Lords Sitting of 16 July 1969

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Leicester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

CHEMICALS FROM WOOD AND SUGAR BEET
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: 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 what conclusions have been reached by the imports-switching section of the Economic Group in the Department of Economic Affairs upon the possible value of research into the extraction of chemicals from wood and sugar beet.]
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Earl was informed by my noble friend Lord Hughes on April 16, the Government consider that the extraction of chemicals from wood is uneconomic at the present time. On the other hand, it is recognised that research into the extraction of chemicals from both sugar beet and sugar cane is valuable and worthwhile. The Government are satisfied, however, that the scale of research in this field is adequate. Possibly I might add, in view of the noble Earl's Question, that responsibility for detailed matters of this kind rests with the Departments concerned and not with the Department of Economic Affairs.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask whether he is aware that his noble friend Lord Hughes, as I understand it, undertook to refer my Question to the imports department of the Economic Group of the D.E.A.? Is he aware that the area of imports to which these matters relate is of the order of £140 million a year; and though particular items, such as glucose, sugar esters, and glues, are
256
rather small, there are other items in this held, such as resin-based materials for plastics, that are worth about £65 million a year in imports? Would he get the D.E.A. import-switching section to look at this further?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Earl has asked several supplementary questions. He has had correspondence with my noble friend, and I have myself seen him. I do not recognise the import-switching section of the D.E.A. myself, although my noble friend Lord Hughes says he may conceivably have used the phrase. What I would suggest to the noble Earl is that, if he is not satisfied, I will gladly arrange for him to discuss this matter with someone in the Department of Technology.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord.

COUNCIL TENANTS' INCOMES
2.33 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: 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 can confirm that there are approximately 500,000 tenants of council houses with incomes of £2,000 a year or more.]
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of HOUSING and LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Lord Kennet): My Lords, it has been estimated on the basis of the 1967 Family Expenditure Survey that there were then about 60,000 council tenants in Great Britain with gross incomes of £2,000 or more a year. I know of no reliable estimate which is more recent than this, nor of any estimated figure which is as high as the noble Lord has mentioned in his Question.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he realise that there are many retired people and poor people who have put all their life savings into one or two houses which are now rent-controlled? Does he realise that the rents from these houses probably compromise the whole of the incomes of

257
such people? May I further ask the Minister, does he therefore think it right that these people should through their rates subsidise housing for far more affluent, and perhaps prodigal, members of the community?
Lord KENNET: My Lords, housing finance is a complicated subject indeed. Some council tenants, especially those in older houses where everything is paid off, subsidise other council tenants. Ratepayers subsidise council tenants, And the Government, I would remind the noble Viscount, subsidises owner-occupiers to about the same extent as it subsidises council tenants in the form of tax rebates and the option mortgage scheme.
Lord GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, is it not desirable that there should be a mixture of persons in different income brackets on local authority housing estates; and is it not a fact that many tenants pay the full economic rent for local authority housing?
Lord KENNET: My Lords, the latter statement of the noble Lord is a fact; many tenants pay more than the full economic rent, as I have just explained. One can easily see the point of the suggestion in the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary questions.
Lord STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to ask his noble friend Lord Hughes whether the statement in the last part of his reply applies to Scotland?
Lord KENNET: In due course, my Lords.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, might I point out to the Minister—
Noble Lords: No!
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I am sorry. May I ask the Minister whether he realises that, although there are 60, 000 council house tenants with incomes of £2, 000 or more, there are many hundreds of thousands of council houses where the aggregate income of the whole family is more than that?
Lord KENNET: Yes, my Lords; that is so.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to reject any idea that we should return to the household means test?
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, does the Minister understand that I am trying to help the genuinely poor people who are in the queue for council houses?
Lord KENNET: Yes, my Lords; I do not doubt it. But it seems to the Government that the best way to dc that is through rent rebate schemes, and it is done in that way.

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT PROJECT: FUTURE COSTS
Baroness STOCKS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which s: ands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the precise nature of their commitment to the Anglo-French Concorde project and what would be the further cost should they withdraw at this stage from such a commitment.]
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, our commitment is based on the agreement entered into between the British and French Governments on November 29, 1962, but this does not involve either Government in a commitment to pursue the programme to completion regardless of circumstances. The costs to Her Majesty's Government of withdrawing from the project would depend upon the circumstances giving rise to the withdrawal, and therefore I am unable to give an estimate.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us whether, if we were to withdraw at the moment, there would be any liability other than the expenditure which has already been incurred?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend knows that any industrial commercial project of this kind involves contracts with commercial firms, with all of which there is an agreement; and if a contract is cancelled consequences would flow.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, was it not very imprudent of

259
Her Majesty's Government to become involved in expenditure of this scale with No idea on what terms they could withdraw from the commitment?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am not quite sure who my noble friend is criticising. The agreement which was entered into with the French Government to embark on this project was dated, as I have just said, November, 1962, and it was therefore concluded by another Government. Any criticism arising should not therefore be directed to any Minister answering for the present Government. As for the rest, as I have said, any commercial undertaking of any kind inevitably must involve the honouring of contracts.
Baroness STOCKS: My Lords, I have one supplementary question. I should very much like to know the answer to it, though maybe I shall not get it. I should like to know whether members of Her Majesty's Government would be bitterly disappointed if they learned that, for some reason other than sabotage, the Concorde prototype had spontaneously combusted in its hangar?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, the supplementary question is so carefully contrived that I think I should be doing it an injustice if I gave it a spontaneous answer.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I should like to come back to a slightly more substantial aspect of this matter. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government what prospect they have of selling a sufficient number of these machines to recoup themselves within a reasonable period for this enormous and continually expanding expenditure.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, the prospects for selling this aircraft are good, and if things go well there is every prospect of recouping the economic cost of the production aircraft. But it has long been agreed, and has been stated before now, that it will not be possible to recover the cost of research and development.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, are we not in danger of doing the same sort of disservice and damage to the Concorde as was done to the VC10?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that those who are engaged in
260
giving a good part of their lives to the building up of this engineering project will be delighted to hear what the noble Lord said.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, is there not a serious question that even supposing a sufficient number of these planes were sold the surcharge necessary for passengers who wish to travel by them as compared with the cost of travelling by existing subsonic aircraft will be so high that it will be very difficult to fill these Concordes? Have Her Majesty's Government considered this?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, not only have Her Majesty's Government considered it, but some professional people have spent the best part of their working week producing graphs and curves on this very problem, and the results of their research do not bear out what my noble friend says.
Lord THORNEYCROFT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are many people in this country who feel immensely proud that, not as a single nation but in co-operation with our French allies, on a Continental basis, we are capable of going through a great technical adventure of this character?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, if I may say so, what is needed here is a cool and rational approach. I agree absolutely with what the noble Lord says. On the other hand, if the thing became hopelessly uneconomic, or if the aircraft had no prospect of getting a certificate of airworthiness, we should have to judge such a situation when it arose.
Lord WAKEFIELD Of KENDAL: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government be able in the near future to evaluate the immense advantages of what might be described as the side effects from this Concorde project? Are the Government not aware that there are many advantages deriving from it which may not be easily assessable, and will it be possible in the near future to give some evaluation of some of the advantages that are obtained from this immensely valuable project?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, that is true. Again, the noble Lord ought not to press that question too hard, lest he drives me a little nearer to my noble friend behind me. What he says is right.

261
It is true, as my noble friends may say, and indeed they have said in the propaganda that has been put out in the organisation with which my noble friend is quite rightly connected, that the sum of money to which we are committed to the end of the present programme, which runs to some £155 million, if spent in other directions could also reap benefits.
Lord CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask this question? In estimating the prospects of sales of these machines, are Her Majesty's Government assuming that they will be allowed to fly at supersonic speeds over civilised countries, or that they will not be so allowed?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the legal effect is of the phrase which the noble Lord put at the end of the supplementary. I can tell him that all calculations have been made on the basis that this aircraft can fly overland and also on the basis that overflights of land would not be possible.
Lord STRATHCARRON: My Lords, as we are not able to go to the Moon, will the noble Lord not agree that it is a matter of some pride that we have such a thing as a Concorde in this country?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there is a good case to be made out for saying that this is rather more useful than money that is being spent in going to the Moon.
A Noble Lord: Shame!
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, my noble friend misunderstood me. I did not make a statement. If I had done, I should have been out of order. I asked a question whether Her Majesty's Government had considered the prospect of getting a sufficient surcharge payment from passengers for travelling on this aeroplane as compared with the cost of travelling on a conventional aeroplane, and I understood my noble friend's Answer to be that he has had professional advice that this will be satisfactory. May I ask whether Her Majesty's Government are accepting this advice at face value.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I was not trying to evade the noble Lady's question. I was trying to tell her that this is one
262
aspect of this matter which has had particular attention, and the advice is that a surcharge could be made, and indeed should be made, and that potential passengers would be very pleased to pay it.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, one final supplementary question. Will my noble friend accept that the motivation behind these questions is a very real public concern that, what with the noise and other drawbacks of this instrument, there is grave doubt as to whether this expenditure is justified?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, again I do not want to comment on the latter part of the noble Lady's question, but on the first part I may say that I am aware of this public concern and I think it would be a bad thing in a democratic country if an expenditure of this order were not subject to quite rigorous questioning.
The Lord PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shackleton): My Lords, I think we have perhaps had enough on the Concorde.

LOCH NESS MONSTER: SUBMARINE RESEARCH
2.46 p.m.
Lord KILMANY: My Lords, I beg 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 are satisfied, from assurances given by persons operating submarines in Loch Ness, that any monsters that may chance to inhabit that loch will not be subjected to damage or assault.]
The JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lord Hughes): My Lords, we proceed from one monster to another. The Answer to the Question is, Yes. The organiser of The Loch Ness Phenomena Investigation Bureau Limited has given assurances to the Chief Constable of the Inverness Constabulary that the submarine operations have no aggressive intent.
Lord KILMANY: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that the Chief

263
Constable has in fact given permission for an attempt to be made to obtain a tissue sample from whatever monsters can be found? Is the noble Lord satisfied that this could be done without danger and disturbance, and does the Secretary of State for Scotland condone this course?
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, the organiser has said that the main objective of the submarine will be to try to get a positive identification of any echo which may be picked up by the Bureau's sonar equipment. For this purpose it will be fitted with are lights and photographic gear. In addition, it will have a small compressed air gun designed to fire a retrievable dart so shaped as to extract a small sample of tissue for subsequent analysis. This technique is widely used for tagging whales. In the particular context of this scientific expetition I hardly think it constitutes damage or assault.
On the other question which the noble Lord has asked, while I have no reason to doubt the assurances that have been given to the Chief Constable, I must point out that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has no real locus in the matter. Unless and until the monster is found and examined we cannot even say whether the provisions of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 would be relevant, since that Act does not apply to invertebrates.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that news has just come through that an enormous apparently prehistoric, monster has been washed up on the Ross of Mull at a place called Uisken? Everybody is very excited about it up there.
Lord HUGHES: Is it alive or dead?
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: Dead.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it will be an act of sacrilege to take away from the Scottish Tourist Board the myth of the monster of Loch Ness by which they get many gullible tourists each year?
Lord HUGHES: I do not know on what scientific ground my noble friend says that the monster is a myth.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that neither the Inverness County Council nor the police, nor the riparian owners on the shore were alerted to the fact that two submarines were coming to operate in the Loch? May I further ask him whether he is aware that, according to reports in the Press, "nature study" goes so far as for the "Phenomena" promoters to say that if they cannot contact the monster with lance or submarine they propose to detonate charges below the surface and blow the animal on to the top of the water—something we very much regret in the county where the monster still remains our greatest invisible asset.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, there are many rumours about the monster, and I know that there were other suggestions about what might be done. An American group were interested in an alternative way of trying to find it, but when they discovered that it would involve them in expenditure of half-a-million dollars they changed their mind.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will my noble friend make clear to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that there is legislation under which these creatures could be protected and that the British Waterways Board, as the navigation authority, have the right to remove the licences for these vessels if they start annoying the local livestock?
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I should be very interested to examine any information my noble friend can give me in that direction.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, how would the noble Lord like to be "potted" by an airgun to take samples of his tissue?
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, provided that the relevant part of my tissue was no greater than the small amount, in proportion, that was taken from the bulk of the whale, I doubt whether I should notice it.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, the noble Lord's answer is not entirely satisfactory. Is he aware that in America there is considerable embarrassment that these two submarines should have arrived without local authority? They quite rightly take the view that we can hardly launch an expedition on Lake Okeechobee in similar circumstances.

BUSINESS
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Duncan Report.
May I also inform your Lordships of the way in which it is proposed to take to-day's business. It is proposed that we should adjourn the Committee stage of the Housing Bill at a convenient moment round 7 p.m. in order to take the Second Reading of the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill. The Committee stage of the Housing Bill will then be resumed. I hope that this arrangement meets with the convenience of the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Housing Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order, viz.:—

Part I.

Schedule 1,

Part II,

Clauses 43 to 47,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 48 to 52,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 53 to 66.

Schedule 4,

Clauses 67 and 68,

Schedules 5 and 6,

Clauses 69 to 79,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 80 to 88,

Schedules 8 to 10.—(Lord Kennet.)

Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, before the Motion is put, may I draw attention to the state of the Benches opposite and ask my noble friend whether he thinks that this Bill can receive proper and mature consideration with so many members of the Conservative Party absent?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think that we can debate this. I think my noble friend has got all he can out of this situation, but it is noteworthy.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I say that at the appropriate moment my noble friends will be present to take a very full part; but that moment is not yet.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL [H.L.]
2.53 p.m.
House in Committee (on Re-commitment).
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, this Bill has been amended by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. No further Amendments have been put down for consideration by the Committee this afternoon. With the permission of the Committee, I will therefore put the Question, That I report the Bill to the House without further amendment.
Moved, That the Bill be reported to the House without further Amendment—(The Earl of Listowel).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed; Bill reported without further amendment.
Then Standing Order No. 41 aving been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Report received; Bill read 3a.
The Lord CHANCELLOR (Lord Gardiner): My Lords, your Lordships may remember that this was a Consolidation Bill by the Law Commission, with some 21 Amendments to the law, which they thought were necessary in order to effect a useful consolidation. The Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, for whose work and patience we are all greatly indebted, have concurred with the need to make 16 of these Amendments but have not thought it necessary for various reasons which they have given, to concur with the other five. If I may respectfully say so, I agree with the views they have taken.
The first of the Acts consolidated is the Trustee Savings Bank Act 1954, which itself was a Consolidation Act. Since then there have been ten Acts or pieces of subordinate legislation which have made changes in the 1954 Act. I am sure that to all those who may have

267
occasion to use this legislation it will be of considerable convenience for them to have all their Statute Law in one place rather than in ten places. I beg to move this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.55 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 8 [Power of Secretary of State to require education authority to fix a single school commencement or leaving date]:
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 9, line 17, at end insert ("and except where he is so satisfied, on the application of any education authority, the requirement shall be made by regulations;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 8 deals with the power of the Secretary of State for Scotland to require education authorities to fix a single school commencement or leaving date. The Clause inserts a proviso into Section 33 of the principal Act, the 1962 Act, which says:
"… if in relation to the area of any education authority the Secretary of State is satisfied, either of his own accord or on the application of that authority, that, having regard to all the circumstances, it is desirable that a single date for commencing school attendance, or a single school leaving date, should be fixed for that area, he may require the authority to fix for the area a single date for commencing school attendance or, as the case may be, a single school leaving date; "
We discussed this at an earlier stage but, unfortunately, the Amendment I had put down would not have done what we wanted to do. It is eminently reasonable that, if an education authority asks the Secretary of State for a single school commencement or leaving date to be fixed and the Secretary of State agrees, he should require the Authority to fix a
268
single date. But if the Secretary of State thinks that he himself, "of his own accord" as it says here, should simply require an authority to fix a date for its area, it is arguable whether he should be able to do so without reference to Parliament.
What we on this side think is not justifiable is that, if the Secretary of State wishes to fix a single school commencement or leaving date for the whole of Scotland, he would be able to use this clause to do this, as he could do, so far as I can see, by simply requiring each local authority, one after the other, to introduce a single date. We think that undoubtedly the Secretary of State should come to Parliament by way of placing an Order, so that we could discuss it and agree or disagree with it as we see fit. I suggest to the House that there is a danger of educational matters being treated too much as an educational preserve into which nobody else should trespass at all.
It can be said that, so far as school commencing dates are concerned, this is primarily a matter of organisation, although a great many parents are affected. It cannot be said that the question of a school leaving date is only a matter for educational interests. That seems to me to make it all the more important that the Secretary of State should come to Parliament if he wishes to take action which will result in a single school leaving date being introduced for the whole of Scotland.
From my own experience in the Education Department and the Scottish Office, I myself would have been very surprised if such a power had been asked for by the Department, and I am quite certain that I would not have agreed to it when I was there. I do not see why this should be done by the present Government; nor do I think from my experience elsewhere that this would have been done in any other Department. There is a danger that this is being made too much of an educational preserve. It is not very much to ask that in such circumstances as I have envisaged, or even in circumstances where the Secretary of State is imposing his will on one area, the Secretary of State should make regulations which would be made by Statutory Instrument, and that Statutory Instrument would be laid before the

269
House. This is all the Amendment asks for and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Lord HUGHES: When the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, withdrew the Amendment which he put forward at the last stage to seek to accomplish this purpose on the grounds to which he has referred, that it was technically defective, he indicated that he would come back to it again at this stage, and if I recollect rightly I said I thought it was unlikely that I would change my mind at this stage. I must admit that, having read the Amendment that was put forward, and having listened to what the noble Lord said, my forecast of my attitude proved to be correct. It would be quite new to seek to involve Parliament in matters of detail of this kind. Twenty years ago the Education (Scotland) Act 1949 empowered the Secretary of State to require an education authority to fix for their area two or more fixed dates for commencing school attendance, and three or more fixed dates, by reference to which, dates for terminating school attendance should be ascertained. There was nothing in that Act about regulations or orders to govern these matters and nothing at all about prior consultation; nor was anything of the kind suggested in either House when the 1949 Act was under consideration.
The noble Lord might well say that this is the other way; that it is one thing to have two or more and it is a totally different thing to reduce it to only one. The important thing is that what we are seeking to do is to prevent a mythical foolish Secretary of State in the future from doing something silly, and it did occur to Parliament in 1949 to have regard to the fact that they might have an irresponsible Secretary of State who might regard two or more, or three or more, as being the justification for having a multiplicity of commencing or leaving dates. Might I suggest that the one is no more unlikely to foresee than the other.
The noble Lord has referred to his own past experience in the matter and he must know that the very wide powers given in the 1949 Act were not so abused by the Secretary of State; nor did the noble Lord or his friends when they were in office see any risks in this matter. They did not seek to amend the Act in order
270
to lay on any future Secretary of State the restriction which he now proposes. The only Amendments of substance which have been made to the Act of 1949 were made in 1962 and then by the present Bill. They have both been designed to ensure that the number of leaving and commencing dates should be reduced in the intersts of the education of pupils. It seems to me, as I have said already, inconceivable that a Secretary of State would act irresponsibly in reducing the number of leaving dates to one.
However, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that some future Secretary of State does wish to act in a foolish way. The implication of the noble Lord's Amendment is that he could be obliged to act by means of an Instrument subject to annulment. There are other means open to Parliament, and other restraints which Parliament can impose on any Minister who acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable way. He can be questioned and his actions debated, and if need be censured in this House or another place. In my view, the pressure that Parliament can exert through these means would in practice be at least as effective in curbing a mythical foolish future Secretary of State as the formal annulment procedure. If a Secretary of State did something of this kind which was not generally acceptable to the people of Scotland, he could not for one moment think that, because there was no need to lay an Order before Parliament, the matter would be completely hushed up. The possibility that there is no such Order to be annulled would probably create an even greater number of means of getting at the Secretary of State than the simple procedure which the noble Lord calls for.
It is not because I am in disagreement with him about the desirability, if this matter does arise, of it being capable of careful examination; it is because I do not wish in this Bill, any more than in other Bills, to see something put in which serves no useful purpose. For these reasons I hope that the noble Lord will feel that perhaps in another way he has helped to make it more difficult, perhaps impossible, for any Secretary of State in the future to do the sort of thing which he seeks to safeguard against even though this Amendment is not made to the Bill.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I thank the noble Lord for having replied in such a reasonable and disarming way. I think he felt, reading between the lines, as one might say, of what he said, that there was a real difference between having two or three school leaving dates and one. If you had only one school leaving date the effect would be that a great many people would come on to the labour market at one particular time, and only one time, in the year. This is not only an educational matter. That is why I thought it was appropriate that, if the Secretary of State wanted to avail himself of this power here, it would be well for him to have an opportunity to lay a Statutory Instrument before the House and so give the House an opportunity to debate it.
I quite appreciate that if he acted without consultation or without sufficient consultation it would be possible for him to be censured. With respect to the noble Lord, I still feel that this would have been the more normal course. I feel that different considerations applied in the 1949 Act, although I dare say that if we had looked back we should have found that the Opposition suggested that this should be made a matter of reference to Parliament. But, in all the circumstances, I certainly should not wish to press the Amendment, even though the Division Bell might bring a great majority to my rescue, because I realise that the Government have made up their mind, and if I did this the only effect would probably be to have the other place disagreeing. That being so, on a matter of this character I am very ready to rely on the assurance which the noble Lord has given; and I have to confess that a great deal of what he said was common sense. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 43, line 17, at end insert—
(". In section 91 (incidental expenses of education authorities)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the word 'duties' there shall be substituted the word 'functions';

272

(b) in subsection (2), at the end there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—

'(d) expenses incurred by the parent of any child in connection with any medical or dental inspection, or any medical or psychological examination, of that child, or by any young person in connection with any medical or dental inspection of that young person, under any provision of this Act'.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State has power to make regulations sanctioning the payment by an education authority of expenses incurred by a parent in connection with medical and psychological examinations under Clause 10 of the Bill, or by a parent or young person in connection with medical and dental inspections under the 1962 Act and Clause 9 of the Bill. The first part of the amendment, which changes "duties" to "functions", is necessary because authorities have powers as well as duties in this field (for example, powers to require parents to submit their children to medical and dental inspections), and the word "functions" covers powers as well as duties. The second part of the Amendment is the substantive part specifically defining the expenses which can be authorised by regulations.
In the course of the discussion of the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, put down with the same intention on Report, he expressed his concern that the scope of Section 91 might not be wide enough to cover payments to parents escorting children to medical and psychological examinations in connection with their ascertainment for special education and on similar occasions. In reply, I said that the Government proposed to make regulations under the section to cover those payments. I also pointed out that the noble Lord's Amendment was not quite wide enough, because it did not cover them all.
I never lightly pass over Amendments of this kind put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. It will therefore not surprise him to know that I have given a lot of consideration to this matter since the last stage. We are all agreed that these payments ought to be made in appropriate circumstances, and none of us would wish the power of authorities to put them through to come into question because of any technical flaw in the Statute. Although we think it is

273
most unlikely that any regulations which we may propose to make would be challenged, I have decided that it would be wiser to make assurance doubly sure and to put their powers beyond all possible doubt. For these reasons, this Amendment has been tabled. It covers all the medical, dental and psychological examinations and inspections which may be held under the Bill or under the Act. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for having raised this issue in the first instance, and I am sure that this Amendment which really has been inspired by him, will be welcomed by your Lordships as an improvement to the Bill. May I say, in relation to the last Amendment, that I was not in any doubt about the noble Lord merely withdrawing it because of the scarcity of support that he had on the Benches opposite. I understand that there are massed battalions elsewhere which would have rallied to his aid.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House, but I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord for having gone into this matter so fully to meet the point that I had in mind, and, indeed, for having gone even a little further than that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I think that in some respects this Bill is the better for the careful consideration which it has received in this House. That is only what we are entitled to expect. I should like to thank, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the close scrutiny to which he has subjected the Bill and for the suggestions that he has made for its improvement, evens though I have not always felt able to accept them. In one important respect, however, the Bill has been marred by your Lordships. I refer, of course, to the decision taken in Committee to permit the continued payment of fees by parents in those education authority schools where fees were being charged last November. I will not say any more than that it may well be that another place will find it difficult to accept that the necessary reform which was embodied in the Bill should be postponed. That was the only point on which there was serious disagreement in your Lordships' House. The Bill, as I said on Second
274
Reading, is a very useful reforming measure, and it is with pleasure that I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hughes.)
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in commending this Bill to the House. As he says, there was one major point of disagreement. We would not agree that our Amendment mars the Bill. I should think that it saves the Bill from a great mistake, and I remain hopeful that another place will agree wi: h us rather than with the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

AGE OF MAJORITY (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to the Age of Majority (Scotland) Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commons Amendments
[References are to [Bill 90] as first printed for the Commons.]
[Nos. 1 and 2.]
Clause 1, page 2, line 26 at end insert—
"(9) Section 4 of the Entail Amendment (Scotland) Act 1875 (consent to disentail may be given at 21) is hereby repealed."
Schedule 1, page 3, leave out lines 25 to 27.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 go together and, with the permission of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. I need not take up too much of your Lordships' time with these or, indeed, with the subsequent Amendments, all of which are of a minor drafting nature. The purpose of Amendment No.'.. is to repeal Section 4 of the Entail Amendment (Scotland) Act 1875, which is now spent and should not therefore have been included in the Schedule to the Bill.

275
Amendment No. 2 corrects this error by removing the reference to Section 4 of the 1875 Act from the Schedule. I beg to move.

Commons Amendment
[No. 3.]
Schedule 1, page 3, line 35, at end insert—

"c. 44.

The Customs and Excise Act 1952.

Section 244 (2) (a).

Entry invalid unless made by person over 21."

Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. This Amendment seeks to add to the list in Schedule 1 of statutory references to the age of 21 which are to be changed to 18, a further provision which came to light after the Bill had been introduced. The provision in Section 244 (2) (a) of the Customs and Excise Act 1952 provides that no entry on the fficial register containing particulars of the premises where

Commons Amendments
[Nos. 4 and 5.]
Schedule 1, page 4, line 25, at end insert—

1946 S.R. & O. 1156. The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Borrowing and Stock) Regulations 1946.

Regulation 36 (1) and (2).

Stock held by persons under 21.

1949 S.I. 751. The Gas (Stock) Regulations 1949.

Regulation 19 (1) and (2).

Stock held by persons under 21.

1953 S.I. 42. The Local and Other Authorities (Scotland) (Transfer of Stock) Regulations 1953.

Regulation 12 (1) and (2).

Stock held by persons under 21.

1955 S.I. 1752. The South of Scotland Electricity Board (Borrowing and Stock) Regulations 1955.

Regulation 30 (1) and (2).

Stock held by persons under 21."

line 28, at end insert—

"1957 S.I. 2228. The Electricity (Stock) Regulations 1957.

Regulation 22 (1) and (2).

Stock held by persons under 21.

1963 S.I. 935. The Exchange of Securities (General) Rules 1963.

Rule 1 (1).

Definition of "minor",

1965 S.I. 1420. The Government Stock Regulations 1965.

Regulation 14 (1), (2), (3) and (5).

Stock held by persons under 21."

Lord HUGHES: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to deal with Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. These Amendments, like Amendment No. 3, add to Schedule 1 a number of statutory provisions requiring amendment as a consequence of the lowering of the age of majority to 18.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
an excise trade is carried on shall be valid unless the person making it is 21 or over. A reduction to 18 in this age limit is consistent with the policy underlining the Bill, and this would be the effect of the Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Rule 1 (1) of the Exchange of Securities (General) Rules 1963 defines a "minor" by reference to the age of 21 years, and all the other provisions relate to the holding of stock by persons under the age of 21. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MILK (EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF CONTROL OF MAXIMUM PRICES) ORDER 1969
3.20 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Beswick, I think that the best thing is not to move this Order for approval, and to proceed to the next business.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to move the approval of the Milk Order. This Order implements the Minister's decision that the powers to control milk prices under the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act 1964 should be renewed for a further five years from the end of 1969. The Order will be made by Her Majesty in Council, but a draft must first be approved by Affirmative Resolution of each House. This is merely continuing for a further five years the position which has existed for some time. I would doubt very much whether any noble Lord would wish at this stage to object to a continuation of the procedure which has proved so satisfactory over a number of years. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the House thanks the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for getting on with the milking at such short notice. There is a point which my noble friend Lord Nugent, who unfortunately is unwell, has given notice to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that he would very much like to put. With the noble Lord's permission, perhaps I might be allowed briefly to explain the point which is troubling the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. On this side of the House, we accept the necessity for a continuation in the price control of milk. Apart from meat, if we lump meat together, milk is the largest individual component in the whole of the food price index, and I would suggest that control is also needed because the efficiency of the market has been achieved by wholesaling only through the Milk Marketing Board, and by retailing through a small group of large concerns.
The point which is troubling my noble friend is this. The main output of milk relies on the direct sale of liquid milk,
278
and the output for by-products (butter and cheese, for instance) claims less than half of the market. In September rising costs are going to force up milk prices by ½ d. a pint. During 1968-1969 there has been in fact a reduction in liquid milk consumption, partly because of the removal of free secondary school milk, and partly, possibly, because of the increase in the price of welfare milk. It is fair, I think, for us on this side of the House to be apprehensive of the effect of the September price increase on personal consumption, which is something which in fact has remained pretty steady. There is also every reason to believe that the trend of rising costs will continue, and this may well cause consumption to continue to fall. The problem is that the Government's expansion programme aims for an increase in beef production. This must mean more dairy cows for more beef calves, and a consequent increase in the national supply of milk.
May I therefore ask Her Majesty's Government whether the time has not come for the Minister to reconsider the milk price structure so as to give a bigger proportion of the market to the manufacturing and processing of milk? Presumably such a reconsideration would mean a review to include a thorough replanning of our imports of manufactured milk products. Unless this is done, it is to be feared, we think, that the Government's expansion programme may lead to the production of large, undisposable surpluses of milk. Costs and prices can only rise in this particular industry, where the small farmer is finding profit margins getting smaller and smaller. During the past 15 ye?rs the rise in the wholesale price of milk has been only 7 per cent., whereas the papers this morning, I think, show us that the rise in the cost of living in the past four years is over 21 per cent. May I ask the noble Lord whether the Government will reconsider the price structure for milk before possible further falls in consumption, and increases in production, result in unusable surpluses, which I am sure every one would regret?
3.25 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am very sorry to hear of the indisposition of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and I hope he is soon able to be with us again. I am sorry, too. that I was otherwise engaged when this Order came before the

279
House. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hughes for stepping into the breach, although he has an interest in this too, of course, from the Scottish point of view.
The problem that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, put to us and which, as he rightly said, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, had also mentioned to me, is a real one. I do not underestimate it at all. There is a difficulty in finding a solution. I think to some extent he over-exaggerates the inadequacy of the demand for liquid milk. It has not been falling; there is not a falling trend. There was a temporary reduction last year due to the fact that the free milk for secondary schools was discontinued. That meant a temporary drop in demand. So far as the per capita consumption is concerned, there has been a very slight rise.
The noble Lord speaks of the fact that the cost of milk has gone up so little over the past few years; and this is so. Dairy farming is undoubtedly one of the most efficient sectors of the whole of our economy. The housewife is really getting a bargain when she pays what she does for her milk. If there were to be a further increase yielding a bigger return to the dairy farmer, the impact on the demand would, it is thought, be serious. We are therefore faced with this very real problem of how to stimulate demand and, at the same time, how to give a proper return to the dairy farmer, without reducing demand.
The one solution to which I find so many people coming rather readily is curtailment of importation of milk products. I wish it were possible to give the noble Lord an undertaking that there will be a further curtailment of the importation of milk products, but I cannot give him that assurance. As he knows, we have gone part of the way to meeting this proposal by getting a voluntary agreement. That has been very useful. I hope it will go some way to help in this matter. There is, however, a difficulty with all the international trade agreements, and with our need to export manufactured goods, which we cannot expect to do if we are going to reduce the importation of products of other countries. With these difficulties, I think the effort to get the voluntary agreements has gone about as far as it is possible to go. The problem, as I have
280
said, is a real one. It is understood by the Department concerned, and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and, through him, his noble friend, that if it is possible to do more, either to step up liquid milk consumption—and the Milk Marketing Board are doing a lot by their various publicity campaigns—or to secure by voluntary agreement a restriction on the importation of milk products, then that will be done.
Lord WALSTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend just one question? He mentioned the efforts that the Government have made to restrict the importation of certain processed milk products. Could he not ask his right honourable friend to look very urgently at the question of reducing the costs of the distribution of retail milk? We still use very much the same methods to-day as we used thirty years ago in distributing the milk. Naturally, it has been impossible, even with the most efficient operators of that industry, to cut down costs beyond a certain point. With the great extension of multiple stores, self-service shops, vending machines, et cetera, would it not be possible to press ahead with making retail milk available through self-service or vending machines at a price very much lower than it must of necessity cost when it has to be delivered on the doorstep every morning? I suggest that as a way of reducing the cost to the housewife without in any way interfering with profit margins, and thereby stimulating demands for liquid milk.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies again, may I thank him for his very full answer. We accept that the total output for consumption is rising slightly, but the worry on this side of the House is that the liquid consumption, which is the basis of the market, is estimated to be a falling quantity. As the noble Lord told the House, the voluntary agreement on processed imports is something which does not work too well. Therefore, although supporting the Order, we shall continue to worry.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, if I may have permission to speak again, I accept the noble Lord's promise to keep on worrying, and I am sure that what is said from that side of the House, on this subject at any rate, will be constructive. On

281
the question of the distribution cost, I do not think there is the room for economy which my noble friend Lord Walston speaks about. As we know this matter was referred to the Prices and Incomes Board, who went into it with some care. It is not right to say that the retail distribution of milk is uneconomic or inefficient. On the contrary, it is highly efficient.
The proposal that, instead of delivering from door to door, the milk should be available, as it is on the Continent, in the shops, so that one has to go and fetch it, sounds attractive if one is thinking simply of distributive costs. But the unanimous view of all the people with whom I have discussed it is that, if the housewife had to go and collect it from the shop, the consumption of liquid milk would fall to a serious extent. The fact that it is placed on the doorstep is one of the best guarantees we have that the demand will be a stable one. As for sales through vending machines, this is something which has been encouraged. The trend is slightly upwards, but again it is not all that attractive to the housewife.
I disagree with the noble Lord when he suggests that nothing has been done to change the method of distribution in the streets. I should have thought that rationalisation in the retail milk distributive trade is one of the most efficient pieces of rationalisation that we have seen since the war. Instead of four or five milkmen coming up the street, there are now only two—one commercial firm and the local co-operative society. This seems to me to be as far as one can expect to take rationalisation. Nevertheless we must not be complacent about this. I take note of what my noble friend has said, and again assure the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that although butter and cheese are already controlled, they form, after all, two-thirds of the milk products market. If more can be done by voluntary agreement with the other third, it will be done.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he accepts the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that there is such a thing as unusable milk? It seems to me that the world is desperately short of protein and we are talking here
282
about whether we can sell through a mechanical cow, when in point of fact we should be thinking how we cat dispose of the surplus milk that we have.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, if I may speak again, with permission, I do not disagree with what my noble friend says, but I think it would be extending the limits of this Order rather considerably if I were to go into the whole of that issue.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

OVERSEAS REPRESENTATION: THE DUNCAN REPORT
3.35 p.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in another place on the Report of the Review Committee on Overseas Representation which has today been laid before the House. The Statement is as follows:
"The House will recall that last August I invited Sir Val Duncan, Sir Frank Roberts and Mr. Shonfield to report urgently on the means of obtaining the best value for money from our overseas representation, having regard to our foreign and defence policies and the economic situation and all that these imply for Britain's role in the world.
"Their Report is far-ranging and draws many important conclusions. These concern a wide variety of matters, from broad issues of policies and priorities to quite detailed points of management. Some of them concern questions which lie outside my direct responsibility. Some are very much in line with thoughts and practices which we ourselves had been developing; others—and I very much welcome this—are novel and suggest new departures in our ways of handling the problems concerned.
"While the Government warmly welcome the Committee's general approach, my colleagues and I feel that before we can give a specific endorsement to their conclusions, we need to go further into their probable consequences, their implications for the

283
standard and range of our services overseas, and their effect on our foreign policy as a whole. The publication of the Report will give many persons inside and outside this House an opportunity to consider these issues. I do not think it would be right for the Government to commit itself too deeply before they have had the benefit of this opportunity. I have, therefore, initiated studies and consultations on the Report. These include discussions with the appropriate Staff Associations.
"At the same time, I should like to say that I very much welcome the tribute which the Committee has paid to the high standard of our overseas services, and particularly to the competence and adaptability of Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service.
"I am sure that the House will join with me in thanking Sir Val Duncan and his colleagues for devoting so much of their time to this important task which they discharged speedily and thoroughly. They have produced a penetrating and objective survey, which has already had a valuable effect in stimulating our own consideration of these problems and which will be an essential guide through the challenging years ahead."
The Earl of DUNDEE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement made by the Foreign Secretary. The noble Lord will appreciate that it was only three minutes ago that this Report became available in the Printed Paper Office of your Lordships' House, and apart from any of your Lordships who may have seen it in advance as members of the Government there cannot be any Member of your Lordships' House who has so far had the least opportunity of seeing what is in it. The noble Lord's Statement has really consisted of saying that the Government are going to study the Report and that they do not think they can make up their minds what to do about it until they have initiated studies and consultations upon it.
It is rather like the famous commercial company which was formed at the beginning of the 18th century, at the same time as the South Sea Bubble, which sent round a circular, asking for
284
money to be invested for a project "which shall hereafter be revealed". But having, in the last minute or two, glanced through the headlines of this Report I see that it covers the subject of commercial representation overseas and also of broadcasting. I hope the noble Lord the Leader of the House will agree that these are two of the most important subjects to think about when we are considering the improvement of our overseas services. We may not yet have proceeded far enough in giving equal status to those overseas representatives whose business it is not only to conduct social and diplomatic formalities but to advance British export trade. Similarly, there is a very great deal which can be done to improve and amplify the effectiveness and the quality of overseas British broadcasting services, particularly in respect of getting new and more powerful stations at convenient distances for those parts of the world where we want our voice to be heard.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, since, unlike the noble Earl, I have not even seen this Report, it is clearly impossible for me to express any opinion on its merits. Perhaps I might just say that the evident quality of its authors must lead us to suppose that, as the Government appear to think, it is a valuable and constructive study.
May I say that, as I understand it, there are now several long-term Reports under consideration by the Government, including of course Redcliffe-Maud, and I have no doubt that these Reports will take a long time to consider, at any rate before the Government are in a position actually to draw up proposed measures based on them. But I should have thought that the Duncan Report, though naturally it will require considerable consideration at some time, will not take as long as the others I have mentioned—perhaps only a month or two. Would it not be in any case desirable—I merely suggest it—for the Government to arrange a fairly early debate in this House on the Report? There are, after all, many experts here on the various aspects of foreign affairs with which the Report deals, and it is conceivable that their combined wisdom may be of some value to the Government before it finally makes up its mind on what to do about the Duncan Report.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I thought the noble Earl's remarks were a little odd, but he was only commenting on what is a rather odd traditional procedure. I have always been impressed by the ability of the Opposition to make bricks without straw, other than a sight of the Statement, which may or may not contain much information. I fully appreciate his difficulty. Against that background I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that this would be an eminently suitable subject for discussion in your Lordships' House when your Lordships have had a chance to read the Report. I also feel that even summarising the headlines in a Report, as we sometimes do in Statements, does not really help until noble Lords have had a chance to look at the Report for themselves. But we are observing the customary courtesy of announcing its publication and expressing appreciation to the authors. Having read the Report, I must say that I am very impressed by the rapidity and thoroughness of the work.
The noble Earl raised one or two important points based on his knowledge; and of course the questions of the B.B.C. and commercial representation do feature very largely in the Report, and I think he will be interested in what it has to say on these issues. There is a reference to the importance of audibility and strength of broadcasting, to which the noble Earl referred, and the Government will review the arrangements in this field. On the commercial side, I think it is not perhaps appreciated just how much the Foreign Service has developed its commercial services. I have been impressed, and I am sure other noble Lords have, by the real enthusiasm of the Diplomatic Service and others of our representatives overseas in fulfilling their commercial responsibilities.
Before sitting down, I would also myself like to pay a personal tribute to the Foreign Service, which in the past has sometimes been thought of as an easy activity for rich men. It certainly is not an easy activity. In my times abroad I have been struck not only by the determination and thoroughness but, in some situations by the actual courage with which they, and their wives and families, have faced their often arduous duties.

