Lords Sitting of 21 July 1960

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford
The Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

SERVICE ON SMALL SCOTTISH BURGH COUNCILS
LORD FERRIER: My Lords I beg leave ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the difficulties which have arisen recently in certain small Scottish burghs through the rigid interpretation of Section 52 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, whereby part-time employees of a joint board are not eligible to serve on the burgh council and, if so whether they contemplate introducing amending legislation to overcome them.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON):My Lords. Section 52 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, provides—I quote the relevant words:
"A person shall be disqualified for being nominated as a candidate for election as, or for being elected, or for being, a member of a local authority if he …holds any paid office or other place of profit in the gift or disposal …of any joint committee or joint board the expenses of which are defrayed in part by the Authority."
In the matter to which the noble Lord refers, the question is whether it should be held that the expenses of a joint fire authority are defrayed in part by a town council of a small burgh in its area. Under the Fire Services Act, 1947, the expenses of a joint fire committee are defrayed out of a fund to which the fire authorities are required to contribute. The town council of small burgh is not a fire authority, nor is it a member of the joint fire committee, though as a rating authority it collects from its ratepayers
582
the requisition made on it by the county council which is the fire authority and is a member of the joint fire committee. This question is, as the noble Lord will appreciate, one for the courts to settle and is not one on which my right honourable friend can give a ruling.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, which is a good deal more helpful than it appears at first catch, shall we say, may I put this question? In view of the fact that in the small burgh to which I refer two members of the council have had to resign as part-time firemen, could he indicate what remedy might lie to the hand of those individuals to set the matter right?
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, if your Lordships will bear with me, I will try to give an equally helpful reply to that supplementary. If a councillor has not resigned from, or takes up paid office and remains a member of, the council. Section 53 of the Act provides a procedure for determining whether the office held by that member is vacant. Under that section the member is entitled to vote as a member until proceedings are taken before the sheriff to have the office declared vacant. Alternatively, the authority, after due notice, can pass a resolution declaring the office vacant, in which case the member concerned may appeal to the sheriff against the resolution. If a member has already resigned, or is not yet a councillor and in terms of Rule 5 (3) (c) of the Scottish Local Election Rules states on his nomination paper that the disqualifications in Section 52 do not apply, he can offer himself for re-election. If re-elected, his election can be challenged under Section 113 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, by four electors who believe him to be disqualified and who may be required to deposit up to £500. Alternatively, as a councillor he is open to challenge under Section 53 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947. I am very grateful to your Lordships.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, do not these questions and answers show that it would be desirable to give a wider measure of Home Rule or devolution to Scotland?
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply.

OIL HEATERS
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have yet heard from the manufacturers of oil-burning appliances about the arrangements for adapting existing appliances to give them a higher standard of resistance to draughts.]
EARL BATHURST:My Lords, I am pleased to be able to tell my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government have been informed by the Oil Appliance Manufacturers' Association that they are to-day issuing a statement to the national Press. The statement will say that in the course of the next week or so all retail shops who normally sell oil heaters will have information to give to the public on how to have their old drip-feed heaters brought up to a higher standard of resistance to draught. Members of the public who have a heater which they would like modified will be able to obtain advice on how to go about it by going to the retail shop where they bought it, or to another retail shop which sells paraffin heaters.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his helpful Answer.

EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (FOWEY) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order) on Report from the Unopposed Bill Committee: Bill reported without further amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (YARMOUTH (ISLE OF WIGHT)) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order), on Report from the Unopposed Bill Committee: Bill reported without further amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION ORDER, 1960
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, in the Bill on the International Development Association which we debated on May 17 your Lordships will remember that in the third clause power was given to Her Majesty to issue an Order in Council, subject to Parliamentary confirmation, giving immunities and privileges to the staff of the International Development Association which are provided for in Article 8 of the Articles of Agreement. Those Articles are identical with the corresponding Articles of that part of the Bretton Woods Agreement which relates to the International Bank's immunities and privileges, and your Lordships will remember that the staff of the International Development Association is to be identical with the staff of the International Bank. I beg to move that the Draft International Development Association Order, 1960, be approved.
Moved, That the Draft International Development Association Order, 1960, be approved.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I have no wish to delay the passage of this Order but I should like to satisfy myself on one point. The noble Earl has already said that the main object of this Draft Order is to give the same immunities as under the Bretton Woods Agreement for the Monetary

585
Fund. That is perfectly satisfactory. I do not know whether I shall be in order if I ask one further question. As I understand it, this institution has been established in order to make money available for under-developed countries. Can the noble Earl tell us the actual procedure by which the money is obtained? Do the countries which give subscriptions to this fund ask that certain moneys should be given to some needy country, or can anybody come to the fund? How, in particular, is the fund managed? If that question is in order, perhaps the noble Earl would answer it, either to-day or, perhaps, in writing.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, all this Order does is to confer diplomatic immunities on the staff. I think I explained on Second Reading the stages by which subscriptions are to be paid to the International Development Association, and out of the money subscribed by member countries the Association will then issue loans to Governments or other people in underdeveloped countries. They may ask for a guarantee from the Government concerned. The procedure will be the same as that observed by the International Bank, except that the terms on which loans can be issued under this new Association are much easier than the terms of loans from the International Bank. The Association may waive interest and so on.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, there is one point I should like to put to the noble Earl: it is on Section 9 of the Schedule. It seems to me that this goes a good deal further than mere diplomatic immunity to the staff. Section 9 says:
"(a) The Association, its assets, property, income and its operations and transactions authorised by this Agreement, shall be immune from all taxation and from all customs duties. The Association shall also be immune from liability for the collection or payment of any tax or duty."
If the Association, for example—merely for example—undertakes certain trans-
586
actions, we will say in Uganda, involving development there on which a large amount of tax may be payable, what is the situation? Under this wording the Uganda taxpayer would not be able to receive from the Association, as I read it—although I may be wrong of course—the benefit of any tax whatsoever; the Association would, in fact, be getting away with quite a large amount every year in respect of tax which the Uganda taxpayer ought not to bear. I quite understand the position with reference to the servants of the Association; naturally they fall in line with other international bodies. But at the moment I fail to see why, if the Association itself makes a considerable profit in a territory, it should not bear its normal share of taxation with regard to its operations in that territory.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, all I can say to the noble Lord is that the privileges conferred are exactly the same as those already enjoyed by the officials of the International Bank, who will, incidentally, be the same people. I do not think there is any difference.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I thought I explained that I was not talking about the officials. I agree with regard to the officials; I am not making any complaint about the officials. I am talking about the Association itself. Your Lordships will see that this Order, as I have read out, seems to suppose that the Association, in connection with its commercial activities, will not be liable far any taxation or customs or excise duties. I should like to know if that is so, or if I have misread it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the object of the Association is to help under-developed countries and it does not trade or try to make any profit. It is simply the same as the International Bank, except that its loans can be issued on easier terms.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COTTON FINISHING (WOVEN CLOTH) REORGANISATION SCHEME (CONFIRMATION) ORDER, 1960
3.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it is almost exactly a year since the three reorganisation Orders, for the doubling section, the weaving section and the spinning section, of the Cotton Industry were approved by your Lordships. Your Lordships will remember that the timetable at that time for those three sections was a very tight one. The Orders were approved on July 28; the time given for applications to be made was only two months, September 30 being the last date; and the date by which machinery had to be scrapped was March 31 this year, because it was generally agreed that if a scheme was going to be of any use it must be started off quickly. But in regard to the finishing section, which is covered by the two Orders on the Order Paper to-day, it was agreed that, since it consists of so many different and complicated processes, a good deal more time must be allowed.
These two Draft Orders for the two parts of the finishing section of the industry have now been submitted to my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, and before he can confirm these Draft Orders he has to be satisfied of two things. First, that an agreement has been arrived at satisfactory to both sides, the trade unions and the employers, concerning terms of individual compensation for operatives who are displaced as a result of the reorganisation. This has been done. In the case of the finishing section, several different agreements have had to be made with several different trade unions. The principle of these agreements is the same as in the earlier cases of the weaving, spinning and doubling sections of the trade. Compensation is to be paid partly by lump sum and partly by weekly payments. The amount of compensation varies sometimes with the age of the displaced operative and sometimes with his length of service. All operatives who might be displaced by these Orders are covered by the agreements.
The Government have no responsibility at all for the terms of the agreement. All the President of the Board
588
of Trade has to do is to satisfy himself that an agreement has been made between the employers and the trade unions, to the satisfaction of both parties. The other thing on which the President of the Board of Trade has to satisfy himself is that enough excess capacity will be eliminated to justify the expenditure of public money under the Act. The Cotton Board have estimated, from the figures they have been given, that between 32 and 34 per cent. of capacity in the finishing section of the trade is excessive, and it has been agreed that Government payments will not begin to be made until the amount of capacity which it has been agreed to eliminate has exceeded a figure of 20 per cent.
There is one difference between this and the older schemes. Under the three schemes which were passed last year, if the figure which the Board of Trade thought necessary was not reached, then the whole scheme fell to the ground and could not be proceeded with. In this case, if the 20 per cent. figure were not reached the scheme would still go on, but the industry would have to bear the entire cost itself—nothing would be contributed by the Government. I do not think that is likely to happen. There is no maximum prescribed, but I understand that, although there is nothing about it in the Order, the Cotton Board do not intend to allow machinery to be scrapped in excess of their figure of 34 per cent. of the total capacity of this section of the trade. That is another difference between this Order and the previous Orders. The Cotton Board or the special committee need not accept all the applications that are made to them; they can, if they choose, discriminate. That is necessary because of the quite different processes of manufacture in the finishing section. The Cotton Board's committee might decide, in the general interest of the industry as a whole or of the export trade, that one particular firm ought not to be closed down, and might refuse, therefore, to accept its application to be treated as redundant. Or, of course, if they got a large number of applications in excess of their figure of 34 per cent., then they would have to refuse some applications, in which case, other things being equal, they would probably admit those which they had received first.

589
In the case of the other sections, the measure of capacity was easy—either it was a certain number of looms or a certain number of spindles; and it was possible for one factory not to close dawn entirely, but to scrap a certain number of looms and spindles and to carry on with a reduced number. But in the case of the finishing section that is not possible. A factory—not necessarily the whole firm, but an entire factory—has either to close down or not to close down. Therefore the application to the Cotton Board must be in respect of one unit—a factory.
As to the dates, they are a little more elastic than they were in the case of the other schemes last year. When this Order is passed, applications may begin to come in on August 1 and they can go on until October 31. If, by October 31, enough applications have not been received, the Cotton Board may then extend the period. But, of course, it is possible that enough will have been received by that date. Applicants have to go out of business six months after their application is accepted, and the last date for scrapping of machinery will be December 31, 1961.
There is a slight difference between these two Orders. In the woven, cloth section it is provided that the industry shall divide itself into three subsections—the bleaching subsection, the dyeing, raising and finishing (only) subsection, and the printing subsection—in order that each subsection may pay for its own reorganisation; and there is assigned to each of these subsections a minimum quantity of capacity which must be scrapped if they are to qualify for Government assistance.
One novel feature of this scheme is the provision for realisation companies, which are defined, I think, in each Order at the top of page 4. The Board thought it would be a help to small firms in this section of the, industry if instead of going through all the processes of applying to the Board and receiving a grant and doing the scrapping of their own machinery themselves, they were to sell their factories outright to a realisation company who would then do all the work for them. The realisation companies would be non-profit-making concerns. They would buy a factory which it had been decided to close down; they would
590
then get the grant, scrap the machinery, sell the scrap, buildings and other assets, and any loss which they were left with would be paid by an additional compulsory levy upon the whole industry. It is felt by the Cotton Board that in the case of some small firms this may save a lot of trouble, and possibly a certain amount of expense.
Your Lordships will remember that last year, just at the time when the Cotton Bill was introduced in Parliament, there was a sudden world improvement in the demand for cotton goods everywhere, with the result that this industry, which had been so acutely depressed, began to find that there was a much greater market for its goods and began to enjoy a marked revival. The Government at that time continually issued warnings to the cotton trade lest it should be tempted by this sudden excess of pressure to neglect the unique opportunity which was being provided by the Bill, to reorganise and re-equip itself and to modernise itself to meet the new types of competition which it has to deal with in world trade. I am glad to say that the industry heeded that advice. The first stages of reorganisation have proceeded on a larger scale than we had expected in the weaving and spinning sections, and I think there is every reason to expect that matters will proceed at the same tempo and in the same satisfactory way in the finishing section of the trade. I beg to move that the first Order be approved.
Moved, That the Cotton Finishing (Woven Cloth) Reorganisation Scheme (Confirmation) Order, 1960, be approved.—(The Earl of Dundee)
3.29 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am sure all your Lordships are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for the explanation he has given of these two Orders. I would not claim to be an expert on matters pertaining to the cotton industry—a most intricate industry in regard to which these are more intricate and highly technical Orders. We on this side of the House do not intend to impede the progress of these Orders, but there are one or two questions I should like to ask the noble Earl and one or two comments that I should like to make. These Orders, and the schemes made under

