Lords Sitting of 8 July 1969

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

PRIMARY SCHOOL NEEDS
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the latest estimate of the increase in the numbers of maintained primary school pupils between 1968 and 1972; and what effect this estimated increase will have on school building costs during the same period.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the latest estimate is 430,000. To provide new school places for this number costs nearly £110 million. Adequate provision has been made for pupil increases in these years in school-building programmes which are already announced up to 1970–71.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. Is it a correct deduction from the figure she has given that the increase is about 10 per cent., which is 3 per cent. more than the increase for the whole previous decade? May I also ask the noble Baroness whether she can give a little more information, first about the amounts for improvements and replacements within that £110 million, and, secondly, about the amount to be spent on minor works, as compared with previous years?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but I am afraid that I have not a breakdown of the figures in the way he has asked. However, I shall be happy to send him the details. The estimate is based on the Government Actuary's most recent projection of live births which I would assume are on the increase.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness one further supplementary question? With the primary school numbers rising so steeply, is it Government policy that there will come a moment, before the raising of the school-leaving age, when there will have to be a large extra increased projection of capital into primary schools?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that again I cannot give him a precise answer. It follows from the figures I have given that a reconsideration is called for, and I think this is reflected in the Answer to the next Question, which touches on another point relative to the school-building programme.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS: INCREASE IN PUPIL NUMBERS
2.38 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the latest estimate of the expected increase in the numbers of maintained secondary school pupils between 1968 and 1978, and in which three years within this decade the greatest increases in these numbers may be expected.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, between January, 1968, and January, 1978, approximately 1¼ million. The greatest yearly increases during this period are expected to be 367,000 in 1973, 123,000 in 1974 and 132,000 in 1975.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for those figures. Am I right in thinking that they are really incredible, showing nearly a 50 per cent. increase—three and a half times the rate of the previous decade? I should like to ask two other supplementary questions. First, do Her Majesty's Government know exactly in which areas it is likely that the sharpest increases will occur when the school-leaving age is raised? Secondly, do Her Majesty's Government envisage any necessity for expanding further education facilities to help schools to cope with the sharp increases in the three years concerned?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, when the noble Lord refers to "area" I take it that he means area of age rather than the geographical area.
LORD BELSTEAD: That is so, my Lords.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, as the noble Lord will appreciate, the increase is due to three points: the raising of the school-leaving age; the increasing tendency for children to stay on at school voluntarily beyond the age of 16, and the larger secondary school age groups. So far as his other point is concerned, I think the noble Lord can assume that Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the factors, particularly as at the moment there is an inquiry going on into further education and the needs which we shall encounter.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, may I ask one further supplementary question? The noble Baroness has kindly given me the three years in which the sharpest increases will occur. One of those years is, of course, the year in which the school-leaving age goes up, but the other two are not. I must ask, therefore, whether the Government are confident that the necessary resources are available to cope with this incredible increase which includes the time when the school-leaving age is to rise?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is well aware of the position. He is spending a great deal of time and giving a great deal of attention to this area of expenditure. I appreciate that the figures involved are substantial, and I am sure the Government are well aware of the various problems that have been outlined.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness I must ask her if she is aware that what is worrying people is not whether the right honourable gentleman is aware but whether he is confident?

RETAIL PRICES INDEX AND WINE PRICES
2.42 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: 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 will amend item number 202 in the Index of Retail Prices so as to include all wines.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, the expenditure of households on table wines is already included in the weight given to wines in the Index, as the noble Lord is probably aware. Because an item is not separately priced in the Index it does not mean that it fails to affect it. It is sufficient to price a selection of items chosen so that their price movements, taken together, can be regarded as representative of the price movements of goods and services as a whole. In this instance, movements in the price of all wines are at present represented by movements in the prices of sherry. However, the Department of Employment and Productivity is looking into the possibility of including table wines among the items priced for the Index of Retail Prices.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which is very obscure, but I think in fact meets my point.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? Is there not a danger of public confidence in the objectivity of the Index being undermined by the seeming omission of items in common use which suffered an impost in price in the last Budget in terms affecting the cost of living?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I think this House is well aware that the Index and the whole structure of the standard of living figures is a complex statistical exercise calling for considerable erudition. If noble Lords press me on this matter, I shall retreat and offer to write to them. I do not think the public normally has a great deal of confidence in statistics because they do not understand them, and I have no doubt that further airing

899
of this point in this House would not improve that confidence.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord take this point? If the Index were explained in such a way that the public could see the effect upon it of new tax imposts, possibly the public's confidence in these figures would be increased.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, having had a brief education prior to answering the Question to-day, I take leave to doubt whether the time is available thoroughly to educate the public in this matter. I think it is a very difficult task indeed.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, does not my noble friend think that the inclusion of table wines as a matter of common usage would undermine confidence in the Index?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers that point, may I ask him whether the number of persons using table wines is so small that the introduction of that element would altogether mislead the great mass of people?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the point is—also in answer to my noble friend—that the study which is going on now in the Department of Employment and Productivity is precisely to come to a conclusion as to whether the inclusion of prices of selected table wines in the Index is statistically sound or not. This is the question which is being posed and to which I hope an answer will be forthcoming.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, following the supplementary question of the noble Lord opposite, can the Minister confirm that price movements of whisky and gin are already included in the Index. and calculated regularly? Surely the inclusion of normal table wines, which are much less expensive, would not under-mine public confidence?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am very sorry, but I do not know whether whisky and gin are included. I will inform the noble Lord in writing.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can assure us that the Index figures are suffi-
900
ciently flexible to allow for huge increases in indirect taxation, such as added value, which the Party opposite are proposing to put into operation if they come to power?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the Index refers to current prices, not to future prices.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, am I to understand that these wines are included in the standard of living Index related to old age pensioners?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the standard of living Index is an index figure relating to the current cost of living. It is not affected by consideration as to whether a person is old or young.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Then is the answer in the affirmative, that wines are related to old age pensions?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the answer is as I gave it.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can my noble friend clarify this a little? Is there not a separate Index figure for old age pensioners, the one I recently saw published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, that is another question.

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT: PROGRESS OF TEST FLIGHTS
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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, following the completion of the first 50 hours of test flight of the Concorde prototypes, a statement can now be made on progress up to date.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the results of flight testing so far are most encouraging. Both prototypes have behaved well in flight, and on take off and landing. The engines and systems have performed well, and for such an early stage in testing, reliability has been excellent.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that

901
encouraging reply, may I ask if he could advise us whether it is the intention to carry out further demonstration flights over cities up and down the country, and also whether any agreement has yet been reached on the flight path for supersonic trials and will this be published?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the possibility of further demonstration flights is being considered. No decision has been taken. Of course, it is not desired to interfere in any way with the programme of research and development, but it is something which is being borne in mind. No decision has yet been taken on the flight path for the testing at supersonic speeds.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one further supplementary question? Could he tell us when it will be possible for the two Governments concerned to announce whether or not this aircraft comes up to the desired specification?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Earl will realise, there is a programme here, and so far the results, as I said, have been encouraging. But the real test will come when the aircraft flies at twice the speed of sound. It is anticipated that 001 will fly supersonically in the Autumn and Mach 2 in the second quarter of next year. On the basis of these flights it will be possible to say whether estimates are matched by performance.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, could the noble Lord advise us whether any firm agreement has yet been reached with our French partners on the preproduction stage of the aircraft?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. There will be two pre-production aircraft, 01 and 02. which follow 001 and 002, one to be built in Filton and one to be assembled in Toulouse. Agreement has been reached on those two; also on three production aircraft. But the programme from thence on, from the fourth production aircraft onwards, is now under consideration.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there has been any evaluation by the Government of the impact of the sound of Concorde on the public over whom it passes?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there is a constant evaluation of this. Whether it is conclusive in one direction or another is a matter of opinion. But again, it will be something on which opinions can be more firmly reached when the aircraft has flown supersonically.

TATE GALLERY EXTENSION
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I take this opportunity of saying that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement this afternoon at a convenient moment after half past three on the extension to the Tate Gallery.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
YORK CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

LEGAL AID (EXTENSION OF PROCEEDINGS) REGULATIONS 1969
2.54 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1969, be approved. These Regulations implement the recommendations of my Advisory Committee on Legal Aid, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, is the distinguished Chairman, that legal aid should be extended to certain proceedings in the magistrates' court and to proceedings partly for defamation. They fall into five groups, and they are each a small group of cases in which it is fairly obvious that legal aid ought to apply but, for one reason or another, mainly I think accidental, it does not.
The first is in respect of proceedings, partly in respect of defamation. Successive Governments have taken the view,

903
with which my Advisory Committee agree, that it would not be a good thing to extend legal aid to proceedings for defamation. We do not want a great many actions brought on legal aid to decide who said what over the backyard fence; and so the existing Regulations exclude proceedings wholly or partly in respect of defamation. This wording has thrown up the sort of case which I think cannot have been contemplated at all: a man perfectly properly gets legal aid to bring a perfectly proper case, say for wrongful dismissal. The defendant then files a counterclaim alleging defamation. Thereupon the proceedings become proceedings partly in respect of defamation, so the unfortunate plaintiff loses his legal aid to bring his wrongful dismissal action. That is an obvious anomaly and should be cured.
The second kind of case is under Section 2 of the Children Act 1948, which empowers a local authority to pass a resolution vesting parental rights over a child in itself; for example, on the ground that the parents are unfit to have the conduct of bringing up their own children. For some reason, legal aid has not hitherto applied to this type of case. There are not many cases, but I think all your Lordships would agree that there are few more serious things which can be said of a parent than that he or she is unfit to bring up his or her own children, and for such a case proceedings in legal aid ought to be available.
Thirdly, there are two rather exceptional kinds of maintenance cases. Legal aid is at present available for obtaining or enforcing maintenance orders, but, again, I suspect, probably because nobody had thought of it, it is not available in two particular kinds of cases for subsequent variations where either the order has been made in the High Court but is registered in a magistrates' court, or the original order was made either in Scotland or in Northern Ireland and is registered in an English or Welsh magistrates' court. These Regulations would make it available to those cases.
Fourthly, the Supplementary Benefits Commission can bring proceedings under Section 23 of the Ministry of Social Security Act against persons who
904
fail to maintain their dependants and where the defendants have claimed or been paid benefit by the Commission. Similarly a local authority which has provided accommodation for a person's dependants can bring proceedings against that person to recover the cost of having done so. Although these proceedings are closely analogous to maintenance proceedings, legal aid is not available in respect of them at present. These Regulations remedy that by making it available to those against whom these proceedings are brought.
Lastly, one can apply for an adoption order, either in the High Court, in the county court or in a magistrates' court. Legal aid is available in the High Court and in the county court, but not in the magistrates' court. There are cases where a parent or guardian wishes to contest an adoption order and the court is invited to dispense with that person's consent. These Regulations make legal aid available to both parties where the court is asked to dispense with consent under Section 5 of the Adoption Act 1958. I think most people would agree that while there may not be many of these adoption cases, particularly against the will of a parent, they are matters of great concern both to the prospective adoptors and to the parents, and that accordingly legal aid should be available in the magistrates' court as it is in the High Court and in the county court.
My Lords, the cost of these extensions is but little. The total cost of all five is estimated to be in the region of £2,670 a year, and that is all. The Order has already been affirmed in the other House and it has been examined by your Lordships' Special Orders Committee, who report:
"That the Draft Regulations do not raise important questions of policy or principle;
"That they are founded on the precedent of previous Regulations made under Section 1 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949;
"That in the opinion of the Committee the Regulations can be passed by the House without special attention."
My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1969, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL AID (EXTENSION OF PROCEEDINGS) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 1969
3.0 p.m.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (LORD WILSON OF LANGSIDE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) (Scotland) Regulations 1969 be approved, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has explained the purpose of the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1969 which relate only to England and Wales. The Scottish Regulations make a similar provision for the extension of the Legal Aid Scheme in Scotland to cover proceedings which are partly in respect of defamation or verbal injury. Such proceedings are at present excluded from the Legal Aid Scheme in terms of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967 and it is, therefore, possible for a legally aided pursuer to lose his entitlement to legal aid if the defender enters a counterclaim for defamation or verbal injury. My right honourable friend, having sought the opinion of the Law Society of Scotland, accepts the view of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee that in these circumstances the pursuer should continue to be entitled to receive legal aid and has accordingly made these Regulations. As with the corresponding Regulations for England and Wales it is only in the case of proceedings in which such a counterclaim is made that the extension of legal aid in Scotland to proceedings partly in respect of defamation or verbal injury will apply.
Provision is made in the Schedule to the corresponding Regulations for England and Wales for the extension of legal aid to certain types of civil proceedings in magistrates' courts. There is no necessity for similar provision to be made in the Scottish Regulations: proceedings of this type are taken in Scotland in the sheriff court and, therefore, already qualify for legal aid. The effect of the Scottish Regulations is to make only a very minor extension to the Legal Aid Scheme in Scotland, but one which may prevent the possibility of injustice arising. It is, therefore, worth while. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) (Scotland) (Regula-
906
tions 1969, be approved.—(Lord Wilson of Langside.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.2 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved. That the Report be now received.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Provision of museums by education authorities]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 45, leave out ("the transferee") and insert ("a transferee who had notice of the said trust or condition at the time of the transfer")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment: concerns a comparatively small point. I should like to apologise to your Lordships for the fact that three of my Amendments are starred. The reason for that is that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was good enough to write to me about some of these points, and it was not until I received his letter that I was able to put clown these Amendments, which I did only yesterday.
The point here is a simple one. It is a question of a museum to which an object has been transferred by an education authority having or not having the right to dispose of that object if it is no longer of any service to it. The Bill says, in effect, that if under the trust or condition under which the object was passed to the education authority no power to dispose of the object is given to the education authority, then any museum to which that object is transferred would have to hold the object on the same trust or condition. That means that the museum could not dispose of it even although it did not have notice of the trust or condition at the time when the object was passed over to it. That would seem to me to be wrong. It may be that the clause is not intended to have that effect and would not have that effect under law, but that is not what the clause appears to mean, and it seems to me to

907
be as well to make it explicit. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the effect of the Amendment which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would be to make trusts and conditions under which an education authority holds an object apply after the authority had transferred the object to a museum only where the governing body of the museum had notice of the trust or condition. The Amendment is unacceptable on two grounds, and I am quite certain that it is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to bring the first of these into effect. The first ground on which we think it would be wrong if conditions or trusts were to be allowed to disappear on the transfer of the object in question to a third party is that the original donor of the object is entitled to be sure that the trust or condition cannot be defeated except by an application to the court. In seeking to protect the owners of museums taking objects from education authorities from latent trusts or conditions the noble Lord has, in the view of the Government, gone too far, because if the body are notified of the existence of the trust and accept it under the conditions of his Amendment, the trust would continue; but if, on the other hand, it was desired to defeat the object of the trust all that has to happen is that the receiving authority is not so notified. They then take the object, and the conditions of the trust have disappeared. I think this would be quite wrong. If a person creates a trust he is entitled to see that it continues to be operated unless the courts agree to set it aside, and it ought not to be possible to set it aside by an arrangement of this kind between exchanges of the object.
The second point is that we do not believe that there is need to give the transferee any protection against the emergence of latent trusts and conditions. In the first place, it is unlikely that a public authority would seek to conceal such a trust or condition from another authority. In the second place, people taking possession of objects ought to be on their guard and inquire whether any trust or condition exists. I would suggest that the very existence in the Bill of a reference to trust or conditions under
908
trust is such, especially having regard to the discussion which has taken place in your Lordships' House on this subject, that a question about trusts will be an almost automatic one which will be asked by museums in any circumstances where they think it is even remotely possible that a trust might exist. For those reasons, I cannot advise your Lordships that this is an Amendment which would improve the Bill.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am very disappointed with the noble Lord's reply. I should have thought that this was a safeguard for the items which were passed to the museum in trust. If they are passed without any notification, what assurance has either the donor of the gift or the museum itself that they know the conditions under which the object is held? The noble Lord raised what I should have thought was rather a quibble when he said that by putting in the words "a transferee who had notice", the object of the trust is defeated. I should have thought it was very doubtful indeed that that was the case. All you have to do is to add a sentence; that is, instead of saying, "who had notice of the said trust", to say, "and who will be given notice of the trust". That would certainly not be any condition, and it would put an obligation on the local authority to see that the proper information is available to the museum if for no other reason than to safeguard the object itself and to make quite certain that the museum knows exactly what the position is.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not wish to enter into an argument with the noble Earl about what is the proper interpretation of these words. All I can say is that the advice I have received from my legal advisers is that if these words are included, the receiving museum will be freed of the obligations of the trust without any further recourse to the law, and I did not believe, and I do not believe, that it is the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that that should take place. However, that is the advice that I have received.
The reason why I would resist any alteration is that which I have stated, that we do not believe it is necessary. Local authorities, education committees, and the like, are public bodies; museums are, for the most part, if not entirely, public

909
bodies. They do not set out to deceive each other. Why should we proceed to write our legislation on the basis that, either wittingly or unwittingly, they will do so? I prefer to work on the basis that it will be standard practice to ask whether there are any trust conditions attaching to an object. It is a fairly simple exercise, and it does not need the writing of a sentence into an Act of Parliament to ensure that that is done.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, and I am also grateful to my noble friend for the legal aid which he has given me in this matter, which is valuable. The whole problem here is the possibility of error or omission. That is what I was trying to cover, although I may not have covered it correctly. I was not for one instant suggesting that an education authority should seek to conceal any trust or condition, let alone set out to deceive a transferee; but it is possible that an error or omission might take place in all good faith, where the transferee asked whether there was such a condition. The purpose of this Amendment is simply to free the transferee from any consequences that might follow from an error that was not his own. I do not want to pursue this matter, but I wonder whether the noble Lord would have another look at it before the next stage, to make certain that some such protection is not needed. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Power of education authorities to make payments to persons providing education, etc.]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 28, leave out from beginning to ("payments") in line 30 and insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of subsection (1) above, the approval of the Secretary of State shall not be required for the making by an education authority, by virtue of the power conferred on them by that paragraph, of")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 hang together. The first of these drafting Amendments makes it clear that an education authority's power to make payments to the managers of schools, other than public schools, in respect of in-
910
dividual pupils whom they are sponsoring, derives from Section 25(1)(c) as set out in Clause 6, and is not an additional power conferred by Section 25(2). Amendment No. 3 is consequential. Because Section 25(2) is expressed as an additional power, there might be some doubts whether paragraphs (a) and (c) of Section 25(1) were intended to cover the power of an education authority to make payments in respect of pupils whom they are sponsoring and who are to attend schools belonging to another education authority or schools other than public schools. The purpose of these Amendments is to remove these possible doubts. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, these are obviously useful Amendments and I would certainly raise no objection to them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 39, leave our ("or subsection (2)")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Power of Secretary of State to require education authority to fix a single school commencement on leaving date]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 9, line 14, after ("may") insert ("by order made by statutory instrument")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment of rather more substance. We discussed in Committee an Amendment to empower the Secretary of State to authorise an education authority to fix a single date for commencing school attendance, or a single school leaving date, in place of two or three in a year, if, and only if, the Secretary of State was requested to do so by the education authority. I argued then that it was wrong to give the Secretary of State power without consulting Parliament to compel every education authority to fix a single date, either for commencing school attendance or for school leaving, as he could quite easily do under the amendment in the Bill to the 1962 Act, simply by requiring each education authority to fix a single date.
It seems to me that before taking such a step, which, especially in the case of the school leaving date, would affect a very wide range of the populace, it is not enough merely to consult education authorities and teachers' associations or the Scottish T.U.C., as the noble Lord said had been done in the present case. Such a step would affect the whole nation. In particular, it would affect industry and commerce as well as the individuals concerned. I therefore suggested if he wanted to do that that the Secretary of State should introduce legislation. The noble Lord replied that if legislation was required it might take years before an opportunity arose to introduce it. I admit that there is force in that argument, and although I still think that it would be the proper course for the Secretary of State to come to Parliament for these powers, I have put down this Amendment as a compromise.
The Amendment lays down that the Secretary of State should make an order by Statutory Instrument to require the education authority to fix single dates, and the Secretary of State would then be giving Parliament an opportunity, if it so wished, to debate the order and even to reject it. Admittedly, the Amendment would require the Secretary of State to make an order even if he was requested by a single education authority to allow it to fix a single date; but, for my part, I think that would be a good thing. It would enable Parliament and the people of Scotland to know that this innovation was being introduced and where it was being introduced. If the Government think otherwise, it will then be open to the noble Lord at the next stage to introduce an Amendment of his own, or, indeed, to have an Amendment to this Amendment introduced into this Bill when it returns to the Commons, distinguishing the procedure to be followed on a single application by an education authority from the procedure to be followed if the Secretary of State wanted to introduce a change throughout Scotland—doing it education authority by education authority.
I submit that it would be wrong to leave the Bill as it is. I suggest that Parliament has a right to be consulted before changes of this character are imposed on a large scale. It is not enough
912
to have private and confidential discussions with educational interests, or even with the T.U.C. These are matters which affect the lives and livelihoods of a great many people, and they are matters, I submit, for Parliament. Parliament ought not to give the Secretary of State a blank cheque to fill in wherever he pleases, in such a case as this. My Lords, I beg to move.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept this Amendment. During the Committee stage he started by saying that he did not really want this power, but he gave us no reason at all why he was asking for it. He said that it is conceivable, as is always the case, that at some future date he might want the power; but, on that basis, it seems to be asking a lot of Parliament to give the Government powers which they do not want but which at some conceivable date in the future they might require.
The noble Lord emphasised that he wanted the Secretary of State to retain the initiative, but my noble friend's Amendment gives him the full initiative for which he asked. That is all he asked for during the course of the Committee stage. The noble Lord said that legislation might be over-elaborate for something of this character, and I concede that. But the procedure adopted here is a very simple one, indeed. It is a procedure which we follow very day and which causes no difficulty at all. What I take exception to is the fact that the Government are asking that the Secretary of State should have power to go into the office and write an order, without consulting anybody whatsoever—neither the local authority, nor Parliament nor anyone else. The noble Lord made some very interesting remarks about Prime Ministers appointing sensible Secretaries of State, and said he was sure that no Prime Minister in future would ever appoint a foolish Secretary of State; but that is really not quite good enough. The Government are asking for powers which they do not really want and it is much wiser, as I think the noble Lord would agree, to take this step only after full consultation. But as the Bill stands there is no need for any consultation at all. What we are asking for here is simply that this order should be brought to the attention of Parliament. It is quite a big

913
step; and I suggest that to do this would not inconvenience the Government, but it would avoid giving the Government powers which they do not want and as to which they have no clear picture either of their purpose or of when they would use them. I hope the noble Lord will find it possible to accept this Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the remarks just made by the noble Earl persuade me that I must look at what I said on the Committee stage, because if I said that the Bill gives powers which the Government do not want I must have expressed myself very loosely indeed. What I had intended to say, and what I hope I did say, was that the Government had no expectation of needing these powers at this stage, and it might be that they would never need them, but circumstances could be such that the power might be necessary; and Parliament frequently legislates for something which is possible, and does not confine itself to legislating for that which is probable.
On the second point, I looked again at my remarks about Prime Ministers not appointing foolish Secretaries of State, and while I must generally adhere to that I should not wish to elaborate on it, because it almost implied that I approved the appointment of every Secretary of State for Scotland that there has ever been. As I have had great cause to disagree with some of the predecessors of the present one, that takes me into rather difficult territory. But at least one knows that the Prime Minister does not proceed on the basis that he is appointing somebody who will act in a foolish fashion, which was all that I intended to convey. I was not giving any overall approval to everyone who had been appointed in the past.
However, there are many occasions upon which Ministers—not merely the Secretary of State for Scotland but Ministers throughout Government—have to act under legislation which does not lay any specific obligation on them to consult anybody but upon which, in the proper exercise of their duties, they realise that it is wisest to do the job in the simplest fashion rather than in the most difficult fashion, and that consultation often makes it easier for all concerned. If we were therefore to assume that consultation is going to take place
914
only where it is explicitly written into a piece of legislation, we should be altering the whole chain of Ministerial relations with public authorities and with the general public. I say this because I have emphasised, and I wish to emphasise it even more, that there will be the very full consultation which the noble Earl has said is desirable—and that will not be affected in the least by the inclusion or the omission of the Amendment which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn.
However, the object which the noble Lord has in mind would not in fact be attained by the Amendment. It would not mean that the matter would be discussed by Parliament. My advice, having regard to what the noble Lord has said, is that the Amendment would serve no useful purpose. An order made by Statutory Instrument is not subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament as, under Section 144(4) of the Act, Regulations are. The Amendment, I am informed, therefore, would not serve as a curb on the actions of a Secretary of State, as the noble Lord presumably intended. The advice which I have received is that it would merely add a rather pointless formality to the proceedings and would serve no useful purpose whatsoever. In those circumstances, I cannot possibly advise your Lordships to add these words to the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. In point of fact, I originally drafted the Amendment with the words "by Regulations", but I was advised that an order would also attract (as I think it is called) the Statutory Instruments Act. Subsection (5) of Section 144 is obscure on this matter. But the purpose of this Amendment is that the matter should be brought before Parliament. I do not think that in his reply the noble Lord has dealt at all with that purpose. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment and will introduce it in a revised form at the next stage of the Bill.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful that the noble Lord has agreed to withdraw this Amendment as it will not accomplish the purpose he has in mind. I must say,

915
however, that I do not expect to change my mind at the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Handicapped children]:
3.27 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 14, line 34, at end insert ("or required under paragraph (b)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small point. We discussed this matter on the Committee stage, and the noble Lord has been good enough to write to me about it. He seems to be quite satisfied that the words in the Bill at the present time are sufficient. It is a matter that concerns the right of a parent to appeal against the decision of an education authority. On page 14, at line 29, it says:
"… not to revoke the decision, in which case, if either the review was carried out in pursuance of a request made to them by the parent of the child by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above"—
that is, in the new Section 66 which this Bill introduces to replace Section 66 of the Act—
"or the parent was invited. under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above, to submit the child for medical and psychological examination in connection with the review, …".
The point is quite a simple one: that this seems to any ordinary person reading it deliberately to exclude the case where a parent has not responded to that invitation and in consequence the education authority has required him to submit. This is one of two cases—there is another that I am coming to—in which it seems to me that if there is a doubt it is much better to make the position clear and explicit. I had no doubt whatsoever in my mind when I read this; and I am sure that many other people will say when they read it, "The parent is not given a chance to appeal if he fails to respond to that invitation". The noble Lord says that the mere fact that a parent has received an invitation under the clause as it stands would give him the entitlement. That may be, but it is not apparent on the face of it, and I think we should make it absolutely clear. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I think it is fair to state that Parliament never deliberately puts into a Bill words which
916
it is certain serve no useful purpose—and that would be the effect of this Amendment. The point is that the Bill makes it perfectly clear that where an invitation has been extended to the parent, that invitation gives him such a right, whether he accepts the invitation or not. If he accepts the invitation, the noble Lord agrees that it is perfectly clear in the Bill that his rights proceed from there; but if he does not accept the invitation and the authority proceed by compulsion, that does not alter the fact that he has originally been invited, and the rights which attach to that invitation still remain with him.
The noble Lord says that this might not be clear, presumably to a parent, on his reading it; but very few, if any, of the parents who are involved will go and look up the Education (Scotland) Act 1969, search through it for the appropriate clause to find out what exactly their rights are and then decide that they do not understand them. This will be acted upon by the local authorities concerned, whose legal advisers, I have not the slightest doubt, will have no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that they are bound to act on an invitation extended, whether the invitation is accepted or not. For these reasons I am advised—and noble Lords will notice that this is the third Amendment on which I have used the words, "I am advised"; I do so deliberately; it is not something that I have thought up but the result of legal advice that I have received—that in this case the words of the Amendment are unnecessary and serve no useful purpose whatsoever.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I find it difficult to believe that that is so; but in view of the fact that the noble Lord was so positive about it and that the effects are likely to be as he said they will be (in this case, as distinct from the case that we are coming to) I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 43, line 11, at end insert—
(". In section 91 (Incidental expenses of education authorities) in subsection (2) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
complying with an invitation issued to him '(d) expenses incurred by a parent in