HOUSING BILL
3.45 p.m.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now re solve itself into Committee.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness Emmet of Amberley in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Improvement grants, standard grants and special grants]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: On Clause 1 I have an important question to put to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, of which I have given him notice. Clause 1 deals with the grants made by local authorities. If I understand the White Paper and also the Explanatory Memorandum aright, the Government wish local authorities to make a considerable drive in developing the improvement of older houses by means of grants, but at the same time wish these to be contained within a ceiling of public expenditure, both local and central.
My question to the noble Lord is, how is this to be managed? Is it proposed that the Government shall ration local authorities individually as to the amounts that it will authorise them to pay out in grants? If not, may we not find it happening that some local authorities, encouraged by the Government's proposals and its legislation, will go ahead on a big scale, and then it will be found that within the ceiling there is not enough money for other local authorities which have not been so active initially? That would be a disastrous situation because it would mean that the improvement was unfairly balanced as between one part of the country and another. But it is a possible situation that might arise, because it is well known that up to now some local authorities have been much more ardent in pushing improvement grants than others. Indeed, I fear there may still be some authorities which, as a matter of principle, do not make discretionary improvement grants. My main question is to ask the noble Lord whether

287
he will explain further the financial implications of this Clause in relation to the overall ceiling which I understand the Government are laying down.
Lord KENNET: From now on the efforts and resources that a local authority puts into improvements will be regarded as an integral part of its housing programme; so that "rationing" is not quite the right analogy. The new improvement policies will develop gradually from now with an increasing momentum. There is No intention at present of trying to restrict the number of improvement grants made. Rather, we think that authorities will, in the light of their continuing assessment of housing needs of their own districts, place increasing emphasis on improvements. Some authorities will find that the need to build new houses has diminished; others will want to build large numbers of new houses and carry out ambitious improvement programmes as well.
The need for a high level of new building will, of course, continue for many years. In the Government's best estimates, it will follow from the intrinsic facts of the housing situation that an increasing programme of improvements can be accommodated within the current total levels of public expenditure on housing. Were it not for one fact, I would say that improvement expenditure from now on is simply wrapped up in general housing expenditure and is treated exactly the same, including the priority housing authorities and so on. But the one fact that makes that not quite true—although it is mainly true—is that the standard grants remain payable on demand and are thus uncontrollable either by central or local financial control.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that helpful reply. I think it would have been very unfortunate if local authorities felt that they were operating within an allocation scheme and might run up against limits and that thereafter they or other local authorities might be discouraged by the Government from making discretionary grants. I believe it is wholly right at this stage in time to press forward with the grants, both standard and discretionary, and I hope that matters will work out financially as the noble Lord has indicated.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Improvement grants]:
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 22, at end insert ("or has a contract for the acquisition of such an interest, notwithstanding that that contract may be contingent upon the approval of an application for an improvement grant by the local authority").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1. This is an Amendment to subsection (6) of Clause 2. Subsection (6) says that
"a local authority shall not entertain an application for an improvement grant"—
I rather like that word "entertain", but I know what it means—
"unless they are satisfied that the applicant has"—
a firm interest in the property. My Amendment is designed to overcome a difficulty which I can foresee occurring. A would-be purchaser or would-be developer may feel that it would be an excellent plan if a small terrace of older houses was bought and put right with the help of improvement grants; that would be profitable from the developer's point of view, highly profitable from the tenants' point of view, and, I should judge, desirable from the Government's point of view, because that is exactly the kind of thing which the Government wish to encourage by this Bill.
Yet it seems to me that such a purchaser or developer would be frustrated unless we amend this subsection, because such a person will not go forward unless he has a firm assurance that his scheme will qualify for improvement grant. I would remind your Lordships that these grants are discretionary, and so the local authority are not bound to grant them. His scheme will break down unless he can ascertain that the local authority will approve his proposals for improvement grant; in other words, that they will favourably entertain his application. That is exactly what the local authority are prevented from doing by subsection (6), because at that stage he has not got the interest in the land which is defined in that subsection.
The object of my Amendment—I need hardly say that I should be only too glad if the Government would help me with the actual drafting of it—is to enable the local authority to give a reply

289
and a promise of improvement grant to someone who has a contract for the acquisition of a terrace of houses like that, the contract being contingent upon the approval of an application for an improvement grant. I hope I have convinced the Government that this is a genuine difficulty. I am not trying to upset the main purposes of the clause, with which I agree. I am simply seeking to find words which will enable the provisions to cover the kind of situation which I have described and which may well arise in many places. I beg to move.
3.53 p.m.
Lord KENNET: One cannot but agree with the noble Lord's desire to make every thing easier for everybody and to keep it as flexible as possible, but I think the Amendment is not necessary for a reason I shall give, and it would bring in one or two undesirable side effects which are not very grave but in my submission add up to a case for not amending the Bill.
It is not necessary because the noble Lord said that he wants contracts which are at present contingent upon the grant, to be given grants which are contingent upon the contract. What happens now is that the prospective purchaser goes to the local authority and says, "If I purchase that house or that line of houses will you give me an improvement grant on it or them?"; and the local authority say, "Yes, provided you do it in the way we shall propose," and they all have a general discussion about what sort of way that should be. We have never heard of any complaint about that. There have been no complaints about local authorities not agreeing in the end to the proposal. So it seems that the present situation works well, which is a prima facie reason for continuing it.
The side effects that I mentioned if we were to do it the other way round, as the noble Lord desires, is that the prospective purchaser would have to go to the cost of getting plans prepared and specifications drawn up and to obtain probably two estimates from builders in order to support his application. He would also have to ask the local authority to make a formal declaration that it would give a grant if his purchase was completed. If then, for some reason or other, his contract falls through, it is
290
wasted effort and money for the prospective purchaser.
The other side effect is that I think it might create a market in contingent grants. You might get people for a. consideration, selling the certificate in regard to the contract, on the understanding that they are to get a grant on it. Of course, this would be on a small scale, but there is something analogous to the market in planning permission in it and, as I pointed out, it is unnecessary. Secondly, it would have these two minor side effects. I think that, on the whole, it would be wise to leave the Bill as it stands, and I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will agree with me.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I know that the word "contingent" appears in my Amendment, but I do not believe in the second of the contingencies that the noble Lord mentioned: that a market might grow up in these contingent contracts. In the light of what the noble Lord has said I am inclined to think that it all comes back to that peculiar word "entertain". My concern was that the local authority should not be put off by subsection (6) from giving an answer to the would-be purchaser as to whether he would be likely to get an improvement grant. The noble Lord is saying that, despite the terms of subsection (6), it would be quite in order for a local authority to give an informal indication to a would-be purchaser that if he purchases and if he goes forward with plans such as he has informally submitted to the local authority, he will be likely to get a grant. I do not want to press this Amendment. I think there is agreement between the noble Lord and myself that it would be most undesirable if the law were found to be stopping the kind of development that I have mentioned He seems confident that it will not. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: For the purpose of reassurance, may I ask whether the noble Lord will tell us how the Minister intends to use his power of

291
specification under subsection (2) of this clause? The wording is
"for such period and conform with such requirements with respect to construction and physical conditions and the provision of services and amenities as may for the time being be specified for the purposes of this section by the Minister."
Has the Minister in mind any immediate novelties in what he will specify, or shall we be going on with improvement grants on the same broad basis as before but for the changes that are made by this legislation?
Lord KENNET: The Minister intends to stick to the present 12-point standard of what is to be done, which has stood the test of time and is well understood, but he intends to give local authorities greater discretion to vary it. They will themselves be able to waive requirements if it is impracticable to satisfy them. At present they need the Minister's approval to do this. Under existing law, authorities cannot make discretionary improvement grants for properties with a life of 15 years or less. There is now under the Bill no restriction as to estimated life, although housing authorities will be expected to consider whether in the case of short-life houses grants under Clause 9 for the provision of standard amenities would not sometimes be more appropriate than discretionary grants. We can return to this point again on Clause 9. All these points will, of course, be put in the circular under the Bill in the usual way.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Amount of improvement grant]:
4.1 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) Where a local authority approve an application for an improvement grant, and it appears to the local authority that the Minister may be willing to make a special grant towards the cost of the works, the local authority shall refer the case to the Minister, and shall inform the applicant that the case has been so referred.")
The noble Lord said: I should explain at the outset that, although this Amendment makes use of the expression "a special grant", I am not referring
292
to the special grant which is mentioned in Clause 1 of this Bill, "a special grant" in respect of houses in multiple occupation. The sort of special grant I have in mind for the purpose of this Amendment is the one mentioned in Ministry of Housing Circular No. 41 of 1965, in paragraph 6. The first sentence of that paragraph explains the sort of matter that I am seeking to discuss. It says:
"The Minister is also prepared to consider applications for the payment of a grant higher than the normal maximum where there is a need to replace existing floors of rammed earth, bricks, or stone flags by new floors in order to overcome rising dampness."
That is the kind of special grant that I have in mind. It seems to me that at present there are too many discretions standing between the Minister and the applicants, and I do not believe that enough applications for special grants of this kind are getting through to the Minister. I have an experience of my own, which I do not propose to enlarge upon, which seems to me to illustrate that this is a fair point to make.
The first discretion, of course, is the discretion of the local authority whether to make a discretionary grant at all. At the other end of the scale, if an application to the Minister for a special grant is made, there is obviously the discretion of the Minister whether he will, or will not, make a special grant. Obviously there is no compulsion on the Minister to make a special grant—there cannot be. But in the middle, between the exercise of these two discretions, is there a discretion on the part of the local authority whether or not to apply to the Minister for this special grant, even in cases where the local authority have every reason to suppose that the Minister might be willing to make a special grant?
In the particular case I have in mind—it is a case of my own—I was put under a condition in a certain case to make certain floors damp-proof. I did not object to this at all. It was a very expensive operation but it was very necessary and a proper operation, and I did it. When I asked the local authority, "Will you now please apply to the Minister for the special grant referred to in paragraph 6 of the circular?" rather to my surprise the answer was, "No, we are not making an application". I am not trying to air a private grievance, but it seems to me wrong, where a local authority has, to

293
begin with, imposed a particular condition which may attract a special grant from the Minister, that the local authority should be allowed to take upon itself not to forward an application to the Minister for this special grant. I should have thought that it made for great unfairness as between one applicant and another, people living in different parts of the country, if the practice in certain cases was that some local authorities never applied to the Minister for a special grant of this kind, and other local authorities always did.
I should like to see uniformity throughout the country in these matters, and the purpose of this Amendment, which I hope is considered by your Lordships to be pretty harmless, is merely to ensure that where the local authority have reason to suppose that the Minister might be interested in entertaining (to use that comic word again) an application for a special grant for a particular purpose, then they shall forward the application to the Minister and they shall inform the applicant that they have referred the case to the Minister.
The only thing I wish to add is that I do not understand how it is that members of the public are supposed to know about these special grants which are mentioned in Ministry circulars. Ministry circulars, as we know, are privately circulated to the housing authorities; they are not made available to members of the public. There is a leaflet which is made available to members of the public, of which I have the latest copy in my hand. It is called, Money to Modernise your home. It is prepared by the Ministry of Housing in collaboration with the Central Office of Information. I have searched this pamphlet, which has several pages, to find any reference to this particular special grant—which I should think would apply in a good many cases—for making floors damp proof, and I cannot find any reference to this, so I do not know how members of the public are supposed to learn about these special grants. If it were made obligatory upon local authorities to apply to the Minister for these grants in appropriate cases, and to tell the applicant that the grant had been applied for, then people would learn about it and some of them would get a pleasant surprise. I believe that the
294
housing improvement scheme would get a fillip from this sort of thing because people would think it was being operated rather more generously than they had hitherto supposed. I am sorry to have spoken rather at length about this. I hope this Amendment will be considered at least harmless, and possibly useful. I beg to move.
Lord KENNET: The noble Lord states the matter accurately. There was a circular in which the Minister told housing authorities that he would entertain applications from them for permission to go above the existing links, especially with regard to replacing existing floors of rammed earth, bricks, or stone flags by new floors in order to overcome rising dampness. I think the noble Lord's intense interest in this particular sort of case has led him to draft something which is wider than he intends, and which is in any case unnecessary, because under the new grant system there is a maximum of £1, 000, instead of i.400, for discretionary grants; it has gone up two and a half times. We think there will be plenty of head-room for this sort of work without going to any special level for it.
If, on the other hand, one were to concede the right, as I think the coble Lord's Amendment would concede it, to every householder who is improving his house to demand that the local authority forward to the Minister any old request for a special grant—which could be for something quite fanciful of his own—I think this would deprive our local government system of a lot of its point. We have local councils to settle matters of this kind in accordance with their own wisdom, and if they simply do not think it is worth paying a special grant because of the circumstances either of the house or of the owner, then one cannot really require them to seek the Minister's decision on every case when an owner wants it.
I should add that the Amendment as drafted by Lord Airedale would appear to refer particularly to a kind of special grant which is already in the Bill and which is concerned particularly with the alleviation of conditions where there is multiple occupation. This, too, is a case where there might be a need for special grant. But my main point in inviting

295
the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment is that to put it in, to give anybody direct access to Ministerial decision on such small points, would rather drive a coach and horses through the devolution of authority which we seek to achieve in the modern age.
Lord AIREDALE: I am obliged to the Minister for his reply. I am sorry he thought that anything in my Amendment would entitle an applicant to have (I think these were his words)"any old fanciful application" sent to the Ministry as of right. That certainly was not my intention. What I say in the Amendment is:
"Where … it appears to the local authority that the Minister may be willing to make a special grant … "
If it were any old fanciful notion in the mind of the applicant, those words would not be fulfilled and the local authority would not therefore be required to forward the application and waste the Minister's time. So I did not think I was going to be let in for that sort of criticism. However, I do not think this is a matter of earth-shaking importance. I have aired it, and it may have done a little good. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord KENNET: Before the Question is put, may I say this? I do not want to be harsh to the noble Lord, but, of course, if the local authority does not itself think that a special grant ought to be made it is unlikely that the Minister will think that it ought to be made.
Lord AIREDALE: All I can say about that is that if the local authority has said, "You must, as a condition of getting any grant at all, replace flagstone floors with new damp-proof floors", and if the Minister has said in a circular that this very operation is a matter in respect of which he will entertain special grants, then I should have thought the local authority was on a very bad wicket indeed if they did not forward such an application to the Minister—and that is what I am complaining about. I am very tempted now not to withdraw this Amendment, because it looks rather as though the Minister has not cottoned on to what I was talking about from the beginning. I shall ask leave to withdraw it, but in view of the very last observa-
296
tions of the Minister, which I must say I thought were very unfortunate indeed, I shall consider putting down a similar Amendment on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Standing amenities]:
4.14 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 32, leave out from ("Minister") to ("and") in line 33, and insert ("shall review annually the amounts specified in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act and may by order vary the provisions of that Schedule").
The noble Lord said: The point of this Amendment is to ensure annual review of the amounts of the standard grants which are set out on page 51 of the Bill. The concept of standard grants was first introduced in a Bill of mine in 1959, and I think that, broadly speaking, it may be said to have been successful. We now have a proposal here which will increase the total amount, if all the standard grants are claimed, from £155 to £200. The point I wish to put to the Government is that it would have been no bad thing if these amounts had been revised earlier, because as building costs rise it must follow that a maximum fixed in 1959 will be well out of date in 1969, and a maximum that is fixed now, in 1969, may be out of date before long.
I appreciate that in subsection (2) of this clause the Minister has power by order to vary the provisions of Schedule 1, and this presumably includes varying the amounts allowed for each of the standard amenities. My concern is that this should not be forgotten. I believe it would be valuable, and would assist the drive to get the standard amenities provided if the Minister were under an obligation to review the amounts annually. He could then use his power by order, if necessary, to vary the amounts. I beg to move.
Lord AIREDALE: I hope that this Amendment will be acceptable because it certainly could not possibly do the slightest harm.
Lord KENNET: I tend to agree that it would not do much harm, but time

297
presses, in a Parliamentary sense, and we are anxious to get this Bill. So I am anxious, for purely tactical reasons—and I think I can say this to noble Lords on all sides of the Committee, because we all support most of this Bill—to get this Bill back to the House of Commons with as few Amendments as possible.
The noble Lord said he has moved this Amendment in order to make sure that the question of reviewing the standard grants is not forgotten. He invented the standard grants in 1959, and he and his friends, when in office, had power to change it at any time they wanted. Indeed, they must have considered whether to change it during the preparation and the passage of the 1964 Housing Act. It is equally true that my right honourable friend's predecessors, and he himself, having had power to change it, have not done so. But I think that the mere fact that it was not changed, although there was full power to change it over the last ten years by Governments of both sides, coupled with the fact that the noble Lord has not alleged that it should have been changed, suggests there is not really very much point in making an Amendment to ensure that it shall be formally examined, in a statutory sense, every year. It seems to me that it would be importing a certain amount of paraphernalia into the Bill by way of statutory procedure, which might be rather complex, for no return. It can be done by any Government whenever they want and will, of course (I speak for the present Government), be done automatically and continuously. We shall keep this under review even without the Amendment.
LORD BROOKE of CUMNOR: I sought to indicate that I thought these amounts ought to have been revised earlier than this by the present Government, if not by their predecessor. I agree, of course, that a review can take place without there being statutory provision for it, and I think I am satisfied by the noble Lord's final words, because I understood that he gave me an assurance that, whether or not these words appear in the Bill, the Minister will review the amounts regularly.
LORD KENNET: Yes.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: If that is a firm assurance, then that suffices me, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord AIREDALE: I understood the Minister to say in the debate on the Amendment to this clause that he was anxious to get this Bill back to the House of Commons with as few Amendments as possible. I note that we have 59 Amendments on the Marshalled List. I have done a quick count, and I think that 32 of them are Amendments down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. So I take it that the noble Lord is hoping that at least 32 Amendments to this Bill will go back to the House of Commons.
Lord KENNET: The Committee is indebted to the noble Lord for his accuracy. I should have said "as few Amendments as possible likely to give rise to prolonged debate in the House of Commons."
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for raising this point. I cannot think that if I had decided not to withdraw Amendment No. 3 and it had been accepted by your Lordships it would have given rise to prolonged debate in the House of Commons.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Conditions for approval of application for standard grant]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: In connection with Clause 9 (7), I should like to ask whether the Minister has any present intentions of giving general or special directions as that subsection empowers him to do. The kind of point that I have in mind is the provision in subsection (1) that:
"… the dwelling is likely to remain fit for human habitation and available for use as a dwelling for a period of not less than fifteen years."
I am doubtful whether standard grants should always be withheld from houses

299
solely because the local authority cannot be absolutely assured that the house will last for 15 years. Most houses outlive their estimated life and I feel that it is an act of cruelty to the tenants of a house to say that they cannot have these standard amenities, which we have all recognised as being the minimum amenities of civilised life in a house, because it is thought that the house will last for only 13 or 14 years. Thirteen years or 14 years is an uncommonly long time to go on living without a sink or a hot water supply or an indoor W.C. or whatever is the standard amenity. I shall be greatly assisted if the noble Lord will tell me that the Minister is likely to use his powers under subsection (7) so as to give reasonable flexibility, particularly with reference to that period of 15 years.
Lord KENNET: Yes; it is a little complicated, but I will try to gather it all together. General directions under Clause 9 (7) are being included in a Circular to the authorities after the Bill is passed. They will have a wide discretion; but they may not, under these general directions, give a standard grant where the House has an estimated life of less than 10 years. The clause says 15 years; the general directions will give them flexibility down to 10 years or, where the amenity will not be for the exclusive use of the occupants of the dwelling, or where all the amenities are being provided in a house which remains unfit because of disrepair or instability. It will be open to the housing authorities to ask for special treatment in particular cases in respect of standard grant. I would remind the noble Lord and the Committee that all this does not apply to discretionary grants. We hope to get a system whereby houses likely to stand up for less than 10 years will be eligible for a sort of "mini-discretionary" grant, especially tailored to the short need.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: Am I right in thinking from the noble Lord's explanation that whereas the clause will say that if the house satisfies the other conditions and is likely to remain fit and available for use for 15 years or more, the standard grant can be granted as of right; but that under the Minister's directions, for a house likely to remain fit and available for between 10 and 15 years, then, in effect, it will be at the discretion
300
of the local authority whether it will make a standard grant?
Lord KENNET: Yes that is right.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 12 agreed to.
4.26 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 12 insert the following new clause:
Condition as to occupation of dwellings
".—(1) Where an improvement grant or a standard grant is made with respect to any dwelling, then during the period of three years beginning with the completion of the works towards the cost of which the grant is made, the dwelling shall be let or kept available for letting at all times during which it is not occupied—

(a) by the applicant for the grant or a member of his family, or

(b) if the dwelling or an interest in it has since before the application for the grant been vested in the personal representatives of a deceased person, or in trustees, by a person who on the death, or under the trust, has become interested in the dwelling or interest or the proceeds of sale thereof, or by a member of the family of such a person, or

(c) by a person who on the death of the applicant has (whether or not in consequence of a disposition by will) become beneficially entitled to, or to an interest in, the interest of the applicant in the dwelling or the proceeds of sale thereof, or by a member of the family of such a person, or

(d) by a member of the agricultural population (within the meaning of section 114 of the Act of 1957) in pursuance of a contract of service.

(2) The owner of the dwelling shall, on being required to do so by the local authority, certify that the provisions of subsection (1) of this section are being complied with and any tenant of the dwelling shall, on being required in writing by the owner, furnish to him such information as he may reasonably require for the purpose of enabling him to comply with the provisions of this subsection.
(3) In relation to a residence house of a see or ecclesiastical benefice subsection (1) of this section shall have effect as if paragraphs (a) and (c) were omitted and the subsection shall not apply at any time at which, during the tenure of the see or benefice by the bishop or incumbent, it is occupied by him.
(4) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to a dwelling held upon trust for any charitable purpose, so long as it is occupied or kept available for occupation for that purpose.
(5) The requirement with respect to a dwelling to observe the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall be

301
registered in the register of local land charges by the proper officer of the local authority in the manner prescribed by rules under section 15 (6) of the Land Charges Act 1925."
The noble Lord said: I hope it will be for the convenience of the Committee if with this Amendment we discuss Nos. 5, 6 and 7; because these are a block of clauses which I think will not be unfamiliar to noble Lords who have studied the recent Housing Acts. These are the sections contained in the Housing Acts which imposed conditions designed to secure that where a house improvement or a house conversion scheme is grant-aided out of public funds the house or dwelling which is provided shall be available to be used as a dwelling for somebody to live in during these hard times of house shortages when there are all too few houses in the country to be used as dwellings by people who want somewhere to live. There is a further and important provision and it is contained in the new clause (Amendment 5 on the Marshalled List). This clause contains the enforcement conditions which provide that if the person who accepts a grant does not make the premises available to be used as a dwelling, then the grant shall be recoverable, with interest, by the local housing authority.
These provisions, or provisions very like them, first appeared in the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958 and those provisions have been repeated, I think I am right in saying, in the subsequent Housing Acts. Moreover, they were included in this Bill when it was presented to Parliament. The clauses which I am now moving to reinsert in the Bill were Clauses 13, 14, 15 and 16 of this Bill when it was first introduced to Parliament by the Ministry of Housing. There was a very exhaustive Standing Committee stage on this Bill in the House of Commons and those four, I submit, very important clauses survived the exhaustive examination in the Standing Committee. It was not until the Report stage in another place that these four clauses were struck out of the Bill. What I want to know is why, and was it wise?
All over the country there are houses, large and small, surrounded by outbuildings of various kinds: stable buildings, barns, store buildings and so on. Many of these outbuildings, particularly the stone-built ones, could, at a price, be
302
converted into separate dwelling:: and would make very satisfactory dwellings for people to live in. I do not suppose that in a great many cases they would be regarded as satisfactory dwellings to be built for letting, because most of them are too close to the main house, or the only access to them probably is from the garden or something of that kind, and the occupier of the main house would say to himself, "This outbuilding would make a first-class guest house for my weekend guests and for my children and grandchildren on holidays and so on, but it would not be a very satisfactory place to have to make available for letting because I should not like to have strangers living on top of me quite so closely."
Up to now conversion schemes of this sort have not been eligible for grant in cases in which the premises wore to be used as guest houses, because of these four clauses which have been in the Housing Act up to now, and which I now seek to reinsert into this Bill. But now we have a rather different situation developing. We have a maximum conversion amount, not of £400 but of £1, 000, and I think there must be a good many people who might have said up to now, "Well, £400 will not get us very far towards a very expensive conversion scheme to make a guest house in the garden, but £1, 000 really will make a difference". They may say, "If we can get the first £1, 000, let us go ahead and build a guest house in the garden". It will be all right for them now. Parliament has unquestionably given its blessing to spending public money on this sort of thing because, although when the latest Housing Act was first introduced into Parliament the same old sections were there to prevent guest houses and such-like from being grant-aided, those clauses were specifically struck out of the Bill by Parliament, which appears to indicate that, so far as Parliament is concerned, £1, 000 a time for a guest house in the garden is perfectly all right".
My submission to the Committee is that it is not perfectly all right, and that there is not unlimited public money to spend upon housing. We heard an exchange about that between the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the Minister at the very beginning of this Committee stage. What public money

303
is available for housing ought, in my submission, to be used to provide houses for people to live in, and not to provide guest houses in people's gardens. It is because I fear that there will be an upsurge of demand for guest houses in gardens, financed as to the first £1, 000 from public funds, that I am suggesting that it was very unwise not to keep these four clauses in the Bill so as to make quite sure that all the public money designed for housing is used to provide houses for people to live in.
I believe that great pressure is going to be brought upon local authorities to make grants at their discretion—although that will not apply in every case. There are some local housing authorities, I believe, which have never given anybody a discretionary grant. I do not suppose that I could get the Minister to say so, but I believe that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government have a "black list" of local authorities which have never given anybody a discretionary grant; and certainly those local authorities are not going to give discretionary grants to the wealthy to build guest houses in gardens. But I believe that a great many authorities will in fact make grants; and I believe that pressure may be brought upon them.
Let me repeat figures with which I wearied your Lordships on Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, listened very intently to my figures and was not quite happy about them; but I still think that they are right. I am, however, not infallible over figures, and if I am wrong I shall be glad to be put right. The way I put it was this. The maximum grant is £1, 000; it is subsidised by direct subsidy from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government as to 75 per cent., so the first £750 comes from the Minister. Then there is the general rate support grant which works out, I think, at about 10 per cent. That gives an 85 per cent. subsidy from the central Government, leaving 15 per cent. of the grant to be provided by the ratepayers of the local authority.
Then you have to consider that, before anybody gets a £1, 000 grant, he has to put at least £1, 000 of his own money into the scheme, so when you are considering the proportion of the cost of the house
304
that is borne by the local authority, you find that, because of the 50 per cent. which the owner has to produce himself, the 15 per cent. immediately comes down to 7½ per cent. It would be a very clever owner who contrived that his share of the cost should be exactly £1, 000 and no more. In almost every case, the chances are that the owner's proportion of the cost is going to be £1, 500, or £2, 000, or perhaps more; so the local authority's theoretical maximum of 7½ per cent. contribution to the cost of the house comes down to a figure at which one can only guess, but which is probably 5 per cent., 4 per cent. or 3 per cent. of the total cost of the house.
Having produced 3 per cent., 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. of the cost (the Minister is smiling, so I think I have got my sum right; but we shall see) the local authority will then proceed to collect rates on this new house, and it will be getting a pretty good bargain. I can quite imagine local councillors saying "It seems a bit odd to give a grant to somebody to make a guest house for himself in his garden, but it is a pretty good bargain for us as the local authority; and if we do not make the grant—and Parliament appears to have given their blessing to it—the ratepayers and the electors are not going to be very pleased with us, because we shall be throwing away quite a good bargain for ourselves."
I regard this as a whole lot of nonsense. We are getting right away from the principle which ought to obtain in this country in these days: that if public money is going into housing, it ought to go into housing for people to live in and not be spent on grants to wealthy people who want to put a guest house in the garden. I cannot see that these clauses contain anything which anybody who plays fair with his local authority need fear, because although there is a provision that if he does not comply with the conditions he may be required to repay the grant which he has received, it is not mandatory; it is only permissive. The words in subsection (1) of the clause which appears as Amendment No. 5 on the Marshalled List include:
"… the grant shall, on being demanded by the local authority, become payable to them by the owner of the dwelling … "
It does not say that a local authority must demand repayment; merely that

305
if it does the owner has got to repay the money.
I believe that any reasonable local authority, if it thought somebody had been fair and open and reasonable, would not demand the repayment of a grant. Suppose somebody had genuinely intended to re-build an outbuilding near his house, and this was to be made available as a dwelling for a tenant; and then, suddenly and unexpectedly, he had to leave the district to take up a new job, or something like that. If he went to the local authority and said, "I am in a difficulty. I cannot comply with the condition that the dwelling will be available for a tenant because I have to sell it and leave the district", and if the local authority felt that he had played fair and had not concealed anything, I do not believe that the local authority would demand the repayment of the grant. It is only people who do not play fair with local authorities who I believe fall foul of this provision and very properly have then to repay the grant. I am sorry to have spoken for so long, but I feel very strongly that in these days public money for housing must go into housing for people to live in and not guest houses in people's gardens. That is why I have moved this Amendment. I am not against people having guest houses in the garden; it is a very good thing that they should. All I say is that they should pay for them. I beg to move.
Lord HENLEY: I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend who has argued this Amendment so exhaustively, so cogently and indeed with a certain logic, but I hope the Government will resist this. I think in taking out those three clauses they gave a very valuable concession indeed and we should be most grateful for it and not seek to have it removed. The object of this Bill is to arrest the decay of our existing old houses. Earlier Bills failed to do this and the Government have given us these new inducements (and very good inducements they are) in order to try and arrest a state of affairs in which most of our old houses were going downhill very rapidly.
The noble Lord fears that we are making a concession to people who ought not to have it. There may be the odd case in which somebody does get something for nothing, as it were, but I do not think
306
it will be very much. What it will amount to is that a great many more people will take advantage of the new grants from the Government than would otherwise have taken them and, furthermore, that it will in a way promote the ownership of houses rather than the tenacy of houses, and this, again, with regard to people's homes, is I think a good thing rather than a bad one and for this reason I cannot support my noble friend.
Lord KENNET: I have very little to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has moved these reinsertions into the Bill in accordance with what I think the Committee will now recognise is a propensity to seek to divert the elephant of social advance to stamp upon a gnat of presumed injustice which has caught his attention. The old conditions which the Bill, as drafted, removed required the housing authority to take back the grant if the use of the building changed, or if the owner who received the grant moved. We are removing that requirement. I would remind the Committee as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, did, that this Bill is to do with hundreds of thousands—over a quarter of a million a year—of improvements in the "twilight" areas of our great cities. It is not to do with guest houses in the garden Its application to guest houses in the garden is something which should be left to the local authorities, particularly the rural ones. The Government are content so to leave it. The noble Lord should not refer to building a guest house in the garden; that would not attract an improvement grant, which would be given only for the conversion or improvement of an existing building.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clauses 13 to 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Improvement contributions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord KENNET: I should like to take this opportunity of making an announcement about the level of cost acceptable for grant in London. Discussions have been taking place on levels of assistance for conversions and improvements in Greater London under this Bill. These