591
them, certainly add up to something which it is necessary to do for the realisation or consolidation of the textile industry. But I do not know whether Her Majesty's Government have properly learnt the lessons of the first Orders as they apply to the spinning, weaving and doubling sections of the industry, and I wonder whether we shall find in practice that this is the right course.
I know that it is easy to be critical, but I am apprehensive that some of the happy thoughts that are evidently in the mind of the noble Earl may be falsified, as were the hopes on the first Orders that came before your Lordships' House. Both these schemes are inflexible, and what have we found? Through the operations of the first schemes we have found that there have been artificial shortages of some yarns. Will there be artificial shortages of capacity here? Your Lordships may think that that is a rather hypothetical question, but it appears to me that the scheme can be used in such a manner that those apprehensions may prove to be not altogether unfounded. Then I believe that Her Majesty's Government will have to face for these schemes a bill of about £2½ million—I think that is the amount of money that is in their minds—whereas, of course, the spinning, weaving and doubling sections of the industry "got away with" (although perhaps that is not quite the correct expression) £10½ million. If the noble Earl tells me in reply that on this occasion the Government have had far higher regard for the taxpayers' money that will not be a bad answer. But perhaps he will tell me why the amount of money is so much smaller.
The whole process of the scheme tends to be too long-drawn-out, especially as, under the conditions, there can be another approval period. If that is so, it may be a year or more before any important movement is made for the Rood of the industry. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell me whether my calculations in that direction are right. I am thoroughly unhappy about one thing the noble Earl mentioned. He said that under this scheme, unlike the previous one, whole units have to be offered for scrapping; that sections of plant and machinery in units cannot be sold off. Is that not
592
rather hard upon the small concerns, who, to use the noble Earl's own words, have to make up their minds whether they are going to stay in or get out. For the small firm there is no halfway house.
A large concern, with multiple factories and multiple units, can offer one, or perhaps two or three units under the scheme for scrapping, and carry on its activities undisturbed. Of course, the noble Earl might answer by saying that that is the object of the scheme—to concentrate the industry into larger units and do away with the smaller ones. That may be. The scheme of realisation companies lends colour to this theory, because the Bleachers' Association, in the bleaching section, control half the trade of that section; and there are also the calico printers, who control about two-fifths of the printing section.
The definition of a "realisation company" is set down in paragraph 2 (1) (ii), on page 4 of the Order, and I believe I am right in saying that a realisation company can be formed by anyone. A big unit can buy up small ones for the purpose of closing them down. If the bidding by these powerful combines to buy up their small competitors for the purpose of closing them down goes on, then, as the noble Earl has said, in the ultimate the bill will have to be met by levy upon all the firms remaining in the industry. That, again, is going to be a very heavy burden upon the small firm which remains in. And I suppose the noble Earl would not disagree with the proposition that although this is to be a levy on the industry, apart altogether from State assistance, in the last analysis the consumer will have to pay; and that means higher prices for the goods. Then perhaps the noble Earl would explain to me something which, I believe, he partly explained. Paragraph 8 (2) of the Cotton Finishing (Woven Cloth) Order says:
"In dealing with applications for compensation under the Scheme in relation to production units in any subsection, the Board will be guided by the need to avoid reducing the capacity of that subsection or of any class of the activities of that subsection to a level insufficient to meet all reasonably foreseeable demands."
Would the noble Earl be kind enough to tell me precisely what that means? What happens if an estimate is made? How

593
long is a "foreseeable demand". How long is the crystal-gazing to go on, and what happens in the end?
Lastly, I come to the question of the operatives' compensation. Even taking into consideration the difficulties of operating a new scheme, when the scheme was applied to the spinning, doubling and other sections of the cotton industry the time-lag in the payment of compensation to operatives almost bordered upon a disgrace. This compensation is for loss of the man's job. There are a great many technicalities involved. Can he get another job? What will his wage be? How old is he? But some of those people had to wait for over six months before they got anything. I do not think that that is right, and am sure Her Majesty's Government would not wish that. As the proprietor of the business gets a lump sum and the managerial staff have their compensation paid in a lump sum, why cannot the operative be paid a lump sum?
The noble Earl said that the payment was made partly by lump sum and partly by instalment. Now why? Surely the machinery is greater when instalments have to be paid. I should have thought that the operatives ought to be the first to be considered, and I would ask the Government to look at this again. I know that the payment of this compensation of operatives has been agreed between the various unions and the Cotton Board. But, my Lords, they had to give way to a hard bargain; let us face that. The noble Earl said that there is a ministerial responsibility, as it is set down clearly in sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) on the first page of both these Orders. It states that the Board of Trade have to be satisfied

"(b) that arrangements have been made within that section for the payment of cornpensation in respect of loss of employment due to the elimination of the excess capacity; and

(c) that bodies representing the interests of a majority of the persons employed in that section have agreed to those arrangements so far as they relate to persons whose interests are represented by those bodies".

But that compensation is paid by a levy on the industry. There is no grant from public funds; none whatsoever.
The Cotton Board are given the statutory power to collect this levy and to distribute this levy. The Minister's re-
594
sponsibility, as these Orders so state, is to see that there is agreement. Would the noble Earl agree with me that there is a ministerial responsibility to see that the scheme is then operated in fairness, and expeditiously? I do not think that the Minister or the Government can just wash their hands of that responsibility and say, "That is the responsibility of the Cotton Board". Those are some of the questions that I should like to ask.
We must see that this thing works fairly. There has been grave discontent in Lancashire over the way the other scheme has worked and has affected the operatives. The big combines and the other producers can look after themselves; they are powerful enough and they are influential enough, and, if the noble Earl does not mind my saying so, wealthy enough to look after themselves. But these men are out of a job. I do not think they should be put to the hardship, as was the case before, of not having one penny paid to them for six months. Perhaps the noble Earl can assure your Lordships that when he said they would be paid a lump sum and then instalments, he meant that the lump sum is going to be paid immediately.
The noble Earl ended his remarks by saying that a year ago the Government exhorted the cotton industry to look to its laurels and not to be carried away by what was then a minor setback. If the Guardian, a reputable Lancashire paper, is to be believed, the exports of textiles are now falling and Lancashire will have to face more intense competition in the fields covered by these Orders—that is, in the finishing fields—than ever before. I frankly think that they will find that their competitors overseas will be doing these jobs of bleaching and printing far more in the future than in the past. So in wishing the industry well and wishing this scheme well, I sincerely hope that the Government will do everything they can to expedite it, so that the industry will not be placed at any disadvantage by the dragging of feet—whose feet I am not going to say—that proved such a bad feature of the three schemes your Lordships gave your approval to twelve months ago.
3.44 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I would associate myself with the opening remarks of my noble friend who has just

595
sat down. We appreciate the detail in which the noble Earl has explained the document which is before us. I myself am interested in the textile industry, but not in the cotton textile branch. I should like to express wholehearted support of the two measures that are before us—that is, the two Orders—because I am profoundly convinced that they are to the interest of the industry as a whole and of the workers in the future, and of the consumers as a whole also. But in the case of various other things said by the noble Lord I would not find myself in association. I would quickly come to one, because it appears to suggest the fallacy that the compensation which is being paid out of public funds is really a kind of subsidy to the employers. As is obvious to anybody who thinks it out, since this scheme is going to rationalise the industry, then such payments as are made to produce greater efficiency in the industry will, and must, perforce, leave in the hands of the remaining units a stronger financial position with which they can buy new equipment and, of course, lower the cost which inevitably goes forward to the consumer. On those grounds I rather dissociate myself with that part of the noble Lord's remarks.
To return to the explanation of the noble Earl, unless I misunderstood him —and if I did misunderstand him I would earnestly ask him whether it is too late to hope that there might be some modification along these lines—he carefully explained that if the units offering themselves for concentration or elimination subject to compensation, did not come up to a determined minimum, then the whole charge would fall upon the industry. But this is the point I wish Ito make now—because in looking at the record of what the Minister concerned said, in the Report of another place, I find that it differed somewhat, as I understand it, from what the noble Earl has said to-day.
As to units falling short of what is considered appropriate by the authorities who constitute the Government's advisers right down the line through the complicated mechanism he has explained, do the mechanics lead to any procedure whereby at some point additional incentive can be offered, so that, in the interests of the industry, the minimum
596
number of units will come under the umbrella or into the net, whichever way we like to describe it? Is there any power whereby, through an additional amount of compensation, the minimum number could be induced to come in? That would presumably involve supplementary payment for every other unit that came under the umbrella. I say that, my Lords, because it seems definitely an advantage to the industry as a whole that this should be achieved and that there should be elimination on the scale that the Orders envisage. I therefore seek clarification by the noble Earl, if he can give it, on that point.
On the general question of the achievements under the Orders, their introduction is perhaps tardy. It would have been happier had these Orders come earlier. Perhaps even the jute industry might well have been better served had they come earlier. However, before sitting down I would just add that it seems a rather cynical fact that Parliament is now legislating to set up an authority which arbitrarily decides what action should be taken and what prices paid, when quite recently—I forget when it was, but the noble Viscount who sits on the Woolsack will well recollect it—there was such strong resistance offered against appeals in the Restrictive Practices Act. Whatever may have happened in other sections, when anything affecting the textile industries is being discussed, it is only right that the House should be reminded that, far from bringing salutary circumstances in which the consumer will benefit, the absence of those steadying influences which would be in the interests of the workers in the industry may well bring a kind of chaos which can delay the installation of improved machinery and better practices, which would be the shortest cut to bringing about what these Orders aim to do—namely, cheapen the ultimate cost to the consumer. My Lords, I repeat that I give my strong endorsement to both the Orders before the House.
3.52 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long on this matter, but it seems rather fortunate that, a year after we passed the Act and introduced measures for the main part of the cotton industry, we should have an opportunity to look at its working at the