917
or a notice served on him by an education authority under section 64, 66 or 66C of this Act.'")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to secure that expenses incurred by a parent in complying with an invitation issued to him or a notice served upon him by an education authority—and this is a similar point to the one we were just discussing—to submit his child for a medical examination and a psychological examination can he recovered from the education authority. The noble Lord said that that was the intention. Indeed, he said that it was actually done in some cases already. He has been good enough to write to me to say that Section 91 of the 1962 Act gives the Secretary of State power to do this. That section says:
"It shall be lawful for an education authority to pay such reasonable expenses incidental to the proper discharge of their duties as may be sanctioned by regulations made by the Secretary of State."
Subsection (2) goes on to detail certain kinds of expenses that the education authority are entitled to pay provided they are sanctioned by regulations made by the Secretary of State. That is the law as it is at present.
The first question that I would naturally ask is whether regulations have been made by the Secretary of State. If not, it would appear that if this is the operative section, any expenses that have been reimbursed have been reimbursed ultra vires. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to answer that. The second point is this. The examples of the expenses that the education authority may pay which are given in subsection (2) of Section 91 cover contributions by an education authority "to any association of education authorities" and expenses incurred by the employees of an education authority. There is nothing about expenses incurred by the public. I should have thought it very doubtful whether such expenses can possibly be said to be "incidental to the proper discharge" of the duties of an education authority. An education authority can perfectly well discharge the duties laid upon them by Sections 64, 66 and 66C without paying the expenses of a parent incurred in bringing his child to a medical and psychological examination. So such expenses cannot be said to be "incidental to the proper discharge" of
918
the functions of an education authority. This is another case where it is desirable to make sure beyond any reasonable doubt that the Secretary of State has power to make regulations to empower an education authority to pay such expenses and so to put it into the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this is a case where I find myself in complete agreement with what the noble Lord wishes to do, as I think I made fairly clear at the last stage. We should prefer not to have an Amendment along these lines because if we specify these particular expenses which an education authority may be authorised to pay as incidental to the proper discharge of their duties we create a certain amount of difficulty by perhaps implying the exclusion of others. The noble Lord queried what could be done by regulations under Section 91(1). The information I have is that these powers are wide and have already been construed as covering a wide range of expenses—including, for example, enabling school pupils to take a suitable part on occasions of public ceremony or rejoicing, and promoting public interest in the educational service. The noble Lord asked whether my statement earlier that the local authorities had paid for expenses in these matters meant that they had acted ultra vires. I should prefer not to go into that. The fact is that they have done so; they have done something which they felt to have been reasonable. As we propose to make regulations under Section 91(1) covering the payment of these expenses, the situation clearly will be beyond any possible doubt so far as the future is concerned.
And we wish to go further. We will also make the regulations cover the analogous case of payment of expenses, in appropriate cases, in connection with medical or dental examinations under Section 58 and 58A, of the Act as amended. I give the noble Lord complete assurance that all that he wishes to do, and something added for good measure, will be accomplished in the regulations which the Secretary of State intends to make. I hope that in these circumstances he will feel that he has adequately secured the protection of those

919
people whose interests he was seeking to further, and that, although we have arrived at it by different methods, the result will be to his satisfaction.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has been very much more specific on this occasion than he was on the last. He has specifically said that the Government intend to make regulations in this case. As he also said that the Government have no doubt about their power to do so, and have made similar regulations, if I understood him correctly, applying to other cases of a similar kind, I should like only to thank the noble Lord for having done what I wanted although not in the way in which I wanted. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

TATE GALLERY EXTENSION
3.38 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the extension of the Tate Gallery. The Statement is as follows:
"The House will recall that earlier this year the Tate Trustees presented their proposals for a substantial expansion of the Gallery on its existing site. Because of the limited amount of land available they proposed to develop the vacant North-West corner of the site and also to build across the front of the Gallery. The scheme which was drawn up by the architects provided a skilful solution to the problem, but it would have involved the demolition of the portico and the steps. As the House knows, there were sharply divided reactions to this proposal.
"The Government fully accept that the Gallery urgently needs additional space for its growing collection so that more pictures and sculpture can be displayed and supporting facilities and amenities improved. We therefore decided, as I told the House in reply to Questions on February 20, to examine afresh the possibilities of making available to the Trustees some of
920
the adjacent land occupied by the Queen Alexandra's Military Hospital and associated buildings.
A further review of military hospital requirements in London and the home counties has now been completed. It has long been recognised that the Queen Alexandra's Military Hospital and the Royal Herbert Hospital at Woolwich must either be modernised or rebuilt. We have decided to build on Army land at Woolwich a new 500-bed hospital to replace both these hospitals."—
And I am sure that the Army will appreciate the advantages to be gained from this new hospital.—
"The Royal Army Medical Corps will have the facilities there to maintain the high reputation it has already achieved at Millbank.
"This decision enables the Government to make available to the Trustees the site occupied by the hospital at Millbank. This should meet the requirements of the Gallery for a long time to come. It will also enable the Trustees to realise their aim to display their Collection of Modern Art in modern galleries.
"The way is now clear for the Trustees to draw up revised plans to develop the North-West corner of the present site, and the Government are prepared for building to start as soon as the Trustees are ready. The construction of the new military hospital is of course a major undertaking, but we expect the Millbank site to be available by 1975. Planning for the new gallery and hospital can start at once.
"Two very generous gifts are being made which are linked with the new building on the hospital site. As is already known, Mr. Henry Moore is presenting a large collection of his sculpture to the Nation, subject only to one condition about provision of additional gallery space. The second gift I am happy to announce this afternoon. To mark the centenary of the birth of their founder, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation have just decided to give the sum of a quarter of a million pounds to the Tate for the construction of a gallery which will house temporary exhibitions and will bear their founder's name. This is

921
the largest single grant that has ever been made by the Foundation in the United Kingdom."
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement in this House and, from these Benches, welcome its contents. I would also express the appreciation of noble Lords on these Benches at the generosity of Henry Moore and the Gulbenkian Foundation for the splendid gifts which they are making to the Tate Trustees. May I say for myself how glad I am that the old portico will remain? It is a familiar sight to most of us, and one that we are all glad to see.
There are two questions that I should like to put to the noble Lord. As the new gallery on the Millbank site obviously cannot be ready for occupation for a period that will be nearer ten than five years, are the Trustees of the Tate Gallery happy about being able to manage with the extension on the South-West corner of the present site for that length of time? Secondly, as plans are to start immediately for the construction of the new modern gallery on the Millbank site, will the noble Lord make sure that these incorporate adjunctions designed to make an art gallery as enjoyable as possible—for instance, modern "walkie-talkie" apparatus, with lectures by experts explaining what some of the more obtruse objects mean, as well as more physical adjuncts, such as a modern restaurant and so on?
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement: it provides a very satisfactory solution to the various problems. I have no particular affection for the portico and the steps, but my objection to the plan as originally proposed was that, supposing they had been removed, I did not think the proposed building would have made a very satisfactory picture gallery. There are one or two questions that I should like to put to the noble Lord. What is to become of the Royal Army Medical Corps College on the other side of the Tate Gallery site? Will that be removed to Woolwich, too, or will it remain where it is?
I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, but I trust that when the new gallery is planned and designed we shall take a lesson
922
from the Hayward Gallery, on the South Bank, which has not been very satisfactory from the point of view of showing pictures—I am not talking about the outside of the building. Finally, does the Statement mean that the gift from Henry Moore will be kept in a gallery, or will some of the sculpture be left in the open air where I think it would gain an enormous amount? If Mr. Moore does not insist on its all being in a closed gallery, I should like to see some of it in the open air, where it would look extremely fine.. That is all I have to say, my Lords. I should like to thank the noble Lord for the Statement, and I am pleased that the Government have taken this line.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken. I was certain that this was one Statement that would give general satisfaction, and noble Lords have been generous in their recognition of this. In the light of the criticism of the earlier scheme I should like first to say that I am sure there is one noble Lord in your Lordships' House who will be delighted, and that is the noble Lord, Lord Llewelyn-Davies. He did a most skilful and difficult job. It gave rise to a great deal of controversy, but in the circumstances much of the congratulations should go to him for working out a plan, and for the fact that we have now something which provides much greater opportunity and about which I know he will be very pleased.
Regarding the questions which I have been asked, would say first, to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that I hope very much that the period before occupation will be nearer five years than ten. It is a very important matter, and there is no doubt about the Government's determination to press on. The timing obviously depends on the move of the Queen Alexandra Hospital and the clearing of that site. This must be completed, and a new hospital must he built and ready for occupation. Perhaps I should say a word of sympathy, particularly, to noble Lords who have been in the Army and who are probably regretting the disappearance of thou old Millbank Hospital. But I am sure that, on balance, it was the right thing to do. It must have been quite a wrench for the

923
Army, but none the less I think the decision was entirely right. With regard to the Royal Army Medical College, the present intention is that for the time being it should remain where it is. I will not underestimate the problem that is posed for that admirable and very distinguished body, the R.A.M.C., by separation from the hospital, but for the present that is the intention.
The other questions that were put to me are, I think, questions which the Trustees should answer, and I do not doubt that they will note what noble Lords have said. I am certain that the opportunity which this gives to the Trustee is a very great one, and I have no doubt that they will make the utmost use of it.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord exactly when the new hospital at Woolwich is going to be available for soldiers? Does it mean that the Woolwich Hospital itself must be pulled down? And where will there be medical facilities during the intervening period after the hospital has left Mill-bank? I do not think that soldiers mind leaving old traditions, but they do want their sick and wounded looked after properly, and near London where specialists are available.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, let us hope that there will not be many wounded. I fully accept the need of the Services for continuing medical facilities of their own. I do not know Millbank myself; I know the R.A.F. hospital at Halton and how admirable it is, and I have no doubt that Millbank has a very great reputation. It is hoped that the new hospital, which is to be built on the site of Shrapnel Barracks, will be complete by 1975. Obviously, the phasing will be designed to ensure that the Army is at no time without the medical facilities and the hospital beds it needs.

POST OFFICE BILL
3.50 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lord, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Bowles.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications]:
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) In consequence of subsection (3) above—

(a) in Schedule 2 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957, immediately before the words "Minister of Power" there shall be inserted the words "Minister of Posts and Telecommunications" and immediately before the words "Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power" there shall be inserted the words "Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications"; and

(b) in Schedule 1 to the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act 1965, immediately before the entry relating to the Minister of Power there shall be inserted the following entry—

"Minister of Posts and Telecommunications—£8,500",
and immediately before the entry (under the heading "Parliamentary Secretaries") relating to the Ministry of Power there shall be inserted the following entry—
"Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications—£3,750")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, arising out of Clause 2(3). The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 contains a provision for the reprinting of that Act, as amended from time to time by any other Act. As Clause 2(3)(a) does not make any verbal amendment of the text of the 1957 Act, it would not, on its own, without the proposed Amendment, afford sufficient authority to alter the text when the 1957 Act is reprinted. The proposed Amendment also makes an amendment to the text of the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act 1965, consequential upon Clause 2(3)(b). I beg to move.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I agree of course with the views which the noble Lord has put forward. This Amendment is only drafting and clearly designed to put right an oversight at an earlier stage of the Bill. But it gives me an opportunity of correcting an oversight on my part at an earlier stage of the Bill. The point I want to raise is short and uncontroversial and should have been raised, I am afraid, on the Motion, That the clause stand part at Committee stage. The Post Office, as it is now, is responsible for the marine radio communication service. As your Lordships know, this service, which has to be world-wide, is responsible, first, for the

925
preservation, safety and care of the distressed at sea and, secondly, for dealing with ordinary commercial and social business at sea. It is a vital service. There has always been important cooperation between shipowners and the marine department of the G.P.O., which is still rather quaintly called the Telegraph and Wireless Section.
I should like to pay tribute to the old G.P.O. for the stout-hearted and conscientious work they put into this extremely important duty. The Section is concerned not only with the day-to-day operation of this service but also with future plans; and I need not emphasise how important future planning is, how complex it has become and how technical it is going to become in the future. In the past, the planners and operators have always come from the same department of the G.P.O. This has enabled them to have full consultation and co-operation between the shipowners and the G.P.O.
What I should like from the noble Lord this afternoon, if I may have it, is an assurance that we shall have the same co-operation when the new organisation is set up, because there is one anxiety in the minds of the Chamber of Shipping, who have asked me to raise this matter in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I think we all know that if we have an important job to be done, it is always wise to give it to a busy man. But there may be in the new organisation quite a number of busy men and we are a little anxious lest this task, which has been carried out so satisfactorily in the past, may in the new organisation fall between two or three stools. I should like to emphasise that the department is a very small one compared with the G.P.O. as it now stands and with the new organisation, and there is a real fear that it may get lost in the new organisation. I should like to express to the Minister the hope that in the new organisation these operators and planners in the old Section can maintain their identity and that the problems with which they have dealt so satisfactorily in the past will still remain concentrated in their expert hands.
These are the anxieties I should like to put before your Lordships in discussing this Amendment, which deals with the salary of the new Minister in charge. There is no better way in which he could start earning it than by assuring himself that the old Service, which brought so
926
much credit to the Post Office and has been so warmly appreciated by the Merchant Marine, should continue unimpaired.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for having given me notice that he was going to raise this matter. I can assure him that there is no present intention to change the structure of the organisation within the Post Office which is responsible for radio communications with ships at sea, for the inspection of ships' radio equipment and for the examination of ships' radio operators. After vesting day, the G.P.O. will conduct ship inspections and examine operators on behalf of the Government, but this change in the legal position will not affect the management of these functions nor will it effect the expert knowledge of those who direct them within the Post Office. The new Post Office will of course try to develop, not weaken, expertise and we also expect that the present friendly relations will continue.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [General Duty of the Post Office]:
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 9, line 32, leave out ("impracticable or").
The noble Lord said: This small Amendment to Clause 9, which lays down the general duty of the Post Office, is an Amendment to the saving words in brackets in the first subsection, where it says
"(save in so far as the Post Office … considers the provision thereof impracticable or not reasonably practicable)".
What do we mean? Do we mean "impracticable" or "not reasonably practicable"? If we mean "not reasonably practicable", surely "impracticable" is covered. Let us try to be as precise as we can in the Statutes. Let us not clutter the Statutes with unnecessary words. Let us not give the impression that Parliament is dithering and cannot quite make up its mind whether it means "practicable" or really means "not reasonably practicable". I beg to move.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I feel that I ought to say something about this Amendment, because it was primarily at

927
my instigation that Clause 9(1) was amended on Committee stage, notwithstanding the fact that my Amendment left in the Bill the words, "impracticable or not reasonably impracticable" to which the noble Lord is now objecting. It seems to me inconceivable that the Government have used a phrase of this length, if it does not mean something more than just "not reasonably practicable." I am fortified in this doubt, if one can be fortified in a doubt, by something which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said this afternoon in replying to an Amendment on the Education (Scotland) Bill. I am not sure that I have his words exactly, but he said something like this: Parliament does not generally put into a Bill words which are not necessary for the purpose. I should think that unless the Government can assure the House that the words "impracticable or", which the noble Lord wants to remove, do achieve something or mean something that the clause did not mean without them, your Lordships would he wise to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for help from an unexpected quarter. He has given the exact reason I would have given myself. The truth is that the two phrases in this context have different meanings and they are both necessary. For instance, there might be cases in which it would be quite impossible in practice to provide an adequate letter or telephone service. In other cases, it might be possible to provide service but the cost of doing so, owing to technical difficulties, would make it out of all proportion. This is a small point, but it makes the Bill clearer and we should very much prefer to keep in both phrases.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am obliged for that answer. If it really makes the Bill clearer, I should be the last person who would want to press the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.0 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 9, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) It shall also be the duty of the Post Office to provide any person with goods, ser-
928
vices and facilities of the like quality, in the like manner and on the like terms in and on which it makes them available to any other person.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment concerns a rather weightier matter. It is a proposed new subsection to make sure that every customer of the Post Office, whoever he may be, will be treated equally and impartially. I imagine your Lordships will feel that the Post Office does this in any event. However, there is one example which shows that this is not always so. I see the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, is here, and he will probably know already the example that I am going to quote. I have referred to the matter twice at Question Time, and therefore I do not propose to go into it at any length now.
The fact is that until the great Post Office reforms of last September there was a valuable concession on the postage of newspapers. Anyone who posted a newspaper had to pay only the second-class postage rate but received first-class service. Today that still applies if you are a newspaper publisher or a newsagent. But if you are an ordinary member of the public—if you are Mrs. Bloggs wanting to post a copy of the local paper to your son serving in the Army away from home—if you want first-class service you have to pay nearly double the postage. So the position is that before the Post Office will give you a service for sending newspapers by post it wants to know who you are. I think that is basically wrong for a big, monopolistic, State trading corporation; and furthermore, I should have thought that it was absolutely rotten socialism. I should have thought it was absolutely vital, and stuck out a mile, that everybody who deals with the Post Office—and of course everybody has to deal with the Post Office—should know that he will get equal treatment on exactly the same terms as everybody else, and that in no case should it depend upon who a person is before the Post Office is prepared to decide the terms upon which it will give him service. The purpose of the Amendment is to secure equality for all users of the Post Office. I beg to move.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I feel great sympathy with the idea behind the noble Lord's Amendment, especially as he

929
offers it to us in the spirit of Socialism. The thing is that we are giving monopolistic powers to this great new corporation, and we want to be sure, as he does, that they are not misused. Equally, we are setting up the Post Office to serve the community, as a whole, and we must ensure within reason that it gives equal service to everybody. The Amendment however, goes too far to be practical. It places an obligation on the Post Office to treat all its customers in the same way. I am quite sure that this is not the noble Lord's intention, but in fact if this were to happen it would militate against progress and experimentation generally.
It would mean, for instance, that we could not introduce experimentally in a particular area a new kind of telephone or a new kind of cable, because we should not be able to give this probably improved service to all the other users. I could even take the more extreme example that in the future it could prevent the Post Office from giving the new subscriber dialling telephone service, because we could not do it everywhere at once. At the moment, only 3 per cent. of the country is without it, and I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to penalise the remaining 97 per cent., which is what his Amendment would dc. Further, on questions like the waiting list for telephone users, in some cases it is impossible technically to treat everybody alike. In others, the Post Office must reserve a priority list—for instance, for doctors. This again, would be impossible if this Amendment were agreed to.
We have given a great deal of thought to this matter. The noble Lord will remember that under Clause 11(4) the Minister is given power to intervene if he thinks that the Post Office is showing undue preference or is exercising undue discrimination in this kind of situation. We have, as I say, given it a great deal of thought, and in fact we strengthened Clause 11(4) in another place. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are very much alive to precisely this kind of situation. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Baroness has made out a fairly good case for saying that
930
Lord Airedale's Amendment goes rather too far, but she did not tell us the Government's view on the particular matter with which he is concerned: the posting of newspapers overseas by private individuals. I wonder whether she would be good enough to enlighten the House on the Government's view on this fairly simple matter, because it might help the House as a whole, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to consider whether to put down a more limited Amendment on Third Reading.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, that detailed point was dealt with on a previous occasion, and I should not like to confuse the matter by giving a further explanation which I have not got, word for word, in brief form. As I say, it has been dealt with previously, and the principle remains the same. If the Amendment went through, it would go much further than I believe even the noble Lord himself wishes.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, may I, with respect, interrupt the noble Baroness for the moment? I do not think that anything has even been said in previous proceedings on this Bill in this House about newspapers.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the point was in fact dealt with by supplementary question and answer in this House. My noble friend Lord Bowles says he thinks it was dealt with also on an Unstarred Question. However, I can find out and let the noble Lord know.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say when discussion at Question Time or by means of an Unstarred Question was to be taken as a debate on a substantive Amendment in this House?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene here. The noble Lord knows quite well that we are always anxious to give all the information that it is possible to give. The details of this matter have been discussed on occasions when I think the noble Lord has not been present, but there are other noble Lords in the House who will confirm that the answer to this question is recorded in Hansard. It was dealt with at

931
greater length by my noble friend Lord Bowles on an Unstarred Question. If the noble Lord wants a detailed answer, we can get it, but it will delay the proceedings. I suggest that it would be in the interests of the House if we wrote to the noble Lord at some length giving him by letter all the information that he wants.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. This is an important matter of precedent. I hope it will not be regarded as a precedent that any debate in this House may be read in substitution for debating clauses and Amendments on a substantive Bill before the House. I should be grateful to the Leader of the House or his Deputy for an assurance on this point.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, no assurance is needed but if it is, I readily give it. The only precedent that I think we ought to establish is that, so far as possible, we should proceed with the utmost expedition.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I should like to add my voice to what my noble friend Lord Newton has said. We are dealing with this Bill on Report stage, and I think that, before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, if that is his intention, there are many of us here who feel that after further studying the matter and what has been said, looking to the future, it might be wise to discuss it again at a later stage.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I seem to have started something. I think that probably my best course is to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment and to try to draft a new Amendment, in a more limited sphere, to try to rivet Parliament's attention upon this quite extraordinary state of affairs: that before the Post Office will send a newspaper by post for you, before they will tell you the terms on which they will send it, they want to know who you are. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Restriction of the carrying on by the Post Office and its subsidiaries of certain activities]:
4.10 p.m.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE LORD ERROLL OF HALE moved Amendment No. 4:
Leave out Clause 13 and insert the following new clause:
".—(1) The approval of the Minister shall be requisite to the carrying on by the Post Office or any of its subsidiaries of activities consisting in the construction, manufacture or production, for the relevant purpose, of things of any kind to an extent substantially greater than that to which the Postmaster General constructed, manufactured or produced for the coresponding purpose, things of that kind during the period beginning with the 1st April 1961 and ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day, and it shall similarly he requisite before the Post Office or a subsidiary of it constructs, manufacturers or produces, to a substantial extent for the relevant purpose, things of a kind that the Postmaster General did not construct, manufacture or produce for the coresponding purpose during that period.
(2) The approval of the Minister shall be requisite to the carrying on by the Post Office or any of its subsidiaries of activities consisting in the construction, manufacture, production or purchase for supply to outside persons of things for use by such persons otherwise than in connection with a service provided by the Post Office or any of its subsidiaries.
(3) The Minister shall publish, in such manner as he thinks fit, particulars of any approval given under the last foregoing subsection by him, and shall send them to the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress.
(4) The Minister may grant an authorisation under this section free from conditions, or subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, or he may refuse it, and he may after consultation with the Post Office and with the approval of the Treasury, direct the Post Office to make to him granting, under subsection (1) or (2) above, an authorisation to manufacture or purchase articles for the relevant purpose, a report in respect of each accounting year as to such matters as may he specified concerning the manufacture or purchase in that year by the Post Office or any of its subsidiaries of such articles and the Minister shall lay a copy of every such report before each House of Parliament.
(5) In determining, for the purposes of this section, the extent of the manufacture or purchase of articles of any kind, the Minister shall apply such criteria (whether it be value or cost or price or quantity or some other criteria of whatever nature) or such combination of criteria as may appear to him suitable in all the circumstances.
(6) In this section—

(a) "outside persons" means persons other than the Post Office or its subsidiaries;

(b) "the relevant purpose" means the purpose of use by the Post Office or any of its subsidiaries or of supply to outside

933
persons for use by them in connection with services provided by the Post Office or any of its subsidiaries,

and, for the purposes of this section, the assembly of an article in the course of its installation at the place where it is to be used, shall not be taken to constitute its manufacture, construction or production."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and those of my noble friends. As your Lordships will be aware, Clause 7 of the Bill grants considerable powers to the Post Office, and Clause 13 is the important clause which modifies or restricts the generality of the powers granted under Clause 7. On the Committee stage we attempted to amend Clause 13, but we were not really satisfied with the Amendments that we proposed. After further consideration of the subject noble Lords on this side of your Lordships' House thought it best to offer your Lordships a new clause in substitution for the existing Clause 13, rather than to try to amend Clause 13 as it stands in the Bill.
Clause 13 has an interesting history. The Clause 13 that was originally in the Bill in another place provided, in the opinion of our colleagues in the other place, a satisfactory state of affairs. During the passage of the Bill through another place, however, a second and, in our view, less satisfactory Clause 13 was substituted for it. The purpose of our Amendment is to review what has happened so far in the progress of the Bill and to offer your Lordships a new Clause 13 which, in our opinion, combines the advantages of both Clause 13, Mark I, so to speak, and Clause 13, Mark II. I will endeavour to explain this new clause to your Lordships. I shall try not to be too long, but it is, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will agree, a very important clause, and merits a certain amount of time being spent on it.
Clause 13, Mark I, had the following effects: it stipulated that the authorisation of the Minister would be required before the Post Office could do certain things under its powers under Clause 7. These were categorised as follows. First of all, the authorisation of the Minister was required before the Post Office could manufacture for itself, or for other people, to an extent greater than heretofore, anything connected with its own business.
Secondly, the authorisation of the Minister was required for the manufacture for itself or for others to an extent greater than it had been doing hitherto, things not connected with its business. Thirdly, the authorisation of the Minister would be required for the purchase for supply to others things not connected with its own Post Office business.
Furthermore, the Minister could make his own conditions before granting such authorisation, or authorisations, and he could direct that accounts be kept of these activities and be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Clause 13, Mark II, was offered to the Members of another place on the grounds that it was simpler and shorter. In actual fact, the second edition of Clause 13 altered the position very substantially. The Clause 13 which we now have in the Bill lays down that the Post Office has only to consult with the Minister before manufacturing for itself, or for others, to a greater extent than hitherto, things connected with its business. That is consultation only; it does not require authorisation.
The authorisation of the Minister is necessary before the Post Office manufactures for itself, or for others, things not connected with its business. So that part remains unchanged. It is indicated in the revised version of Clause 13 that when the Minister issues such authorisation he shall inform the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. But—and this is a retrograde move in our view—instead of the obligation to present accounts, the Post Office will merely have to conduct itself as a commercial enterprise. If one compares the two clauses, it is clear that all the real safeguards of the first edition have been omitted from the second edition of the clause. In the debate in another place a spokesman for the Government claimed that these powers were only reserve powers in case the suppliers were unable to provide equipment at the price the Post Office was willing and felt able to pay. The Minister went on to say that it would usually be cheaper to go to the existing suppliers, but there was always the possibility that they might form a monopoly, and then reduce services.
If that was the only reason for the change, the original Clause 13 would serve quite well. So what was the real

935
purpose behind the change? The Post Office could manufacture wherever necessary, providing it had gained the authorisation of the Minister, and whenever such an activity was reasonable surely the Minister would give this authorisation. In answer to the argument that there was a danger of monopoly conditions prevailing, I would point out that the Government could then refer such a monopoly to the Monopolies Commission; or, if there was a restrictive agreement between the manufacturers as to their supply to the Post Office, there are powers under restrictive practices legislation to deal with the situation. So in our view, the original Clause 13 gave all that was required for the Post Office, while giving the Minister control, and it also gave safeguards for industry which, rightly in my view, felt that it might well be subjected in the future to unfair competition and cross-subsidisation by the Post Office of its various activities.
That is by way of background in presenting to your Lordships our new Clause 13 this afternoon. We have tried to combine the best of the two previous clauses. The authorisation of the Minister is required before the Post Office manufactures anything for itself, or for anyone else, or for any purpose to an extent greater than hitherto. The Minister, in our new clause, shall send particulars, in the same way as in the present Government clause, to the C.B.I. and T.U.C. The Minister may require accounts to be kept as in the original clause. I have tried to keep a somewhat complicated subject as straightforward as possible. I hope very much that the spokesman for Her Majesty's Government will feel able to accept our clause in its new form. I beg to move.
4.19 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, described this as an important Amendment, and of course it is. It deals with a very important aspect of the Bill. The noble Lord said that he wanted to know what was the real purpose of the change which took place in the Report stage in another place. I am only concerned as to the real purpose of the change in the Amendment which the noble Lord circulated but did not move on Committee stage, and this Amendment. I am sorry
936
that the noble Lord did not move his first Amendment, and has replaced it with this Amendment. I thought the earlier Amendment was a really exquisitely economic piece of amending, whereas here we have a cumbersome clause proposed in its place. If for no other reason, I hope that we shall agree this afternoon not to accept this Amendment, because it is such a bad piece of drafting. While the noble Lord, Lord Erroll, has been away we have been trying very hard in this House to improve the wording of the Bill, and some of his noble friends now sitting beside him and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, have made notable contributions to that improvement. And now the noble Lord comes along with what I was going to call a "hutch-potch of an Amendment", an amalgam of various clauses.
So far as I can see, it is compounded of bits of the original Clause 13, parts of the clause which was put in the Bill at the Report stage in another place; and of course he has included in it the gist of the Amendment which he circulated but did not move at our Committee stage. As the noble Lord knows, I have great admiration for him I have great admiration for his capacity; I have great admiration for his knowledge of engineering. But as an engineer he really has done a bad job of putting all these bits and pieces together. They do not even achieve the object that he sets out to achieve. But I think it probably would be better, leaving that aside, to say that we understand the purpose behind this bad piece of drafting. I suggest to your Lordships that we ought not accept the purpose which lies behind the Amendment.
The Bill as now drafted gives the proposed new public Corporation powers to manufacture the equipment which it needs in the same way as the Postmaster General now enjoys powers. If anything, the powers proposed in the present Bill restrict the ability of the new Post Office to manufacture as compared with the powers which the Postmaster General now enjoys. Subsection (1) of the present clause requires that the Post Office must consult the Minister before increasing the scale or widening the scope of its internal manufacturing activities; and by "internal manufacturing", of course, we mean the manufacture of those items required for its own use or for use of its customers in connection with the services