307
have been carried out by a small subcommittee consisting of officials from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and local authority officers from the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs Association. This is the sub-committee of the Ministers Standing Working Party on London Housing.
Agreement has been reached by the sub-committee that the maximum allowable costs of conversions and improvements by the local authorities in Greater London and by housing associations working under arrangements with them could go up, in certain cases, to about double the amounts provided for in the Bill. The report of the sub-committee has now been accepted by the main Working Party. It is proposed that in due course the Minister will notify the various local authorities concerned that he has made the appropriate determinations under Clauses 18 (3) and 21 (5) of the Bill in respect of cases in certain classes within Greater London.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord, as we all should be, for making that announcement. If I heard him aright he said that there had been agreement reached in the sub-committee of the Working Party covering the various local authorities concerned in Greater London. That seems very satisfactory news. I am glad that it has been possible on these new arrangements for Greater London, which, as we probably all would accept, is a special case in matters of this sort. I take it that there is no need to amend the Bill because the necessary adjustments can be made by the Minister using his powers to specify or prescribe or do something like that.
Lord KENNET: The noble Lord is quite right. There is no need to amend the Bill. I am grateful to him for his kind remarks. The difficulties in which the London housing authorities might have found themselves have been exercising everybody concerned for some time, and I am sure that all sides of the House will be glad that so generous and realistic a solution has been reached.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Contributions for dwellings provided or improved by housing associations under arrangements with local authorities]:
On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has just made an announcement about what the Minister may specify under Clause 21. I would accordingly ask him whether the Minister has in mind to specify anything special or novel under subsection (3) of Clause 21. I am not asking that question in the expectation that he has a new major announcement to make here, but where we are passing legislation which includes such words as
"as may for the time being be specified for the purposes of this section by the Minister"
it is of value to know whether any departure of policy by way of specification is contemplated.
Lord KENNET: The answer to the noble Lord's inquiry is really the same as that which I returned to him about Clause 3, except that where the life of the property is estimated to be less than ten years the Minister's approval ought to be sought, and housing associations ought not as a general rule to be dealing in short-life properties, anyhow.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Interpretation]:
4.50 p.m.
Lord ANNAN Lord ANNAN moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 15, line 11, at end insert (""dwelling" or "dwellings" shall include residences for students;").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move the two Amendments standing in my name and also, if the Committee will permit, the Amendment under Schedule 8. I will not repeat the speech which I made on the Second Reading of this Bill which drew attention to the rising number of students who will be requiring dwellings and residence during the next decade, a rising number which includes not merely university students but also students of the colleges of further education.
The point which I am trying to establish through this Amendment is whether student housing associations are or are not eligible under the provisions of the existing Housing Acts and of this Bill. The fact is that, of 30 student housing associations, none has so far received the authorised arrangements under Section 120 (1) of the Housing Act 1957. I have been trying to discover why this may be so. In pursuit of that object, I consulted the Report of the Committee stage of this Bill in another place and there I found the Minister being pressed on this very point. At 12.30, he was recorded as saying:
"I must emphasise that students are not excluded from the definitions in the two Acts to which my honourable friend referred."
A quarter of an hour earlier, however, he was recorded as saying:
"The normal authorised arrangements that have been discussed are meant to cover housing for the sort of people whom the authority would otherwise expect to accommodate in its own council housing. I do not think that one could say that this applies to students' hostels, where the usual right of nomination by the local authority would not be appropriate."
I think that this shows that there may be some confusion in minds both at the Ministry and in local authorities as to whether student housing associations are or are not eligible. In that respect I should like to draw attention to the fact that later I shall be referring to the distinction made between hostels and dwellings.
In his reply to my speech on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was good enough to make two points. He first of all said that the Amendment I intended to put before the House was unnecessary, because it was a declaratory Amendment and there was no more need to insert in the Bill a reference to student housing associations than there would be to insert a reference to housing associations for those with red hair. However, I think there is this distinction, that students are a particular body in the community who have certain recognised and favourable rights granted to them by society as a whole. It is for these reasons that they have formed themselves into housing associations.
The second thing that the noble Lord said was that he hoped I would agree that when facilities of the kind we are
310
discussing were made available, students should have a lower priority than some other classes in the community, such as mothers with children. On that I entirely agree. I would not for one moment try to urge that lusty young bachelors should have any priority over unmarried mothers or even over discharged prisoners both of which classes are specifically qualified for help. But equally I would urge that, though they do not in any way claim some special privilege, student housing associations should have equal treatment with other housing associations.
I would make this point to the noble Lord. It is easy for people to picture all students as lusty young bachelors, but there are a great many married students, and married students with children, and it is for these that the student housing associations are particularly interested in getting property so that they can be properly housed. I would also re terate the point that, by helping student associations, we should be helping the very class of people whom I know the noble Lord has so much in mind, those people who are searching for lower income accommodation of one kind or another. If we permit student housing associations to build their own accommodation, we are relieving the pressure on the lower income accommodation which is so vitally necessary for those classes of the community which are under-privileged.
Here I would discuss the distinction between hostels and dwellings. Only too frequently, when local authorities are faced with requests from student housing associations for help under the Housing Acts, they reply that the form of accommodation which the association are putting forward is a hostel. In some cases that may be so, but a great many of the applications have been for property which would qualify as dwellings—that is to say, with their own separate catering arrangements.
I do not want to appear here as the spokesman for a pressure group. It may be that one or two of my noble friends from universities may support me on this, but it is not the intention in this Amendment to claim any special privilege for the student housing associations. I think that in this matter there is a principle of Government. If the associations are not eligible under the Acts, then let us say so perfectly frankly and we know where

311
we stand. If they are, let that be said with equal clarity and let it also be said by a local authority, when an application is made, that although the association is eligible under the Acts, there are not enough funds to meet their request because other housing associations have been given priority. There we have clear and, I should say, good Government.
What I think is bad Government is to leave a matter like this so vague that the Acts appear to confer a right of eligibility on student housing associations, yet when they make application under the Acts local authorities deny that that right exists by claiming that they do not satisfy the criteria. I think that this is exactly the kind of thing which leads to cynicism, not only among students but also among many classes of the community when they are met with objections of this kind. I think that we should always accept that even if a right exists under an Act of Parliament, the Government are not always able to fulfil that right for lack of public funds.
This is a probing Amendment, and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, if he would be good enough to give me answers on two points. Could he possibly say whether student housing associations are or are not eligible under this Bill and under the existing Acts of 1957, 1964 and 1967? Second, would he be willing to go into the larger matter of student accommodation in general and advise his right honourable friend to set up a Working Party representing the Ministry of Housing, the Department of Education and Science, the University Grants Committee, the local authorities and the student housing associations, to see whether they cannot devise means of getting lower cost accommodation for students than that which is at present being provided—or perhaps I should say not being provided—by the University Grants Committee in the financial stringency under which that body is at present operating—accommodation which would be the kind of accommodation which the student housing association want and under the provisions of the Act?
May I make one last point? Under the Act it is, of course, possible to apply not merely for a preferential rate of interest but also for a loan for the full cost of the dwellings. My own belief is
312
that student housing associations would be content merely with the lower rate of interest and it would be up to them to go into the market—to the institutions, to the insurance companies and the building societies—to obtain the loan capital for their dwellings. This I believe they would be ready to do. I think their universities, too, would put up the necessary guarantee or collateral to enable that to be done. But it could not be done unless there were a preferential rate of interest. I beg to move.
5.2 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I do not wish to stand between the noble Lord and your Lordships' Committee. It was a great disappointment to me that I was prevented from being present on the day of the Second Reading of the Bill, but I read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and that has prompted me to take an interest in his Amendments today. I greatly hope that the Government will be able to give a constructive answer. There are certain features of the situation which it ought to be possible to bring together. First of all, accommodation for students is already a serious problem and is going to become more and more acute. Secondly, there are numbers of students who are anxious to do something about this themselves. That is a feature which Governments should encourage. There is plenty of criticism of students. Criticism of certain students may be deserved, but it should not be applied to the vast number of students who are interested in self-help—and here are students showing themselves keen to provide self-help in the field of accommodation. Thirdly, we know that in the Scandinavian countries and in Canada a great deal has been achieved by student housing associations. I cannot say whether all the claims made for them are true and accurate, but certainly on the face of things it looks as though student housing associations, in collaboration with the public authorities, were making a big contribution towards student accommodation. It seems to me that we should all be trying to bring these three together.
Lord Annan has said, as has been confirmed to me by students who are interested in these matters, that there is a feeling of not knowing where to

313
turn. The Government and the Committee in another place said that whether a student housing association qualified as a housing association or not would depend on its character; and I have no doubt that is true. Naturally those who are concerned with these housing associations want a little more information. It appears that their experience has been that on approaching a local authority they are either told that they are talking about hostels and not housing accommodation, which is not the case, or that the local authority has not the slightest interest in a housing association like theirs and cannot help. It seems to me that your Lordships' House should try to help these people who are seeking to help themselves. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will give all the assistance he can so far as the interpretation of this Bill is concerned, but I am anxious most of all about the next step.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, suggested a working party. I confess I am sometimes suspicious of working parties, which spend a lot of time working but may not produce expeditious results. At the least, I should hope that the Government would agree that there might be an informal discussion at the Ministry one day, to which some of your Lordships who are specially interested could come along and meet the Minister or one of his colleagues. Leaders of the student housing associations could come and we could talk the matter out under what I might call Parliamentary auspices, because Members of your Lordships' House would be there. In the light of that, it might be possible to see the best course to follow. There are a number of points which could probably be cleared up more rapidly than by referring the whole matter to a working party which might bring matters to a halt until it produced a final and comprehensive report. Above all, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, when he comes to reply, after the several noble Lords who wish to contribute to this discussion, will be able to reply in the same constructive spirit.
Lord LLOYD of HAMPSTEAD: I should like to say a word in support of my noble friend, Lord Annan, if I may so describe him in a non-technical sense. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, spoke on the Second Reading with great
314
eloquence about the actual need of students in this matter, and it is not necessary to add anything to that, but I wish to say a word about the nature of the problem. It is a curious problem which everybody recognises and unfortunately nobody wishes to do anything about. Despite that fact, it is, I think, universally recognised that student housing does contribute considerable relief to the strains on housing in relevant areas, particularly in regard to low rent accommodation.
I have looked at the definitions of "housing association" and "housing society" in the relevant Acts and it seems to me, with all deference, that it is reasonably clear as a matter of legal construction that a student housing association does come within the terms of those definitions. The difficulty is that the local authorities and the Housing Corporation have powers under their respective Acts. They have not got duties, and we all know the difference between a power and a duty. If they are exercising a power they are entitled to apply their own criteria to decide in what way they will exercise that power. They have decided upon comparatively narrow criteria in this matter. They have regard especially to people who would otherwise qualify for council housing. That is all very well for criteria in broad terms, but it does not deal with special groups, and it is special groups to which students as a body belong.
The object of these Amendment.';, as in the case of the previous Amendments moved in another place, is simply this: to try to serve notice upon local authorities that under the existing legislation they have got these powers, because they appear to have set their faces against exercising their powers under the various Statutes in relation to this matter. I have studied the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on Second Reading in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and also the speech of the Minister in another place, and, as I see it, the arguments that are put against Amendments of this kind are threefold.
First, it is said that these Amendments are not needed because, in any case. under the existing law students can qualify on other grounds. I have tried to understand what this means, and it seems to me, with all respect, to make total nonsense of what is now proposed. It seems to mean

315
that if students during the course of their education choose to marry, have families and settle down in permanent residences, they will have qualified in the ordinary way for housing under these various grants and no problem will arise; or possibly they may fall into the "relief for the aged group" by converting themselves in some way into old-age pensioners. That has no relevance to the problem of students. In the case of students, there is a turnover every three years or so, and one wants to have accommodation available for students as they move into the higher education sector. In my view, there is nothing in that argument.
Then it is said—and even though it is said in a faintly sympathetic tone, nevertheless, with respect, it seems to me to be said somewhat facetiously—that to put in a provision such as in now suggested is equivalent to carrying into law that anyone can qualify—even because, for instance, he has red hair; and it is said that it would make nonsense of legislation to provide for special cases of this kind. The answer to that, surely, is that if experience shows that under statutory powers certain groups of people are being arbitrarily excluded (and there seems to be some evidence that this is so in the case of students), then it may be necessary to modify the legislation, or give some guidance to show that this arbitrary approach should not be taken up: otherwise we have a class excluded ab initio, notwithstanding that they come within the statutory grounds. If we had a more developed system of administrative law than that which, unfortunately, we possess, there is good ground for thinking that if a class of persons were arbitrarily excluded from a statutory power in this way an administrative tribunal would give relief. But we do not possess administrative machinery to deal with it in that way.
Thirdly, it is said that, if we are considering priorities, we must have regard first to the aged, to those who have large families, and people of that sort: that they are to be preferred to the strong-armed, youthful body of students. Surely the answer to that is: Yes, of course, where there is a question of absolute priorities being determined. But that, in my view, totally ignores the fact that giving assistance to student housing
316
associations is going to relieve the problem of housing in other ways, and particularly in regard to that sector of housing for which relief is most needed; that is to say, low-rent accommodation.
I suggest that none of these three arguments is decisive, or indeed even plausible, as an answer to Amendments of the kind that are being suggested. I understand that my noble friend Lord Annan is putting his Amendments forward now only as probing Amendments; he is anxious to have a clear answer from the Minister about this issue, and he has put forward the notion of a Working Party. I feel considerable sympathy towards his suggestion of a Working Party, provided that it does not become a mere expedient for delaying tackling the problem: because, basically, I should have thought that the nature of the problem is fairly well understood.
What is really required is to find a speedy remedy to the problem, because, as my noble friend Lord Annan pointed out, it is becoming increasingly acute, with the great increase in student numbers, and with these student numbers pressing upon that very sector of housing which is most needed by people of small means, who are not in a position to provide housing for themselves. For these reasons, I warmly support my noble friend Lord Annan, and I hope that something practical will emerge from my noble friend Lord Kennet in relation to this pressing problem.
Lord LEATHERLAND: Much of the discussion on this subject has ranged around the desirability or otherwise of having a declaratory Clause in the Bill suggesting that this, that and the other special group of people should be mentioned as being eligible for assistance under this measure. My noble friend Lord Kennet, in the Second Reading debate, suggested that there was hardly any more need for specifying students as one of the groups than there would be for specifying people with red hair. Both my noble friends Lord Annan and Lord Lloyd of Hampstead have mentioned red-haired people this afternoon, so, as one of the few of your Lordships who in days long gone by had a wonderful mop of red hair, I crave your indulgence while I say a few words on this subject.

317
In the Second Reading debate I followed my noble friend Lord Annan, and I said it was most likely that if he brought forward Amendments on Committee stage I should give them my support; and this I warmly do. It so happens that the university of which I am treasurer (it is an unpaid office, by the way, and a very arduous one) does not need at this moment to avail itself of any house-building help that might come from the operation of a housing society. But we have an increasing number of graduate students who perhaps in due course will graduate into matrimony, and our need in the years to come may be greater than it is to-day. We have to bear in mind that the University Grants Committee is very much averse to making grants of public money to universities for the purpose of providing student accommodation. We have to bear in mind, also, that in many of the university centres private lodgings are already fairly well occupied, and that lodgings of the requisite character are difficult to obtain.
The Minister may say again, as he said on Second Reading, that it is not necessary to have a declaratory clause specifying that students and various other special groups of people (and I include the redheads among the special people) should be mentioned. But the local authorities do not know this. The local authorities do not know that the existing legislation will permit them to make use of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, in order to provide special accommodation for students.
If my noble friend Lord Kennet is not in favour of setting up this Working Party, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Annan, and is quite certain that the existing law, as amended by the present Bill, is sufficient to cover the case of students wanting houses built through housing societies, would he and his right honourable friend consider issuing a directive to all local authorities, saying to them, in plain, simple terms, that they are entitled to use the machinery of housing societies to provide accommodation for students? In order still further to dispel any doubt, I suggest that the circular might explain to the local authorities which particular kind of housing associations, and which particular kind of accommodation—houses, hostels or what-
318
ever it may be—would be eligible for grants and low-interest concessions under this scheme; and also say to local authorities what assistance from Central Government funds will be available. If this were done, I think that much of the doubt which at present surrounds this question could be dispelled. As has been said by other speakers, some local authorities are definitely against participating in any scheme of this kind; and there are others who say that they do not think this applies to them, and they give a negative reply.
This is a very serious question which is going to become more serious with every year that passes. In five or ten years' time we shall probably have 100, 000 more students in the country than we have to-day. Many of them to-day, in the existing accommodation, are not properly accommodated. I hope first, that my noble friend will be able to say unequivocally that the existing legislation is sufficient to cater for the problem, and, secondly, that he will send a directive to the local authorities clearly setting out the position and acquainting them with the opportunities of which they car take advantage.
5.21 p.m.
Lord BOWDEN: I hope the Minister will be able to be sympathetic on this matter. If he could give a firm directive, or prepare a circular, as other noble Lords have suggested, it would transform the whole nature of the problem which confronts many universities to-day. I agree with most of what has been said, and I do not wish to repeat it. I should like to make one observation which I think will explain why it is so necessary that we do something. The fact is that the University Grants Committee, in assessing the grants that should be given to students, assumes that the accommodation they have, the halls of residence in which they live, have already been paid for by capital grants long since written off. In other words, the maintenance grant which a student gets is adequate to pay for a room in a hall which the university owns, and for the meals that he eats, but it is not adequate to pay for accommodation if it has to carry a significant capital charge.
We have tried in Manchester many times, but we always discover that if we buy an old building and adapt it, as

319
the Bill suggests we should, and as the students want us to do, the students cannot afford to pay a rent which permits us to recover the capital we have to invest. We are totally inhibited from making use of a very great deal of property which exists, and could be easily adapted for the purpose, as we have to pay conventional bank rate for the money we borrow; and this is beyond the power of the student's purse, because the Government's policy is based on the assumption that grants are calculated for halls of residence which have already been paid for. This is a most curious administrative anomaly. Nevertheless, it has a very profound effect on the student body; and were we able to use student housing associations, we could transform the nature of student life in Manchester.
We have been struggling with this problem for years, and I spent a very great deal of time this past year in negotiations to try to discover whether or not we can get these concessions which have been referred to. It was the view of the Manchester Corporation that the Act would not make it possible. It may well be that it does, but there is no doubt at all that many local authorities have so construed the Act as to convince themselves that it does not.
Lord KENNET: Which Act?
Lord BOWDEN: The one about borrowing at special rates for student housing associations. I am afraid that I cannot cite, as my noble friend Lord Annan has done, the particular reference. The fact is we have been unable to borrow the money, but had we done so we could have converted a dozen or more houses, and accommodated hundreds of students in a manner which they have now come to prefer to more conventional halls, of which we have a few. It is a simple matter of finance. May I repeat it? The grants the students get from the Government are not adequate to pay for accommodation which carries any significant capital charge based on borrowing money at bank rate. It has become true, I think, to say that research students, particularly married ones, and more particularly married ones with children, are among the most underprivileged section of the entire working population to-day.
320
I hope that the Minister will see his way to give a directive forthwith. It would have immediate effect, and would be most enthusiastically received by the whole university world. At the very least, I hope that we may have a formal inquiry into the nature of a problem which is bad now and likely to get dramatically worse. The forecasts are that by 1980 the student body will be three times as big as it is to-day. Many of the students will be in universities; many more of them will be in further education, and the problem which besets people trying to organise polytechnics, colleges of music, colleges of art, and the rest of the education machine, is just as serious as it is for the universities. The competition for old fashioned "digs" is acute between students of all these components of the system. I hope the Minister will see his way either to make a declaratory statement, as has been suggested, or, alternatively, to look into the matter in great detail, and with a sense of urgency, in order to assuage what I can assure your Lordships is a very grave sense of disquiet, uneasiness and frustration in the universities, and among the student bodies, which are desperately trying to help themselves, and are unable to do so under the present system.
Lord ROYLE: I shall say only one or two words, and the reason for that will be apparent in a few minutes. I have never had any opportunity of a university education. I have no association with universities in any way, but because I happen to be a resident of Brighton I know of the problems which exist with regard to the Sussex University. University students are accommodated in all kinds of accommodation—some of it not very desirable—in many parts of the town of Brighton. This has aroused my interest constantly. The great problem there is that much of this accommodation is needed in the holiday season. As a result, in the period before the University rises for the summer vacation great problems exist because the owners of boarding houses, and the like, are desirous of getting a better return from their accommodation. Therefore, I want to support what has already been said.

321
I am impressed by something that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I like his idea of a talk, Parliamentary-based, with the Minister and interested people, and I agree that is better than a Working Party. The noble Lord has an Amendment down relative to the Government's giving guarantees to housing associations for building societies. I think this is very important indeed, and I speak as a director of a building society. I should have hoped that if such a meeting took place leading people in the building society movement might be invited to take part. I know that building societies, in the main, have to consider housing in a normal way, but there is a great demand and need here.
I am quite sure I can speak for very many people in that movement when I say that if that kind of guarantee could be given by the Government it would be a greater incentive to building societies to come along: md make grants to university students' housing associations, among others. I would say to my noble friend Lord Kennet that these are the things that might be considered as a whole, along with the Amendments which are now before the Committee, which have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Annan.
Viscount GAGE: I trust it is in order for somebody on this side of the House to take part in this debate. I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Annan, not that I think it will do very much good. My qualification to speak arises simply from the fact that I was for many years President of the National Federation of Housing Associations, to which these student housing associations, if they are formed, are affiliated. In the past, we have had successful schemes of this sort still affiliated to the Association. There has been a very great change in the last few years, not unassociated with the matter we know about well in local government; namely, the "squeeze". My information is not exactly as has been retold by Lord Annan or Lord Leatherland. It is perfectly true that some local authorities are objecting; they do not want to give away any part of their ration or their quota. Some, no doubt, do not know about it, and would profit by a
322
circular of some kind, which has been asked for.
I am informed that there have recently been a number of cases where local authorities have been found to be agreeable to sponsoring the building of student housing. My information is that if it is agreed to make a loan of this so, and consent is requested for student housing purposes, the consent has to be given by the Ministry, and it is refused on the ground that students are not families in need and it is for this purpose only that public funds can be made available. Therefore the blockage is an administrative one. I am also told that, even if consent were available, the full benefit of housing associations would not be available., so that the chances of profiting at the present moment are slight.
Unfortunately we are not only governed by what appears in an Act of Parliament. From these Acts of Parliament stem a whole series of circulars and edicts of various kinds. Therefore, although I support the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has moved this Amendment, unless we have the help of the Minister I do not think these student associations will get very far. In my view, the whole situation is most confused, and some discussion, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Brooke, in which possibly the Federation of Housing Associations could also take part, would be very useful at the present moment, and I am glad it has already had some support.
Baroness SWANBOROUGH: I support the suggestion that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I would plead that we might consider what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has suggested inasmuch as if a practical talk can take place this would be of the greatest help to the students, who want all the help that we can possibly give them. I am myself a member of three energetic housing associations and I am constantly consulted by students who do not fully understand how they can avail themselves of the help that is there to be used. I would support the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, very forcibly. I feel that if we could have such a practical meeting a great deal of useful work would result.
Lord HOLFORD: By supporting, however briefly, the second Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I realise that I am in danger of doing exactly what he said he was anxious to avoid, that is, giving the impression that this is a sort of pressure group on behalf of the educators; but I want to do so for two special reasons. One is to define the word "students" a little more clearly. For the past 22 years I have been in London teaching postgraduate students, and at present out of 180 of them 70 per cent. or more are married, and I can assure your Lordships that our productivity, humanly speaking, annually is quite considerable.
Secondly, we have students who are taking higher degrees and we have a number of visiting students from abroad, and every year we have this problem of finding houses for them for the period of three, or sometimes four, years while they are here. We do it very largely by exchange. Thirdly, we have junior members of the staff who are also students although they are teaching, in that they are perhaps taking Ph.D.s themselves on the same basis as the others. So the first point I want to make is that in fact the term "students" includes a fairly large range of families.
This brings me to my second point, which is that the criticism may be that if they are ordinary families, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said at the end of the Second Reading debate, they take their chance with other families and we do not want to make a special case of them. But they are a special case in an odd way. They are a continuing need in that, although they may only be here for two or three years, they very often hand on their problem to their successors. In other words, the house is often needed although the family changes. Therefore, it seems to me that although their demand on this kind of housing, and particularly on improved housing in towns, is normal, their qualification to meet that demand is not. I wanted to make that special point and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will take that into account when he replies.
Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE: I wish to intervene briefly in support of the proposition which has been argued so potently by my noble friend Lord Annan.
324
I think the case has been made substantially for recognising the claims of students' associations, but I should like to argue the case on political grounds as well as on economic grounds. I am much attracted to the proposition that a circular might be issued to local authorities giving them some direction on this matter, for it is obvious that there is a misunderstanding of the position so far as local authorities are concerned.
As I see it, the value of the student housing association is not only that it provides reasonable living accommodation for students, and recognition of the fact that there are many thousands of students who are living in squalor in large cities where there are universities; it relieves this problem, but it also provides the students with the opportunity of doing something for themselves. In my view, a good deal of student discontent over the past two years has been due to the fact that students feel some right to participation in their own affairs, and their own affairs are not concerned simply with educational matters but with the whole way in which they live as students in the community. I think, therefore—and this is borne out by experience of student co-operatives and the student housing associations in Europe and also in the United States of America, where students are encouraged to run their own housing associations—that to run their own student organisations concerned with supplies as well as living accommodation gives them an opportunity for exercising self-government and also teaches them the art of mutual aid and dependence on one another. So I would strongly recommend that these Amendments should find a responsive ear in the Government, for these political reasons as well as the very serious economic reasons that have been adduced in support.
5.38 p.m.
Lord KENNET: There are two questions before the Committee. The first question is, are students getting a fair deal as regards housing, and if not, what do the Government propose to do about it? The second question, which is formally before the Committee, is should the Housing Bill be amended in various ways? I am perfectly content to take all these Amendments together in a general discussion. Should the Housing Bill be amended in various ways which might or

325
might not get students a squarer deal as regards housing? I propose to speak first about the second question and then to conclude by saying something about the former, and larger, question.
Since our Second Reading debate I have sat down with my advisers in the Ministry and we have combed through the housing law, and we can find nothing in statutory housing law which disadvantages students as compared with any other sector of the community in their attempts to set up housing associations or that special form of housing association known as the "housing society". I have to tell the Committee that, as a fact—and I have to repeat what I said on Second Reading—if our purpose is to identify and remove difficulties under which students may be suffering in achieving their aim to have housing associations, we shall be making a detour, wasting our time and doing that which is unnecessary if we amend this Bill.
Let me go a little into detail. The law of housing associations is one of the most complicated of all pieces of housing law. I myself am still very often confused by it. I admit to remaining in total confussion for the first 18 months in my present job. It may be that some of your Lordships are also confused by the complications. First of all, there are two categories: the housing association and. within that, a sub-species called the housing society. A housing association is able to enter into an authorised arrangement with housing authorities to provide housing, and this attracts housing grant on a standard comparable with what goes to the council house in the ordinary way. A housing society, on the other hand, which is a cost-rent or co-ownership society, does not get the subsidy, but it does normally get funds, two-thirds from a building society, one-third from the housing corporation, and that is public money. It does not have to have authorised arrangements with any local authority because it is not seeking grant.
If students go to local authorities and seek an authorised arrangement to become a housing association in the normal sense, and if they are told by the local authority that there is a statutory bar to such an arrangement, that local authority is misinformed. There is no such statutory bar. I take the point of my noble friend, Lord Leatherland, that
326
they think there is: that is something we can go into. But if somebody is mistaken about fact you do not need to amend the Statute Law. My noble friend, Lord Lloyd, said he thought there was evidence that under statutory powers some groups of people are being arbitrarily excluded. If he has that evidence I should be grateful if he would let me have it, because I think there must be some mistake there.
It is perfectly true that the arrangements to be reached between a housing association and the local authority, since they attract Exchequer grant, are subject to my right honourable friend's approval. At the moment he is giving advice to local authorities which is based on the general idea that these housing associations ought to provide housing for the same sort of people that councils themselves normally house. I think that this excludes some students and it does not exclude others. If a student is in housing need, especially if he is married with a family, then he is the sort of person, just as a steel worker or a university teacher on a low salary might be, normally housed by a council. On the other hand, there would be others who would not be persons of the sort normally housed by a council. I can see that if we ever do get forward on this, as I hope we do, the associations or societies one may wish to set up may have to be a bit selective about the kind of students they admit—I do not know; this is speculation.
To turn now to the housing society. For any group of people to turn themselves into a cost-rent or co-ownership housing society there are only four things they have to do, and this is laid down in the 1964 Housing Act. They have to register themselves under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1893. They have not to trade for profit. They have to be established for the purpose of, or have among their purposes, constructing, improving or managing houses—which is of course what we are talking about. And the houses have to be kept available for letting, which again is what we are talking about—that is, about statutory powers.
Noble Lords may say—some have said—"I know the law does not need amending, but let us amend it to make doubly clear that there is no statutory bar

327
to student housing associations and societies". As I did on Second Reading, I must formally oppose this on the simple social ground (my remark about red hair has been quoted; it was not intended to be flippant) that if you are going to let in students as a category under declaratory statutory law to make it clear that they have a right to this, then I think we must let in first old people, disabled people, unmarried mothers. Those I am sure of; other noble Lords will have other categories they would rather let in first. I would go no further than those three. Since there is no Amendment down to do this, I think we must not amend the Bill to make declaratory statements in favour of students.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, raised the question of hostels. I think we are clear about this. A hostel comes under student law not so much under housing law, and that is a point I shall come to when I wind up in general. But there are three sorts of things: a housing association, of which there is the sub-species housing society, and separately the hostel, which comes under the umbrella of the U.G.C. and comes accordingly under its rules. I was very interested by Lord Bowden's account of the difficulties in Manchester, and I should like time to think about that and read what he said with some care, and also by Lord Royle's account of the difficulties in Brighton. It is interesting—is it not?—how a standard or value has grown up among the students of Sussex University that it is much better and more desirable and smarter to rough it in the town, without the help of any housing association, than to live on that shining new campus which many of them regard as a sort of social benefit for the weaker brethren and with which they will have nothing to do. Now let me come to the major question of whether students are getting a raw deal, and, if so, what can be done about it.
Lord ANNAN: Would the noble Lord permit me to put one question to him? He mentioned hostels. The point I was trying to emphasise was that very often when an application is made it is turned down on the ground that this accommodation is hostel accommodation, whereas in fact it satisfies the criteria as dwelling accommodation; namely, that it has self-contained catering facilities.
328
That was the point I was trying to make about hostels and dwellings.
Lord RENNET: I take the noble Lord's point. It is a question of fact whether or not the plan would satisfy the criteria for being a dwelling. It may be that the criteria should be looked at or that they are being over rigidly applied. I do not know, and I will take this up in a moment.
It so happens that the difficulties of students as regards housing have come up in Parliament in a concentrated and agitated form on a Housing Bill. This is perfectly natural. It may be that they are increasing; I do not know. Several Members of the Committe believe they are, and I think it may be believed rather generally that they are. There is a Housing Bill going through; there is no Education Bill going through; so it is natural that this question should come up on a Housing Bill, but in terms of social reality it is a matter which straddles housing policy and education policy. If more money is to go to it, it is not easy to see whether it should be on the Housing Vote or the Education Vote. Such things have to be sorted out.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, suggested that there should be a meeting of one or two Peers and those interested in getting student housing associations going with my right honourable friend or me. For myself—I cannot commit my right honourable friend; I do not know how busy he may be at any particular moment—I would welcome that. I hope the meeting will not be too large. Mass deputations do not get through the difficulties in the matter so quickly as smaller ones; but perhaps after the Recess, or towards the end of the Recess, we could do that. But I should like to say that during the time between now and then my right honourable friend and I will consider what ought to be done.
Lord Annan asked for a Working Party. I cannot promise any precise form of consideration. These are structural matters. One would need to think of the best way of getting it done. The first thing is that my right honourable friend will have to be in touch with the Secretary of State for Education and Science, so that the two Departments can look at it together and consider the problem together. After that, it seems

329
to me probable that they, jointly or one of them on behalf of both, will wish to meet other parties concerned. I would sooner not promise a specific form of Working Party, but I do undertake that there will be consideration within the Government of these matters, and after that consultation with interested persons in whatever seems the most appropriate form at the time; and I do undertake that at least I and possibly my right honourable friend will receive interested Peers and others a little later on.
I have distinguished between the two things, the Amendments to this Bill and the general question. I hope that what I have said about the general question may be enough to assuage your Lordships' desire to carry Amendments into this Bill, because if I am right about this, then I shall not need to enter into dettailed arguments on each of the Amendments—and on each of them there are difficulties of a particular nature which are quite unrelated with the general question that we have been discussing. So I hope that the Committee will agree that the best course is not to amend this Bill, since it does not need it, and to accept my assurance that the Government will have a fresh look at this matter in accordance with the most efficient procedure that they can devise, and will later on be ready to discuss it with those who are interested.
Lord ANNAN: I thank the noble Lord for his reply, and also noble Lords who have been kind enough to support me this afternoon. In particular, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, because he raised, and it was echoed on this side of the Committee as well, that most important point about what was called the political side of this question. Here are student associations doing extremely good work and displaying a really extraordinary mastery of the complexities of this housing problem which, as Lord Kennet says, is not easy to unravel for amateurs. Nothing has impressed me more than the work which I have seen these associations do, particularly the one of which I am a director, in the past year.
I accept, of course, that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was not going to give way on the business of amending the Bill. I am also a little sorry in regard to the terms of his reply, that I felt that some-
330
times I was swimming in dough. But I know that there is good will on his side. The only thing that I was worried about was whether he had fully taken into account the point made by his noble friend Lord Leatherland, namely, an instruction to local authorities which would set out the statutory position. I think that if he could give an assurance on this point I myself would be most satisfied to withdraw the Amendment, bearing in mind that he has given us, at any rate, hope on two fronts: first of all, on the short term front that possibly towards the end of the Recess, or the beginning of the next Session, there would be an opportunity for interested parties under Parliamentary auspices to meet the Minister; and secondly, a longer-term assurance that he and his right honourable friend will consider the possibility of setting up a Working Party, which I fully agree with Lord Brooke is a much longer-term affair in that that really would go into, I take it, the best and most economical way of providing residence for students, not merely in universities but in all sectors of tertiary education. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Mutual exclusion of general improvement areas and clearance areas]:
Lord KENNET: Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are drafting Amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 34, leave out ("by the authority").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 37, leave out ("belonging to the authority and").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 and 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [General powers exercisable by local authority in general improvement area]:
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 18, line 11, leave out from ("acquire") to end of line 12 and insert ("compulsorily any land within or contiguous to the general improvement area.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 12 is concerned with Clause 32 (1) which to me includes the astonishing statement that a local authority may be authorised by the Minister to acquire any land compulsorily. I am quite sure that is not what is meant. I would stress that Parliament hedges round compulsory purchase powers most thoughtfully and carefully. I believe I am right in saying that it might be desirable to put a compulsory purchase order on land which was just outside the edge of the general improvement area, but I cannot think that it would be desirable for a local authority to be encouraged to make a compulsory purchase order on some countryside two miles away just because it would be rather nice for improving the amenities. If my Amendment expresses what the Government really have in mind, I greatly hope that it will be accepted.
Lord KENNET: Yes; the Amendment seems to the Government to be a good one: that is to say, we agree with the effect that it seeks to achieve, but are not quite happy about the actual choice of words. We think there may be better words. If the noble Lord will agree not to press this Amendment, perhaps I could get together with him and suggest another word which he could move on Report.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: In the circumstances, I am most happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, whether Clause 32 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.59 p.m.
Lord LEATHERLAND: On Second Reading of this Bill I dealt with the question of compulsory purchase. I argued that local authorities as a whole do not like to indulge in compulsory purchase. I suggested that it would be far more desirable to entrust the local authorities with powers of compulsory repair
332
in cases where the landlord would not undertake to carry out repairs that either the tenant or local authority desired.
I admitted in the course of that speech that there were certain categories of housing covered by this Bill in respect of which compulsory repair orders would be permissible; but my noble friend in his reply rather suggested that the number of houses that would be covered by what I liked, that is the compulsory repair order, was rather larger than I myself had in mind. My reading of the provisions leads me to believe that compulsory repair orders would only be issued in a rather small number of cases, whereas the generality of the cases would be dealt with by what I did not like, the compulsory purchase order.
I asked my noble friend a few days ago whether there were any figures in his possession that would enable him to indicate roughly the proportion of houses that would be dealt with, as the Bill now stands, by compulsory repair, on the one hand, and by compulsory purchase order, on the other. If he has the figures convenient perhaps this would be a good moment for him to give them. If he has not, then we can leave this until a later date.
Lord KENNET: I have the figures, but before giving them I should like to explain to my noble friend that it was not so much the absolute figures of cases dealt with this way or the other way that concerned me so much as the circumstances. I was thinking of the case that a local authority had power to do this when it was moved to do so by a tenant who wanted it done and his landlord would not do it, and I wondered in what other circumstances the noble Lord wished to retain this power for the housing authority and I still hope to hear from him about that.
Let me now give the figures. We are talking about Section 19 of the Housing Act 1964, which enables a tenant to initiate action to compel the landlord to install any missing standard amenity. He does this by writing to the local authority who can then, at their discretion and subject to their being satisfied of certain statutory requirements—this is the provision the noble Lord likes—serve a notice on the landlord to do the works.

