Sitting of 15 December 1958

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.

PETITIONS (COTTON TEXTILE INDUSTRY)
Mr. H. Hynd: Mr. Speaker, Sir, with your permission I wish to present a Petition signed by the chairman of the Council and 800 inhabitants of the comparatively small town of Rishton, one of those Lancashire towns suffering from depression in the cotton industry. They make three points which have not been made in previous Petitions, namely, that half the mills in the town are shut down, that the population has declined from 7,400 to 5,500 since the war, and—this is a significant point—that 3 per cent. of the houses in the town are standing empty because people have left to find jobs elsewhere.
The prayer reads as follows:
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take immediate action (i) to limit the importation of textile goods produced under unfair competitive conditions at prices with which it is not possible to compete in this country; (ii) to endeavour by all means possible to encourage and foster the consumption in the United Kingdom of textile goods produced in Britain; and (iii) to extend the demand in foreign markets for textiles
742
produced in Britain when negotiating trade agreements.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I wish to present a Petition signed by the Mayor of Haslingden, Councillor Ben Fisher, and over 4,000 people in the Borough of Haslingden in the County Palatine of Lancaster. It is a town which is very greatly dependent on the cotton industry, and the Petition draws attention to the decline of the industry in recent years following a drop in exports and a rise in the importation of fibres and manufactured goods made overseas. This, says the Petition,
has resulted in widespread depression in the industry with unemployment and underemployment to an extent not fully revealed in the published statistics.
The Petition concludes:
Your Petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that your Honourable House will take action without delay to limit the import of cheap textiles produced under unfair competitive conditions and will devote itself to saving the cotton towns of Lancashire from becoming derelict by taking prompt action to stimulate and revive the cotton industry.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.
Mr. Rhodes: I beg to present a Petition on behalf of some 28,000 citizens of the Borough of Ashton-under-Lyne and district. The Petition is similar in its terms to those Petitions coming from other areas in the County Palatine. After reciting the circumstances and the difficulties and the growing unemployment in the district, it continues:
Your Petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that your Honourable House will take effective action to secure the stabilisation of the textile industry so that it will be prosperous in times of peace and capable of meeting the country's need in any time of emergency and so that the textile workers may be assured of reasonable security of employment.
It concludes:
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  HISTORY OF EUROPEAN RESISTANCE (LIEGE CONFERENCE)
  Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who were the official British delegates at the Conference at Liège on the possibility of producing a history on international resistance; and what decisions were taken.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. John Profumo): No official British delegation attended the International Conference at Liège on the history of European resistance. There was, however, an unofficial British delegation which attended the Conference on behalf of the Special Forces Club. I understand that the Conference decided to set up a provisional international committee on the history of European resistance.
  Dame Irene Ward: While thanking my hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask whether the British unofficial delegation will participate and what documents they will have to put before the international conference?
  Mr. Profumo: Her Majesty's Government will give sympathetic consideration to any request for assistance.

  UNITED NATIONS

    Cyprus
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding the course and conclusion of the Cyprus debate at the United Nations.
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decisions have now been reached by the United Nations Assembly on the subject of the situation in Cyprus.
    The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Commander Allan Noble): I have nothing to add to the Statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made to the House last Wednesday.
    Mr. Donnelly: How do the British Government expect to make progress in Paris with the reintroduction of the issue of partition by the Colonial Secretary? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House what explanation has been given by the British delegation in Paris to allay the Greek Government's fears?
    Commander Noble: My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary was merely repeating, as was stated in May, I957, that preliminary investigations were made as to whether partition was a practical possibility and into the problems involved.
    Mr. Bevan: Is this not a singularly stupid moment to select to make a statement of that sort, in view of the fact that we hope that a conference will be held and that the conference will result in a settlement? Will not the Colonial Secretary take the earliest opportunity of repudiating the rumour which has got abroad to the effect that a plan for partition has been drawn up in the event of agreement not being reached?
    Commander Noble: If the right hon. Gentleman will study the statement which was made in May, 1957, I think he will understand the position.
    Mr. Bevan: Is it not desirable for a statement to be made now to allay Greek fears before the conference is held? Do the Government want a settlement at all in the matter?
    Commander Noble: I am quite sure that the Greek Government will appreciate the statement which I have just made.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend make it plain that the Cyprus question is a very special case and that it is not the Government's intention to submit other matters affecting the internal affairs of British territories to the United Nations?
    Commander Noble: Yes, most certainly. I think I made that clear in my speeches in the General Assembly.
    Mr. Brockway: In view of the disastrous effect which the reported statement of the Secretary of State for the Colonies has had both in Cyprus and in Greece, will not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. if he seriously desires a solution of

    745
    this problem from a conference, go much further in repudiation than the statement which he has just made?
    Commander Noble: I have nothing further to add at the moment. There is. a Question on the subject on the Order Paper later this week.