937
which it provides. Subsection (2) of Clause 13, as the noble Lord said, requires the Post Office to obtain the Minister's approval before it undertakes manufacture other than internal manufacture.
I should have thought that these were reasonable provisions. I cannot see that there is any likelihood of anything being done to the detriment of the nation or the customers of the Post Office, or indeed to those who now supply the Post Office with the bulk of its requirements. There is no present intention of increasing the manufacturing capacity of the Post Office. If the capacity was to be increased then clearly additional capital expenditure would be required, and not only does the Minister need to be consulted before that capital becomes available but he has to approve the capital programme. The noble Lord himself said that there was no obligation to provide accounts as to how money might be spent, but he was quite wrong. Of course there is no such provision in Clause 13, but he has overlooked competely Clause 11(10), where it says there shall be adequate accounting. What other safeguards can the noble Lord reasonably want?
The real trouble here, I fear (I hope I am not being unduly offensive), is that the noble Lord is not being reasonable. The truth is, I nut to the noble Lord (I was almost going to say "my noble friend"), that when we move on to a discussion as between the public sector and the private sector there are some people who drop sweet reason and pick up prejudice; and this is really what is behind this new clause which the noble Lords puts forward.
In the discussions which we have had on Committee stage, and in which the noble Lord did not take part, his noble friends made a great case against monopoly, against any threat of bureaucracy, and in favour of the protection of the consumer. I had great sympathy with what was said by the noble Lord. Lord Newton, and the noble Lord, Lord Denham, on these matters, although I thought on occasions they were mistaken in the solutions which they sought to apply. But I certainly think that those objectves were sound objectives, while here the noble Lord is not concerned to guard against bureaucracy;
938
he wants to increase it. He wants to have all the decisions reached by the Post Office Board raked over and decided again by another lot of officials in another public body. He does not want protection against monopoly. He seeks here to make it more difficult for the Post Office to guard itself against any monopoly situation which might arise in the manufacture of the equipment on which it depends. The noble Lord is not here concerned to fight for the customers of the Post Office. He is manifestly more concerned with the interests of those who sell, or who seek to sell, directly or indirectly, the equipment upon which the customers of the Post Office depend for their service.
Here we are dealing with a field in which the demand for new equipment is going to increase at a time when suppliers of equipment are tending to decrease. An enormous new field is opening up in this equipment. We have seen—and, for all I know, we shall very likely see in the future—mergers amalgamating the concerns which make this equipment. In this situation it seems right for the Post Office to have these reserve powers. As things now are, there are extremely satisfactory relationships between the Post Office and its suppliers. I have every reason to believe that, now that the old bulk supply agreements have gone and been replaced by another arrangement, those relationships will continue to be satisfactory. But if in the future, when the demand of the Post Office for new equipment expands in the immense way in which we expect it to expand, it cannot get the right equipment at a fair price and at the right time, it needs these reserve powers to enable it to plan ahead efficiently and speedily for self-supply on selected items.
If the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted it would be less possible for the Post Office to protect the interests of the nation which it serves; it would subject this new organisation to detailed bureaucratic control or, conceivably, politically slanted interference from the Minister of the day. I submit to your Lordships that there is every protection in the clause as it now stands to prevent the Board from acting in any perverse way or spending public money to subsidise the manufacture of articles which could more efficiently be produced by outside

939
manufacturing concerns. I trust that the general sense of the House, which has expressed itself against unnecessary, inefficient, detailed controls, will support the view that this Amendment, unsatisfactorily worded anyhow, is both unnecessary and contrary to the best interests of the customers of the Post Office.
4.28 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I want to say only one or two things with reference to the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, about the drafting of this Amendment. The noble Lord knows perfectly well, as does everyone in this House, that the ordinary private Member either of this House or of another place hardly every manages to draft a long Amendment which is acceptable to the Government of the day, whoever that Government are. I particularly thought it rather unwelcome that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, should complain about the drafting of this Amendment since at the Committee stage of this Bill, some 15 days ago, the Government asked the House to accept a vast number of purely drafting Amendments, and they are going to do the same again this afternoon. And, for all I know, they may be coming forward with more drafting Amendments on the Third Reading of this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, repeated to-day something that he said to me on the Committee stage when I was moving an Amendment to Clause 26: that the Amendment does not even achieve what it seeks to do. I am more satisfied now than I was in Committee stage that my particular Amendment did achieve what it set out to do, and I am further prepared to have quite a substantial bet with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that the Post Office now thinks so, too.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, as apparently no other noble Lords wish to speak on this Amendment, I should like to make just one or two points. We have had no explanation as to why the Government departed from the stand which they made so bravely in Clause 13, "Mark I", and proceeded to the watered-down version of "Mark II". All we are doing is to give the Government the opportunity of going back to their much better first thoughts.
940
If our drafting is not impeccable, I am content to rely on my noble friend Lord Newton and what he has said about drafting and the difficulties thereof, which are very clearly shown by the drafting Amendments which we are to take later to-day.
As to the relationship between the public sector and the private sector, our view is that it is a one way traffic. It is always the public sector that is enlarging itself at the expense of the private sector; it never goes the other way. The public sector never relinquishes any of its activities and returns them to private enterprise or to the private sector. That is why we fight these cases over and over again, because it is a one way traffic, and we do not approve of that one way traffic. We shall always do what we can, both here and in another place, to try to limit the ever-growing proportion of the public sector to the economy as a whole.
I would say to the noble Lord that we shall look carefully at what he has said in regard to this Amendment, and I hope that, for his part, he will look at the original Clause 13, to see whether it would not be better to introduce that into the Bill before we finally part with it on Third Reading. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his generous remarks about my abilities, such as they are, and some of my frailties, such as failing to be present when the Bill was discussed at an earlier stage. As he twice referred to this I think I am entitled to say that I was——
A NOBLE LORD: Engaged on private enterprise.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I was recovering from private enterprise by having a holiday. But I would make the point to the noble Lord that my diary is littered with dates that had to be crossed out, and all those crossings out were "Post Office Bill to-day?". I think that no fewer than five changes were made in the official timetable for this Bill through your Lordships' House, and there came a time when I said, "Enough is enough. I shall remain on holiday for the earlier stage". That is the sole reason why I was away, and if the noble Lord had kept to his original timetable I should have been here for it. In the meantime, I will beg leave to withdraw this Amendment if the noble

941
Lord will give an assurance that he will look at the suggestion I have made to him.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord is going to speak about his diary I am bound to tell him that his case there is even weaker than his Amendment. Certain changes were made——
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord speaking with the leave of the House?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am very sorry; I beg your pardon.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: The noble Lord has it now.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was going to say that there were changes in the days set down for the Second Reading of the Post Office Bill, but they were changes, as I understood it, designed to enable the noble Lord to attend. However we kept putting it back, again and again, and eventually we had to proceed without him. I can assure the noble Lord that nothing would have given me greater pleasure than to take the previous stage of this Bill while he was here. As for the assurance for which he asked—and that is the real reason why I rose to speak—I fear that I can give him no assurance at all on that count. The Bill was changed by the Government on Report stage in another place because they were convinced by the arguments that were made that such a change was in the interests of the general public. They having made that decision, it is quite impossible for them to go back on it. Therefore I am afraid that if I gave the noble Lord an assurance it would be an empty one.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I did beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I may not have been granted that leave.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Vesting in the Post Office of property, rights and liabilities generally]:
4.35 p.m.
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 19, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) All estates and interests in land in the Channel Islands which, immediately before
942
that day, are vested in Her Majesty, being estates and interests in land then occupied or used, in whole or in part, by the Postmaster General or (for, or in connection with. the exercise and performance of any of the Postmaster General's functions) by an officer or servant of the Crown;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to ensure that interests in land in the Channel Islands held by the Crown for the purposes of the functions of the Postmaster General will vest in the Post Office. Clause 16(1)(a) was drafted on the assumption that all land, whether freehold or leasehold, acquired for the purposes of the Postmaster General's functions is vested in the Postmaster General and held in trust for Her Majesty under the Post Office Act 1953, Section 46. It has been discovered that owing to the peculiarity of local taw certain land in the Channel Islands purchased by the Postmaster General is vested in Her Majesty and not in the Postmaster General in trust for Her Majesty. The Amendment is needed to ensure that such land will vest in the Post Office on the appointed day.
The Amendment does not in any way conflict with the possibility that the Channel Islands will take over responsibility for their own postal and telecommunications services, as referred to in Clause 87. If the take-over occurs the Post Office will sell its assets on the Islands to the States. Negotiations are already proceeding and the Amendment to Clause 16 is acceptable to the States. I beg to move.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question in connection with what he has said about Clause 87 and the ability of the Post Office, if the Channel Islands eventually get their own independent postal service, which I understand they want to have, then to sell the assets of the Post Office to the Channel Islands? Is there a specific provision in this Bill to enable those sales to take place? If not, can the noble Lord say under what provision or what Statute it will be permissible for the Post Office to sell the assets to the Channel Islands?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I cannot do that on the spur of the moment, but I will write to the noble Lord and let him know.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am much obliged for that but if it were possible that an Amendment was needed to this Bill it would not be sufficient for the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, to write and tell me.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, if the noble Lord will look at Clause 87 he may find it stated there, but at the moment I am marking time in order to get the information that the noble Lord wants, namely, is the power to transfer the Post Office assets in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in this Bill at all? I am advised that it is not necessary to have it in the Bill, and if the noble Lord will refer to Clause 7 he will see why.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, but I asked him whether the power was in the Bill and, if it was not in the Bill, whether it was necessary to have it in the Bill. That is all. He has given me the answer and I am much obliged to him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MOUNTEVANS LORD MOUNTEVANS moved a manuscript Amendment, No. 5A:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
Amendment of s.3 of Post Office Act 1953
(". In section 3(4) of the Post Office Act 1953, after the word "newspaper" there shall be inserted the words or a periodical."")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for proposing this Amendment at rather a late stage, but this is non-controversial and is a drafting Amendment. It relates to Clause 23 [Exclusive privilege of the Post Office with respect to the conveyance, & c., of letters]. Newspapers are excluded from this privileged situation, but not periodicals, on the assumption, I think, in the earlier drafting that the term "newspapers" covered periodicals. Clause 23 brings into effect the old Section 3 of the Post Office Act which, in subsection (4), excludes newspapers from the exclusive privilege of conveyance by the Post Office. If your Lordships were willing, I would propose that subsection (4) should be amended to include, after the word "newspaper" the words "or a periodical", the reason for this being that a newspaper does not entirely cover all the periodicals. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I understand the concern of the noble Lord, but
944
I assure him that his concern is not well based. The worries that he has in this connection are unfounded. His difficulty arises from the fact that periodicals are not specifically mentioned in Section 3 of the Post Office Act 1953, and I suppose he fears from this that it might one day be argued by the Post Office that periodicals, unlike newspapers, are within the Post Office postal monopoly. But the words "newspaper" and "parcel" in Section 3(4) of the 1953 Act are used in a technical sense—equivalent to "things sent by newspaper or parcel post". They are descriptions of a particular kind of postal packet. A periodical is not a particular kind of postal packet, and the inclusion, therefore, under Section 3(4) would have been unnecessary and inappropriate. I am therefore advised that the Amendment the noble Lord proposes is not necessary.
LORD MOUNTEVANS: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Saving for things under licence]:
4.40 p.m.
LORD HELSBY LORD HELSBY moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 29, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("either") in line 39 and insert "The Minister may grant a licence")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to make the Minister directly responsible for licensing so that the grant of a licence or a refusal of one is his. Under Clause 27 as it stands the Post Office is the licensing authority, and although the consent of the Minister is required to the grant of a licence that consent is not required for the refusal of a licence or for the attaching of conditions to a licence. I would say at the outset that, so far as I am aware, no company with which I am associated has any interest in this matter, but I feel that I ought to go on to say that in my judgment the issues that arise here are of such a kind that any progressive company is very likely to be interested in the matter in future years, and to that extent I should declare a potential interest.
I suggest that there is a point of principle here. Surely it is right in principle that a Minister should be responsible for licences. As I said at the Committee stage

945
when B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. were set up nobody suggested that they should license the independent airlines; when the British Transport Commission was set up nobody suggested that they should license the independent commercial road vehicle operators. Surely it is proper that the Government of the day should take direct responsibility for this use of statutory monopolistic powers of great importance. Hitherto, we have recognised this, and I do not see any good ground for casting this salutary principle on one side in the case of the Post Office.
The argument of principle, powerful though it may be, is surely reinforced by practical considerations. To reach a fair appraisal of the licensing system we have to consider what the licences are for. They are licences to operate in the field of the Post Office monopoly of telecommunications as given to the Post Office by Clause 24 of the Bill. That monopoly goes very wide indeed. I do not object to that; I accept that it is in the broad national interest that at this stage development in the field of telecommunications in this country should be given leadership by the Post Office. But the fact remains that this is an enormously wide field, and there are no alternatives within it. This is not a matter of choice, like the choice between travelling by rail or road, or sea or air; like the choice, if it comes to fuel, between electricity, gas, coal and oil. In those fields monopoly is very much modified by the existence of choices. But the Post Office will have a more absolute monopoly than any other national corporation.
Moreover, the field which it covers is expanding rapidly, and I suggest that none of us can at this moment foretell all the directions in which it is likely to expand further. I will not take up the time of the House by going over the ground in detail. The monopoly of telecommunications covers, of course, not only the traditional areas of Post Office activity but many entirely new and developing fields. For instance, it covers the use of centrally placed computers linked with commercial offices by cable. Already the banks and many other large commercial concerns are beginning to develop systems of this kind. I do not believe that this raises a serious question of licensing, however, because for the most part the lines that connect these central computers
946
with offices will have to go across country, and in most cases it will not be practical for any private concern to get the necessary wayleaves, even if it wished to do so. In the foreseeable future I cannot see why any company in this position should not be content to use the services of the Post Office.
But if we turn from commerce to industry, I believe that the picture is rather different. In the industrial field the problem of wayleaves will not often arise, because generally the whole of the required telecommunication system will be within the area of an industrial plant on land belonging to the company concerned. In industry the trend is increasingly towards what laymen like me call "remote control" and what the experts I believe call "telecontrol", of plant and apparatus. The Post Office monopoly covers this, too. A modern oil refinery or petrochemical plant depends on highly sophisticated central control of processes reinforced by a constant flow of information from all parts of the plant, information which can be fed through a computer so designed that it will introduce any necessary adjustment as the process continues. This sort of remote control as it is now developing has nothing in common with the old switching on and switching off; it is a matter of highly complex programmes of operations involving interactions between different parts of a plant, possibly over a long period of time, and working out a cycle which will be completed without human intervention. In the engineering field, too, we are moving into an era when it will become commonplace for machine tools to be programmed to carry out intricate operations without intervention.
All this is what we mean by automation, and telecommunication is very surely the essence of it. None of us can tell at present just what all the developments may be. It may not be long, for instance, before the type-setting for the production of newspapers is done by computers which are connected to newspaper offices by cable. Hospitals are already talking of using computers for diagnosis, and I believe that before long they will use them, too, for the control of intensive care units. All we can be sure of now is that this process of development of the use of telecommunications in these automatic methods of control is

947
going to develop enormously in the general area of industry, and that our future as an industrial country will depend in no small small measure on these developments.
The question arises whether we want the Post Office invariably to deal with every sort of provision of this sort, in plants and factories up and down the whole country, so that, save in perhaps the most exceptional cases, no industrial enterprise, whether it be shipyard, refinery or factory, or whatever it may be, shall provide and own its own telecommunications system, even within the confines of its own property. We have to bear in mind that the cables that we are talking about are highly sophisticated devices. The day is past when communication cables were just strips of insulated copper wire. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, reminded us on the Committee stage of the Bill that there is a possibility of developing a single cable which will bring into our homes telephone, radio and television. I notice, however, that at the present moment there is not complete agreement among the experts about the design of this cable. The Post Office is pursuing one line of investigation and others, with support from European experts, are following another.
I am sure that the Post Office will always be at pains to remain as it has been in the past, in the forefront of development. There is at least a possibility that sometimes, in some particular application, in a plant or factory or hospital, an alternative to the Post Office system will have advantages. If so we should not, I think, rule out the possibility of a licence, unwilling though the Corporation itself might be to see that happen.
I do not argue in favour of licences to all comers on demand. In my submission, the case is simply that there will have to be some licensing, and the maintenance of a sound and flexible licensing policy is going to become immensely important and it will be immensely difficult. As a commercial organisation, the Post Office will naturally want to keep all the business it can. If, in spite of that, the Post Office is satisfied that a licence ought to be granted, I do not suppose that the Minister will offer dissent. On the other hand, like any other monopoly, the Post Office might be unwilling to grant a
948
licence. For that reason, it seems to me that the present position in the clause as it stands, under which the Minister's approval is not necessary to refuse them a licence, is completely topsy-turvy. This is just the point where the Minister's approval should be required.
I would not suggest for a moment that the noble Lord, Lord Hall, and his colleagues at the new Post Office, will be incapable of taking an enlightened view of the national interest. Surely, at the end of the day that is not properly their function. Their function is to make the Post Office a thoroughly efficient and effective commercial enterprise. After all, that, in essence, is why we are changing the present Government Department into a Corporation, so that it shall become a commercial enterprise. Surely the right course here is to make the Minister directly responsible for licensing.
Before I sit down, may I refer briefly to the form of the Amendment. It is put down in the simplest possible way, to reflect the case that I have been putting. But I hold no brief for the particular form of words. If it were thought preferable to say that the licences should be issued by or on behalf of the Minister, I should be entirely happy. If it were thought better to say, "after consultation with the Post Office", I should be entirely happy. Even, indeed, if it were said that for presentational reasons the Post Office should remain the licensing authority, though the Minister would be made responsible for giving his consent to the refusal as well as to the grant of licences and the conditions in licences where such conditions were inserted, that, too, I would think acceptable, though I confess that I would regard it as a second best. All that I urge—and I urge it with all the strength I can—is that the Government should accept the principle of ministerial responsibility in the field of this major monopoly. I beg to move.
4.54 p.m.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, before the Amendment is put, may I ask the noble Lord a question so that I do not lose my right to make a speech on his Amendment at a later stage in the debate? I hope I am in order in doing this. I wonder whether the noble Lord can enlighten me on one point, because I am sure he has studied

949
the relevant clauses, Clauses 24 to 27, most carefully. He referred to the sophisticated method of telecontrol and remote control, and to the new types of cable. But how far down does the monopoly go? Does it go to simple wires and simple methods of activating machinery or motors by means of a simple electric cable? Does the monopoly go so far as, for example, the thermostatic control in the central heating system of a domestic house? Because if the monopoly indeed goes as far as that, it is surely most important for the Minister to be the final adjudicator as to whether the Post Office should install such devices.
LORD HELSBY: My Lords, I am not sure that I should attempt to answer that question. It goes into the definition of what systems are for
"the conveyance, through the agency of electric, magnetic, electro-magnetic, electrochemical"
and so on as set out in Clause 24. I think it covers the lot.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Erroll, could be a little patient it may be that my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies can help him.
4.57 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords. I have no interest in this Bill, and I have but little knowledge of the many detailed points that it contains. But this particular clause is one that has attracted my attention. I certainly have not such a great knowledge as the noble Lord, Lord Helsby. I thought I understood the clause perfectly until he had spoken, and then I realised that my knowledge has distinct limits. The simple point that I make is that the Bill gives a broad monopoly in telecommunications to the Post Office. Clause 27 also provides that licences may be issued to persons or organisations who wish for a facility that is contrary to the general monopoly. This means, presumably, that licences may be issued to persons or organisations who wish to compete with the Post Office in a defined sphere. But then we find that the Post Office is itself to be the deciding power in granting those licences, and that it is to be the chooser and judge of its own competitors. That seems to me to be entirely wrong.
950
For that simple reason I heartily support the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should have thought that the Post Office would welcome the licensing being in the hands of the Minister. That would protect the Post Office, if it refuses a licence, from the charge that it was jealous of an inroad into its own monopoly. The Post Office could then say, "Well, this licence was not granted by us but by the Minister, who was quite impartial, and no charge can be brought against the Post Office itself of jealously safeguarding the monopoly."
5.0 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, has given us a quite fascinating account of the great complexities of the telecommunications industry, and he is of course quite right when he says that this is a matter of principle. The noble Lord himself told us that he accepts the case for a telecommunications monopoly, but if his Amendment is accepted the Minister will be able to erode that exclusive privilege of the monopoly by licensing other systems. I think I must make it plain once again that it is the Government's intention that Parliament should entrench the Post Office's monopoly rights in the Act itself, and this is why it is, as the noble Lord said, a matter of principle. At it stands the Bill reproduces in a modernised form the present situation, which is that the country's principal provider of telecommunications services has the exclusive right to provide such services, with certain exceptions. Broadly speaking, in almost all respects the Post Office is to enjoy the same monopoly privileges as my right honourable friend the Postmaster General and his predecessors have exercised for a hundred years, the only main exception being overseas telecommunications.
I think we probably all know that the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment has been a distinguished civil servant, and I think his worry is that there is a difference in principle between a monopoly enjoyed by the Crown and one enjoyed by a statutory authority. But in fact these arguments all ignore the fundamental question of whether there should be a principal national provider of telecommunications or not; and

951
[Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.] the Government feel strongly that there should be. The telecommunications industry is very complicated, as the noble Lord amply demonstrated to us, but I feel that he is labouring under a misapprehension. I think that his worry about the internal business in an industry is completely covered by Clause 25(2), which says:
"In the case of a business carried on by a person, the said privilege is not infringed by the running, for the purposes of that business, of a system …"
and so on. I think he has slightly misunderstood the principles of this clause. Most of the arguments—and indeed the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge—were the same one of principle, and I am afraid that must emphasise again that the Government must insist on keeping the exclusive privileges for the Post Office.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has referred to the possibility that people might say that the Post Office was jealously withholding other licences. In fact, of course, the Post Office already grants many forms of licences and will continue to do so. So I do not think that that point is likely to arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Helsby, said that this was a monopoly like all other monopolies. But, my Lords, it is not. The Post Office is an enormous industry in itself; it employs thousands of millions of pounds worth of investment, has hundreds of thousands of employees; and the essential difference about it is that it has laid upon it certain very serious public duties. And this is really the key to the situation. The noble Lord was assuming perhaps purely commercial ends for the Post Office, but in fact under Clause 9 it has
"to meet the social, industrial, and commercial needs of the British Islands"
as a whole. It is right that it should have this duty imposed upon it, but it is equally right that in the public interest the finances of the national communications service should be protected against the creaming-off of revenue from lucrative services by people who do not have to carry the duties of the Post Office; and this is what this clause is all about. The Amendment would create a situation in which the Post Office no longer had any true monopoly rights conferred by Parlia-
952
ment, and for this reason we must resist it. I believe it to be essential that there should be a single operating authority, with exclusive privileges conferred by Parliament, and of course there can be no question that this authority should be the Post Office. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
5.5 p.m.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will do no such thing, because, having listened carefully to the noble Baroness and her explanation, I am more than ever convinced of the soundness of the noble Lord's Amendment. To suggest that if the Post Office failed to have this monopoly private enterprises would lucratively cream off the best services is ridiculous, because the licensing power would be in the hands of the Minister, and the Minister would not allow that state of affairs to happen. Therefore it is only right that the Minister should license, rather than the Post Office, to ensure that the Post Office does not unreasonably withhold licences. I know of no other case in the British economy where the body, not being a Government Department, has the monopoly operating rights and at the same time has the power to refuse licences to other people. The licensing authority should certainly be separate from the monopoly operating authority.
I quite understand what the noble Baroness says about the importance of maintaining the Post Office monopoly. In one of the clauses the Post Office can renounce that monopoly to the extent of its own wishing by granting licences, but what we are concerned with is where the Post Office may unreasonably withhold these licences and there is no appeal against this. Nor can the Minister do anything, because all the Minister can do is to acquiesce in the granting of such licences as the Post Office may care to provide.
To talk of the large sums of capital and big responsibilities of the Post Office and so on is, in my view, an irrelevant argument which does nothing to breach the principle which the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, made so eloquently in his speech. Other enterprises are of great size and capital intensity; B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have never had the right to grant or

953
withhold licences to private operators. There might have been a very different story for civil aviation private activities if those Corporations had had such rights, and I am sure they would very much have liked to have them, but the then Labour Government never gave them that exclusivity, reserving the licensing rights to themselves, and rightly so. I could give other examples if I had the time. I am not convinced by the noble Baroness and I hope noble Lords in all parts of the House will support the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, in his stand on a very important principle.
LORD HELSBY: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask a question of the noble Baroness who spoke for the Government, before I speak for the last time. I was not clear whether she was rejecting on behalf of the Government what I called the "second best"; that is to say, maintaining the Post Office as the licensing authority but providing that the Minister would not only have to give his consent to the grant of a licence as at present, but also for the refusal of one or for the attachment of conditions to one.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what my noble friend said is that this Bill provides that a monopoly shall be vested in the Post Office Board. As my right honourable friend said in another place, "a monopoly is a monopoly"; and the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, really cannot have it two ways. He says he agrees that there is value in a monopoly and that it is appropriate to have a monopoly in this case. But if you give a monopoly you must have the courage to stand by your convictions, and you do not give a monopoly to a Board unless you are convinced that it is a responsible body around which there are adequate controls and that within those controls the Board will use its monopoly rights to the advantage of the nation generally. That we have decided. That is what the Second Reading was about, that is what the other clauses are about, and that is what we mean when we say that this new Board should be given a monopoly. I feel that the noble Lord, with his Civil Service background, is showing a commendable and understandable pride in the Civil Service and in Ministerial Departments, but that it is clouding a little his feeling about the responsibility
954
which can be shown by a public corporation, such as the proposed new Post Office.
The noble Lord, Lord Helsby, and the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, said that this was never done in the case of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. It is rather unfortunate that they should have picked on that example because, historically, there is a classic case where a monopoly was vested in B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. In effect they had a direct right to licence independent companies and they did it by the device of an associate agreement. Subsequently, Parliament changed the situation, but that was indeed the case in the first place.
There are two points which seem to worry certain noble Lords, and I think understandably. One is the fact that large scale industry is now developing very sophisticated means of communication for its own industrial and internal use. The noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, asked: where is the dividing line between those electronic communication systems which require a licence, and those which do not require a licence? The answer to that is that there is no dividing line so far as the sophistication of a piece of equipment is concerned. The division is between those systems which are employed within the industry for its own use, or within one factory or one home, and those which communicate between one person and another. No matter how sophisticated the equipment is, provided it is for the internal industrial use of a company no licence is required. So I think that fear does not arise.
There is then the fear which was expressed when we debated this earlier, that eventually in the future we shall have such new developments in this exciting field that it would be quite wrong to maintain the monopoly within the Post Office. I think I suggested on Committee stage, and I say it again, that if this possibility materialises, then in 1976 Parliament will in any case have the opportunity to consider the monopolies which are now granted to the B.B.C. and I.T.A. That will be the time to go into the whole question of the monopoly issue. Then, just as in the case of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., it may well be that the Government of the day will have to make certain changes. But the changes will be so important

