Lords Sitting of 20 July 1972

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.
The Duke of Marlborough—sat first in Parliament ofter the death of his father.
The Duke of Wellington—sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

SCOTTISH ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES: STAKE NESS SCHEME
LORD HOY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now make a Statement about the proposed nuclear generating station at Stake Ness, in Banffshire.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD POLWARTH): My Lords, in order to provide adequate supplies of electricity in the North-East of Scotland new generating capacity will be required there by the winter of 1978–79. The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has indicated that this may be either a nuclear station at Stake Ness or an oil/gas-fired station near Peterhead. The decision on the type of station to be built will be made in the light of the review of nuclear reactor policy which is being conducted by the Government. I expect the Board to be in a position to announce its decision very soon.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the courtesy of that Answer, but I must say I find it exceedingly disappointing. Is he aware that six months ago I received a letter from the noble Baroness who then occupied his post, saying that this matter was urgent and we must have a decision without delay? Does he not think it
866
a little unfair to come along now, six months later, and say, " Well, let us think for another six months or twelve months "? In view of the necessity for electricity in Scotland, and of the fact that this project would provide employment for 3,000 people and certainly give guarantee of it to 300 after it was done, would not the Government speed up the proposal a little more quickly than they have been doing over the last 18 months?
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government, are well aware of the considerations which the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has just mentioned, but I must point out that with an investment of this size, on which electricity supplies for the development of this growing area of the North-East will depend, it is vital that we get the right decision. As to nuclear policy, this is a complex and highly technical problem and the review being made of all aspects of nuclear power policy is a very thorough one. I can assure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State appreciates that supplies must be available by 1978, from whatever kind of station, and he will ensure that the supplies by that date, by one means or another, are not in danger.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that if a decision is not made in the near future our prospects of selling the steam generating heavy water reactor overseas will be jeopardised, and that this reactor could otherwise make an extremely useful contribution to British exports?
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that I am not myself, nor is my Department, responsible for that particular issue, but I will certainly ensure that his comments are brought to the attention of my noble colleague who is.
LORD SHERFIELD: My Lords, is it not the case that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board have in the exercise of their commercial judgment expressed a preference for the installation of a steam generating heavy water reactor? Is it not also the case that unless a domestic order for this type of reactor is given, the prospects of overseas sales are very limited? Is he not further aware that the delay in coming to a decision is

867
causing alarm and despondency among all those who are connected with the nuclear industry?
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, the main concern of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board is to have an adequate supply of electricity by the dates I have mentioned, with certainty of its being available then, and also by a system that is tried and proved to be technically feasible, safe and in every other respect satisfactory. While I appreciate the implications for the nuclear industry as a whole, as I said earlier, this matter is being reviewed thoroughly and with urgency, and I cannot add to the timetable other than to say, as I did before, that the Board hope to be in a position to announce the decision very soon.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on Tyneside Parsons Reyrolle's have recently laid off 900 men because the Government have not yet reached a decision on this matter?
LORD POLWARTH: Yes, my Lords.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the provision of power, from whatever source, is an essential part of the on-shore infrastructure for off-shore development of our natural resources? Would he be so good as to have a look at this matter again and try to jog up those who are lagging?
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I entirely appreciate the importance of the point raised by the noble Earl. I would only repeat again what I have said: that the Secretary of State has said—and he has discussed this subject with the Chairman of the North of Scotland Board recently—that supplies of electricity, from whatever is the most appropriate source, will be available by that date.
LORD HOY: My Lords, would the noble Lord answer one further question? Is it not a fact that certain other interests are preventing a decision from being taken? As a tender for a steam generating heavy water reactor for a station has already been made, is not the decision on whether or not it ought to be accepted being delayed by the intervention of certain other private interests?
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I was not aware—and indeed I am not aware—that such is the case.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how long this matter has been under active consideration? Because the consideration of nuclear energy as an alternative has been under review for such a long time that it seems the House might now be told when a decision will be taken.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, the beginning of this review was certainly some time before I moved to the position that I now occupy, and all I can do is to pass the noble Lord's comments to my noble colleague who is responsible. I am sorry that the information is not available to me.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, as a matter of interest, may I ask the noble Lord, if we are to rely entirely on well-tried processes, how we achieve technological progress?
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, by putting our backs into it and making sure that what we are developing is going to work, rather than embarking on an ill-considered scheme.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords. will the noble Lord look into the matter which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, and have it examined, because it has serious merit?
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I will of course pass those suggestions on to the appropriate quarter.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a criticism was made in the Press the other day that the Government have a surplus of doers and not enough thinkers, and would he take into account that we could do with a little more doing and a little less thinking in the Scottish Office?
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, would my noble friend retract what was possibly an unintentional remark, that the steam generating heavy water reactor is an ill-considered scheme? I speak as the director of the company that made the tender (and I mention that as noble Lords are expected to declare their

869
interests), but the fact is that the prototype has been running very well at Win-frith Heath for a number of years at Government expense, so surely it is a well-considered scheme.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords. I hasten to apologise immediately to the noble Lord because what I said was perhaps a slip of the tongue. What I intended to imply was that we did not want to embark on any scheme unless it had been fully considered. I was not implying that this one was ill-considered but that it had to be thought out, so that we were certain it would be operative not merely on a pilot or trial scale but on full scale by the time the energy was required.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that we welcomed him in the Scottish Office in the hope of getting a move on?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I hesitate to intervene and I do not know whether this is a House of doers or thinkers, but in any case I think it is time for us to pass on to the next Question.

BRITISH AIRWAYS WEST LONDON TERMINAL
3.16 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY:
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, in view of the fact that 1,389,943 passengers used the check-in facilities at the British Airways West London Terminal during the past 12 months and, therefore, will be affected by the decision to end these facilities in 1973 prior to completion of the rail link in 1976, they will in the public interest cause an inquiry to be set up for the purpose of making public assessment of the likely physical hardship caused to passengers in baggage handling, particularly in so far as international flights are concerned and if they will cause any decision of the withdrawal of facilities to be deferred until the results of the inquiry are known.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, as I have already assured the House, my right honourable friend is concerned about the provision of adequate facilities for passengers to and from Heathrow Airport, but he does not consider that this matter is an appropriate subject for a formal inquiry.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate the gravity of what he has just said, quite apart from any merit or demerit in the case that I have been putting? Does he realise that what he has just told the House makes a complete mockery of any guarantee by the Government that the consumer problems of air travellers will receive adequate consideration? As it is obviously of no use writing to any of the organisations concerned, or to the Government, where does he suggest these 1½ million passengers should take their complaints?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if 1½ million passengers have a complaint—or indeed if one passenger has a complaint—the correct place to take the complaint is to the body against which the complaint is levelled ; that is either British European Airways or the British Airports Authority. The noble Baroness will be aware that the Government are concerned about this, but these two bodies are responsible.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords. I could not comment on that and remain within the bounds of decorum, so may I ask the Minister something else? As he himself does not make use of these facilities at Gloucster Road, has he any conception of the worry and anxiety of the many people who have written to me who do use these buses? Does the Minister know that definite buses connect with definite flights at Heathrow and that if a delay is incurred en route this is not invalidated? Will the Minister tell the House what is to happen in the future and how passengers are to decide which bus to catch? Are they to go two hours before, or three hours before to Heathrow? If they encounter roadworks on the way and thereby miss their 'plane and their holiday does not the Minister think that this is worth at least some consideration and some inquiry?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I fully understand and sympathise with the concern expressed by the noble Baroness in regard to this matter. I think that she is under a misapprehension, because when the new system comes into operation at the West London Air Terminal buses will leave every ten minutes to Terminal I and every ten minutes to Terminal 2. It will be stated at the town terminal which is the latest bus the passengers may catch for the flight on which they are booked, and they are therefore guaranteed to catch that flight.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will suggest to his colleagues, not only so that they may be better informed on this but also seem to be better informed, that those who have to travel by air should not go to London Airport in a black motor car but that they and their senior civil servants should use the West London Air Terminal for a month?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords. I have taken the liberty, not of using the West London Air Terminal for a month but at least of going round there and seeing the system as it exists at present and as it will exist in future, and I can assure my noble friend (I know he finds this hard to believe) that at the West London Air Terminal he will find that the new system will be easier for the passengers than the present system.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that although the new system seems to have aroused so much unpopularity, it is better than the system existing at many foreign airports, including Paris and Orly, and that I have never heard of one million or more people complaining about facilities at those airports?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is quite right. In fact, we are the only city in Europe other than Athens which has a check-in point in the centre of the city.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that these matters, important though they are to travellers, including myself, are nevertheless matters of day-to-day management of the authorities concerned? Is he further aware that they are excluded from Ministerial responsibility, and that if it is the wish of Parliament to obtain
872
top calibre management for these State corporations, we would be wise to leave Ministers free of the responsibilities of these day-to-day management matters?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those comments. I was about to say that I was hideously and vigorously aware that they were matters of day-to-day management ; that is why the Government think it right that they are matters on which decisions should be taken by the authorities concerned.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, is it really a fact that Ministers are not responsible for what is happening in this sphere, or is it simply the case that we do not discuss these day-to-day problems? There is a difference between the two.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, this problem is discussed and we are concerned about it.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, may I remind the noble Earl that Ministers still carry responsibility and have power to follow up, for example, the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, that an inquiry into this matter should be held? Is the noble Earl aware that in his replies he has not even touched on this particular aspect of the matter? Will he inform his right honourable friend of the pressure, particularly from this side of your Lordships' House, for an inquiry to be conducted?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's concern. The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, provides for the setting up of inquiries into matters of urgent public importance, but the subject under discussion is not considered to be a matter suitable for such an inquiry.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is it not a fact that if a matter is not one for Ministerial concern a Question on it is never placed on the Order Paper?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—this is a point of which the noble Lord, Lord Slater, will be aware—that unless the managements of State corporations are given a reasonable sphere of responsibility for their own activities, there will be

873
no prospect whatever of attracting the right calibre of people to run these bodies? Will he resist this wish to correct these faults, as faults they may be, because in trying to do so he may only make matters worse?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I have tried as best I can to resist this particular matter. At the same time, I have tried to recognise the concern which noble Lords have expressed and have passed that concern on to my right honourable friend, to the Chairman of the British Airports Authority and to the Chairman of B.E.A., who I believe are all fully conversant with the concern that has been expressed.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, may I urge my noble friend to make a point which, after all, is not an airline point but one of public interest to airport managers—namely, that they should take into consideration the fact that traffic congestion is likely to be caused as a result of people no longer relying on buses to take them to the airport because of the uncertainty that is bound to prevail, even though bus departure times are announced to link up with aircraft departure times?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, in fact the congestion will be better under the new system than under the previous one—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, perhaps I should re-phrase that sentence and say that the situation on the roads will be better under the new system than under the present one because at the moment buses leave for each aircraft, and there may be six buses leaving together in future, buses will depart at the rate of one every five minutes.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, in an impertinent effort to assist the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, may I ask the noble Earl to express himself, strongly to the authorities concerned about this matter? Is he aware that on my last trip abroad I assisted a lady with a baby and two suitcases who had been unable to find either a trolley or a porter? Will the noble Earl put this and similar facts in a vivid form to the authorities
874
so that they are fully aware of the real human problem that is involved?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I will certainly draw the attention of the Chairman of the British Airports Authority to what the noble Lord said. The Chairman has told me that the problem is one of providing more porters, and he has given me a written assurance that this can and will be done.

RHODESIA
3.26 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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 in regard to discussions in this House on July 6 and 13, also in view of the urge for reflection on settlement terms, continuous official contact between the United Kingdom and Rhodesian Governments would not now be more helpful to the African population than the present isolation.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, contact with the Rhodesian authorities can and will be made whenever this would help the search for an acceptable settlement. But the need at present is for a period of reflection while the people of Rhodesia consider how further progress can be made.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of that Answer, which was disappointing in its insufficiency, may I ask the noble Baroness, since it has been found convenient to bend Government policy so as to parley or have dialogue with revolutionary murderers from an area of the United Kingdom where apparently it is not possible to maintain law and order, whether it would be advantageous if a continuing dialogue were possible with Rhodesia, where there is complete law and order, despite the fact that we are continuing economic warfare against that country, action which is so harmful to African employment?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, one cannot quite compare Northern Ireland with Rhodesia. In the former we have power on the ground which we do not have in Rhodesia. It is of course obvious that we shall from time to time need official contact if we are to find a solution, but that time is not yet at hand.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that nothing that has been heard from the Rhodesian Government can lead one to expect a change of heart on their part, or to feel that they have the interests of the black Rhodesian primarily in mind? Would she further agree that anyone in this country who believes that can hold that belief only because of blindness or hypocrisy?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I cannot entirely agree with the noble Baroness. After all, the Smith regime agreed to settlement proposals which would have meant eventual majority rule. One can therefore say that they do in fact have the interests of the Africans at heart.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, as the noble Baroness raid that contact would be kept with the Rhodesian authorities, may I ask her for an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will also keep alive discussions with the representatives of the African people for whom we are trustees? May I further ask, in view of the terms of the original Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, whether the Government have considered the recommendations of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee, which they said they were considering as a matter of urgency?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, of course we wish to keep in contact with all the people of Rhodesia. However, the Question referred to official contact and there has not yet been such contact. We do not think the time is yet suitable for that because we must have an ample period for reflection. So far as sanctions are concerned, we are of course concerned to see that other countries observe the sanctions as we do.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that more important at the moment than establishing a dialogue between the Smith regime and this country is the need for an assurance that the Smith regime are prepared to establish a dialogue with responsible Africans in Rhodesia?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, would the Government not consider that it is impossible to know what is going on in Rhodesia unless we have some representative there, or for the Government to protect British interests there? Would it not be desirable to aid the period of reflection by sending somebody who can keep in touch with the situation, who can tell us what is happening and give us an idea of how to develop our policy in order to find the settlement which everybody so much wants?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we of course have various contacts, but the Question referred to " official contacts " at this moment. We receive people who travel to this country, and others go out to Rhodesia and give us reports on their return. But the Question referred to " official contacts ", and we do not think it is quite time yet for those.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether the reports appearing in the Press this morning are true namely, that Her Majesty's Government have protested to the German Government that Rhodesians are to he allowed to take part in the Olympics? Is this supposed to be part of the business of keeping together?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, that is in fact rather another question. Our advice was asked. I realise that the Rules of Order are wide in this House. Our advice was asked and we did refer the Federal Government to Security Council Resolution 253 which forbids Member countries to allow entry to Rhodesian passport holders. But it is for the Federal Government to make up their own mind.

