hardy, Peter | Mikardo, Ian | Torney, Tom |
| Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Millan, Bruce | Tuck, Raphael |
| Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith | Milne, Edward | Urwin, T. W. |
| Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis | Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen) | Varley, Eric G. |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Molloy, William | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Hilton, W. S. | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints) |
| Hooson, Emlyn | Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Horam, John | Moyle, Roland | Wallace, George |
| Howell, Denis (Small Heath) | Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick | Watkins, David |
| Huckfield. Leslie | Murray, Ronald King | Weitzman, David |
| Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Oakes, Gordon | Wellbeloved, James |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) | Ogden, Eric | Wells, William (Walsall, N.) |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport) | O'Halloran, Michael | White, James (Glasgow, Pollok) |
| Hunter, Adam | O'Malley, Brian | Whitehead. Phillip |
| Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill) | Oram, Bert | Whitlock, William |
| Janner, Greville | Orbach, Maurice | Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin) |
| Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas | Orme, Stanley | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Oswald, Thomas | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) | Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton) | Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton) |
| Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Padley, Walter | Wilson, William (Coventry. S.) |
| Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) | Paget, R. T. | Woof, Robert |
| Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Palmer, Arthur | |
| Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.) | Ponnell, Rt. Hn. Charles | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) | Parker, John (Dagenham) | Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. James Hamilton. |
| Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
| That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Bill:— | |
| Committee | |
| 1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before the 27th day of April. | |
| 5 | Report and Third Reading |
| 10 | 2.—(1) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine. |
| 15 | (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolutions as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House. |
| (3) The resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, and whether or not the resolutions have been agreed to by the House. | |
| 20 | Procedure in Standing Committee |
| 3.—(1) At a Sitting of the Standing Committee at which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the Proceedings have been brought to a conclusion. | |
| 25 | (2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon. |
| 30 | 4. No Motion shall be made to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule, but the resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee. |
| Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee | |
| 35 | 5. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question. |
| Dilatory motions | |
| 6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith. | |
| 40 | Extra time on allotted days |
| 7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Bill for one hour after Ten o'clock. | |
| 45 | (2) Any period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period under this paragraph. |
| Standing Order No. 13 | |
| 8. Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of select committees at commencement of public business) shall not apply on an allotted day. | |
| 50 | Private business |
| 55 | 9. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings. |
| Conclusion of Proceedings | |
| 60 | 10.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say— |
| 65 | (a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill); |
| 70 | (b) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government; |
| (c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill. |
| 75 | (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House. |
| 80 | (3) If, at Seven o'clock on an allotted day, any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded. |
| 85 | (4) If, on an allotted day, a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over to Seven o'clock on an allotted day, or to any later time under sub-paragraph (3) above, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day at any hour falling after the beginning of the Proceedings on that Motion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion. |
| 90 | Supplemental orders |
| 95 | 11.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and the last foregoing paragraph shall apply as if the Proceedings were Proceedings on the Bill on an allotted day. |
| 100 | (2) If any Motion moved by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order is under consideration at Seven o'clock on a day on which any private business has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock, the private business shall stand over and be considered when the Proceedings on the Motion have been concluded, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so standing over for a period equal to the time for which it so stands over. |
| 105 | (3) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time, no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order. |
| Saving | |
| 110 | 12. Nothing in this Order or in a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee or the Business Committee shall— |
| (a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or | |
| 115 | (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day. |
| Re-committal | |
| 13.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal. | |
| 120 | (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question |
| Interpretation | |
| 125 | 14. In this Order— |
| allotted day' means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day; | |
| the Bill' means the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill; | |
| 130 | 'Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee; |
| 'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House. |