955
that Parliament as a whole should look at them, and should decide what should take place.
In the meantime, it is the view of another place, it has been the view of this House so far, and it is the view of the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, that we should vest in the Post Office Board a monopoly of these telecommunications systems. If the Board wishes, for good technical reasons, to give a licence to breach its monopoly, then it is entitled to do so and I think we should be well advised to leave the Bill like that. I do not think we should accept the noble Lord's Amendment, which he has put forward very persuasively, but which to a large extent was based on a misunderstanding of the situation, as I think he will agree.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, may I put a question for clarification? Why is it that the Minister is brought in to prevent the monopoly granting a licence, since it cannot grant a licence without the consent of the Minister, but is kept out of the matter when it refuses a licence? It seems to me that there is a point of principle here, and I cannot understand why, if the Minister is brought in in one direction, he is not brought in the other direction.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if I may answer the noble Lord, by leave of the House, I quite agree that the Minister has the power of veto but cannot compel the issue of a licence. The reason for that, I suppose, is to meet fears that the Post Office may behave unreasonably in some respects. If the noble Lord had put down an Amendment to query that, I should have thought he would have had a good case and a better case than the other way round.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I think the noble Lord said that the reason for this provision being in the Bill was that the Post Office might act unreasonably—presumably, unreasonably in the interests of the Post Office. But surely it is important that the Post Office should not be allowed to act unreasonably from the point of view of some other interest, which might have a perfectly legitimate reason for asking for a licence. Also, may I ask the noble Lord this question, which seems to me to be important? If
956
anybody feels that he has been inequitably used as a result of a decision by the Post Office Corporation, will he have no right of appeal through his Member of Parliament, in Parliament, against the decision, with the Minister being answerable for the decision of the Post Office? Also will he have no right of appeal for his Member of Parliament to bring the matter before the Ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner, if he feels aggrieved at the decision of the Post Office?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, again by leave of the House, may I say that we are getting into very complicated waters. In the first place, I did not say that the Minister had power to veto the granting of a licence in order to protect the Post Office. I meant that the Minister should have power to veto a licence, if, in his judgment, by breaching the monopoly provisions the Post Office was going against the duties placed upon it by this Bill to provide a service. There is the overriding power of the Minister in that case, although, as I confessed to the noble Lord opposite, I think there would be a great field for argument here. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, then went on to ask whether an aggrieved applicant would have a right to approach his Member of Parliament. We went into this question in a good deal of depth on Second Reading, and, indeed, during the Committee stage, and I do not think I ought to go into it all again. We are giving this power to a public authority because we believe that to be a better and more efficient way of discharging the responsibility and providing a better service.
When that decision is taken—and Parliament is taking that decision—then certain consequences follow. One of those consequences is that one cannot raise detailed matters on the Floor of the House. On the other hand, there are opportunities for ventilating a grievance, and I went into them at an earlier stage. For example, it would be perfectly possible for a Member of Parliament to take up a matter with the Chairman of the new Corporation. There is also the Users' Council and various other ways in which a matter can he raised. Furthermore, the report of the Post Office will be subject to discussion later in the House. But, strictly, the answer is that

957
such a matter cannot be raised by a Member of Parliament. As regards the position of the Ombudsman, that is a point on which I should take some advice, but I should have thought there might be a ease if it were disputed whether the Post Office were acting according to the Act of Parliament which set them up.
LORD HELSBY: My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation, that where a telecommunications system is concerned solely with the business of a certain firm, the provisos at the end of Clause 25(2) have the effect of taking it outside the monopoly. That is a considerable comfort to me. But, my Lords, this deals with only part of what I have called the point of principle, and I confess that I am in real difficulty about that. The noble Lord who spoke for the Government suggested that my background as a civil servant might be partly responsible: that I have an exaggerated idea of the benefits of superintendence by a Departmental machine. I assure him that that is not so.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I must interpose there. I did not say that. I said that the noble Lord probably had a less high regard than was possible for a public corporation set up outside a Ministerial Department.
LORD HELSBY: My Lords, I appreciate that; but the real point, I think, has now emerged quite clearly. It is that what is in question is the position not of any Department but of Parliament. The difference between the chairman of a commercial corporation and a Minister is that the latter is answerable to Parliament and the former is not. Moreover, the former may be a Member of this House, but if so he is prevented by our own Rules from speaking on the subject of his chairmanship.
The Minister said, if I understood him rightly, that a monopoly sometimes ceased to be a monopoly if there was a question of a Minister being answerable to this or the other House, to Parliament, for the way in which it worked. That is
surely a very strange doctrine. I should have thought that where a statutory monopoly was given, it was a matter of principle that some Minister should be answerable to Parliament for the use of those statutory powers. It is a principle that we have followed in every other field and it is a principle which the Government have half followed in this field, for they are making the Post Office answerable to the Minister for part of this licensing power. They are making the Post Office answerable to him for the grant of licences but, for some reason, not for the refusal. What precisely is the difference in principle? Why not make him answerable throughout?
Surely, wherever the law has to deal with the monopolist in this country its concern is that he shall not unreasonably restrict business by refusing licences. A great deal of patent law is given up to preventing the unreasonable refusal of licences; and the Monopolies Commission, when it investigates a monopolist's use of his position, is much concerned to see to what extent the position is held rigidly within a narrow confine which allows no competition. If we are to intervene at all, it should not be on the side of ensuring that the Minister can stop the Corporation from giving licences, but rather on the side of seeing to it, equally at least, if not more than the other, that he can ask them to give a licence if it seems to be in the national interest.
My Lords, I should be tempted to withdraw this Amendment if the Government had shown any sign of willingness to meet the point, possibly by some means different from that which the Amendment itself has suggested, and even now I should be very willing to withdraw it on being given the slightest hope of that sort. But I fear that the point of principle is such that I ought not to withdraw it otherwise.
5.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 51.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Audley, Bs.

Bessborough, E.

Albemarle, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Bethell, L.

Alport, L.

Belstead, L.

Bourne, L.

Auckland, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Brecon, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gridley, L.

Poltimore, L.

Chelmer, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Redmayne, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hankey, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L. [Teller.]

Colville of Culross, V.

Hawke, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Helsby, L. [Teller.]

Sackville, L.

Daventry, V.

Henley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Denham, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

St. Helens, L.

Derwent, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Salisbury, M.

Drumalbyn, L.

Ilford, L.

Sandys, L.

Dudley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Selkirk, E.

Dundee, E.

Jessel, L.

Silsoe, L.

Dundonald, E.

Killearn, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Lambert, V.

Strang, L.

Elton, L.

Listowel, E.

Strange, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

MacAndrew, L.

Teviot, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Teynham, L.

Exeter, M.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Thurlow, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mersey, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Foley, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mountevans, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Garner, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Watkinson, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Goschen, V.

Newton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Grantchester, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ogmore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henderson, L.

Raglan, L.

Annan, L.

Heycock, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Beswick, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Royle, L.

Birk, Bs.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Samuel, V.

Burden, L.

Kennet, L.

Scrota, Bs.

Chalfont, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shepherd, L.

Chorley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Silkin, L.

De La Warr, E.

McLeavy, L.

Sorensen, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Maelor, L.

Stonham, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Mitchison, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Moyle, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Phillips, Bs.

Summerskill, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield. L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 29 [Exclusion of liability of the Post Office, its officers and servants, in relation to posts and telecommunications.]:
5.30 p.m.
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 32, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) No person engaged in or about the carriage of mail and no Officer, Servant, Agent or Sub-Contractor of such person shall he subject except at the suit of the Post Office to any civil liability for any loss or damage in the case of which liability of the Post Office therefore is excluded by subsection (1) of this section.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7. I must apologise to your Lordships for raising this matter for the first time at so late a stage in the evolution of this Bill, but the injustice which it seeks to put right
960
was brought to my attention only last week. It may seem illogical at first sight that after putting down an Amendment at the Committee stage to curtail the immunity of the Post Office my noble friends and I should now ask the House to accept an Amendment which extends that immunity beyond the Post Office and its direct employees. But I hope to convince your Lordships that if the Post Office is to continue to have the immunity it now enjoys it would be grossly unfair not to allow those who are acting for the Post Office to have it too.
The reasons for this Amendment are as follows. If a letter or a parcel should be damaged, destroyed or lost while in the hands of the Post Office or its employees its owner cannot sue the Post Office for the financial loss that he thus incurs. They are protected by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. The new Corporation will continue to be protected by

961
Clause 29 of this Bill. This is reasonable, as the Post Office has no means of knowing whether a particular package is of great financial value or of none. If the Post Office were to be held responsible for the value of packages entrusted to it, there would have to be some system of differential charges to offset any higher risk that it might have to bear. Any such system would entail a great deal of nuisance to the general public and an expensive organisation to the Post Office. All things considered, it is better in this respect that the Post Office should be immune, that the general public should know it and take care of the risks themselves accordingly.
It is very often necessary, however, particularly where the destination is outside the United Kingdom, for mail to be handled by people who are not direct employees of the Post Office. Every master of a ship, for instance, is compelled by the Post Office Act 1953 to receive on board his ship every mail bag tendered to him by an officer of the Post Office and to deliver it to its destination. If it is reasonable for the Post Office to have immunity against liability it is also reasonable for others who handle mail to have the same immunity, or at least a measure of it. The Post Office has recognised this by agreeing a liability clause with the shipowners under which the liability to the Post Office of the owner of each ship is limited to £1 per uninsured package and £2 per registered package, subject to an overall limit of £1,000 per voyage. So far so good.
This equitable arrangement between the Post Office and the shipowners was set at nought in 1967 by a case in the High Court which did not involve a ship at all, the case of Moukataff v. B.O.A.C. Mr. Moukataff sent £20,000 in notes abroad by air mail in four registered packages. At some stage during the flight, the packages were lost. It was no good Mr. Moukataff suing the Post Office, because the Post Office was immune. So he sued instead the airline concerned. He won his case. This has become case law, and shipowners, as well as the airlines, are now advised in similar circumstances that their wisest course of action is to pay up with good grace. The sender of a missing package cannot sue the Post Office; the Post Office cannot sue the shipowners; but the
962
sender can by-pass the Post Office and sue the shipowner direct.
Let us suppose that a package containing £10,000 worth of diamonds is being sent abroad. It can travel on the same ship in two different ways. The sender can take it to the shipping company and ask them to carry it for him. They can, if they wish, refuse to do so. But if they agree to carry it, their liability is limited by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924 to £100—unless they are signatories to the Gold Clause Agreement, in which case it goes up to £200. If the sender wants the company to take the responsibility for the full value he will have to pay accordingly. Both parties know what their liabilities are and can insure against them.
If, however, the sender puts his package in the post, and it travels in a mail bag in the same ship, the shipping company cannot refuse to take it. They are responsible for the whole of its value, yet they do not know what that value is and cannot insure against it. They get paid for the job only such remuneration as the Postmaster General thinks fit; and the Postmaster General has no more idea than has the shipping company as to the value of a particular mail bag. Even if the sender insures for the full value outside the Post Office the shipping company are still liable for the full value to the insurance company. The liability of the shipowners is, therefore, unlimited and, as your Lordships know, except in the case of a third-party motor policy you cannot insure against unlimited liability.
The Amendment I am now moving would put the position back to what it was thought to be before the case of Moukataff v. B.O.A.C., and would give to anyone carrying mail the same immunity that he would have were he a direct employee of the Post Office. It is drafted to include other forms of transport besides shipping—airlines, for instance—because that was thought to be fair. Airlines can refuse to carry mail if they think that the risks involved are too great, whereas shipowners cannot. On the other hand, the experience of the airlines since Moukataff has been more unfortunate than that of the shipowners. This Amendment is strongly supported by the Chamber of Shipping and I should be very surprised if B.E.A.,

963
B.O.A.C., or the Board of British Rail were to take any great exception to it.
The Amendment may be drafted too widely, or the drafting may be faulty. A great deal of trouble has been taken over it, but in my experience an Amendment drafted by even the most learned counsel seldom meets the exacting requirements of the Government draftsmen; and should that be so in this case, if Her Majesty's Government will accept the principle behind the Amendment, I shall be happy to withdraw it so that the right wording may be put into the Bill on Third Reading.
Your Lordships are being asked in this Bill to extend to the new Corporation the immunity conferred on the Post Office by the Crown Proceedings Act. The anomaly that I have explained to your Lordships arises from a legal decision, which was not foreseen when the Crown Proceedings Act was drafted, in a case that would not have been heard were it not for that Act. If the Post Office and its employees are immune, it is grossly unfair that others who are, in fact if not in law, employees of the Post Office should not only be deprived of the same immunity but should also have to bear the full brunt of any legal proceedings that would, were it not for that immunity, have been directed at the Post Office. I submit to your Lordships that it would not be right to pass on this immunity to the Corporation without putting right the injustice that arises from it. I beg to move.
5.42 p.m.
LORD WILSON OF LANGSIDE: My Lords, the point raised by the noble Lord's Amendment is certainly an interesting one, and it has been argued with persuasion and force. Nevertheless, I hope I shall be able to persuade your Lordships that it would not be appropriate to give effect to it in the context of this Bill, or at this stage in your Lordships' consideration of it. This Bill seeks to convert the Post Office from a Government Department to a public Corporation. It is true that it makes certain other changes, but these are all consequential upon the Bill's main purpose; and the exemptions from liability to which the noble Lord has referred, and which are conferred by Clauses 29 and 30, are in broad those which presently apply in the field of
964
Post Office operations. No basic change is made by the Bill regarding the liability of the Post Office and its contractors.
While it is not for me to lay down the law to your Lordships, I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Denham, say that the decision in Moukataff came as a surprise, and that the purpose of this Amendment was to put the position back to what it was thought to be before Moukataff. I do not know who thought the position was what the noble Lord told us he thought it was, but certainly I should not myself have been surprised at the decision in Moukataff's case.
On the other hand, the Amendment opens up a much wider vista than that presented by the exemptions under Clauses 29 and 30, because it relates to general law governing the liability of carriers. It is no part of the object of this Bill to impinge upon that field, however close at first sight it may appear to be to Post Office matters. I think it has been accepted in your Lordships' consideration of it, and by the consideration given to it in another place, that the Bill concentrates upon the main topic of the change in status. Surely, my Lords, to launch out from this main topic into a much wider field would involve a quite radical change in our approach to the Bill. I should be the last to discourage your Lordships from embarking upon a radical change in any field, but in the context of this Bill and this particular matter I venture to suggest that acceptance of this Amendment might well give us bad law.
The exemption which the Post Office is to have has always existed and has been justified on special grounds—those to which the noble Lord himself referred. But we should surely wish to think very carefully indeed before extending that exemption to others. One has always to remember that it is not only shipowners, and the Post Office, and transport undertakings, who are concerned, but also members of the public who would be deprived of their existing legal rights were this Amendment effected. Certainly I should have thought, and I am sure your Lordships will agree, that before anything so radical as this in the whole field of law governing the liability of carriers was embarked on, consultation with those affected would normally be regarded as essential; and, of course,

965
no such consultation has taken place. Accordingly, while I agree that the matter is one which it was proper to raise, and which merits some consideration, I suggest that this is not the right occasion for us to reach a conclusion upon the matter of the liability of carriers other than the Post Office.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down—I shall reply to his speech later—can he tell us if this is not the right occasion, what is the right occasion, and when do Her Majesty's Government intend to rectify this unfairness?
LORD WILSON OF LANGSIDE: My Lords, I am not, of course, committing Her Majesty's Government to accepting the view that it is necessary to rectify the position. As this Bill will leave it, the position, in the Government's view, will be the same as it has been ever since the Post Office was established in its present form. The matter is no doubt one which can be given consideration, but I cannot commit the Government as to what would be the proper time to do it. The noble Lord is looking surprised. I must say that I am a little surprised that this issue was not raised at an earlier stage of the Bill when, of course, full consideration could have been given to it.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I do not understand this argument about opening a wide field of liability for carriers. This Amendment is very limited. It is about persons engaged in the carriage of mail and has nothing to do with the general liability of carriers.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I was going to make that same point, in addition one or two others. It is putting up a sheer smokescreen to say that we are invoking the general law applying to carriers. We are doing no such thing. All the Amendment seeks to do is to put right an injustice which, although it has been in existence for a long time, has only recently assumed severe proportions—namely, that the unfortunate carrier is compelled to carry a bag of the contents and the value of the contents of which he has no knowledge, and can be given no knowledge by the Post Office and its officials, and in the event of the loss of the bag or part of the contents, he can be sued for virtually an unlimited sum of money.
966
We are told that this matter cannot be dealt with in this Bill. I should have thought that it was essentially a matter that ought to be dealt with in the Bill, and that we should take this opportunity of rectifying an injustice. The noble and learned Lord suggested that we should have regard to the general public. But in this matter it is the carriers, the shipowners and airlines, who are the general public, because they are the people who are being adversely affected. The actual transmitters of the article—a packet of diamonds or pound notes, as in the Moukataff case—have perfectly sound alternatives. They could have elected to send their goods by a means whereby the goods could have been insured and the general public would have been already protected. It is merely a legal device by the legal profession to get round the Post Office legislation and to sue the person, who for the time being is virtually a compulsory employee of the Post Office, because if he is a shipowner he is apparently compelled to take the mail.
Here again I should have thought that this was something which warranted attention. I was not aware that shipowners were compelled to carry mail. I thought that it was a matter of a contract, which they could win for the carrying of mail, and that once a shipowner obtains a contract part of the contract is that he has to take all mail as offered. But if the matter is as serious as it appears to be becoming, now that the Moukataff case has established the precedent, the Post Office might well find a reluctance on the part of the shipowners to accept mail contracts in the future. It might even lead to collective action on the part of all shipowners.
I think that, late though the time may be for consideration of this matter, we might be doing the Post Office a valuable service if we were to accept this Amendment, or one as redrafted by the Government, and thus avoid the real possibility that in future shipowners might say, "No, thank you" to mail contracts; "not on those terms." I urge the noble and learned Lord, and the Government as a whole, to reconsider this important issue of principle, and even at this late stage of the Bill—and I admit that it is late—do justice to those who are at present having a most unjust state of affairs forced upon them.
LORD WILSON OF LANGSIDE: My Lords, if I may with leave of the House I would accept the correction of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, of my statement that this matter related to the general law covering the liabilities of carriers. I agree that this Amendment is restricted to carriers who are engaged in the carrying and handling of mail. Even so, the matter does have an impact upon the law in a very wide sense; and I am astonished to hear it suggested that over all these years these carriers whom this Amendment now seeks to exempt from liability have been suffering the kind of injustice to which noble Lords have referred.
I would certainly not wish it to be thought that anything I say was in the nature of a smokescreen to protect an injustice in the law. Certainly the decision in the Moukataff case did no more than lay down the law as it very obviously was. All the Amendment does is to deprive members of the public of legal rights which they have and which in the Government's view, there is no case for taking away. This is the position, and I would ask your Lordships not to support this Amendment to this Bill. It might well be that the wider issue could be considered in the future in a different context, and certainly the Government would be prepared to listen to any representations about this matter which noble Lords cared to make to them. But I think it is a little extravagant to suggest that in opposing this Amendment the Government are seeking to protect an injustice, since this is the first occasion throughout the whole course of the debate on this Bill—and indeed for many years before—on which I have heard it suggested that behind the existing law there is a serious and glaring injustice which ought to be put right.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am a little bewildered by the noble Lord's reply. What I cannot quite make out from what he said is whether or not he accepts the fact that there is an undue hardship in this case. I tried very hard to find from what he said whether he agreed with this or whether he did not, or whether he thought this injustice should be rectified—at some time in the very distant future. I understood him to say that this was not the time and occasion to do it. He said that it was not appropriate to consider this matter on this Bill
968
or at this stage. I appreciate that it is a very late stage of the Bill, and I have apologised to your Lordships. I heard of this matter only last week, but the Post Office must have heard of this case as soon as it was decided, which was in 1967. The Post Office knows that there is this hardship.
All stages of Bills, in both Houses—and we go through many stages—are to make sure that before a Bill becomes law it has been considered in every aspect, and to make sure that no injustice like the one I suggest exists is allowed to slip through. If we are to go by the fact that at this late stage we cannot change the Bill, because it is too late to do so, even though there may be an injustice, what on earth are we doing here? We are all wasting our time. The noble Lord said that this produced no basic change in the Bill. He said that the Moukataff decision produced no basic change in the law; that it merely defined what the law is. I do not pretend to be learned in the law, but I understood that every High Court decision does just that—defines what the law is. I think that a considerable number of peope before the Moukataff decision did not realise that, whereas the Post Office was not liable, the shipping lines were.
In several other countries there is not this liability on the shipping lines. In Sweden there was a direct action in tort that was dismissed by the Supreme Court there in 1949. Swedish law, of course, is different from our law, but in Sweden there is not this injustice. In the United States, the best legal opinion seemed to think that the carrier is liable for his own negligence, but is not liable for the negligence of his employees unless he has been negligent in selecting them. In South Africa, people who carry mail for the Post Office have a direct immunity in statute.
Admittedly, we are adding nothing new to the immunity of the Post Office, but we are being asked to pass it on to the Corporation. Since the original immunity of the Post Office there has been the Moukataff decision, and since then there have been cases where people are by-passing the Post Office and suing the carrier direct. I cannot tell your Lordships of the case which I think supports this most because it is at the moment sub judice, but there is a case going on

969
at the moment where the insurance company, the goods having been insured outside, are suing the shipping line direct. If the insurance company win this case, all insurers who cover mail will, somewhat naturally, expect the shipping line to pay up.
I have been through what I consider are the injustices of this, and I do not propose to add to what I have said. However, I feel this very strongly. We are
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 46 [The Post Office to be liable, in certain cases, for part payment of pensions of certain former civil servants]:
6.12 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8. This is purely a drafting Amendment.
Page 41, line 39, leave out ("the beginning of").—(Lord Bowles.)
being asked to pass on this immunity of the Post Office. There is an injustice that arises from this immunity, and I do not think we should pass on the injustice with the immunity.
6.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 72; Not-Contents 45.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Exeter, M.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Airedale, L.

Ferrier, L.

Newton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Auckland, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Poltimore, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Goschen, V.

Redmayne, L.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

Sackville, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bessborough, E.

Hawke, L.

St. Helens, L.

Brecon, L.

Henley, L.

Salisbury, M.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Sandys, L.

Byers, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Selkirk, E.

Carrington, L.

Ilford, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Chelmer, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Strange, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Killearn, L.

Terrington, L.

Colyton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Teynham, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Daventry, V.

MacAndrew, L.

Thurlow, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Derwent, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mersey, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Dundee, E.

Molson, L.

Watkinson, V.

Dundonald, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Wedgwood, L.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Windlesham, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Wrottesley, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Heycock, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Annan, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Samuel, V.

Birk, Bs.

Hughes, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Kennet, L.

Serota, Bs.

Bowles, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Brockway, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L.

Silkin, L.

Chalfont, L.

Maelor, L.

Sorensen, L.

Champion, L.

Mitchison, L.

Stonham, L.

Chorley, L.

Peddie, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Plummer, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Popplewell, L.

Walston, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Raglan, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Henderson, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 66 [Harbour charges on mailbags]:
Clause 67 [Mail-bags not to be subject to control by harbour authorities]:
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES moved Amendments Nos. 9 and 10:
Page 57, line 20, leave out from ("mailbags") to end of line 22 and insert ("which, when in the United Kingdom, are in the charge of the Post Office").
Page 58, line 22, leave out from ("mailbags") to end of line 24 and insert ("which, when in the United Kingdom, are in the charge of the Post Office").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if we take Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 at the same time. This is another example of the effort which has been made by noble Lords in various parts of the House to improve the Bill, and it was suggested to me, in this case by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that the proposed Amendment was a much more agreeable form of words, and I was very glad to accept his proposal. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 132 [Extension of regulation-making power under section 52(2) of the
Government Annuities Act 1929]:
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 90, line 44, at end insert—
"(( ) This section shall extend to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is to rectify an omission. The Government Annuities Act 1929 extends to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and it is necessary that Clause 132, which amends that Act, should apply similarly. Clause 132 amends the powers to make regulations for savings bank annuities, and insurances in Section 52 of the Government Annuities Act 1929, and in particular it replaces the powers now vested in the Postmaster General to make regulations, "so far as his department is concerned". The National Debt Commissioners will, in effect, take over the Postmaster General's powers (which are repealed in Schedule 11) and make regulations for the annuities and insurance business handled through the Department for National Savings as they already do for similar business through the trustee savings banks. The authorities in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man acquiesce in this amendment of the clause. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [General transitional powers]:
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12. This is a purely drafting Amendment.
Page 196, line 37, leave out second ("of") and insert ("to").—(Lord Bowles.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, this also is a drafting correction. The reference to paragraph 2 is unnecessary. I beg to move.
Page 197, line 15, leave out ("2 or").—(Lord Bowles.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Special transitional provisions with respect to patents for inventions and registered designs]:
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, Amendment No. 14 and the next Amendment may be taken together. These Amendments merely make grammatical corrections. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 203, line 21, leave out ("with") and insert ("to")
Page 210, line 18, leave out ("with") and insert ("to")—(Lord Bowles.)
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, are the Government quite sure that their first thoughts were not the best? The expression in the Bill is "corresponding with", and it is sought to change this to "corresponding to". The customers of the Post Office correspond with each other, do they not? They do not correspond to one another, do they?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, no. The noble Lord and I correspond with one another, but this is corresponding to something else.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

HOUSING BILL
6.18 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Let me first of all say something that I know the whole House will join with me in saying: that I am very sorry to hear that Lord Brooke of Cumnor is slightly damaged, and so cannot be with us tonight. I am very glad that it is only slight damage. I am also very glad that Lady Brooke will be speaking for the Opposition on the Second Reading, because these husband and wife teams are becoming a feature—and in my view a very welcome feature—of the proceedings in our House.