U.S. EXPLOSIVES SHIPMENTS FROM BRITISH PORTS
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 American bombs are being exported from British ports for use in Vietnam and Indo-China.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, as I explained in answer to the noble Lord's Question on Monday, a quantity of American explosives was recently shipped from the United Kingdom to Zeebrugge and I understand that these were later diverted to South-East Asia. The use of these explosives is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in thanking the Minister, may I ask whether it is not the case that they are being exported to Thailand? Would there be any value in the exporting of these bombs to Thailand by the Americans if they were not to be used in the Vietnam war? Is the Minister aware how shocking it is to many of us that facilities should be given in this country for expanding the bombing of Vietnam by the American Forces?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord on Monday when he asked exactly the same question, these were American stores and the American Forces are entitled to move them to meet their own needs, provided that within this country they comply with our safety requirements.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, may we take it from that that Her Majesty's Government take no responsibility at all for the delivery point of these bombs, and would be quite indifferent if they were in fact used in Vietnam? Would he further keep in mind that it is worth investigating and getting the facts about this matter, because if we have any influence at all in this tragic situation surely that influence must be to demonstrate that we are seeking to bring the bombing and the war to an end and not rather furtively to take sides one way.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, as I have said now on three occasions, I do not think that it is within the purport of Her Majesty's Government to control what the United States do with their ammunition other than when it is within this country. As regards the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Vietnam, that was stated very clearly in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State about a month ago.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Americans are probably fighting this war on behalf of all the Western World, including the Australians and the New Zealanders who are helping them, is it not only right that we should afford them some assistance in this way?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, that would seem to be another point of view.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that though it may be a point of view it is a point of view so erroneous that the noble Duke has shown his complete ignorance of the origin of this 30 years' war in Vietnam. While I am perfectly aware that the Minister has no power whatsoever to control the United States, we no longer seem to be able to control our destiny.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords,
would Her Majesty's Government not agree that, in company with the noble Duke, some, indeed many, Members of this House would be only too glad to assist our American Allies in their light against Communist aggression?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, what I do know, from having sat in this House for a long time, is that there are differences of opinion about the Vietnam war.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm a statement I had yesterday from a member of the Merchant Service that these bombs are now being transferred from British ships to American ships on the High Seas, because of the threat of Belgian dockers not to handle them? Is that not a contravention of international law, both in territorial waters and in non-territorial waters?
LORD CARRINGTON: No, my Lords, I did not know that. Perhaps the noble Lord would put another Question on that subject and I will try to find out.

NORTHERN IRELAND
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Windlesham will be making a Statement on Northern Ireland at a convenient moment later this afternoon.
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CORNWALL RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Countess of Loudoun and the Lord Reigate be added to the Select Committee on the Bill in the place of the Baroness Dacre and the Viscount Caldecote.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, may I just thank the noble Lord for bringing the Committee up to full strength?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, motion agreed to.

FINANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons ; read 1a, and to be printed.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.38 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 3 [The housing expenditure subsidy and associated rate fund contribution]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 17, leave out from (" expenditure ") to end of line 19.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, because Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are a series which effect the change I wish to bring about in the Bill. The effect of these three Amendments—and I now beg formally to move Amendment No. 1—is to bring the provisions under the Scottish Bill into line with what the Government have done on the Bill in England and Wales. I appreciate the fact that what was originally in the other Bill was not identical with what is in the Scottish Bill because, if I may speak first of all of the Housing Finance Bill, what was in that Bill was that for the first two years the £6 threshold was applicable and after that it was not applicable. It might be said that one of the reasons for the difference after two years was that perhaps a majority—perhaps even all—English and even Welsh local authorities might have moved into surplus on their housing revenue accounts. We are aware of the fact that some of them are in that position at the present time ; but that is not the case in Scotland at all. But the position under the Bill which we are considering now is that the £6 threshold applies right from the beginning in Scotland, and continues. In so far as there is an authority on this side of the Border which is in deficit on its housing revenue account, it will benefit from the way in which the English Bill has been amended. The authorities in Scotland which are in deficit on housing revenue account, unless this Amendment is made to the Bill, are going to be £6 per house worse off than their opposite numbers South of the Border. I can see

881
no justification for that position being allowed to continue, and it is in order to enable the Government to give us the benefit of the same concession in Scotland as they have conceded in the rest of the country that I now wish to move this Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, the noble Lord has, I think, to some extent produced an argument against this Amendment, in that the two systems are not merely slightly different, they are fundamentally different. This goes back to the basic principle underlying the future of rents: that whereas the English system is based on an advance to fair rents, outs is based on bringing the housing revenue account into balance on the basis of historic full costs. The whole thing starts from a different basis. In the English Bill the rising costs subsidy, which is the one the noble Lord has compared to our housing expenditure subsidy, is a deficit subsidy. If there is no deficit on the housing revenue account it is not payable. If the local authority's building programme causes a deficit in the housing revenue account it will be payable. The receipts of the housing revenue account will depend on progress towards a level of fair rents. The position in Scotland is a different one. The housing expenditure subsidy is payable for ten years from the start of its operation and for a minimum of five years from 1977–78 onwards. The entire basis here is different. The differences are so fundamental that I would question very much whether it could be said that the tenant in Scotland under the proposed Scottish system is £6 worse off than his English opposite number. His English opposite number is going to advance towards a totally different level of rent from that proposed by us.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I do not want him to proceed too long on the wrong argument. I did not suggest the tenant would be £6 worse off ; I suggested the local authorities would be £6 per house worse off.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I apologise for not taking the point, which I now do. But we have to look at this in the context of all the subsidies, and the
882
make-up of them in Scotland is quite different from the make-up in England, the main ones relating to housing as opposed to rent rebates and allowances. We discussed very fully at an earlier stage the position which would arise if in that case we were to reduce this threshold, instead of, as the noble Lord is now proposing, abolishing it altogether. As I explained at that time, it seems to us that to abolish the threshold, and indeed even to halve it, is going to disturb the balance of the sharing of the process of moving on to the new rent basis between tenant ratepayer and taxpayer. This is carefully designed for a fair sharing of the extra cost. The other drawback I see is that if this threshold were abolished, when the residual subsidy was finally phased out tenants would then be faced with a very substantial and abrupt increase in rents because they had not been progressing faster in the meantime. That is why I could not recommend the House to accept the Amendment.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I should like to say one or two words on this Amendment. It is quite obvious that the noble Lord has not really understood the Amendment and the argument as it was presented. First of all, his argument was on the basis that the tenant would be £6 worse off if this Amendment were not accepted, and this would be the difference between the Scottish and English tenant. Finally, having gripped the argument that was being put, he said, " If you do not like the original argument I have made I will put another one to meet the new case ". He then argued about the threshold. Is the noble Lord aware that changes have taken place even in the passing of the English Bill? As a consequence of the passing of the English legislation, the threshold has been abolished. This shows a very considerable change indeed, and I am certain that even his noble friend Lord Drumalbyn would not deny that this change has been made. All my noble friend is saving is that you should not put Scotland in a worse position than the tenants in England and Wales. Perhaps this news had not reached the Scottish Office when the brief was prepared, but now that the noble Lord knows about it perhaps he would tell us whether he is prepared to consider it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I must reinforce what my noble friend said about the differences between these two systems. The fundamental difference is that in England progress is to be made towards fair rents, whereas in Scotland the rents are to be fixed by the local authorities themselves in such a way as to balance the housing revenue account.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? He really ought not to mislead the House. When he says that rents will in fact be fixed by the local authorities themselves, he knows that this is not really correct. The local authority will have to impose these increases, and it does not matter how long the period of the year is ; the Government have said to the local authority: " No matter when they are introduced, in that given period they have got to produce the extra rent. The Government are ordering you to do so ". It is not a question of the local authority doing it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in one sense I suppose it could be said that the local authority has always imposed rents. I do not see any difference between imposing and fixing. They are the landlords. Surely, this is not the point. The point is simply the fundamental difference between the two systems. There is progress towards fair rents in England to be made in specified stages. It follows from that that the income of the housing revenue account will benefit by certain specified stages. The rising costs subsidy is to be paid in respect of expenditure which is in excess of expenditure in the previous year on the reckonable expenditure of the housing revenue account. The noble Lord will see that with this kind of arrangement the position is totally different from the Scottish position.
What is more, as my noble friend has already pointed out, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, himself said, it was only in the first two years anyway that the £6 limit applied because of the operation of the various subsidies in England: the transitional subsidy, as well as the residual subsidy, the operational cost subsidy and so on. Apart from the residual subsidy those other two are special to England. So there is a totally different system here. It was thought right, after careful consi-
884
deration of the representations made by the Opposition, that we could in the circumstances afford to withdraw the £6 threshold for the first two years—and it only applied for the first two years in England and Wales—with a view to maintaining the encouragement to house building in England and Wales, where houses are needed to be constructed. But the system in Scotland is to give that encouragement all along the line—not just in the first two years, but throughout. The £6 threshold is considered as a reasonable contribution of something like 12p per week per house in respect of the increase in expenditure over one year as compared with the year before. It is thought right that there should be some contribution from the tenants towards the provision of houses in the area as a whole. This is the threshold, and there is in addition a contribution to match the 75 per cent. contribution ultimately from the Exchequer. From what I have said, I should have thought it is evident that the conditions are so different that it would be impossible to say that because the subsidy had been withdrawn for the first two years in England it should also be withdrawn for the full period of ten years, down to five years, as the case may be, in Scotland. I should have thought that that was a complete non sequitur, the subsidies having been carefully adapted to meet the needs of the two countries.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I feel that this is where I came in because I have previously heard the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, make almost exactly the same speech regarding this £6 threshold and, indeed, using almost word for word of it to explain that the Government thought this was a contribution which ought to be made and that the Government continued to think so. The Government drafting of both the English and the Scottish Bills was virtually in the same words so far as this particular matter was concerned. What happened as regards the English Bill, as the noble Lord knows, was that the Government thought in this way for a long time, but they listened to the arguments and decided—and we are grateful for it—on the weight of the argument that it was a deduction which should not be continued, that it was not a justifiable deduction. It was a figure conjured out of their heads which

885
they thought would represent fair contribution to be made in relief of the Government, but then they finally decided that their original idea was wrong. The Scottish Bill still shows the original idea and I am hoping the Government will be good enough to go through the same processes of thinking and consideration as happened with regard to the English Bill and come to the conclusion that here again second thoughts do nothing but add to the stature of those who do the thinking.
So far as the difference is concerned—and it is recognised it is a different Bill—this one has the word " Scotland " in it and, so far as I can recollect, the English Bill did not have that word added to it. There are a number of other differences. The reason I make that facetious remark is because this part is not different, it is exactly and essentially the same point—should the Government be relieved of a particular figure and, if so, how much? One might also say, for how long. I agree there is a separate point here. But as for the first two questions, the Government thought they should be relieved and thought that the figure should be £6. They thought exactly the same with regard to the English Bill and were finally convinced by our argument—because in this House we have no opportunity of convincing them except by argument—to alter their thinking.
The noble Lord may say that there is a separate point going beyond two years ; but I do not think that is a valid point because one is merely removing what was there for two years. Therefore, for all time the English Bill now provides what my noble friend seeks in his Amendment, namely, that exactly the identical position should exist, and there should be no deduction. I hope the noble Lord will give the matter the kind of consideration that he has done on other occasions and I hope history will repeat itself.
EARL BALFOUR: My Lords, I gave this Amendment a great deal of thought. I felt to begin with that what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, had put down was something which should have serious consideration from your Lordships. At the same time, I took some time comparing some of the differences between the Scottish and the English Bills and came
886
to the conclusion that I could not support this Amendment moved by the noble Lords, Lord Hughes and Lord Hoy. I should like briefly to give the reasons why. Although the withdrawal factor in the English Bill is related to the number of houses on a local authority revenue account, none of the subsidies mentioned in the first six clauses are related directly to the number of houses. The reckonable expenditure in England means expenditure debited to the housing account which the Secretary of State may from time to time determine. That was why in Clause 4 of the English Bill the definition relating to houses was deleted and the £6 disappeared. In Scotland all the subsidies are related directly to the number of houses on the housing revenue account and, therefore, each subsidy is related directly to the number of houses. Hence, in the Scottish Bill the housing expenditure subsidy must be related directly to the number of houses and, therefore, Clause 3 of the Scottish Bill must stand as it is written.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his contribution which I hope has helped to explain to the House the fundamental difference between these two systems.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, do not rely on that.
LORD POLWARTH: Well, maybe.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, produced a seductive argument based on the similarity of wording of the provision in the English Bill for one subsidy to the provision in the Scottish Bill for what is a different subsidy, and wished us to deduce from that that what had been done to the English Bill should likewise be done to the Scottish Bill. As I have explained, the whole system is fundamentally different. My noble friend Lord Balfour, has just explained one of the ways in which it is different—to remove the threshold entirely in Scotland would disturb the balance of the financial framework and I must reiterate that we cannot accept this.
LORD HUGHES: I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, he ought not to rely on what the noble Earl has said because to put it briefly but perhaps crudely, as is necessary, the noble Earl