597
same time as we are considering these further Orders in regard to the finishing end of the trade. I think we ought to consider how right it is to persevere with the policy which apparently became necessary in a very different situation of world trade. As the noble Earl said, there has been a boom—a world-wide boom—in textiles, and this has taken place at a time when the reorganisation of the cotton industry has also been taking place. The situation is totally different today. What the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, quite rightly described, when we debated the Cotton Industry Bill, as the weakness of the cotton industry—namely, the continued state of weakness in the selling market; weak selling has always been the most difficult factor in maintaining a viable cotton industry—has wholly changed in the last year, and to-day we are in a very strong sellers' market and a relatively weak buyers' market.
We are faced with further implementation of a scheme which is going to cost the taxpayers a good deal of money. I rather disagree with my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, if I understood him rightly, when he suggests that less money is being spent on this scheme than was anticipated. Indeed, expenditure on the retirement of machinery at the spinning and weaving end of the industry has been greater than the minimum that the Government anticipated, and this was foreseen in the Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords. I think my noble friend rather misunderstood me. I said that I thought the Government expected to get a bill for the Orders which are now before the House of about £2½million.
LORD SHACKLETON: Whatever happens, it looks as if the total cost is going to be more than the £30 million that the Government originally estimated, and perhaps we can hear from the noble Earl on that point. It is relevant to discuss what advantage the community is getting from this. As regards the boom that is going on—and, of course, it is affecting consumer goods generally; although now, as a result of the Government's policy of credit restriction, there are certain declines, certainly in the hard, durable goods line—the real factor bringing about the improvement in the cotton industry in
598
this country is last year's hot summer; and what will happen this year is something which we cannot forecast. We do not know what sort of a summer we are going to have this year.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We do. We have had it!
LORD SHACICLETON: My Lords, I am still an optimist; I am going to take my holiday. However, last year's hot summer has had a perfectly simple effect; and it is in these ways and against this sort of background that industry has to conduct itself. Last summer's frocks got a pretty good airing and are worn out. People are inclined to buy more, and the distributive trades, the retail trade, have had to stock up. They have had to stock up against a background of a certain growing shortage; and therefore they have tended to overbuy. We are in a situation to-day where, as my noble friend said, certain lines are in danger of becoming in short supply. There are certain types of specialised yarns which are necessary for certain cloths—gingham is a case in point—which are in fact hard to come by. This relative scarcity is having the usual effect—and this is the perfectly normal way in which the market works: there is a growing tightening in supplies. Against this background, we also see a slight hardening and an increase in price.
So far, the evidence is that there has been little sales resistance, but we have not yet reached the full extent of what may come in the way of increased prices. These increased prices are coming at a time when, on the whole, we had hoped that we were going to get greater efficiency in the cotton industry—rationalisation by more efficient use of the machinery available. Furthermore, we shall not get the undoubted advantage which we thought was coming from the breaking up under the Monopolies Act of the restrictive agreement with regard to yarn. That should have led to a reduction in prices, but the reduction has not been apparent. Moreover, I am not sure exactly what effect this is having on our export trade. It is quite true that there is a healthy tendency for the cotton industry to move more into better quality cloths for export, but the lower end, the "loom fodder" type of cloth, is beginning to disappear—and, of

599
course, in the process we are losing certain traditional markets. It may well be that we were bound to lose those markets; but we are to-day a net importer. We import more cotton cloth than we export, and we import very nearly as much yarn as we export. This is an extraordinary state of affairs for a country so much of whose life has been built on the cotton industry.
Again, this may be argued as a natural development in the world: that we have got to face the fact that places like Hong Kong—and, one day, Japan—will be coming more and more into the world markets and will move into this field. But to-day, far from there being a surplus of labour in the cotton industry, certain of the traditional areas which have suffered most in the past from a positive shortage of key people are facing similar conditions; indeed, it has not been possible to expand production in those units which have been continued because it has been impossible to recruit these key people. I have heard of a case where it was intended to put on a particular shift, but they could not do so because they could not get a tacker or loom overlooker. And this is a process which we are proposing to continue.
Is it right that we should do so? After those gloomy remarks I would say that the Government are, in fact, right to press on with this. These Orders are an improvement on earlier ones. The Government have now conceded what they refused to concede before—the desirability of some discrimination. I think there is a need, in the finishing end of the trade in particular, to ensure that the Cotton Board keep close watch on the closing dawn of different units, as is provided in these Orders. There are dangers. There have been discussions of what would happen if there was a take-over bid for a well-known concern, the United Turkey Red, which might be taken over only to be closed down. And this is a company which recently received a grant in order to keep it going under the development areas scheme. So I think it is right that discrimination should be operated. I am sure that the Government are in consultation with the Cotton Board on this matter. Here again there is a risk, and I do not doubt that the Government will deny it. But they have put discrimination in, not so that
600
a monopoly shall be created but so that a supply shall be available. The arguments are against monopoly but certainly to avoid the danger of scarcity.
Turning briefly to the question of payment of compensation, I support what my noble friend said. It has not been a happy business in Lancashire. The scheme was designed to pay compensation to those workers who left the industry. They have received this compensation as a lump sum, in the same way as managers and employers, but they received it as a delayed lump sum, although it was they who most of all needed it right away. I hope that the Cotton Board will look at this point. So far as I can tell from the Order, there is nothing to prevent them from using their influence. While this is, of course, a matter of negotiation not between the Cotton Board and the cotton unions, but between the employers and unions, the Board should be able to bring their influence to bear in this matter.
I think it would be right to congratulate the Government on the speed with which they have moved. It is true that the fact that favourable circumstances in the world have eased the situation, but had that not been so there would have been greater need for the scheme. But we have to accept the gloomy fact that we shall be paying large sums of money for what is virtually a policy of restriction. I only hope that the industry in Lancashire, and in other parts of the country, which has shown a great deal of co-operation and awareness of its responsibilities, will continue to appreciate that the British taxpayer is paying a great deal for this and that, on the whole, the British consumer has yet to see much benefit from it.
4.4 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, though these are called Finishing Orders, I presume that we are dealing with the finishing of man-made fibres as well, because they are being produced by the same people. Thirty years ago, when I was actively engaged in this trade, there was a huge capacity in this end of the trade. I understand that it is being gradually eliminated, but that there is still excessive capacity. What is excessive capacity depends on a number of comparatively unknown factors. There is the question of future demand for cloth in general.

601
We might be able to get some idea of that. There is the question of future imports, and there is also the innate habit of the trade to fluctuate in demand. It might be possible to estimate the overall future of demand for cloth in this country, but I defy anybody to decide whether the women of England ten years ahead are going to want it printed or dyed, or merely bleached. This depends enormously on fashion. And the type of machinery for the different finishes is quite different.
It is quite impossible to estimate what future imports will be. I believe that within the next twenty years the United Kingdom will have to revert to tariffs and quotas, but under the present state of Free Trade it is impossible to estimate what imports will be. The fluctuation in demand to which I have referred has always been the Achilles' heel of the industry, because the shelves of the wholesalers and retailers are never half full—they are either over-full or empty. A short time ago they were empty. There has been a terrific boom in textiles, but I have little doubt that, before long, the shelves will be over-full and that we shall have something in the nature of a recession, The only remedy for this form of fluctuaticn, I am convinced, is the ability to form selling agreements and to hold these selling agreements. I hope that it will be possible to, do this under this reorganisation, and that the Monopolies Commission will not be turned on to these people. Between the two wars these selling agreements were an attempt to keep the industry from bankruptcy-—and to some extent they succeeded, though they were frustrated the whole time by one or two weak sellers.
I do not share the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, about the small men. The small men were always the menace to the whole trade, and if they decide to take compensation and go out I do not think that it will be at all a bad thing, from the point of view of the whole trade. I think that people have been led to expect too much from these schemes in the way of price reduction. We have to remember that old machinery, which has been written down to nothing, is being replaced with new machinery, which is very expensive. The result is that, though the new machinery
602
may cost a good deal less to run, by the time the overheads are included there will not be so much saving as people have been led to believe.
I believe that the process is a right and inevitable one, but it is not all joy and sunshine. As regards the degree of the process, one can regard it only as a rough-and-ready method of reducing the size of an over-large industry. But to pretend that it is a scientific method of creating production capacity that will exactly meet demand in the future would be false pretences. There is only one way by which that could be conceivably clone, and that would not be possible in a free country: it is by dictating the consumer's choice and regulating imports. And that can be done only behind the Iron Curtain. Nevertheless, I support these two Orders.
4.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend who has just spoken for his very competent support of these Orders and also to all other noble Lords who have in general, I think, supported what we are doing. I will reply to as many of the questions that have been asked as I am able. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who has kindly apologised for not being able to stay, asked a question about artificial shortages, which I think he partly answered later on by quoting the passage on page 8 of the Order which allows the Cotton Board to reject applications for scrapping from the finishing section. They have no intention of allowing shortages of essential finishing capacity to develop. I do riot think that they make these decisions by crystal-gazing. The Cotton Board are, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, suggested, very competent people, and they have to take account—they are the people best fitted to do so—of the future trends of the market and decide whether it is in the interests of the country and of the industry as a whole that any particular application for scrapping should be accepted or refused.
It may interest your Lordships to know that in regard to the other sections of the trade, although the amount of scrapping has been much larger than estimated (I think over 100,000 looms, compared with 45,000, and 12 million

603
spindles, compared with 6 million), and although there has not yet been time for the new machinery and equipment to be installed, which is the main purpose of the whole operation, production has increased. I expect that the cause is more shift-working, but it is encouraging to know that, in spite of all this scrapping, production has increased.
I was not quite sure what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was trying to discover about expenditure. He was right in saying that the estimate of Government liability in respect of this Order in the finishing section of the trade is £2½ million. If I understood him aright, I think he wanted to know why it was so much less than the £10 million liability so far incurred in the other sections. The answer, of course, is that the finishing section is much smaller and there is much less value being scrapped. I do not see anything to be surprised at in the fact that Government liability in this section should be smaller than in the others. The best estimate which can be given of the total Government liability under the Cotton Act is still £30 million. The greater part of that, of course, will consist in the 25 per cent. grant for new machinery, most of which has still to come. We cannot do much more than guess how much will be approved. But the estimate of £30 million has not yet been officially revised; that is still the kind of figure which we contemplate as the total Government liability under all processes of reorganisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, wondered whether this was really worthwhile in the national interest. Of course that is a matter of opinion, but surely the real results, in the shape of benefit to our export trade, cannot be realised until the final and most important stage of the reoganisation process has been finished, or at least has progressed—namely, the re-equipment of the industry with new and up-to-date machinery. As your Lordships will remember, we stated in discussing the Cotton Bill that the Government thought it would be worthwhile that they should intervene in this way, with this kind of help, in order to ensure that the industry should be equipped to produce high-quality cotton goods with up-to-date machinery, because we believed that in those conditions the cotton industry could survive,
604
could compete with the rest of the world and could play a great part in our future economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, thought it unfair that a small firm should not be allowed to scrap part of its machinery. I find it difficult to visualise any firm in the finishing section of the trade which could do itself any good by scrapping part of its machinery, because the machinery is not divided into units like spindles or looms. It is probably just one large factory with coordinated machinery inside, and it would not be possible to scrap part of it without destroying the whole thing. There is certainly no intention of discriminating in any way against the smaller firms.
In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said about realisation companies, I think I had better repeat what is provided under the Order for the setting up of these companies. The noble Lord seemed to think that a realisation company might consist of a large combine which would buy up small firms and scrap them. That is not at all what is provided for in the Order. What is done is to enable the yarn-processing section and the three woven-cloth subsections to set up these realisation companies; and the incorporation and constitution of these companies must be approved by the Cotton Board. They are not combines, but ad hoc non-profit-making bodies which have to be approved by the Cotton Board for this special purpose of facilitating and accelerating the scrapping of redundant factories; and when that function is completed, the realisation companies will, of course, cease to exist.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Shackleton, gave voice to feelings of dissatisfaction about the slowness of payment of individual compensation to operatives. I should like to assure your Lordships that it is not a question of the Government wishing to wash their hands of any responsibility. The point is rather that it would be most undesirable if the Government were to interfere in agreements which have been entered into and drawn up between the trade unions and the employers as the result of long and careful examination of the problem. I have no doubt that the delay is due to the careful and