973
Parliament is asked to consider a Housing Bill of one sort or another about every third year, and this is an indication both of the importance and of the difficulties of our housing problems. The subject of the present Housing Bill is older houses and the areas in which they stand. This measure is a long one, and in some respects it is complicated. It contains a number of coherent provisions to deal in the right way with a wide range of houses, from those that on any reckoning are not worth saving, to those which, with improvement to their structures and to their environment, can be given a fresh lease of life for many years.
These provisions derive from one basic premise: namely, that it makes good economic and social sense to spend a good deal more in many cases on the preservation and improvement of older houses than we have been spending up till now. As a matter of fact, the best calculations that we have been able to achieve or obtain suggest that it is often worth spending two-thirds of the cost of a new house on prolonging the life of an old one for a certain period of years. This does not mean that we shall not at the same time press on with the clearance of houses beyond redemption; nor does it mean that we shall reduce the programme of new house building.
The Government have come to this view about the economics of older housing after very careful research and study. We have benefited from the Dennington Report, the paper called, Our Older Homes—A Call For Action. The Ministry and the local authorities together have carried out, or are at the moment carrying out, pilot schemes of area improvement—these are not studies but are actual experimental schemes—for example, at a part of Rochdale called Deeplish; at Whitworth, which scheme was recently opened by my right honourable friend, and at Exeter. This is to find out how the idea of area improvement works in practice.
Also, in order to gauge the extent and character of the problems, the Government undertook in 1967 a sample survey of the condition of houses in England and Wales. Up till that point we had believed that there were about 800,000 unfit houses in the country, and we had believed this because each housing
974
authority had assessed the number of unfit houses it had in its own area, the Government had added up the answers and this was the result. But there were a number of factors which made this an unreliable result. Different housing authorities applied different criteria. For very understandable human motives, some maximised their problems; others minimised them. We therefore cross-posted public health inspectors from one housing authority area to another with which they were unfamiliar and with which they had nothing to do, and on the basis of this sample study we found that, according to the more objective criteria employed in it, there were a total, not of 0·8 million unfit houses but of 1·8 million unfit houses, and, beyond that, 4½ million in need of significant repair or improvement, or both.
This was a much more gloomy picture than had hitherto been supposed. These results, and all the other available facts, were then fed into a study conference at New Hall at Cambridge in 1967, over which I myself had the honour and pleasure of presiding and to which we called experts from the housing authorities, from universities, from the relevant professions and institutions, from Whitehall and from the Press, in order to discuss everything that might be done. The result of this conference was that we realised the need for urgent action and the Government took up the challenge in the White Paper, Old Houses into New Homes, a paper in the drafting of which I was also glad to be closely involved. The proposals in that White Paper are the basis of this Bill.
Record figures have been achieved in new house building and a very large new housing programme will continue for as far ahead as we can see, in particular to meet the needs of slum clearance. But the time has come for older houses to get a fair share of the extremely high expenditure on housing, and this is why, as the White Paper says, the Government intend that within a total public investment in housing at about the level it has now reached a greater share should go to the improvement of older houses.
I turn now to some of the particular provisions in the Bill. There is in it a clause which lays upon local authorities a fresh general duty to review the condition of older houses in their districts and

975
to come forward with proposals for dealing with them. It complements, thus, for the first time, the duty local authorities have long had to review the need to provide new houses for those who need them. From this fresh duty just about all the actions of local authorities under this Bill will flow. They will take the lead but, as I hope to show, they will lead in partnership, wherever possible in cooperation, with owners and with residents.
One obvious example of this is in the making of grants for improvements and conversions. Part I of the Bill introduces a new grant code under which local authorities assist owners in improving their property. This new code is generous indeed. Discretionary grants are increased from a maximum of £400 to one of £1,000. Grants for the conversion of three-storey buildings go up from a maximum of £500 per flat obtained to £1,200; and even higher grants will be able to be fixed in exceptional circumstances, perhaps where the building is of historic or architectural importance or because of some other factor. The grant which housing authorities must pay for the provision of standard amenities goes up from £155 to £200.
The system is flexible. We are getting rid of as many fixed statutory requirements as we can. Even where some are necessary—for instance, the requirements of the mandatory standard grants—the housing authorities may relax them, subject to directions from the Minister. The system is coherent and comprehensive. Grants are at present administered under no fewer than three main Acts. The new code is self-contained and provides for everything from improvements on purely social grounds for short-life houses—something quite outside the present system—to a fully-fledged improvement or conversion for properties with an unlimited future.
The Exchequer will continue to bear its fair share of the financial burden. As now, it will make good three-quarters of the local authority's costs of grants to private owners as contribution to loan charges. Local authorities will of course benefit from the new grant limits when improving their own houses. So will housing associations. They will both now receive assistance also on the acquisition
976
of property for conversion or improvement, with the effect that any artificial bias towards demolition and redevelopment should be removed.
I should like to say a special word about soundly-based housing associations. I am sure that they have a significant part to play in improvements. In cooperation with local authorities they can perform a most useful service in area improvement, which I am about to describe, by concentrating their purchases in districts where authorities are also improving the environment. The Government do not claim that they have out of the blue divined the advantages of improving whole residential areas. The 1964 Act was concerned with a limited improvement of tenanted houses in defined areas, but it is generally accepted that the relevant provisions of the 1964 Act have not been a great success. Part II of this Bill seeks to remedy this with its concept of general improvement areas.
The 1964 Act is failing because it is too limited. It provides nothing for the improvement of the area itself as opposed to the individual houses within it. Part II of this Bill is in this respect coherent and comprehensive and rather generous. Local authorities are given powers under it to improve the environment by the provision of play spaces, by the planting of trees, the closing of streets to traffic and so on, and can attract a specific Government grant towards the cost of this work equal to £50 for each dwelling in the area covered by the scheme. The 1964 Act does not seek to realise the full potential of all the houses in the area. It was aimed only at the standard amenities. Our intention is that the authorities should freely make grants at all levels on all improvable houses in general improvement areas that are a reasonable reflection of what is worth spending.
The 1964 Act proved somewhat bureaucratic. It all turned too much on the serving of notices and counter notices, and objections to notices and objections to objections. Part II of this Bill enables and encourages local authorities to enlist the co-operation and support of the owners of houses and those who live in them. The local authority commits itself by declaring a general improvement area, although it is axiomatic that before that there will have to be informal consultations with those who are going to be

977
affected. At every stage the housing authority will be under a duty to tell people of its current proposals. The authority will have the greatest possible stake in the success of its public relations exercise: and that stake will be the success of its own investment in environmental improvements.
In the vast majority of cases the benefits of the increased grants and the evidence of the authority's commitment to the improvement of the area will be incentive enough to encourage owners to improve their own properties. But we believe that it is necessary to have in reserve a power of compulsion to be used in the last resort. In these cases powers of compulsory purchase will be available. The exercise of these powers will, of course, be subject to confirmation by the Minister, and my right honourable friend has already made quite clear that compulsory purchase will not be entertained if authorities show a harsh or unconscionable use of the powers. He has specially in mind indefensible action against elderly owner-occupiers for the sake of an improvement to the interior of their houses.
House improvement with the aid of a grant will go on outside general improvement areas as well as inside them, but we look to local authorities increasingly to turn their attention to this general improvement area as the main weapon for the years to come. Here, for the first time, we can think in terms of the revitalisation of whole areas of our country and their preservation as communities with real roots.
I referred to evidence from the sample survey that disrepair was distressingly prevalent in the housing stock. We are doing something about that. Repairs may now rank for grant if they are done with an improvement scheme, and no less than one-half of the grant may be allocated to the repair element of the improvement scheme. We are sure that this provision will remove an obstacle that in the past has deterred many owners who are otherwise anxious to improve their houses. At the same time we are able to give local authorities a long overdue power to oblige owners to rectify substantial disrepair which may have hastened the course of many decent houses downwards into slumdon. Until now they have been able to act only
978
when the house has become actually statutorily unfit.
My Lords., the Scottish Bill, which we shall debate as soon as we have finished with this one, has been amended in its course through Parliament so as—to put it in a nutshell—to ensure that replacements of fittings as well as improvements which may be carried out by tenants otherwise than under the terms of their tenancies are to be ignored when setting a fair rent under the Bill. I shall be coming to that clause in a minute. But this means in effect that if a tenant has paid for his job when he did not have to, the rent assessment officer will not be obliged to allow for that fact in any increase of rent which may occur during his statutory tenancy. This idea in the Scottish Bill seems to be a good one that England and Wales might usefully follow, and I hope to put down an Amendment to the English and Welsh Bill for the Committee stage, having the same effect.
One persistent feature of the improvement grant system over the years has been that it did not sufficiently attract landlords. The reason has become clear. As the White Paper stated, the rents chargeable after improvement did not and do not normally provide a sufficient return to encourage landlords to do the improvement in the first place. So Part III of this Bill and Schedules 2 and 3 set out to give a reasonable incentive to good landlords, while still holding a fair balance between landlord and tenant.
Put briefly, the basic proposition is that tenants of fit houses in good repair and improved so as to possess all the standard amenities will move toward payment of a fair, regulated rent in stages, provided that they can afford to do so. There is no question of a general increase in rent levels. Indeed it is only a minority of controlled tenants who are likely to be affected, and every safeguard has been inserted to protect their legitimate interests. As a matter of equity and to help keep in decent condition those rent controlled houses where the standard amenties are already present, we also propose in this Bill a transfer, in stages, to the payment of a fair rent in those cases. Let me repeat that this does not mean a general increase in rent levels. If we take both categories—that is, those which are already improved up to the

979
required standard and those which will be so improved as a result of this Bill—we find that perhaps 400,000 houses are involved in a rent controlled sector of some one and a half million.
It is with some diffidence that I turn now to Part IV of the Bill, which deals with the problems of multiple occupation. This is because in 1593 an Act was passed—and I quote—
"For the reforming of the great mischiefs and inconveniences that daily grow and increase by the reason of the pestering pf houses with divers families and converting of great houses into several tenements or dwellings within the cities of London and Westminster and other places adjoining."
The war against the evils of multiple occupation—or, to put it in layman's language, overcrowding—has been waged ever since, with varying degrees of success. But I must warn the House that in the nature of things legislative measures cannot entirely deal with these evils while people are attracted to areas already bulging at the seams. If they want to go there they are likely to get there, whatever the law says, and the law just has to make the best of it afterwards. We must attempt—and we do in this Bill—to regulate and improve the conditions where gross multiple occupation is established, and also to control its spread. This Bill, building on the Housing Acts of 1951 and 1954 and on certain local Acts, sets out to do both these things in ways adjustable to meet a variety of local circumstances. It also introduces, in Part I. a special grant to encourage the alleviation of conditions which may arise from multiple occupation.
On the other hand, solid progress has been achieved in slum clearance since the Act of 1930—the original slum clearance Act which was introduced by my right honourable friend's father. The time has come for a fresh impetus. About 75,000 slums are now being cleared each year in England and Wales. This is a lot: but we must do better than that in order to make a real impression on the 1·8 million which remain.
One feature of slum clearance is the increasing proportion of owner-occupiers who are found among those affected. They have a real grievance in that they are at present losing their homes for
980
amounts of compensation which take account only of site value. They may well get nothing for the bricks and mortar into which they have sunk their savings, and their natural hostility to slum clearance has in many cases deterred housing authorities from getting on with it, and has in many other cases prolonged an operation which ought to be of benefit to all those living in these worn-out areas. It is perhaps too much to expect the active co-operation of the owner-occupiers of unfit houses in slum clearance, but it is right that their sense of grievance should be removed. This Bill therefore provides in Part V and Schedule 5 for the payment to owner-occupiers of compensation equivalent to the full market value of their house in cases where formal clearance action was begun after April 23, 1968, when the proposals were published in the White Paper.
All the same, the Government consider that, as the White Paper says, the site value basis of compensation should remain to he the general, formal rule of slum clearance, as it has been since 1919. The Bill does not propose the extension of market value compensation to landlord owned houses. What it does, on the other hand, is to propose in those cases to double the payments for good maintenance. Well-maintained payments were introduced in the Housing Act 1935, and that is the Housing Act that was introduced by my own father—we cannot get away from these dynastic things in this country—when he was Minister of Health. Since then, the well-maintained payments have proved a useful incentive to landlords and tenants to keep their houses in a decent state despite inherent structural defects. Now, at the higher rate proposed under the Bill, these payments will in many cases bridge the gap between site value and market value. For the first time payments will also be available for unfit houses whose interior or exterior alone have been well maintained, without reference to the state of maintenance of the interior or exterior, as the case may be.
This Bill has also given us the chance to deal with other important and urgent matters. They are contained in Part VI. They provide for increased flexibility in the option mortgage scheme. They enable certain long leases to become marketable once more and they ensure that a

981
leaseholders' price of enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Act is kept to the value of the land.
This is an important Bill. It is dealing with old houses, but it looks to the future and what ought to be done in it. There is nothing abstract in its purposes. The concern of the Bill and of the Government, and I confidently believe of the Opposition and of all sides of this House, is with people and what can be best done for them now in changing circumstances. We believe that because of this Bill many thousands of people will have new opportunities of living in decent homes in pleasant surroundings. When the proposals were first published in the White Paper, they were given a general welcome, and it is true to say that the further consideration which has come about since then has in no way diminished this original welcome. I am confident that this House will now wish to welcome a Bill which implements these proposals. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kennet.)
6.45 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has kindly explained, I have a special reason for asking for your indulgence this afternoon. It was intended that my noble relative should speak at this point, but he asks me to express his apologies because he is laid up at home with a badly poisoned foot. He had, however, considered what he wanted to say, and with your Lordships' permission I will endeavour to act as a channel of inspired communication on his behalf. I would only add that, although I have some practical knowledge of housing problems, and indeed was chairman of the Hampstead Housing Committee for several years, I would never claim to be expert in housing law, so if noble Lords try to catch me out they will find me much less formidable and much more vulnerable than my noble relative would be if he were standing at this Box instead of me.
This is a Bill of extreme complexity, partly because it deals with seven or eight quite distinct aspects of housing policy, and partly because a great deal of it involves legislation by reference. Your Lordships will be the more grateful,
982
therefore, not only for the excellent Explanatory Memorandum at the beginning, but also for the noble Lord's exposition of the Bill and what it does.
Parts I, II, IV and V are sensible and logical developments of previous housing policies initiated by earlier Governments of different political colours. Improvement grants were started by a Labour Government some twenty years ago, but it drew the terms for them so rigidly that very few were taken up, until Mr. Harold Macmillan as Minister of Housing relaxed the conditions and made them more realistic, and ever since dim a million or so houses have benefited by them.
The next type of grant, the standard grant, was first introduced by my noble relative. It has stood the test of experience, and one is pleased to see that the Bill continues it, and that Schedule 1 adjusts the amount of grant to the falling value of money. In Committee the question should be raised whether it need still be a condition for standard grants that the house must have a useful life in front of it of at least 15 years. I know that there is a subsection empowering the Minister to give directions whereby this period may be reduced, but it seems to me we have reached the point where the local authorities might be given rather more discretion. They have a strong incentive not to waste public money, for they have to produce a quarter of the grant themselves. What one fears is that we shall be condemning hundreds of thousands of people to live on for another 12 or 14 years in houses where there is no bath, no hot water, and no proper W.C.
In the same connection, one must be very suspicious of Clause 55, which seems designed to prevent the modernising of just those houses where the poorest families live. I thought that a Socialist principle was "To each according to his needs", and it seems an odd facet of Socialism to downgrade the needs of the poorest families and then legislate riot to meet them. Of course, it is now becoming clear that the right answer to this, as to so much else, is to relate housing subsidies in future to family incomes and make them available not only to council tenants but also to tenants of privately owned property with low incomes.

983
Then we come to the new type of grant, the special grant for the benefit of houses in multiple occupation. This is a good and logical development of the standard grant. These houses in multiple occupation, of which Clause 58 gives us for some reason a new definition, hide some of the foulest living conditions in the country, often far worse than the little old two-storey terraces which we are pulling down as slums. The Conservative 1961 Act introduced the new idea of management control for them, and the 1964 Act, in the light of three years' experience, carried it further. Clauses 59 to 64 continue that process in the light of another five years' experience, and they are to be thoroughly welcomed.
Part II of the Bill introduces the concept of the general improvement area, which again is a sensible development and enlargement of the improvement area provisions in the 1964 Act. It is not absolutely clear how they are related to, or will overlap, the action areas under the latest Town and Country Planning Act, but perhaps that will become clearer as our debates go on. One is a little sceptical, too, as to how far the provisions of Part II will achieve what I know is the Government's object of engaging the interest and co-operation of all the people living in the area. Perhaps where the local authority is highly intelligent and imaginative they will.
The provision in Clause 32 enabling a local authority compulsorily to acquire any land whatever is obviously far too wide, and needs amending; and Clause 36 is a bit mysterious. Clause 34—Protection against blight—which was added to the Bill on Report in another place as a result of Opposition pressure, is welcome so far as it goes, but many of us will not be satisfied until the whole of the arrangements for protecting innocent people against having the value of their property blighted by the actions of public authorities are completely overhauled and broadened. The whole of Part II is intended to speed up the declaration of improvement areas; but, alas! the intention is going to be frustrated. unless the Government improve the scale of Exchequer contributions laid down in Clause 37. The figure of £100 multiplied by the number of dwellings in the area is not going to be enough. Unhappily, this is a
984
matter of money, and so your Lordships' House cannot force the Government to alter it. We shall have the same sequence of events with which one is only too familiar in housing legislation—of the Treasury tying the strings too tightly in the first instance, and releasing them only after years have been wasted.
Part III takes the first tentative steps towards bringing up to date the rents of some of the million or more rent-controlled houses whose rents are still fixed at the now derisory figure of twice the 1939 gross value. One should, I suppose, welcome this as the beginning of a breakthrough to more rational rents. But it seems to be only a faint beginning, and it has some extraordinary features. No rent is to go up at all until January, 1971, by which time the Cabinet reckon that the next General Election will have taken place and a Conservative Government will be in power. Even so, increases will be scaled. Those landlords who have done nothing to modernise their property, and who start to do so only when this Bill becomes law, will not be able to charge a fair rent, as defined under the Rent Act, until 1974 or 1975. But those who have already done all that could be expected of them—modernised the property, put in all the standard amenities, kept the house in good repair—will be prevented by Schedule 3 from charging a fair rent until 1976 or 1977.
This is presumably the Socialist idea of justice, but to all normal people it seems incomprehensible. It will be helpful if the Government can tell us how many houses are likely to come under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) respectively of subsection (2) of Clause 50. One hopes that we can find means in Committee of simplifying the extraordinarily and unnecessarily complicated procedures laid down in Clauses 44 to 47 about qualification certificates. At one moment the Government are saying that public health inspectors and rent officers are fully stretched—and as regards public health inspectors I know that that is all too true; yet at the same moment, the Government produce these excessively elaborate provisions which will produce the very maximum of work for local authorities and their staffs. Surely, in cases where the facts are not at all in dispute between tenant and landlord, the procedure could be simplified, leaving the

985
elaborate and time-consuming procedures for only those cases where there is a difference of opinion. Not all tenants and not all landlords are at daggers drawn with their opposite numbers.
However, Part III as a whole is welcome, in so far as eventually it will bring rather more sense into the rent situation. We should by now have escaped from housing shortage, if over the past half century our rent policies had been wiser. As a country, we produce all the milk and bread that we need, but not all the houses; and the simple difference is that those who deal in milk and bread are allowed to charge enough to cover their costs.
Part V of the Bill very rightly extends the well-maintained payments for houses in clearance schemes which, nevertheless, have been well-maintained, and introduces the useful new category of partially well-maintained houses. There has been so much injustice arising out of the present law that the new financial arrangements certainly ought to apply to all cases where the compensation has not yet been settled. This will mean an Amendment to Clause 66.
It is frequently the case that a long Bill ends with a final Part called, "Miscellaneous and Supplemental", but Part VI of this Bill is more wonderfully miscellaneous than anything I have ever seen. It ranges from standards of fitness for human habitation, through option mortgages, to terms of leasehold enfranchisement. There could hardly be a more mixed bag, and this seems to be partly due to the Government's having had last-minute thoughts and introducing unrelated new clauses on Report in another place. One wonders how much Clause 70 is going to mean, or is intended to mean. It imposes an obligation on every housing authority to carry out an inspection of their whole area from time to time. Unless public health inspectors are to be taken off work of more immediate urgency, this instruction seems likely to remain a dead letter in the areas where housing conditions are worst. In the areas where housing conditions are good, the inspections will be easy, but they will not be necessary.
Clause 77 is a desperate and overdue attempt to rescue the Government's option mortgage scheme from the failure it has been up to the present. One of
986
the reasons for the Government's abysmal showing in by-elections is a promise made by the present Prime Minister, before the 1964 Election, when he said:
"By intelligent monetary policies, Labour will bring mortgages within the reach of young people living on average incomes."
Young people, my Lords, do not vote for politicians who let them down. Clauses 78 and 79 are also overdue. At long last they rectify flaws in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 which the Opposition repeatedly pointed out in debate on the Bill in another place, but of which the Government took no notice, with the result that many leases, through no fault whatever of the leaseholders, became unsaleable. That situation is now, after 18 months of hardship, being put right.
One wishes one could give an equal welcome to Clause 80. This clause appears to be designed to make the working of the unjust Leasehold Reform Act still more unjust. It even breaches the principle on which the Government maintained that that Act was founded: that the site belonged to the freeholder but the bricks and mortar to the leaseholders. This clause embodies the fantastic proposition that values shall be fixed on the basis that the man who is buying shall he deemed not to be in the market to buy. Obviously, this is going to be one of the big issues which will need attention in Committee.
Speaking generally, however, one does not anticipate that we shall need a prolonged Committee stage. The reason is that this is a Bill which has been examined in another place at great length, and, by common consent, constructively, thanks to the detailed knowledge and assiduity of Mr. Graham Page and others of my honourable friends. It is a many-sided but useful Bill, and I would certainly advise your Lordships to give it an unopposed Second Reading, and then seek, in Committee, to remove the blemishes.
6.57 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, the noble Baroness need not have been so apologetic about taking the place of her noble husband, because she has given us a most thoughtful and interesting speech. She will perhaps say that it was her husband's speech, but nevertheless in order to give it she must have a considerable grasp of the subject. I am not

987
sure how far her fear that this Bill will he too slow in its effect will be justified. In some of the criticisms she had to make about Part III, for instance—that it was a "faint beginning"; that it had extraordinary features, though she welcomed it, in so far as she felt that it would eventually bring some measure of sense into the rent structure—I was not quite sure how far she was perhaps damning the Bill with faint praise in this respect. I know that a good many people would go further than she does, and feel that there is much in Part III which will inhibit this Bill in its effect. I do not take that view. Not only do I think, as does the noble Baroness, that this is a good and helpful Bill, but I do not think that some of the things—some of the faults, possibly, and difficulties—to which she drew attention will have the effect of slowing down the Bill in what it proposes to do, or indeed in inhibiting landlords from doing what this Bill suggests they can do.
I agree that one can never quite say whether a measure of this kind is going to work, but I am quite optimistic about it. I believe that it will. I think it is going to work extremely well. And it is interesting that the opponents of the Bill (by which I mean the extreme Left) also think that it is going to work. They are afraid that it is going to work, because they think that too much labour, too much time and too much money will be spent on repairing old houses which probably should be left, as they have been left for so long, to get into disrepair, and that the money so spent could be better spent on new housing. They also fear that the Bill will succeed because, they think, it will put too much money into the landlords' pockets. Both of these criticisms are real criticisms, but they are based on the belief that the Bill is going to work, and they do not really amount to very much.
My own view is that, with care and attention, it should be possible for the amount of money, time and expertise that is going to be spent upon repairing old houses to be spent sensibly. And so far as the point about putting too much money into the hands of landlords is concerned, it seems to me that this must be done to some extent. In the past it has been very unfair to landlords that a great deal of money has had to be spent
988
for a very little return. I do not think there is any doubt about that, and I believe that both sides of the spectrum of political opinion would agree with that view. What they would possibly say was that from an egalitarian point of view this was a sensible thing to do anyway. That is as may be; but it does not help towards resuscitating our rather derelict houses.
So far as many noble Lords on this side of the House are concerned, Part III of the Bill is the Part about which they have misgivings, so it is on Part III that I should like to say a word or two. Your Lordships will remember that Part III deals with changing the old control of 1957 into the new regulation of 1965. I think that a great many people who represent the landlords' interest feel that this is unconscionably slow, and that it will militate against landlords' putting money which they should put into this kind of repair and improvement. I shall try to show why, in my view, their fears are groundless.
On the other side, some of the people who believe that they are trying to promote the interests of tenants feel that these rents should not be brought into regulation out of control. I would remind your Lordships, however, that regulation is a very strict control indeed. It is in fact, as the Minister of Housing has himself said, an attempt to produce a fair rent for a decent house in good condition. I was astounded at the figures produced by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, which showed almost a doubling of the estimated figures of houses in a really bad state. I had no idea that the figure, which we had all assumed was under one million. was in fact one and a half million, and I think that the rent structure is in some measure a cause of this terrible state of affairs. Up to now, landlords have had a statutory duty to do a great many things at a cost which is often grotesquely out of line with what they have Cot back in return: and Part III of this Bill, although it may be slow, does offer some incentive.
A great many Amendments were moved in another place to try to speed up the procedure by which controlled rents could be converted into regulated ones. Those Amendments met with no sympathy whatever from the Government, and I think it would be a waste of

989
time to move them again in this House, because I believe they will meet with the same reaction here. My feeling about it is that this procedure may well be slow—it will be two or three years before the controlled rents of improved properties move towards being regulated ones—nevertheless one should be thankful for the many mercies which this Bill does provide for the owners of property.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, ran through them all. May I repeat them? They are the increased grants—and another Amendment which was moved in another place was extremely interesting. Whereas in the past if one had been given a grant to repair property and wished to sell it or use it for other purposes one had to pay back that grant, now the Government themselves have moved Amendments which provide that both an owner and a landlord can sell a property without repaying the grant. That is a very substantial help, and I welcome it. Secondly, repairs which are what might be considered "structural repairs", also attract grant; and this is new.
Thirdly, there is the question of full compensation. I agree that it is only for owner-occupiers, and I think it is perhaps a little harsh that it is not also for landlords. Because so far as owner-occupiers are concerned, do not forget that they have never been in the difficult position in which the owner of controlled property has been. The owner-occupier always had command of his house; he could always sell it with vacant possession if he wanted to. The landlord renting property has never been able to do this. In view of this I think it is a little unfair that this particular concession of full compensation instead of the site value should not also go to the landlords. I admit that the Government have met the landlord half way: they are giving him a bonus, as it were, for the fact that a given property which is to be subject to slum clearance was well and properly maintained.
Another concession which I consider a very good one is that landlords who have already put their property in good order may also move the rent of their house from control into regulation; and I imagine that that is the state of affairs which, as I hope—indeed I am sure—applies in the case of all noble Lords in this House. I am sure that there are
990
on both sides of the House noble Lords who are landlords of the kind whose house property is already in as good repair as it could be. I do not suppose that this concession was designed to sweeten us up; nevertheless, I welcome it because think it would have been most unjust not to allow it and it might well have militated against landlords putting money into repairs and improvements.
What we have to bear in mind, when considering the slowness of the application of the provisions for converting control into regulation, is that not all landlords of rented property are exactly like noble Lords in this House. Some of them are characters or companies whom your Lordships would not care to know. That is a point we have to bear in mind in any complaints that we may have that the application of the provisions under Part III is too slow. The sort of tenant who is the occupier of that kind of property is among the poorest in the land. I think that one forgets how extremely poor a very large section of the community are, and that the Government have a duty to be over-cautious and to bend over backwards in making sure that tenants of that kind of property are not put at a disadvantage by a Bill which, in fact, is meant to help them.
I sometimes feel extremely sorry for landlords. I am sometimes even outraged at the way Governments appear to treat them. Nevertheless, landlords do get by somehow, and so, in view of the complete change of heart which I recognise as having come over the Government with regard to their approach to housing in this Bill, I think that noble Lords who are critical of certain aspects of it, such as Part III, should be thankful for the mercies that they are getting under the Bill and not be too worried—and I am sure that they need not be—about the slowness of the position under Part III. In most respects this is an admirable Bill, and I hope, as does the noble Baroness, that it will get a warm welcome from all sides of the House.
7.10 p.m.
LORD SILSOE: My Lords, I want to speak, if I may, on Clause 80 which has been mentioned rather cruelly by the noble Baroness, and which I consider to be a complete blot on an otherwise admirable Bill. I have known and worked

991
under many Housing Acts, and if I may say so without being impertinent, I believe this to be an excellent addition to the housing law; excellently explained in a White Paper, excellently explained in the Explanatory Memorandum and, if I may say so, excellently and shortly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. But that one clause is a real shocker in an otherwise very good Bill.
There are two reasons why it is said that this clause had to be slipped in during the Report stage in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, told us that the Minister of Housing and Local Government had said that compulsory acquisition would never be used harshly or unconscionably. Perhaps that is the reason why this clause was introduced by the Secretary of State for Wales and not by the Minister, because nobody could possibly say that the compulsory enfranchisement of land under Clause 80 could be done otherwise than harshly or unconscionably.
It is said, first, that there are one million householders involved; and, secondly, that the Custins case in the Lands Tribunal—Custins was the name of the tenant—was wrongly decided, owing to the fact that the market value was shared between the landlord and the tenant. I do not apologise for mentioning what this clause does, because the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, did not mention it in opening and I think your Lordships should know something about it, since it will certainly be heard of later in the proceedings.
Clause 80 says that the tenant is no longer to be considered in the bidding for the compulsory enfranchisement of the freehold of a house. It was said in another place, as has been said so often, that the house belonged to the tenant and the land belonged to the landlord. What is known as bricks and mortar value was the tenant's and not the landlord's. It is said—and this is the only reason given for this clause—that the court has offended against the White Paper and the Leasehold Reform Act, in that it has given to the landlord some portion of the bricks and mortar value. I wish to state absolutely categorically that this is not so, and it does not begin to be so.
992
I have read every word of the judgment and of the valuations—in fact, I have read everything about it—and the Lands Tribunal, which is a very competent court set up for this very purpose, did not award any bricks and mortar value, in any shape or form, to the landlord. Furthermore, I want to say that if by any chance it had done so, the figure of one million families, which has been mentioned, is a fanciful one. Nothing like that figure exists anywhere.
The question of law which was raised in the Custins case was whether or not the tenant should be a bidder at the auction, and the court decided that he should. One thing which is quite clear is that if you are valuing the site—which you have to do under the Leasehold Reform Act—the fact that there is another bidder does not make the slightest difference to the bricks and mortar. It merely means that there is somebody else bidding for the site. It may put up the value of the site, but it cannot possibly put up the value of the bricks and mortar in any way, and it was not done in this case.
The most serious part of the judgment reads as follows. The court said:
"We note that Section 1 of the Act"—
that is, the Leasehold Reform Act—
"requires that the acquisition should be on 'fair terms' and we do not think that the exclusion of the tenant would result in a 'fair terms' sale, because a price which was calculated on a basis which ignored the price which a tenant would be prepared to pay would not be on 'fair terms'."
One could not have clearer words from a competent court. But this clause which has been put in the Bill is doing that very thing. It is making it compulsory that the tenant shall not bid, and compulsory, therefore, that the terms shall not be fair. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that, at the right time, this clause cannot be passed by this House. There is a finding of fact by the law to this effect.
Now what is the cause of this misunderstanding? Why has it been said that this terrible thing has happened? My Lords, I do not know. It may be that there was panic in Wales, where most of the trouble under the Leasehold Reform Act comes from, and possibly an Amendment had to be made quickly by the Secretary of State during the Report stage in another place. I cannot think of any other reason.