887
is completely off his eggs. The English Bill as it was originally and the Scottish Bill as it is now are in the form which the noble Earl stated—it was the sum per house. But as soon as the threshold was removed from the English Bill it ceased to be a subsidy per house ; it was a subsidy based on the difference between the expenditure in one year and that for the preceding year, and the authority got a percentage of that difference. If the noble Lord would kindly read my Amendment, that is exactly what I am suggesting should be done in the Scottish Bill. That is why there are three Amendments putting it on exactly the same basis as is in the English Bill. We start off with expenditure, debit it to the housing revenue account in 1971–72 and instead of working out the figure per house and subtracting £6 and finding a difference per house, and multiplying it by the number of houses, all we do in the succeeding year is find the amount of the expenditure, and if it is greater than the preceding year, the difference is subject to subsidy. That is what is happening South of the Border.
I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, found it necessary to intervene, because it is not possible to make use of private discussions in our proceedings ; otherwise, I might well have prayed the noble Lord in aid. But the position is that there is little difference in this respect between Scotland and England. It is true that the Secretary of State for Scotland showed greater wisdom than his opposite number on this side of the Border by not putting it in the Bill that he was proceeding to fair rents, but he has made it perfectly plain that if this Government continue in power it is their intention in Scotland to proceed to fair rents. So the principles in Scotland and England so far as rents are concerned are identical. The fact is that the Government have accepted the facts of life in Scotland, and have realised that if they are going to be allowed to proceed to fair rents they must do so at a slower speed than they are attempting down here. So that on the rents side the ultimate objective is the same.
Let us look, however, at what the subsidy is based on. The subsidy is not
888
based on the rent ; the subsidy is based on the expenditure—and in both cases the expenditure is the same. Certain items of expenditure are debited to the Housing Revenue Account in England: the same items of expenditure are debited to the housing revenue account in Scotland. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, said, " Ah, but they are subject to approval in England, and the Secretary of State may say, ' You can put that in or you can leave that out '". But the Secretary of State for Scotland has exactly the same powers. He can say that certain things are not to go in or that certain things are to go in. So exactly the same applies to both accounts: we take the expenditure one year and we take the expenditure the preceding year, and the subsidy is payable on the difference.
It may be that because the Bill differs in wording, if not in intent, the Amendments which we are discussing are not completely technically correct ; but there is no opportunity to remedy that situation in this House because I have already agreed that we should take the Third Reading to-day, immediately after the Report stage. If the Government wish, not only to be fair as between Scotland and England but for it to be shown clearly that they intend to be fair, the only way in which they can accomplish this is to accept these Amendments, and if they are defective then, in another place, put them in the form which would give to Scotland exactly the same benefits as are conferred on England—although I agree that, in the case of a Bill of this kind to talk about anything that the Government do as " conferring a benefit " is, of course, a misuse of language. However, if the Minister is not prepared to adopt that course, then I certainly could not allow the matter to go unchallenged ; and I would certainly hope that some noble Lords sitting on the opposite Benches, to whom only the traditions of this House prevent my referring as " my noble friends ", will remember that they have local authority interests, too, and that they should take these into account as well as Government loyalties in deciding how they should vote on this matter.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 90.

CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Fulton, L.

Royle, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Rusholme, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Seear, Bs.

Birk, Bs.

Hoy, L.

Segal, L.

Blackett, L.

Hughes, L.

Serota, Bs.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Shinwell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Simon, V.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Slater, L.

Chalfont, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Champion, L.

Maelor, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Chorley, L.

Moyle, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Diamond, L.

Ogmore, L.

White, Bs.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Willis, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Platt, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Energlyn, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Faringdon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Lothian, M.

Ailwyn, L.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Loudoun, C.

Albemarle, E.

Elles, Bs.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mancroft, L.

Alport, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mar, E.

Atholl, D.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Auckland, L.

Essex, E.

Merrivale, L.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Balfour, E.

Ferrier, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gisborough, L.

Moyne, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Goschen, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Belstead, L.

Greenway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Polwarth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Bradford, E.

Hailes, L.

Reay, L.

Brecon, L.

Hankey, L.

Rockley, L.

Camoys, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rothes, E.

Carrington, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Cowley, E.

Hood, V.

Sandys, L.

Craigavon, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigmyle, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Stonehaven, V.

Croft, L.

Ilford, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Cromartie, E.

Inglewood, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Daventry, V.

Jellicoe, E. [L. Privy Seal.]

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Denham, L.

Kemsley, V.

Vivian, L.

Derwent, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Windlesham, L.

Dundee, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Wolverton, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Long, V.

Young, Bs. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

NORTHERN IRELAND: PROPOSED NEW CONFERENCE
4.10 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for me to repeat a Statement which has been made by
890
my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in another place. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement. The House will wish to be aware of developments in the situation in Northern Ireland since my Statement last Friday.
"The rate of shooting incidents involving the security forces has fallen from the very high figure given in my

891
last Statement, but I must tell the House that they remain at the level of from 50 to 70 a day. The majority have occurred in Belfast. The I.R.A. have again used a rocket launcher, but fortunately caused no casualties and little damage. Six soldiers, a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and a constable of the R.U.C. have been killed. One of the soldiers lost his life while attempting to defuse a bomb. Nineteen soldiers and two constables of the R.U.C. have been wounded. A civilian was shot dead when he tried to apprehend two terrorists planting a bomb; and I know the House has learned with particular sorrow that a baby boy was killed by an explosion in Strabane yesterday. I am sure the House will wish to express their sympathy with the families concerned.
"Several explosions have caused damage to the centre of Londonderry since my last Statement; and a large explosion caused extensive damage in Portadown. The Army's action against terrorists is continuing. Since the end of the cease-fire, reports indicate that about 150 terrorists have been hit by Army fire.
" The House will wish to know that I have authorised stringent new security measures in both Belfast and Londonderry to protect life and property. These are bound to be irksome to innocent people, but they are necessary if the security forces are to carry out successfully their paramount function to protect the people of all communities and their property.
"Meanwhile, I have embarked on the consultations with the political Parties in Northern Ireland which I mentioned to the House on an earlier occasion with a view to a conference on the political future. In addition, I have made it known that I want all political Parties and individuals who have views on the future arrangements for the governing of Northern Ireland to send those views to me in writing."
My Lords, that ends my right honourable friend's Statement.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Statement. Certainly we continue to support the Government and the Secre-
892
tary of State for Northern Ireland in resisting the pressures for more violent action, the consequences of which would be unforeseen. I suppose it is a good thing to be able to say that the level of incidents has fallen ; but even so, it is pretty awful to consider that our figures for the number of terrorists hit is a measure of the number of ordinary, innocent, by-standers—and indeed soldiers—who are being hit.
The noble Lord has referred to consultations with political Parties in Northern Ireland. I find this reference a little cryptic. I thought that some consultation had already started with the Social Democratic and Labour Party and with the Northern Ireland Labour Party. I know that the noble Lord has had discussions; but perhaps the consultations referred to in the Statement may be more formal consultations on future political arrangements. Perhaps the noble Lord could explain that a little more. May I ask whether the Government are again intending to talk to some of the Republican leaders in the South, whether the Government of Eire or the Southern Irish Labour Party which, like the Northern Irish Labour Party, has been very much a force in favour of reconciliation and against violence? Anything the noble Lord can say in relation to talks with the Government of Eire will be helpful.
This leads one to ask the question whether the noble Lord is hopeful that the further discussions that have taken place with some of the terrorists or the Provisionals may lead to a chance of a revival of the cease-fire. On the last occasion I said that my opinion was that the I.R.A. Provisionals did not want a cease-fire. Since then it has been suggested to me by people I believe to be sincere, and by articles in the Sunday Times, that they do not want the truce to break down. In this case, the question of what would be the wish of the overwhelming majority of the people in the North and South is a very open one. It is open to the I.R.A. Provisionals to have regard to that and to revive the truce which was broken over Lenadoon. One is not clear whether this was the occasion of the unfortunate breakdown of the truce or merely an incident which led to it.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, we on these Benches should like to express our sympathy, as the Government have already done, with the families of those involved in the latest terrible incidents. My first question arises out of the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. Has there been any positive response so far to the invitation of Mr. Whitelaw to Parties and individuals to come into consultation with a view to a conference? I suppose that Mr. Whitelaw has already been discussing these grave matters with his own Advisory Council. I do not know whether such discussions have been profitable or not. I hope so. Finally, I imagine the Government are now at least considering what they are going to do if the present terrible situation in Northern Ireland gets worse, or much worse. For instance, if many more of our soldiers are murdered, do they contemplate the employment of more heavily armoured vehicles for the soldiers' protection, not, in the last resort, excluding tanks?
4.20 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, both the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Liberal Party, Lord Gladwyn, asked about the reference in the Statement to consultations. It is quite true that there have been a series of meetings and discussions with representatives of various political Parties, including the S.D.L.P., over recent weeks. But these have related to specific issues and, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, correctly surmised, what we are now talking about are the arrangements for a conference on the political future of Northern Ireland. A meeting took place with representatives of the Unionist Party this week at which the Secretary of State made known his views on this point. There is little doubt that the Unionist Party will respond. Approaches are now being made to other Parties and other individuals to put forward their own positive views about what they would like to see happening in the future in Northern Ireland.
Regular contact is maintained with the Government of the Republic. The Secretary of State will be meeting their Foreign Minister, Dr. Hillery, when he is in London tomorrow. Also, there have
894
been meetings with members of the Southern Ireland Labour Party from time to time in the past, including Mr. Conor Cruise O'Brien and Dr. John O'Connell. It is not for me to pronounce on the attitude of the I.R.A. towards the ceasefire. All I can say is that everyone who is concerned to see an end to the suffering and tragedy in Northern Ireland must hope that there will be a resumption of the cease-fire as soon as possible, and on a permanent basis.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I associate myself with everything that has been said in condemnation of this murderous gang which, though it may appear small in numbers, is vast in proportion to the size of the Northern Ireland population. May I ask two questions? The first is whether in the area where there has been this large evacuation of the Catholic population the Provisional I.R.A. have now agreed to suspend their military operations and whether there will be some response on behalf of the British military to withdraw their presence from that area. Secondly, while welcoming the suggestion of these discussions by political Parties, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government contemplate that they proceed if progessively encouraged to a discussion with representatives of the Republic of Ireland as well? And may not this be the method by which a Council for the whole of Ireland dealing with common problems could be established?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, unfortunately there is still a great deal of shooting in the Lenadoon area. Nor is there any indication that the Provisionals have decided to suspend their operations, although we must all earnestly hope that they will agree to do so in the interests of those who live in the area. Regarding the Republic of Ireland I think that I covered that point in my earlier reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Fire Services have suffered any casualties? One does not hear anything about them, but their work must be extremely dangerous. I do not know whether my noble friend would like to say anything about them.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am afraid that the Fire Services have had