605
complex arrangements under which the terms of compensation have been agreed.
What happens is that the levy for the purpose of compensation is paid by the trade to a committee consisting of representatives of employers and trade unions who administer the funds and pay out compensation with the aid of a firm of chartered accountants. One can easily understand that there may be delays in calculating the exact amount of compensation to which any individual may be entitled, but I am informed that already more than £2½ million, which is over half the total estimated sum due under the three earlier schemes, has been paid out. I should think that the delay is not likely to be protracted indefinitely after the work of ascertainment has been done. I should expect that, after certain initial delays, the process of payment would be likely to be accelerated. But I think we must firmly refuse to admit any kind of Government responsibility in this matter, because Government responsibility would immediately involve Government interference with these agreements which have been freely entered into between the two sides of the industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, if I understood him rightly, wanted to know whether, in the event of the 20 per cent. quota not being reached, some further inducement could not be offered by the Government in order to persuade more firms to scrap one or more of their factories. It is not possible to pay out any more than is provided for under the Act—that is, two-thirds of the compensation for redundant machinery which is scrapped and 25 per cent. of the cost of installing new machinery. It may be that there is some additional indirect inducement in the form of these realisation companies, because it is possible, if a firm wants to go out of business, that it may do better for itself by selling to the realisation company and letting them go through all the subsequent pro, cesses than by trying to do everything itself. Perhaps the existence of these realisation companies may induce some firms which might not otherwise have done so to make an application for allowing themselves to be scrapped. But I do not think it is likely that the minimum percentage of 20 per cent. will not be reached. I think it is probable that it will be exceeded. If there are any
606
other questions in regard to this about which your Lordships are anxious to know more—
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend, may I interrupt him at this stage? He has admitted that it might be possible for the companies set up to offer some additional inducement. What I attempted to seek explanation on was this—referring again to the introductory remarks made in another place. In the event of firms not submitting their names rapidly enough for elimination, does the machinery provide for those in authority to offer, at some point before the termination date, some supplementary inducement which would bring more in? According to the explanation, it seems that, should the termination date be reached without the requisite number, then the Government will have no compensation to pay.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lands, the Cotton Board cannot offer any greater financial inducement than is provided for in the Act. They can extend the termination date. If by October 31 they have not received sufficient applications to enable Government help to be paid, they could then—which they could not do under last year's schemes—extend the date for a further period. The reason for being more lenient is that the finishing section of the trade is much more complex than the others, although it is smaller and its units are much more scattered and diverse. The realisation companies cannot themselves offer any more financial inducement, but the fact that they are being able to do all the business, and the fact that a firm may gain financially by getting a realisation company to do their work for them instead of doing it themselves, might, of course, be an 'inducement for some people to apply who would not apply otherwise.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, could the noble Earl not give the House any more exact figure of the total cost of this scheme? He said that it was expected—I think his words were—that far the greater part of the expenditure would be on re-equipment. But already the Government are committed to over £13 million on mere compensation which, so far as I can see, comes to 43 per cent. of the total of £30 million.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think the figure for the weaving, spinning and doubling sections is about £10 million, and £2,400,000 estimated for the finishing section would bring it up to approximately £12½ million. These figures have been given already. I do not think it is possible to make a detailed estimate of the amount of grants which will be payable for re-equipment. All I can say is that so far the Board of Trade has not revised its original estimate of £30 million which was given last year, but, of course, that was never intended to be a precise figure.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COTTON FINISHING (YARN PRO CESSING) REORGANISATION SCHEME (CONFIRMATION) ORDER, 1960
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Cotton Finishing (Yarn Processing)Reorganisation Scheme (Confirmation) Order, 1960, be approved.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NOISE ABATEMENT BILL
427 p.m.
Read 3a(according to Order) with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ADOPTION BILL
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Dunleath, who is still in the Territorial Army camp in Northern Ireland, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING OF MOTOR CYCLES) BILL
4.30 p.m.
An Amendment reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Provisional licences not to authorise driving of heavy motor cycles
2. A provisional licence granted under section one hundred and two of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, on or after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and sixty-one, shall not authorise the driving of a motor cycle whereof the cylinder capacity of the engine exceeds two hundred and fifty cubic centimetres.
LORD WALERAN LORD WALERAN moved to add to the clause:
"other than a motor cycle whereof the cylinder capacity of the engine does not exceed 350 cubic centimetres and which has a sidecar constructed for the carriage of a passenger attached".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will appreciate that two days ago, at the end of the consideration of my Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Sinha, suggested that there was a possible way out of the impasse in which we found ourselves. Therefore, I have put down this Amendment, which I hope will satisfy my noble friend Lord Chesham and all your Lordships who thought that the Amendment which I had down at that time left the door too wide open.
I yield the right to nobody in my desire to see that the young and inexperienced do not get hold of a lethal weapon if it can possibly be avoided. On the other hand, I think the other day there was a lot of special pleading which may have misled us slightly from other aspects of what will happen if we allow the Bill to go through as it stands. I do not think there is much need for me to produce again my arguments about motorcycle combinations being extremely safe, as witnessed by the 50 per cent. reduction in premiums offered by leading insurance companies on the motor cycle combination.
But when the vehicle-testing scheme comes into operation I think it is reasonable to assume that quite a number of very cheap vehicles will go off the roads. We shall be left with people who are no longer able to use these vehicles and who very likely may not be able to afford

609
to buy a more modern motor car in a condition to pass these tests. It may be that they will want to go back to the motor-cycle combination. They may even enjoy fresh air—which is not at all a bad thing for us in this country sometimes. If they have a car licence, they will have to take the test again to drive a motor cycle and side-car. They may be older men—in fact, they probably will be. Are we right in saying that they have got to buy a motor cycle and side-car that is wrong for their needs, for their wives and families? They are sensible people. I still maintain that the minimum size of engine for motor cycle and side-car is certainly 350 c.c. I may be told that this Amendment is badly drafted, and perhaps we can get some encouragement that the question may be looked at in another Bill.
There is one more point I should like to make, and that is: has anyone considered what happens in the Services? The Armed Forces have motor cycles and sidecars, and I cannot recollect one under 350 c.c. I do not know what Her Majesty's Government are going to do if they get themselves in this fix—whether they will ask for a special dispensation for the Armed Services. My noble friend Lord Chesham did say the other day that my arguments were forceful. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Waleran.)
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to repeat what I said on the Committee stage of this Bill: that so far as the sponsors are concerned we have a certain amount of sympathy with those who wish to make exceptions in the case of motor cycles with sidecars. We are, therefore, fairly well disposed towards my noble friend Lord Waleran's first Amendment. I cannot, however, accept his second Amendment, which runs entirely contrary to the whole spirit of the Bill. But although we accept his first Amendment in principle, I understand that there are grave difficulties in practice from the point of view of Her Majesty's Government. I hope that, when we have heard what those difficulties are, my noble friend will not press his Amendment. So far as his remarks about the Armed Services are concerned, I cannot agree that our lives should be
610
endangered by the Armed Services, any more than by those who are not in the Armed Services. I certainly think the Bill should apply to all those who use motor cycles.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I must confess that I am still not happy about this situation. It may save your Lordships a few minutes of time if my noble friend Lord Waleran will allow me to reply to both his Amendments together, because my remarks are applicable to both, and it would perhaps be rather stupid to make them twice. The first thing I must say, as my noble friend pointed out, is that the drafting of both these Amendments, I am definitely advised, is not satisfactory. I agree that my noble friend's intention is reasonably clear but as drafted at present the Amendments do not fit into the existing structure of the Bill. At this stage it is, of course, very difficult to give the necessary consideration to the correct form of words which would be necessary to make sure that, if your Lordships should embody them in the the Amendments would have precisely the right effect. So much for drafting.
These Amendments, I realise, have been put down to try to meet some of the objections that I raised on the Committee stage. They go in the direction of doing that, but I am sorry to say they do not go nearly far enough. I aim glad, at this point, to be able rather to scope off my noble friend—and not only my noble friend but, I think, the OFFICIAL REPORT as well. I think I am correct in saying that it was the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who made suggestions for the improvement of these matters, and not the noble Lord, Lord Sinha. But even these helpful suggestions do not go far enough. Of course I recognise that there is substance in what my noble friend Lord Waleran has put forward. At face value there is a certain logic in regarding the 350 c.c. side-car outfit as being suitably equivalent, in this context, to a 250 c.c. solo machine. And also, of course, there is some force in the point that he made, about older people requiring the family type of sidecar outfit. But while, as I say, I recognise that there is force in his intention, I rather think that, if it were carried out

611
as suggested, it would probably lead to some anomalies, and disturb the balance of the safety measures which I apprehend is in the minds of the promoters of this Bill, and certainly in our minds.
I am not necessarily arguing these points, but the sort of thing that occurs to me is that if you learn on a combination, exactly, now fit would you be on passing your driving test, to go on to a solo? It seems to me that the Amendment as put down would tend rather to get round the intention, expressed by the Committee, of seeing that the rider acquires this skill on a gradual basis, starting on a light machine before going on to a heavy one. That is the way it seems to me. So far as the Army are concerned, as I understand it, if this Bill does become law, they will have to train, like anybody else, on 250 c.c. machines; and, frankly, I think that if they have not got any now they will have to get some. I cannot vouch for that because that is a Department for which I do not speak; but I understand that to be the position.
It is really just a question of assessing how big this problem is. I have no figures—I have been unable to get any out in the time—but one thing I can tell your Lordships is that the number of people who present themselves for a driving test on a motor-cycle combination is very few indeed. There is also the fact that, from what I have seen on the roads, quite a number of people are using, not family-sized side-cars, I agree, but side-cars with small machines, certainly of under 250 c.c. Therefore, in view of the time factor—the fact that we have not long left—I would suggest that if my noble friend Lord Waleran does not wish to press his Amendments to-day (or, if he does wish, that your Lordships do not accept them) I will draw what he has said to the attention of my right honourable friend and ask him to consider the whole situation, including the intention behind these Amendments, when further legislation dealing with road safety is in the course of preparation. Naturally, I cannot say when that will be, but we all know that it is bound to come. I would rather leave things as the Bill will make them and I hope my right honourable friend will agree to do that. Although, of course. I cannot give
612
my noble friend any positive undertaking as to what my right honourable friend might, or might not, see fit to do, I can certainly ask him to consider it. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will agree that that may be the better way to do it.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for having referred to the noble Lord, Lord Sinha, instead of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, but I was reading from the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has scored off me. I only hope that at some time in the future, when he has been the speaker, he may not be glad that there has been a mistake. I do not really agree with his argument as to the number of people who present themselves for test on a motor-cycle combination. It is important that they are few in number but, as I have said, in the future we may find that quite a number will be doing so, if the smaller and cheaper cars go out of action. I hope that that point will Abe conveyed to his right honourable friend in another place. I think that what he has said is most reasonable, and, if your Lordships agree, I shall be pleased to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FORTH ROAD BRIDGE AND EDINBURGH BY-PASS
4.44 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the proposed construction of the southern approach road to the new Forth Road Bridge, which is designed to channel the traffic from the bridge into the City of Edinburgh, whereas plans exist for the construction of a by-pass road round the south of the City; and, if so, whether they propose to bring forward the completion of the by-pass to synchronise with the completion of the bridge as originally intended. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in seeking your Lordships' permission to ask the second and unstarred Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper to-day. I should like to preface my remarks with