333
Therefore, what we are talking about is the number of notices served during the five year period 1964 to 1969. 3,189 such notices were served, and in 300 of the cases (that is 10 per cent.) the landlords availed themselves of their right to serve a counter notice of purchase on the local authority rather than carry out the improvements.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Disposal and appropriation of land]:
Lord KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 13. This is a matter of clarification.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 30, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) Where any land for the time being vested in a local authority for the purposes of this Part of this Act—

(a) consists of or forms part of an open space; or

(b) has been compulsorily acquired under this Part of this Act;

the local authority shall not dispose of it except with the consent of the Minister.")—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 19, line 42, after ("or") insert ("subject to subsection (4) of this section").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 14 and.15 relax slightly the conditions governing a local authority's letting of land, including buildings, held under Part II of the Bill. The Amendments will provide that a local authority will not be required to obtain the Minister's consent, where that consent is not otherwise required under subsection (1) of this clause, to the letting of such land at less than the best rent obtainable in cases where the letting is to be for a period not exceeding seven years. The clause, as drafted, would have required consent being obtained to any letting at less than the best rent obtainable. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 14, at end insert ("and the consent of the Minister under subsection (2) of this section shall not be required to any letting for a term not exceeding seven years")—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Standard grants in general improvement area]:
On Question, Whether Clause 35 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.5 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I am not happy about Clause 36. A standard grant is usually obtainable as of right, but this clause purports to deprive people in general improvement areas of their right to obtain standard grants. Standard grants are made for the installation of amenities which most of us would regard as necessities of life. I ail to see why somebody, just because he is living in an area which requires general improvement, should be deprived of the opportunity of getting the standard amenities into the house as soon as possible.
From reading the debates in another place, I gather that the Minister wished to use this as a kind of blackmailing lever to persuade the owner of the house to do much more than put in the standard grants. That is not really my conception of what the Minister or the local authority should be doing in a general improvement area. In a general improvement area, I should have said the first thing to do was to get all the houses up to a reasonable standard of amenity as quickly as possible, and to top that up in various ways, if possible. I must say I very much dislike the idea of a local authority being enabled by Clause 36 to withhold standard grants from people who are without the amenities. I think that the Commitee would wish for a clear explanation from the noble Lord. Lord Kennet, as to why this clause needs to be included in the Bill.
Lord AIREDALE: I should like to support the noble Lord. Surely the whole point of the distinction between the standard grant and the discretionary grant is that the standard grant is something that you can have as of right, and

335
the discretionary grant obviously is purely discretionary. Clause 36 says, in effect, that if you live in a general improvement area a standard grant becomes just a discretionary grant, and that cuts right across the whole point of this important distinction of having the standard grants which are obtainable as of right. Surely the legislation can be drafted so as to preserve this important distinction that standard grants shall be obtainable as of right in all circumstances, and shall not become discretionary just because somebody happens to live in a general improvement area.
Lord KENNET: Supposing there were a compulsory waistcoat and it were one's purpose to introduce in certain places voluntary overcoats on a wide basis. Would one then retain the compulsory waistcoat provision? This is really what it is about. The standard grant in the general improvement areas, as the Bill is drafted, and as Clause 36 says, will be able to be given on application, but it will not be bound to be given by the local authority. In these areas the housing authorities will be hoping to secure the agreement of owners to the improvement of the sound old houses to a level far above the minimum achieved with the standard grants, and in this way they will be hoping to see the full potential of those houses and that area realised.
The noble Lord spoke about blackmail, but I really do not accept that it is. I think the point he was referring to was that if owners of houses were to say, "I demand my standard grant and I will not go with you in your desire to do better than that and pay me a bigger grant" this might provide a stumbling block and raise difficulties in the path of the housing authority, which will be concerned, first and above all, to get the understanding and agreement of everybody who lives in the area before it starts on the general plan. The Government would like to see the hands of the housing authority quite untied as regards the type of grant and the things for which they should pay in the case of all the houses in a general improvement area, although of course there is no proposal to change it outside general improvement areas.
336
This does not mean, I repeat, that standard grants will not be available in general improvement areas: they will. And in the cases where they do the job best the local authority will no doubt wish, in the interests of saving everybody trouble, to do it that way. But there may be other cases where in their judgment the job will be better done with a different sort of grant, maybe not very much bigger than the standard grant, but not necessarily complying with the statutory requirements of the standard grant. The Government are very anxious that the housing authorities should not be in any way shackled in dealing with these areas, but should be able to approach them imaginatively and to deal with each one according to its own characteristics and not to any statutory preconception.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked, "Why cannot they use a discretionary grant to top up after the standard grant has been given?" It does not really work like that. It is far more sensible to give a discretionary grant in the first place, doing under the discretionary grant the work which would have been done under the standard grant, anyhow, and some other work, all in one go. You do not want to start again under a separate procedure.
Lord Brooke also said that this deprives people of their right to a statutory grant. I would sooner put it that it relieves local authorities of their duty to do this thing in the lesser way while they are doing it in the larger way on a voluntary basis all round.
Lord SILKIN: I must confess that, while I appreciate what the Minister has in mind in this clause, it seems to me the wrong way to achieve it. I appreciate that in an improvement area he wants to encourage a rather higher standard of improvement than in a normal area; that is to say, the standard improvements would be of a more ambitious form than normally. But to try to achieve that by withholding a grant, or by encouraging local authorities to withhold it, seems quite wrong. I cannot suggest an alternative way to do it, but I feel that a little more thought ought to be given to this clause. I would respectfully suggest that my noble friend should undertake to look at this again to see whether the same result can be achieved in a better way,

337
possibly by encouraging a larger grant, or something of that sort. I am not in a position to make any definite proposal, but I think the problem needs to be looked at again.
Lord AIREDALE: I would accept the analogy of the waistcoat and the overcoat if I felt sure that all the people in these general improvement areas were certain to get their overcoats. What is quite certain from this Clause is that they will not get their waistcoats except at the discretion of the local authority, and I am worried that some of them will not get overcoats either—and I think some of these people are in for a hard winter.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, can see that the Committee is unhappy about this clause. I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Airedale, for what they have said. Let me assure the Government that I do not want to shackle anybody; least of all those who feel that they can afford to put in standard amenities but do not feel that they can afford to do a great deal more in improving the property. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will examine this matter in the light of what has been said because, clearly, there are certain dangers in this clause. I do not intend to press to-night my Amendment to leave out the clause, but I reserve the right to return to it at a later stage of the Bill if the Government themeslves do not put down an Amendment, such as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has suggested, which would lessen the potential harm that it might do.
Lord KENNET: I am most anxious to content the Committee, and especially my noble friend Lord Silkin. Perhaps I might say another word. He spoke of the possibility of encouraging a larger grant rather than maintaining this smaller standard grant as of right. I hope it is quite clear to all noble Lords that that is what this whole Bill is about. It is enshrined in Clause 70, which binds authorities to do all they can to improve the area; and the major part of the financial side of this Bill consists of an increase in the maximum grant they may give from £400 to no less than £1, 000—that is an increase of two-and-half times—a factor of 2½. The whole drive and direction of the Bill,
338
which has the solid support of the country's housing authorities, is towards encouraging the larger grant, and it is only because that is so that the Government have thought it right to remove the compulsory nature of the smaller grant, which I assure the Committee will be completely lost in the great sweep of improvements we hope to see under this Bill.
I should like to conclude by telling the Committee that last week I saw a pilot scheme at Exeter, part of which is now complete, which has been done by extrastatutory arrangement, as if this Bill were in force, in order to enable us to learn the difficulties and the achievements. It looks absolutely marvellous. It looks very pretty indeed. It is delightful to walk about in. The insides of the houses look absolutely marvellous; and they are delightful to live in. The people are overjoyed. It could not be further removed from the sort of minimum improvement one sees with a standard grant, and I assure your Lordships that the thought of its being in any way relevant to what is being done there to have the old standard grant still compulsory in that area is a strange one to me, as it would be to your Lordships if you had seen this advance sample in Exeter.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Contributions to local authorities towards expenditure incurred under this Part of this Act]:
On Question, Whether Clause 37 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I do not want to dwell for long on this clause, but I feel it necessary to express the view that unless the figure of £100 in subsection (4) is increased the success of the general improvement area policy is likely to be limited to very small schemes. I have not put down any Amendment, partly because this is a matter of money, but mainly because subsection (5) enables the Minister by order to substitute another amount for the amount of £100 multiplied by the number of dwellings in the area. So there is a let-out there. I do not think there is any secret that the local authorities are concerned at the smallness of this figure, and feel that it will be very restrictive against them in carrying out vigorously the policy which the Government desire to achieve through this Part of the Bill.
Lord KENNET: I do not think the noble Lord will really expect me to add to that: he has answered himself. There is power to vary the grant level by order at any time, and the Government will naturally keep the level under continuous review.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clauses 38 to 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Conversion of controlled tenancies of dwellings provided with standard amenities and in good repair]:
On Question, Whether Clause 43 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.20 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: We now come to Part III of the Bill. Very briefly, I should like to say something on the machinery, which seems to me to be quite unnecessarily complicated. You have to go to the local authority to get what is called a qualification certificate and then, armed with the qualification certificate, you have to go off to another office, the office of the rent officer, and get a rent registered. Here again I know that the local authorities which will have to operate this machinery are extremely concerned that it has been made so complicated and so detailed. I have not ventured to put down Amendments because I think they would have to be very far-reaching; but I would put it to the Government, even at this late stage in the Bill's progress, that the Bill will work much more smoothly if a great deal of this complicated machinery can be removed in cases where there is no difference of opinion between the landlord and the tenant about the state of the repair of the house.
I think that the local authorities are going to be tied up in a tremendous amount of unnecessary work. I agree that it is desirable that the tenant should not bring pressure to bear on the landlord, or the landlord on the tenant, to agree to something not wholly right; but it is a mistake to treat all landlords and all tenants as though they were at daggers drawn. I believe that if it were not required by Statute that they should go through the immense complications of these next few clauses a large number of cases would be cleared up with complete good will, with ex-
340
pedition and with the saving of a vast amount of manpower, which of course means money as well.
There is going to be a lot of work to be done under Part III; but to be so meticulous about every detail, even in cases where there is entire agreement between the landlord and the tenant, is to invite the danger of clogging the machinery. I know that this view has been put, outside Parliament, to the Government. I know that up to now the Government have not seen their way to simplify the arrangements. I feel that I must take this opportunity of saying that it seems to me a very great pity that the Government have not been willing to arrange for a much more streamlined procedure in all those cases where there is no difference of opinion between the landlord and the tenant and where, therefore, it is not really necessary to bring in the local authority to make a judgment between them.
Lord KENNET: I take the noble Lord's point. The problem is to be sure that there is no difference of opinion, unless you have a statutory procedure which will reveal the certain absence of difference of opinion. I see that the noble Lord has down later Amendments which it seems to the Government might leave it a little uncertain whether there was or was not agreement.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Application for qualification certificate]:
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 24, line 32, leave out from ("amenities") to end of line 36.
The noble Lord said: I say frankly that I do not understand subsection (2) or the necessity for the words which my Amendment proposed to leave out. The subsection says:
"An application for a qualification certificate may be made … notwithstanding that at the time of the making of the application the dwelling lacks one or more of the standard amenities, if the application is made … before any works are begun for providing the dwelling with the standard amenities which it lacks."
Why is it necessary to insert that proviso? Why would it matter if the works had been begun? We want to get on with

341
these works—that is common ground between us. I fail to understand why the qualification certificate machinery should be brought to a halt if the application for the qualification certificate is not made until after the works have begun for bringing the dwelling up to par with the standard amenities. I beg to move.
Lord KENNET: Simply to safeguard the interest of the tenant. The essence of the system is that the tenant should be aware of the rent which will be registered after the improvements are carried out before he consents to the improvements. If the landlord can start the improvements without the tenant knowing what the registered rent is going to be, then, if he has consented to the landlord starting, he has done so in ignorance. The provision is drafted in this way in order to ensure that as full information of what is in store for him is given to the tenant before he agrees to the landlord going ahead with the improvements.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I appreciate that; but what happens if he starts the work without applying for the qualification certificate? Does that render it impossible for him ever to obtain a qualification certificate.
Lord KENNET: I am not sure. I should like time to look at that. But clearly he is proceeding in a way not provided for in the Bill. I assume that he might be at risk in his attempt to get into regulations.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: Perhaps at a later stage we shall be able to discover what will happen if he fails to make an application before the works are begun. It seems to me that, through inadvertence, everything might be brought to an undesired halt. I certainly do not want to press this matter, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 47 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Appeal in certain cases against issue or refusal of qualification certificate]:
Lord KENNET: Amendment No. 17 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 41 and insert—
("(3) The following provisions shall apply on an appeal under this section, that is to say—

(a) the court shall have regard to the state of the dwelling at the time of the hearing as well as at the time of the issue or refusal of the certificate; and

(b) the court").—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 [Postponement in certain cases of effect of, qualification certificate]:
6.30 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 27, line 19, leave out ("January 1971") and insert ("April 1970").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 18. The Committes will readily agree that Nos. 19 and 20 are linked with it. This is a matter of much greater substance than the Amendments we have been discussing in the last few minutes. It concerns the state and quality of the houses. The noble Lord will correct me if I go wrong (these matters are very complicated), but I believe that we are discussing the houses which are still subject to controlled rents; that is to say, in general the controlled ren that is being paid is twice the gross value in 1958.
The suggestion in this Clause is that even though the landlord has done everything necessary and has obtained his qualification certificate which proves that the house has the standard amenities and is in good repair, and in all other respects fit for human habitation, he is nevertheless not to get the benefit of the new rent which will accrue when the house goes from controlled to regulated status until some date, which may be 1971 or 1972. I understated that. If one reads this in conjunction with Schedule 3, one finds that he is not to get the full rent which is regarded by the rent officer and the rent assessment committee as a

343
fair rent until, possibly, 1976; but we can discuss that when we come to Schedule 3. The point here is that he is not to be entitled to any increase in this avowedly inadequate rent until January 1, 1971, in the case of houses of a somewhat higher rateable value; July 1, 1971, as regards the middle band, and January 1, 1972, as regards the houses of a lower rateable value.
Those amendments put off the increase in rent too long. These are houses which have been—or many of them have been—on the brink of contributing to the numbers of slum houses in the country. The Minister himself used strong words on the Second Reading of the Bill, pointing out how inadequate are controlled rents for keeping houses in good repair. Nevertheless, the owners of these houses will have had to put them in good repair and supply them with all the standard amenties if they are to get this qualification certificate. Even then, the rents are not to begin to be increased towards a fairer figure until 1971 or 1972.
My Amendments suggest that each of the three dates in the Bill should be brought forward by nine months. I believe that there is no reason whatever why that should not be done. In Committee in another place it was argued that the rent officers might be overwhelmed. I have therefore drafted Amendments which make a smaller difference to the dates than the differences which were discussed in Committee in another place. I accept that the proposal in Committee in another place to bring January 1, 1971, back to January 1, 1970, may have gone too far; but the earliest date suggested in my Amendments is April, 1970. If this Bill receives the Royal Assent next week, as we all hope (I think the noble Lord will agree that I have been doing my best this afternoon to expedite the proceedings) there will be a period of no less than eight months before the date, April 1, 1970, at which a beginning of an upward rise towards a fair rent can be made.
It cannot be right that those people who have suffered the inadequacy of controlled rents for many years should see that inadequacy continue for as long as the Bill proposes. I do not think there is any division between the political Parties now—at any rate between their
344
leaders—as regards the inadequacy of controlled rents. As I had always imagined that one of the objects of the White Paper and of this Bill was to encourage house improvement and to make sure that houses did not slip back again into a poor state, it really is undiplomatic—to use the least, the smallest, word—to treat those landlords who are genuinely trying, despite the inadequacy of their rents over many years, to put and keep their houses in the state which the Government desire, in so scurvy a way as this clause will do in the sense of postponing increases of rents. I think the proposals that I have made here are perfectly reasonable. They are that each of these dates should be brought forward by nine months. I cannot see any valid argument against doing this, and I most strongly urge the Government to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
6.36 p.m.
Lord KENNET: Controlled rent is basically twice the 1956 gross rateable value. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said that to delay was a scurvy way to treat landlords who only desire to improve and maintain their houses. The noble Lord knows very well that the Government do not propose to treat those who desire to improve their houses in that way. They get their rent increases at once, and it is in order that they should get those increases at once that the Government propose that those who have already improved their houses—this is the group affected by the noble Lord's Amendments—should wait for their rent increases until those who are about to improve have done so, and have the first flush of the increases. It is because the whole purpose of the Bill is to get improvements done—not enough improvements are being done—that we propose not to advance into regulation the rents of houses where the improvement is already done until we are through the first flush of registrations of houses which will be done under the new provisions.
It is important that the rent officers' consideration of the qualified cases should not delay their dealings with new improvement cases, and that is why we propose that the already qualified cases should be allowed into the rent regulation system after the first flush which I mentioned—and not the new one—is already well

345
under way. The number of dwellings in each of the rateable bands (the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has an Amendment down which we shall come to later, to reduce the number of phases from live to three) is at present estimated at about 60, 000 to 70, 000. If this Amendment and the two Amendments which we are considering with it were accepted, applications in respect of all the dwellings in the first two bands—about 150, 000—could be made to rent officers between April 1, 1970, and the end of that year.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but may I ask whether, when he speaks of two bands, he means subsection (2) (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 50; or is he referring to figures in Schedule 3 to which I have an Amendment? Are they rateable value bands?
Lord KENNET: Yes, rateable value bands by which the controlled rents go forward into regulation. The Government conclude that the rent officers could not adequately deal with the 150, 000 in the first two bands and the first flush of new improvements both at the same time. We already aim at an initial strengthening of the corps of rent officers by the end of 1969 to take the first increase of work from the improvement cases, and after that we shall have to watch the position very carefully, so that in each year in each area there are enough rent officers to cope with the cases as they come forward. This will be done by getting part-timers to do more and to become full-time wherever possible; by recruiting additional rent officers and by taking on extra ancillary staff. The clerks of the county councils and county boroughs and the London boroughs are already being consulted about plans for their areas. So the Government believe that by the end of 1970 all this will have led not only to a considerable strengthening of the service but also to a more accurate assessment than we have now of the number of already qualified cases, the ones which would be accelerated under the noble Lord's Amendment, because we shall be able to find out the number of qualification certificates which the local authorities are issuing.
We accept that a further expanding of the rent officer service will still be needed
346
to deal with the already qualified cases, but it could proceed on a more realistic and practical basis in the knowledge of the likely number of already qualified cases which would go to rent officers. Under the scheme of this Amendment, the rent officer service would need to be expanded to cope, within about nine months of the start, with up to 100, 000 already qualified cases, over and above the improvement cases and the existing work, which is currently running at over 50, 000 cases a year in England and Wales. The Government fear it is unrealistic to think in terms of a programme to cater for this within a shorter time than is set out in the Bill as drafted.
Nevertheless it is in the Bill, under Clause 50 (3), that the Minister will have power to bring forward by order the dates of conversion (that is, the dates of the passing from control to regulation) in the already qualified cases, either throughout the country or in relation to particular registration areas, if it should prove practical and desirable to do so in the light of experience. I could not advise the Committee to go further than that reserve power which the Minister has to speed things up, if he thinks it safe to do so, by adopting the noble Lord's Amendment which would automatically permit a speeding up by the bringing forward of controlled rents into regulation rents, in those cases where improvement has already been carried out under the old system. I hope that with that explanation of the background on the rent officer service, the noble Lord may be willing not to press his Amendment.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I am sorry to query the figures again, but other noble Lords like myself may have been somewhat puzzled by them. We are referring now to the three bands of rateable value in subsection (2) of Clause 50. I understand that the Government in another place said that they estimated there were about 200, 000 of these controlled houses which had already been brought up to standard; yet I understood the noble Lord to say that more than 100, 000 of these were in the first band. I find this extremely difficult to understand and I will go on talking for a minute or two in the hope that the noble Lord may be able to elucidate the figures, because it will help us all to reach decisions on this matter if we know what

347
are the estimated numbers in the various bands which I will describe as (2) (a), (2)(b) and (2)(c). Whatever the figures are, I still feel that those landlords who have done their duty are being unjustly treated if the increased rents which they have, as it were, earned by putting the houses into proper condition early are withheld in order that that interval of time may benefit those who have been slower to get on with the job. It may be that the noble Lord can give me the figures for which I asked.
Lord KENNET: Yes. I think the mystery is now cleared up. There are, as I said, in each rateable value band about 60,000 or 70,000 houses, and the first two bands—that is, two out of three—contain, therefore, about 130,000 to 140,000 houses between them. I think the confusion arose in my mind because I dragged in a red herring about another set of bands which the noble Lord was proposing to reduce later on from five to three. This set of bands, (2)(a), (2)(b) and (2)(c), has 60,000 or 70,000 in each. Therefore the first two together are 130,000 to 140,000; and all three together about 200,000. That is the number of old controlled houses which we expect in all to come forward into regulation as a result of this Bill, and that is about half the number of old controlled houses in all.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but I believe these dates are too far forward.
I think it is fantasy to suppose that everybody concerned will arrive at the rent officers' door on whatever date we put into this Bill. In fact, we know from experience in many fields, particularly, if I may mention it in passing, the leasehold field, that though large numbers of people may be entitled by Parliament to do a certain thing at a certain date, it does not happen that way. They come along much more slowly. I am convinced that it is unjust that these owners, who have in fact already done what is required of them, should be kept down to their controlled rent as long as the Government proposed. The noble Lord said that controlled rent was twice the 1956 gross value. By a slip of the tongue I said 1958, but as I have now reminded myself that the Minister himself said on the Second Reading of the Bill that it was twice the 1939 gross value, perhaps the noble Lord and I can both agree on that.
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord. I realise that he feels that there would be pressure on rent officers, but I do not think there would be nearly so much pressure on rent officers as he fears. I do not think that the acceleration of these dates will in fact impede the big effort to get houses improved, and I feel it necessary to press this Amendment.
6.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 36.

CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Derwent, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Albemarle, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Allerton, L.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Audley, Bs.

Falkland, V.

Netherthorpe, L.

Balerno, L.

Falmouth, V.

Newton, L.

Belstead, L.

Ferrier, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Boston, L.

Gage, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gsborough, L.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Sandys, L.

Carrington, L.

Genfell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Gridley, L

Silsoe, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Inglewood, L.

Strathcarron L.

Craigmyle, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Templemore, L

Cranbrook, E.

Killearn, I.

Todd, L.

Cromartie, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Vivian, I.

Daventry, V.

MacAndrew, L.

Wolverton, L.

Denham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Blyton, L.

Burden, L.

Archibald, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Beswick, L.

Brown, L.

Collison, L.

Crook, L.

Leatherland, L.

Serota, Bs.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

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

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Gaitskell, Bs.

Shepherd, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Maelor, L.

Sorensen, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Stonham, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Raglan, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Heycock, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

St. Davids, V.

Tayside, L.

Hughes, L.

Segal, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Kennet, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 19.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 22, leave out ("July 1971") and insert ("October 1970").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 20.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 26, leave out ("January 1972") and insert ("April 1971").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
Lord KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 21. This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 28, after ("elsewhere") insert ("of a value").—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 51 and 52 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Restriction on Rent Increases]:
6.57 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 56, line 7, leave out from ("of") to end of line 13 and insert ("two years delay").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 22 and Nos. 23 and 24 are linked with it. I am afraid that we may have queered the pitch of the argument for these Amendments by our debate on the last one. If I am partially guilty for that, I plead for forgiveness. I think that the noble Lord and other noble Lords will agree that these are complicated matters. Whereas on the last group of Amendments we were discussing the dates at which rents should begin to rise towards the fair rent after the issue of a fair rent certificate, in this series of Amend-
350
merits we are debating the period of delay until the full fair rent is reached.
The Government's proposal is that there should be two separate classes. It is proposed that the period of delay should be two years, with the rent going up by one-third of the increment each year, in those cases where the tenancy has become regulated and the rent registered after the completion of works which have received a grant under Part I. On the other hand, in those cases where the tenancy has become a regulated tenancy by virtue of Part III of this Bill, all the necessary work having already beer done to enable the house to qualify, it is proposed that the period of delay should be four years instead of two, with the rent going up by one-fifth of the increment each year.
My Amendment is designed simply to bring the second class into uniformity with the first. I fail to see why it should be necessary to postpone the full rent until the year 1975 or 1976 in those cases where the landlord has been a good landlord, in the sense that he did the necessary work early. In the other case, where the work was done later, and where the landlord therefore may not get such a good mark, the increase is to take place by 1973 or 1974.
In those cases where the work has already been done the rent increase is to be stretched over a longer period and is to rise by only one-fifth each year. There may be some good and logical reason of substance underlying this, but if so it did not come out in debates in another place, nor has it managed to convey itself to the professional societies and organisations which are concerned with housing, for I know that they feel as concerned as I do about the length of the escalator, one-fifth of the increase each year, for those houses which have already been improved. In this case I will not ask the noble Lord about numbers. It may cloud our discussions if we get into a new set of numbers, but I feel strongly that we ought to amend the Bill

351
on the lines I am suggesting, and I now challenge the noble Lord to explain why he should not do so—in other words, why these Amendments of mine should not be accepted.
Lord KENNET: This is a matter of judgment. Some of these rent increases will be quite large. That will not be very pleasant for the tenants, and it is the judgment of the Government that five-year phasing is a more human and acceptable arrangement than three-year phasing. Amendments having the same effect as the noble Lord's were discussed and negatived both in Committee and on Report in the House of Commons. It was a matter of judgment then; it is a matter of judgment now, and the Government are not prepared, by agreement, to see the five-year period reduced to three years. The Committee will not wish me to say any more. We all understand what our judgments are in landlord and tenant law. The difference between the two Front Benches is not an unexpected one, but I hope the noble Lord will not think it worth upsetting here a judgment which has been twice agreed in another place on this matter.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I have seldom heard a more jejune reply to any Amendment than that. It would shorten our Parliamentary proceedings greatly if the Government's reply on every Amendment was, "Well, this is a matter of judgment and my judgment is
better than yours; therefore this Amendment should be rejected". I had sincerely hoped that the noble Lord would indicate on what grounds his judgment was based. From what has been said I can see no reason whatever why I should not press these Amendments.
Lord KENNET: I, too, had sincerely hoped that the noble Lord would give the Committee his grounds for dissenting from the period of five years that is before the Committee.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I do that willingly, because I have already done it in my first speech. I said that in this case, if the Bill goes through unamended, various owners of property will not be able to obtain until 1975 or 1976 what the rent officer or the assessment committee has said is the fair rent for the house. That seems to me unreasonable.
Lord KENNET: The noble Lord has not given a reason why a three-year delay is acceptable if a five-year delay is not.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: The answer is obvious; 1973 and 1974 are respectively two years earlier than 1975 and 1976.
7.5 p.m.
On Question: Whether the said Amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 50; Not-Contents, 36.

CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Daventry, V.

MacAndrew, L.

Albemarle, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Allerton, L.

Derwent, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Audley, Bs.

Drumalbyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Balerno, L.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Belstead, E.

Falkland, V.

Netherthorpe, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Falmouth, V.

Newton, L.

Boston, L.

Ferrier, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gage, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gisborough, L.

Sandford, L.

Carrington, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Sandys, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Grenfell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Conesford, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Inglewood, L.

Templemore, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Vivian, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Killeam, L.

Wolverton, L.

Cromartie, E.

Lauderdale, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Bowles, L.

Collison, L.

Archibald, L.

Brown, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Beswick, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Blyton, L.

Burden, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Bowden, L.

Chandos, V.

Garnsworthy, L.

Heycock, L.

Maelor, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Sorensen, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Raglan, L.

Stonham, L.

Hughes, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kennet, L.

St. Davids, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Leatherland, L.

Segal, L.

Tayside, L.

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

Serota, Bs.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: Amendment No. 23 is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 29, leave out from ("second") to end of line 31 and insert ("column").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: Amendment No. 24 also is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, leave out lines 33 to 41 and insert—

("Year of period of delay

Appropriate Proportion

1st year

one-third

2nd year

two-thirds")

—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

House resumed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE(No. 2) BILL
7.15 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I begin by outlining the changes in the rates of benefit that are proposed in this Bill. This is, of course, its main purpose, and as your Lordships will already know, it provides for increasing the standard weekly rates of the flat-rate national insurance benefits, currently £4 10s. for a single person and £7 6s. a week for a married couple, by 10s. and 16s. respectively, to £5 and £8 2s. It is proposed that the increased rate should be payable from the beginning of November. The Government's objective is to restore fully to these benefits the real value, the purchasing power, of the rates of benefit introduced
354
two years ago, in October, 1967. I think it important to remind your Lordships that the values achieved by these increases in October, 1967, were 2d per cent. above the levels of the benefits which the Government found in payment when they took office in 1964. If I may put it another way, the benefits were then given a value of 4s. in the pound above those of October, 1964, and it is this considerable margin that the new rates of £5 and £8 2s. are designed to restore.
It may be suggested that the proposed increases are inadequate, and that the Government should provide, as a means of helping retirement pensioners, in particular, an amount which would not only compensate them for price changes since October, 1967, but also enable pensioners to share in rising living standards. Indeed, it is the Government's long-term policy, set out in the White Paper, National Superannuation and Social Insurance, that inflation-proofing is only a minimum objective. But, as the White Paper makes clear, a responsible Government must take into account the general economic situation in determining the levels of social security benefits.
Against that background, the Government have decided that they can do no more than restore the value of benefits to their October, 1967, level. But your Lordships can be assured that, as in the past, the Government are determined to maintain the value of contributory benefits, the staple source of income on which so many pensioners with limited resources rely. This is an obligation that we owe all the retired members of our community.
Turning to the proposed increases in the levels of benefits paid under the industrial injuries scheme, the Bill provides an increase in disablement pension from £7 12s. to £8 8s. for a person with a disability assessed at 100 per cent. Injury benefit, which is paid with earnings-related supplement, is to be increased by 10s. from £7 5s. to £7 15s. This will preserve, at £2 15s. a week, the differential

355
advantage this benefit has over national insurance sickness benefit. Increases are also proposed for other industrial injury benefits.
With your Lordships' permission it may be convenient at this point if I make a brief reference to the Government's proposals for increases in supplementary benefit rates. The supplementary benefit scheme embodies great improvements introduced in 1966 to make better provision for the most vulnerable members of the community. There scheme of supplementary benefits ensures that no one need have an income below the minimum guaranteed by Parliament. Amending supplementary benefit regulations, which will be put before your Lordships later this week, will provide new rates that are an improvement of between 23 and 24 per cent. in real purchasing power since 1964, and this takes no account of the 10s. long-term addition introduced in 1966.
It may be helpful if I explain to your Lordships the reason why the increase in supplementary benefits in November is smaller than the increase in contributory benefits. It is that these increases are a second instalment, additional to those which have been in payment to persons in receipt of supplementary benefits since October, 1968. The increases now proposed will, therefore, bring the supplementary benefit increases up to the same total amount as is proposed for the contributory benefits; namely, 10s. for a single householder and 16s. for a married couple, over the period since October 1967. But those in receipt of supplementary benefits have had the advantage of receiving the first instalment of this increase since October, 1968.
The benefit improvements brought about by the Bill now before your Lordships will at one time or another affect a large proportion of the adult population. In all, about 9¾ million people will be better off as a result of the increases in National Insurance benefits and about 320, 000 will benefit from the increases in Industrial Injury benefits, Among these people are some 7 million retirement pensioners and about 530, 000 widows, including 140, 000 widowed mothers. About 1 million people will receive the increased flat-rate sickness
356
benefit, and unemployment benefit is paid to roughly 300, 000 beneficiaries. This is the measure of the proposed changes in benefits. The people whom the Bill sets out to help are those who are not fit or earning; they are the elderly, the sick, the widowed, the unemployed; essentially the groups for whom our society has the obligation to provide protection and succour.
Before moving on to the Government's proposals for financing the improved levels of benefits, there are two minor, but nevertheless important, benefit changes to which I must refer. The first of these is the proposal to increase the limit beyond which the earnings of a retirement pensioner during the first five years after minimum pension age start to reduce pension entitlement. It is proposed that the limit be raised from £6 10s. to £7 10s. for a married couple. This means that from November they will be able to count on £8 2s. a week by way of pension, and £7 10s. by way of earnings, a total of £15 12s. a week before the earnings rule begins to take effect.
The other change is one which I am sure will commend itself to your Lordships as a worthwhile and humane improvement. The Bill provides an extension of cover for death grant in respect of handicapped people who have never themselves been able to work and contribute to insurance. By this change, death grant in respect of a handicapped person may be payable on the insurance of a close relative. The absence of death grant on the death of such people has in the past often caused distress to relatives who have devotedly cared for someone disabled throughout their youth. This change will affect some 3, 000 cases each year, and is one the Government are pleased to be able to bring forward at this time.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumablyn, said in his comments on the Statement on the Bill, reported to your Lordships on June 10 by my noble friend Lady Serota, that the salient and outstanding point about it was the need to raise £430 million. I should like to say a word in genera] about that comment. As your Lordships are aware, the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries schemes operate on a "pay-as-you-go" basis. This means that money paid into the

357
Funds, either by way of contributions or Exchequer support, is used to pay current benefits. It is therefore inevitable that when benefits are increased additional money must be raised. Of the £430 million a year which has now to be found, about £250 million is necessary to pay for the increased benefits for which the Bill provides. The remainder, of the order of £180 million, is needed to put the National Insurance Fund back into a reasonable balance. Over the last two years a number of factors have combined in a way which has involved payments out of the Fund in excess of the payments into it. To support the current benefits, therefore, and to raise them to the new levels this grand total of £430 million has to be raised. Quite simply the sum is needed to pay for the scheme of insurance benefits we now have.
Given the need to raise this substantial sum of £430 million, the Government had to choose between a number of courses. One possibility would have been to raise the money in two stages, the first in November and the second at the time of the quinquennial review due next April. But the Government believe that the interests of all concerned, both insured people and employers, are best served by having the increases rolled into one instead of two in quick succession, with all the uncertainty and inconvenience which that would entail. Had the customary method of raising the amount required been followed, an increase in flat-rate contributions amounting to 3s. 4d. a week would have been needed from both employees and employers. This would clearly have been excessive in relation to the lower-paid; and a disproportionate increase on the employer's side would have been quite unjustified in the present circumstances, as also would have been any move to distort the National Insurance scheme by disproportionate reliance on Exchequer support.
In these circumstances the Government decided on a tripartite solution. First, the weekly flat-rate contribution should be increased by 1s. for a man and 11d. for a woman. Second, the 3¼ per cent. graduated contribution paid on earnings between £18 and £30 a week should be increased to 3¼ per cent. And third, there should a special additional Exchequer payment to compensate for the
358
fact that the present graduated contributions do not attract Exchequer support The additional graduated contributions paid by all employees and their employers—whether contracted out of the state scheme or not—will of course earn additional graduated pension. And the Government now propose that the graduated element of retirement pensions, that already earned as well as that 10 be earned in the future, should be included in the biennial reviews of pension and other benefit rates which are to be an integral part of the new scheme planned to start in 1972. By this means, contributors can be assured that all pension earned by the payment of graduated contributions under the 1961 scheme will be guaranteed against erosion by inflation.
A number of objectives are achieved by raising the necessary amount in this way. It will ensure—and I believe that this will find favour with your Lordships—that for some 6 million workers who are earning less than £18 a week, the increase in contributions will be no more than 1s a week. And the planned restructuring of the present graduated scheme will pave the way for an easier transition to the new scheme of earnings-related benefits planned for 1972. For the higher paid worker, the proposals mean that he will pay the largest increase. But it is most important to see this in perspective. The extra 7s. 7d. which a man earning £30 a week or more will pay represents an additional 1-3 per cent. of his earnings. That does not seem too much to ask the more highly paid to contribute to the welfare of non-earners. The additional contributions to be levied on men earning intermediate amounts will range from an increase of less than 0-5 per cent. for the man earning £12 a week, through an increase of 08 per cent. for the man earning £23 to the 1-3 per cert. I have mentioned for the man on the £30 a week mark.
Suggestions have been made in other places that the National Insurance scheme should be financed through the tax system, and of course such a proposal needs serious and informed discussion. Experience suggests that the contribution-pension relationship is well understood by the public and in its proposed earnings related scheme the Government intend to strengthen this fundamental link. My Lords, the proposals in this Bill keep faith with the very many people

359
who, because of age, widowhood, sickness or unemployment, have to rely on the National Insurance and Industrial Injury schemes for the income on which to maintain their standard of living. The Bill seeks to fulfil the Government's responsibility to meet that obligation by fair and just contributions to the cost of providing that support. I commend the Bill to your Lordships and hope it may be given a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Philips.)
7.29 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lady for her very brisk and clear exposition of this Bill. I think there is a substantial amount of agreement between us. There are certain things I should like to welcome right away. I would welcome the increase in the earnings limit and also welcome the increase in the death grant. That is something which is not increased at every rate review. I should like to ask a question about the close relatives. I can speak from personal experience on this aspect of the matter. I had among my own close relatives the experience of a young boy who was never able to look after himself at all, and who, because his parents were abroad, was left with an aunt and an uncle by marriage. I do not see why the aunt and uncle should be left out of the list of close relatives. I should like to give notice to the noble Baroness of my desire to move an Amendment on that point. It is a small point, but this kind of circumstance must often exist with people who are on foreign postings, for instance, where the boy or girl cannot be said to be living with their parents, grandparents or brother or sister. I commend this particular point to the notice of the noble Baroness. We also agree entirely that when there is to be a review it is right to roll it all into one, rather than make two bites at the cherry. This is obviously good sense.
There are a good many comments that I should like to make on this subject, and perhaps the noble Baroness will bear with me while I make them. As she has said, the memorandum has said that the main object of the Bill is to restore to flat-rate retirement pensions and other insurance benefits the values
360
lost because of the rise in prices in the two years since the last increase in October, 1967. So we have an increase of 10s.—about 7 per cent.—for a single person and 15s. for a married couple. Whether the Bill will fully achieve its main objective is, of course, open to doubt. I am informed that by April of this year the value of the single pension and other benefits had already been reduced, as a result of the rising cost of living, by 9s. If that is so, it seems unlikely that 10s. will suffice by November (which is the time at which the increase is due to come into effect) to restore the value of the pension to the October, 1967, level. By contrast, on every one of the occasions when pensions were raised by the Conservative Government, their value was increased to a level higher than their previous value, as indeed the present Government have done on the previous two occasions. Until now there has been a steady improvement in real value, and it is perhaps worth commenting that this is the first occasion for some time when there has not been an increase in real value but only a restoration of value.
At the same time, I would suggest that, whatever may be the determination of the Government to retain the value of the contributory benefits which the noble Baroness has declared, it would be folly to promise at any time that the real value will always be restored every two years, even though there is the biennial review. The value of insurance benefits cannot be isolated from the general state of prosperity, or otherwise, of the country as a whole. We all hope that the standard of living in this country will continue to rise with reasonable steadiness, but no Government can guarantee that it will not suffer a setback in any particular two-year period. Dietitians, sociologists—and even some politicians—sometimes talk as if there were some absolute standard laid up in Heaven which can be established as holding good for the whole population at all times and in all places and in all circumstances. But I think we all recognise that these things are relative, and I believe that it would be unwise to seek to guarantee that at biennial reviews there will always be a restoration—let alone an increase—of the value of the pension to what it was at the last review. It should be for consideration at each review what extra burden, if