993
I should like now to come to this figure of one million families which was given by the Secretary of State. Where the million are, where they come from, who has counted them, we have never been able to discover since this Bill was first introduced, nor can we now discover it. All we know is that a great many tenants were removed from the Leasehold Reform Bill when it went through Parliament, but still the figure is the same. I hope very much indeed that, at the next stage of the Bill, we shall be told where these million families are.
It is a well-known fact that the majority of long leases exist in three areas—South Wales, Greater London, and Birmingham and the Midlands. One of the chartered institutions of surveyors has carried out a survey to see how the Leasehold Reform Act is working. They surveyed 47 housing estates, of which 40 were in South Wales, Greater London and the Birmingham area. A total of 40,000 houses were found to be within the limits of the Act, but at the end of one year—and your Lordships will remember the tremendous cry about the urgent need for the Act—only 2,500 people had applied for the freehold.
There was also a special provision to deal with the very hard cases where the leases had expired before the Act became law. A special section was put in to help those people. On one local authority estate 63 cases were discovered to come within that section, but on the whole of the other 46 estates there were only six claims made, and the time limit is now up. I apologise for giving so many figures, but they had to be given to counteract the figure of one million.
My summary of the present position is as follows. The first flush of urgent cases under the Act has been quite tiny; the amending clause, even if it is sound, will produce tiny benefits; the Lands Tribunal has not awarded bricks and mortar value, it has not breached the Act or the White Paper; and Parliamentary action in introducing this clause has been taken without the benefit of a judgment of the Court of Appeal, which is the usual procedure, to say the least of it. This seems to me to be conclusive proof that the Government have been advised that the decision was right. I cannot read it any other way.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a second? The noble Lord cannot really imagine that the Government concern themselves whether court decisions are right or not. The interpretation of the existing law is a matter which this Government, like all others, leave to the courts.
LORD SILSOE: As the noble Lord has raised the point, may I tell him the constitutional position? I happen to have been trained in it and I happen to have earned money under it for many years. I operated one War Damage Act and all the various planning Acts myself, and I was always told you could not go to Parliament unless you had been to the Court of Appeal. It is a well known feature of life. I was not going to raise this point but as it has been raised I am dealing with it. It is perfectly normal procedure. If you do not go to the Court of Appeal, what other deduction can be drawn but that the Government thought that the decision was right?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, would the noble Lord be so kind as to give way once again?
LORD SILSOE: Of course.
LORD KENNET: The noble Lord said that one cannot go to Parliament unless there has been a decision in the Court of Appeal. I wonder who he thinks has been to Parliament.
LORD SILSOE: The Government have. They introduced this clause at the last minute, at the Report stage below, on the decision of a court of first instance.
LORD KENNET: I know that the noble Lord will readily yield the point that the Government have not been to court.
LORD SILSOE: Is the noble Lord telling me that the Government have not taken advice?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if the House does not mind our pursuing this matter, and if the noble Lord will yield again for a moment, perhaps I may say that I thought the noble Lord was under the impression that somebody had applied to Parliament for this provision at a certain point in the process of a case upwards through the courts. Of course that is not so. This is a provision proposed by the

995
Government to alter the existing law. The Government's opinion on the correctness of court decisions is something which does not come into the matter, and it would be very improper if the Government had any such opinion.
LORD SILSOE: My Lords, I allowed myself to be interrupted, but I am afraid I am not changing my view that the only possible deduction is that the view taken is that it is right. I cannot make any other deduction. There is a finding of fact by the court, the Lands Tribunal, that to do what this clause proposes would not be fair terms. That is a finding of both fact and law. I respectfully suggest to your Lordships—and I shall make more statements at a later stage—that it would be very wrong for this House to allow something to go through when the court itself has decided that the clause would produce unfair terms. That is all I wish to say at the moment. I apologise for worrying the noble Lord about who was right and who was wrong, but I am afraid that I must stick to my point that I am going to assume that the Government think that the court was right.
7.25 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should wholeheartedly welcome the provision in this Bill which raises the maximum improvement grant from £400 to £1,000, which is quite a spectacular increase, if I felt sure that in all cases where this £1,000 of public money was to be spent the result was going to be a home for somebody to live in—for I suppose that these days our greatest domestic problem of all, if it is not race relations, is the housing shortage. But I am sorry to say that I have grave misgivings about this.
The position was safeguarded in the earlier Housing Acts, because they contained a condition which laid down that any developer who obtained a grant for an improvement or a conversion, if he was not going to use the dwelling for himself, must make it available at all times to be let. So the dwelling could he used by somebody as his home. There was also the further provision that if the developer failed in fulfilling that condition then his grant could be recovered. Those very useful provisions were to be re-enacted in this Bill. They were, in fact,
996
Clause 13, 14, 15 and 16 of this Bill as it was first introduced to Parliament. It had a most exhaustive examination in Standing Committee in another place. Those clauses, Clauses 13 to 16, survived Standing Committee, and it was not until the Report stage in another place that those clauses were struck out of the Bill. My Lords, I want to know why; and I want to know whether it is useful and right that those clauses, which have formed part of earlier Housing Acts, should now disappear.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, may remember my bringing to his attention a case in which it appeared that the chairman of a company, in receipt of a salary of £12,500 a year, had been given a £400 grant to turn an outbuilding into a cottage to provide accommodation for his occasional guests. I am not against millionaires' providing their guests with accommodation: I merely think they ought to pay for it themselves, and that if there is to be a £400 grant, or a £1,000 grant, and a dwelling is provided, it ought to be provided for somebody who is looking for a home to live in. Of course, the local housing authorities will still have their discretion, and presumably those that are thoroughly alert and conscientious, when they realise that an application of this kind is being made and that the house to be provided is not going to provide anybody with a home, will say, "No grant". They will say, "Unless you are providing somebody with a home, you will not get a grant". But, my Lords, life being as it is, and local authorities being busy, as they are, I should imagine that what will happen in practice is that it will be assumed that applications for grants will be made only for the purpose of providing dwellings for people to live in, and it will not occur to the local authority to doubt it. Therefore, I do not think that millionaires who want £1,000 of public money for a guesthouse will have much difficulty in getting it. That is the sort of way things work out in practice.
Consider next the pressure that will be put on local housing authorities in this matter. The £1,000 grant is to be subsidised by the central Government as to 75 per cent. by a direct subsidy. If one takes into account the general rate subsidy, which gives another 10 per cent., that makes an 85 per cent. subsidy from the central Government. That leaves, in theory, 15 per cent. of the grant to be

997
found out of the ratepayers' pocket. But then it has to be remembered that nobody gets a grant unless he puts into the scheme at least as much money as the amount that he gets in grant. That reduces the local authority's contribution to the house from 15 per cent. to 7½ per cent. And then one has to remember this. It would be very remarkable if the house owner's contribution worked out at exactly a half share; the likelihood surely is that his share in practically every case is going to be substantially more than a half. That reduces the ratepayers' contribution from 7½ per cent. to—shall we say?—5 per cent. So the local housing authority get a new dwelling for a contribution from them, from their ratepayers, of 5 per cent.—a dwelling on which they can collect rates. They are getting a very good bargain indeed.
If somebody comes along and says, "What about a grant for me? It is going to cost your ratepayers only 5 per cent. anyway; and Parliament is no longer worried about the provision that requires a dwelling to be provided for somebody to live in", that puts pretty strong pressure on the local housing authority; and it will be very easy indeed for them to yield to it. I very much wonder whether all these grants of £1,000 will go into dwellings for people to live in. I shall listen carefully to what the noble Lord has to say when he replies to the debate, but at present I feel very strongly inclined to move in Committee to re-insert those clauses, Clauses 13 to 16, which were struck out when the Bill was on Report in another place.
My Lords, I have had a good deal of experience of house conversion. I have myself at home, with the aid of grants, converted about 12 outbuildings into houses and flats, and I think that by now I should have converted about another six were it not for a circumstance which I wish briefly to point out. I think I can safely say what I am now going to say without being thought to be airing a private financial grievance, because I believe it fairly obvious, as the maximum grant is now to be raised from £400 to £1,000, that nobody who has been operating the scheme under the £400 maximum has been doing so at much profit to himself. He surely has been doing socially useful work at a pretty high cost to himself.
998
The breaking point between me and my local housing authority was over a bungalow which I made by conversion out of certain outbuildings. The local authority imposed on me a condition in writing which said that rising dampness in walls and floors must be eliminated. I do not complain, and have never complained, about that. It is a very sensible condition to impose and I was very pleased to do it. But it was a very expensive operation. The Minister of Housing knows what a very expensive operation it is, and having regard to the fact that the maximum grant was then only £400 the Minister made known that he was prepared to consider applications for special grants for the particular purpose of eliminating rising dampness in walls and floors. I asked my local authority whether they would be so kind as to apply to the Minister for this special grant. Their reply was, "No". They were not prepared to apply. I said, "It will not cost you anything. It is the Minister's grant and does not cost your ratepayers anything. There is only a fourpenny stamp involved. How about forwarding an application?" "No", they replied. They would have nothing to do with it.
I then referred the matter to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I am sorry he is not in his place, but I realise that a Minister cannot sit on the Front Bench for ever. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, thought that this was a pretty stupid impasse and worth while trying somehow to resolve. The noble Lord was kind enough to offer to send a civil servant from the Ministry of Housing on a 90-mile journey to a meeting between me and the local housing authority to see whether the matter could be resolved. "No", said the housing, authority, "we don't want to have a meeting with Lord Airedale and a civil servant from the Ministry of Housing". So that was no good.
"Very well", I retorted, "I am moving out of the house conversion scheme. It has been costing me a great deal of money. I shall be much better off if I get out of it. The people I am sorry for are the people in the town of Stamford, five miles away." Your Lordships might think that a little town like Stamford would not have a very great housing problem. I myself was rather surprised to discover that at the last count they found that they had an 8½ -year

999
waiting list for council houses; that there were young married couples facing a wait of 8½ years for a council house. I should have been very pleased to do something to help those people, but if I am not to get the grant, if the Minister is not even to be allowed to entertain an application for the grant which he alone is to supply and for which the local authority are not going to be responsible at all, then I am sorry for the people of Stamford, but I cannot go on doing this work.
My Lords, I have nearly finished, but there is one other matter. When this bungalow was completed it was the month of January. In the month of February an officer of the local authority introduced to me a prospective tenant. I granted a tenancy in February and the first tenant of this new dwelling moved in. In the next month, March, I got a letter of complaint from the local authority surveyor. He said, "I have noticed that some of the exterior top coat painting has not been completed on a door and on two or three windows". My Lords, it is not surprising to find in the months of February or March that somebody has not completed the outside painting. It was no hardship to me to wait until April or May to complete the painting and then to qualify for the grant. But what occurred to me was this: what happens in this area if you complete your house in October? Do you have to waste time and money putting a top coat of paint on the outside in October in order to get your grant? Or do you have to wait six months until the painting season comes round again? And in the meantime, do you have to borrow money at 10 per cent. (if you can get it) for six months?
I wrote to the surveyor and I asked these questions. He was not kind enough to answer. I wrote three times more. He did not answer. I thought that I would write to the clerk. I wrote four times. The clerk did not answer. Finally, I wrote to the Chairman. I am sorry to say the Chairman did not answer. So all that I can say to anyone who might be of a mind to accept an improvement grant is this: "If you consider you may be unlucky enough to complete your dwelling in October and if you live in an area where they may keep you waiting six
1000
months for your grant—you having to borrow the money in the meantime at 10 per cent., if you can get it—do not have anything to do with it. If it is a dwelling to let, the housing problem is the problem of the housing authority, it is not yours; so do not have anything to do with it". My Lords, it is these niggling bits of nonsense which frustrate so much of the good work which could be done in this business of improving old houses to make dwellings for people to live in.
7.40 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: My Lords, I shall not keep you more than a few moments at this late hour, but I should like to add one more voice of welcome to these proposals which I believe are going to have a very profound effect in several different directions. One is from the human angle. A great many people who thought that they would have to live indefinitely under conditions in which they should not have to live—because the economics of improving their houses made improvement impossible—are now going to get proper surroundings in which to live.
The Bill is also going to make a great deal of difference, I believe, because the large number of houses which are going to be saved will include houses in the villages and small towns. Very often these houses are, by their nature, among our beautiful looking dwellings. In the villages that is of immense importance. Sometimes I think we forget that nowadays people drift away from the villages but their roots always remain there: and if they come back after a few years and find the whole surroundings are changed, it is quite a blow to them. It is one of those things in life that people like to come back and see the surroundings in which they were brought up and recall the happy times of their youth. Now they will have the added joy of seeing decent houses behind the fronts.
Moreover these houses are a great advantage from the tourist trade point of view. One of the things that we have in superlative quantity in this country is beautiful villages. Perhaps I should declare an interest, because I am, I think. still President of the British Travel Association, which, as your Lordships will know, is being absorbed by the Board of Trade at this moment; and once more

1001
I am experiencing that recurring phenomenom in my life of being presented with a "bowler hat".
The other thing I want to say is in reply to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I am not going into any detail about the discussions with the rural district council to which he has referred on such an important occasion. I happen to have been honoured by being the Chairman of this body. It is nothing new to me to find once more an attack being launched at us. For many years we have had correspondence piling up with him. The noble Lord has indeed been fighting a marathon solo campaign against his rural district council. When the noble Lord got up and started his strictures on our council I almost felt that the poem which I tried, indeed as with many others, but ineffectually, to learn at school would apply:
"Once more unto the breach, dear friends …"
I can assure your Lordships that there are answers to all these points; not put in exactly the way in which the noble Lord has put them, but answers which I believe are satisfactory to the great majority of people—although possibly not satisfactory to the noble Lord.
I must add one thing, my Lords, in case the word should go out from this august Assembly that this R.D.C. was not doing its job properly. It is probably one of the smallest councils in the whole country. There are 7,000 people who live in the district. We have 1,600 houses, 600 of which belong to the Air Force. And out of the remaining 1,000 we have built 236 council houses since the war. This is in addition to the 61 we had before the war. We have given grants and we have been most forthcoming in helping over this matter in 177 cases. In addition, it may interest your Lordships to know that we have completed our final drainage scheme and that 96 per cent. of the people are on main drainage. This has been achieved with a balanced housing account and reasonable rents, and our rate figure is among the lowest 14 in the 470 rural district councils in the whole country. I do not think this is something about which the local people should be ashamed. Indeed, it is something of which they are proud;
1002
and that is why they keep sending the members of the council back to office, to carry on with the good work.
If I might conclude with one last word, I would urge the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to come down from Mount Olympus, from where he is casting his darts, and join in the rough and tumble of the day. He might even become a candidate for membership of the local rural district council; and if he did so, I think that I could assure him of—shall I say?—a warm welcome.
7.45 p.m.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I must declare an interest in this debate; it is not a pecuniary interest, but I am a member of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and I wish to plead that in this Bill specific provision should be made for assisting student housing associations. I am a director of one of these associations, but I am not speaking purely on behalf of university students. I am speaking also for those students who are members of polytechnics and other colleges of further education, and who, because they are compelled to live away from home, have to find accommodation.
The objects of the student housing movement are very simple. If they were able to be treated as housing associations under the Act they would be able to benefit from low interest rates and loans through the local authorities, and would thus relieve the University Grants Committee or the local authorities of an obligation to provide more student residence—to the great benefit incidentally, of the economy of the country. The Robbins Report showed that the average hall of residence in 1962 cost £1,425 per student place. The association which I know best, Student Co-operative Dwellings, has calculated that it could build. at 1969 London prices, for within £800 per place.
I do not think there is much doubt about which form of residence students would prefer. Ask any 21-year-old student whether he would rather pay £7 10s. 0d. per week to live in a traditional hall of residence, with meals provided at stated times, and have his bed made, and to require permission to come in after 11.30 p.m.; or pay £3 10s. 0d. and make his own meal, or eat out, and

1003
have the same freedom as any other 21-year old. You can imagine what answer a student would give. What is more, the student housing movement eliminates one of the irritations which have recently erupted into student life; that is to say, the irritation which a student in a polytechnic feels when he is asked to study with practically none of the facilities which the university student enjoys. Among students there is a very strong feeling that there should not be a first-class and a second-class system. And all too often under the present system in universities, facilities such as the refectory in the hall of residence duplicate facilities which are available in the main university building.
My Lords, I am not here discussing only the students' whims. In the present state of the country's finances funds from the U.G.C. for providing student accommodation are drying up almost entirely, and this is inhibiting the growth of new universities and polytechnics. If the U.G.C. is able to provide funds, they are more likely to be so small that universities will probably abandon trying to build these custom-built student halls of residence and will try to buy up low-cost housing in the neighbourhood, so displacing poor people whose only hope of getting accommodation for their families lies in getting a flat in one of these houses. About half the full-time students in Britain occupy lodgings and fiats which could be used by low-income families, and it is largely these families who are thrown on to the local authorities' waiting list for housing.
This situation, I believe, is going to get worse. We ought not to forget that during the 1970s the expansion of student numbers is bound to continue. I would guess that the universities will rise in numbers from just over the present 200,000 to some 330,000, and that by the beginning of the 1980s the total number of students engaged in some form of higher education will probably go well beyond the 700,000 mark. Unless we can do more than we are doing at present to provide residence for even a fraction of the students, we are going to be in very serious trouble.
What do other countries do? The pattern is remarkably similar in four countries. In Canada, Sweden, Finland
1004
and Denmark the students first obtained amendments to their National Housing Act. Student housing associations were then eligible for loans at low-interest rates. The loan was of course amortised at the capital cost, and that was spread over a period of 40 to 50 years. In every case the interest was favourable. A furniture loan was also forthcoming, interest-free, repayable over 10 to 15 years. In Finland, 40 per cent. of the loan came from private sources, such as banks and insurance companies. Only a few years after the amendments had been made to the National Housing Acts in these countries astonishing progress in student residence was made in each country. In Canada, 11 million dollars' worth of new buildings were constructed between June, 1964, and May, 1968, and a further 9 million dollars' worth are in the pipeline. In Denmark, 3,000 student places were built every year. In Sweden, the target for 1972 is 63,000 places, of which 19,000 had been built by 1967.
What then is happening in Britain? The answer is: virtually nothing. Under Section 119 of the Housing Act 1957, housing associations are already entitled to enter into authorised arrangements which permit local authorities to lend the associations over 60 years, at an effective rate of 4 per cent. interest, 100 per cent. of the cost of the buildings they erect, and these facilities have been spelled out in the Housing Subsidies Act 1967. When student housing associations have asked local authorities if they might benefit under these provisions the local authorities have usually replied that they cannot extend these facilities to the student associations. They argue, of course, that it is the job of the University Grants Committee to provide student residence: they seem to forget that they themselves have responsibilities for the students in the 30 polytechnics.
That is why, when this Bill was debated in another place, Amendments were pressed at Committee stage so as to make it clear that a housing association which made provision for the residence of students was a housing association in the same way as any other housing association as defined in Section 119 of the Housing Act 1957. If it was accepted that this definition includes housing for students, local authorities would then be entitled, under Section

1005
119, to lend to a housing association such as Student Co-operative Dwellings. Subsidies would be passed on to the cooperatives, because the Housing Subsidies Act 1964 says that a "housing association" has the same meaning as in the Housing Act 1957. If this were done, it would of course apply to any housing association sponsored by a university, as well as to one which is sponsored by, for example, the Student Cooperative Dwellings movement. These Amendments were interpretive Amendments. They were vital to the Act, because the interpretation of the Act rests with the local authorities. If these Amendments were incorporated in the Act, local authorities would no longer be able to plead that student housing associations were outside the terms of the Act.
It was on this point that these Amendments ran into trouble when the Bill was considered in Committee in another place. The Minister seemed to be clearly in sympathy with the Amendments, which he recognised could have the effect of relieving pressure upon accommodation for the local population. He said that there was nothing to exclude students or any type of residence in the definition of "housing society" in the Housing Act 1964, because no mention was made of residence. But at the same time he was clearly worried that the "authorised arrangements", which were meant to cover housing for the sort of people whom the local authority would be expected to accommodate in its own council housing, could hardly be available to student hostels. It was clear from what the Minister said that he did not wish student housing associations to be excluded under the definitions of the 1957 and 1964 Acts and he argued that they came within the scope of the arrangements for the purposes of Section 15 of the 1958 Act, so far as hostel grant is concerned, provided that they satisfied the criteria.
This it seems, is where the real trouble lies. There are two ways of obtaining loans at preferential rates. The first is through the Housing Corporation for a housing society; but in June, 1967, the Housing Corporation decided that student housing societies do not satisfy their criteria. The second way is through the local authorities for a housing associa-
1006
tion. The local authorities also argue that the sole criterion for a subsidy to a housing association is that it must cover housing for the sort of people whom the authority would otherwise expect to accommodate in its own council housing. So, although students displace families by occupying low-cost family flats, they do not technically comply with the criterion. That is why, of over 30 registered student housing associations in this country, there is no record of one having received authorised arrangements under Section 120(1) of the Housing Act 1957; and this of course is the thing which the student housing associations are up against.
That is why the Amendments to this Bill were pressed in another place. They were not substantive Amendments. They were interpretive Amendments. They asked simply that the student housing associations should be recognised as coming within the Act for the purpose of subsidy. I would readily admit that in terms of strict drafting this should not be necessary, if it were not for the fact that the experience of the student housing associations in applying to local authorities shows that the authorities decline to accept the definitions which at present obtain under the Housing Acts. What other remedy, therefore, is open, except moving Amendments, when the relevant authorities deny what the Minister states to be the case? How are we to get round this obstacle?
This, I think, is an example of the frustrations in Government with which we are all so familiar these days. I should like to acknowledge here most warmly the interest and support which Mr. Greenwood, Mrs. Shirley Williams, Mr. Dick Mabon and, in your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, have shown in this matter. I have not the slightest doubt that that interest is genuine; but it does not appear yet to have removed the obstacle. For my part, I believe that this means of providing accommodation would be made even more attractive to Government if the whole of the loan for capital costs were not met solely through housing subsidies. I believe that insurance companies, building societies and pension funds would be willing to invest in these loans if a guarantee of repayment were forthcoming from the governing bodies of universities and polytechnics. This would relieve the pressure on

1007
the Treasury to provide ever larger housing subsidies, and I suspect that it is probably that feeling which is at the moment "gumming up" the works.
But all that, my Lords, is in the future. The student housing associations must first get recognition that they do in fact qualify under the scheme for loans on preferential terms. That is why I may well feel bound to move Amendments at the Committee stage of this Bill. I should be greatly relieved if the Minister could give a categorical assurance that these student associations do qualify. I should be even more reassured if the Minister could indicate that he is prepared to set up a Working Party on which the Ministry of Housing, the Department of Education and Science, the local authorities and the student housing associations were represented, to see whether the cost of providing student residence could be cut—a cut which would have the effect also of giving students quickly the kind of accommodation they want, and more of it. If the student housing associations work as well as they do in other countries, why cannot they be given a fair chance here?
8.0 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to me to be following my noble friend Lord Annan. He and I frequently follow each other in discussions in the more or less placid atmosphere of one of our universities. We usually find ourselves in agreement—and perhaps that is fortunate for me. I must say, as treasurer of one of these universities—one of whose tasks is to grapple perpetually with questions of student accommodation—that I have listened attentively to what he has said to-day about student housing societies, and shall most probably find myself later on agreeing with him in the suggestions he has made.
I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, on the clarity of her speech welcoming the Bill. Naturally, she had to show her political claws once or twice, but I was rather interested in the way she did this. First of all, she said that she wants us to spend more than we are proposing to spend under one of the provisions of the Bill. Well, I shall have to leave her to
1008
settle that with Mr. Heath, who, day after day and week after week, is telling us that he wants to spend less Government money in order that he can bring down taxation. But do not let me intervene in private grief.
The noble Baroness complains that the Treasury are keeping too tight a hold on expenditure. Surely that is a tribute to the wise economic direction of the Ministers in the present Government. How can the noble Baroness complain about tight Government control, and at the same time not support the Government in the line they are taking here? Then the noble Baroness says that she wants to put up certain of the rents which are mentioned in this Bill much sooner than the present Government want to do in the text of the Bill itself. I am afraid this is merely typical of the difference which exists between the two main Parties in this House.
Personally, I think this Bill is a very good ambulance measure. It will prevent a large number of houses from degenerating into slums; it will provide a large number of people with homes far more comfortable than they have to-day. Both of these objectives are good. We all know that there are 1¾ million houses which are in such a hopeless condition that the only possible thing to do with them is demolish them. We know also that there are 4½ million houses not so badly off as that, where good restorative work can be done. These are two separate problems.
So far as the slums are concerned, I heard with great pleasure the assurance by my noble friend on the Front Bench that slum clearance work is to be speeded up. I was particularly happy to be acquainted with that clause in the Bill which is to increase the compensation paid in certain cases where slum houses have to be demolished. We all know that there have been in recent years some very sad cases of old people who have seen the whole of their savings disappear overnight, merely because their particular little house—not a good house, perhaps deservedly a slum house; but still their home—has had to be demolished.
So far as the repairable houses are concerned, my investigations tell me that only just over 100,000 of these have been dealt with each year. The local authorities are primarily responsible for getting

1009
this work done, and I feel that many of them have failed lamentably in their duty. I hope that the Ministry, when this Bill is on the Statute Book, will drive the local authorities (if that is the right word to use in a democracy), and prompt them to show more enthusiasm for the Bill, which is a good Bill for the nation and can also be a good Bill for their particular localities.
With regard to the 1964 Act, it is a fact that only a small minority of local authorities have taken that measure seriously. A couple of years ago the figure was 10 per cent. of local authorities. It may be a little more than that now, but it certainly is not as much as 20 per cent. of the local authorities. I hope that the Ministry will do what they can to see that this scheme is made to work on a very big scale. Incidentally, one of the benefits of operating the scheme on a big scale is that it will provide a continuous flow of work for small builders, who frequently find themselves frozen out of big council house and private building contracts, particularly where councils are undertaking house building by the systematised method.
My noble friend did not give us any indication of the number of houses which he expects to see repaired and provided with improved fittings each year. I have seen a figure of 200,000 mentioned. I sincerely hope that enough steam will be put into the Act to get a much higher figure than this, because, with 4½ million houses needing this kind of treatment. if we deal with them only at the rate of 200,000 a year it will be well over twenty years before the job is completed; and in the meantime, of course, other houses may be going to seed.
My noble friend assured us that the Government do not intend to reduce new house building. I am delighted to hear this, but there is one fact about the Bill here which rather disturbs me. It is said that the Bill will cost £40 million a year when it gets into full swing in three or four years' time. At the same time, we are promised an accelerated programme of slum clearance. Some of the money spent on slum clearance—though not all of it—will go to erecting new houses; and we know that the cost of building each house will be higher as the years go by. Yet we are told that the total amount of money
1010
to be spent on houses is to remain at the same figure at which it stands to-day.
So what does this mean? I do not say that it does, but it could mean that fewer new houses will be built. It could mean reduced building by councils; and the general economic conditions of the country could also mean reduced house building by private contractors. Yet, side by side with this, the population is increasing; the marriage age is going down, and there is a need for more and more houses year by year. So, while I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly, I sincerely hope, if I have stated the position aright in regard to the prospects for new building, that my noble friend will urge his Minister to look once again at the building programme for the next few years and make sure that there is no reduction.
We know that the initiative in framing municipal building programmes rests with the local authority, and one of the sad things about the change in control of local authorities throughout the land in recent months has been that many of the newly elected councils, now dominated by a certain Party (your Lordships will see how non-political I am straining to be), are deliberately cutting down their housing programmes for this year and the following year. I will mention a few now under the control of that Party: Sunderland, Darlington, Bradford, Wakefield, Coventry, Southampton, Harrow, Waltham Forest, Hillingdon, and, saddest of all, Macclesfield—because it was at Macclesfield 47 years ago this week that I took my bride into a nice little council house as my first married home. I know how happy I was then, and I know what enormous happiness the offer of a council house can give to a young married couple.
The last thing in the world that I want to see, even running parallel with all the proposed development in this Bill, is any cutting down in the provision of council houses. My noble friend will probably be able to assure me that no cutting down is envisaged. If he can, I shall be very pleased indeed. But having uttered this warning note, I think fairness demands that I should say this. The record of new house building under the present Government has exceeded anything that has ever happened in the history of this country. This is a fact, and I hope that it will continue.