613
an expression of my appreciation of the consideration and the patience which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, who is going to reply, has shown towards my persistence in this matter of the Edinburgh bypass road, particularly as we have had many interviews and discussions since the matter was debated on November 4 last. These discussions have only sharpened my anxiety about the traffic problem in Edinburgh, with its threat to the unique identity of the City. My anxieties are shared by many.
Further, since November 4 I have had the opportunity of crossing the Sydney Bridge, the Golden Gate Bridge, many toll bridges around New York, and the Jacques Cartier Bridge in Montreal—all toll bridges that have either paid for themselves out of tolls or are well on the way to doing so. I need not mention the magnitude of the network of approach roads by which these toll bridges are fed with the streams of traffic which they carry. Suffice it to say that we must face the fact that we in this country lag behind the rest of the world in road planning.
I should like to describe Edinburgh's problem geographically, simply to illustrate the point of my Question. If we take Edinburgh as being in the form of a semi-circle, the chord being the southern hank of the Firth of Forth, with Leith and Granton ports upon it, and the are spreading southwards until it touches the foothills of the Pentlands, the by-pass, as already outlined in the plans which go back for many years, roughly follows the are of the semi-circle which stretches southwards. Five or six miles to the west of the City of Edinburgh the old Forth Bridge stands, and just west of it again the Forth Road Bridge, which should, if all goes well and according to plan, be completed in 1963, will stand and pour a large proportion of its load into what amounts to almost acul-de-sac formed by the Firth of Forth, the City of Edinburgh, and the Pentland Hills.
In my view, the Government are to be commended for having brought forward this important bridge. My complaint is that they have not gone far enough. I have reason to believe that in some quarters the intention, when this bridge was brought forward, was to bring forward at the same time the by-pass
614
road to the south of Edinburgh. Indeed, that was the original plan. Going back 20 years or more, it was intended that the bridge and the by-pass road should synchronise. The disadvantage of bringing forward the bridge has been that the carefully prepared all-Scotland plan of road development, involving the expenditure of £40 million spread over four years, has had to be trimmed by the amount involved, not only in this bridge but in the tunnels under the Clyde. In other words, other most important work included in this £40 million programme has had to be cut in order to compensate for so much of the cost of the bridge as falls into the four years. I think I am right in saying that the total cost is £17 million, of which £10 to £11 million come out of this 4-year programme.
The by-pass problem seems to me to divide itself into three questions. First of all, is the by-pass really desirable or necessary? Secondly, if so, when is it needed? Thirdly, where is the necessary treasure to be found? To the first question—is it desirable?—Is think your Lordships will agree that the answer is, Yes. There is no need to labour this point. If money were no object, a bypass round the south of Edinburgh would be necessary, both traffic-wise and amenity-wise: especially amenity-wise, where we are dealing with a show city and shopping centre, which is the case with the City of Edinburgh, is it necessary; and I propose to show that it is.
I believe that even without the Forth Road Bridge the by-pass, if not necessary today, will be necessary, as it were, to-morrow to cope with the rapidly growing traffic falling on its roads; and not only through traffic passing through Edinburgh from South to North or North to South, but traffic which has to circumvent the Pentland Hills. One must remember that the Pentland Hills stretch for 22 miles from Edinburgh in a southwesterly direction, with no road across them; and when those hills are first crossed by road at Newbigging by Carnwath it is not really a main road at all. The Pentland Hills offer a very major barrier to transport between the South and the East, and the North and the West, the latter including the industrial belt which, as we all gladly welcome, is to be rendered still more

615
important by the British Motor Corporation developments at Bathgate. There are five roads into Edinburgh from the South and East—the A.1, along the coast, and A.68, from Lauder, the A.7, from Galashiels, the A.701 from Peebles and the A.702 from Biggar. Then we have the wedge of the Pentland Hills and out to the North and West we have the A.7, "The Lang Whang" to Lanark, the A.71 to Motherwell, the A.8, the Edinburgh-Glasgow road, the A.9 to Stirling and the A.90 to the Ferry; and that, of course, is a continuation of the A.1, the main route from London to the North.
If I digress for a moment, I would point out that the existing so-called "ring road" in the centre of Edinburgh runs through streets and residential areas and is no practical solution at all. On it there are seven "Halt" signs and the whole road is so twisted and in places so steep that it is quite unsuitable for industrial traffic. Indeed, as many of us know, it is quite difficult to find, even in a passenger vehicle. Improvements which, in my view, can be regarded only as palliatives, are mooted and estimated to cost £750,000. I wonder whether this will not be wasted money. In my view, the Forth Road Bridge will alter the whole pattern of road traffic in Eastern Scotland. Many people, like myself, anticipate massive additions to existingtraffic pressure into the partial cul-de-sac I have described. After all, it is the natural development of the A.1—A.90 main road to and from the North. A survey of the traffic is being attempted, but such a survey is very difficult because it is an estimate of traffic which does not exist. Admittedly, the Ferry is there, but we all know that the Ferry is not really a carrier of road traffic as we know it to-day; and it means that estimates have to be taken which are really guesses.
Experience elsewhere is that such estimates have almost invariably proved too low and to fall far short of actual experience. I cite for your Lordships' reference the case of the Mersey Tunnel. I believe I am right in saying that that tunnel, having paid for itself, is now carrying four times the traffic which the original survey estimated it would carry in 1960. For these reasons, then, I be
616
lieve the by-pass road is not only desirable but necessary.
That brings me to my second question: if so, when? I feel that the answer is now, and not only because of the length of time it will take to build. Although the requisite land has been sterilised, an enormous amount of formality has to be overcome and detailed plans prepared. I believe the answer is now, if only to save the £750,000 that the City of Edinburgh is planning to spend on the ring road. I further say now, to reduce the size and cost of the approach road which I mentioned in the first part of my Question and which is, as now contracted for: a double carriageway road, turning south and east from the Road Bridge into the Queensferry Road, and single carriageway route at Dalmeny, which, as your Lordships will know, leads to the West End, over the Dean Bridge. I believe, also, that the answer is now on account of Scotland's present unemployment position.
Unemployment is at too high a level in Scotland, and although mechanical road construction admittedly does not employ large numbers of men on the job, one must remember that behind the machines stand the men who make and service them and the men who produce the materials, the stone and metal, the bitumen and the pre-cast concrete units, the steel and all the rest of the materials that go to make up the massive operation which a modern road involves. I believe that construction of this kind in Scotland would be a contribution towards the present unemployment position there.
If the by-pass is necessary, and now—and I believe all are agreed, as I am sure the noble Lord the Minister of State will agree, that the by-pass is going to be necessary at some time and probably soon—we come to my third point; and this is the real crux of the matter. How is it to be paid for? Who pays? I should like to turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, in the debate in your Lordships' House on November 4 last, when, dealing with this matter, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 219, col. 375]:
"The responsibility for roads to the Forth Bridge around Edinburgh tics in the first place with the Edinburgh Corporation. Their Development Plan includes an outer circular road, comprising existing roads with some new sections, which may cost about £750,000, and

617
as a long-term project, a completely new city by-pass extending for eight miles and costing about £2 million. I am sure that the Edinburgh Corporation will consider seriously whether this outer circular road—not the ring road—should not be completed in time for the opening of the bridge."
That, at this moment of time, Edinburgh is responsible is doubtless true, but I challenge the wisdom of this situation on the grounds of equity. An amount of £2 million for a by-pass road is a large sum of money for a city the size of Edinburgh to face, if, as I believe I have shown and will go on to show, it is not purely for city purposes. I am not suggesting that Edinburgh would not bear a proportion of the cost, but I suggest that in fairness the proportion would be small. For instance, presumably the city would contribute what they would save on the ring road if it were to be put forward to-day—and a bit more. But surely the by-pass is, in fact, a through route. If we may speak of the Hyde Park Corner reconstruction, we find that the fact is that central funds are to be provided to the extent of £3½ million towards its cost. Would not some similar treatment, though of course on a smaller scale, be fairly applied to Edinburgh? It is not for me to press this point.
My suggestion is this: here we are to have a toll bridge. The toll is presumably intended to service and amortise the bridge. If so, surely it is plain bad business to charge the cost of that bridge above the line. I believe it should be below the line. It should be funded, and if this were to be conceded arithmetic shows that some £10 million would be set free to reinstate the truncated overall plan of which I spoke earlier in my speech. I say that arithmetically, because there are many complications in connection with dealings between the Scottish Office and Treasury of which I have not very much knowledge. At the same time, this figure in the neighbourhood of £10 million would meet the heart's desire of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, which is the completion of the duplication of the Glasgow—Edinburgh road, with its very high accident rate and really dire need of improvement, and also pay the lion's share of a by-pass round the South of Edinburgh.
But may I urge the Government and the Treasury to examine this subject as carefully and as sympathetically as they
618
can? Was there not at one time some talk of a consortium to finance the bridge? Perhaps even a joint effort could be arranged, perhaps with Scottish banks or financial interests to contribute to the funding of such an operation. My Lords, if I have not said enough to establish the case I make, I have a letter here from Lord Stuart of Findhorn, who regretted that he could not be here this afternoon because he has an engagement in Scotland. I need not remind your Lordships of the length of time he was at the Scottish Office. I would quote the words of his letter:
"I had always visualised, in conjunction with the Forth Bridge, that a road should be made by-passing Edinburgh to the South. Without going into detail and not being precise as to the exact route, my view is still definite that this should be pushed forward as soon as possible."
He goes on to say:
"This would keep out of the centre of the city all traffic from the East and South going West and North, and not stopping in Edinburgh. It would obviously reduce the heavy traffic coming into the East End of Princes Street from A.1 and into the East or West ends from the Jedburgh and Langholm roads. Both ends of Princes Street in particular are heavily congested and will soon be even more urgently in need of relief.
"I hope that this is clear enough—and you may, if you wish, quote any of the above as my strongly held view."
Thus, my noble friend has put my case in a nutshell.
Before I end, I would say that, as this is not a full dress debate, I have deliberately refrained from expanding this question of traffic congestion; nor have I mentioned some of the cities possessing less architectural or æsthetic significance than the City of Edinburgh which nevertheless possess by-pass roads; nor have I referred to the national need for better communications; nor to the disadvantage we suffer from lack of co-ordinated planning; nor to the relation between good roads and traffic accidents, nor to Scotland's special claims. All these are perfectly well understood by your Lordships. However, if nevertheless I have been importunate, I apologise for my importunity but consider my excuse to be valid. I feel sure, indeed, that there is more that could be said and that other noble Lords will be able to fill in the gaps if necessary. I beg to ask the Question in my name.
5.4 p.m.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ferrier has explained in detail and with great clarity the reasons why this by-pass road is so important. There are, however, two further reasons which I should like to put to my noble friend. The first is from the defence angle. I am not going into any specific details about the places involved, because they are all part of the defence scheme of this country and it cannot be known to a person like myself where they would be. But it will be within the recollection of your Lordships that in the last war a large part of the North-West—in fact, nearly the whole of the North-West—of Scotland was a very heavily restricted area; and one cannot possibly say where, in the unfortunate event of another war, there would be installations demanding a heavy flow of through-traffic.
Apart from that, it is, or should be, part of the defence scheme of this country that there should be an uninterrupted flow of traffic from North to South, avoiding all dangerous bottlenecks such as are at the moment inevitable, when traffic is funnelled into the City of Edinburgh. Then there is the Turnhouse Airport, outside the city. That, like all airports dealing very largely with internal traffic, has a large number of its passengers arriving direct at the airfield in their own car. If this by-pass were constructed, certainly so far as I am concerned, as well as other people in that area, we should no longer have to go through the middle of Edinburgh, as is the case at present. I do not want to delay your Lordships for long. Those are the two points I want to make. But, over and above that, it really is quite astonishing that at this time of road planning a road should be deliberately constructed to go straight into the middle of a town, instead of a by-pass being built around the outside. I feel that this matter is highly important, and I hope that my noble friend will be able to give some sort of a satisfactory answer as to the reasons for this. Money surely ought to be available for such a scheme.
5.8 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I rise for a moment to support the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, in the Question he has put to Her Majesty's Government. I do not
620
now have a very close connection with Scotland, but I visit the country from time to time, and I can bear witness to what he says about the appalling congestion which occurs, even now, at both ends of Princes Street. One of the troubles one can see is that if people are driving into Edinburgh from the North, along the road leading to Shandwick Place, and they see that looks full, they turn traffic down to Queen Street and pour into that very beautiful part of Edinburgh new town, turning it into one more wretched congested street. That problem is sure to increase when the Forth Bridge is made, because far more traffic, which at present may go South from Stirling or cross over the Kincardine Bridge, avoiding Edinburgh, is bound to pour across Forth Bridge and into the bottleneck to which the noble Lord referred.
There is another point which is very important. If a city like Edinburgh is to be made into one great bottleneck, with congestion at both ends, there is bound to be a big increase in the number of street accidents, in the number of vehicles damaged and in the number of people who are killed or injured. At present we are all extremely worried about casualties on our roads. It seems to me to be a very bad piece of planning to carry out work like this, which is obviously going to encourage, rather than discourage, accidents. That is another reason why I very much hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply will be able to give us some encouragement.
The third point I should like to make is rather to confirm what the noble Lord said. If you are going to build a toll bridge, and expect to get money from the tolls paid for the bridge, why not make your traffic approaches as good as you possibly can, so as to encourage traffic on the bridge, rather than discourage it by making conditions so impossible? One can see the appalling effect of bad approaches to bridges by the present Kincardine Bridge. Last summer, I was driving from Edinburgh to lunch with some cousins at Bridge of Earn. Unfortunately, I had left it a bit late in the car, and I said, "We will not go over the ferry, we will go over the Kincardine Bridge." That was a very great mistake. I got blocked all the way from Kincardine to Bridge of Earn, and