361
any, it is sensible to place on the working population in order to help those who, temporarily or permanently, have ceased to work.
At least this must be said—and I have to say one or two disagreeable things, as well as agreeable ones. The question of how to pay for any increase must always be considered at the same time as the increase itself. I hope it will never again be allowed to happen that the increases are announced at one time, and the Government's proposals as to how they are to be paid for at a much later date. On this occasion, some two months elapsed between the Chancellor's announcement of the increase in the Budget and the laying of the Bill providing for increases in contributions, accompanied, of course by the explanatory White Paper and the Government Actuary's report.
Considering that the increase is not to take place until next November I submit that the Chancellor's announcement was, to say the least, precipitate. The Government Actuary, in paragraph 11 of his Report (Cmnd. 4074) says that in the financial year 1968-69 the outgo of the National Insurance Fund exceeded income by about £80 million, and it is estimated that if no action were taken the deficit in the current year would be about £125 million and would continue to increase. If one looks at Table 3 of his Report one sees that even taking into account changes in contribution there will be a deficit in the National Insurance Fund in the current financial year of £100 million. No wonder the Government had to transfer £200 million from the National Insurance Reserve Fund last December! And it seems that the £200 million will have been well nigh exhausted by next April, and there is little prospect of the Fund being replenished.
Over the next two years the operational surplus of income over outgo is estimated as only £12 million; and that is on the assumption that unemployment will fall to 2-2 per cent. in those two years. So the Labour Government will have dissipated, I think it is, about a fifth or so of the reserves by the end of this year, and do not intend to replace them. I wonder if the noble Baroness will tell us whether the Government regard these reserves as being available to meet deficits as they occur until the reserves are ex-
362
hausted? It would obviously be unwise to allow them to be exhausted altogether, because one must keep certain reserves in hand to meet fluctuations in demand for benefits.
No doubt the Government regard the adverse experience of the National Insurance Fund as being just bad luck. But it is possible to take a different view. Certainly some of the factors have been well known. As the Government Actuary puts it:
"changes in experience have been large and persistent".
As he says,
"there is clearly an underlying upward trend in sickness claims"—
And he goes on:
"The trend to earlier retirement"—
referred to in an earlier report of his—
"has continued".
So these are two big factors which have been going for some time. Indeed, this trend to earlier retirement has been encouraged—and I do not complain of that. It is inherent in redundancy schemes that those who have reached retirement age should be the first to be laid off. But, my Lords, it was anything but prudent—it was hardly even consistent with the Government's own economic policy—to instruct the Government Actuary to assume a rate of unemployment of 2 per cent. in the current financial year. And this is not just hindsight: the Government were warned at the time of the las; review that they were being somewhat over-optimistic.
There are also fewer in employment: there are over 200, 000 fewer than in June, 1964, and some 640, 000 fewer than in June, 1966, according to the latest estimate in the Digest of Statistics—an adjusted estimate, I understand. To the extent that this reflects the tendency for full-time education to be continued, and for better use to be made of those in employment, it is of course to be welcomed. But it is idle to pretend that it was not at least in part predictable in 1967.
I come now to the way in which the Government propose to find the money to pay for the increases which, as the noble Baroness said, amount to £250 million in respect of national insurance and industrial insurance benefits themselves, with a sum of £180 million to put the National

363
Insurance Fund back on to a reasonably sound footing. The noble Baroness called this a "grand" total—it is at any rate a formidable one. The big question is this: what differences in contributions is it reasonable to expect people with different earnings to pay for the same basic benefits? To some extent, of course, there are already differences in benefits. There are the additional pension benefits accruing from the graduated contributions introduced in 1961 for those not contracted out of the scheme, which covers earnings between £9 and £18—the 1959 scheme—and there are the graduated sickness and unemployment benefits earned by the ½ per cent. contribution on earnings between £9 and £30 introduced under the 1966 Act.
The problem which faced the Government in 1959 was not dissimilar from that facing the present Government, and almost inevitably the solutions are not dissimilar, unless of course one had chosen to go over to a tax-based form of payment. The problem is how to avoid placing too heavy a burden on the contributor with low earnings. In the circumstances of post-war high employment and high demand, differentials in earnings in different kinds of employment have widened very considerably, for reasons that are well enough understood.
At the present time a married man earning £12 a week pays 19s. 4d. in national insurance, industrial injuries and National Health Service contributions, or 19s. 1d. if he is contracted out, which is over 8 per cent. of his earnings, and he will pay an extra 1s. under this Bill; so he takes home about £11. In return for this he will be entitled to a retirement pension of £8 2s., plus rent if his capital resources fall before a certain level. His pension, plus the 1961 graduated pension earned, and supplementary allowances will thus very nearly equal his net earnings: so he is certainly getting a very good bargain.
But plainly, all the same, there is a limit to the proportion of earnings that can be taken from him to qualify for his pension. In 1964, he was paying 5s. less than he is paying now, or 6s. less than under the Bill, and at that time he was earning a lesser pension, a joint pension of £5 9s. 0d. It is equally plain that there is a limit to the differences
364
that contributors with higher earnings can be expected to pay for much the same benefits. So one has got to find somehow a middle way between these two. In 1959 the Government's solution was to hold the weekly contribution, not increase it at all but hold it, for people earning less than £9, at the existing level, and place a charge on all earnings between £9 and £15, the upper limit being increased to £18 in 1964. That charge is now 4¼ per cent.
In this Bill the Government are proposing to increase the basic weekly contribution by 1s. for men and 11d. for women, and at the same time to extend the bracket of earnings on which the charge is placed from £18 to £30 a week to bring it in line with the range of earnings on which the half per cent. charge is made for graduated sickness and unemployment benefits. The difference between the steps that were taken on those two occasions are, in the first place, that the charge on that part of earnings between £18 and £30 is to be 2¾ per cent. in addition to the half per cent. for graduated sickness and unemployment benefit; secondly, that whereas it was, and still is, possible for an employer to contract out of the 1959 graduated contributions scheme if his pensions scheme for his employees provides at least equivalent benefits as under that scheme, it will not be possible to contract out of the extended graduated contributions in this Bill. I think I am right in saying that. Thirdly, that the additional retirement pension earned by graduated contributions under the 1959 scheme was not affected by subsequent pension reviews, whereas the Secretary of State for Social Security has stated that it is the Government's intention that all the pension "bricks", as they are called, the blocks of £7 10s. 0d. of graduated contribution which earn, I think, 9d. each in additional weekly pension, will be revalued every two years in accordance with any rise, but not apparently any fall, in some index.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness what is the index. The pledge, after all, is specific, and so the index should also be specified. I cannot find any reference in the Bill giving statutory form to that intention. It may be there, and, if so, I have missed it. I do not know if the noble Baroness could tell me whether

365
this pledge is in the Bill or not. The Secretary of State, it seems to me, has been wise not to lay a statutory duty on future Governments, Conservative, or Labour, if there are any, in view of the Government's manifest intention in the Redistribution of Seats Bill not to be bound by any such statutory duty. It would have lacked credibility, as indeed does his statement of intention. I do not cast aspersions on his statement of intention; it may well be his intention and perhaps it is the intention of the present members of the Cabinet, but it is only their intention.
I think this has to be borne in mind, because the foundation of the National Insurance scheme—and this is tremendously important—is public confidence in the determination of successive Governments to meet the obligations which they have undertaken under the scheme. To have any credibility they should be written into the Bill if they are really intended to last. We are not just talking of the next biennial review; we are talking, after all, of a long period ahead. The actual continuation of the accumulation of the "bricks" may not go on very long, but the revaluation, as I understand it, is intended to go on for a long time.
There is one thing which I have not seen discussed at all so far, and the noble Baroness did not mention it, and that is the effect of these arrangements on the self-employed and the non-employed. The total combined contribution for a self-employed man over 18 is to be raised by 2s. 8d. to 24s. 10d. and for the non-employed by 2s. 2d. to 16s. 5d. Perhaps the noble Baroness will tell me whether I am right in thinking that they will not be affected in any way by the graduated contributions scheme. The fact that the increase is more than double the increase in the basic flat-rate contribution for employed persons would indicate that this is so.
It is well that we should be aware of the proportions of the £430 million which are to be borne respectively by the flatrate increases, the new graduated contributions and the Exchequer. As I look at the Government Actuary's Report it seems to me, if my arithmetic is correct, that in the year 1970-71 they will be 21 per cent. for the flat-rate increases, 62½ per cent. for the new graduated con-
366
tributions and 16½ per cent. for the Exchequer. This means a very big switch to graduated contributions. The revenue of the Fund in 1971-72 will consist of only 55 per cent. from flat-rate contributions, 28 per cent. Torn graduated contributions, 15 per cent. from the Exchequer and 2 per cent. from interest.
I draw the attention of noble lords to the diminishing proportion of the Fund's income to come from the Exchequer. This is very much at variance with the criticism of the 1959 arrangements that came from the other side of the House, although it is not necessarily wrong for that reason. There is no principle involved here. Exchequer contributions can be adjusted from time to time, so there is no principle involved. But I think it right to draw attention to this point, particularly as I think it was indicated in the Government's White Paper that it was proposed to hold the Exchequer contribution at about 18 per cent. This does not seem to be borne out by the Government Actuary's figures.
What is of far greater important in the long run is the principle of revaluing graduated contributions. In themselves, they are perhaps not going to amount to all that; the amounts involved in revaluing graduated contributions over the next 2½ years are really comparatively unimportant, although the liability for the future is by no means negligible. Perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm my calculation that some 200 million "bricks" will accumulate over that period, each entitling the contributor to an extra £1 19s. 0d. I think I have over simplified that because I have not taken into account the women's side of it; but it is an extra £1 19s. a year in pension. So the total cost of revaluation might easily add quite substantially to the liability over the years, and it seems to me quite irresponsible for the Secretary of State to yield so lightheartedly to the special, pleading of some large companies and extend the revaluation to "bricks" accumulated under the 1959 Act.
When we come to discuss the Government's long-term proposals—if we ever do—we shall have to consider most carefully the arguments both ways. It may well be necessary to revalue graduated

367
contributions from time to time, though whether it should be done in proportion to the up-rating of the basic pension I should doubt. There is a great difference between assuring everyone of a basic amount which will keep pace roughly with the cost of living and may be expected to increase as living standards rise and the wealth of the nation grows on the one hand, and automatically readjusting values of a pension directly related to individual graduated contributions on the other.
The point I wish to make is that our acquiescence in the present proposals must not be taken as committing us to the principle involved. That is a matter for the future when we have all the considerations before us. Side by side with the need for everyone who is able and willing to work to be assured of a basic minimum on which to live when he retires or ceases to be able to work, we must always have regard to the necessity, if we are to survive in freedom as a great industrial nation for people to be encouraged not only to save through contributions to a pay-as-you-go State insurance fund, which spends all its revenue from year to year, but also to save through occupational schemes and to save for themselves—to invest their savings and so increase the wealth of the nation. These two objectives have to be reconciled. The great advantage of the 1959 scheme was that it did not adversely affect individual saving or occupational pensions schemes to any great extent; indeed, occupational pensions schemes have continued to grow and to go from strength to strength. We must ensure that both collective savings and individual savings continue to be available for investment.
My Lords, what we have in this Bill, if I can sum it up, is a very belated and far from apologetic recognition that the means adopted in 1959 of raising money to pay for an acceptable level of basic pension in a time of continuing erosion of the real value of that pension were not only unavoidable but entirely proper. The 1946 Act assumed, first of all, that everyone should pay the same price for the same benefits; secondly, that the value of money would remain more or less constant as it had done in the period between 1925 and 1939; and thirdly, that over the years each individual's contri-
368
butions would pay for pensions and other benefits, of course allowing for those who came late into the scheme.
By the late 1950's it had become abundantly apparent that each individual's contributions would not pay for an acceptable level of basic benefits. The Boyd-Carpenter measure, therefore, added a system of graduated contributions. Unfortunately, the public, and even some of the insurance experts who ought to have known better, persisted in comparing the graduated contributions with the ultimate pension that those contributions alone would earn. They said it was a bad bargain. But the whole point was that even those who were paying the graduated contribution or the contracted out payment were getting a very good bargain, those even at the maximum were getting a very good bargain; taking pension and other benefits as a whole—the basic and the "bricks" and all the rest of it—while those who were paying only the basic contribution would receive far and away more in benefits than their contribution alone would strictly have entitled them to receive.
We have now come to the point where even the graduated pensions taken with the flat-rate contributions at their present level do not suffice to keep the Fund solvent. On the last occasion that the increases were made, I warned the Government that this would happen unless they introduced their long-awaited and long-promised earnings-related scheme very soon. I said that unless it was to be introduced in the near future they ought to increase the upper limit of £18 for graduated contributions, in spite of the difficulties that such increases make for those contracted out. Now they are raising the level in a different way, so as to avoid the difficulties for those contracted out, and I am sure that the Life Offices are duly relieved. But difficulties on contracting out are inherent in any State scheme which provides for periodic adjustment of benefits. The Government have said that they want occupational schemes and the State scheme to coexist. It is not enough just to express that as a pious hope. It is an absolute "must" that they should co-exist, in the interests of the economy and of the prosperity of the country and in the interests of our free way of life.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would not expect me to reply in detail to the many factual points which he has raised with his usual skill. I well recall seeing him in action as a Minister, and he always displayed this great skill when dealing with Bills of this character. I would merely say, in relation to graduated pensions, that increased graduated pensions will be earned by increased graduated contributions. Admittedly, it is not a large amount, but the present graduated measures are a stage towards the Government's new scheme which is to be introduced next Session, when not only the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, but all of your Lordships will have ample opportunity to debate the basic issues on which the noble Lord has touched to-night. On the question of the National Insurance Fund, I may say that the deficit in the current year was, and of course will be, due to the adverse experience troughs which the Fund is going through and which the higher contributions are designed to correct. Next year, the first full year in which the new contributions and benefits will operate, will show a surplus of £57 million over expenditure, even with the forecast deficit of £25 million in 1971-72—
Lord DRUMALBYN: It is £37 million.
Baroness PHILLIPS: Yes, I beg your Lordships' pardon; £37 million—what is £20 million when we are dealing with it only on paper? Even with the forecast deficit of £25 million in 1971-72, the income will still exceed the expenditure of the first two full years. That is consistent with the pay-as-you-go basis by which the scheme is financed. I take the point that the noble Lord has made about the death grant, and I look forward to discussing this subject with him when he raises the question in an Amendment. The National Insurance Fund is subject to the changes which the noble Lord has outlined and to which I made some reference—the fact that there are more retirement pensioners and that we may expect more retirement pensioners. From his opening words I take it that the noble Lord at any rate welcomes the major introduction of the increases in the benefits, and I hope that as the Bill progresses we
370
shall be able to debate in more detail some of the points which he has raised this evening.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSING BILL
8.0 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 [Modification of Rent Act 1968 in relation to improvements assisted under Part I of this Act]:
On Question, Whether Clause 53 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I have put down an Amendment to leave out Clause 53. For all I know, there may be a very good reason for Clause 53 to be in the Bill, but I confess that I have reached a Part of the Bill which at the moment I find difficult to understand. At present, if a landlord carries out improvements he is in the normal case entitled to an increase of 12½ per cent. of his expenditure in the rent. If I understand Clause 53 aright, its purpose is to terminate that. Prima facie that would mean that people who had been thinking of carrying out improvements will now stop. That is clean contrary to the general purpose of the Bill, and therefore I presume that there is some reason for Clause 53 which has so far escaped my notice.
I turn to the explanatory Memorandum at the beginning of the Bill, which says:
"Clause 53 modifies the Rent Act 1968 so that the provisions enabling the r; nt to be increased by 12½ per cent. of the landlord's expenditure on improvements are not to apply where grant is paid under Part I in respect of a dwelling subject to a regulated tenancy."
It may be that the wording of Clause 53 is so drafted that it confines the impact of the clause strictly to dwellings subject to a regulated tenancy, but I confess that does not appear on the face of the clause. My one concern in all this is to get the houses improved as rapidly as possible, and my reason for querying this Clause 1s that it seems at first sight to deny the owner of the house any recompense if he spends money on carrying out improvements with the aid of grant. I

371
shall be very grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will explain.
Lord KENNET: I shall hope to explain this matter to our mutual satisfaction. If the noble Lord's Amendment to leave out the clause were carried it would enable the landlord under an existing regulated tenancy who carries out improvements with the aid of grant to increase the annual rent (if a fair rent has not been registered) by 12½ per cent. of his net expenditure. It would restore the effect of Sections 21 (5) and 25 (1) of the Rent Act 1968 which deal respectively with contractual tenancies and statutory tenancies and which are disapplied in these circumstances under Clause 53 of the Bill.
Where improvements are carried out with the aid of grant in the case of existing regulated tenancies, Clause 52 together with Schedule 3, provides a scheme for the phasing of the increase in rent up to the registered rent. Under that Schedule, the increase—if it is not less than 22s. 6d. per week—is to be phased evenly over three stages at annual intervals; if it is less than 22s. 6d. per week the maximum increase may not exceed 7s. 6d. per week in any year. The full fair rent will thus be recoverable not later than two years after the fair rent is registered.
Under the present system a condition governing rent attaches to an improvement grant, and it applies for three years. In the case of regulated tenancies the condition limits the rent to the 1963 gross value plus 12½ per cent. per annum of the net cost of the improvements to the landlords, or to such higher amount as the local authority may fix. Under the Bill, rent will no longer be governed by any condition attaching to the grant; instead, the phasing, by providing some abatement of the rent for up to two years, in effect gives some benefit to the tenant from the contribution made by way of grant from public funds. Phasing of the increase in rent in these cases was proposed in paragraph 36 of the White Paper, Old Houses into New Homes(Cmnd. 3602). If the landlord were to be entitled to increase the rent straight away by 12½ per cent. of the net cost of the improvements—which would be the effect of omitting Clause 53—this would limit or possibly nullify the effect
372
of the phasing scheme, depending on how near the 12½ per cent. increase brought the existing rent up to the full fair rent. In these cases the existing rent (which would not have been a registered fair rent; otherwise Sections 21 (5) and 25 (1) would not apply) could possibly be at a relatively high level already.
This is, as the noble Lord said, a complicated and confusing part of the Bill. The essence of the matter is that the Bill as drafted, without the Amendment, proposes to get rid of the old 12½ per cent. provision in these cases because of the new provision for registration with the phasing coming into effect of the registered rent, which we were discussing on an earlier Amendment.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I look forward to studying carefully in Hansard what the noble Lord has said. But this is a complicated matter, and I am not sure that I have followed it. So far as I can judge, the effect of this Clause 1s to slow down grant-aided improvements. Without the clause the landlord could be certain that he would get his 12½ per cent.; with the clause he will get something, but phased over a considerable period. It appears, therefore, that this Clause 1s contrary to the general purpose of the Bill. However, the noble Lord is obviously convinced that it is an essential part of the Bill and therefore, while I reserve the right to return to it if I find his explanation completely incomprehensible or inconsistent when I read it in Hansard, in the meantime I shall not press my Amendment to leave out Clause 53.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Restriction on powers of court under section 54]:
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 30, line 33, at end insert—
"(6) This section shall not apply if the tenant is entitled to receive supplementary benefit under the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 25. This is probably, by common consent, a difficult matter. Clause 55 was not in the original Bill; it was introduced by the Government at a late stage in another place and is designed,

373
as I understand it, to protect the tenant who would have difficulty in paying a higher rent. I suspect that the reason why it did not appear in the Bill as originally presented by the Government to Parliament was that the Government are genuinely concerned with the improvement of houses, and did not wish house improvement to be held up because of the chance that a particular house in a terrace was occupied by a tenant who would find difficulty in paying a higher rent. Consequently, I imagine, the Government brought in this new clause.
I entirely agree that one must temper the wind to tenants who cannot afford to pay a higher rent. Nevertheless, at the same time one must recognise that this does strike a blow, which might be quite a heavy blow, at house improvement in many areas. For example, I think it is generally accepted that improvements can be most economically and effectively carried out if they are taken right through a terrace of houses, rather than if Nos. 13, 19, and 27 have to be omitted because there is some difficulty over the tenants in those particular houses. In this clause the Government seems to have surrendered to those difficulties. I am moving this Amendment in the hope that it may reduce the difficulties.
The clause, broadly speaking, protects from the necessity of having to pay a higher rent due to house improvements those tenants who are eligible for rate relief. That is a way of doing rough justice, and of ascertaining those tenants who are less well-off. In this Amendment I am suggesting that the clause should not apply if the tenant is entitled to receive supplementary benefit from the Ministry of Social Security. Under normal supplementary benefit arrangements, as the Supplementary Benefits Commission has taken over from the National Assistance Board the rent is paid by the Commission, as it was formerly paid by the Board. Therefore, if for good and sufficient reason the rent is increased, the Supplementary Benefits Commission would meet that increased rent, just as the National Assistance Board did in the old days.
It seems to me that in the interests of the houses it would be desirable to accept an Amendment of this kind. I think the Government must agree that the Clause itself disadvantages their main purpose of
374
getting as many houses as possible improved. It is brought in for compassionate reasons, in order to protect the tenant with a low income from having to pay higher rent. But if that higher rent would not be paid by the tenant in any case but would be paid by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, there seems to be no reason why the house should be made to suffer and be deprived of the improvements which by common consent it needs.
I therefore hope that perhaps the noble Lord will accept this Amendment, which is moved in no hostile or militant spirit at all. It is simply moved in a desire to be helpful and to ensure that the compassionate terms of Clause 55 may not operate in cases where compassion is not needed, and may not operate in such a way as to bold up unnecessarily that improvement of houses which I knew the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, like all of us, has so much at heart. I beg to move.
LORD KENNET: I acknowledge the noble Lord's desire to be helpful. Since we have a thin Committee I will answer him in shorthand. The point is that you may not be on supplementary benefit for ever. Although it is true that supplementary benefit recipients can in general expect to receive additional benefit to cover a rent increase following improvements—and therefore there is at first sight a case for the noble Lord's Amendment—yet we must consider the position of tenants who are temporarily in receipt of a supplementary allowance. If they are wage-stopped their allowance would not cover any of the rent increase; or if they are near the wage-stop limit they would not get the whole of the increase. But whether or not the tenant was wage-stopped when he returned to work and his supplementary benefit came to an end his income after his return might still qualify him for rate rebate but it would then be too late for him to resist improvement works. In the case of a supplementary pension also his circumstances may change so that while being entitled to a rate rebate he was no longer entitled to a supplementary benefit. As I say I have answered in a form of shorthand. If it is too shorthand I will give the noble Lord and the Committee more chapter and verse for it.
LORD BROOKE of CUMNOR: No, I am sufficiently familiar with shorthand to understand what the noble Lord is

375
saying but I should like him to accept from me that there is the germ of an idea underlying this Amendment. I never supposed it was perfectly drafted to cover all conceivable cases and I never had any intention of pressing the Amendment. But before I withdraw it I should like the noble Lord to undertake to look at this further to see whether something could not be made of this idea. I give him full credit for wanting to see all improvable houses improved and for not wishing that potential improvements should be held up through matters which are extraneous to the condition of the house.
It seems to me that it might still be possible to amend this Clause in some way as would bring it about that the fact that at a particular time the tenant was eligible for rate relief would not be an absolute bar, as it is now under this clause, to the improvement of the house. As I say, I think there is a germ of an idea in this Amendment. I think this clause, having been introduced at a late stage in another place, has not received as much examination as those clauses which stood in the original Bill have done, and I think it will be found over the years that Clause 55 unamended is so rigid that it is going to hold up desirable improvements. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will examine this to see whether something can be made of it. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Supplemental]:
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 30, line 38, at end insert—
("(2) The power of the Lord Chancellor under section 106 of the Rent Act 1968 to make rules and give directions for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions specified in subsection (3) of that section shall extend to sections 49 and 54 of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to give the Lord Chancellor power to make county court rules governing the procedure for county court proceedings under Clause 49, which concerns a tenant's appeal against the issue of, or a landlord's appeal against the refusal of, a qualification certificate in
376
"already improved" cases; and Clause 54 which deals with a landlord's application to enter a dwelling and carry out improvements to which the tenant has not consented. The intention is that the rules to be made should, first, enable Clause 49 appeals to be heard by county court registrars, and, second, make the landlord or tenant other than the appellant a respondent to Clause 49 proceedings, because if nothing were done only the local authority would be respondent. These changes meet points which were raised in the Committee stage in the House of Commons.
The possibility of costs being awarded against a tenant on a landlord's appeal is, I believe, already adequately covered by the "costs" provision in Clause 49 (3), which will effectively protect a respondent against any award of appellant's costs except where the respondent has conducted the proceedings improperly. A similar "costs" provision was inserted in the Protection from Eviction Act 1964 and the Rent Act 1965, and there is no reason to think that those provisions have not achieved the desired result. I beg to move.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 57 to 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Means of escape from fire]:
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 32, line 9, after ("subsection") insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: I simply thought that to insert the word "may" where indicated would make for better English and would make the subsection easier to understand. I beg to move.
Lord KENNET: I am informed that we do not really have to insert the second "may" because it seems that in the existing drafting the word "may" in line 7 relates not only to the words "secure that that part is not used for human habitation" but also to the words "serve a notice under section 16 of the Housing Act.1961." It is a matter of interpretation and the best advice that I have been able to lay my hands on is that one "may" will suffice.
Lord AIREDALE: I think that one "may" will suffice, but I do not think it is very good English. But I am not prepared to divide the Committee on it. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clauses 61 to 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 [Amendments with respect to amount of payments made for well maintained houses]:
8.21 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 39, line 13, leave out from ("1957") to end of line 15.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 28. We have now come to Part V of the Bill which contains a number of improvements that I welcome. Clause 66 is entitled "Amendments with respect to amounts of payments made for well maintained houses." In certain respects it improves these payments but it only does so, if I understand it aright, in cases where the relevant date, within the meaning of Part III of that part of the Schedule so set out, is later than April 23, 1968. If we are to do justice we ought not to limit that justice. In this whole field, the noble Lord knows as well as I do, there has been long-continued ill feeling through the particular application of the law as it stands; and as I have said I welcome the relaxations of the strictness of the law which this part of the Bill offers. My one concern is that in removing some anomalies we shall be creating others.
Having stated the principle of Clause 66, it appears to me that we ought to apply that principle widely to all cases not yet settled instead of confining it, as the Bill proposes, to those cases where the relevant date is later than April 23, 1968—which I believe was the date of the White Paper. I hope that the noble Lord, who must himself have had to deal with many of these hard cases which this Bill is designed to render less hard, will view this Amendment sympathetically.
Lord KENNET: This is the perennial pipe-line problem which you come across whenever you propose to legislate in order to make things better for people. If there is a class of people who are
378
engaged in doing something (in this case parting with their slum properties in return for compensation) and you propose to make life easier for them (in this case by increasing the amount of compensation) the question always arises: Who benefits? Those who are—how far?—through the pipe-line may benefit under the proposals. I think that the Bill as drafted has got it about right. Wherever you put it there are going to be people falling just outside the increased rate of compensation, who fall just before it. This is going to be unwelcome to them. If you put it further back, as the noble Lord proposes, there will be another generation, as it were, of slum owners who would not benefit from it. That would be unwelcome to them.
The purpose of the Amendment is to secure the benefit of the new payments for all owners of unfit houses which were in the pipe-line on April 23, 1968 so that all houses not actually acquired by the authority on that date would be eligible for the new payments.
The question therefore to which the Amendments are addressed is: What should be the appropriate starting date for the Bill's provisions? The Bill is already retrospective; and, I think, very generously so. It looks back to events which commenced after the publication of the White Paper on April 23 last year. The Government considered it right that the changes should operate from that date but in a way which would told a reasonable balance between owners of unfit property and the local authorities who have to make the increased payments. I shall come to the question of the Exchequer in a moment. We felt that it would be unfair to commit local authorities to payments which they could not have reasonably expected when they committed themselves to a particular slum clearance action. So the changes described in the White Paper and contained in the Bill hinge upon the first formal action of the authority—and that is in most cases the declaration of a clearance area. Similarly, owners of unfit property already affected by slum clearance action on April 23, 1968, could not have had any legitimate expectation that they would receive more than the compensation allowed for in the current compensation code at the time—which is still in force now. It is understandable that

379
this is not welcome to them. But the date proposed in the Bill seems to the Government the most logical and defensible one for the introduction of the changes.
There is another point. To go back further as the Amendment proposes would have, I think, rather capricious effects. For example, if everything turned on the timing of the purchase of the unfit house, owners of houses in the same compulsory purchase order might get different treatment. They would be at the mercy of the inevitable leeway and irregularity of the administrative machine and the longer an order took the more likely it would be that an owner would benefit under the new code. Certain local authorities say, and perhaps certain noble Lords, that if this Amendment were accepted extra financial burdens would fall only on to the local authorities. Certain local authorities may be thinking, "It is up to us; why should we not be more generous, since it is we who pay?"
This is not the whole story. There would be extra financial burdens on the Exchequer by way of subsidy on cleared land used for new housing; and this would not achieve any increase in the rate of slum clearance because the houses affected by these Amendments were already in the pipe-line in April, 1968. The extra cost of slum clearance as a result of the Bill's provisions as drafted is likely to be about £5 million or more in a full year. This, I think, is a price well worth paying for the acceleration in slum clearance which will result once the owner-occupier's grievances are removed. But if the relevant date were made, say, the date of the actual purchase of the property, the additional cost over that £5 million would be more than £6 million—and almost all of that would have to be met in the near future.
So I hope that in view of the financial considerations and in view of what I believe will be the increase in uncertainty and dubiety as between different cases in the same part of the same town, the noble Lord may think it would be best to leave the commencing date for the new code at April 23, 1968.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: It will have become apparent to the Committee that I have down a series of three
380
Amendments, which have broadly similar purposes, to Clauses 66, 67 and 68. It is only the Amendment to Clause 66 to which I have spoken so far; and I certainly find it surprising to hear that if the Amendment to Clause 66 were accepted it would increase the cost falling upon the local authorities by £6 million a year. If that is so, I shall be greatly interested to hear what the additional cost expected under Clauses 67 and 68 would be if my Amendments were accepted. I do not wish to argue these at length. I want to ask in every case whether the Government will re-examine these matters between now and the final stage of the Bill. My own judgment is that people whose cases have already been settled will reasonably accept that the question of their payment could not be reopened as a result of this Bill. But where cases have not been settled I think there will be a very strong feeling that this date of April 23, 1968, is artificial as a dividing line. I have No information about whether local authorities would object to my Amendment to Clause 66. I shall be able to speak with confidence about their attitude when we come to Clause 68, but certainly it had appeared to me that the costs involved in my Amendments to Clauses 66 and 67 were probably considerably smaller than those that were involved in Clause 68.
My general belief is that where Parliament declares a new principle, as it is doing in each of these clauses, it is desirable that the new principle should be applied to settling all outstanding cases at the time of the legislation, whatever the original date of declaration—or the relevant date, or whatever it may be called—has been. I am not going to press this Amendment, but I shall ask on it, as I shall ask on the Amendments to Clauses 67 and 68, whether the Government will re-examine these matters sympathetically between now and the closing stages of the Bill to see whether by some Amendment, either by mine or some other, the quantity of painful anomalies may be reduced. I beg leave to withdrawn the Amendment.
Lord KENNET: Before the Question is put, may I say that I owe the noble Lord, Lork Brooke of Cumnor, a humble apology on procedural grounds. My remarks were addressed to the group of Amendments about the back-dating down

381
the pipe-line—Amendments 28, 29, 30 and 31—which I think the noble Lord will agree stand together. It is true that he did not say that he was speaking to all four of them, but I am afraid I did not notice that and took it that he was. My observations about the financial effects were, of course, related to the totality of the group and not to Amendment 28 alone. I should perhaps revert to the question of the £5 million and £6 million as I may not have made it clear that £5 million would be the extra cost of slum clearance under the Bill as drafted, and £6 million would be the extra cost of slum clearance under the Bill as drafted and as amended by the noble Lord in this series of Amendments. I am glad that he is not going to press them upon the Committee this evening, and I will readily undertake to look again at this matter; though I should say that I foresee pretty grave difficulties, which I had already adumbrated, about coming to any different conclusion than that embodied in the Bill as drafted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Payments in respect of partially well maintained houses or parts of buildings]:
8.34 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 39, line 21, leave out from ("maintained") to end of line 30.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, and I think I can do so shortly, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, believes that he has already covered this and my next Amendment in his previous comprehensive reply. If he is able to break up his figures of £5 million and £6 million as between Clauses 66, 67 and 68, that would be of interest. So far as I am aware, Clause 67 introduces a new concept, the partially well maintained houses or parts of buildings—the case where either the exterior or the interior of the house has been well maintained. If here we are introducing that new concept I should have thought the argument was overwhelming to apply it to all individual cases not yet settled rather than to have the cut-off dates that
382
are set out in the paragraphs (a) and (b), the paragraphs that my Amendment is designed to delete. Obviously, I need not speak at length about it, but I mast get on the Record that I have moved it formally. If the noble Lord is in a position to split up his global figures of £5 million and £6 million between the three clauses, that would be of considerable interest.
8.35 p.m.
Lord KENNET: The noble Lord is perfectly right. This provision is about houses partially well maintained inside or outside at the half rate, and is an entirely new concept. It was first announced on the publication of the Bill. It will take effect under the Bill as drafted after the enactment and there is no provision for back-dating. It would in fact be impossible to provide for back-dating on these partially well maintained payments because the houses will have been inspected on the basis of full maintenance in the traditional way until the Bill comes into force; so there will be no separate examination of the inside as opposed to the outside, or the outside as opposed to the inside, until this new drill goes into effect. The amount of money involved in back-dating the new rate of well maintained payments is small compared with the equivalent back-dating of the owner-occupied subsidies. Only about 11 per cent. of the tenanted houses qualify for payment and the additional cost might be of the order of £500, 000.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I have put my views on record and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Payments to owner-occupiers and others in respect of unfit houses purchased or demolished]:
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 40, leave out lines 25 to 31, and insert—

("(a) the house was purchased or vacated after 23rd April 1968, in pursuance of an order within the meaning of paragraph 4 (1) of that Schedule; or

(b) the house was purchased after that date in pursuance of an order made under Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Land Compensation Act 1961;").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 30. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will perceive that Amendment No. 31 to Schedule 5 is linked with it. This is, of course, much the most substantial of these three Amendments. In this case I can say with assurance that the local authorities principally concerned are very anxious that the Bill shall be amended, either on the lines of my Amendment or in some other way. I have received representations on this matter from the Association of Municipal Corporations and from the Greater London Council and these bodies must between them cover most of the unfit houses which would be affected by this clause.
I welcome the general provisions of the clause so far as it goes, but I am seriously concerned about the anomalies that are going to arise. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, feels that he has given an answer to this Amendment and I do not wish him to reply at length; though I am sure he would not demur to my stating my case on this Amendment as I have done on the others. If I understand rightly, the additional payment which this clause will enact will be available to houses which are owner-occupied in cases where what is called the appropriate action is taken after April 23, 1968. The appropriate action may take various forms, but the typical case is that where the local authority declare a clearance area covering the unfit house that is in question. In such cases it is the date of the declaration that will affect whether or not the owner-occupier will be entitled to the benefit of Clause 68. It will be so if the declaration of the clearance area or the appropriate action, whatever other form it may take, was after April 23, 1968. A great many city councils and borough councils declared clearance areas before April 23, 1968, but have, as yet, acquired few, if any, properties in those areas. This is a common situation because local authorities are very hard pressed in this matter of slum clearance.
If one takes two cases—they may be adjacent cases—where the declaration occurred before April 23, 1968, there will be no benefit from this clause to the owners even though their actual houses may be acquired later than similar houses in other clearance areas declared after April 23, 1968, which will get the benefit
384
of this clause. There is undoubtedly going to be a very keen feeling of injustice if the clause goes through unamended, and my Amendments are to apply the date of April 23, 1968, not to the declaration of the clearance area (or whatever the appropriate action has been), but rather to the date of the completion of the purchase of the house or other contingent happenings which may correspond to that. This, it seems to me, will be much more likely to be accepted as fair.
Quite frankly most people owning property, most owner-occupiers in a clearance area, are not likely to be explicit in their minds as to the date when a clearance order was made. There will be no doubt whatever in their minds as to the date when their property is compulsorily acquired or they are made to vacate it. That is the meaningful date for them and I am suggesting that it should be that meaningful date which should apply to determine whether or not they are entitled to the additional payments. I sincerely believe that this will reduce the number of anomalies. I am not suggesting it will eliminate all the anomalies, because it would be quite impossible to eliminate all anomalies, but at any rate those anomalies which remain will be confined to cases where the purchase of the property had been completed before April 23, 1968, which is some way back; there could be no anomalies among people whose property had been purchased since that date.
I cannot see that this Amendment would do any harm except to the local authorities who have to find the money. The local authorities themselves have said that they are anxious to find the money because they know it is a handicap and a brake to successful slum clearance if there is strong local feeling that owner-occupiers are being unfairly treated. I greatly hope that the noble Lord will seriously examine this point. I am speaking for a strong body of opinion, not only the owner-occupiers themselves, and I most seriously believe that a real effort should be made either in this way or in some other way to reduce the anomalies which will otherwise damage the atmosphere for continued and succesful slum clearance. I beg to move.
Lord KENNET: I have already said something about this precociously and I

385
have said I will look at it. I foresee difficulties, partly because of the Exchequer subsidy which these proceedings attract. So it is not solely a matter of increased local authority expenditure which they might properly wish to make whatever the central Government think about it but also this point of different results cropping up in the same slum clearance area. If the noble Lord will consider a clearance order which came into effect in April, 1967, then let him consider two householders within that order, one of whom had his house compulsorily purchased in March, 1968, and one of whom had his house compulsorily purchased in May, 1968. What would they think about the effect of his Amendment? However, I have said that we will look at the point again, and that is the sort of difficulty we must look at.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I quite accept that there will be some sort of anomaly, wherever you draw the line, but I think the anomalies will be less keenly felt where cases have actually been settled some time ago than where cases are now being settled and yet, owing to this clause as drafted, are having to be settled under forms of compensation which Parliament has already rejected for the future. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Schedules 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clauses 69, 70 and 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 [Power of local authority to require repair of house]:
8.45 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 42, line 7, at end insert—
("Provided that no such notice shall be served if the income of the landlord is such that he would be entitled, if he were a tenant, to the protection of section 55 of the Housing Act 1969.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 32. Clause 72 empowers a local authority, where a house is in such a state of disrepair that although it is not unfit substantial repairs are required to bring it up to a reasonable
386
standard, to serve a notice on the person having control of the house to execute the works specified in the notice. My Amendment is designed to provide the same sort of safeguard to the poverty-stricken owner as by Clause 55 the Government are offering to the poverty-stricken tenant. I need not quote cases of poverty-stricken owners because the Minister himself did it in his Second Reading speech. He pointed out that a very large number of these houses in question are owned by single individuals, many of them elderly; and that where these houses are still rent-controlled the rent payable has for many years been quite inadequate to keep the house in repair.
Therefore there are (and I believe this is universally accepted) a large number of houses owned by individuals, many of whom have inherited the houses, and simply have not got, either from the rent or elsewhere, the money to keep the house in good repair. It would be unreasonable for the local authority to ignore that fact and to seek to extract money for repairs from a person who had not got that money. As the Government thought fit to protect, under Clause 75, from the necessity of paying extra rent for improvements the tenant who really cannot afford to pay any more, so I propose in this Amendment that the owner who cannot afford to ca y out the necessary repairs required by the Authority should be protected in a similar way. I beg to move.
Lord KENNET: The clause as drafted exempts statutory tenants whose income is within the limits for rate relief as certified by the rating authority from having a court order made against them under Clause 54. The Amendment seeks to debar a local authority from serving a repairs notice on a landlord who, if he were a tenant, would be protected by Clause 55. In the Government's view, there is a substantial difference between forcing an impecunious tenant to accept improvements and getting a landlord to carry out his obligations with regard to repairs. It may be difficult for a landlord under a controlled tenancy to find money for repairs out of a rent controlled at its 1957 level—indeed, my right honourable friend said on Second Reading that the cost of repairs had increased by over two-thirds since 1957.