895
some casualties. I am delighted to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the two Fire Authorities, the Northern Ireland Fire Authority and the Belfast Fire Service, and to the contribution they have made. It has been quite outstanding over a period of three years. Many of the firemen in Northern Ireland are part-time and they are called out at short notice. They have their own work to do, but they turn out at short notice in order to serve the community. The Fire Services have shown remarkable courage and fortitude and we are all greatly in their debt.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the conversations between the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and members of the I.R.A. has been conveyed to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State ; and, if so, with what result? The noble Lord referred to representations made to the Eire Government. He referred to a meeting between the Secretary of State and the Foreign Minister of Eire. What is the nature of those representations and what has been the result of them?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Leader of the Opposition in another place has already given my right honourable friend, Mr. Whitelaw, a preliminary account of his meeting last Tuesday with the Provisional I.R.A. leaders, and will be giving him a fuller report to-day. This meeting was arranged entirely on the initiative of the Leader of the Opposition in another place and Her Majesty's Government were not concerned with the arrangements. The Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland will be in London to-morrow, as I said earlier. While he is here he will be calling in to see the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is not possible for me to speculate to-day on what they will be discussing.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, could Mr. Whitelaw make an appeal to all Parties to surrender arms and explosives which are held by people in Northern Ireland and try to get people to bring pressure to bear on their neighbours if they know that they have arms to surrender?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, that is very much in line with my right
896
honourable friend's policy. The difficulty lies between making an appeal of this kind and getting people to act on it.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—I am sure he is—that there is great support for the political initiative taken by the Secretary of State several months ago? Is he also aware that there is a view that time is running out and that it is necessary to have a further political initiative, on the lines of some kind of long-term propositions concerning the future of the communities in Northern Ireland, with reference to the Border and to many other things, such as security? Is it not likely that, unless such political initiative is undertaken, we shall be unable to get back to discussions in a cease-fire atmosphere rather than in the present deplorable state of terrorism?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am afraid that time is always running out in Northern Ireland. The important thing is to maintain a consistent policy and not become carried along by events. It is vitally important not to be deflected from a considered policy. At the same time, I accept a good deal of what the noble Lord said. There is a need to be open-minded and responsive, and to see what particular policy seems the most appropriate to meet the circumstances of the time.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, would not the noble Lord also agree that while there is the utmost repugnance and loathing of the terrorism in which the I.R.A. carry out, nevertheless the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on initiating conversations with them, just as in fact Lloyd-George and his Administration had to initiate conversations with Mr. Michael Collins and Mr. De Valera in the 1920s.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, my right honourable friend made clear in his Statement last week concerning his meeting with the Provisional I.R.A. the reasons why he decided to meet them. He did so, after the cease-fire, after they had ceased to engage in violence, in order to see whether by so doing there was any contribution he could make which would help to save life.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.30 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Clause 4 [The high cost subsidy and associated rate fund contribution]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 7, line 43, at end insert (" An order under this subsection may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order under this subsection and shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment relates to the provisions in the Bill about the high cost subsidy. As noble Lords will remember, at the end of our first day in Committee I accepted an Amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, which has the effect now of requiring the Secretary of State to determine the Scottish rent income and the Scottish average expenditure by order. However, the wording of the noble Lord's Amendment was such that the order would not have attracted Parliamentary procedure. It was clear from his remarks later on, and from those of the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, that their understanding was that it would attract Parliamentary procedure. I have therefore tabled this Amendment to ensure that the order determining these figures will be brought to the attention of Parliament, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, and I hope that this commends itself to your Lordships.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for tabling this Amendment. It includes the usual provision that the order may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order, so it suits the Government as well as suiting me. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the noble Lord's acceptance not only of what I moved but of what my Amendment was intended to accomplish.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.31 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 41, leave out from beginning to
("and") in line 44 and insert—
("1972–73 to 1975–76 … 95 per cent. 1976–77")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a substantial Amendment. I hope the Government will be more receptive to it than to the first Amendment which I moved. This one relates to the rent allowance subsidy. The position in Scotland is that on the rent allowance subsidy local authorities' costs of administration are accepted for grant purposes, whereas in England and Wales they are not. For the first four years local authorities in England and Wales will receive rent allowance subsidy on a complete reimbursement basis. In other words, there will be a grant of 100 per cent. of the accepted expenditure. Thereafter it will be 80 per cent. Under the Scottish Bill subsidy starts at 90 per cent. in the present financial year and goes down by 5 per cent. per year until, in 1975–76, it reaches 75 per cent., where it will remain. In reckoning these percentages the local authority is entitled to count its administrative expenses.
At first glance I preferred the Scottish basis—actually I had already moved that for rebate purposes the local authority should have its administrative expenses accepted—but, having made a further comparison after the Committee stage, I found that once again the Scottish Office appeared to be paying far too much attention to the Scottish tradition of looking at both sides of a coin before parting with it. It is certainly doing so in this case. During the first year an English authority is to receive grant at 10 per cent. more than a Scottish authority ; in the succeeding year the difference will be 15 per cent., and for the following two years it will widen to 20 per cent. The justification for a difference is the value which may be placed on the costs of administration.
During the time at my disposal I consulted two of the major local authorities in Scotland. Naturally I consulted the one in the area in which I live because that was the easiest thing to do and the call cost me only 2p. As a matter of fact, it was cheaper to ring Edinburgh because somebody did it for me. The consultations have been with the Chamberlains' Departments of Edinburgh and Dundee, both of whom arrived at the conclusion that a fair cost of their administration for rent allowance purposes would be covered by 5 per cent. In fact Dundee condescended to say

899
the actual numbers they expected to employ. They were a bit shaken when I told them that the Minister's rough calculation, eventually extracted, was that the cost of rent allowances would be only about one-tenth of the total amount of rent rebates and allowances—£2 million to £2½ million out of £20 million to £25 million. Therefore, they may be overestimating very much the cost of administering rent allowances because, in saying that they will be covered by 5 per cent., they have allowed for as many staff to be recruited for the purpose of rent allowances as they find necessary for rent rebates. On the basis of the Government's figures that is likely to be an overestimate of the cost of staff.
Whatever the figure is, there can be no justification for valuing the cost of administration at 20 per cent. in one case and at 5 per cent. in another. The purpose of this Amendment is to make the difference 5 per cent. throughout. When English local authorities are receiving grants of 100 per cent. Scottish local authorities will be getting grants of 95 per cent., and when English local authorities' grants stand at 80 per cent. those of Scottish local authorities will be 75 per cent. This seems to me to be completely equitable, and in this case the Minister cannot argue that the systems are different because rent allowances are being introduced on exactly the same basis, North and South of the Border. In both cases it is a completely new subsidy, so the Government ought to treat the local authorities in exactly the same way.
I was tempted to put down a different Amendment altogther, one whose effect would have been merely to apply the English figures in Scotland, but I found that that was against my principles. I felt it was right that the cost of administration should be reckoned for subsidy purposes. While it would have been simple to apply the English basis I thought it better to go for 5 per cent. less, which is the Government's own calculation from four years onwards. When we reach 1976–77 I am not departing from what the Government have suggested; their figure then is 75 per cent. and I am adhering to it. It is the progression to 75 per cent. which I wish to change. I do not think I need say any more, except that if the Government are right—and I
900
do not seek to bind them to anything more than a rough estimate—when they say that the cost of the allowances will be £2 million to £2½ million in 1976–77, then the cost of making this concession in the years up to then is going to be a comparatively trifling sum. I know that in the mood of the Scottish Office at present no sum greater than 2½p is regarded as trifling, but I suggest to the Minister that this is a case where he does not need to be generous in order to be fair. However, he certainly ought to be fair. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I think we should all commend the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on the thoroughness and economy with which he conducted his investigations into the costs. There is nothing like getting somebody to do a job for one, and I congratulate the noble Lord. I certainly would not challenge an estimate made by those two leading authorities. Whether it would be fair to assess the general cost of administration throughout Scotland at that level is another matter, and I do not think it has been attempted. Authorities such as Dundee and Edinburgh will probably have a higher proportion of tenants eligible for rent allowances than the generality of Scottish local authorities. To that extent they may have a higher share of the proposed handout at that figure, which I know some noble Lords were surprised to see was estimated so low but which I personally hope will be exceeded by rent. Again, I think it is a tempting argument to say that Scotland is losing out in comparison with England, but I can assure your Lordships that that is the last thing that I want to see happen. I think that in this case again we must look not at one isolated provision of the Bill alongside its equivalent in the other Bill, because, first of all, the general package of the subsidies and other arrangements is different in the two countries (I will come back to that in a moment) and also in Scotland, as we know, there is a smaller proportion of private tenants; and there are generally lower levels of rents. This is one of the reasons why the cost of the scheme is estimated at no greater figure.
The other aspect that we have to look at, because it is part of the package, is that in Scotland there will be a proportionately greater saving to the rates

901
than in England. In the circumstances we do not feel it unreasonable for the local authorities, with this substantial saving that they are receiving on the rates, to meet this comparatively small part of the cost of the allowances. I think it is accepted, whatever one may feel, that the community should have some responsibility for the welfare of all tenants, whether public or private, and the amount in these circumstances is not an unreasonable one. I submit that Scotland, taking the whole package, is not worse off than England when one measures the total effect of the figures mentioned here.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, would the noble Lord, before he resumes his seat, be good enough to explain why in the wisdom of his advisers it was found desirable to have the differences between the English and the Scottish systems varying by between 5 and 20 per cent. I could have understood if he had argued that it ought to be 20 per cent. all the time or 5 per cent. all the time ; but why it should vary from one year to another, I just cannot understand, and I can see no element of fairness in it.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House to speak again, it is our own Bill—we have not slavishly copied the English Bill—and the rate of subsidy is phased so that there will not be a substantial and sudden impact in that respect.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if the noble Lord, by saying, " This is our own Bill ; we have not slavishly copied the English Bill ", is intending to appeal to Scottish patriotism, that is a waste of time. We know perfectly well that it was the same crowd who drafted both Bills. The Government may have got different bodies to do the actual job, but they did not give civil servants in the Scottish Office a free reign as to how they thought the Bill should read, and another lot of civil servants South of the Border to do it in their way. This is carrying out Government policy. Here the Government are introducing a completely new method of subsidy simultaneously over the whole country. It cannot be denied—and the Minister has not attempted to deny it—that English authorities are going to be better treated in this matter.
902
The only defence the noble Lord has put up is that, if we take the other housing subsidies into account, Scotland is doing better on the package as a whole. But that has nothing to do with the question. The other subsidies are for entirely different purposes. If Scotland has a great many more slum houses than there are in England, that is no justification for saying: " We are giving you more money to deal with your slums, and therefore we are going to give you less for dealing with your rent allowances." I can see neither logic nor fairness in an argument of that kind.
I think the Government are under a definite obligation to see that in matters of similarity the citizens of the United Kingdom in one part of the country are not dealt with in a less favourable way than they are in another part of the country ; yet that is what the noble Lord is arguing. I beg him to accept this Amendment. It is not as if the matter were going to be expensive. But having said that it is not expensive, so far as the Government are concerned I must admit that it will not be a desperately big gain to any particular authority to get this amount. Having regard to the total amounts involved, the actual amounts of money that any particular authority may get under this scheme will not be much. Of course it will be a great deal more than the high cost subsidy ; but that is not saying anything.
It is the principle that is important here. The Government of the United Kingdom ought not to be glaringly seen to be giving one kind of treatment in a Bill affecting one part of the country, and in the equivalent Bill affecting another part of the country giving something which is less favourable. There is no doubt that that is the position. I cannot accept the noble Lord's argument that the total package is bigger. It is like a housewife going out to buy food for the week and the family have rotten meals for three days, but they are told " It's all very well, but look what a lovely meal we are going to have on Friday—if you live that long." This is the sort of way in which the Government are arguing, and I cannot accept the argument. Unless the noble Lord has second thoughts, we must divide on the Amendment.
4.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Schedule 2 [Computation of rebates and allowances]:
4.55 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 67, line 40, leave out (" rental period which begins") and insert (" part of a rental period").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment relates to a provision which I think will be used in fairly rare cases, namely, in cases of long rental periods.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 79.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Hall, V.

Seear, Bs.

Bernstein, L.

Henderson, L.

Segal, L.

Beswick, L.

Hoy, L.

Serota, Bs.

Birk, Bs.

Hughes, L.

Shackleton, L.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Slater, L.

Chalfont, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Snow, L.

Champion, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Chorley, L.

Moyle, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Davies of Leek, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Diamond, L.

Ogmore, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Energlyn, L.

Popplewell, L.

White, Bs.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Rusholme, L.

Willis, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Gladwyn, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elles, Bs.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mancroft, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Alport, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Atholl, D.

Essex, E.

Milverton, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Balerno, L.

Ferrier, L.

Moyne, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Goschen, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Greenway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Belstead, L.

Grenfell, L.

Polwarth, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hailes, L.

Reay, L.

Bradford, E.

Halifax, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Brecon, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Sandford, L.

Camoys, L.

Hawke, L.

Sandys, L.

Carrington, L.

Hood, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Colville of Culross, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Somers, L.

Cowley, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Craigavon, V.

Ilford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Inglewood, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cromartie, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Kemsley, V.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Dundee, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Windlesham, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Long, V.

Wolverton, L.

Eccles, V.

Lothian, M.

Young, Bs. [Teller.]