621
I arrived at my lunch certainly one hour late, whereas if I had gone the other way round, across the ferry, I should have got there in time. So one ought not to have a big new bridge with bad approaches. This is foolish planning, and almost a waste of money.
There is one further point. We have spent a large amount of time talking about traffic congestion in Oxford. There have been many speakers in the past; debates lasting four or five hours; and innumerable plans promised by the Minister of Transport. I admit that Oxford is a very historic and a very beautiful City, but I do not think it can lay claim to anything which the City of Edinburgh cannot. Therefore I trust that the same amount of interest will be given to the traffic problems of Edinburgh as has been given to the traffic problems of Oxford, and that we shall have a very favourable reply from the Government to-day.
5.13 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I want to say only a very few words, as I feel that my noble friend Lord Ferrier has put the case for the approach roads to this bridge so well. In my opinion, there are only four or five towns in the whole of this country that people would deliberately drive through rather than drive round via a by-pass; and Edinburgh is one of them. Therefore, we must have a first-class by-pass in order to encourage them to use it, instead of going through the middle of the town. The present Edinburgh ring road is a series of roads through the suburbs of Edinburgh. Every time you get to one of the main cross-roads, you have to halt on the ring road and wait for ten minutes while traffic flows by in each direction. You then take your life in your hands and turn (and it is nearly always a right turn out of all these roads); then, fifty yards further on, you turn left again. As the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, says, there are seven "Halt" signs on the ring road, and there are certainly another two places where there ought to be "Halt" signs but where there are not.
I imagine that the ring road which the Edinburgh Corporation has suggested—the outer ring road, as it is called—since they propose incorporating existing ring roads, will consist of a series of roads
622
with a 30 m.p.h. limit. You will be driving along one of these stretches, and will come upon a piece of the new road, which will be de-restricted: then back to a 30 m.p.h. stretch, followed by a slightly better road, with perhaps a 40 m.p.h. limit. You will then come to an enormous traffic jam trying to cross the A.7; and, having negotiated that, you will have another bit of 30 m.p.h. road—eight miles around the south side of Edinburgh. In my opinion, this is simply not good enough, and I cannot see the point of building a bridge costing £10 million if you are not going to build proper approach roads which will cost only another £1¼ million over the sum which, as at present proposed, is to be spent on the outer ring road.
I should also like to say a little about the approach roads on the North side. Having got away from the Forth Bridge, so far as I can make out we shall still have to negotiate Cowdenbeath before we are on a decent road. The 30 m.p.h. limit stretch through Cowdenbeath is about five miles long. It is not particularly congested, but I feel that, while we are building this big new bridge, which will carry, I should think, more traffic than any other road in Scotland, we might at least try to improve the approaches on both sides. I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Ferrier, that the whole of the traffic pattern in Scotland will be altered when this new bridge is built. All the heavy traffic from Dundee, Perth, Aberdeen and Fife will go over the new bridge, instead of down the equally terrible road from Stirling to Lanark, which is the way it has to go at the moment.
Moreover, if Edinburgh has a decent Southern by-pass, it will attract a lot of new industry to Fife; and this again will increase traffic on the Forth Bridge. I therefore feel that it should not be a case of a by-pass being wasted around the South of Edinburgh. If there is not one, I think the whole of the traffic in Edinburgh will come to a complete standstill, and that the accident rate in Edinburgh will go up quite appallingly. It is not an easy city to drive in at the best of times, for many of the roads are very steep and there are a lot of "Halt" and "Slow" signs where the road goes uphill. In the winter, particularly a Scottish winter, I can assure your Lordships that these hills are by no means easy

623
to negotiate, and I imagine that they are even more difficult to negotiate in a heavy lorry—not that I have ever driven one. I therefore hope that the Government will look favourably upon releasing £2 million for the Southern by-pass round Edinburgh, and that they will see that that by-pass is completed at the same time as the Forth Bridge is completed.
5.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I rise merely to support my noble friend. The subject has been covered so thoroughly that there is very little more to say, but no one has pointed out that, while there are 7 million vehicles a day on the roads at the moment, before we finish the Forth Bridge we are told that that figure will be 12 million, without taking into account the other increases about which everyone else has been talking. It seems to me that that is going to be fairly serious. The fact that it must be considered serious is, I think. borne out by the fact that we have managed to "chisel" out of Her Majesty's Government £17 million to build a bridge, anyway. Unless there was going to be some traffic for that, I am quite certain we should never have got away with it. That being the case, I beg the Government not to get "cold feet" now, but to carry on with the good work. That is a slight palliative.
It is equally true that, as regards the cost of building roads, the longer you leave it the greater it gets. Therefore, there is a great deal to be said for taking the bull by the horns now and for really speeding up this programme, and possibly some of the others. I know certain quite large programmes which are contemplated in smaller counties—my own, for example—which can well be put off for another twenty years. I say, let us have a look at these important things, and not spend so much money in each county in order to keep the people of those counties quiet—which is what is happening sometimes. Surely a by-pass connecting a large number of trunk roads should be considered more or less as a trunk road itself and, if it is a trunk road itself, a trunk road ranks for a very high grant indeed. I was therefore a little perplexed to find the cost falling on Edinburgh. I was not quite sure how that tied up with by-passes, with trunk roads,
624
and so on. I was not quite clear how that worked out, and perhaps the noble Lord will make that clear when he replies.
5.19 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to my noble friend Lord Ferrier, and other noble Lords, for so properly raising an item of interest and, as my noble friend says, of anxiety, now that the Forth Bridge is a reality. Before I deal with the main question of the by-pass, may I clear away two points which have been raised and which are not strictly relevant, but are important? My noble friend the Duke of Atholl talked about the north side of the Forth Bridge, and Cowdenbeath. I am advised that Fife County are investigating the line of the Kelty—Cowdenbeath By-pass, and that an order will be made fairly soon; so my noble friend is pushing against an open door. My noble friend Lord Ferrier—and I am sorry I do not speak for the Treasury—said it was bad business to charge the cost of the Forth Road Bridge above the line. He asked, why did we not charge it below the line and so release £10 million for the City by-pass and other desirable improvements close to my heart.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I meant that it was bad business to have a toll bridge and to charge it to revenue.
LORD CRAIGTON: That is right, my Lords. I can advise the noble Lord that it would not affect either the size or the direction of the road programme in Scotland, or indeed any other spheres of Government activity, if the Forth Bridge were financed by borrowing below the line. As my noble friend knows, money is money, whether it is voted or borrowed. The Exchequer, acting in the interests of the economy as a whole, can find the one no more easily than the other. In fact, if we keep below the line, then we can borrow only by increasing the surplus above the line, and that means increasing taxation. So far as a consortium is concerned, that is a different question, of which I should like notice. Clearly, if money is found from other sources than the taxpayer, there are many other considerations to bear in mind.
As regards the main item we are discussing this afternoon, I agree with the

625
noble Lord, Lord Amulree, that the internal traffic congestion in Edinburgh is increasing, and I think he will agree with me that it will be worse on the completion of the Forth Road Bridge. The question is whether the construction of the City by-pass is essential to relieve this congestion; because many of the people using the Forth Bridge will come to Edinburgh to look at that beautiful city. The main problem to-day is lack of information on traffic movements in the area. As my noble friend said in opening the debate, the origin and destination survey has just been completed. It is a big job to collate the returns and we cannot hope for results until the autumn, so that any judgments given by noble Lords or by myself at this Box just now, may be proved wrong. But I know what noble Lords are thinking and I agree with them. Even after the autumn, we shall only be able to make a better guess at what will happen when the Forth Bridge is opened.
Let me clear the decks—and our minds—by stating some of the known factors which must: have an effect on the extent of Forth Bridge Road traffic that should be passed by Edinburgh. I confirm what my noble friend Lord Ferrier said, that the bridge will be completed by the end of 1963. We are all glad to know that the work is well on schedule. When it is completed, traffic will still have to pay to cross. The extent of the tolls will be determined by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State having regard to the loan charges on the bridge, and there will be an opportunity for a public inquiry.
What will offset the charge? First, the saving in time as compared with the ferry, and, secondly, the saving in time and petrol as compared with the Kincardine Bridge. The bridge will increase the traffic between Edinburgh and Fife, but how much traffic will come from and go beyond Edinburgh? The present survey will guide us, though it cannot give us the whole answer to what will happen after the bridge is open. But in extolling the attractions of the bridge for through traffic—trunk road traffic—noble Lords may not have taken fully into account the scale of trunk road improvements now in the pipeline. These improvements may have a profound effect. Drivers travelling from the Border to places north of the Forth
626
will, in five or six years' time only, be able to travel from the Border at Gretna to a point near Kincardine Bridge all the way on dual carriageways of modern design. With the improvements made in England and those to be made on the London-Birmingham and Birmingham-Lancaster motorways, we shall by that time be reaching the position of there being a modern, fast west-coast route from London to Kincardine, serving Lancashire, the Midlands and South Wales.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean that the approach road North of Kincardine will be improved too, because it was the approach road coming from the North about which I was complaining so bitterly? If that is not going to be improved, the bridge is no good at all.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, the position North of the bridge is reasonably satisfactory. But, of course, we must remember that the North is just as important as the South. If traffic approaches from the South. it must go beyond the bridge. The Department has that point very much in mind, especially for Glasgow—Perth traffic, and for the Stirling road as well. Whatever we do or do not do round Edinburgh, this alternative fast, free route by Kincardine must, for long-distance through traffic be a keen competitor with the Forth Road Bridge. We must weigh our consideration also with these factors before committing ourselves to spending the great sums of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money that would be involved.
Now to the position in Edinburgh itself. There are three ways round the South side of the City which come into the discussions. One exists now—the ring route. Two are referred to in the City Development Plan, the outer circular and the City by-pass, about which my noble friends are particularly concerned. The whole City by-pass road from the Maybury to Musselburgh would be about sixteen miles long. The section in the development plan is eleven miles, of which ten miles are within the city boundary. The cost of construction of this 10-mile stretch would attract grant. I am sorry that I cannot be too forthcoming at this stage, for reasons which noble Lords will understand, about the extent to which it