1011
I should like now to turn to the provisions of the Bill. I warmly welcome the bigger subsidies that are going to be paid to owner-occupiers and other owners to improve their houses. It goes against the grain, I must say, to be paying bigger subsidies to some of the private landlords whose families have been drawing incomes from this property—probably for 100 years—and who may have done nothing at all to keep it in good condition. The real, urgent need now is for houses that are comfortable and up to the standards of what we expect in 1969, and so we must be realistic and pay these increased subsidies. I think the increased subsidies, and also the loans that the Bill provides where the owner is short of ready cash, will persuade a good many owners to put these improvements in hand. When all is said and done, it is going to give them a new lease of profit-earning on what is very frequently a diminishing asset. We have to face the fact that there will be many landlords who will not co-operate, and in other cases there will be some tenants, afraid of the increased rent, who will be unco-operative also.
What can we do about this? First of all, let me look at the landlords. The Bill proposes that where the owner is hostile to an improvement scheme, in most cases he should be threatened with compulsory purchase. If we think that compulsory purchase is going to be a constructive remedy for this situation we are burying our heads in the sand, like ostriches. There is no local authority, whatever its political complexion, that likes compulsory purchase, and in view of recent changes in the political domination of many councils I suppose the average degree of affection for compulsory purchase is now lower than it was twelve months ago. I am not saying anything about the merits of that; it is an historic fact. I feel there will be very few landlords indeed who will have compulsory purchase orders invoked against them. If we think we can depend upon that, we are legislating with a cardboard sword. If we are in any doubt about it, the Minister himself has told us he intends to approve compulsory purchase orders only in the most exceptional cases. So let us reconcile ourselves to the fact that compulsory purchase is going
1012
to play only a very minor part in the execution of the proposals in this Bill.
What can we do, therefore, where the owner turns out to be hostile? What we can do and what we should do is to reenact those proposals in the 1964 Act which allow the council to issue a compulsory repairs order, as distinct from a compulsory purchase order. The compulsory repairs order is now being abolished, except in a few specialised cases, under the proposals of this Bill. I think a general authority to issue compulsory repair orders would be far more effective than a general authority to issue compulsory purchase orders when the squabble between the council and the owner comes to the crunch. I know it will be said that the compulsory repairs order, which was provided for in the legislation of 1964 and which is now largely being dropped, was not so effective as it might have been. That is quite true. The local government officials who are responsible for executing work of this kind agree with this. They say that it failed largely because it was too cumbersome, too ritualistic, there were forms and forms to be filled up, there were discussions after discussions to be held, complications after complications had to he hammered out, there were delays after delays. These expert officers are of the opinion—and they know their jobs—that if the compulsory repairs provisions were streamlined and simplified they could be far more effective than they were in the 1964 period, and be considerably more effective than the compulsory purchase provisions that are in the Bill before us tonight.
I hope my noble friend will listen to this plea. If he wants to keep the compulsory purchase order provision, let him do so; let him keep it as a long-stop. Let us also have the compulsory repairs provision side by side with it. I do not think compulsory purchase alone will get us anywhere; councils in fact will find they are left with nothing else but their powers of persuasion, and when a goodhearted council comes up against a recalcitrant landlord it is very doubtful whether the council will persuade that landlord to take action.
Now let me turn to the recalcitrant tenant. There will be some of these people. old-age pensioners and people on incomes similar to those of pensioners, who would

1013
rather suffer on in discomfort in their old house than face an unspecified rent increase, because they have heard, and experience has shown, that the rents might rise to double what they are now, and sometimes more. Under the 1964 Act, the tenant knew where he was; he knew his rent could be increased by 12½ per cent. of that portion of the cost which the landlord himself had had to bear. I rather wish—although I am open to persuasion here—that there was a formula of something of the kind in this Bill, although 12½ per cent. would not he realistic in these days. But, apparently, it is not to be, and instead the tenant is to be taken to the rent officer, told he is no longer controlled under what he understands to be the old rent restriction law, and that he is now to have a new regulated fair rent fixed by the rent officer. He knows, probably through gossip locally, probably through what he has read in the papers, that this new rent may be double his old one.
In so far as the house is concerned, this may be economically justifiable. But we are not dealing with economic statistics; we are dealing with people; very often we are dealing with old and suffering people. I want to see this through the eyes of an old-age pensioner at the stage when he is asked to sanction the improvement. He may have to say, "Yes" or "No" without any idea of how much rent he will then be called upon to pay, and he may frequently and regrettably say, "No". I should like to see two things done in order to make it easier for him to make this decision. This can probably be done administratively by action between two Government Departments.
First, let the old man go to the rent officer in advance with the list of improvements and an estimate of what it would cost. Let him say to the rent officer, "If this is done, how much will the rent increase be?". Then let him go to the pensions officer and ask, "If this rent increase is imposed, what extra allowance will you give me each week?". He will find that the pensions officer will probably be most considerate and most generous. At present we are putting the cart before the horse; we are asking a tenant to agree to these improvements while he is completely blindfolded as to whether he can afford them or not. Under my proposal I think fewer tenants would be objecting to improvements, and this
1014
means there would be more houses saved; it means this would benefit the people who live in them and also benefit the State and community.
It may well be that something on these lines is already being done on an informal basis in some areas. I should like to make it obligatory and official. Incidentally, speaking of rents, I am rather frightened by Clause 50(3), which gives a Minister power to enforce some rises at much earlier dates than are laid down generally for rent rises in the remainder of the Bill. I do not know who the next Minister may be, but I do not want to run the risk of putting a powerful weapon like that in his hands, especially after I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, said earlier this afternoon.
The last thing I want to say is this. I have already said that I hope the Government will do all it can to push local authorities into embracing the scheme enthusiastically. There are many local authorities who have shown no enthusiasm at all for the 1964 Act. I also want the Minister to stimulate those local authorities into a state of urgency. Because we must remember that many of these local authorities have the sword of Maud hanging over their heads and a threat of extinction waiting in the wings, and they may be inclined to leave some of their tasks, including the task provided for in this Bill, to their successors. That would involve years of very unfortunate decay.
My Lords, I have said a lot, but in essence it comes down to two things. First, I should like local authorities to be given the compulsory repairs powers that they enjoyed generally under the 1964 Act. They will have that power to a very limited extent in respect of a very narrow group of houses under the present Bill, but I should like to see them have it generally. And I should like steps taken administratively, as I have said, to help the old-age pensioners and similar people to say "Yes" to schemes for repairs to their houses, whereas at present they are probably financially frightened into saying "No". Then a very useful Bill can become an even better one, and I certainly wish it well.
8.21 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I think that much, and perhaps most, of what has been said falls into the category of

1015
things we can pursue more usefully in Committee and on Report. But there are some main points which have been made which your Lordships would no doubt like to think about between now and Committee stage. I will do my best to pick some of those out and say what I can, in order to help your Lordships to think about them between now and then.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, asked about the number of houses in the different rateable value bands which we think would come into rent regulation out of rent control—this is (2)(a), (2)(b), (2)(c) and so on. The Government's approach to this was to see how many houses would come out of rent control into rent regulation altogether, all told, and the best guess we can get (it is only a guess but it is the best available) is about 200,000 because of improvements to be done in future, and about 200.000 to be brought into regulation because of improvements already done. The rateable value bands—(2)(a), (2)(b), (2)(c) and so on—simply slice that figure into equal portions. Once again it is approximate, and one cannot guarantee that it will work out exactly. But our purpose in slicing it that way was to move them forward at those intervals in equal proportions, band by band.
To come now to the enjoyable place where the noble Baroness displayed her political claws, I thought that she went very close when she said that all that was wrong with housing in this country was that those who provided housing were not allowed to charge enough for it; were not allowed to charge what it cost. I thought she came very close to a "Powellite" housing world, and it could he construed (I am sure she did not mean it this way, although I rather hope that she did) as meaning that there should no longer be any subsidies on council housing, and there should no longer be any tax relief on mortgage payments, and so on.
I do not need to remind the House that we have now for very many decades lived in a world where the great majority of persons who live in houses in the country are helped to do so by Government subsidies: in the case of council tenants by the housing subsidy itself, which is now running at £3 a week for 60 years, which is very large; and in the case of
1016
owner-occupiers by tax relief on mortgage payments, which is now running at an amount which makes it about equal for them—or, rather, which makes the expenditure borne by the Exchequer on behalf of the two classes of people about equal. I do not know whether the noble Baroness really wanted to go back on that and cancel the lot. There are charms in the idea of a totally free housing market—it would save a lot of bureaucracy, for one thing—but if her Party is going to be the one to adopt that I shall not complain.
The noble Baroness spoke about Clause 77—the option mortgage clause—and referred to it, if I remember rightly, as a desperate attempt to rescue the option mortgage scheme. We shall come to it later on and we shall be able to discuss it in detail. At that point I shall attempt, with some confidence of success, to convince your Lordships that it is a reasoned, and I hope successful, attempt to bring the option mortgage scheme up to date. When the option mortgage scheme was introduced the interest rates were different from what they are now. This Amendment, quite simply, gives the Minister power by order to vary the option mortgage scheme so as to take account of differing interest rates. If that is a desperate attempt to rescue it, I do not know to what sort of measure she would accord the description of a rational move to update something which needs updating in the general interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, spoke with many constructive suggestions and welcomed the Bill—and I was glad of this—as indeed did Lady Brooke, and, I think, almost everybody who has spoken in general.
I turn now to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe. He settled upon Clause 80 as the one which to him was objectionable and from what he said it sounded as if we might see some Amendments to that clause from him. I do not want to anticipate the debates we shall be having later. He mentioned the figure of a million families which had been quoted in another place. This is the figure which has been generally accepted by all concerned as the number of leases the holders of which might be enfranchised. No member of the Government would claim precision for it: it is a rough estimate. It has stood, so far

1017
as I know, in Parliament without challenge until this moment. If the noble Lord wishes to challenge it, no doubt he will give us chapter and verse at a more leisurely moment, and one can go into that.
The question of the proposed change in the basis of the valuation of the freehold interest passing under the Leasehold Reform Act from the freeholder to the leaseholder is one which we shall tackle later. The purpose of my intervention during the course of Lord Silsoe's speech was merely to make it very plain, as I think it should be to all noble Lords, that when a Government introduce an Amendment to the law they do not do so on the basis of any judgment whether or not the decision of a court on the law as it stands before that moment is correct or incorrect.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made two main points. First of all, there was the calculation which he succeeded with impeccable logic in bringing down to 5 per cent. of the amount which a local authority would have to find out of the rates for the total cost of the work done in discretionary improvements under the Bill. All I should like to say at the moment is that I do not necessarily accept that it is as low as that, but in matters of local government finance one is rash to enter into a detailed discussion without full preparation and I hope we shall be able to come back to that. But I am inclined to believe, without full inquiry, that it is by no means as low as that. We can go into the truth of it later.
I think it would ill become me, much as I should like to, to get into the act between Lord Airedale and the Chairman of the Barnack Rural District Council. That is now one of the Parliamentary cliffhangers, and I think it is one of the merits of this House that such matters can, by chance, be pursued here when both parties of an epic local battle have representatives in this House. It adds to the interest of our proceedings and keeps us in touch with the real world. I am all for it.
I turn now to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I was deeply interested in his account of the student housing problem. I think that is something that forces itself upon the attention
1018
of anybody who comes into touch with students at all, and, God knows! that is most of us. They have a bad housing problem, especially in London. Lord Annan mentioned the cases of Canada, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, where good results for student housing had been attained by the amendment of the relevant housing law. Well, I have no doubt—why should I say I have no doubt?; I do not know anything about it—or it may well be that in those countries those good results were strictly dependent on an amendment of a law which had been in a concrete, tangible manner inhibiting the achievement of good results until that moment; but I do not at the moment believe that this is so in this country. Because good results are obtained in those countries following an amendment to the law it does not necessarily mean that good results can only be obtained in this country by amendment of the law.
As far as I have been able to look into the matter—and that is quite a distance—I very much doubt whether there is any statutory bar to the achievement of the results the noble Lord and the students and the Government and I personally desire. If that is so, it would not be right to carry a provision into law simply to declare that the law is as it is. That is not necessary; and if one is to write into this Bill a provision saying "O.K.; students can have housing associations and housing trusts, and let no one doubt it, even though they are students". one should also carry into the law all sorts of provisions saving that, for instance, people with red hair can have housing associations—even though they have red hair—and all sorts of other people who have an undoubted right to it would demand it. This, I think, on general principles is something to be avoided, simply because declaratory legislation is to be avoided.
The noble Lord asked me whether students qualify under the present law for the benefits which accrue to housing associations and housing trusts. The answer is that like any other group of people who form housing associatiors or housing trusts, it depends what sort of trust or association they form. If they qualify, they qualify; if they do not, then they do not. But I believe these is nothing in the mere fact that they are students which makes them any less likely

1019
to qualify than any other set of persons who may band together for this purpose.
Let me say at once that I agree with the noble Lord that we should go further into this matter. I think it is a legitimate purpose for all who care for the comfort and convenience of people, including young people, and who care for the furtherance of education, that we should go further into this subject and find out about it. But if it ever turns out that more housing for students through this form can be achieved only at the expense of less housing for families in general, I, for one, would not favour it. I believe that if there is an overall housing shortage, if anybody is to be uncomfortable on housing grounds I should prefer it to be the students, because in the main they are single and have no children. I should prefer students to be uncomfortable, because they are young and healthy, rather than for a family bringing up young children, or old people, to be uncomfortable. It is hardly necessary to say that the solution to this problem is the overcoming of the general housing shortage, towards which we are going hell-for-leather, and I will come to that in a moment.
Turning now to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, I think most Members of the House will have shared my impression that here we came to real social values and real social needs and real social truths in what I consider to be a remarkable speech. He said that this Bill will make work for small builders—and so it will, and that is good. I think the work to be done under this Bill is particularly suitable for small builders and I hope they will rally round and conduct their procedures and do everything they can to make the most of the opportunities that will be offered.
The noble Lord mentioned the Government's housing record. Before going on to the question of improvements versus new housing I should say that he is right in thinking that it is not always realised how extraordinarily good the new housing record is. This Government will have been in office for five years during the course of the present year, and during the course of the present year the two-millionth new house built under this Government will be occupied. If we compare
1020
the new housing achieved by this Government in five years with the new housing achieved by the former Government in an equal period of five years, we find that the difference between the two totals is substantially greater than the total number of houses now standing on the ground in Birmingham. This is no mean difference.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, what does the noble Lord mean by "an equal period of five years"? Does he mean a period of five years under a Conservative Government that he has selected, or what period of five years?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his precision. I was referring to the last period of five years under the preceding Government—that is, 1959 to 1964—as compared with 1964 to 1969.
The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, asked why we did not re-enact the compulsory repair power contained in the 1954 Act so that it would then have been continued in special circumstances. He rather made light of that. But these special circumstances seem to me to be pretty important and pretty widespread special circumstances, because where a tenant wants his house to be improved and repaired, and his landlord does not, where such a tenant moves the council to do so, the council retains the power to compel repair. I am not quite sure in what other circumstances the noble Lord would like the council to have that power. Would he like them to have it over owner-occupiers who do not want to move? There is of course no need for them to have it over landlords and tenants who both agree, because it will be done without compulsion.
Turning now to the question of what the noble Lord called the "recalcitrant elderly tenant" who does not want it done, although the landlord does, this is a matter of the greatest difficulty, which we shall pursue later. For the moment I will limit myself to saying that I will attend to and study carefully what the noble Lord has said, in conjunction with my right honourable friend. This matter has already exercised us very deeply and I propose to have one more "deep think" about it on the basis of my noble friend's remarkable speech.
On the question of the balance between new housing and the proposed increase in

1021
improvements, the policies for improvement under this Bill can only develop gradually, though I hope they will do so with increasing momentum. It is not a case of a sudden doubling of the rate. It will not happen like that. That is why the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum attached to this Bill looks forward to the financial effects in 1972 and 1973 as regards improvements—the £40 million which my noble friend mentioned. But as the House knows, in 1972–73 it is the hope of the Government—and I believe a well-founded hope—that the housing situation in some parts of this country will look rather profoundly different from what it does now. In some areas the need for new houses will not be so intense, and in those areas the more urgent problem will be the improvement of the housing stock. In other areas the need for new houses will remain paramount and may indeed—though I hope it will not—remain as intense as it is now. Therefore, new housing will go ahead in those areas, subject only to the limitation of manpower and physical resources, as happens now.
In other areas, particularly in the conurbations, there will be a continuing need for a concerted two-prong programme for improvements and for new housing. I have said so much because I should not like the House to imagine that this thing will go hang into operation at the rate of £40 million immediately we pass the Bill. It will not. Its effects will be long-lived, and will not reach their peak level until we have a rather different situation as regards new housing in some parts of the country: and I repeat that, because of the difficulty the Press has had recently in certain quarters in understanding that a housing surplus in some parts of the country is a very different thing from a housing surplus in all parts of the country. The former we may legitimately look forward to; the latter, unfortunately, will elude us for some time yet.
I conclude by saying that I am very glad to see that there is general approval for the purposes of this Bill. I think we shall send it into Committee with high hopes and with general accord that it is on the right lines. I look forward to the possibility of improving it in Committee, and I look forward to some pleasant occasions when I shall have to resist, I think on good grounds, Amend-
1022
ments which would make it not as good as it is now.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
8.40 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Much of what is in this Housing (Scotland) Bill is a parallel of the Bill which we have just been discussing, but within the fold of the Bill there are also many differences. Some of the problems with which the English Housing Bill deals do not arise in Scotland, and some of the problems that we have in Scotland are much more acute than any which arise in England. This accounts for the somewhat different form that the Scottish Bill takes.
This Bill embodies far-reaching proposals for dealing with the older houses in Scotland. The housing situation time, and especially in the central belt from Glasgow to Edinburgh, has exercised Governments and social reformers for many years. There is no single solution for the problem it creates. It requires a combination of statutory and voluntary action, and the statutory bodies must have adequate powers for their share of the task. To provide those powers is the object of this Bill.
It is, of course, by no means the first Bill on this subject, and indeed much of it consists of the repeal of those of the existing statutory provisions which have been found to be unsatisfactory, and their replacement by new provisions affecting both the clearance and the improvement of houses. It also contains provisions relating to the compensation to be paid when slum houses are acquired, the rents of houses which are brought up to a certain standard and the powers of local authorities to secure works of repair on houses. Thus it deals with all aspects of the problems of older houses.
In our White Paper, The Scottish Housing Programme, 1965 to 1970 (Cmnd 2837), which set out the Government's aims in Scottish Housing, we estimated that there was a need for up to 500,000 houses to replace houses which were

1023
either already identified as slums or which could not be improved to a reasonable standard. This was only an estimate because, as the White Paper pointed out, the absence of any common standard of fitness meant that no proper figures were then available. It was this gap in the necessary information which led to the setting up of the Sub-Committee of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee chaired by Professor J. B. Cullingworth. The Report of that Committee, which was published in January, 1967, under the title, Scotland's Older Houses, confirmed and gave precision to the estimate we had made and at the same time focused public attention on the problem of older houses. Nobody concerned with Scotland's housing problems could fail to be impressed by the forceful portrayal in that report of the difficulties which confronted us: and it was a cause of satisfaction to all that the report should have aroused such widespread interest and concern. Following consultation with interested parties the Government gave an indication in the White Paper The Older Houses in Scotland A Plan for Action, published last July, of the policies they intended to pursue. That White Paper was generally welcomed and following further consultations this Bill was brought forward.
Part I of the Bill deals with houses which do not meet a new statutory standard called the tolerable standard. In introducing this new standard we are not simply replacing one set of criteria by another similar set. The present provisions relating to unfitness in Section 5 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 do not amount to a definition of unfitness: they merely indicate the factors which have to be considered when a decision about unfitness is taken. Section 5 requires that once all the factors which it lists have been considered, judgment has to be made whether or not the house is so far defective in respect of one or more of the factors that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation. Linked with these provisions about unfitness at present is an immediate obligation on local authorities to act in respect of any house which they have declared to be unfit for human habitation. The unfit house must either be taken out of use or made fit.
1024
The Cullingworth Committee pointed out that in Scotland, with its great housing problems, the practical consequence of that link betwen the standard and the immediate obligation to act has often been that local authorities have hesitated to declare houses unfit because they were not ready to take them out of use. The true extent of the slum problem has therefore been disguised, and we cannot tell how many times local authorities have not taken action in circumstances where on any reasonable view action was required.
What the Bill proposes is quite different. The tolerable standard does not simply list a number of factors which have to be taken into account when a decision is being reached. It lists nine tests, worded as positively and precisely as possible, which must be met if a house is to meet the tolerable standard. These tests deal not only with factors of the kind mentioned in the unfitness provisions. They include for the first time two objective items—a requirement that a house should have the exclusive use of an internal water closet, and that it should have both hot and cold water at a sink. If the house fails to meet any one of the nine tests, it fails to meet the tolerable standard, and there should not be much scope for arguing about it.
Now, for the first time, we shall be able to see clearly which houses need to be dealt with. But it would be impracticable to do this and, at the same time, retain an obligation on local authorities to act in respect of all of these houses immediately. Many of our local authorities will find that as much as one-third of their housing stock does not meet the standard. We have therefore replaced the immediate obligation with new powers to act in relation to the houses which fail the standard and we have added a general duty in Clause 1 to use their housing powers to secure that houses that do not meet the new standard are dealt with as soon as possible.
I should perhaps say, in passing, that the tolerable standard, as the Bill defines it, does not express a value judgment about the kind of living conditions which are fully acceptable at the present time. Rather does it define a standard below which any house becomes immediately liable to action by local authorities. So it has been pitched at such a level that

1025
Parliament can properly be satisfied that the powers available to the authorities are appropriate to the houses affected. Where houses are capable of improvement to a higher standard the Bill gives every encouragement for this to be done. If evidence becomes available that in some areas local authorities have cleared all the worst houses and can tackle those which are of a slightly higher standard, though still unacceptable to-day, the Secretary of State will consider whether some raising of the standard in their areas is appropriate. This can be done by an order under Clause 2(2).
Part I of the Bill also introduces an entirely new set of powers based on the new tolerable standard for local authorities to deal with areas of older houses. The existing powers in this connection are in Part III of the 1966 Act, relating to clearance areas, and in Part IV, relating to improvement areas. Neither of these sets of powers is very much used in Scotland nowadays and we think the time has come to replace them.
The key clauses in the new procedure are Clauses 4 and 5. These require local authorities to define areas in which the greater part of the houses fail to meet the tolerable standard and which they think suitable for treatment, either by demolition or improvement. When the area is defined the authority must also decide which parts are to be dealt with by clearance and which by improvement of the houses. Where they propose to demolish the houses they may proceed at once to purchase land and demolish the buildings, as they can under the present clearance area powers. Where they propose that the houses should be improved, they can purchase them; but before doing so they must be satisfied that it is unlikely that the improvements will be carried out unless the local authority takes them over. Our intention here is that local authorities should make every effort, by publicity and by the offer of grants and loans, to encourage individuals to improve the houses they own. Only if this fails should the local authority make use of its powers to purchase houses for improvement. In this connection Clause 5 distinguishes between houses in tenements and other houses. The power of acquisition is more immediately available for tenements where the nature of the building and of its ownership will often preclude action except by the local
1026
authority. The basic procedure I have described is developed in the subsequent clauses.
I should now like to draw your Lordships' attention to Clauses 18 to 22 of the Bill. The Cullingworth Committee recognised that a major obstacle to faster progress with slum clearance was the basis of compensation payable when an unfit house is acquired. The longstanding basis for this compensation is the value of the cleared site of the house, the principle being that if the house is unfit for human habitation it cannot have any value as a place to live in. In practice, a great number of the objections to the slum-clearance activities of local authorities are based, whatever the ostensible ground of objection, on dissatisfaction with the compensation that is paid. Clauses 18 to 22 of the Bill introduce the remedy that we propose. These clauses provide that certain owner occupiers as defined in the Bill (mainly those who have owned their houses for two years or more), whose houses are acquired or vacated as not meeting the tolerable standard, are to be entitled to a supplementary payment, which will bring the compensation up to market value. This payment should have the effect of discouraging objections from people who have no real interest in resisting clearance and redevelopment, and should help to make faster progress possible. For houses which do not qualify for these new payments, Clause 21 provides for an increase in the amount of the well-maintained payments.
As was promised in the White Paper on Older Houses, these arrangements will apply to houses which have been purchased or vacated on or after August 1, 1968 (the date of the White Paper). This degree of retrospection is necessary in order to avoid unfairness and uncertainty arising between the date of publication of the White Paper and the date of commencement of the Bill.
Part II of the Bill introduces new powers for local authorities to deal with houses which are in disrepair. These are designed to deal with the kind of problem which arose in Glasgow and elsewhere following the gale of January last year. A number of authorities, including Glasgow Corporation, felt inhibited by the form of their existing powers from stepping in to deal with urgent repairs

1027
to privately owned property. The drawback of these existing powers (whether they are in the existing Housing Acts, in the Public Health Acts or the Building Act) is that they come into play only after the conditions have deteriorated and drastic action is required. The new powers in the Bill will enable a local authority to take action at an earlier stage before deterioration has gone too far.
The new powers in Clause 24 are similar in form to those in Section 11 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966. The authority must serve a notice specifying the works required to deal with the disrepair, there is provision for appeal to the sheriff and if the notice is not complied with the local authority may carry out the works themselves and recover their expenses. The starting point will be that the local authority are satisfied that the house is subject to serious disrepair. Circumstances may arise where the extent of the disrepair is not great but the consequences of not attending to it could be very serious. That is why subsection (4) of Clause 24 provides that houses which are liable to deteriorate rapidly because of some disrepair can be treated for that reason alone as if they were in serious disrepair.
Part III of the Bill makes some important alterations to the existing arrangements for improvement grants. Since these grants were introduced in the 1949 Act a number of changes have been made in them, the general effect of which has been to increase from time to time the maximum amounts of grant and to reduce the period within which the condition of grant apply. We are now proposing very substantial increases in the grant maxima which, in conjunction with the other provisions in the Bill, should encourage much wider use of these grants.
The Bill also gives local authorities altogether wider discretion in relation to the condition and life of the house after improvement has been carried out, so that, within a framework of guidance which the Secretary of State will be giving, they may decide for themselves whether or not in particular cases assistance should be given. The Bill (in Clauses 33 and 38) also recasts the definition of improvement in order to reduce a difficulty which has frequently arisen over
1028
the distinction between works of improvement which are, in principle, eligible for grant and works of repair which are not so eligible. The distinction made under the existing legislation means that a very large proportion of the work that undoubtedly has to be carried out cannot receive assistance, and we are confident that the new definition will in practical terms be of great advantage to would-be improvers. We all know that Scottish houses, particularly tenements, are not easy to improve, but I believe that Part III of the Bill should be very useful to local authorities in securing as much progress as is possible with improvement of such buildings.
Part IV of the Bill deals with rents and is closely related to Part III. The present improvement grant conditions, and the provisions of the Rent Acts, limit any increase in rent following improvement to 12½ per cent. of the landlord's share of the cost of improvement works. This is an inflexible arrangement which gives an insufficient incentive to landlords to do improvements. Under Part IV the rent of a house subject to a regulated tenancy which is improved with the aid of grant, and the rent of an improved house subject to a controlled tenancy (whether the improvements are grant-aided or not) will be fixed, not in relation to the cost of improvement but under the "fair rent" system which was introduced by the Rent Act 1965. The local authority will first have to certify that the improvements to be carried out will bring the house up to a satisfactory standard, and the actual fixing of the rent will then be a matter for the rent officer subject to appeal to a rent assessment committee. To safeguard individual tenants Schedule 4 of the Bill provides for the phasing of any rent increases which result from this provision, over a period of up to five years in the case of controlled tenancies and up to three years in the case of regulated tenancies.
For reasons of equity we have thought it right in the Bill to deal also with the rents of controlled houses which already reach a satisfactory standard without the need for improvement. These may either be houses which have always met this standard or in which improvement works have been carried out in previous years. To meet the standard the house must