387
In my submission, however, the Bill as it is before us will help the landlords in a good many other ways. There are the provisions dealing with the conversion of tenancies from control to regulation, which we have just discussed, where the dwellings satisfy the qualifying conditions. The landlord has his rent increase to look forward to. Landlords will also be able to get improvement grants towards some of the repairs they carry out, provided they are associated with improvements. This is something quite new in this Bill. There has been No improvement grant like this previously, and it is now up to a sum which is half of the total expenditure on repairs.
Clause 72 says that the repairs required must be such as to bring the house up to a reasonable standard, having regard to its age, character and locality. The key is what is "reasonable." This is not a matter for the housing authority alone: it is for the housing authority first and then for the county court, on appeal. Since there is an appeal to the county court, the local authority will inevitably consider the reasonableness of their requirements carefully before they proceed. Moreover, they have a power to act—not a duty—and they will not want to endanger the progress of their general improvement area plans by provoking criticism through too stringent demands on poor landlords. I hope that bearing in mind all the other things in the Bill that will have the effect of protecting landlords against unreasonable conduct, and, I would add, the intrinsic character of most local authorities, which is to avoid unreasonable conduct, the noble Lord will think that the Bill is all right as it stands.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: With great respect to the noble Lord, that is not one of the best of his answers. I believe that there is a real problem here. The noble Lord, in resisting this Amendment, argued that no local authority would act unreasonably. But, as his Minister acknowledged on Second Reading, a large number of individual landlords will be in difficulty if local authorities take advantage of this clause. If I may quote from the Minister, he said:
"There seems little doubt that these 1957 rent levels have meant in many cases that repairs have been neglected. I had a case
388
only a week ago of an old lady in my constituency who owned two rent-controlled houses. The tenants of each paid 10s. 6d. a week in rent. She has just spent £40 on repairs and is now faced with spending a further £25 or £30."
That is all right if that particular old lady has some income from elsewhere, but it is not all right if she has not. I am certain that the Government recognise in their hearts that there is a large number of people who own one controlled house in that sort of state and have not the money from the rents, or the rents as this Bill may eventually increase them, to carry out the repairs which under this clause the local authority may require.
I am tempted to press this Amendment but the hour is late and it may not in itself be a perfect Amendment. What would influence me would be if the noble Lord would say that in a circular, which no doubt the Minister will eventually send out when this Bill reaches the Statute Book, local authorities will be told to pay attention to the sort of reasoning which he has just expressed in his speech. It is no use their trying to apply Clause 72 strictly to individual landlords who simply have not the money to do it. It is not reasonable on their' part. My fear is that local authorities may feel that Clause 72 requires them to act in this way in every case and to fight it out in the county court, if necessary. They may feel that because that is pretty well what the clause says. Therefore it would greatly help me if the noble Lord and his Minister would, by some means or other, seek to remind local authorities that though this may be an extremely valuable power to use in certain cases it would be a mistake to use it in those cases where there was not the slightest chance of a landlord being able to afford to carry out the repairs which a strict local authority would require him to do under this clause.
Lord KENNET: I am rather distressed by these repeated requests to send out circulars to explain that the law does not mean something which it does not say. It is perfectly clear that there is only a power to do this, not a duty; and I should have thought that most local authorities were well able to see that they cannot get blood out of a stone and that the way to proceed is reasonably, as indeed the Bill lays a duty on them to do. They must be reasonable. They are not

389
bound to use the compulsory powers against landlords unless they judge it right to do so. However, I have taken the noble Lord's point, and when I am able to read Hansard I will examine his worries again with an open mind, and we can if necessary come back to it again.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I wonder if the noble Lord would take one other point into consideration. Sooner or later we are going to have a form of local government reform which means that every individual elected member of a local authority will be farther away from this sort of administrative problem, which more and more will have to be left to permanent officials. In a case of this sort, in which discretion has to be exercised, it depends on its being exercised by somebody who is not a permanent official and takes the responsibility. And it means that we should lay down the law here rather more specifically than in the old days, where the individual member of a council was able to exercise the discretion himself.
Lord KENNET: When it comes to local government reform, and if it takes the shape recommended by the Royal Commission Report, there will be a point in what the noble Earl says.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, accused me of seeking to urge the Minister to send out lots of circulars. I should not dream of doing that, but if the Minister thinks that he can pass a Bill of this magnitude into law and not send out a circular about it, he will be in serious trouble with the local authority associations. There may be a difference of approach between him and me, but there is a real problem here, and I hope that together we may find some means of mitigating it. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Lord KENNET: With the patience of the Committee, I was not proposing that the Minister should not send out a circular about this Bill. But I hope that the circular he sends out will be confined to saying what the law is and about how to use it, and will not go too deeply into asserting that the law does indeed not say that which it does not say.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET moved Amendment No. 33:
>After Clause 72 insert the following new clause:
Increase of fine under s. 170 of Housing Act 1957
". Section 170 of the Housing Act 1957 (power of local authority to require information as to ownership of premises) shall have effect, with respect to offences committed after the commencement of this Act, as if for the words 'five pounds' there were substituted the words ' fifty pounds '".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which hangs together with Amendment No. 59 to the Title, deals with the giving of false information. Section 170 of the Housing Act 1957 enables a local authority to require information as to the ownership of premises for certain purposes. Apparently the fine for false information stands at £5. That was settled in 1930. The purpose of the Amendment is to raise the £5 to £50 which is more in accordance with the value of money in this day and age.
Clauses 73 to 76 agreed to.
9.2 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 34:
After Clause 76, insert the following new clause:
Contributions towards strengthening high blocks of flats
". In so far as a local authority is required to incur additional expense on strengthening high blocks of flats in order to safeguard against a repetition of the Ronan Point disaster, the Minister may make a contribution to the authority equal to one-half of the additional expense so incurred."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause dealing with the means of paying for the additional work in which local authorities have been involved in the course of safeguarding against a repetition of the Ronan Point disaster. I realise that this is a matter of money, and your Lordships' House normally leaves money matters to another place. I would not have tabled this new Clause if I did not feel so strongly that the Government must reconsider the very unfair decision which they have so far made and maintained as to the inadequate amount of Exchequer help to be given to these local authorities.
Every member of the Committee will be familiar with the Ronan Point disaster. They will realise the terror which that set up among tenants of other high blocks of flats with a similar mode of construction. Unquestionably, following the report of the inquiry into the disaster, it was essential that local authorities which had built high blocks of flats that were shown to be vulnerable to similar disasters must take action to safeguard the lives of their tenants and the stability of the buildings. That has involved, and is involving a very large sum of money. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, may be able to give the latest authoritative estimate. The figure I am in a position to give is £25 million, a very considerable addition to local authority expenditure, bearing in mind that this is not spread equally over local authorities but falls selectively on those local authorities which usually, because of the urgency of their housing problem and lack of land, have been forced to build high. It is expensive to build high, and few local authorities wish to do so if there is another means of meeting their housing problems. But it is well known that certain local authorities have found it inevitable to build high and now they are being very heavily penalised.
The Government have so far said that the Exchequer will meet no more than 40 per cent. of the additional cost which local authorities will incur or are incurring through the necessity to strengthen their high blocks of flats. If my figure of £25 million is correct, that means that the Government is meeting £10 million, and the relatively small number of local authorities with acute housing problems which have very high blocks of flats have to meet the remaining £15 million. The Government said at one stage that whatever happened it should not fall on the tenants, but it is clear that a large amount is going to fall on the ratepayers of the boroughs concerned, including the tenants. These boroughs and cities are places with acute housing problems and with lack of land, otherwise they would almost certainly have gone in for lower and cheaper forms of construction. In other words, they are the authorities which tend to have heavy housing outgoings in relation to the product of a 1d. rate, in relation to their rateable wealth so to speak.
I should have thought that it stood to reason that the Government should relieve such local authorities of much more than two-fifths of the cost. I seek to bring in a very modest new clause saying that it should be fifty fifty. I do not think it should be fifty per cent. I think if local authorities paid 20 per cent. and the Government 80 per cent. that would still fall heavily on local authorities. The reason why I am proposing the fifty fifty division is that a new clause was moved by a Government supporter in another place suggesting that the 40/60 position should be reversed and should become 60/40—the 60 per cent. on the Exchequer and 40 per cent. on the local authorities. In a vote in which it was clear that a number of Government supporters were very uncomfortable, this new clause, moved from the Government Benches, was defeated. It seemed inappropriate to move exactly the same new clause as the Commons had already rejected. I am bound to say that I am in considerable trouble with some of the boroughs and cities concerned who think I am letting them down by pressing for only a fifty fifty split, whereas they think, and I think, it would better be an 80/20 split. It seemed to me that if I were to ask for more than the Government had already refused in another place I might have no chance at all of success. But if I asked for something which was less than justice—less than the Exchequer ought to be prepared to make available to these hard-pressed local authorities—then I might by these means be able to persuade the Government to think again.
I feel that if the Government do not move on this they will severely damage their relations with urban housing authorities. There is intense feeling that this 40 per cent. offer by the Government is inadequate; and it is not confined to those boroughs and cities which are affected, but has gone through the whole of local government. For all other local authorities are perfectly well aware that it was a matter of chance that certain housing authorities were hit by this; that there might have been a disaster of a different kind, and the colossal additional cost might have fallen on other housing authorities.
I beg with all my power that the Government will give fresh consideration to this. It is not wise to sail on a collision

393
course with the local authorities as a whole. I do not believe that anybody, except those who went into the Lobby out of Party loyalty in another place, believe that the Government have acted fairly in offering only 40 per cent. I am quite sure that if the Government were now to make a more generous offer, it would sweeten relations between the Government and the local authorities, and give the local authorities a return of confidence, which has been very badly shattered (I say this with knowledge) as a result of the Government's action over Ronan Point. I beg to move.
Lord KENNET: The noble Lord said he was afraid that he was going to get into trouble with the local authorities for proposing only 50 per cent. Government grant on this account. I am sorry to hear it. The local authorities are, of course, in direct contact with the Minister. They came along; there was a meeting; and they asked for 100 per cent. They just landed the whole problem in the lap of Central Government. The noble Lord is more equal in his divisons at 50-50. The Government, as the Committee know, propose 40-60; that is to say, the Government propose 40 per cent. from Exchequer funds.
I was struck by what the noble Lord said about the other 60 per cent. having to come from the local authorities. The Tribunal of Inquiry, in their Report, if the thing is taken as a whole—and I do not suppose the noble Lord would dissent from this—allotted a broad spread of responsibility, not between the two parties, central and local government, but between three—central Government, local government and a third party which the noble Lord did not even touch upon; that is, industry and the professions concerned. Because if a block is built and it falls down, who is involved? The designer of the system used, the architect of the particular block, the consultant who advised on the use of the system—are these people not involved? I conceive that they are. I conceive that their professional standards are in question in this matter. I conceive that if a block falls down, and if other blocks of a similar nature have to be strengthened at great expense, part of the responsibility is theirs. The Tribunal of Inquiry said this, and I agree with them. Part also, no doubt, is the responsibility of the local
394
authority which ordered the block and approved it; and part is the responsibility of the central Government which laid down the book of rules under which the proceedings were conducted. It is the view of the Government that 40 per cent. correctly reflects the responsibility of central Government in this tripartite allotment of responsibility for what has to be done as a result of the disaster.
If I may concentrate for a moment on the part which will have to be paid by the local authorities themselves, the middle party, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, pointed out the remarks of my right honourable friend about how the expense certainly ought not to fall on the tenants; and he said it looked as if it would. I think what my right honourable friend had in mind was that the expense ought not to fall on the tenants of the blocks which had to be strengthened, where all this money would have to be spent. Unfortunately, some of it. is bound to fall on the tenants of that council, because some of it is bound to fall upon the rates, and they are ratepayers. Equally, if the Government were to pay more, like the 50 per cent. proposed by the noble Lord, some of it would fall on the very same people as taxpayers. I wanted to make that distinction between tenants in the blocks concerned and council tenants in the area of the local authority as a whole.
I hope I have said enough about this question. It is not a bipartite division of responsibility between central and local Government; it is tripartite between central Government, local government and those professionals and industrialists who put up the blocks which have been found, to everybody's surprise—and I freely admit to everybody's surprise—not to be good enough.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: The noble Lord did not confirm or deny the estimates of £25 million which I made as to the total additional cost.
Lord KENNET: I should not wish to quarrel with that, but it must remain a very provisional estimate at the moment because the costing is by no means finished. The best I can say is that it may well turn out to be about that in the end. We simply do not know yet.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: The noble Lord has confirmed my view that it is of that order of magnitude, and whatever monies may be available from other quarters, it still remains perfectly clear that out of that £25 million a very substantial unexpected and unexpectable burden has to fall on a small number of local authorities which have been striving to mitigate their housing problems by building tall blocks of flats owing to their shortage of land.
Lord KENNET: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I have not confirmed his view that it is likely to turn out to be of that order of magnitude. I have only said that I have no reason specifically to challenge that figure. It may be that; it may be another. It is not likely to be of that order of magnitude; it is quite possible that it will be of that order of magnitude.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I think we can take £25 million as the only figure that is worth talking about at the moment because we have no other. On a financial matter like this it would be inappropriate for me to press this new Clause in your Lordships' House. I can only express bitter disappointment, and I can but say with the authority of a former Minister of Housing and Local Government that the behaviour of the Government in this matter is not the way to gain, to keep and to strengthen the confidence of the local authorities in central Government. Housing Acts can operate successfully only if there is a genuine feeling of partnership between the Ministry and the local authorities. It is that feeling of partnership which the Government are damaging by their mean decision on this Ronan Point affair.
Lord KENNET: If the noble Lord will permit me, I wonder whether I could put one question to him. Would he admit that there should also be a feeling of partnership between the local authorities, the industry and the consultant?
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: Yes; but I cannot tell what the contractual arrangements were there. I do not have the information on all these cases, whether indeed the building regulations were complied with and whether in any particular case they were nationally approved regulations or locally
396
approved regulations. That has to be gone into in every case. I beg leave to withdraw the new clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.17 p.m.
Lord BROOKE OF CUMNORhad given Notice of his intention to move the insertion after Clause 76 of a new clause dealing with assistance to students' housing associations. The noble Lord said: In view of the lengthy discussion we had about student housing associations and the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, took up my suggestion that there should be discussions under Parliamentary auspices of the ways in which the Government might be able to further the aims of student housing associations, at this time of night it would be suitable if I did not move this new clause. We can discuss it later.
Lord KENNET: Could I just clarify the use of the words, "Parliamentary auspices "? That slightly suggests some Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry. I know that is not in the noble Lord's mind. What I had in mind was simply an informal meeting and discussion. An "auspice" sounds a little formal.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I think we are at one about this. When I said, "Parliamentary auspices" I meant that Members, at any rate of the Upper House of Parliament, will be present.
Clause 77 agreed to.
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET moved Amendment No. 36:
After Clause 77 insert the following new clause:
Right to terminate period for which option notice has effect
".—(1) In section 24 (3) of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 the following shall be inserted after paragraph (vi)—
(vii) the taking effect of a notice under section 26A of this Act.'
(2) After section 26 of that Act there shall be inserted the following section:—
'26A.—(1) Where an option notice has been given in respect of a loan the person or persons in whom the rights and obligations under the repayment contract are for the time being vested may by notice to the lender bring the period for which the option notice has effect to an end on 31st March of any year not earlier than 1973, but only if not less than five years have then elapsed since the date of the repayment contract.

397
(2) A notice under this section must be in writing and in such form as the Minister may direct and must be given not less than three months before the date on which it is to take effect.'"
The noble Lord said: This new clause concerns the option mortgage scheme. Its purpose is to give a person who has taken an option mortgage in preference to tax relief on the mortgage interest the right to get out of the scheme and revert to tax relief. This right arises five years after the borrower entered the scheme or any subsequent year after that, but it is a once-and-for-all choice. At the time of the passing of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 the lending agencies were adamantly opposed to anyone's being allowed to opt out, on the grounds of the administrative inconvenience involved if people were to move in and out of the scheme. The Building Societies' Association since then have reiterated their objection. As a recent discussion with the representatives of the lending agencies, they all agreed—and this was a change in position—to a man's being allowed to opt out after five years.
The benefit of an option mortgage ought to be looked at over the life of the mortgage, and Clause 77 allows the rates of subsidy to be increased, which removes one ground for wanting to get out. If after five years a borrower wants to get out of the scheme, it is reasonable to let him do so, and I am very glad—and I believe the Opposition is also glad—that the lending agencies have come to the conclusion that this is acceptable to them. I need hardly add that the Amendment comes so late in the course of the Bill through Parliament solely because it was only the other day that the lending agencies came to their conclusion. I beg to move.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I certainly welcome this new clause and I am glad the Government have been able to do this. At this late hour I will not speak at length. I will simply mention that a certain amount of Parliamentary time could have been saved if the Government had accepted a new clause moved by the Opposition in another place to do just this, instead of resisting it then and bringing forward the clause themselves in Committee in your Lordships' House. However, after that little bit of teasing, I should like to thank the Government for what they are doing.
Lord KENNET: If I may tease the noble Lord back, it would have involved brow-beating the building societies into something they did not want to do at that stage—and I think they are his friends.
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clause 79 [Other long tenancies]:
9.22 p.m.
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 46, line 20, leave out from ("it") to ("be") in line 21 and insert ("Schedule 7 to this Act shall apply and, if the tenancy was granted before the commencement of this Act,").
The noble Lord said: Because it is getting late I am going to try to get by with "shorthand" on this one again, though of course I will instantly give the full background if any noble Lord should require it. This is a very complicated matter about long tenancies and the clause as drafted—I hope I make myself clear to those who are on top of the situation—contained both "belt" and "braces", but the "braces" were sufficient and the "belt" succeeded only in squeezing out a few deserving cases which we recently identified, and the Amendment removes the "belt". I beg to move.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: The noble Lord has now switched to a more inscrutable form of "shorthand" and I am quite sure that I cannot interpret it easily. On the other hand, if he were to read out a lengthy brief I am not at all sure, at this late hour of the light, whether I should find it any more comprehensible. If he will assure me that what he has said makes sense in the cold light of morning, I will read it carefully.
This is a difficult clause. I think he will confirm that it was introduced at a fairly late stage in another place and therefore it did not get as intensive an examination as was given to all the clauses in the Bill as originally presented to Parliament. I hope to find that what he is proposing by this Amendment is all right, but I should like to reserve my position as long as he discusses it in any form of "shorthand".
Lord KENNET: In view of what was said in another place about this matter, I am fairly confident in saying that the noble Lord will find it all right.
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 46, line 26, leave out from beginning to ("it") and insert ("within twenty years of the date when")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to eliminate a small anomaly which was pointed out in the debate on the Report stage in another place, and was also drawn to the attention of the Government by the Law Society. Once again, I think perhaps, unless any noble Lord wishes me to go into detail, it may be enough if I simply move this with that much explanation. I beg to move.
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 46, line 28, after ("granted") insert ("before the passing of this Act or was granted")
The noble Lord said: The rent variation condition in Clause 79 (2) (b) is aimed directly at the prevention of abuse by landlords seeking to capitalise from scarcity. It is therefore not so essential to apply it to existing leases as to future leases. To apply it to existing leases has now been shown, as a result of helpful approaches by the Law Society and others, to deprive a number of genuine long leases with real capital value of the benefit of this clause. The proposal not to apply it to existing leases will not benefit any freeholder. Some tenants with genuine long leases will now benefit, as they should do, while others who hold leases which are basically rack rent tenancies dressed up as long leases will, for the most part, get no benefit.
The type of geniune lease which, if the Amendments I am proposing are made, will still fail to benefit from Clause 79 (2) (b) is the sub-lease which provides for a rent review within a period of 20 years from the date on which it was granted but where there is a superior lease of the dwelling which itself satisfies the condition in Clause 79 (2) (b). A sublease may not be granted until some years
400
after the grant of the superior lease, and it may well be essential for the sub-lessor to ensure that the dates for rent review in the sub-lease which he grants shall coincide with the dates for rent review in the superior lease. The new subsection (2) will now cover this case. This is complicated and professional stuff indeed, but I beg to move—though I am ready to give further explanation if desired.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I would rather read in Hansard what the noble Lord has said before passing any comment.
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 46, line 36, after ("underletting") insert ("of the whole of the premises comprised in the tenancy").
The noble Lord said: These are a run of extremely difficult and abstruse Amendments, but some of them do have some substance, and I think I should get it on to the Record what they are about, even if it is in shorthand. Subsection (2) (c) embodies the principle that to have the capital value that would justify rendering it freely saleable a tenancy should be assignable, since otherwise the capital value of the lease would depend on the tenant's remaining in occupation, which he might not find convenient if his circumstances changed. The Law Society has, however, pointed out that it is not uncommon for leases to permit the assignment of the lease of the whole premises let while prohibiting assignment or sub-letting of part of them only. This prohibition, which is designed to preclude reduction in the value of the premises let or of the lessor's adjoining property, is in no way at odds with the principle of free assignability, the object of which is that the tenant, if he wishes to move, should be free to sell the contractual right of occupation he has himself acquired.
It is thought that proviso (c) as drafted would exclude from free saleability leases embodying the prohibition. This Amendment is therefore required to make it clear that a lease incorporating a prohibition on partial assignment or sub-letting complies with proviso (c), so long as the lease of the premises as a whole is assignable. I beg to move.
Lord KENNET: This Amendment, too, is to cover a point recently made by the Law Society. I think those who have to know what it means will understand what it means, taking the Amendment together with the clause as drafted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 40, leave out from ("term") to ("offer") in line 41 and insert ("requiring in connection with a request for consent the making of an").—(Lord Rennet.)
Lord KENNET: Amendment No. 42 is conseqential on Amendment No. 39. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 41, at end insert—
("(3) Where the condition specified in subsection (2) (b) of this section would be satisfied with respect to a sub-tenancy but for a term providing for one variation, within twenty years of the date when the sub-tenancy was granted, of the sums payable by the subtenant, that condition shall be deemed to be satisfied notwithstanding that term, if it is satisfied with respect to a superior tenancy of the premises comprised in the sub-tenancy (or of those and other premises).")—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Amount of Premium Permissible under Section 79]:
Lord KENNET: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 37 already accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert ("on the grant or an assignment of the tenancy").—(Lord Rennet.)
Lord KENNET: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 28, leave out ("it") and insert ("the tenancy").—(Lord Kennet.)
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 80 [Price payable on enfranchisement of leasehold house]:
On Question, Whether Clause 80 shall stand part of the Bill?
9.31 p.m.
Lord SILSOE: It is my hope that this clause will not stand part of the Bill. I should like to express my gratitude to some of those who sit on these Benches who have been kind enough to remain here to speak about it. Clause SO has nothing whatever to do with the Housing Bill; indeed, the Long Title of this Bill had to be altered in order to get it in. It deals with the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and seeks to amend this in an important particular.
The clause, I think although it is late at night I must explain, because it has not yet had to be explained at all to your Lordships, says:
"This Section is to have effect and be deemed always to have had effect as if in section 9 of that Act there had been inserted after the words ' a willing seller' the words 'with the tenant not buying or seeking to buy'."
Putting that shortly, it prescribes that when a tenant wishes to enfranchise his lease and buy the freehold the pries that the tenant would offer is to be entirely disregarded in fixing the compensation.
In moving the Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—may I say I have no grievance whatever about this—did not mention this clause, or indeed any other clause. He gave a short exposition of the whole Bill. I spoke on the Second Reading and asked that this clause should not become part of the Bill. In replying to the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, did not explain positively why the clause had been introduced and said that this would be tackled later, by which I assume he meant the Committee stage. I am only sorry that it comes up so late and in such a thin Committee. He did, however, say that when a Government introduce an amendment to the law—and I quote him
"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."—[Official Report, 8/7/69, col. 1017.]
In those circumstances, I feel bound to explain to the Committee from the words of Ministers in another place why the clause was in fact introduced. In the first place, the clause was moved only on the Report stage by the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Wales in these short and clear words:
"It is really a corrective clause which will be welcomed by 1 million householders in

403
the country, for it removes the misunderstanding which has existed ever since the Custin's decision by the Lands Tribunal, where it appeared that the Tribunal had taken into account in assessing the price of the freehold, the fact that market value must be shared between the ground landlord and the tenant."
He concluded by saying:
"We now take the tenant, the leaseholder, out of the market; he is not to be considered to be a bidder in the open market, and I believe that the sooner that this gets to the Statute Book the better."
One of the many curious backgrounds of this Clause is that the Amendment does not do what the Secretary of State for Wales asked to be done. It does not, in its powers, have anything to do with altering the sharing of the market value between the ground landlord and the tenant. If that was intended, a gross mistake has been made because the Amendment does not even try to do it. Therefore, the reason given by the Secretary of State will not apply if this Clause is passed.
The Parliamentary" Secretary spoke again in another place and explained more fully what was intended by this Amendment. I ought to say that the Custin's case is named after the tenant, Mr. Custin. It was a case before the Lands Tribunal to assess the amount to be paid by the tenant for obtaining the freehold, and it seems pretty clear to me that the clause was, to use the Secretary of State's own words, "a corrective clause", because a decision by a court had been made which the Government considered was a wrong decision. So far I think your Lordships will agree with my submission that Lord Kennet's idea that the clause was not on the basis of a judgment cannot be readily accepted.
At the end of the Report stage the Joint Parliamentary Secretary used these words—I apologise for quoting them rather lengthily, but I found no way whereby I could quote more shortly without risking being told that I had mis-reported:
"What Parliament can do, as any Government can, is to frame its legislation as carefully as it can, but as I have said again and again, these valuation points are very difficult and the courts or the Tribunal must be left to interpret them."
I wish that had been done. The courts have interpreted them, and the Government have moved to intervene to "dis-
404
interpret", if there is such a word, by an Amendment.
"If the matter had gone elsewhere"
by which I think he must have meant "to appeal",
"there might have been a different decision. It was by no means certain, and it could not have been certain after the arguments, that the Tribunal would come to whichever decision."
Finally he said he was surprised that that decision had been made. He said that it breached paragraph 12 of the White Paper, on which the Act was framed, in these words:
"… the fair price enfranchisement will be the value of the freehold interest of the site … This will completely "—
and the Minister repeated the word—
"completely disregard the value of the buildings on reversion."
The Parliamentary Secretary ended his speech by saying:
"Faced with this situation the Government have introduced the new clause."
I hope I have not omitted words that I should have quoted, but I think I have given the sense.
It is beyond argument from this quotation that the Amendment has come from the decision of a court of law, the Lands Tribunal, because the Government thought that that decision was a breach of the White Paper which it introduced before the Act, and that if the tenant was to bid he must be bidding for the bricks and mortar which belonged to him. There is no clearer statement than that, that that was being said. It was not being said by this Minister that it was anything to do with merger value; it was to do with bricks and mortar value, which are absolutely and completely different things. The court made no attempt to value bricks and mortar; they did value the merger value, and I shall show your Lordships exactly what they have said in a moment.
What they did was to say that the tenant was a bidder, and somebody has considered that because the tenant was a bidder it means that bricks and mortar value must come into it. That is, with all due respect to everybody concerned with this, a complete misapprehension. Site values are valued day in and day out in all sorts of ways—for taxation, rating and various matters. The valuation

405
of the site and the valuation of the buildings are perfectly easy things to understand for anyone who works in practice, and the court was valuing the site value. What they have said is that the tenant's bid is to be considered in valuing the site value. If there are more bidders for anything—site value, bricks and mortar, whatever it may be—it may very well affect the value of what you are valuing, but it cannot affect the value of anything you are not valuing. I dare say that in a lot of these cases the presence of the tenant will put up the site value, but there is a tremendous misconception about this. It has nothing whatever to do with building value, and I cannot myself find out why this Amendment has been put down, and who has done wrong.
Lord KENNET: For the sake of clarity, I think it would assist the Committee if the noble Lord were to say what he means by "this Amendment". The noble Lord has said that he cannot make out why this Amendment was put down. What is before the Committee is a proposal by the noble Lord to leave out Clause 80.
Lord SILSOE: I spoke inaccurately. I am speaking on whether this clause should stand part of the Bill. I am sorry I mentioned the word "Amendment "; I should have said "this clause". When I spoke on Second Reading I was able to speak only from my own experience in this matter, but since the Second Reading the institutions of chartered surveyors—there are three in number—have written a paper on this question and on this clause and they have sent a copy to every Member of your Lordships' House who spoke on Second Reading, including myself and, I know, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. They said this:
"It is understood that this provision arises as a result of the Custin's decision. In this case, the Lands Tribunal, in arriving at the valuation of the freehold interest under the provisions of Section 9 … took into account the higher price that the tenant would pay for the advantage of merging the freehold and leasehold interests. It has now been suggested that the valuation of this merger included some part of the valuation of the bricks and mortar, thus conflicting with the principle of the Leasehold Reform Act that the land should be considered as belonging to the freeholder and the building to the leaseholder. The Chartered Land Societies Committee, which represents all Chartered valuers in England and Wales docs not accept that the valuation of any part of the bricks and mortar was included, as the figures used by the Lands
406
Tribunal relate to the valuation of the site only, and in any case only part of the merger valuation was attributed to the freehold interest."
It is perhaps not directly relevant to this clause, but at the end of their report the Committee say this:
"The Committee also considers that there are a number of defects in the Leasehold Reform Act which require study and that amendments should not be made pie: emeal by way of insertions into other Acts which are not apposite."
There is the clearest possible professional opinion on what the Ministers m another place said had not happened. I ventured to say it on my own authority on Second Reading, and I now have the very strong support of the professional opinion of all surveyors.
But there is another, much more compelling, reason why I think this clause should not stand part of the Bill. In their judgment, which fortunately is in writing—and it has been published verbatim widely throughout the profession in this country—they said this:
"In our view the expression 'willing seller' means no more than that the vendor cannot expect more than the market price on a sale on the statutory terms because he might be thought to be selling with reluctance; but there is no reason why he should sell below the market price."
We then come to the very fundamental wording of the Lands Tribunal. I should like to pay a tribute to the Lands Tribunal which I am sure the noble Lord will second. The Lands Tribunal is now used by every Government with complete confidence and matters of this sot are always referred to them. This is what they said on this case:
"We note that Section 1 (1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 requires that the acquisition should be ' on fair terms.'"—
Those are words in that section—
"and we do not think that the exclusion of the tenant would result in a 'fair term; ' 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'. We have therefore come to the conclusion"—
Please note the word "therefore"—
"that the sitting tenant should not be excluded from the market."
This is precisely and unambiguously the wording of this new clause. It is therefore quite clear that in spite of a finding of law and fact by this admirable Tribunal, the Lands Tribunal, the Government are seeking by this clause to put in