627
will attract grant. That will be a proper argument when the time conies. Noble Lords have suggested that the United Kingdom taxpayer should meet the whole cost. This raises very difficult questions. Normally, there are no trunk roads wholly paid for by the taxpayer within the boundaries of Scottish cities and large burghs—certainly none the length of this one. Furthermore, before any trunk road is provided, the Government must be satisfied that the need for it justifies its priority over other Scottish roads.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I did, I think, make the contention that Edinburgh should bear a portion.
LORD CRAIGTON: Yes, my Lords. I think that I replied to the noble Lord that if Edinburgh did bear a proportion, then the proper argument would be: what proportion would the City bear? And on that I was not able to advise your Lordships at this juncture. If the City by-pass is to be built now, or soon, some other road must fall—that is, either with or without a proportion of Government expenditure. There are between £2 million and £3 million involved, because the whole by-pass is longer than that part which goes through Edinburgh under the Edinburgh Development Plan. Noble Lords who know the area have to say which proposed improvement is to fall—the Glasgow-Carlisle, the Glasgow-Kincardine, the Edinburgh-Glasgow, the Edinburgh-Stirling., the Forth Bridge-Perth roads, or those little sundry items which, my noble friend Lord Stonehaven said, we give to the counties to keep them quiet. I reject that completely, and I advise you not to say it to the counties. They could take four or five times the amount' f money we give them now; their complaint is that we do not give them enough.
But all the main roads that I have mentioned, and many other roads, are now carrying much more traffic than, with our present information, even allowing for quite an amount of exaggeration, we believe would use a city by-pass. At present the City by-pass, as the noble Lord said, is included in the 20-year development plan. The question of its construction is not "whether" so much as "when". And whether its
628
construction is to be brought forward is a matter, in the first place, for the Edinburgh Corporation to consider. I can say no more on that matter.
But what of the other two routes? The ring route—my noble friend referred to it as the "so-called" ring route, and I agree with him—is signposted by the A.A. I do not think my noble friend regards it as satisfactory, though I must confess that as I learn my way about it I find myself using it more and more. As things stand, it will be all that is available when the bridge is completed in 1963. I agree with my noble friend Lord Stratheden and Campbell about the need for a good road to the airport. I sometimes wonder whether I dare go that way, as if I lost my way I should lose the plane.
But what about the third route, the outer circular route which could run clear from Corstonphine Road round the outer part of the city to join A.1 on the East? This could be the road that my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn had in mind; and it could be the first-class by-pass that is so necessary, as was mentioned by my noble friend the Duke of Atholl. Most of this road exists already. One new section is under construction, but to complete it an important new length must be built south of Calder Road, near Colinton. If the census results and all other considerations show that the volume of by-passable traffic may be substantial, then the Edinburgh Corporation will no doubt consider urgently whether the "missing link" should not be constructed before 1963. In doing this, they will have to consider whether the road should go through Colinton, as now in the plan, or whether it should avoid that village. My right honourable friend, for his part, will do what he can to find his share of the cost. In our view, whatever the future of the City by-pass, this circular route will still be needed, if only because it is also a distributive road with more junctions leading to the city than there would, or should, be on the City by-pass which, when built, should be a modern by-pass with as few junctions as possible. So one has to ask oneself whether the outer circular route may not be a safe and satisfactory interim solution.
I have dealt with this interesting and difficult problem in some detail, because

629
I want to convince your Lordships that we are not being casual, pig-headed or short-sighted; and we shall not forget to consider the defence angle or the casualty danger. But we should be doing less than our duty to decide finally, on the facts we have, on the timing and execution of such an important and expensive project as the City by-pass. My right honourable friend and the Edinburgh Corporation must have more facts to go on. We can only await with interest and I must confess some impatience the result of the origin and destination survey.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I have no right of reply, but may I thank my noble friend for his reply, and I only wish that it had been as helpful as his reply to my Starred Question earlier.

USE OF HOUSE IMPROVEMENT GRANTS IN SCOTLAND
5.35 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL LORD GREENHILL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent advantage has been taken in Scotland by local authorities and private individuals of the grants available towards the cost of improving and modernising houses, and how it compares with that of England and Wales. The noble Lord said: My Lords, although this is the last item on the Order Paper for to-day I think I am justified in saying that it is by no means the least important. It would appear as though this were a minor facet of a much larger problem—such matters as the housing position, town planning, the distribution of industry and a host of others. But although this may be a small facet in this much larger problem, it is nevertheless a most important problem.
The questions I would ask the noble Lord the Minister of State for Scotland to answer are these. To what extent has advantage been taken of the many grant-attracting opportunities which have existed from the passing of the Act of 1949 until the more recent Act of 1959 to conserve, through these grants, the vast number of repairable houses which could be made reasonably habitable for, say, some ten or fifteen years? Secondly, to what extent has advantage been taken of the 1959 Act, which imposes a duty upon local authorities to make grants for
630
certain improvements, by occupants of houses lacking the five basic minimum requirements specified in that Act? Thirdly—and this is the tail end of my Question—what explanation can the noble Lord offer for the wide disparity in response which appears to exist between applicants in Scotland and applicants in the rest of the country?
My purpose is not to criticise or blame our forbears for the legacy of decrepit properties which this generation has inherited, nor to censure this or any other Government for their sins of omission. The situation, as I see it, is far too serious to indulge in any such criticism. I confess that I should have confined myself immediately to the purpose of my Question but for the fact that in last Saturday'sGlasgow Herald there appeared a short article by their Parliamentary correspondent suggesting that in the course of to-day's debate on this particular matter it was likely that there would be a good deal of criticism of Labour-controlled town councils on the grounds that, because local authorities would receive only one-quarter of the cost of the grants, they would be lukewarm and lacking in enthusiasm in supporting these grants which are available for improvements and conversions. Due to that statement, I want to make it clear that I do not stand here in the position of a rebel to my own colleagues or members of my Party.
With your Lordships' permission, I should like to quote from the policy statement known as Homes for the Future. On page 25, under the heading of "Modernisation", this policy pamphlet says:
"Our main concern to-day "—
"Our" referring to the Labour Party—
"is with the improvement and maintenance of existing houses, and this must be done irrespective of the ownership of the property. Most people desiring to buy a house would also wish to put it into as good a condition as possible."
The pamphlet goes on to deal with a repairs fund and so on. If it should be objected that that refers mainly to conditions in England, it may be interesting to point out that in a Party political pamphlet called Let Scotland Prosper this is what is said under the heading of "Home Ownership":
"All over Scotland there will be those, and we hope they will increase in number, who

631
will wish to own the houses they occupy. Helping the owner-occupier is an important part of Labour's policy."
The statement goes on:
"…many present owner-occupiers need help in bringing their houses up to modern standards. Many owner-occupied houses, sound enough in other ways, are without amenities such as an internal supply of hot and cold water. The cost of modernising is frequently beyond the means of the owner."
I wish to impress upon noble Lords that what is being asked in this Question is part and parcel of the recognised policy of the Party to which I have the honour to belong. I think it is necessary on two grounds to dispel any suggestion of partisanship. First, it is the avowed policy of the Labour Party to encourage modernisation, as I have already explained; secondly, if there be any truth in the Glasow Herald suggestion, it would be only to the extent that some Labour-controlled local authorities are not acting in the spirit of Labour Party policy. So I feel on very safe ground in asking my Question.
The second ground, however, is one of wider implication. When we speak of building houses as part of town-planning activities, we are apt to assume that town planning is solely concerned with the building of new houses. It is often overlooked that, in the process of providing new houses, a necessary part of the planning is to conserve as many as possible of such older houses as are fit to remain occupied, at least until such time as new accommodation can be found for those occupiers. This, I may add, applies particularly to sites in the central part of cities, where there is an understandable reluctance on the part of the older inhabitants to leave their long-established social groupings; their wish is to be left undisturbed. This does not mean the continuous sterilisation of more and more of our diminishing virgin sites. It is surely the negation of planning to wait until older houses fall into so bad a state of disrepair as to make even temporary habitability impossible, or, as so frequently happens, to leave them in so dangerous a condition that they fall down of their own accord, often, as we have read, to the injury of members of the general public.
This is not to suggest or to imply that the building of new houses should in any way be slowed down. On the
632
contrary, it should be speeded up. For one danger is that, having regard to the quality and materials of which the earlier post-war houses were built, they, too, will rapidly be reaching a state of disrepair similar to that of the still older houses with which we are concerned to-day. Why, I ask, has there been so disappointingly small a response to the offer of these grants? Although some 400,000 new houses have been built in Scotland since the war, we are still far short of the number required to satisfy present demand, and the need to adopt every possible avenue to keep up the supply remains. One indication of the continuing need is the fact that, from 1955 to the end of December, 1958, more than 22,700 houses have been closed, although of these closed houses 15,700 still remain standing and have not yet been demolished. In the same period, more than 19,000 houses have been demolished, the occupants having presumably been re-housed. Considering the numbers of people still to be housed, what steps are being taken to improve the many thousands of existing houses which, with a little cost, could be made habitable for some few years more?
I sometimes think that what has been achieved has been brought to my notice not only by what has been done in England, but also by what has recently been done in Scotland. Two cases come to my mind which I think are worth mentioning, for the reason that there have been two different lines of approach. For the first illustration of what I have in mind, I am deeply indebted to my old friend, Sir Patrick Dollan, recently retired from the Chairmanship of the East Kilbride Development Corporation and still a very active public-spirited man. He gave me a copy of a works magazine issued by the Lithgow Group of companies—the summer number of 1960—in which there appears an article headed "Port Glasgow", showing both by letter press and by beautiful photographs what can be done by way of improvement grants in houses which otherwise lack either attractiveness or amenities. Secondly, my attention was drawn to a Paisley newspaper which contained a description of a piece of reconstruction and improvement, also illustrated, which showed what great things can be done to make a one-time disreputable-looking

633
lot of houses into something really habitable. That was a scheme which the noble Lord the Minister of State for Scotland had the joy of opening, and I hope to hear some reference to both those schemes in the course of his reply.
The question is: how can public attention be increased towards this very necessary kind of work in these days of house shortage? The Department of Health for Scotland have for some years published a series of interesting, accurate and well-drawn-up pamphlets giving details of these improvement grants and conversion grants; how they can be obtained; what has to be observed, and what can be done. Although these pamphlets are well drawn up, I say with great respect that they are not making the desired impact upon the minds of those for whom 'they are intended and who are to benefit from these schemes. Obviously, such things as advice bureaux—which a number of local authorities have—television and radio publicity, Press publicity, and the kind of drives such as the anti-polio and anti-tuberculosis drives, are all desirable and helpful. But I still feel that they do not make the impression upon those who are mostly concerned, and for whom they are primarily intended.
The reason, I suggest, is that these men and women are not accustomed to consult architects, to employ contractors, to make their wants known or to fill up forms of some complexity. What is required is someone who is in intimate and close touch with these people, someone to whom these people can go almost as a matter of course. I very respectfully suggest—and I hope that my motives will not be misconstrued—that the people most appropriate for these purposes are the elected local representatives. At election times they take great care to persuade the electors that they have the capacity and the will to do all they can for those who return them to power in the local authorities, and it would seem to me that here we have a source of close contact, intimate contact, whereby people who can be made interested in these matters can be referred to people who understand their outlook; who can fill up forms for them; who can explain the complexities of these particular schemes. They are the ones, I suggest, to whom these people should be sent, in order that these matters can be
634
explained to them, and in order that encouragement can be given, for their good, so that during the comparatively short period in which they are occupying places which to-day could be improved that improvement might, in fact, be made available. I do not want to develop that particular aspect too much, but I think that there may be a connection between the complaint of apathy on the part of local electors, of their failure to take an interest in local elections, and a kind of impression that the electors are not getting what they hoped and expect to get from the promises of those who stand for local elections.
I have so far not said a word about the attitude of the landlords of rented houses, who should also come into this scheme, because I feel partly that, in these days of high and soaring prices of properties and sites the incentives offered are not sufficiently attractive. A number of these landlords, whose public spirit is by no means what it should be, descend to different kinds of devices—for example, constructing limited liability companies, with very small capital, for different individual properties, so that if they incur a liability to a local authority they can more or less evade responsibility by ceasing to be liable as individuals and leave it to a limited liability company without any assets to be attached in order to meet the situation. I think that in places like Glasgow and Edinburgh that particular kind of operation has reached the magnitude of a scandal. Although I cannot for the moment suggest any particular kind of remedy, it seems to me that if some kind of alteration could be made in our existing legislation which would tighten our powers over that kind of ownership it would do a great deal of good. By what I have said, I have, as it were, supplemented my Question, and I shall listen with great interest to any remarks and observations that the noble Lord may make.
5.55 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I should like to say a word on this matter. They sometimes say it is a brave man who dares to interfere from South of the Border on a Scottish debate, but I have been very interested in the subject for many years. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has pointed out that his Party