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

There are periods which are for longer than the normal period of one month: perhaps for as long as six months. I will try to explain the object of the Amendment, because certain problems arise in connection with the operation both of the rebate and of the allowance schemes in their application to tenants with these long rental periods.
As the clause is at present drafted it might bear rather harshly on such tenants in certain respects. Its effect is to ensure that the rebate or allowance shall not be payable in respect of any rental period beginning before the date

905
upon which the appropriate model scheme is made or comes into force. In the case of tenants with a rental period of, for example, six months this might mean that a tenant whose circumstances were such as to entitle him to a rebate or allowance might have to wait for a period of months rather than weeks before he could receive assistance. The Amendment to this sub-paragraph, when taken with the Amendment to Schedule 3 which I shall be moving later, will ensure that the tenants receive assistance much more promptly through rebates and allowances—in fact, from the date on which the model scheme comes into effect.
Your Lordships might wish me to speak with regard to the other Amendment simultaneously, if that is in order, because here again there are other instances where, if the Schedule were to be left unaltered, hardship could apply. There might be a case where the rebate or allowance period ends in the middle of a rental period with a long rent, and where the tenant promptly makes a reapplication. The provisions of the Schedule mean that a new rebate or allowance period would start at the beginning of the next rental period. Here again, because of the length of it, there could be a gap and hardship could arise. It could also arise where a local authority receives notice of a change in a tenant's circumstances and decides either to terminate his rebate or allowance period and invite him to re-apply, or to change the amount of his rebate or allowance. Here again, without such a provision, hardship could arise. The same applies also in the case of re-applications made more than one month after the end of a former rebate or allowance period. In such cases the new rebate or allowance period begins with the first rental period after the date of the application. Here again the tenant on a long period rental could be at a disadvantage. This Amendment, together with the subsequent one dealing with the Schedule, will remove this hardship by placing the tenant in the same position as if he were on a monthly rental basis. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 7:
906
Page 69, line 25, leave out (" blind ") and insert (" a chronically sick or disabled person ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, together with the four following ones, deals with Schedule 2, computation of rent debates and allowances ; and they all result from an undertaking given at the Committee stage in this House of the Housing Finance Bill—the English Bill. On that occasion, as your Lordships know, the Government undertook to consider extending the special needs allowance in the model scheme from the blind to include also the chronically sick and other disabled persons in recognition of the additional expenses which they had to incur. The wording that we have applied in the Amendment will cover all these categories. The increased needs allowances are to apply to persons in need under Section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, as read with Section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Scotland) Bill 1972. That is the Private Member's Bill which your Lordships will recollect is well on its way through this House without any controversy. I do not think I need say any more. It is no longer necessary. I understand, as a result of the Amendments to refer specifically to the blind as they art covered by the revised subparagraph (3). I commend the Amendments to your Lordships.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (LORD AIREDALE): My Lords, with the leave of the House I will put a single Question as to Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10.
Amendments moved—
Page 69, line 25, leave out (" blind ") and insert (" a chronically sick or disabled person").
line 26, leave out (" blind") and insert (" a chronically sick or disabled person ").
line 27, leave out (" blind ") and insert (" a chronically sick or disabled person ").
line 29, leave out (" blind ") and insert (" chronically sick or disabled persons ").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this is the case where the Minister is slavishly following the example of the English, and I wish to commend him for so doing.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11. This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 30, leave out from (" above") to end of line 31, and insert (" any reference to a chronically sick or disabled person is a reference to a person in need under section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 as read with section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Scotland) Act 1972.") —(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.2 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 70, line 27, leave out (" £1·00 ") and insert (" £2·00 ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the only case where an Amendment which I had down at the previous stage of the Bill has been repeated at this stage. I had hoped that in the interval the Minister would have given consideration to this matter, and I still hope that that may be the position. The Amendment which I beg to move relates to voluntary payments. The type of case that most readily springs to mind is where payments by members of families are made to assist in the upkeep of their elderly parents, their widowed mothers, or those type of circumstances. As the Bill stands any sum of £1 a week, or less, is ignored in considering the entitlement to rent rebate ; but anything which is above £1 will be taken into account in determining the amount of rebate.
The only effect that this can have is one of two sets of circumstances which are equally undesirable. The voluntary payments which will be made in these circumstances will be reduced to £1, and I do not suggest that that is socially desirable. As I said at the last stage of the Bill it is regrettable that far too few families still continue the habit of accepting responsibility for other members of their family who may be less well placed than themselves. Anything which can be done in the direction of families assisting each other is to be encouraged. The second undesirable circumstance is that people may continue to give more than £1 and then tell lies about it in order that the recipient will get the full benefit of the money rather than it should go to the tax gatherer or the gatherer of rates. I do not think that is desirable.
These are not fanciful things. This type of situation happened 30 years ago. It was found out time and time again when the means test was a fact of life for far too many of our population in the 'thirties. Sons and daughters abroad, in the United States, Canada or Australia, sent back money to their parents. It was known to the neighbours that sons and daughters were not suddenly neglecting their parents. But in order that parents could gain benefit all sorts of subterfuges were resorted to. We are going to have exactly the same situation if no amendment is made to the Bill. I do not think either of these circumstances are an end result which the Government wish to bring about, or about which they would have any cause to be proud.
It may be said that it does not matter at what figure you fix the allowance, for these undesirable circumstances are bound to happen in any case. But I suggest that in terms of the present value of money the figure of £1 is a ridiculously low sum. If it were a matter of £2 or £3 a week it would cover the vast majority of cases, and there would be no need to discourage giving, or to resort to lying or subterfuge in the matter. I have chosen the figure of £2 because it is the figure which appears in other parts of the Bill for the disabled, the industrially injured, and the like. I could have chosen a figure of £2·50, which is the case of the amount of the disregard in the case of a widow. I deliberately selected the figure which appears most frequently in the Bill—that is, £2.
The Minister said at the previous stage that these sums are related to the supplementary benefits scheme and that this is a case where what is in the English Bill and what is in the Scottish Bill ought to be the same. I pulled the Minister's leg at the previous stage about this statement ; but this is a case where although a similar Amendment has not been made in the English Bill at this stage, we should not repeat what I believe is a mistake in the other Bill. The giving of this money to relatives is something which ought to be encouraged, and the £2 figure is a much fairer one than the £1 which is in the Bill. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I feel that there is a tremendous amount in what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes,

909
has said. I should like to record at this moment that I trust that this matter will be taken into consideration when the annual review of rebates and allowances comes up. It may be that there will be a revision in the English Bill when this matter comes forward. I sincerely hope that the Government accept the Amendment. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has put forward an extremely strong case.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is correct that this is a practice which possibly in the past and even to-day may well be more prevalent in Scotland than England. I say this with no disrespect to our English colleagues ; it is part of the Scottish tradition of thrift and families remaining together and, as such, should be commended. There are some problems. One of them which was suggested earlier by the noble Lord is that the low level of the disregard might be a direct incentive to dishonesty. A son might say that he would help his parents in kind rather than in cash and then nobody would know. I do not say that assistance in kind would necessarily always be less welcome than assistance in cash. There may well be cases where others may wish to help the family not necessarily by regular voluntary payments but by larger varying sums according to when they found themselves in a position to do so. Payments of that sort would probably always get round the disregard figure, at whatever level it might be pitched.
As the noble Lord said, I referred at the earlier stage to the relationship to the level of supplementary benefits which was in mind when the Bill was drafted. I do not think I should be drawn into a discussion of the wider aspects of that scheme. In view of the peculiarly Scottish nature of this, as I think there is, and to show the noble Lord that I am not slavishly following the English Bill or even following it but going ahead of it I would be prepared to recommend your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. If he is going to improve as rapidly as this in a few months in the House I could even wish him a reasonably long period in office.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 72, line 5, at end insert—
(" ( ) for each person aged 18 years or more, but under 21 years and neither undergoing full-time instruction at an educational establishment nor in receipt of supplementary benefit £1.00 ;")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment, I should like to point out that Amendment No. 14 is consequential. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pressed the Government to make a concession to young persons between the ages of 18 and 21. As this amount is a deduction, not from rent, as was thought by some noble Lords, but from rebate, I was delighted when the reduction was made in the English Bill. Many young people are only starting to work and are often on a very small wage. It is with that point in view that I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I rise in some trepidation to reply to the noble Earl. I am loath again to incur the charge of slavishly following an English Bill, but in this case I am prepared to run that risk and say that we are of the view that the figure should be altered as the noble Earl has moved. I would recommend your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, that the use of the words, " slavishly following the English " is occasionally to recognise that they can be right. It is most appropriate that he should have done so when my noble friend Lord Shepherd is sitting next to me, because I believe that it was his impassioned speech which persuaded the noble Lord. Lord Drumalbyn, to accept a similar Amendment to the English Bill. I would encourage him in his well doing. It is unfortunate that we did not start these good works at an earlier stage or we might have been doing better by now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 6, leave out (" 18 ") and insert (" 21 ").—(The Earl of Balfour.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 72, line 9, after (" benefit ") insert ("except in the case mentioned in paragraph (d) below ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment relates to the deductions from rebate or allowances which are to be made where there are non-dependants resident in the tenant's household. As a result of representations received during the passage of the Bill through another place the deduction from rebate in respect of a pensioner couple living in the tenant's household was reduced from £1·50 to 70p. While I am sure this change commends itself to all sides of the House we have discovered that it has left one anomaly which we do not feel could be defended in the case of a couple where the husband has retired at 65 but where the wife is under 60. In such a case, if the Bill is left in its present form, the deduction from rebate would be no less than £2·20 ; that is to say, 70p for the husband and £1·50 for the wife compared with only 70p if the wife also was over 60. The effect of the Amendment is to ensure that the deduction of only 70p from rebate applies in the case of couples where only the husband has reached retiring age. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 15, leave out (" both ") and insert (" where the husband is ").—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.18 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 72, line 45, after (" is") insert (" either —(a)")—
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 together. These Amendments are designed to remove a technical difficulty which may arise in the special case of those authorities who in advance—
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the paper which I have proceeds from Amendment No. 17 to Amendment No. 19.
912
Which is Amendment No. 18? Is Amendment No. 18 to page 73, line 4?
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I think there has been a printer's omission. The figure of " 18 " should have been printed against the Amendment to page 73, line 4, but it has been omitted.
A difficulty may arise where authorities have, in advance of the passing of the Bill, introduced a rebate scheme based on the model scheme in the Bill. It includes a provision on the lines of paragraph 16 for granting additional rebates to ease the transition to a scheme under Part II of the Bill for those tenants granted a larger rebate under an existing discretionary scheme operated under the present or previously existing powers. As the Bill is now drafted, an authority which before the coming into force of the Bill had already started to give transitional rebates under a scheme based on the model scheme may find that when its scheme becomes statutory under the Bill as enacted a tenant cannot satisfy the condition at present in paragraph 16(2) of the Schedule because his rebated rent under the model scheme would be identical in the two rental periods on either side of the date when the scheme becomes a scheme under the Bill. I appreciate that this is not the easiest matter to follow. I will endeavour to make it clear.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if I might interrupt the noble Lord I would say that at this stage he has us completely lost.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, perhaps we can assist each other out of our puzzlement on this. I am informed that these two Amendments to the Schedule would enable the Secretary of State in these cases to accept that the condition in paragraph 16 of the Schedule has been satisfied because the authority had a comparable provision in its scheme, which, although it was introduced before enactment, was based on the model scheme. As we know, authorities can introduce a scheme based on this in advance. Without these Amendments, an authority which had already started giving additional rebates might have no power to continue paying them when their scheme became a statutory one. The tenant would therefore lose the benefit of additional help under paragraph 16, which

913
would be to his disadvantage and something we should not like to recommend. I appreciate that this is a complicated matter but it is to ensure against the possibility of a lapse in the assistance to which the tenant would be entitled.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should be misleading the House if I were to pretend for one moment that I followed every word the noble Lord said, even after my interruption. It would perhaps be helpful to the House if we could lay down a rule that Minister's briefs should not be compiled, in part or in whole, by the draftsman, because otherwise the result is that the brief remains as unintelligible as the Bill. It could perhaps be arranged that the draftsman should convey it to another civil servant, who should then endeavour to put it into simple English which simple people such as the Minister and I myself might understand. But, on the basis that I think the intention here is good and that the Amendment will probably accomplish something worth while, I do not propose to divide the House against it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (LORD AIREDALE): My Lords, on Amendment No. 18, notwithstanding that the figure " 18 " is omitted from the Marshalled List, the 18th Amendment is, at page 73, line 4, at end to insert the words as printed at the foot of page 2 of the Marshalled List.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 4, at end insert—
(" or-
(b) that the rebate granted for the rental period immediately preceding that in which the relevant scheme under this Act came into operation consisted of or included an amount granted under a provision which in the opinion of the Secretary of State was comparable to this paragraph.")—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Rebates and Allowances: Procedure]:
5.24 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 6.
914
It is consequential, and accordingly I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 32, at end insert—
(" ( ) Where in the case of a rental period exceeding one month a local authority—

(a) receive an application for a rebate or allowance ; or

(b) determine under paragraph 5 or 6 below that the rebate period or allowance period shall terminate ; or

(c) determine under paragraph 5 or 6 below that the rebate or allowance shall be altered ; or