407
words which will, in the view of the Lands Tribunal, not be fair when it is passed. These, in fact, were the final words of the judgment on the point of law.
Where do we find, as the Parliamentary Secretary in another place stated, that this Tribunal was in any form of doubt? He said that they were very doubtful about this. Well, some of us have been at the Bar and some of us have done law and we know that judges are particularly kind to people whose arguments they are going to destroy. They were very courteous to the losing counsel. They said he had a formidable argument; but really the judgment was never more clear.
Three things I finish with. Whatever this clause does, it does not in any way at all alter the merger value, the very reason, the only reason, given by the Secretary of State for Wales. It also only alters the number of bidders by excluding the tenant on site value. I agree that it may alter the value of the site value in so doing; but it will not affect the bricks and mortar. Lastly, it deliberately—and none of this was mentioned in another place—it deliberately goes against the views of this eminent Tribunal in saying that the terms will still be fair when this Amendment is passed. For all those reasons, I hope that this clause will not stand part of the Bill.
Lord HOLFORD: I wish to say only a few sentences on Clause 80. I am a supporter of the Bill. I do not want to do anything to interrupt its passage. But in running along with it, I must say that Clause 80 seems to me like a small, rather sharp stone in my shoe. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, who wishes for the omission of Clause 80 from this Bill, I am not a lawyer and I am not a valuer. But the things in which I am interested—the planning, the layout, the construction of new buildings or the improvement of an old house—all these practical, constructive things, cannot start until the valuers and lawyers have arrived at a fair determination and the client receives. What worries me about this is whether in fact the terms are fair. Again I must repeat that I am not a lawyer, and I do not know whether the terms are fair. Reading Custin's case, it seems to
408
me that they are not. But there is certainly doubt whether the terms are fair under this clause, and one is bound to ask, therefore, why this Clause is included in the Bill. We have here a very nice portmanteau, with a great many subdivisions closely packed in a very complex Bill; and then there is this additional clause, this uncertainty which is squeezed into it; and it seems to me, as an inexpert, that it looks as if it might break the lock.
9.51 p.m.
Lord MAELOR: I beg the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, not to carry his Amendment to a Division because this Clause is vital to leaseholders and clarifies the position following the first two cases heard by the Lands Tribunal. However, in the latest case, decided only yesterday, another point arose; whether or not the ground landlord can use the so-called inflationary method of valuation. During discussion on this Clause in another place Mr. Arthur Skeffington, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, used these words:
"In the Custin case"—
the first case to go to the Tribunal—
"the Tribunal was firm in its opinion that most valuers agreed that it was impossible to make calculations which would take account of the value of money for 30 or 40 years ahead."
Notice what Mr. Skeffington said; that in Custin's case the Tribunal was "firm". It did not appear to be quite so firm yesterday when it came to its decision, because it did not rule against this principle of the inflationary method of deciding the value. Will the Minister confirm (I hope that he will do so to-night) that this method is not valid; and will he look at the position in case we have to clarify it by a further Amendment? I believe that we shall then gain real social justice for the thousands of leaseholders we have in Wales. On the last occasion when I spoke in your Lordships' Chamber I called this system "a damnable system", and I repeat that it is a really damnable system. We in Wales have been suffering from it for years and years, and I see some hope, through this and the other clauses, of some redress after all the suffering which we have experienced throughout those years.
Lord HELSBY: It seems clear on the face of it that this Clause is the "odd man out" in the Bill. It does not really belong in a Housing Bill; it is in a sense an Amendment to the Leasehold Reform Act. It appears to be based on the belief that a certain finding of the Lands Tribunal should be altered. Now we are told by the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, that the Lands Tribunal has given another judgment in a somewhat different sense only yesterday. I cannot pretend that I have absorbed the meaning of that; indeed I have not seen the judgment of yesterday. But what does seem to stand out is that a market is a market. If we talk about a willing seller and a willing buyer, we are talking about a free market; and surely a free market means that we must not by law disregard a bid from anybody who would wish to bid. There is nothing artificial about that; there is nothing, I think, that the ordinary layman, as well as the lawyer, could fail to understand. The only reason for excluding the tenant on the lines of the Custin decision appears to have been that it was thought in some quarters that the Lands Tribunal had taken into account the bricks and mortar value; but we have good authority for believing that whatever else it may have done, it did not do that. What the Tribunal did believe was that a free market is a free market, and that the tenant, when he puts in a bid, has as much right to be considered part of the market as anybody else. Surely that should be a clear case for us to take into account.
9.55 p.m.
Lord KENNET: The Committee will have listened with the greatest attention to the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, because, as we all know, he is a very great expert in all matters of valuation and property. I know that it was only an oversight on his part that neither on this occasion nor on Second Reading did he mention his own interest in the matter at stake, as the leader of one of the greatest freeholders granting leases in the country.
Lord SILSOE: May I ask for leave? I have not stated my interest because I retired last week. So far as I know, I own nothing, either privately or publicly in the world.
Lord KENNET: I must apologise to the noble Lord for being out of date. Of
410
course the Second Reading was last week.
Lord SILSOE: I declared my interest two years ago, very fully. Now I have No interest, and I should like everybody to know. Unfortunately I have retired and am no longer earning money.
Lord KENNET: The Committee will be glad to learn the precise details of the noble Lord's interest. The noble Lord is the greatest expert in the world about valuation but I honestly do not think he knows what Parliament is for. Parliament is not for deciding if this or that decision by a court or tribunal is right or wrong. It is for changing the law. All the Government are doing is saying to Parliament:
"We do not think the present law is right, and the main reason why we do not think the present law is right is because of what happened in Custin's case (which was quite surprising). We therefore propose to change it. Do you agree? "
It is on that basis that I shall continue.
All I am saying is that the Government think Parliament ought to change the law. I absolutely decline to be drawn into any discussion of the rectitude or the ability or the appositeness of that decision by the Lands Tribunal or by any other court. The courts' job is to say what the law is. The Government's job is to propose, from time to time, changes in the existing law which it thinks will improve it, and that is what I am doing.
There are two or three things which I will state very simply which seem to be quite clear. First of all we have ample evidence that since the decision in Custin's case a great many freeholders have been asking more than they had been, or they were proving more reluctant to come to terms with their enfranchising leaseholders. This is no theory; this is the fact, and I think there is a casual relation. The second thing is that the Lands Tribunal themselves did, whatever the noble Lord says, think the Act less than clear about whether the open market referred to in Section 9 was supposed to include or to exclude the tenant, although they decided—and the Government are not disagreeing with them in their interpretation of the existing law—that the Act included the tenant.
The third thing is that the Government's decision to recommend Parliament

411
to make it clear for the future that the tenant is to be excluded in recommending a change for the purpose of determining price was warmly welcomed by both Parties in another place and I myself am most anxious to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is going to say about this, if indeed he is going to speak, because the Opposition in the House of Commons did not oppose Clause 80 when it was taken into the Bill, and indeed, they joined with Government spokesmen in an attempt to improve the clause. As a matter of fact, the main criticism that was brought against it by Opposition spokesmen—I may not quote Mr. Rossi—was that it would be wrong to congratulate the Government on bringing this Clause in because they had brought it in much too late and ought to have brought it in a long time ago. They did not say that it should not pass and, indeed, they did not oppose its adoption.
There is no likelihood that I should persuade the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, that this is a good clause. On Second Reading he quoted the Lands Tribunal as saying that a price which ignored the price which a tenant was prepared to pay would not be on fair terms and he called this a finding of fact by the law. I do not dissent that it is a finding in law. The Government are now asking Parliament to change that law. What I pay great attention to is the fact that the noble Lord said that the Amendment would not have the effect desired. Coming from him, these are words to which we must pay the greatest attention. The intention of the Amendment is that when the sum to be paid by the leaseholder is being determined on enfranchisement it shall be determined as though those bidding in the open market for the freehold interest did not include the leaseholder, because he would be prepared to go higher than the run of the market because of his superior interest in marrying the freehold and leasehold together. The noble Lord said that the Amendment is not going to achieve that but did not say why. I am extremely worried.
Lord SILSOE: So far, I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord. I did not say that. Of course, the Amendment would not allow the bidder to be considered. What I said was that the Amendment would have no effect what-
412
ever either on the merger value or on the bricks and mortar value. That is all I said; and I still say it. I agree that the Amendment is perfectly clear and that nobody in valuing the site value would in future be allowed to consider the bid of the tenant.
Lord KENNET: I take the noble Lord's point. It is a philosophical one. The noble Lord maintains that real values are there whatever Parliament says about them. The only purpose the Government seek to achieve is to establish the actual value, but I must agree with him philosophically that we may imagine a ghost value existing under legislation. In another place, the Opposition spokesmen, so far from resisting the clause, suggested an Amendment—an improvement of it, in my view—to extend the provision that not only the tenant should be excluded from the market but also the tenant's family. If this clause remains in the Bill, I shall be moving an Amendment which will meet the point raised by Opposition in another place about the desirability of extending the operations of the clause. We must not go into valuation philosophy here. Parliament is here to make the law. I think that Clause 80 will improve the existing law in a perfectly concrete social way, and I hope that the Committee will agree to let it stand and will join me in improving it as regards the tenant's family.
10.4 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I am neither a lawyer nor a valuer, thank Heaven! (perhaps I ought not to say that and I apologise to noble Lords who are), but I approach this as a plain man. I have been thinking hard about this since the debate started and it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has left himself wide open by the manner in which he has defended this clause. He has said that the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, does not understand Parliament; that Parliament is here to make or to change the law; that Parliament is supreme and can do what it wishes. What Parliament cannot do—
Lord SILSOE: I must now interrupt the noble Lord. I did not say that Parliament could do what it wished. I said that Parliament was there to change the law.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: Parliament was there to change the law. As nobody else can change the law, Parliament is presumably supreme. But Parliament cannot be inconsistent with itself. What has become absolutely clear to me, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—it may not have been clear to my colleagues in another place—is that the Government here are asking Parliament to deny one or' its own statements. I think that this finding by the Lands Tribunal is conclusive on that—conclusive unless it is reversed on appeal—because although Parliament can change the law it cannot delete what the courts or bodies like the Lands Tribunal say.
In this judgment by the Lands Tribunal which the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, has quoted, the Lands Tribunal said:
"Section 1 (1) of the Leasehold Reform Act requires that 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 that a tenant would be prepared to pay would not be on fair terms."
That is the final conclusion of the highest legal authority to which this matter has been submitted. It could have gone to appeal, but the Government decided to legislate before there was opportunity, to hear what might be said or found on appeal.
What is clear now from the noble Lord's speech is that the Government are proposing to amend this Act of 1967 (which says in its first Section that acquisition is to be on fair terms) in such a way that the acquisition will not be on fair terms. That is to say, the Government are asking Parliament to contradict itself. This is something which no Government can do. You cannot have in Clause 1 of the Bill that something must take place on fair terms, and a provision subsequently inserted into the Bill designed to ensure that the acquisition shall take place on terms which have been found by a judicial authority to be unfair terms. That is the simple issue here, and if the noble Lord decides to press this Amendment I shall certainly support him in the Lobby. Whether he will decide to press this Amendment in this very thin House this evening I do not know. The amount of support he has received from the Cross-Benches on this matter is
414
impressive. This is not an Opposition Amendment; all the running has been made by the Cross-Benches who hare no Party interest in it.
I have been arguing not on grounds of Party philosophy but on plain grounds: that Parliament must not contradict itself in the course of a single Act of Parliament. I am sorry that the Committee is so thin because I do not know whether we could achieve a just result to-night if the matter were pressed. I think that either now or at some later stage your Lordships should come to a decision on this clause.
Lord KENNET: I think there is 2very advantage in coming to a decision. I do not expect that I shall convince the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, because he is a valuer and I am a Parliamentarian, and we see the world in slightly different ways. Lord Brooke's relationship with those of his Party who in another place supported this clause which he now proposes to vote out of the Bill is something that I must leave entirely to him; but I note the confusion in the ranks of the Opposition Party. In the House of Commons they want it; in the House of Lords they do not want it. The Government want it in both Houses, and I hope that the Government will be able to retain it if the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, forces the matter to a Division at this late hour.
Lord SILSOE: I have tried to be a Parliamentarian, but I admit that I have not much skill. I am certainly not a Party politician. I try to understand matters. I understand that the Government of the day—or, indeed, a private individual—can bring into Parliament a change of the law. We have not had any reason given, save one that was given in another place, and that has been contradicted. It is now denied that this idea of moving this clause stems from a decision in the courts being wrong. That was the reason, and the only reason, given in another place. But those of your Lordships who have followed the noble Lord carefully will not remember a single reason why this change of the law is recommended.
I hope I am right in saying that it is normal to give a view when the same Government are amending a law, and when it is something that they themselves

415
introduced only two years ago, I should have thought there was all the more reason for saying why there has to be a change. I am afraid that in these circumstances I look very much to those who sit on the Government Benches—I hope they will not mind my being impertinent. A mistake has been made. This clause should not have been brought up, at any rate in this form, because, so far as I can make out, it is not going to do what the Government desire. In those circumstances, one would have thought that something would have been offered
Resolved in the negative, and Clause 80 disagreed to accordingly.
which would have enabled me to say that we could think about it again and possibly return to it at a later stage. But nothing has come up. I have been encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to go to a Division, and, with due respect to your Lordships, that is what I wish to do.
10.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 80 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Heycock, L.

Serota, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton. L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bowles, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Kennet, L.

Stonham, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

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

Strabolgi, L.

Champion, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Maelor, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Goodman, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Conesford, L.

Monson, L.

Balerno, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Belstead, L.

Denham, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Boston, L.

Falkland, V.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Falmouth, V.

Selkirk, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gridley, L.

Silsoe, L. [Teller.]

Carnock, L.

Helsby, L. [Teller.]

Strathcarron, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Holford, L.

10.21 p.m.
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET moved Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 80 insert the following new Clause:
Amendment of Rent Act 1968 s. 46
". At the end of section 46 of the Rent Act 1968 (determination of fair rent) there shall he added the following subsection:
'(4) In this section "improvement" includes the replacement of any fixture or fitting.'"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment follows up what I said on Second Reading about bringing this Bill into line with the Scottish Bill as regards whether or not tenants' replacements of things in houses should count for the determination of a fair rent under the regulated tenancy. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 81 and 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Interpretation]:
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 48. line 32, leave out from ("capacity") to end of line 34.
The noble Lord said: There is a restriction in the Bill as drafted that the cost of works carried out by housing authorities for works for improvement and standard contributions and for contributions towards environmental improvements, cannot include the salaries for private authorities taking part in this, employed in an advisory or supervisory capacity. The Amendment removes that restriction so that they can be. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 84 to 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Citation, construction, commencement and extent]:
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET rose to move Amendment No. 47. The noble Lord said: Since Clause 80 has been lost, this Amendment will have to refer to Sections 78 and 79 instead of to Sections 78 to 80. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee and the approval of the Lord
418
Chairman, I will move the Amendment so that it reads
"Page 50, line 1, leave out from ("Act") to first ("the") and insert ("except Sections 78 and 79, shall not come into force until").
Most of this Bill the Government would wish to bring into force one month after it received the Royal Assent, which is the usual procedure. It gives time for things to be drafted and for everything to be lined up, but there are certain provisions in Clauses 78 and 79 where there is nothing to be prepared and where the market in certain types of transaction is frozen, awaiting these provisions in the Bill. Therefore, it seems to the Government that nothing would be lost and much convenience would be gained if Clauses 78 and 79 were to come into effect immediately instead of waiting for the usual period of a month. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 1, leave out from ("Act") to first ("the") and insert ("except sections 78 and 79, shall not come into force until").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KENNET: Amendment No. 48 is consequential on Amendment No. 36. I beg to move Amendment No. 48.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 4, after ("section 77") insert ("and section (Right to terminate period for which option notice has effect)").—Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Minor and consequential Amendments]:
Lord KENNET: Amendment No. 48 rectifies an omission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 18, leave out ("and 16") and insert ("16 and 21 (1)").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KENNET: Amendment No. 51 is a drafting Amendment for the sake of clarity. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 15, leave out ("Sections 98,") and insert ("Section 98 of that Act shall apply as if the reference therein to a purchase under Part V of that Act of a house to be used for

419
housing purposes included a reference to a purchase under Part II of this Act of any house.
Sections")—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KENNET: Amendment No. 52 is consequential upon Amendments carried in the House of Commons. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 18, at end insert—
(". In section 57 (4) of that Act for the words from 'section 4' to '1958' there shall be substituted the words 'Part I of the Housing Act 1969'").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KENNET: Section 14 of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 empowers the Minister to reduce, suspend or discontinue the payment of annual subsidies in certain circumstances. One of those circumstances is where the Minister "is satisfied that a local authority have failed to discharge any of their duties under the Housing Acts 1957 to 1965". This Amendment will bring the composite reference to the Housing Acts up to date by referring to the Housing Acts 1957 to 1969. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 34, at end insert—
("The Housing Subsidies Act 1967
In section 14 (5) (a) of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 for the word '1965' there shall be substituted the word '1969'.")—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Savings and transitional provisions]:
Lord KENNET: Amendment No. 54 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 5, after ("application") insert ("or arrangements made or proposals").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Repeals]:
Lord KENNET: The Amendment repeals from the Housing Act 1957 a reference to a subsection of that Act which is already repealed by this Bill. It is tidying up. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, leave out line 10 and insert ("In section 59, subsection (3) and the word 'or (3)' in subsection (4)").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KENNET: Amendment 56 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, leave out lines 24 to 26.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 57:
Line 3, after ("dwellings") insert ("and houses").
The noble Lord said: Line 4 of the Long Title refers to "improving dwellings and houses". Line 3, where I seek to insert this Amendment, refers to "providing dwellings by conversion". I seek to insert the word "houses" there so as to make it read "providing dwellings and houses by conversion". There is no doubt that the conversion of a large barn may provide a large house, and if the word "dwelling" does not automatically include the word "house", as presumably it does not because they are both referred to separately in line 4, then I should have thought it better that they were separately referred to in line 3, so as to leave no doubt that in line 3 the provision of a house by the conversion of quite a large building is covered by the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord KENNET: Only the term "dwelling" is used in Part I of the Bill in relation to improvement grants for conversions, and so to carry the word "houses" into the Long Title would be inappropriate because it would not reflect what is in the Bill. The term "dwelling" is not defined in the Bill, but an ordinary house provided by the conversion of, for example, a building such as a barn, would qualify for improvement grant aid under Part I as being a dwelling provided by the conversion of a building. I hope that may satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord AIREDALE: Well, I do not understand what is the need for using the expression "dwellings and houses" in line 4 if "dwellings" alone is sufficient

421
in line 3. I think I had better read in Hansard what the noble Lord has said, and see if I can understand and accept it, and whether or not I ought to move an Amendment at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord KENNET: Amendment No. 58 is consequential on Amendment No. 36. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Line 19. leave out ("section 28") and insert ("Part II"—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KENNET: I always like to say what consequentials are consequential on, for the benefit of posterity and students. This Amendment is consequential on Amendments Nos. 33 and 45. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Line 20, after ("1967") insert ("to amend section 46 of the Rent Act 1968; to increase the fine which may be imposed under section 170 of the Housing Act 1957")—(Lord Kennet.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether the Title, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord CONESFORD: I only wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary: Does the Title require an Amendment as a result of the last Division?
Lord KENNET: I do not know. It may require one. I shall have a look at it and, if so, raise the matter on the next occasion.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

RACE RELATIONS
10.32 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN Lord O'HAGAN rose 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 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, I am sad that I have to raise this subject in your Lordships' House. I am sad that this country, of all countries, is in danger of letting a chance of real achievement slip away. Calmly and quietly I will try to indicate what I should say may be needed, and how Her Majesty's Government have the opportunity for satisfying that need.
Before I turn to each of the three parts of my Question it will probably be helpful if I tell your Lordships what I propose to talk about to-night. I am not going to talk about the rate or level of immigration control: those decisions have very largely been taken. I shall be talking about the inhabitants of the United Kingdom, the people who are already here. Every one of your Lordships wants all who live here to prosper and to get on well with each other. Nevertheless, since the way immigration is controlled does affect the approach of the immigrants and indigenous inhabitants towards race or community relations,]'. feel that I must touch on it.
The first part of my Question asks the Government
"whether they are aware of a deterioration of race relations in the United Kingdom."
I am not belittling the achievements of this Government, particularly their bolstering of the Race Relations Board and the establishment of the Community Relations Commission, to both of which I take off my proverbial hat. Still, things are getting worse. Who says so? Not just myself. It is the pervading impression that I have picked up from talking to people of good will actively concerned at all levels. The Community Relations Commission, in their first Report, say in cautious and dispassionate language:
"Many knowledgeable observers and many workers in this field would no doubt write 1968 down as a year of deterioration in community relations."
I have, myself, observed the many forces militating against peaceful development. Some of these I will indicate in more detail later on. The Rose Report shows that the situation is full of hope; but hope is not enough and must be nourished by action.
At this moment, I will point a finger at Her Majesty's Government. Some of their measures have contributed to the

423
decay. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 broke pledges. It is blatantly discriminatory, and was rushed through Parliament in panic. Your Lordships will remember the threat of the1¼ million "yellow peril". This has taken its toll of good will. The restriction on fiancees has curdled the faith of many. I specifically ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to explain to me and to the House what would happen if two British white sisters got engaged, one to a German, one to a Pakistani, and subsequently both pairs got married. Is not the position at the moment that the Commonwealth citizen would probably not be allowed to remain here, while in due course of time the alien probably might be? I have been told that many Commonwealth immigrants have had little faith in the Conservative Party, but in the case of the Labour Party, seen as a bastion for the under-privileged, that trust has been considerably undermined with destructive consequences.
I now move on to "the tone of public debate." The Conservative Party have given no strong lead. So far as I am aware, there has been no firm statement of intent on community relations, even from Mr. Hogg. Perhaps we are waiting for a consensus. The numbers coming in and the concentration of those here are important factors, but discussion of those points should not obscure the need for a constructive and positive declaration of faith on race or community relations, followed by details of measures in store. By talking all the time about immigration the Conservatives are helping to mask the facts about the prejudice that exists in this country, and they are helping to focus attention on entry, rather than on the challenge for action presented by the state of race relations here to-day; and so the public debate is diverted from its most profitable role in a way that disturbs rather than calms.
Of course, no discussion can proceed until the facts are made public. We are all grateful for the solid material in the Institute of Race Relations Report. All the facts there must be made generally available; and the way they are presented is very important. There is the system whereby local authorities can obtain a grant if their area has special needs attributable to immigrants. Well
424
and good. The figures which the local authorities have to obtain to get the money to deal with the problems of poverty (under which head the immigrants come) have been, in some instances, over-exposed by the local Press. The problem is turned on its head. The immigrants were made to seem responsible for the poverty. This is an example of what can happen in public discussion with genuine facts.
Your Lordships will expect me to be more particular on the decline in the tone of public debate. In my view, much of the blame sits heavily on the shoulders of Mr. Enoch Powell. I do not for one moment question his right to state his views. I believe in free speech. I am not indulging in character assassination; I am not saying that Mr. Powell is an evil human being. I am confident that he believes he is helping his beloved country. Still, it is stupid to dismiss him as a sort of Malcolm Muggeridge, or the Maharishi Yoga, as he is now called. One has only to note the attention which the Press gives to Mr. Powell's speeches—not so much those in another place, but those he makes up and down the country—to feel his impact. I should like to examine some of the facts contained in his latest speech.
Your Lordships will of course know how the B.B.C. poll on repatriation, to which Mr. Powell attached so much importance, has been dismissed by the pollster responsible.
"It was a straw poll, and as such it was not something on which a philosophy can be based",
said Mr. Taylor, of the Opinion Research Centre. Mr. Powell's strategy of repatriation appears to be based upon a flimsy foundation. But at the centre of Mr. Powell's argument lies the threat to a continuing high level of immigrant births in relation to total births. We know the truth, especially now that the Rose Report is out. Fewer immigrants are coming into the reproductive age than are going out of it; new immigrants are mostly highly skilled and tend to have small families; those already here gradually attune themselves to our social norms, and have fewer children. Dr. Eversely, an expert, to whom Mr. Powell himself refers in his latest speech, considers that the birth rate will fall very quickly.
Mr. Powell has now turned statistician. His dubious anecdotes have had their emotional impact, and now he seems to pose as the detached observer. I think that he has been misled by his zeal to preserve what he feels to be the truly British nature of Britain; and so he encourages his Party and the country to ignore the task of building bonds of trust between those who live here. It was another gentleman with a Welsh name who said in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part I:
"I can call spirits from the vasty deep!"
The bluff English reply was:
"Ay, but will they come when you do call for them?"
Mr. Powell's appeals call up the most powerful phantasms from the very vasty deep. I sometimes wonder if he understands the nature of the responses he inspires. Does he look beneath the outer surface of all that proud patriotism?
Your Lordships will be relieved when I turn to the third part of my Question. I am asking Her Majesty's Government,
"Whether they will come forward with proposals which will reassure the inhabitants of the United Kingdom, whatever their colour."
If the problems connected with immigrants and their descendants are seen to be tackled, confidence in the possibility of their solution will flow round the country and make that solution more likely. The Rose Report shows how much goodwill there is, especially among the younger people here.
Let us capitalise on it. I know that much is being done: urban aid increases; the rate for grants under the 1966 Local Government Act has been raised; the local authorities have put more forward; the Race Relations Board prospers; the Community Relations Commission promises well. I attach a lot of hope to the Community Relations Commission. But are the Government satisfied it is accessible to the immigrant in the street? One wonders. Do the Government really believe in the Commission? Is it true, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that the Commission was not consulted over the fianc´e restrictions? I hope the noble Lord can tell us that the Commission will be given all possible assistance and more money, and that it will be trusted to do its job.
My Lords, I ask for proposals in three specific spheres. Housing is perhaps the
426
key to the future. The new Housing Bill will help, for the nature and the location of the home determines the education of the child, which in turn influences his or her future employment. Can the Government indicate whether they will really co-ordinate the efforts towards urban renewal, so that there is more drive from the centre? Will they put greater emphasis on the criterion of need in local housing projects? The urban renewal programme must be tied up with the local housing policy. Will this come about? Specifically, will there be a chance for local associations to obtain funds without going through local authorities?
On education, are the Government satisfied that dispersal policies are sound? Will they attempt to substitute a linguistic criterion for the present odd immegrant criterion? Will they see that their disposal policies are properly implemented, so that the danger of predominantly immigrant schools, which lead to a coupling of colour and inferiority, is avoided? Will they ensure that the syllabuses and the intentions of the colleges of education and the like are relevant to the needs of the immigrants? Cannot the Department of Education and Science give a bit more of a lead?
On employment, will the Government make up their mind about something they have been thinking about since 1966—whether to put an anti-discrimination Clause in Government contracts? Will they make sure that private employment bureaux are regulated and their records open for inspection? Lastly, police. Will the Government have a look at the complaints procedure and the training of police in the field of race relations and put a stop to the harmful involvement of the police in vetting the accommodation for the dependants of immigrants?
My Lords, I hope I have not preached to your Lordships. If I were going to I might have chosen as my text the last words of a lady whose statue is not far from here. Nurse Cavell said before she died:
"Patriotism is not enough; I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone".
In that spirit I have tried to ask my Question. In that spirit I hope the debate will continue.
10.47 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships would all like

427
me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, in bringing this Question before us, and not the least in his persistence with it. It has been on the Order Paper for some time. It is not his fault, in my view, that the Question is, however, a little mistimed. I do not refer to the fact that it is now 10.45 p.m. I do refer to the fact, however, that it is mistimed in relation to this Report from the Institute of Race Relations. The noble Lord began his Question by putting to us his view that there had been a deterioration in race relations; and that certainly is a debatable point. If he had asked it of us a week ago or a fortnight ago we should have had to discuss it with the best evidence and advice we could have laid our hands on. But if he asks us to discuss it to-night, we know that all the information, much the best available, is here in the Report I have in my hands. But for my own part, I am only too ready to confess that I have not had time to "read, mark, learn and inwardly digest" this admirable Report with anything like sufficient thoroughness to bring it into a debate on this complex subject in your Lordships' House. I venture to doubt whether many other noble Lords have yet had time to do so.
However, I offer a few brief observations about current attitudes to race relations culled from a very brief scanning of this valuable Report. Perhaps I may turn aside for one moment, because I think that this is the first occasion that this subject has been debated since this Report was published, to give it a welcome and to congratulate all those who have taken any part in its publication: the Institute of Race Relations and Mr. Philip Mason, for his insight, I think seven years ago, that basic information on this problem was so sorely needed; Dr. Leslie Farrer-Brown of the Nuffield Foundation, who had the insight in those early days to see the scale of the research that was required and to allocate the necessary funds; and, not the least, to Mr. Jim Rose and his associates for the perfectly sterling work they have done in producing it.
From just a very brief scanning of this Report, it seems to me that there are four elements in current attitudes to race relations which have a bearing on the question which the noble Lord posed to
428
us. These four elements are, it seems, as follows: There is one set of attitudes, often the most extreme, which have their origin more in the disordered personality of those who hold and express them than in the factual situation to which they are said to relate. We really must not allow ourselves, my Lords, to get worked up into a lather about these attitudes, still less to let such attitudes govern policy, even if they do manage occasionally to get broadcast and reported.
The second group of attitudes seem to me—and this Report endorses it—to spring from fear or ignorance, or both. They are clearly susceptible to an educational approach on formal lines in schools and colleges and, perhaps more importantly, on informal lines in clubs, churches, trades unions and in every possible setting where people meet for ordinary converse. This Report when it has been read, marked, learned, inwardly digested and disseminated, will prove a most signal contribution in this field. I am sure that it will have a very marked and salutary effect.
The third group of attitudes, which has already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, springs from multiple deprivations. These occur whenever too many people, and particularly when there are black and white in competition with each other, are chasing inadequate housing, inadequate schooling, insufficient playgrounds, not enough jobs or any other facilities and benefits which are in great demand. These attitudes are clearly susceptible to local government action, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in his reply to the debate, will tell us how things are getting on in the urban areas of special need, the educational priority areas and so on.
The fourth group of attitudes are those, alas! that are engendered and built up by the mass media. These media are, regrettably, only too apt to give prominence to the views of extremists because in their view this produces a better debate and a more exciting entertainment. They thus confer an importance on those views, and on the holders of them, which is not inherently deserved. Unfortunately, the mass media are not particularly susceptible to outside advice. One hopes that more responsible policies will in time

429
prevail, but that in the meantime fewer and fewer people will believe everything they read in the newspapers, hear on the radio and see on television.
With all the evidence in this Report to hand but, alas!, at present unread—or certainly not read at all thoroughly by me—I do not want to venture any deeper into this topic to-night. Perhaps one of the main findings of the Report will provide some of the reassurance that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, is asking for. I read from the third paragraph on page 737:
"The extent of tolerance in Britain cannot be stressed too often and is indeed one of the major facts of the actual situation. This has to be communicated to people whose anxieties on this score may stem in part from the mistaken view that there is not only widespread anxiety about coloured immigration but widespread hostility towards coloured people as such. What is needed, in short, is not an effort to make people unprejudiced but rather to remind them that they are unprejudiced."
Nevertheless, this is a most important social issue and further debate in your Lordships' House in due time would be a good thing, but I would submit that further debate based on conjecture and on incomplete evidence, when we have 800 pages of fresh evidence based on widespread and thorough research waiting to be read and digested, would not in my view be wise.
10.56 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of ESKAN: My Lords, I am sure that Lord O'Hagan's Question discloses a real and frightening problem. I will try not to speak for too long—certainly not more than about 10 minutes—but I feel that even at this late hour on a hot night, and especially after the two moving speeches that have gone before, the importance of the subject demands more than a glancing blow. I have the honour to be one of the two Deputy Chairmen of the Community Relations Commission, under the forthright chairmanship of Mr. Frank Cousins, with his lifelong concern for people, whoever they are and wherever they come from.
There can be no doubt that the purport and tone of some notorious recent speeches on race and immigration have made the work of improving community relations in Britain immeasurably harder. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, referred to Mr. Powell's speeches in a truly dramatic way. The assumption nderly-
430
ing these speeches seems to be that coloured people somehow pollute or corrupt our pure British society, and the greater the numbers the greater the pollution. This is evil and dangerous nonsense. We are a hotch-potch of nationalities. Britain has been a country of immigration throughout its history. British life and culture have been created and enriched by successive waves of immigrants. Nobody now seems to object to white Commonwealth immigrants. Unreason and hostility begin only with people whose skins are a different colour. I believe that this sort of prejudice is a far greater menace to our democratic system and our cultural values than any coloured man, women or child could possibly be. It threatens our rights to call ourselves a civilised society.
It is not at all difficult to make speeches playing upon people's baser instincts and emotions, but the trouble is that every time views of this sort are uttered and given prominence by the Press they tend to gain currency. Mischievous gossip always travels far and fast (the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, made this point most effectively, if I may say so); this encourages the spread of intolerance, and makes it acceptable rather than thoroughly disreputable to talk a racially prejudiced way. And this, as I have said, makes it much more difficult to promote good relations between members of different races within the community. Moreover, all Community relations work depends on co-operation from local authorities in giving practical and moral support in promoting good relations. There is clear evidence that another damaging effect of these notorious speeches is to increase the Commission's difficulties with some local authorities.
It is maddening that so many people will confuse race with immigration or immigration with race. Often this is sheer thoughtlessnes, but sometimes, as in the case of a thoroughly obnoxious leaflet that I received through the post this morning from the National Front, it is done wih calculated evil intent. Of course it is justifiable to talk about controlling immigration to the extent that the net inflow of people into Britain must not be more than our housing, employment and social services can cope with. But what is wrong and barbarous is to

431
discriminate, in immigration as in anything else, against coloured peoples simply because of their race and the colour of their skins. It is perhaps understandable, though hardly hospitable and worthy of the British sense of fair play, to treat newcomers, any newcomers, as outsiders; but it is outrageous to treat the quarter of a million coloured children born and bred in Britain as outsiders, and to try to relegate them to the permanent ranks of second-class citizenship. That is the implication of publicly induced racial hostility. I always find myself surprised at how supposedly intelligent men and women can say the things they do without ever stopping to think what they would feel like if they were at the receiving end of their own speeches. Arthur Koestler referred to some people as "mimophants"—people who, where their own susceptibilities are concerned, curl up like mimosa, but who trample like a herd of elephants on the susceptibilities of others.
One of the difficulties underlying the noble Lord's Question is that community and race relations work is for the most part very unspectacular. It is a new and untried and extremely complex field of social service. It is a matter of public education and public information. It is a matter of repairing what bridges there are in our society and trying to build new ones. This does not attract publicity, unless perhaps there is a Royal opening. But blow up a bridge, or even threaten to blow it up, or put some plasticine under it that looks explosive, and you hit the headlines the next day.
Even that admirable paper, the Financial Times, went out of its way a week or so ago in a main leader to allege, quite untruthfully, that the Race Relations Board was having to consider usurping the functions of the Community Relations Commission owing to its failure to make any real impact. This was about as ill-informed as it is possible to be and grossly unfair to both bodies. Incidentally, I must confess that even the New Statesman, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, did not do much better. I was very pleased to see that Mr. Mark Bonham-Carter, the splendidly successful Chairman of the Race Relations Board, lost no time in writing to the Financial Times to refute their heresy and
432
to explain that the functions and spheres of operation of the two bodies are quite different from each other.
Community and race relations work is going to be even harder than it need be unless the British Press can learn not only not to discriminate against colour, but also to discriminate between the dramatic, spectacular, destructive story and the constant, plodding work of the bridge-builders in our society. Their work through and by influencing others scores no credits. But my old grandfather used to say, "You can achieve far more if you don't care who gets the credit for it."
I want to finish with two quotations. The first is from Mr. James Sweeney-Fenton, who described himself as public relations officer for the Montserrat Progressive Society when he was recently giving evidence at Hackney to the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. He said:
"We should work together to make this a better place for us to live in, because this is a very good country and we could help to make it better."
He was talking as an immigrant. The second quotation comes from Colour and Citizenship: A Report on British Race Relations, by E. J. B. Rose and Associates, to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has so warmly and rightly referred this evening. I hope that its great battery of recommendations will be taken seriously by the Government and translated into practice. I quote from that Report:
"By throwing light on a series of major social issues … immigrants illuminate the strength and weaknesses of our social system and indicate the surgery which it requires … In short, our society is in important respects an unjust society organised in such a way as to perpetuate these injustices. Immigration, by stimulating a concern for social justice, may also provide the solvent for the inflexibility which helped to produce the symptoms now ascribed to the presence of immigrants."
I believe that the best way, in the words of the noble Lord's Question, for the Government to reassure the inhabitants of the United Kingdom, whatever their colour, is not to single out immigrants or coloured people, but to attack poverty and injustice wherever they occur.
11.5 p.m.
Lord GARNER: My Lords, at this late hour I do not propose to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments,

433
but I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for bringing forward this important Question. I half agree and half disagree with some of the words which fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, is not entirely responsible for the timing, since he put down his Question some days earlier.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I said is was not the noble Lord's fault.
Lord GARNER: I accept that. Since the Question was put down, the Report has appeared. This discussion may help to focus attention on its important recommendations, and I trust will encourage us all to study it in more detail. I would certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that it is a basic document. One of the things that we lack in dealing with this problem is knowledge of the real facts, and it is on a statement of this kind that we can base future policies.
I do not wish to say very much about the general question this evening. I am not sure that I share Lord O'Hagan's view that race relations are deteriorating in this country. In many ways, I think there are signs of improvement; and I should certainly have thought that it was something for the better that we are approaching many of these problems nowadays with more honesty and realism than was the case in the past. It is a factor for the better that it seems—I say this from my own observation—that younger people, on the whole, are freer from prejudice than many of the older generation, and this should be an increasing advantage in the future. The Report itself, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said, holds out various signs of encouragement for the future.
What is the case, I think, is that the tone of public discussion on race problems has deteriorated, and this, surely, is to be deplored: because what we are seeking for is a reasonable way of being able to live together as human beings, and if both sides take an extreme course, it will be extremely difficult to find solutions to the problems. Certainly fear, prejudice, intolerance and calumny are not suitable guides for us.
I want to mention one particular aspect of the problem, and that is the question
434
of overseas students, who would not perhaps normally come into this category of things affecting the general problem. I raise it because I think the network of students round the world studying in various other countries is one of the factors making for a lessening of narrow, selfish nationalisms, and of helping perhaps to create a saner world order. In this country we have always prided ourselves on our ancient seats of learning, and more recently on our technical institutions, our medical schools and the various other establishments where people can receive training of every kind, and can conduct research under the most modern conditions. We have for centuries welcomed people from abroad to come for training and education in this country, and in recent years the British Government have been extremely generous in providing facilities for students from overseas.
I happen to be Chairman of the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in the United Kingdom, and perhaps on that account I should declare an interest in this matter. At the present moment, for example, we have more than 600 scholars and Fellows, men and women, from all parts of the Commonwealth. But that is only a small part of the total flow of students who come to this country in a variety of ways for a number of different disciplines and skills, and. the total number at the present time is something of the order of 70, 000. My point is this. Of course, the primary purpose of students coming to this country is to receive the appropriate training, but this can only be achieved if they live tender congenial conditions conducive to their work.
But there is a further point. I think it is not unfair that we in the receiving country, so to speak, should hope that the students who come here for two, three or four years should return to their own countries—where before long many of them are bound to be in leading positions—with an understanding of the British, and perhaps with a disposition to favour our attitudes. But how is the student likely to react if he hears the doctrines of racial intolerance being preached and applauded? How is he likely to react if he finds discrimination being practised against people whose only crime is that the colour of their skin happens to be precisely the same as his own? Or,