635
are as much in favour of modernisation of houses as our Party are, but the Acts of Parliament in England—and I think in Scotland they are identical—are permissive and not mandatory on the local authority. The local authority have to put up a certain amount of money. The owner puts up 50 per cent. and the other 50 per cent. is shared between the central Government and the local authority. Many local authorities have "played ball" very well and have done all they possibly could to try to get as many as possible of these very necessary modernisations done. But I am sorry to say a good number have not. There have been a lot of local authorities, some Labour controlled, who do not seem to like to put up public funds for improving private properties. Nothing can be done unless the local authority will help in this matter, because, as I say, the Acts are not in any way mandatory; they are entirely permissive. I think a great deal has been done in England—I do not know much about Wales—on owner-occupier houses.
It is much more difficult where there is a landlord owning a group of these houses, because the rents, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, knows, have been very low, and there is hardly enough money coming in rents to keep a roof on these houses, let alone do modernisations. Now the rents have been increased somewhat, one is hoping that landlords are trying to be good landlords and modernise houses. In a great many cases the local authorities have acted in a co-operative spirit and a great deal has been done for owner-occupied houses and also houses which are farm service houses which the landlords have modernised. I was very impressed at the Agricultural Show where the Ministry of Housing and Local Government had a special exhibition to show what has been done, how these modernisations have been done and also how people can get grants. It is quite a technical process, because you have to bring a house up to a certain standard laid down under the Act of Parliament before you can get a grant, and it needs expert advice from an architect, a surveyor or a builder. Plans have to be put in front of local authorities and certain conditions complied
636
with. My only reason for getting up is to say that I hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said, that his Party are trying to make the Act work as much as ours are. I hope he will do all he can to use his good offices to see that local authorities do their duty in this respect, give these grants wherever possible and do not be obstructive, as they have sometimes been in the past.
5.58 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, for having raised this important matter, and for the way in which he presented it. I welcome the opportunity he has afforded us to give further publicity to the grants which are available for improving and converting, our older houses in Scotland. I should like to refer to Lord Wolverton's point about the giving of the grant being permissive and not mandatory. As he says, it is an unwise thing sometimes to step in on Scottish debates, but we are glad he raised the point. This time it was wise, because it gives me the opportunity to give the answer. I can assure him that, whether the local authority is Labour-controlled or not, in Scotland at any rate it makes no difference. We have no reason to be dissatisfied with the support given by the Scottish local authorities to the principle of the grants, and certainly it is not on political lines so far as Scotland is concerned. As the noble Lord said, this is not a Party issue either.
Everyone agrees that our stock of old but sound houses must not be allowed to fall into decay. There is no reason why they should, when they can be improved or converted to modern standards, often at less cost than new building. This is a social as well as an economic problem. It is nothing short of scandalous that in this age of jets, motor cars and electronics there are still so many families in Scotland who may have a T.V. set in the living-room or even a car at the front door but who still have to share a toilet with other families. How can we, as a nation, expect people to give of their best, and how can people hope to get the best out of life, if they live in a home with no bath, no proper hot water supply or no inside toilet?
How big is this problem? As the I noble Lord has said, vast numbers of

637
new permanent homes have been built since the First World War, but still something like half the total of our Scottish houses were built before 1919. We cannot do without them; we cannot pull them down in one quick operation and replace them with new ones. Furthermore, many of them—perhaps half a million—are not yet in the category of slums. All they lack are modern amenities. Hundreds of thousands of these houses must be worth modernising and preserving. The Government are right to offer inducements to owners to modernise these houses. This is sound economics and sound sense. A converted hp-to-date home is good for the tenants, good for the owners, good for the ratepayers, and good for the country as a whole.
In his Question, the noble Lord asks for a progress report and bow our record compares with that of England and Wales. Before the 1959 Act, grants to local authorities in Scotland for conversion and improvement of their own properties were being approved at an average rate of about 335 a year, as compared with almost 2,000 a year in England—a ratio of 1 to 6. Since the 1959 Act, and up to June 30 of this year, 555 grants to Scottish local authorities have been approved, as against 8,226 in England—a ratio not of 1 to 6 but of I to 15. So the Scottish local authorities are falling behind. In the case of discretionary improvement grants to private owners, the ratio as between Scotland and England before and after the 1959 Act has remained the same—1 to 13. The figures of standard grants are most disappointing. So far 1,266 standard grants have been approved to private owners in Scotland as against no fewer than 47,000 in England—a ratio of 1 to 37.
That is the picture: the Scottish local authorities falling behind; nothing like the same use being made of the standard grants; and no change in the private owner improvement grant rates. This is a disappointing and alarming state of affairs. We are grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to it, and we must look for the reasons. After all, there must be some reason for a Scotsman not to take advantage of something for nothing. But we must be realistic. Certainly the difference in traditional structure presents a greater challenge in
638
Scotland than in England. It is, for example, in general easier to add a toilet and a bathroom to a typical English terraced house, perhaps as an extension in the backyard, than it is to add such an extension to a flat three storeys up in the smaller typical Scottish tenement. As a generalisation, one could probably say that what in England would tend to be done as an alteration or addition with standard grant aid, in Scotland would tend to be done by throwing two homes into one or three homes into two, for which improvement rather than standard grant is applicable. So we must be dissatisfied, too, with having only maintained our improvement grant ratio with England. Our goal cannot be to match proportionately England's figure in any particular category: our goal must be to make sure that every house in Scotland which can be modernised will in fact be modernised, and this is not the trend now.
The noble Lord raised the point: have we failed to publicise these grants sufficiently? Does everyone know about them who should? Very considerable publioity has already been given and this pressure is being kept up. Leaflets and posters have been widely circulated and displayed, a short film has been offered to the Scottish T.V. networks, a demonstration of improved houses has been held in Paisley and hope others will follow in other parts of Scotland. A stand has bean taken at the "Modern Homes" Exhibition in Glasgow's Kelvin Hall in October. I think we should be grateful for the help of Sir Patrick Dolton, who has personally done more than any other person, I think, with no connection other than his own, to help in this way. I assure the noble Lord that we will take every opportunity we can get to publicise the advantages of these grants, and I hope the present debate will serve a useful purpose in that respect. But while we remain dissatisfied with the use made of these grants, we must remain dissatisfied with our own publicity efforts. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said, we are not making 'the impact—those were his words. We must keep on trying, and trying harder, and this we will do.
There are three agencies concerned with the improvement of these properties: the local authority, the private

639
owner of rented property and the owner-occupier. To each the Government, in the unusual guise of fairy godmother, has given a magic wand of grants. Properly used, the wand can change houses into homes. Let us look at each agency in turn. First, the local authority. As the noble Lord pointed out, local authorities can get improvement grants paid to them by the Exchequer for improving houses they own or acquire. The grant is three-quarters (seven-eighths in the Highlands and Islands) of the estimated annual loss for the life of the house, subject to a maximum of sixty years. In many cases this is a better bargain than demolition and rebuilding. From the results so far I wonder how many local authorities have really applied their minds to the social and financial advantages.
But there are some who have. I had the privilege in April of opening a demonstration of houses improved by Paisley Town Council with the help of Government grants. They did not quite agree with the Government about the amount of the grant, but that is a proper argument between the taxpayer and the ratepayer. This demonstration showed very well how typical old Scottish tenement houses of the room-and-kitchen or two-rooms-and-kitchen type can be converted into comfortable, convenient modern homes. I am sure that all those who saw the exhibition, which showed houses both before and after conversion, were impressed, as I was, with the wonderful transformations which can be brought about by splitting up rooms, or joining small houses together. Houses like these exist all over Scotland. There are immense possibilities to give people the chance to get modern homes in the districts and in the very streets in which they have lived all their lives.
Everyone knows that, as the noble Lord said, the almost universal picture in our Scottish towns is of new housing estates on the outskirts and decaying old property in the centres. The time is overdue far a full scale drive to redevelop our city centres, by slum clearance and redevelopment on the one hand, and by improvement and conversion of the sound properties on the other. It was for this reason that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland issued a circular recently calling
640
upon Scottish local authorities to make an appreciation of their housing situation and to change the emphasis of their policies in favour of more central redevelopment, rather than our continuing to build houses an green fields ever further and further away from traditional centres, as we have been doing ever since the war.
Then there is the owner-occupier. In his case there are two types of grant. The local authority have discretion to pay him a cash grant of half the cost of his improvements—that is the discretionary grant referred to by my noble friend—up to a maximum of £400, and to claim back from the Exchequer three-quarters of the annual loan charges on the grant over 20 years. The second type of grant—the standard grant—was introduced by this Government in the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959. In Scotland, though not in England, it is available only to private owners, either landlords or owner-occupiers, and consists of half the cost—up to a maximum of £155—of installing five basic amenities: a bath or shower in a bathroom; a washhand basin; a hot water supply; a water closet and facilities for staring food. The whole idea of the standard grant is to make available to people a simplified form of grant which they may obtain as of right from their local authority (it is not, as my noble friend said, discretionary) with the absolute minimum of fuss and bother. No elaborate plans or specifications are required—just a simple statement of the work to be carried out, with confirmation that the occupier has consented to the making of the application. The Exchequer refunds to the local authority 75 per cent. of whatever they pay out by way of standard grant.
These then are the two types of grant: a standard grant available for certain specific works with the absolute minimum of formality, and a larger improvement grant for more complicated work of improvement and conversion. While we in central Government will continue to do all we can to publicise these grants among owner-occupiers—and I support the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, in his plea—I hope that the local authorities, too, will consider it part of their civic duty to improve the conditions under which their ratepayers are living—and,

641
incidentally, the rateable value of their area. They know where the houses are, and they know the people living in them. They should make it their duty to ensure that wherever possible advantage is taken of these very generous grants.
But there is one word of warning that I must give to intending owner-occupiers. I do plead with anyone who is thinking of buying an old house that he should do two things before buying. The first is to seek professional advice as to whether the house is a sound investment, and the second is to ask his local authority whether the house is likely to be subject to a closure or demolition order. I know of several young people who have lost their hard-earned savings by buying a house which was subsequently demolished or was just not 'worth the money. The circular I have mentioned also asks local authorities to help in this matter, as I am sure they will, by providing the fullest information in reply to requests by prospective buyers about the future life of the houses they propose to buy.
Finally, my Lords, I come to the third category, the private owners of rented property. They have available to them the same grants as owner-occupiers, but with provision for increases in rent once the house is improved. It is from the owners of rented properties that we must expect the most effeotive contribution if we are to succeed. Let me tell your Lordships more of one who made use the magic wand to which the noble Lord referred: the work of Lithgows at Port Glasgow. This is, I think, the most ambitious scheme of improvement by any private owner in Scotland.
Messrs. Lithgows are at present engaged in modernising five complete tenement blocks—originally 443 houses —in the Clunepark scheme at Port Glasgow. When the scheme is completed there will be 430 modern homes (a loss of only 13) at a cost of just under £800 each. The total cost of the scheme is estimated at £330,000, of which some £140,000 will be met by improvement grant. The original houses were mostly of the room and kitchen type, with no bathrooms, while the improved houses will each have modern plumbing, with
642
new sinks and, of course, bathrooms. The whole scheme is a fine example of what a private landlord can do in co-operation with a local authority; for I am glad to say that Port Glasgow Town Council have made houses available to tenants temporarily displaced while the work of improvement is going on. I understand that wherever possible the former tenants are offered back their old flats after modernisation.
This is an example of the sort of thing I should like to see happening all over Scotland. I think it provides at least in part an answer to the noble Lord's point about the use of grants by landlords. Lithgows have shown what a private landlord can do, particularly when he has the co-operation of the local authority. I understand when the scheme was launched Sir William Lithgow was reported as describing it as a challenge to other landlords. It is a challenge that I hope many other Scottish landlords and local authorities will accept, and I commend this example to them.
Everything noble Lords have said this evening will be most carefully studied. The Government are all the time keeping the situation under close review and are most anxious to take steps to improve the response and make the schemes more attractive; so all constructive suggestions—and we have had some this evening—are welcome. We must all be deeply concerned in this matter, and not only because we see our precious national stock of houses deteriorating: we must remember the plight of the unfortunate tenants who are condemned to live in these obsolete houses that might be modern homes. As the noble Lord said, successive Governments have provided the essential basis of legislation. Now it is up to the Government, the local authorities and the private owners to do better in the interest of the nation—which is their own interest—and in the interests of the tenants themselves.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, the code is that we do not indulge in further debate, but I should like very much to thank the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for his very full Answer and for the favourable response he has made to my Question.