(d) receive an application for a further rebate or allowance under paragraph 10 below,

the provisions of this Schedule shall have effect as if any reference to a rental period were a reference to a period of one month and as if the rental period had always been one month since the commencement of the rental period.")—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 78, line 31, at end insert (" or conform with directions made by the Secretary of State.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, here again, rather than go into a lengthy explanation or to endeavour to go into one, may I start by saying that the principle of this Amendment is the same as that behind the two complicated Amendments. Nos. 17 and 18—or, rather, the Amendments which were so difficult to expound. This Amendment deals with a person whose rent has been met in full or in part by a rebate under a scheme immediately before the Bill came into operation, and is simply intended to ensure that he is able to continue to receive the same degree of assistance as previously. I do not know whether your Lordships want me to try to go into any deeper explanation than that ; but this again is an Amendment to ensure that, with the passage of the Bill, somebody who was entitled to something before does not lose because of the new form of scheme.
LORD HOY: My Lords, we are willing to accept the very clear and concise statement made by the noble Lord. But what he said and the way the Amendment is worded appear to be completely different. He has assured us that the purposes of the two Amendments over which we had some little difficulty were

915
in fact an easement in negotiations which allowed the Secretary of State some room to play with in making certain allowances. We are assured that in regard to this Amendment exactly the same thing is going to happen—that a tenant who has had certain allowances will not be any worse off as a result of these changes ; indeed, the purpose of this particular Amendment is to make sure that the tenant is not worse off. It is always difficult when one is giving away something to have the phrase applied:
" or conform with directions made by the Secretary of State."
One seems to think one is never getting anything when there is a direction by the Secretary of State.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [The Housing Revenue Account]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 87, line 6, at end insert—
(" . A local authority may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, exclude from the housing revenue account any of the items of income or expenditure mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Schedule, or may with such consent include any items of income or expenditure not mentioned in those foregoing provisions.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment relates to Schedule 4 of the Bill. Noble Lords will recall that at the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, drew attention to the fact that there was no provision in Schedule 4 corresponding to paragraph 5 of Schedule 5. This relates to slum clearance. A local authority can seek the consent of the Secretary of State to exclude from the slum clearance revenue account any of the specified items of income or expenditure, or to include any items of income or expenditure, not mentioned in the Schedule ; whereas paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 was somewhat more limited. We have had a further look at this point. I feel that the noble Lord was correct in his suggestion that these two provisions should be on similar lines, and therefore, with that in view, I move this Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for
916
having accepted the suggestion I made at the last stage and for bringing it forward in this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Conversion of controlled tenancies: general decontrol]:
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 29, line 33, leave out from (" force ") to end of line 37.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are put down purely in the spirit of inquiry, and I should be grateful if I might consider them together. Clause 34 of the Bill deals with the conversion of controlled tenancies into fair rent tenancies. Subsection (2) of this clause gives the dates on which this shall happen according to the value of the houses concerned. Subsection (5), which is the one which mystifies me, defines " value ", and says:
"In subsection (2) above 'value' means the rateable value on the date on which this Act comes into force and subsections (1) and (2) of section 6 of the Act of 1971 shall apply for the purpose of ascertaining the rateable value on that date as they apply for the purpose of ascertaining the rateable value of a dwelling-house for the purposes of that Act."
Without the last four lines of that subsection I think the position would be crystal clear with regard to rateable value on the date on which this Bill comes into force. This would seem to me to be very satisfactory, but it goes on to speak of "subsections (1) and (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1971 ", and I am not quite sure what effect this has on the first two lines of that sentence. I have tabled this Amendment in an endeavour to find out. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, as the noble Duke has said, this Amendment is exploratory and it relates to a point on which we had some discussion at Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will remember that. The section referred to, Section 6 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 provides that, for the purposes of that Act, the rateable value of a dwelling house on any day should be the rateable value which is then shown for it on the valuation roll—and here is the operative part—or, if the dwelling house forms part only of the subjects for which the rateable value is then shown

917
on the roll, its rateable value should be taken to be
" such value as is found by a proper apportionment of the rateable value so shown ".
This is to deal with the case, which sometimes exists, of a house shown as one subject in the roll with only one rateable value but which is used or let for several purposes ; and it is quite common practice in that case for the rateable value to be apportioned, normally by agreement. The provision here is to enable, in the case of failure to agree, a decision to be made by the sheriff as an independent party of the apportionment of the rateable value. That is contained in Section 6(2) of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971. I am no great lover of legislation by reference, but the Rent (Scotland) Act is appropriate in various places and this seemed to be the easiest way to lay down how the problem of multi-occupancy of one subject could be resolved. I hope that explanation means something to the noble Duke.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I am entirely happy with that explanation. I had a feeling that I was being very stupid about this. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 [Rent agreements]:
5.32 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 34, line 36, after (" writing ") insert (" signed by the landlord and the tenant").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26 are necessary to accomplish the object. This is another case where, to use my revised form of wording, we recognise that the English have " got on to something ", and it is an example which we ought to follow. That is all I need to say except, possibly, this: What I did in moving these Amendments is perhaps a warning against slavishly following the English. That is what I did, and as a result I included some words that are not necessary. In fact Amendment No. 26 ought to be in this form:
"Page 34, line 45, at end insert (' and (c) the statement mentioned in paragraph (b) above is set out at the head of the agreement')".
That omits the words " document containing the ". It is just another example of how we can be economical in Scotland ; we can accomplish our purpose in fewer words. I beg to move Amendment No. 24.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I am told that Amendment No. 24 is not technically strictly necessary, in that an agreement between landlord and tenant would require to be signed by them automatically if it were to be an agreement. But if this helps to make the position crystal clear I see no objection to your Lordships accepting it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 25. Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 36, leave out (" and ").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I am happy to recommend that your Lordships accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 26, if I may put it in biblical terms, in the revised version:
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 45, at end insert (" and
(c) the statement mentioned in paragraph (b) above is set out at the head of the agreement ").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 64 [Previous rent limit exceeding registered rent: special rent limit]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 54, line 27, at end insert—
(" ( ) Where a registration is by virtue of this section a provisional registration, the reference in section 40(4)(b) of the Act of 1971 to the date on which the registration of rent took effect shall be construed as a reference to the date of the provisional registration.")
The noble Lord said, My Lords, I should warn your Lordships that this is another of the Amendments that I shall not find easy to express in crystal clear terms, but I shall do my best. As I understand it, this Amendment is necessary to correct a drafting omission in Clause 64. This arises, incidentally, from the application under Clause 61 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971. Section 40.

919
Clause 61(3) provides that, subject to Clause 64, the registration of a rent for a housing association tenancy takes effect on the date of registration. But where the registration is, by virtue of Clause 64, provisional (that is, where the rent limit before registration was higher and the Secretary of State has directed a special rent limit in the circumstances), the registration cannot be said to have taken effect, and I understand that as it is at present drafted there is therefore no date as from which the period of three years could run. Obviously, there must be a date to cover this provision, and this Amendment has been tabled to cover what was an omission in the drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 72 [Default by local authority]:
5.40 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 58, line 9, at end insert—
(" ( ) In subsection (1) for the words ' there has ' to this Act' there shall be substituted the words ' a local authority—
(a) have failed effectively to discharge any of their functions under Part II, III or IV of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 ; or
(b) have failed so to discharge any function conferred on them by that Act or any other enactment as to secure the effective discharge of arty of their functions under those Parts of that Act; ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment, I should like to discuss also Amendment No. 32. This clause and the relevant Schedule deal with the provisions in the case of default by a local authority. I wish to assure your Lordships, as we come to discuss Amendments relating to the Secretary of State's default powers under the Bill, that there has been no change of policy by the Government on this issue or indeed any change in our estimation of the possible need for these powers to be exercised. These are powers which fankly will rarely, if ever, have to be employed, but if we are to have default powers—and there have been such powers in housing legislation for a considerable time—it is only prudent that they should be drafted in such a way that they will be effective.
At present the Secretary of State's default powers in relation to rents are contained in Section 195 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966, which in turn refers to the duty of a local authority under Section 151(5) of that Act to
" review rents and make such changes either of rents generally or of particular rents and rebates as circumstances may require".
Under the Bill a local authority's duties in relation to fixing rents and granting rebates are prescribed in detail and consequently parts of Section 151 of the 1966 Act are repealed. Paragraph 11(a) of Schedule 9 to the Bill as at present drafted inserts the appropriate reference to the Bill into Section 95 of the 1966 Act. It is, however, possible that a local authority might fail effectively to discharge one of its functions under Part II, III or IV of the Bill because of a prior failure to discharge a function under another Part of the Bill or under another enactment. For example, it might fail to comply properly with the requirement of Section 62 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969, to provide written notice of rent increases not less than four weeks before the date on which the increase is due to take effect. It is therefore necessary to recognise the possibility of this failure leading to a default situation, and the Amendment to Clause 72 recognises this. The Amendment to Schedule 9, when we come to it, will be consequential, but the object of the Amendments we are now discussing is to ensure that the default provisions cannot fail for what is more or less a technical reason, because of a prior failure to discharge a function under another Part of the Bill.
LORD HUGHES: It would be idle for me to pretend that we are happy about this provision which gives the Secretary of State default powers. This is totally different from the way in which this matter is dealt with in the English Bill, in which the Government have embarked on the specific and not-likely-to-be-popular machinery of the appointment of a Housing Commissioner. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Scotland will deal with this matter in such a way as to achieve the same result should the same situation arise, but perhaps he will have to do so in a more stealthy manner than will be necessary under the English Bill.

921
I do not think we have ever before had a statement about how the Secretary of State will operate default powers. We appreciate that the right honourable gentleman will not, in the circumstances envisaged in these provisions, go careering through Glasgow, Aberdeen, Rutherglen, Midlothian or any other area which might be in default and do the job himself. He will obviously get someone to do it for him. Under the English Bill, however, a Housing Commissioner will be appointed to take over the powers of the local authority in these housing matters and he will be equipped with a responsible staff. Before we consider this matter further, the noble Lord should explain precisely what the clause as drafted and the Amendments will achieve. How exactly will the Secretary of State operate his default powers?
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will answer that question. A lot depends on what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, means by " exactly " in asking me to say how the Secretary of State will operate these powers. A lot will depend on the nature of the default and what needs to be done about it, and he will obviously have an able staff of officials.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not want to delay your Lordships needlessly, but if such a default will lead in England to the appointment of a Housing Commissioner, what will the Secretary of State for Scotland do in the event of a default in Scotland?
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I assume that he would carry out these functions through his officials with the collaboration of the officials of the local authority concerned.
LORD HOY: My Lords, while I do not wish to continue this debate for too long, may I ask the noble Lord to accept that we are entitled to a further explanation? The English Bill lays down the precise power which the Minister has and the person who will act on his behalf. In view of the meticulousness of the officials at St. Andrews House, one would have expected this to be spelt out in the Scottish Bill before the Bill and these Amendments were drafted. After all, the
922
noble Lord is moving what must be considered a substantial Amendment at this late stage of the Bill. We are told that unless this change is made the Secretary of State will not be able to exercise his authority. If the Government have reached that conclusion, they must have given some thought to the way in which these provisions will operate. It is not sufficient for us to be asked to pass an Amendment giving the Secretary of State substantial additional powers without knowing how he will use them. We shall be delighted to allow the noble Lord to reply to this question without seeking our leave to speak again.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I suggest that we are making rather a mountain out of this. We feel that in Scotland the situation that might arise would not be such as to demand the appointment—I was about to say the paraphernalia or panoply of a Housing Commissioner. We feel that the Secretary of State, with the apparatus at his command, and his officials, is well able to cope with this matter. He has default powers under existing legislation which he has operated, I am happy to say, seldom in the past, and I do not think there has been any difficulty about operating those powers. Rather than specifying an individual, which I think would be wrong, to do this work, the Secretary of State, being the Minister concerned, can perfectly well be described as the person with the power to operate these provisions through his chosen officials by taking over a local authority's powers and instructing its officials to carry out his wishes. I cannot see any difficulty in that.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and so that he will not have to ask for consent again, may I ask a question which interests us enormously on this subject? It is a question with two prongs. First, is it the case that the Government at the present time have not the power to require local authorities in Scotland to sell local authority houses? Second, is it not the case that if this Amendment is carried there will be power to do that—in short, power to do something which the Government at the present time have not power to do but which, with this Amendment,