435
indeed, if he or she is the victim of some petty persecution—because, after all, students are not distinguishable from other categories of people when they travel up and down the country? I am not for a moment claiming that instances of this kind are frequent. But no one can deny that some do occur from time to time. One has to remember that a hundred acts of kindness are treated as natural and no particular attention is paid to them, whereas one single, isolated act of an insult can leave a searing impression for life. There are far too many authenticated cases of students—men who establish themselves later—from Asia or Africa, who, because of some no doubt unthinking act on the part of an individual in their student days, have been soured for the rest of their lives.
On one occasion I was friendly with an Indian member of the I.C.S. who was speaking to me of his student days in London, and of the very happy time he had with a family. He was in lodgings in London, and spent three years with the family continuously. He said to me, "You must remember when I came to Britain for the first time you captured me, and when you captured me you did so for life". He ultimately rose to very high positions in the Indian Government service. He was certainly on occasion, when necessary, strongly critical of British policies, but he never lost his basic affection and understanding for this country. My whole point is that, surely, that is the atmosphere we wish to preserve; and my only reason for mentioning this this evening is as an additional reason for advocating that we should establish sanity in the conduct of our race relations in this country and moderation in our public discussions on the subject.
11.12 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should like to join with others in thanking Lord O'Hagan for initiating this discussion. I regret the time, but I do not entirely accept the view which has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that this is the wrong period in which to have this discussion. We have had within recent weeks the Report of the Race Relations Board; we have had the Report of the Community Relations Commission. We have now had this
436
momentous document from the International Relations Institute, Colour and Citizenship. While I appreciate that many have not been able in three days to read that large document, it has been well covered in the daily Press. Apart from those three reports, a Select Committee of another place which has been discussing the question of school leavers is now going to discuss the system of appeals in immigrant countries. Next week we shall be adjourning until October; therefore I think my noble friend was quite entitled to raise this issue tonight before we resume in October.
I want to say a word or two about those Reports. There is the Report of the Race Relations Board. I endorse with deep appreciation the service which Mr. Mark Bonham Carter has contributed as Chairman of that Board. It has been quite outstanding. The one point which particularly interested me in their Report was the statement that Commonwealth immigrants are inclined to go to those firms which welcome them, while a large number of firms do not accept them as employees. Therefore Commonwealth immigrants refrain from going to those firms, and because they refrain the fact that there is discrimination by those firms is not brought before the Race Relations Board. Tonight I want to urge that the Race Relations Board, who have within their terms of reference initiative where discrimination takes place, should challenge on this issue of discrimination the many firms in this country which do not employ coloured persons. I may mention, incidentally, that I have never seen a coloured person as a clerk in any of the banks in this country.
On the Report that has been issued by the Community Relations Commission I want to make this comment. It has a distinct contribution from the Race Relations Board. The Race Relations Board have to deal with discrimination when it takes place. The Community Relations Council have to seek to prevent discrimination occurring. Frankly, although there are two members of that Commission in the House this evening I was a little disappointed by their Report. I was disappointed because it did not reveal positive action by that Council to prevent discrimination, as one would like to see it. There was little indication that

437
they were carrying out the educative work against discrimination which seems to me to be within its terms of reference.
I just throw out this other suggestion. I am not a Scot, but when I have been to Scotland I have been tremendously impressed by the absence of racial feeling in that country, particularly in relation to coloured persons. There may be some religious feeling between Orange and Green, but there is none between those who are white and those who are coloured, and I should have liked to see the Community Relations Council establishing in Scotland the co-operation between the different races which might be an example to this country as well.
Let me just say one other thing, because I think it is important. The Community Relations Council are a quite extraordinary departure in our pattern of constitutional and voluntary organisations in this country. They have a statutory centre, but under that statutory centre are local voluntary organisations. I am one of those who believe in a democracy which is not just centralised in government and not just centralised in local authorities. I believe in a democracy which is local, spontaneous and dynamic, and I regard this pattern of a statutory central authority with these local voluntary organisations as an example of what might be an advance in democratic relations in this country. And I would only say to the Community Relations Council that I think they must be very careful indeed of their statutory position, not to impose upon local voluntary organisations requirements which may often not be according to local circumstances, and which may very often prevent the voluntary, spontaneous, enthusiastic dedication of individuals to the cause of community relations. I say that because I believe in a democracy which has local spontaneity.
I turn to the third Report, which is the Report on Colour and Citizenship, to which reference has been made. I regard this as a quite historic document. One thing that impresses me in this Report is some doubt about the point which is made in Lord O'Hagan's Question as to the deterioration of racial relations in this country. There are factors for it; there are factors in the immigration policy which Her Majesty's Government has pursued which have caused great resentment among very many of our coloured
438
population. In that matter I wan: particularly to refer to one problem which I have raised previously in this House, arising from the decision that immigrants should have entry permits before they leave their territories. I want to ask very strongly about this. It is much easier at Heathrow, much easier for our immigration officers here, much easier for the Home Office.
But what is the situation in the countries from which the immigrants come? I ask the Minister to tell us when he replies—this has gone on for about five weeks now—has one single appeal come from any territory from which immigrants have been desiring to come to this country against the decisions in those territories? I do not believe there has been one. That does not mean that there is not the desire. It means that there has been a total collapse of the whole machinery by which those appeals could be voiced. I know the situation. I am Indian born; I come from an Indian village. I have seen the reports about women with children in their arms who for days and days have asked for the right to come to this country, and there has been no answer. That has been going on for weeks. Nothing has been done.
Lord STONHAM: My Lords, nay I interrupt my noble friend? He told us that this had been going on for weeks long before we introduced the question of the need for compulsory entry certificates. There is nothing new in this, and it has no direct relationship to the need for compulsory entry certificates.
Lord BROCKWAY: Of course it has. It was going on for weeks before, and I exposed it in this House. But now that these people are not allowed to leave these territories without getting their entry permits it means that there is greater and greater delay; and the Government have been guilty of establishing no machinery at all by which the appeals can be made. I challenge the Minister to say that one single appeal has been made since this inhuman treatment in our Commonwealth countries has been established. I speak deeply about this because I know of it. I am not suggesting that our Government are inhuman. They are appallingly ignorant, and the suggestion that someone should be appointed to investigate this matter

439
may take six weeks; and these wretched people from their distant villages are left absolutely uncared for because the Government have introduced a system of control which, although it may be easier here, does not help those wretched people in the territories. I apologise for speaking in this way, but I feel very deeply about this because I have a knowledge of it.
I want to turn to the Report which has been issued on Colour and Citizenship. There is one most interesting proposal here. It is the proposal that responsibility should be transferred from the Home Office to the Department of Health and Social Services, and the argument is that the problem of coloured immigrants in this country is largely a problem of urban poverty, of housing, of employment and of education. I think all of us who have any knowledge of this problem will accept that. But it is not only that. We have to acknowledge that in addition to the problem of poverty there is certain racial prejudice.
On that proposal, I would say that while in the long run it may be desirable to transfer this authority from the Home Office to the Department of Health and Social Services, I rather doubt whether it should be done immediately, partly because this is a new Department which has its own large problems, and partly because it is also a matter of racial prejudice, in addition to the problem of poverty.
I want to look at two problems which are raised in this Report. The first is that of housing. The Report indicates that local authorities have not been equitable in their allocation of houses to the Commonwealth immigrants; and also that the absence of accommodation at low rents has meant that there has been overcrowding in immigrant homes because of the high rents and, even when homes have been bought, by the high mortgage rates. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will very strongly urge local authorities to find accommodation in their council estates on an equal basis for Commonwealth immigrants, and will take advantage of the allowances which are now made for meeting mortgage charges and for home grants, which will enable these problems to be dealt with.
440
The other problem with which I want to deal especially is that of schools and education. I find it very difficult to come to a decision whether the proposal for the dispersal of the children of Commonwealth immigrants is correct or not. It is incorrect in the sense that it recognises the difference of colour; it has the advantage of distributing children of Commonwealth immigrants among a larger section of the community, and therefore meeting very many prejudices which occur. I believe it to be quite wrong to take the view that when these children have become masters of the English language they are any disadvantage to educational advance.
In another place I used to represent the constituency of Eton and Slough. We have in Slough a large immigrant population. I want to read to the House the statement made by the Slough Education Officer, Mr. Charles Smythe, last week. He said:
"More and more immigrant children at secondary schools are taking G.C.E.s and passing them. In schools with large numbers of them they tend to be the pace setters, and often raise the whole academic standard. In many cases Asian children arrived in Slough with little or no English so they did not pass the 11 plus, but once the handicap was overcome they often surged ahead and became the pace setters at around the age of 13 to 14. Another factor was the young immigrants dedication to school work, aided by Asian parents who set great store on education."
I believe that as we now go forward we have a great opportunity, because I think the psychological situation is much better than it was. As we go forward with the recognition of the equality of human beings, whatever be their race or their colour, we must welcome them, give them an opportunity, and we may be able to solve the problems based on the Reports which have been presented in the last few weeks in a way which will be encouraging for the future, and which may mean that we may not suffer what has happened in some other countries as a result of racial discrimination.
11.34 p.m.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I should like to express my appreciation of the Question which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, which I think is of immense importance not only to this country but to people with humanitarian ideals everywhere. In the speeches that have been made so far, the consequences

441
of this subject have covered a very wide aspect, but I should like to get back particularly to the terms of the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. The noble Lord is specifically asking Her Majesty's Government
"whether they are aware of the deterioration of race relations …, and of the harm being 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".
My Lords, I do not know exactly what was in the mind of the noble Lord when he framed that Question, but I want to confine myself very strictly to the issues which I think it raises.
What has rather surprised me tonight is the fact that no noble Lord has really touched on the Commonwealth and all its aspects. When I think of racial relations and the tone of public debate, I think instinctively of the Commonwealth, for whose people I have a very deep affection. Racial problems do not really exist with the old Commonwealth as we understand it, composed as it is of our own and European stock. The difficulties that arise involve the peoples that come from the new, independent nations—post-1945. I suggest that the problems of race and immigration which have arisen would have been immeasurably easier to discuss if we had set the tone of our debate with some clear concept of the Commonwealth and what I think the Commonwealth means to all your Lordships.
We have no real idea what the Commonwealth to-day stands for. There is no concept about the Commonwealth except that we do not interfere with the internal affairs of member States, and that we are all independent. Some of these independent nations recognise the Crown and Her Majesty as being Head of the Commonwealth. Other nations, such as Malaysia and India, do not recognise the Crown and have their own Heads. The real result of the situation is that, independent as all of us are, we are free to criticise each other. The independent nations are free to criticise us, and do so on racial problems in the United Nations and elsewhere.
There are two problems which arise here. There is the fear of the immigrant and the fear of our own, European, white population. This raises doubts and fears in Britain, and antagonises sections of our
442
own population. It does not make the solution of our own racial problems, any the easier, and it does not help, I would venture to suggest, if we do not explain ourselves and if we do not seem to answer the criticisms that are made against us. I submit that this is very largely the position, that we do not defend ourselves; and at the present moment there is no leadership within the Commonwealth.
Then, my Lords, in our public debates and in the debates which are carried on in the Press and on the radio and television there are the convictions as to how we should deal with racial and immigration problems, very sincerely held by many of us, which may be diametrically opposed, and yet each of us in his own way passionately desires to see a solution to these problems. If we allow passion to rise it raises the temperature. Anything said about race can be inflammatory, whether it is said about our own race or the coloured races, and I would submit that this sometimes happens.
In this country there is an organisation known as Black Power which exists to exploit the wishes of the extremists. In my humble submission, it has no relevance in Britain. Basically, the British people are fair-minded and tolerant; and for this reason alone it has no relevance. But Black Power increases the fear and will never help in the furtherance of good race relations. I should be the first to admit that there are white racialists just as much as there are black racialists. But both categories are in the minority and nothing should be said or done which would increase the numbers of those minorities.
The Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, was:
"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 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."
I do not think that the tone of debate on race and immigration has always been as high as it might have been, for the reasons I have given; but I certainly do not think it has been deplorable. I think the public would tend to be reassured if we were seen to be debating these

443
question with knowledge and understanding, entirely without passion, and with some proposals for the future. Among the proposals that I have in mind would be proposals to establish confidence with our own people and with those of the immigrant community. We should always proceed, so far as is humanly possible, by persuasion rather than by compulsion.
My Lords, if there was anything which could impress on us all the fact that we must live together it was the television picture of the world in space, the picture which was passed back to earth last Christmas by the television camera of the astronauts, Lovell, Borman and Anders. But we sometimes tend to forget that we exercise considerable influence over a quarter of the earth's surface. I firmly believe that we should use that influence for the good and benefit of mankind. We have the experience and the knowledge to deal with these problems. It is my opinion that if we use that influence wisely and well, this indeed willl be a contribution to humanity and mankind. I would make one final comment. I should like to see within the Commonweath countries, in the newly independent nations and in our own nation and Government and people less desire to air their grievances and difficulties and a greater desire to be constructive and to seek areas of agreement. If we did that I think that much of our problems would be solved and that this would be a great contribution to the stability and happiness of our own people and of the immigrant community we have with us.
11.44 p.m.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I do not propose to take the merciless view that as we have sat here so long there is no practical reason why we should not sit here all night. I shall in fact say what I want to say briefly. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, flattered me by asking me to give him some little support in this debate. I must say that I was very attracted by the subject he selected. It seems to me to be a matter of particular importance this moment of time and one worthy of the attendance and notice of a number of noble Lords. I venture to say, without being patronising, that I was particularly gratified to see a very young man take an interest in these matters. I hope he will not resent
444
the observation that he is a young man. There is no particular importance in his being young except that we have the comforting knowledge that for a good many years to come there will be a Member of your Lordships' House concerned, and intelligently concerned, with matters of this importance, and that is the significance of his youth. I should like to say this. First, no one could possibly deplore the tone of the debate this evening. It has been exemplary, and if all discussions had been conducted in this manner, no complaint would have arisen from any quarter.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, is justified in saying that there has been a serious deterioration in race relations because of a few people who have made unseemly and inappropriate observations calculated, perhaps deliberately calculated—one cannot be sure—to exacerbate the situation. I am inclined to think that on the whole the amount of publicity they have received exceeds their importance of their lasting significance. That is my own belief. But I do not think that anyone could deprecate or deplore too strongly any observations calculated to arouse misgivings on the part of any section of the community that people were concerned to bring up a feeling of hate and resentment against them. I know of no higher crime that a man can commit against his neighbour than that he should make him feel that sections of the community living round him hate him, resent him and may wish to do him injury. If that could be instilled in the minds of the people concerned, perhaps for political motivation; if they could realise the extreme enormity of what they were doing, without perhaps having in mind that they were committing a crime of such magnitude, I am sure that that crime would be committed far less often and in far less extreme manner.
It is because that needs to be said that I have ventured to keep your Lordships here at this hour of night and after a very long and exacting debate. But having kept you here, there is one other observation I should like to make about the Press. I do not think that the Press, on the whole, has been too bad. If you review the Press as a whole you find a fairly even, a fairly responsible, a fairly just and a fairly tolerant approach to this matter. I have not seen

445
the particular examples to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Eskan, referred in his admirable speech. I did not see the example in the Financial Times, a paper from which I should have expected total moderation and total good sense. Nor did I see the example in the New Statesman, which I am sure ought to have been a leader in proper and sensible judgment in these matters. I have seen features in the newspapers that I have deplored and thought to be wrong, but on the whole I have not thought that the Press has done badly. What the Press does do, and what I think is often very wrong, is to call up illustrations from other countries and warn us of the dangers that exist and which we can find if we examine the history and folklore of some other place. Nearly always it is totally inappropriate, and nearly always they relate to our friends in the United States of America.
If I may venture to say so, it is great nonsense to find any parallel at all between this problem in the United States and the problems of our coloured immigrants in this country; because in the United States of America there is, unhappily, an established history of the most unfortunate and often the most prejudiced and the most difficult character. We have no such history. We are not saddled with this kind of legacy. We have not the problems of the Southern States, of lynching, of the Scotsborough cases and matters that are bound to remain in the minds of the coloured population in that country for generations. We are in the fortunate position of starting from scratch. We have none of those matters to prejudice the position, to ruffle the surface, to make it more difficult for us to build sensible and reasonable institutions in relation to people living side by side as civilised neighbours.
I think it is very wrong to call up these foreign illustrations. It is particularly wrong because nobody ever calls up illustrations from countries which have no such problems. No one ever calls attention to the fact that, for instance, apart from individual political matters, on the whole in France this problem has never been of serious significance for years, for generations, for centuries. It is always to a problem based on conditions where no parallel of any kind exists that our attention is directed and solemn warnings are uttered. It is some-
446
thing that needs to be dealt with, and, on the whole, I think it is time that we pointed out that people who are celling up the customs of other countries ought to have an intimate knowledge of those countries; and they ought also to have an intimate knowledge of their own country before they make these false and invalid comparisons.
I would conclude by congratulating the noble Lord on having raised this issue. I am not sure how timely it is, I am not sure how important it is, at this moment of time to seek to find that there are real and valid problems to be dealt with. In some ways, as the noble Lord speaking from the Opposition Benches rightly said, it may be more important to seek to find that the problems do not exist. What we want to do is to emphasise not the absence of tolerance but the presence of tolerance. The fact remains that this young Lord has drawn our attention to a matter of great conscience and great importance and the House ought to be very grateful to him.
11.49 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I intervene very shortly before the noble Lord replies? I should like, to say how glad I am that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has raised this question. I am sorry that there is not a fuller House, because I think noble Lords would have liked to hear what was said on this important subject. I will mention only one subject quite shortly. This is a debate on race relations, and it is constantly referred to as "coloured immigration". The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, used that expression. I would never dare to go to anybody and say, "You are a coloured immigrant", and if I do not like saying that to a man's face I do not like saying it to his back. It is slightly offensive, it is slightly perhaps disparaging, it is slightly condescending. I should like to see the words "coloured immigrant" cut out of our terminology altogether.
It is suggesting, for instance, that we are not coloured. I will not refer to the colour of your Lordships' faces, but you are all different colours. It if a question of what one means by "colour". The Northern Chinese are far whiter than any of your Lordships are to-night. This expression suggests

447
that we are normal and the rest of the world are abnormal. That is wholly wrong. Let us call people, if we may, by the names of which they are proud: Indian, Pakistani, West Indian, Malay, Singaporian, or whatever it may be, but do not just call them together a lump sum, which of necessity is slightly offensive. If we want a collective word, let us speak of "non-European immigrants", but do not pretend that "coloured immigrants" can possibly cover everybody. They are individuals, proud of the country they represent. I apologise for intervening before the noble Lord for a moment.
Lord RITCHIE - CALDER: My Lords, may I intervene briefly? The reason why I did not put my name down was the reason why I now feel compelled to intervene. I wanted to be here, as your Lordships have, to show what I think is a proper respect for the Question which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, put down. The only thing which brings me to my feet—and I shall be brief—was not so much the provocation of my noble friend Lord Brockway as his encouragement to speak. I, like my noble friend Lord Campbell, am a member of the Community Relations Commission. I always listen to my noble friend Lord Brockway, with the profoundest respect and am usually in complete and absolute agreement with him.
I do not complain that he criticises the nature of our Report. I should think, like every intelligent Minister and every intelligent body, that the more you criticise us for not doing what we want to do the better we, on the Community Relations Commission, shall be pleased. We are a body whose ultimate success will be achievements that nobody will recognise. The chevron of our victory will be that it is never going to happen. The less we impinge on the public consciousness, except in supporting the causes we have in mind, the less we invite either praise or blame, the better—because, surely, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has just said, what we are doing is to try to forget that the people we are talking about are different kinds of people—the "we" and the "they's". Remember Kipling:
"Father and mother and me,
Sister and auntie', say—
448
All good people like us are 'we'
And everyone else is 'they'.
And they live over the sea,
And we live over the way.
But would you believe it—
Would you believe it?—
They look upon 'we'
As just a kind of 'they'?"
I feel that if we merge, through the work of the Commission and not, with all due respect, through the Race Relations Board, not through envigilation but through the disappearance of differences, we shall achieve success.
11.56 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord StonhaM): My Lords, the world will never believe and the newspapers of this country will not take the slightest notice of the fact that at 11.56 p.m. we are debating this subject in the House of Lords and that at this time, apart from those noble Lords who had signified their intention of speaking, we have had two "chalk jockeys" in the shape of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and of my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder. Another fact which is significant but of which again nobody will take the slightest notice—not that that worries me at all—is that we are virtually in complete and passionate agreement on this subject.
My noble friend Lord Goodman has just said that although the Press had not done badly on this subject, they were wrong to call up other countries as examples of what could happen in Britain; it was not appropriate to us. That is another way of saying that this country is unique; and though we never say so and leave it to other people to point it out, in very many ways this country is unique. I am sure that this debate will be intensely gratifying to all noble Lords—and I suppose that means everyone in this House—who believe in human decency and in justice, and I want to add my thanks to the many already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for raising this Question to-night.
As my noble friend Lord Goodman said, the attendance of so many noble Lords at this hour is an indication of our intense interest and also, I hope, of our particular pleasure that this subject was raised at this time, despite all difficulties, by one of the younger and newer Members of your Lordships' House. That is tremendously encouraging.

449
The fact that so important a subject has been raised in your Lordships' House is an augury of the increasing volume and importance of the work we do and an illustration of the fact that there are occasions when, because of the great pressure of business on Parliament as a whole, your Lordships' House is the only place where matters of this kind can be urgently raised. Let us be grateful for that and grateful also for the fact that we have had this debate, which should help to dispel some of the murky myths of immigration and get over some of the facts.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, made references to the tone of public debate in this country on this subject. Unquestionably the tone of public debate on race and immigration has a significant effect on race relations in this country. Unquestionably, also, much harm results if debate is conducted irresponsibly or in extreme terms. We need rational and informed comment on this matter of legitimate public concern, and unfortunately—I dislike having to say this—some recent speeches have fallen far short of this: for example, one of Mr. Powell's in which he focused attention on the alleged unpleasant activities of a tiny minority, with the implication that this is how most coloured people behave now and will behave in the future. And there are other speakers who have argued that some members of our community are unalterably alien because their skins happen to be darker than the majority. I was pleased to have the last minute intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who suggested that the words "coloured immigrant" should be cut altogether, and that they should be referred to, if they so wish, by names indicating the countries from which they have come and of which they are so proud.
People who make the kind of speeches to which I have referred obviously never stop to think what it feels like for a coloured teenager, born and bred in Manchester or Birmingham—who follows the exploits of Manchester City or the Warwickshire county cricket team—to be told that he is a foreigner and that he ought to go off to Jamaica or Barbados or wherever his parents came from. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Eskan said, it is outrageous: indeed, I would go further and say that it is obscene. It was West Indians and Indians who raced on
450
to the field at Lord's to congratulate Hampshire on completing his test century. He was no less their hero because his skin was white and he had made his runs against men with coloured skins. Apparently these racialist speakers are indifferent to the humiliation which a person feels when his application for a job or a house is rejected because of the colour of his skin, or the embarrassment and resentment which arises from widespread use of derogatory expressions for negroes or other coloured people.
Unquestionably, Mr. Powell is an intelligent man, so I cannot acquit him on the grounds of ignorance. But I have to say that, in my view, he utters his distortions of considered intent. The surprising thing is that, despite this, some people still say that he is an honourable man. My Lords, I cannot. Because the tragedy is that these speeches are thus accepted as respectable comment and encourage otherwise decent people to express racialist views.
Then there are those contributions to public debate which imply that immigration to this country is getting out of hand and that our people are about to be overrun by alien coloured hordes. The truth is that the number of people entering this country for permanent set lenient is declining, and immigration to this country is under firm but humane control. In 1967, 61, 377 Commonwealth citizens were admitted for permanent settlement. In 1968 the number dropped to 53, 069. In the first four months of 1969 the total number admitted was 14, 269, compared with 17, 988 in the first four months of 1968. If admissions for the remainder of this year continue at the same rate as the first four months the 1969 total will be under 43.000.
I give these figures because they are facts, despite my firm agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Eskane, in deploring the fact that people will confuse race with immigration, and vice versa. Nevertheless, these figures are important to the people of this country, and it is right that I should give them. I trust the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, will feel that these remarks of mine will show that I wholeheartedly agree with him and with other noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Garner, that public debate on race relations and immigration has deteriorated, and that

451
this can do great harm if it is not conducted in a fair and rational way. Highly emotional debate may bring major issues to the surface, but it also confuses them and makes no constructive contribution to their solution, and this applies particularly to the expression of extremist views.
It is perhaps fair to make the point that racialism has its black as well as its white spokesmen, as the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, has said. That there is ample scope for a constructive approach is shown by the quality of response to some alarmist speeches which have been made. We do know this response. It is up to us. The late Dr. Martin Luther King said that this generation will repent, not the outrageous acts of evil men, but the appalling silence of good ones. Surely, no man worthy of the name who heard his widow speak in St. Paul's can remain silent.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, suggests that there has been a deterioration of race relations in the United Kingdom. During the debate other noble Lords, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Garner, have supported this view. I reject that suggestion, which I would submit is not supported by recent independent evidence. First, we have this massive report Colour and Citizenship just issued by the Institute of Race Relations, which the Government welcome as of considerable value and consider that it is likely to make an important contribution to the understanding of race relations in this country. That report, in chapter 28, gives the findings of a survey which showed that among the people interviewed 73 per cent. (an enormous percentage; I should be delighted if the Government could be so fortunate as to get 73 per cent. of the people of this country behind them, and I could equally say this about the Opposition) were tolerant, or tolerant inclined, only 27 per cent. were prejudice inclined and 10 per cent. highly prejudiced.
If it is argued that this survey may be a little out of date, I would point out that its findings were, broadly speaking, confirmed by the nation-wide survey carried out recently by the Daily Express. I was delighted to see in that newspaper that most British people say that coloured immigrants already in this coun-
452
try should be made to feel at home, with no different treatment from anybody else, and that six out of ten people accepted present immigrants and said they should be given equality of treatment.
This does not tie up with deteriorating relations, and it has been conducted all over the country—and I would add the following from Colour and Citizenship. It says:
"First, the extent of tolerance in Britain cannot be stressed too often and is indeed one of the major facts of the actual situation which has to be communicated to people whose anxieties on this score may stem in part from the mistaken view that there is not only-widespread anxiety about coloured immigration but widespread hostility towards coloured people as such. What is needed in short is not an effort to make people unprejudiced, but rather to remind them that they are unprejudiced."
As the Daily Mirror put it even more succinctly,
"Tolerance is what comes naturally to the people of Britain".
Please, my Lords, let us hang on to this. This is us. This is unique, and as this has been confirmed by two completely different inquiries do not let us forget this, and do not let us forget that we have a big job to do.
Colour and Citizenship runs to 800 pages with no fewer than 78 pages of conclusions and recommendations; therefore comprehensive comment from me, as I hope the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will agree, must await another occasion—an occasion to which I look forward. Meanwhile, I can give your Lordships the assurance that while a number of the recommendations in the Report have inevitably been overtaken by developments since the Report was written, the remainder are receiving careful consideration by the various Departments concerned and will no doubt be the subject of further discussion in due course.
I now come to the last part, after the semi-colon, of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan's Question, on which the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, concentrated his remarks. I point to the very important practical measures which the Government have taken to assure all our people that they can look forward to a future in which no one will be at a disadvantage because of his or her colour. You cannot banish discrimination by Statute, but the great majority of people obey the law, and we now have a Race Relations

453
Act which is as wide in scope as any national legislation anywhere in the world. Your Lordships will recall the care with which noble Lords on both sides of the House considered the details of the Bill which was before Parliament last year. Indeed, we improved it in several important respects. The Act makes discrimination on grounds of race, colour, ethnic or national origin, unlawful, in housing, employment and the provision of goods, facilities and services, and it provides machinery for the settlement of differences by conciliation, and for the ultimate sanction of the courts where conciliation fails. Above all, it sets a standard of behaviour and conduct to which I believe most people will willingly conform. Whatever the standard of debate, we have this legal framework within which we must all live. The Act has now been in force some seven months, and today's debate comes shortly after the publication of the first Report of the re-constituted Race Relations Board. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for the tribute which he paid to Mr. Mark Bonham Carter, the Chairman of the Board. I am not so much in agreement with my noble friend on the other aspersions which he raised on the Government, and which I cannot accept.
If I may now deal with my noble friend's point, the machinery is in operation. As he challenged me to say so, I will respond to the challenge. There has in fact been an appeal. The distinguished assessors are waiting for customers, and perhaps the reason why they have no customers is because almost no dependants are being refused admission into this country, because they have entry certificates. And to stop my noble friend getting to his feet and interrupting me, let me say that the other end of the business is also being attended to. I do not feel in this matter any less than he does. When he refers to these unfortunate people waiting family by family, perhaps for a week or more, outside the High Commissioner's office, or wherever it may be, I would point out that they were doing this before ever we introduced compulsory entry certificates; and I ask my noble friend to accept that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I will be dealing with whatever deficiencies remain as quickly as ever we can.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I acknowledge that my noble friend is just as humanly concerned in this matter as I am. The point I put is this. How many weeks is it—five weeks, six weeks? There was a promise that voluntary organisations were to be assisted in giving help to these people. Have any of these voluntary organisations yet received this help? What has been done for these wretched people in the ports of departure who are just left without any knowledge of this procedure? Of course there have been no appeals; they do not know about it. There is no machinery for it. That is the point I was putting.
Lord STONHAM: My Lords, I must reject this again. I really cannot go on with this. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, because to some extent this is irrelevant to the Question, but I had to answer the point. The appeal system is there. In fact one applicant has used it. It is not our fault that there are no other applicants; it is a virtue on our part. My noble friend raised the question of voluntary organisations. I gave a pledge on behalf of the Government and it stands. My noble friend knows as well as I do about these various voluntary organisations and about the failure to secure unanimity of agreement with some of them. I would ask him to leave it at that and ask him to accept the good will of the Government in this matter. These problems will be solved.
I was referring to the Race Relations Board, and in their Report covering the period to March 31 last the Board stressed the value of the declaratory effect of the Act. They point out, for example, that several major firms have been prompted by the Act to take positive steps and to adopt non-discriminatory employment policies. This accords with the information that has come to us from the Department of Employment and Productivity, that a number of employers who previously denied employment to immigrants have amended their policies. After only seven months it is clearly too soon to draw firm conclusions, but the present indications are that it is having the desired effect in those important aspects of human activity in which racial prejudice could, unless checked, find expression in acts of discrimination.
Your Lordships will recall that one effect of the Race Relations Act has been

455
to replace the voluntary National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants with the new statutory body, the Community Relations Commission, of which my noble friend, Lord Campbell of Eskan is Deputy Chairman. The Commission's first Report appeared about three weeks ago and it covers the work of the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants for the period from January I to November 25 last year, and the work of the Commission from November 26 to March 31 this year. The Report merits close study, as it sets out in some detail the many practical measures which can be taken to bring about an understanding of the real, as opposed to the mythical, social problems with which we have to deal. The conferences, courses, lectures and projects that the Report describes, and which go on week in and week out, up and down the country, are precisely the activities which can make a positive contribution to the wellbeing of our society and stand in sharp contrast to the negative approach of certain public figures.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, asked, in effect, whether we are taking any notice of the Community Relations Commission. He spoke about fiancees. Of course we take a great deal of notice of the Commission and listen to them. But while it is certainly the Home Secretary's intention that the Commission should have full opportunity to express their views on, and discuss, immigration policy in general, or any legislation in this field, the Government have to accept the responsibility for authorising administrative changes in conditions of entry; and as the noble Lord should be aware, timing is usually the essence, and there are obvious difficulties in the way of advance consultation about them.
Let me give your Lordships a particular example of what the Commission can do. The educational needs of immigrant children are in many respects much the same as the educational needs of other children—and this is, I think, a point worth emphasising—but some of them have additional needs which must be met before they can take their full place in our society—primarily the need to learn English. At the same time, teachers need to acquire a full appreciation of the new dimension which the presence of immigrant children has introduced into their
456
work. These are problems which the Commission are energetically facing in co-operation with the Department of Education and Science and the local education authorities.
The teachers themselves are responding in a magnificent way to this challenge. One of the things which I find most impressive is the enthusiasm with which they, and others in the schools, training centres, and colleges, are meeting this challenge to their skills. They are actually doing the job, and theirs is not the story of gloom and despondency which is disseminated in some quarters. Please let us help them: do not let us talk of despondency. They are doing the job. Theirs is a story of wider interests, new horizons and knowledge, which are of benefit to themselves and to all the children for whom they are responsible. My impression is that this sort of response is in fact typical of those many professional workers who now come into contact with immigrants and their children and to my mind this is a most reassuring sign for the future.
I believe that we can be reassured by the many voluntary activities which take place at the local level. The Government fully support the concern of the Community Relations Commission with the establishment and encouragement of voluntary organisations in those areas of the country where immigrants have made their homes. By the end of March this year the number of community relations councils had risen to 78 and the number of full-time officers serving them to 42. The Commission, rightly in my view, have recognised the importance of the work of these officers, and the need to improve their professional standing and career prospects. Theirs is not an easy job. On the one hand they must command the confidence of the community as a whole; on the other they have to provide the expertise and initiative behind local efforts to improve community relations; but their work is of major importance, since it is at the local level in the field where the real problems arise in confrontations between human beings, and where, in the final analysis, they must be solved.
Now where do the Government fit into all this? When Mr. Jenkins was Home Secretary he defined integration as:
"not a flattening process of assimilation, but as equal opportunity accompanied by cultural

457
diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance".
That remains our aim, and I say that we have provided the framework within which it can be achieved. Then there is the quite massive programme of grants to local authorities who employ staff to deal with the special problems of culture and language associated with immigration, which are paid under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966. I was perhaps a little despondent that the noble Lord did not deal with the massive effort that we are making there. This year the sum eligible for 75 per cent. grant is expected to be £4½ million for liaison officers, teachers, and all kinds of special workers. You get a lot of them for £4½ million. They are specially appointed to cope with difficulties of language and customs. I would again emphasise to your Lordships that this is an open-ended subsidy, in the sense that local authorities can spend as much as they like on staff within the range of jobs covered. I look at my noble friend Lord Goodman: would he not like an open-ended subsidy in some of his fields?
In addition, there is the urban programme of aid to areas of special social need, in many of which immigrants have settled. This year's expenditure will be a further £½ million, and I would remind your Lordships that it is based on need as recommended in Colour and Citizenship. Many thousands of nursery school places are being provided. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, asked whether I would say how it was progressing. It is going on extremely well and it is ascending all the time. This is really providing massive help. In addition, the Government departments support and complement the work of the Board and the Commission in consultation with professional and voluntary organisations and the local authorities.
There is one other point I might deal with. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, spoke about the collection of statistics and suggested that the figures were overexposed in the local Press. Well, we have to collect statistics. It is true that the Home Office circulated a memorandum to the Select Committee on Race Relations indicating Government support for the collection of statistics about immigrant groups, and of course many of the figures must come from local authorities.
458
They are necessary if policy is to be developed on the basis of real facts, which is the only basis on which we can proceed. That is not to deny the need for the greatest care in using the figures in a responsible way and with full appreciation of their limitations and precise application.
The noble Lord asked about the police making inquiries about accommodation for the dependants of immigrants. I would point out that the police in fact are the only national body who can do this work. It is not possible, as the noble Lord appeared to suggest, for welfare workers to do it. Moreover, the police normally do it very well. Possibly, the difficulty is that many immigrants do not yet quite understand—I hope they will do before long—that the police in this country are unique and are there to help them.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, if I may now interrupt—it is the last thing I want to do really—the noble Lord has put his finger on the point that the immigrants do not, in some instances, fully appreciate the role that the police fulfil in this country in contrast to some of the countries from which they come. It is the unfortunate association of the police force with persons who come and inspect your private rooms that is so harmful. If we want the immigrants to trust the police it is rather short-sighted to make the police fulfil this duty when it in fact undermines the growing confidence that so many of the immigrants do have in the police.
Lord STONHAM: My Lords. I cannot accept that the police are undermining this growing confidence. But this is a matter which we are carefully considering. Indeed, a few weeks ago I attended a seminar with the police on this particular subject, and we are hoping to improve their standing.
My Lords, important as all these practical steps are, perhaps the most important task for the Government is to set the right tone. At the end of their Annual Report the Race Relations Board say,
"In the field of race relations British society faces a straight choice between segregation and integration. In our situation, a segregated society would be one in which a tiny, readily identifiable minority of the population would be treated in an inferior fashion."

459
I accept that analysis. We have chosen the second course, integration, in the sense which I have already defined, and I have outlined some of the steps which are already being taken to make this policy a success. That is my reassurance to all members of the community for which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has asked. The Government have made our objective clear in word and deed. There is scope for public debate about the methods by which we can achieve it; but that debate must be informed, constructive, reasoned and moderate. The Government have made racial discrimination unlawful. It is for your Lordships and other leaders of public opinion to show that it is also an obscenity. I hope this debate will have made some contribution to that end.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL YORK CORPORATION BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
WITHAM NAVIGATION COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty nine minutes before one o'clock.