1029
have all the standard amenities and be in good condition, and the local authority will have to certify this before the landlord can apply for a fair rent to be fixed. In deciding whether to issue a certificate the local authority will have to take into account any representations made by the tenant.
To avoid a sudden overload of the rent officer organisation, Clause 51 provides a delaying mechanism. It divides the houses at present subject to controlled tenancies and which are already up to the satisfactory standard into three groups based on their rateable values and fixes dates in 1971 and 1972 after which these tenancies can be converted into regulated tenancies. This will not only ensure that the rent officer service is built up in a sensible fashion to meet the longer-term requirements but will ensure that the rent officer system is not prevented from dealing with those houses on which improvements are still to be done.
Clauses 58 and 59 in Part V introduce an entirely new specific grant to local authorities in support of expenditure they incur in carrying out works to improve the environment of houses; for instance, by creating play spaces for children, planting trees or providing parking spaces. The Cullingworth Committee were very concerned about the lack of any provision of this kind, and anyone who is familiar with the neglect and squalor that often occur in the backlands of tenement blocks will appreciate the need for it. The expenditure which will attract grant is such as the Secretary of State may approve, subject to a maximum of £100 per house in the area.
The Bill is deliberately drafted in such a way that the Secretary of State is empowered to pay the grant in support of the proposals by a local authority to carry out works on the environment in any predominantly residential area. In present economic circumstances, however, this discretion will be exercised in such a way as to limit the grant to works on the environment which are to be carried out in conjunction with the improvement of the houses themselves. I believe, my Lords, that the Bill will mark a notable step forward in dealing with problems of our older houses. Most of it is in no way controversial and I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lords Hughes.)
9.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for a very clear and painstaking explanation of this Bill: I think he deserved a better audience than he had. I am too well accustomed to the uncertainties of Parliamentary business to wish to complain that so important a measure as this should be discussed at so inconvenient an hour in the evening, but I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Hughes, will agree that as a general rule it is not a good thing to take a Scottish Bill of major importance immediately after a similar English Bill on the same day. For one thing, it is often apt to be misunderstood in Scotland.
As the noble Lord has said, this Bill is intended mainly to carry out the recommendations and conclusions of the Cullingworth Report which, as he said, is a very good Report and has provided us with a quantity of information which is useful, distinguishing between different kinds of undesirable or unfit houses. But, of course, the information, as I think the noble Lord will agree, and as I think the Report itself admits, is not at all uniform. The noble Lord has no doubt noticed that on page 82, in the comparison of local authority returns on unfitness and 1961 Census statistics, it is stated that Dundee has 40 per cent. of households in dwellings sharing or lacking a fixed bath, while Glasgow has 41 per cent. In both cases the proportion of households in dwellings sharing or lacking water closet is 24 per cent; and of dwellings containing one to two rooms, the figures are Glasgow, 38 per cent.; and Dundee, 35 per cent. However, when you come to unfit houses, Dundee is put down as having 24·5 per cent. and Glasgow only 3·4 per cent. I cannot help concluding that the standards of unfitness on which these tables are based must be entirely different in Glasgow from what they are in Dundee.
Of course, one of the troubles about all these questions of housing standards is that the popularly accepted standards of all kinds of houses change so quickly. One generation regards as tolerable one thing which is not always regarded as tolerable by the next generation: and I think that applies to houses of all types and of all sizes. A hundred years ago,

1031
even in the largest and most luxurious houses in Britain a fixed bath was still looked on as a great novelty. It is only about 70 or 80 years ago that a well known Member of your Lordships' House who lived in one of the stately homes of England—and in a fairly civilised part of England, too—still used to walk a quarter of a mile every morning to his outside lavatory; and he always carried a gun with him in case he might get a shot at a woodcock on the way. This house would not even have fulfilled the tolerable standards laid down—which the noble Lord has explained—in Clause 2 of this Bill, let alone the satisfactory standard which the Cullingworth Report aims at.
All my life there has been a deplorable preponderance of sub-standard houses in Scotland which has always filled us with a certain amount of indignation, and we have all tried to do our best to overcome the problem—sometimes with a little success, sometimes with not as much as we had hoped. In the early 1920s (I do not know whether the noble Lord's memory goes back as far as that), the condition of Scottish housing was one of the most raging questions in Scottish politics. Between the wars we built the equivalent of a new Edinburgh—we did make some progress. But in the 1930s it was still very bad. I remember one particular puzzling thing: in 1934 the Glasgow Town Council had reached a figure of about 4.000, or rather more, houses a year, which was about two-fifths of what they ought to have been doing; after 1934 they dropped down to about 2,000-odd a year, which was about one-fifth of what they ought to have been doing. It was a most shockingly deplorable record.
One whom I regard as one of the best Secretaries of State for Scotland that we ever had, the late Walter Elliot, formed the conclusion that in order to get the Scottish housing problem solved in a reasonable period of time—he hoped it might be done in 20 or 30 years—two things would have to be done. First, there would need to be a great many new building methods—what were called unconventional buildings methods. We tried to persuade many of the local authorities to build prefabricated houses, but they were very reluctant to do so. There was only one that did it on any great scale.
1032
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, may remember the late Lord Provost Phin, of Dundee, who was responsible for building the big new housing scheme at Linlathen of 500 houses at that time.
Secondly, Walter Elliot believed that this problem would not be solved by local authority action, or by private enterprise or by a combination of both, and he persuaded his colleagues to agree to the setting up of the Scottish Special Housing Association, which was intended, at least to begin with, to do its work mainly by unorthodox methods—by what we now call industrialised houses, and what were then called prefabricated houses. "Prefabricated" is literally correct, but later, at the end of the war, the term became associated with inferior houses, so it is not used now. In reality, of course, prefabricated houses are often much superior to houses built by conventional methods. I cannot prove it, but I believe that Walter Elliot's policy would have succeeded if it had not been smashed and knocked sideways by the war. All the plans, both of the local authorities and of the Special Housing Association, were completely stopped, and so little building work could be done on repairs that the deterioration of houses during the war caused the general position to slip back, with the result that at the end of the war it was much worse than it had been at the beginning.
At this late hour I do not want to trouble the noble Lord with any detailed questions, but there are one or two points which I should like to put to him. One of the problems of creating these new areas and rebuilding clearance areas is whether or not to have skyscraper flats. I do not suppose that this problem could arise in treatment areas, because I think it is not intended that new types of houses should be built there, but only that older ones should be reconditioned. Naturally, many people do not like skyscraper flats and think they are ugly. Also, there is the tragic example of the accident not very long ago at Ronan Point, which rather disturbed our confidence in this type of building. But I have always thought that the Scottish housing problem could never be solved without a great deal of this type of building; and I have always said so.
Of course it is far nicer for any family to have a completely detached

1033
small cottage by itself. But I do not think the "flatted house"—the traditional type of four houses with only two storeys, which is so common in Scotland—has any greater privacy or comfort than a well-built, huge, high-storeyed block of flats, and the real reason why a growing number of people are becoming more in favour of flats than they used to be in Glasgow, in Dundee—and, I, in Edinburgh, too—is because of commuterism. The workers find that they are losing so much time, having to spend so much money, and losing so much of their sleep and leisure if they have to go a very long way to and from their work every day.
I regretted that an Amendment was not carried in another place increasing from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. the Government grant under this Bill for these high buildings. I do not propose to repeat the argument here, but I believe there is some room for discretion on this subject. I am referring not to grants for all buildings, but to grants for making safe those buildings which have already been put up and which, after the Ronan Point accident, may give rise to some anxiety. There may be very few of them, and there may even turn out to be none, but I should like to ask the noble Lord whether, if it is found that any of these new types of skyscrapers which are being built in Scotland give any ground for suspicion, and if measures have to be taken to make them safer than they are and to strengthen public confidence in them, there will be discretion to give a higher grant than this for the extra expense, not of repairing them (because they are not in disrepair) but of correcting any possible, suspected engineering defects which they may now be thought to have. I hope that other, new methods of building will also be pursued and encouraged by the Government, because I am sure that a great many local authorities, although they are keen and diligent, are, as the noble Lord knows, not always very imaginative, and they are sometimes not as ready as they might be to make use of new methods of building construction which may lighten the demand on certain types of labour which may be in short supply. That has always been one of the cursed things about the housing problem in Scotland: that even
1034
if there happens to be unemployment in the building trade, we cannot get enough labour in the right place at the right time to build the number of houses which ought to be built. In the end it all conies down to the question of how much of our gross national product, our national resources, you are able and willing to devote to building new houses—and you have to be very careful to distribute it in the best possible and least expensive way.
On reconditioning, the noble Lord has just pointed out in his speech that the position of rents of reconditioned houses is being changed by this Bill. That was one of the strongest arguments put forward by the Cullingworth Report, and I think it was a well justified one. I would ask whether the permission to raise rents will be a gradual one, and how quickly it will take effect, because the Cullingworth Report has given some rather interesting examples showing that whether reconditioning expenditure is profitable or unprofitable often depends on the rapidity with which a return can be received. I see that the Report says, I think in paragraph 70, that reconditioning is required not only in urban areas but that the conditions in some of the rural areas
"are so bad that no excuse can warrant things being left as they are".
The Committee do not specify what particular kinds of houses they are thinking of except the crofts, which they do mention; but I suppose that the great majority of the houses which are in bad condition are either crofts or houses which are let under the Rent Restriction Act.
I think that the position is much better in regard to service tenancy houses and, in general, rural workers' houses in Scotland. I recently obtained a few figures from the Department about the number of houses reconditioned. From 1961 to 1968, the number of houses improved by improvement grants was 16,599 and the number of houses improved through standard amenity grants was 11,640. The second category would probably consist partly of houses which were not really sub-standard to begin with, or which had previously been reconditioned but which needed just a little more done to bring them up to what we now regard as modern standards. But if you compare the rural housing position in general with the position in some of our great

1035
industrial areas, it is very illuminating indeed, and shows how this type of house began and has continued since 1926 when the reconditioning legislation (which at first applied only to rural houses) was brought in.
There are, I know, some unfit houses in many rural parts of Scotland. There is one on my own land in Perthshire which has been condemned for 14 years. A railway employee has been "squatting" there all that time; and neither the county council nor British Rail have been able yet to provide this squatter with a decent house. I think that, in general, the agricultural workers in most of these rural areas in Scotland are now well housed. I will not say that the problem has been entirely solved. That, I think, applies much more to service tenancy houses than those which are let under the Rent Restriction Act.
My Lords, I would say only this in conclusion. In view of the rather restricted opportunity for discussing this Bill on Second Reading, I hope that the Government may allow not too short a time before Committee stage in case any of my noble friends may wish to express their views on improving the Bill. At the same time, I would say that I think it most essential and desirable that this Bill, which is a good Bill, should be on the Statute Book by the time we rise at the end of this month for the Summer Recess.
9.23 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for speaking without putting my name on the list. I am not apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, because I am sure he will agree with almost every word that I am going to say; but I feel that I must apologise in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Llewelyn-Davies, who is waiting so patiently to introduce some change in the registration of architects. I hope he will forgive me. I did not think I should be able to get down from Edinburgh in time to speak on this Bill; but having got here I feel it would be churlish of me not to give it a very warm welcome. I think that on the whole it is an excellent Bill and one which might well have been introduced many years ago. I should like first to make a few points in regard to Clause
1036
2, which defines the "tolerable standard". It seems to me to be rather low. I realise why this was possibly pitched as low as it has been; it is because, put even as low as this, it is going to condemn many thousands of houses in Scotland which are at the moment occupied and which will have to be replaced.
I hope that landlords, both private and local authority, will not regard the standard laid down in Clause 2, the "tolerable standard", as being the maximum for which they should strive. It seems to me that there is always the danger, when laying down a standard in black and white, that when they have their houses up to the standard many people will sit back and feel that they have done their duty and will not try to improve them any further. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will take advantage of the powers he has in subsection (2) of this clause to raise these standards by areas and as and when he thinks the moment has come. I hope that the moment will be sooner rather than later with almost every area in Scotland.
Next, I should like to say a word or two about Clause 24. It seems to me that this clause needs looking at again in Committee. The local authority is given power to insist on repairs being executed within twenty-one days to any house which is in a state of serious disrepair. I should have thought that there should be exceptions, such as where the house is owner-occupied and the owner does not want to repair the house, and also where the house is unoccupied. There are probably many more important repairs to be done—particularly after emergencies such as the wind-blow in central Scotland last year. I should also have thought that it might be a defence to the order that one was not able to get suitable tradesmen or materials; because many of the difficulties in Glasgow and other places after the wind-blow last January arose not because landlords were unwilling to repair their houses but because they simply could not get hold of the right people to do the work or the right materials with which to repair the houses. I should have thought it would be advisable to amend the clause to a certain extent in that way.
Next, I should like to refer briefly to Part III, Clauses 37 and 38. I think

1037
that £1,200 is a reasonable figure and should be a great inducement to all landlords to bring their houses up to a modern standard. I hope that the local authorities, who, I believe, have complete discretion about whether or not to give these grants—will give them wherever possible, and, as I think the noble Lord suggested in his speech, that they will be more inclined to give them even where the house has, or used to have, some of these basic amenities in the first place. There are some derelict houses near to my home which used to belong to British Railways. We bought them for the vast sum of £50, mainly because vandals had removed absolutely everything inside them, including the baths and lead piping. I believe that under the old Act we should not have been able to get what is to be the grant of £1,200 to bring these houses up to a modern state of repair because at one time they had bathrooms and such-like things in them and would therefore not have qualified. I hope that local authorities will be able to use much more discretion about this matter than they have been able to do up to now.
Lastly, may I say that it probably will come as no surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to know that I particularly welcome the provisions in Part IV of the Bill. I believe that these have been needed for many years. I also welcome Schedule 4, which goes with Part IV. One of the things which slightly worry me, and the only one I am going to mention now, is that on page 47 there is a table which states by what amounts one can raise one's rents from the controlled rent to the fair rent. We never seem to reach the whole. It says that where the period of delay is two years, one has one-third and two-thirds. I should have expected that in the third year one would be able to have the whole, but it does not say so. In the column headed "Where the period of delay is four years" there is one-fifth, two-fifths, et cetera, and in the fourth year it is four-fifths. I should have thought, once again, that in the fifth year we should have the whole; but it does not say so. Could the noble Lord confirm that I have misread it, and that after the third or fifth year, according to the category, one does reach the whole? I very much welcome this Bill. Like my noble friend Lord Dundee, I
1038
hope that it will be on the Statute Book before we rise for the Summer Recess, but I think that it needs a little looking over in Committee because I am sure that it can be improved in one or two details.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, replies, may I ask him a question? My noble friend has welcomed the increase in the reconditioning grant for rural houses from £500 to £1,200, as we all do. May I ask whether there is a corresponding increase in the special grant for similar houses in the Highlands and remote areas?
9.29 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, may I intervene, very briefly, as I just want to gloat? I have been working it out, and I recall that 47 years ago, in the city which is represented by my noble friend the Minister and from which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, derives his name, I became a Socialist to try to achieve what is now being attempted by this Bill with the complete accord of everybody in this House. That is all I want to say.
9.30 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful for the reception which the Bill has been given by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, and by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder. I must agree with the noble Earl's initial, rather gently stated, complaint that the hour at which we are discussing the Bill is somewhat inconvenient. It is because I share the view expressed by both noble Lords opposite, that this Bill should reach the Statute Book before we rise for the Summer Recess, that I did not enter any protest about its placing in the timetable; and it is because I know they share sincerely my anxiety that I know that they will not take me to task when I tell them that the Committee stage of the Bill will be in the unusually short time of a week from now—next Tuesday. That is when I expect it to be, subject to everything going as it ought to go.
I anticipate that although this is an important Bill, it is not one which will be the subject of a large number of Amendments in your Lordships' House.

1039
I think that what has been said to-night is an indication that that will probably be so. The Bill was largely welcomed in another place and has been fully considered over a long time and while in other circumstances your Lordships might have wished to have another go at some of the Amendments which were moved in another place, I welcome the realistic attitude that has been taken and the indication that this will not be done on this occasion. I think that we are all of a mind that the important thing is to get these improvements in legislation for Scottish housing into operation as soon as possible, and that a little inconvenience to ourselves, and perhaps a little harder work over a shorter period, is a small price to pay for bringing that about.
The noble Earl referred to the figures on page 82 of the Cullingworth Report and gave comparisons between Glasgow and Dundee. Nothing could have brought home more clearly the need for the fixed standards which we are laying down in the nine tests for a tolerable standard than the figures which the noble Earl quoted. Here we are comparing facts with facts; the figures in Dundee and in Glasgow for household sharing or lacking a fixed bath; for households sharing or lacking a water closet, and for households containing only one or two rooms. These are all things which can be seen. They are not matters of opinion, because one has only to go and look. This is what we are doing in relation to the determination of a tolerable standard. We find out whether any one of the nine items that I mentioned is missing, and if it is missing, then the house falls below the tolerable standard and must either be improved or be taken down as soon as possible.
On the old standard of what was an unfit house, the opinion in one part of the country might be totally different from the opinion in another part, and that is how we got this figure of 24·5 per cent. of houses declared unfit in Dundee and of 3·4 per cent. in Glasgow. It is a matter of some satisfaction to me that I was Lord Provost of Dundee during the time when we reached this 24·5 per cent. recognition of the problem with which we had to deal. I am not making any comparison with Glasgow, because it may be that we had an easier task and that the problems of Glasgow were of a
1040
greater magnitude in other directions. But it was recognised in Dundee that no useful purpose was served by closing our eyes to facts, and that it was better we should know and recognise the situation rather than ignore it, or put off to next year or the next decade any attempt to deal with it.
The noble Earl also referred to the part which the late Walter Elliot expected to be played by the Scottish Special Housing Association. I am sure that he would have been very happy indeed to know that his creation was playing an even more important part in solving Scotland's housing problems in the 'sixties—and will also in the 'seventies—than it ever did in the first years of its existence. In fact, approximately 10 per cent. of the new houses to be built in Scotland will be provided by the S.S.H.A. If the late Walter Elliot never did anything else than this in the period when he was a Minister he would have served Scotland very well indeed.
The question as to whether or not skyscrapers, multi-storey blocks, will be built in clear areas where houses are demolished must of course always depend on the local authority's land availability. The preponderance of multi-storey building in Glasgow at the present time is dictated not by an overall preference for that type of building, but by the fact that, because Glasgow is so short of land on which to build houses of any kind, in order to meet the needs of their people as quickly as possible they have had to accept going up rather than spreading out. But it does not necessarily follow that this would apply elsewhere.
I was glad that the noble Earl made clear in his later remarks that not every multi-storey block was a potential Ronan Point. In fact, I was in a burgh in Scotland discussing this problem yesterday. They have 13 multi-storey blocks which are being appraised at the present time. But only three of these are of the type of construction of Ronan Point, and a fourth is partly of that construction and partly otherwise. But the local authority are playing safe. They are appraising all 13 blocks. And this is happening throughout the country.
This action has perhaps created a false impression about the danger of this type of construction. It is not multi-storey blocks which are dangerous; it is the

1041
multi-storey block of a particular type of construction which may create problems. But because this was not anticipated, and because it did happen, it is only reasonable that people should look to see whether there are any other possible defects in other blocks. All of this will be taken into account. But I am quite certain—and I think the noble Earl expressed this point—that at the end of the day it will be shown that the bulk of the houses built by this method are just as safe to live in as any other type of construction.
The noble Earl went on to say that he did not believe that the traditional two-storey blocks in Scotland necessarily had any more privacy than multi-storey blocks. In fact, one of the complaints of some of the people who live in multistorey blocks is that they find themselves much more remote than they ever were in their lives. The only people they know are the ones they meet in the lift going up and down.
The noble Lord asked me about increasing the grant for repairs to these blocks. It does not figure in the Bill, and he has indicated that this is not an Amendment which will be moved. I would remind your Lordships that the Secretary of State has stated that he wishes me to make arrangements to meet any of the local authorities concerned who may wish to discuss this matter, not individually, because this would be far too time consuming; but as and when they wish to have a joint meeting to discuss this, and consider it further, I shall be very happy indeed to have this meeting.
The noble Duke referred to Clause 2 and suggested that the tolerability standards seem to be rather low. He expressed the hope that it should be regarded as a minimum to which landlords should aspire. I must point out—and I wish to emphasise this—that this is a standard below which houses are condemned; it is not a standard to which people should be aiming. After all, when they reach this they have only managed to escape condemnation, and no more. The desirable standard is the type of thing for which we wish to pay improvement grants, so that houses have all the standard amenities, including a fixed shower or bath, with hot and cold water supply; a wash-hand basin, with the
1042
same facilities; a sink and internal water closet, and so on. Certainly it is the intention that the tolerable standard will be raised as soon as possible, area by area, until the whole country is covered. One local authority have already asked about having a meeting to discuss when the standard can be raised in their area, and we have undertaken that we will consult with them about raising his as soon as it is appropriate to do so, having regard to the speed with which they tackle the houses to bring them up to the standard as it is set.
In Clause 24, on the subject of repairs, the noble Duke asked about exceptions. It is very difficult to do this; in fact this solution has been put in the Bill very largely because it has been shown how inadequate the existing powers are. Far too much time was lost in Glasgow, and other areas, before the authorities felt they could reasonably take the risk of applying the limited powers which they had in the Act, when it was quite certain that public opinion was overwhelmingly on their side, in a way which they could not have been certain about if they tried to do it a week or a fortnight after the disaster took place. We are now seeking to enable authorities to act immediately, and with real power. May I say also that the steps by which the local authority can undertake these repairs have sometimes proved, as in Glasgow, to be the cheapest way in which an owner can get things done. So it can be a decided advantage for the local authority to step in in this way.
On Clauses 37 and 38, the noble Duke said that he considered the amounts were reasonable, and he hoped that the local authorities would apply them. I can assure the noble Duke that I have missed no opportunity in the past two years of pressing on local authorities the desirability of not allowing houses which otherwise could be fit to live in for the next 20 or 30 or 40 years to become the slums which they would have to deal with 10 years or so from now. I have had a fair measure of success in this, particularly in Glasgow, where the authority agreed they would be very willing to co-operate with private owners in rehousing, where necessary, to enable these improvements to be carried out in return for an undertaking (which was given by the private owners) that they

1043
would then accept as tenants for the improved houses people who were on the housing lists. It is the intention of the Government to press local authorities to take the maximum advantage of this.
My noble friend Lord Leatherland referred, in discussion on the previous Bill, to the change of attitude in regard to giving grants to owners of privately-owned property to improve them, although, he said, people might have thought such owners should have improved their properties out of rents received a long time ago. It is an indication of a change which is taking place; I believe the local authorities share in this change of attitude, and I hope it will be easier for us to get better results than we have ever had in the past.
Finally, on the noble Duke's point, he referred to the Schedules, and to the fact that you seem to get the two-thirds and the four-fifths, but never reach all the way. I can assure him that all the way is reached, but it may be that this is not as felicitously drafted as it might have been. I will have a look at it to see whether or not there is any need to put in the Bill that in fact we reach 100 per cent. in the third and fifth years.
I was very glad to have the intervention of my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder and to know that my home town of Dundee, even in its defects, can claim credit for having him sitting on these Benches to-night, instead of perhaps in another part of your Lordships' House—or, perhaps more likely, not in your Lordships' House at all. I look forward to his assistance, along with that of noble Lords opposite, in getting this Bill on to the Statute Book as quickly as possible and with the minimum of further inconvenience to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL
9.46 p.m.
LORD LLEWELYN-DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. It is needed to amend the Architects' Registration Act 1931 as amended in 1934. It is needed because
1044
the provisions of that Act are now out of date in one important aspect. The original Act provided that 50 per cent. of fees received by the Architects' Registration Council should be devoted to the provision of scholarships and maintenance grants for the assistance of students of architecture; and in the early years of the operation of this scheme they were so used. But with the passage of the Education Act 1944 it became possible for students to obtain maintenance grants and scholarships from public sources, and as a result the calls on the funds of the Architects' Registration Council within the terms of the Act became very few. As a result, substantial sums have accumulated in this fund which cannot be spent, although the Architects' Registration Council make every attempt to find appropriate cases on which to spend it.
The Bill now before your Lordships proposes two changes in the original Act. The first of these would widen the scope of the purposes to which this fund could be applied. It would widen it beyond merely providing for grants and scholarships for students to its use for the general purposes of the support of architectural education and research. It would not prevent the use of the fund where occasion arises—and anomalous cases do occasionally arise—to support students, but it would enable it to be used for a much broader contribution to the development of architectural education.
The second point in the Bill is to enable the Architects' Registration Council to vary from time to time the proportion of its income fees devoted to these educational purposes. In doing so, it would, of course, have to receive the approval of the Privy Council. The Bill is before your Lordships with the approval of the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Architects' Registration Council, and the Privy Council; and I commend the measure to your Lordships for favourable consideration.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Llewelyn-Davies.)
9.49 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Llewelyn-Davies, with his expert knowledge has given a concise description of this Bill, which received unanimous support in another place. In

1045
this House we have come to appreciate the incisive thought of the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, and I am sure that when she replies the noble Baroness will successfully avoid the danger to which Gilbert and Sullivan's Gondoliers succumbed when they sang,
"Replying, we sing as one individual."
The noble Lord has explained the difficulties which the Architects' Registration Council have been experiencing because the 1931 Act required at least one-half of the Council's annual fees to be devoted to student scholarships and to grants. Clause 1(2)(b) of the Bill will give the Council discretion over its fee income, with continuing surveillance by the Privy Council, and I am sure the noble Lord has satisfied the House that architectural education need in no way suffer. On the contrary, Clause 1(4) will widen the scope for the Council's grants which will be allowed, as the noble Lord has explained to us, not only to students but in future to research and to the arts and sciences connected with architecture. Surely this is welcome news: for although I believe it is a fact that this country is in no way short of architects, none the less it is perhaps possible that the profession increasingly needs the help of people with other skills to master the complex problems associated with construction to-day.
To take one example, my Lords, there are surely social problems increasingly connected with construction. Only a few moments ago the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, mentioned the problem of loneliness in multi-storey blocks. I have often wondered whether sufficient research has been undertaken, or the results disseminated, into the effects of layout in the planning of large housing estates. Are people happier living in long roads or in small closes? Is it right to segregate the old from the young? This Bill will allow grants to such people as sociologists, as well as to those whose work lies directly within the construction industry. Under this Bill the Architects' Registration Council can make the fullest use of its income from fees, and I very much hope that the House will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.
9.52 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the Government are happy to give a welcome to this Bill,
1046
and I should like to thank my noble friend and relative for introducing it, and perhaps specially for doing so in such an admirably brief speech. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the kind words he said, and indeed to assure him that noble friends, and perhaps particularly noble relatives, do not always speak with one voice.
My Lords, this is a non-contentious, non-political Bill which corrects an anomaly that has developed over the years. It will enable the Architects' Registration Council to use its funds in ways which are suitable for present-day conditions. I am sure there will be general agreement in the House that no useful purpose could be served by allowing money to rest unusable because of an out-dated provision. It is important to realise that the Bill would retain the Council's powers to support needy architectural students. Noble Lords will know that the Council has done spendid work in this sphere in the past. There will always be cases of special hardship, and I think it right that the Council should continue this work, but it is equally sensible that it should have power to finance education and research and to support work which will be of benefit to the architectural profession as a whole. My Lords, I am very glad to support this Bill and also that your Lordships have given it such a warm welcome.
LORD LLEWELYN-DAVIES: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and particularly to say how very much I agree with the point he made about the need for many other professions, skills and branches of knowledge to be brought to bear on the problems of housing and architecture; and I should like to thank my noble relative for agreeing with me on this occasion.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RACE RELATIONS
9.54 p.m.
LORD O'HAGANhad given Notice of his intention to ask Her Majesty's Government: Whether they are aware of the deterioration of race relations in the United Kingdom, and of the harm being

1047
done by the tone of public debate on race and immigration; and whether they will come forward with proposals which will reassure the inhabitants of the United Kingdom, whatever their colour. The noble Lord said: My Lords, because the hour is so late I must ask leave to postpone the Unstarred Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I apologise now, as I hope I have apologised in person, to those of your Lordships who have been inconvenienced. I hope you will nourish your resentment and let it blossom forth into vigorous speech when my Unstarred Question comes up again, which will be soon.