923
could be effected through the Secretary of State?
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, the noble Lord has indeed asked a two-pronged if not a double-barbed question, and I am bound to say that without further instruction I cannot specify exactly whether this Amendment does or does not cover the power that he has mentioned. I must be candid about this.
LORD HOY: My Lords, the question which my noble friend has raised is an extremely important one and I am certain that the noble Lord would not wish to part with this particular Amendment without being able to say whether or not it would give the Secretary of State the powers referred to by my noble friend. If the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, is saying to us " I really do not know ", it means—and I do not want to appear to say this critically, or in a bad way—that he is saying, " I moved an Amendment which I simply do not understand ". If it turns out that my noble friend is right, this explanation ought to have been given to the House, for if we were going for the first time to give this power to the Secretary of State for Scotland it would mean that a great change was taking place as a result of this so-called " simple " Amendment. Indeed, if the Secretary of Slate for Scotland wanted a power of this kind, I would much rather he brought in an Amendment and said, " This is what I want ", instead of bringing it in in this fashion. If he assures us it does, then we shall take a pretty " dim " view of it, and I do not think I should want to let it go without testing the feelings of the House in the Lobby.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, for his very helpful intervention which has been, no doubt, of assistance in clarifying the situation with which we are faced. As I understand it, after the Secretary of State takes over—if indeed he has to—he will exercise the local authority's housing functions. This Amendment, however, does not add anything to the functions that he will be able to exercise in that respect ; it merely makes certain that he can exercise them fully. Presumably after taking over a local authority's powers, the Secretary of
924
State might have power to sell local authority houses. However, that has nothing to do with default under the Bill. It is a local authority function.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, may I have permission to speak for a second time? In the light of this information I could not possibly agree to anything which in any way makes the Secretary of State's default powers easier to operate, and that is the intention of this Amendment. What the noble Lord has said is that we can have the situation (and it is not so unlikely as at the moment Lord Polwarth seems to be suggesting) that one or more local authorities in Scotland may decide not to implement the Bill. When they say that what they mean is that they are not going to impose the rent increases called for by the Bill. If that does happen, the local authority taking that line will be in default. They will be in default on that item only, but if they persist in that default then the Secretary of State will exercise the default powers given by Clause 72; and, as this Amendment makes clear, he is not only given the power to do the things which the local authority have refrained from doing but is given power to prevent them from carrying out any of their housing functions. In other words, he takes them over.
It may be that all parties in the local authority are opposed to the sale of houses, yet the intervention of my noble friend Lord Diamond brings out quite clearly that, in the circumstances I have described, while the Secretary of State was running the housing department of a local authority he might sell off their houses. That is quite intolerable, and I should have thought the least the Minister would have done, in response to the question from my noble friend Lord Diamond, and to what my noble friend Lord Hoy has said, was to say that while the Secretary of State was exercising his default powers he would give an undertaking that he would not do anything in any other field of housing activity which the authority would not have done and in which they were not in default ; in other words, that in the exercise of his powers the Secretary of State would act only on the matters in which the local authority were in default. Otherwise, this is indeed legislation by the back door.
5.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 28) shall be agreed to?
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.4 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 58, line 32, at end insert (" and he may direct that the authority shall not during such time as the order is in force perform any function conferred by the order on him.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment again deals with the default provisions and is for the removal of doubt. It provides that during any period in which the Secretary of State is exercising the functions of a local authority under Parts II, III or IV of the Bill the authority shall not at the same time exercise any of the same functions. Clearly any other situation would be impracticable, and the object of the Amendment is to put it beyond doubt that the functions being exercised by the Secretary of State
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 32.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Margadale, L.

Abinger, L.

Elles, Bs.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Merrivale, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Atholl, D.

Essex, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

Balfour, E.

Ferrier, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Barnby, L.

Gainford, L.

Polwarth, L.

Belstead, L.

Goschen, V.

Redesdale, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gowrie, E.

Reigate, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sandford, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hailes, L.

Sandys, L.

Camoys, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Carrington, L.

Hawke, L.

Shannon, E.

Chelmer, L.

Hood, V.

Somers, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Stonehaven, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Inglewood, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cowley, E.

Kemsley, V.

Teviot, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Cromartie, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ullswater, V.

Daventry, V.

Lothian, M.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wolverton, L.

Dundee, E.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Young, Bs.

Eccles, V.

Mancroft, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Diamond, L.

Shackleton, L.

Beswick, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Shinwell, L.

Birk, Bs.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Slater, L.

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L.

Snow, L.

Boothby, L.

Hughes, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Janner, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Willis, L.

Chorley, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Wynne-Jones, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

St. Davids, V.

cannot be simultaneously exercised by the authority. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, following on what was said on the last Amendment, another way of putting what the noble Lord has said is that while a local authority are considering a circular from the Secretary of State advising them to sell their houses and saying, " No, we are not going to do it ", the Secretary of State can go on selling them on his own account.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, surely that is incorrect, unless the local authority is made to sell houses by another Act; that is not in this Bill at all.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: It is what you have just voted on.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I would not have intervened but for the intervention

927
by the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven. What we have just voted on is to give that power to the Secretary of State. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill, Lord Polwarth, has already stated this is in fact what it does do. It may be that we are all wrong, and in that case the noble Lord must be wrong, too. But he did say in his winding-up speech that the Secretary of State might wish to sell the houses. All my noble friend is saying is that if this is so, the Amendment which the noble Lord has just moved is the equivalent of the last Amendment that was moved. Let there be no doubt about it ; according to the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, if the Secretary of State gets these powers that will also give him power to sell corporation or municipal houses.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, perhaps I may reply to what the noble Lord has just said. I do not think I said—although I am perfectly open to correction if I did say it—that the. Secretary of State might wish to sell local authority houses. I said he might have power to sell local authority houses, but I understand that there has always been such power under an earlier Act. I will not found on that without the exact reference. I will not pursue that further. We have already voted, whether on that point or not. As I understand it, the default powers in the Bill relate only to Parts II, III and IV and the subjects they cover, and this Amendment limits the Secretary of State's involvement to matters covered by those Parts of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 58, line 35, at end insert—
(" (4C) It shall be the duty of a local authority, any of whose functions the Secretary of State is exercising by virtue of an order under subsection (4A) above, and any officer or servant of such an authority, to take all reasonable steps to facilitate the performance of those functions by the Secretary of State.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment (I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, will greet it as happily as he looks as if he is going to do) is a consequential provision in a case where the Secretary of State has made an order
928
rendering the functions of the local authority exercisable by him. The purpose of the Amendment is to clarify the position of both members and officials of the local authority in such a situation, by placing them under a statutory duty to assist the Secretary of State in the exercise of the functions of the local authority he has taken over. This would cover, for example, implementing a decision of the Secretary of State as to rent increases, and also supplying information, suitable staff and accommodation. In the case of officials, it would override any contrary instructions issued by the defaulting authority. This statutory duty can be enforced, if necessary, by an application to the Court of Session for an order for specific performance. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 81 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
6.10 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 64, leave out from beginning of line 35 to end of line 38.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very simple Amendment and deals with a matter which came up at the very last stage in another place. When the Commons were on Report stage, they reached the appointed hour and after that the Guillotine came into operation. At that point were added those words which my Amendment wishes to take out again:
"Provided that the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument bring any provision of this Act into force, except any provision which expressly provides otherwise, before the expiration of the said period of one month."
Having regard even to the last items which we have been considering and about some of which I think there will be considerable shock to Members of another place, and certainly considerable shock to members of local authorities, it would seem to me that the Government will be acting with needless and wholly inconsiderate haste if they expect to bring the provisions of this Bill into effect in a shorter period than the one month which is provided for. I therefore beg to move that these four lines be taken out of Clause 81.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, I do not advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment. The purpose of this order-making power is quite straightforward. As your Lordships know, the rent fixing and rebate provisions of the Bill will take effect as from October 1 and there will he a great deal of work for local authorities to implement these provisions in that time. Many of them have sensibly put in hand preparations from their knowledge of the Bill as it has proceeded through Parliament ; others have decided that they will not do so until a duty is laid upon them by Parliament in terms of Statute. While I think the former policy was more prudent, I would naturally make no complaint about the latter. The timetable to which we are now working means that local authorities will need, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, all the time at their disposal between the enactment of the Bill and October 1 when we are bringing these provisions into operation.
The order-making power is therefore included in the Bill simply to enable the Secretary of State to bring into force those provisions of the Bill relating to October 1 as soon as necessary after Royal Assent. We consider that this will be helpful to local authorities and to those of their tenants who hope to benefit from the new rent rebate scheme—for example, to ensure that the maximum time is available for implementation and for the fixing of rents in accordance with Part IV. Subject to the approval by Parliament of the provisions in the Bill, and particularly this one, I can say that it is the Secretary of State's intention, after Royal Assent, to make an order under this provision bringing into force all the provisions except those relating to the rents of private houses and houses owned by housing associations. I simply cannot accept that the overall timetable imposed on local authorities by the Bill is an unreasonable one. Local authorities have been in full possession of the details of the requirements to be imposed on them as from October since as far back as July last year. The Bill has been before Parliament since last November, and I believe therefore that most local authorities have had ample opportunity to take account of the forthcoming new requirements, indeed perhaps one of the
930
advantages of the length of time taken in the passage of the Bill through both Houses is that it has given those to be affected ample warning of the provisions and time to prepare the new obligations it will impose on them.
While it is an entirely reasonable argument that no local authority should be required to take any action in accordance with the provisions of the Bill until enacted, I find it difficult to accept that they are thereby absolved from taking account in their planning and forward thinking and day-to-day operating of obligations which they know that Parliament is seeking to place on them. We consider that the timetable is reasonable and that the advancing of the operation of the Act by these powers will in fact be of assistance to local authorities in bringing the scheme into operation.
LORD HOY: I find the reply of the noble Lord most unsatisfactory. Indeed if one goes over the Bill from the beginning to this stage one has to think of all the Amendments made to the Bill. To take the example of a Bill similar in its effect in England, well over 100 Amendments have been made.
A NOBLE LORD: 160 Amendments.
LORD HOY: Yes, 160 Amendments, and the argument of the noble Lord is that local authorities should anticipate this ; that they should be drafting their schemes and getting their business ready before an Act of Parliament confronts them. Are they supposed to be anticipating Amendments that this noble House has made? In drawing up regulations, are they supposed to anticipate in Scotland Amendments laid in this noble House this afternoon? One or two of them are not insubstantial. When the noble Lord says that it is all straightforward, one can hardly believe it, because it is so straightforward that in another place this was brought in as an Amendment by the Government ; and they brought it in at such a late period that the Guillotine prevented any discussion of it. That is how straightforward it was, so I can only say to the noble Lord—time is getting on, and I know that certain agreements have been entered into—that this is most unsatisfactory. It is like the last Amendment the noble Lord replied to. I would say to him in the

931
most kindly way possible than when Governments want to make substantial changes of this kind, then let them have the courage to explain them to the House and not take them in the form of Amendments that hardly anyone finds possible to understand.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (LORD FERRIER): The Question is, That Amendment No. 31 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say " Content " ; the contrary, " Not-Content ". I think the " Contents " have it. The " Contents " have it.
On Question Amendment agreed to.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Amendment No. 32—the Lord Polwarth. [Interruption.] Amendment No. 31 ; the Question is that this Amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say " Content " ; to the contrary, " Not-Content ". I think the " Not-Contents " have it. The " Not-Contents " have it. Amendment No. 32—
LORD POLWORTH: I move. Amendment moved—
Page 105, leave out lines 21 to 24.—(Lord Polwarth.)
A NOBLE LORD: My Lords, in order to draw the noble Deputy Speaker's attention to the fact that we certainly voted " Content " on this side of the House, and there has been no Division on the matter—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Clerk say what Amendment we are voting to?
A NOBLE LORD: The vote has been taken on Amendment No. 31.
THE CLERK AT THE TABLE: That Amendment No. 32 be agreed to.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon. It is Amendment No. 32. The Question is that Amendment No. 32 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, " Content "; to the contrary, " Not-Content ". The " Contents " have it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, at this moment I think we might pause ;
932
we are in a slight muddle. I do not blame the noble Lord on the Woolsack, because I think we have confused him. Certainly both Government and Opposition Front Bench felt—are we on 32?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, we have just agreed to 32. We have previously agreed to 31.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Amendment No. 33—the Lord Polwarth.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 105, line 35, at end insert—
(" (e) in subsection (7), after the words " supplementary order" there shall be inserted the words " or an order under subsection (4A) above", and at the end there shall be added the words " and the provisions which may be included in an order by virtue of that section shall include any matters connected with the coming into force of such an order or its termination";
(f) after subsection (7) there shall be added the following subsection—
" (8) Section 356(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 shall have effect for the purposes of this section as if for the words from 'have failed' to ' statutory order' there were substituted the words—

' (a) have failed effectively to discharge any of their functions under Part II, III or IV of the Housing (Financial Provision) (Scotland) Act 1972 ; or

(b) have failed so to discharge any function conferred on them by that Act or any other enactment as to secure the effective discharge of any of their functions under those Parts of that Act ; '".")

The noble Lord said: " We will try to avoid further confusion as far as possible. I will do my best. My Lords, Amendment No. 33, with which we are still dealing, is to Schedule 9, and deals with the powers in default. There is an insertion and an addition here. These are technical, drafting Amendments. I shall do my best to explain them, though it will not be easy, but I should like to assure your Lordships that I am doing my best. May I take first the sub-paragraph headed (e)—that is, the first part of the Amendment here. This deals with the revocation of orders and incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions associated with them. It ensures that any order under the provisions of the 1947 Act relating to default can include matters connected with the coming into force or termination of the order, not merely the order itself. The order may need to deal with a variety of administrative matters, such as the handing over of records and documents, for

933
instance when the Secretary of State ceases to exercise an authority's function. Therefore this part of the Amendment is needed to clarify the fact that we can deal with matters connected with both the bringing into force or the terminating of the order and with the functions in the exercise of the order.
We then come to subparagraph (f), which is the second part of this Amendment. This is entirely for the removal of doubts in relation to existing powers, and is to make certain that there is no loophole in the ability of the Secretary of State to carry out these powers. At present, the provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 provide for the situation where, after the holding of a local inquiry, there has been a failure on the part of a local authority to do what is required of them by the section of the Act. This corresponds exactly with the earlier Act, but as a result of the Amendment to Clause 72 which we have just made, a different form of words is to be substituted. It is in order that there should be no doubt that the inquiry referred to in the 1947 Act relates to the same circumstances as described in the 1966 Act that it is necessary to make this Amendment. It is technical and consequential on the other Amendments already made in relation to the Secretary of State's powers on default. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.22 p.m.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Polwarth.)
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, may I just make quite certain at this stage, before the Bill goes any further, that Amendment No. 31, which has just been dealt with, was not accepted by the Government?
LORD HOY: It was.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I want to make quite certain that this is the case because there is a little confusion, and this is the only opportunity I have of raising this one point.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (LORD FERRIER): My Lords, I have recorded on my paper that Amendment No. 31 was not accepted by the Government and that No. 32 was.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, Amendment No. 31 was accepted by the Government. The Government Front Bench said " Content ". We followed their error by saying " Not-Content ", and we were very happy to do this. The Chair then announced that, " The Contents have it ", as they undoubtedly had, and the Minister got up and said, " We voted ' Content ' ". That being the case, if the Government are " Not-Content " they will have to take out the Amendment in another place, because it is undoubtedly in the Bill here.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I am very sorry, but as I understood it the Chairman was referring to the subsequent Amendment, No. 32. That was my understanding, and I quite clearly heard him say so.
LORD HUGHES: We are now on Third Reading.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that we accept the position ; namely, that Amendment No. 32, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, was carried, the Contents having it, and that Amendment No. 31 was not carried?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I wish to point out that we are now considering the Third Reading of the Bill, and there is no provision for going back at this stage to consider what was done at Report stage. The Government have made a mess of this. If they do not accept it, then it is their business to get it corrected in another place. The House has now made an Amendment to the Bill, and if the Government want to adhere to what it was originally they will have an opportunity in another place to put back the words that have now been taken out. But they cannot put them back on Third Reading in this House by a subterfuge.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, did not the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, hear the Chair say that, from his notes, Amendment No. 31 was not accepted?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I do not think anyone who was present

935
in the House will question that our noble Leader, the Leader of the Opposition, rose to draw attention to the situation. No notice was taken of what he was endeavouring to establish ; and in point of fact what my noble friend Lord Hughes is now saying was accepted throughout the Chamber as being the position. Nobody objected ; and I should have thought that if anybody wanted to object that was the right and proper time. But that time has passed.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER:
My Lords, I was present throughout these proceedings and I noticed that, on Amendment No. 31, the Members on the opposite side said " Content ". I have no doubt that this was due to a misapprehension and to the fact that they had been saying " Content " to a number of Government Amendments previously and the habit had got too much for them. The Members on this side immediately said " Not-content ", and the Contents prevailed. I would say from my own listening that there can be no question whatever that this Amendment was carried. It was done no doubt by a mistake ; but the mistake has been made, and the Government have means of putting it right elsewhere. But I should have thought, if I may say so, that there was no possible way of putting it right here.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, in view of the statement made by the noble Baroness I would certainly not wish to attempt to demur in any way or to find fault with what she says. It would be quite wrong of me to do so, in view of her position as an eminent occupier from time to time of the Woolsack and of the Chair. Therefore, I obviously concede that what she has said must have been the case, whether it arose through misunderstanding or otherwise. I would, however, express my strong resentment at the use of the word " subterfuge " on the other side of the House. There has been no subterfuge involved or intended in connection with this Bill.
LORD HUGHES: I used that word, my Lords, and f still think so—but not by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I wonder if I could seek clarification. The noble Baroness—
LORD HUGHES: Order! We are on the Third Reading of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has moved that the Bill be now read a third time.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I think we are very much out of order, but I wonder if I might say this. My noble friend has accepted the situation, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has been asked to withdraw the word "subterfuge". I do not think that any subterfuge was intended by anyone here. A mistake has been made; and the noble Lord still has not withdrawn that word. He may like to or he may not.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I was not asked to withdraw it, but if I am asked to withdraw I will consider the matter.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I have, as I have said, already moved that the Bill be now read a third time, so perhaps we can now proceed to read it a third time. When I opened the Second Reading of the Bill I said to your Lordships that it was nearly a year since the publication of the original White Paper. It is now just over one year since the publication of that White Paper—a year and six days to be precise. Since then, there has been spent a record amount of Parliamentary time in debate on the Bill in both Houses: a 2-day debate in the Scottish Grand Committee in another place ; one of the longest ever considerations, of no less than 35 sittings, in the First Scottish Standing Committee in another place ; and close, and if I may say so, constructive, consideration of the Bill in your Lordships House. After all that and at this hour, I am sure you would not want me to go over the ground again in any detail, but I must say a few words, since this is a measure of the greatest importance to Scotland.
I should like to thank noble Lords who have taken part in the various debates on the Bill for the part they have played in trying to improve it. I should like to pay a particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the immense amount of time and study he has put in on the Bill. I appreciate that he is an expert in this field and that we have not been able to convert him. We had some conversions earlier " on the road to Damascus ", but we have not been able

937
to convert him totally to our thinking. But that does not lessen my appreciation of his co-operation and help during the passage of the Bill and in effecting those improvements that we have felt able to accept.
This Bill is a landmark in Scottish housing legislation, and will bring about reforms in the financial framework of all housing arrangements which are long overdue. The Bill covers a wide range, but I should like to concentrate this evening on looking at it from the point of the view of the tenant—since the tenant is the person most affected, and the tenant has, quite rightly, been the subject of most attention in your Lordships' discussions on the Bill.
First, let us look at rents, the most controversial subject in the Bill. In the public sector these have been increasing annually in recent years. The Bill recognises this and ensures that in future rents cannot be increased more than once a year. It provides for rents to be fixed as standard rents, based on the size, the quality and the location of each house by each authority concerned. It limits increases in rents, both individual and average, in any one year. These provisions seem to us to be eminently reasonable and to give promise, within the foreseeable future, of bringing local authority housing finances on to a fairer footing: fairer as between authorities, fairer as between individual tenants, fairer as between tenant and ratepayer and taxpayer.
So far, housing subsidies from the taxpayer and the ratepayer have on the whole been given indiscriminately. I believe this has tended to give local authority housing a special stamp. The term "council house" has attracted almost a derogatory status, much though this should be deplored. I believe that this setting apart of local authority housing is entirely wrong. So long as there are safeguards, to ensure that families are not denied a decent house by reason of their inability to pay, housing should not be labelled in this way as "council housing", private housing; or for that matter, rented housing and owner-occupied housing. Subject to the essential safeguards, which are provided in the Bill, we believe that it is in the interests of all, not least the tenants of local authority houses, that these artificial distinctions,
938
and the artificial constraints which accompany them, should be swept away. I am sure that as the new rent-fixing provisions come into operation and their true effects are seen, they will be seen to be reasonable financially. Not only that, they should also lead to a most desirable change in attitudes, which will be beneficial to tenants, and indeed to householders in general, to Scotland and to the image of Scotland as a whole.
Standard rents will not be payable by all. At present some 10 per cent. of tenants receive rebates of varying quality and amount. In future perhaps one-third of tenants—we hope, more—will qualify for rebates under a national model scheme, fairer and more generous than most of those existing at present As a result, some tenants will pay much less than the maximum increases some will pay no more out of their pockets than they do at present, and some will pay even less. With a scheme offering broadly the same benefits throughout the country, we shall remove one of the main obstacles to movement from one home to another—and one obstacle, as we all know, to the development of Scotland to meet modern needs. So those who can afford to pay standard rents will do so and make a fairer contribution to the real costs of their housing—a proposition which I do not think has been disputed in any quarter of the House—while those who cannot afford to do so will have help available wherever they happen to live.
The Bill recognises that the community at large has a responsibility for local authority housing: the ratepayer in general will still contribute to the cost, albeit at a lower level than in the past; the taxpayer will contribute an increasing amount, rising, as we estimate, over the next few years by perhaps half as much again as at present. In addition to this help, tenants will benefit in their capacity as ratepayers from the reduced burden of housing expenditure falling in the rates, which, as we have seen, should be roughly halved over the next five years. So, even the tenant paying the full standard rate will not have to meet the full cost of his house; the tenant who can afford to do so will meet a larger share of the cost than in the past, and the tenant who cannot afford it may even pay no rent at all.

939
The Bill holds out new hope for tenants in our poorest, most inadequate housing. The slum clearance subsidy was generally welcomed in all quarters of the House: it is a new concept and a long overdue one, and it will be a great encouragement and help to those local authorities still faced with a slum problem. There is also new hope for tenants of some of the poorest quality private rented homes in the provisions for conversion of tenancies from rent control to regulation. Rent control certainly protects the tenant's pocket by freezing his rent; but it does him no service when it leads, as it so often has done, to his house crumbling about him for lack of money to keep it in repair. Whatever the virtues of rent control in the past (and it had its uses in the conditions of the time) I am firmly convinced that it has outlived its usefulness, and that it is time to replace it by the fair rent procedure, introduced by the last Administration in 1965, which seeks to be fair to both tenant and landlord. This will undoubtedly be of benefit to tenants, as it becomes clear that these controlled and often neglected properties, by earning a fair rent, can take on a new lease of life.
Of course, this could not be done without the introduction of rent allowances for private tenants, another long overdue and significant piece of social justice: this, too, has, I know, been widely welcomed in Scotland. There are other, lesser, ways in which tenants are helped by the Bill; for example, by the provision for help with removal expenses. But this is not, of course, the whole story. Basically, the Bill will benefit tenants because it will encourage landlords, both public, private and local authority, to meet real housing need where it arises. Scottish housing is still very far from satisfactory for many people. There are many people in Scotland who should have much better homes than they have, and a much earlier prospect of obtaining them than they have had in the past. It is no longer a question of houses, more houses, everywhere. But there are still shortages in some areas, and poor quality housing in many others.
It is because of the urgency of these still unmet needs that the Government
940
believe we require a completely new approach, and a radical review and reshaping of the financial framework of housing in Scotland. Without it we should fail in this obligation to our fellow citizens by preventing the provision and improvement of houses of the kind, in the place and at the speed required. Although it is a " financial provisions " measure, this Bill is about people, and their homes, and the surroundings in which they bring up their families. The Government believe (and time, I believe, will show) that it will enable housing needs to be met more speedily and more adequately than ever before and, in this belief, I commend the Bill to the House.
6.40 p.m
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I cannot find very much in what the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has said with which I am in agreement I would, however, wish to start by thanking him for the references which he made to me; although I cannot say that I appreciated being told that I had co-operated. In a way that would not do me any good in Scotland. What I think the Minister meant was that I had been trying to make the Bill better. If the Minister had agreed with me more often, I think that it would have been better still. In fact, my Lords, if the procedure, or rather the custom of the House, permitted me to move that the Bill be not read a second time, and the Minister had accepted that, then the Bill would have been dead—and that would have been better still.
My Lords, even this Government cannot introduce a Bill of 117 pages without managing to get something into it which is an improvement on the present position, and on the slum clearance subsidies, as I made quite clear on more than one occasion, and as I would wish to reiterate now, it looks as if it will be better than anything which has gone before. It would be quite wrong of me to go through the Bill in the way in which the Minister has done, pointing out all the parts on which I took a different point of view; so if I do not demur against the points that he has made, I hope that he will not take that as a further degree of co-operation. I still dislike them as much as I did at the beginning.
All I would wish to say, my Lord—and these will be my concluding remarks—is that the Minister said that this Bill

941
would be a landmark in housing for Scotland. I do not agree with that. A landmark implies a degree of permanence which this measure will certainly not have. There are few Housing Acts, whether simple Acts or Housing (Financial Provisions) Acts which have lasted for more than a few years. But it has been very seldom that a Bill has been brought before your Lordships' House in respect of which at least a substantial part of the House is firmly determined that it shall be removed from the Statute Book at the earliest opportunity. This one is certainly in that category. Most of the Bill we dislike intensely and even in those parts where the Government are seeking to do something worth while they have spoilt it to some extent by the detail in which it has been done. Nevertheless, my Lords, tempting as it is, I will not depart from the traditions of this House by opposing the Third Reading.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move, that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether at this point I may ask a question of the Leader of the House? Presumably we have not seen the last of this Bill. I take it that the Government, having voted for an Opposition Amendment, will be in trouble with their colleagues in another place, and they may even disagree. I ought to say that your Lordships do not particularly like a decision, deliberately taken as this one was, being overruled in another place and we shall of course have to return to it when this comes back to us. If the Government have any space at all in their timetable, we shall have to return once again to this Bill, so noble Lords, especially those who think that perhaps they will not have to return South of the Border, will have to come back.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I was not in the House when this stirring incident took place, but I have listened with great interest to what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said. I do not quite know where his tongue was—it clearly was not in his cheek—during his remarks. I have a suspicion that he
942
is probably right in the prognostication that this Bill may have to come back to your Lordships' House.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, If the Bill does come back to this House, may I say that the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and I have co-operated to a certain extent in that, as he knows, I am going to Tiree to-morrow for a fortnight. I hope that it does not bring me back from Tiree.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.