    White Paper
    Mr. Royleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will issue a White Paper periodically to inform hon. Members of decisions taken at the United Nations, with explanations of votes cast by the United Kingdom.
    Commander Noble: A White Paper about the current Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations will be issued in the usual way as soon as possible after the Session is over.
    Mr. Royle: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman see that what takes place in the United Nations in our name is available more easily and more conveniently to hon. Members than has been the case hitherto?
    Commander Noble: I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware that United Nations documents usually arrive in London two or three days after they are issued in New York. They are the working papers of the General Assembly. They include verbatim records of all the speeches in the Plenary Sessions of the Assembly and in the Political Committee. They also include summary records of speeches in the other six committees, including explanations of votes. They give the texts of resolutions and details of voting. I think that the information is available in the House a fairly short time after the events have happened.
    Mr. Royle: I am aware of that, but is it not desirable that these things should be made much more conveniently available to hon. Members, rather than hon. Members having to wade through all the documents? Is he aware that a White Paper at our disposal in the Vote Office would help very much?
    Commander Noble: I will certainly take note of the hon. Member's views.

    United Nations Force (Film)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make representations to the United Nations
    746
    Secretary-General for the early release of the film, "Blue Vanguard," so that the history and work of the United Nations Force in the Middle East may be made more widely known.
    Commander Noble: No, Sir.
    Mr. Swingler: Will not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman at any rate find out who is holding up the release of this very interesting film about the attitude of the United Nations organisation and its handling of the course and consequence of the Suez war? The Minister has denied that the Foreign Office has made any objection to its release. Does it mean that it has been blackballed by one or two Governments in the United Nations and that a film specially made to advertise the achievements of the United Nations cannot be released?
    Commander Noble: As I think has been made clear to the hon. Member in previous Answers, release is a matter for the Secretary-General of the United Nations. He has a lot of films and other material available to him and it is up to him to decide when it should be released.

    Middle East (Refugees)
    Mr. Shortasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the speech of Mr. Abba Eban in the United Nations General Assembly's Political Committee on 17th November, Her Majesty's Government will now take the initiative in seeking a solution to the Middle East refugee problem.
    Commander Noble: This is a problem principally for the United Nations, of which the Relief and Works Agency is a subsidiary body. On 10th December the Special Political Committee of the General Assembly adopted a resolution urging the need for more funds for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency; progress in rehabilitation projects and consultations regarding repatriation and compensation of refugees. Her Majesty's Government co-sponsored this resolution.
    Mr. Short: Cannot the Minister of State go further? Does he not agree that Mr. Abba Eban's speech marks some progress, in that the Israeli Government are now willing to pay compensation before a settlement? Will not the Government take some initiative in this matter?
    Commander Noble: It is not a question of initiative by Her Majesty's Government, but no doubt the appropriate authorities of the United Nations will take notice of the points raised by the hon. Member.

  BAHRAIN (TREATY OBLIGATIONS)
  Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will list the treaty obligations which the United Kingdom now have with Bahrain; and, in the light of these obligations, what consultations have recently taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the United States concerning the use of Bahrain as a base in connection with the proposed establishment of a Fifth American Fleet in the Indian Ocean.
  Mr. Profumo: Her Majesty's Government have a treaty obligation to support Bahrain in case of need and to maintain her independence. No consultations of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member have taken place between ourselves and the United States Government.
  Mr. Davies: Is the hon. Member saying that there has been no request for the use of Bahrain for the proposed Fifth American Fleet in the Indian Ocean? Secondly, do our treaty obligations mean that if military Iran decided that it wanted Bahrain, we have an obligation to protect Bahrain against the people of Iran if they want that island once more?
  Mr. Profumo: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is "Yes, Sir." The second part, I think, is hypothetical. At all events, it goes further than the Question on the Order Paper, and I think that the hon. Member will have to put it down on the Paper.

  ARAB PETROLEUM CONGRESS, CAIRO
  Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what British dependencies will be officially represented at the first Arab Petroleum Congress, Cairo, from 16th to 20th April, 1959.
  Mr. Profumo: None, Sir. So far as the Shaikhdoms in the Persion Gulf are concerned, I understand that Kuwait will be represented.
  Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman try to make available to hon. Members in the Library as much information as possible about this very important Arab Petroleum Congress so that we can follow it by Question and Answer, if need be?
  Mr. Profumo: I shall have to see whether there is any more information than I have given the hon. Member.
  Mr. Davies: Obviously there is.

  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (RECOMMENDATIONS)
  Mr. Marquandasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decisions have been taken by the Council of Ministers upon Recommendations 158 and 159 concerning aid to less developed areas and the development of Africa, passed unanimously by the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe.
  Mr. Profumo: The Committee of Ministers commented on these two Recommendations in the Report which they presented to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe at their meeting in October. This report has been published.
  While recognising the importance of the principles laid down in Recommendation 158, the Committee of Ministers said that they were unable to reach a decision on the political aspects of the Recommendation until the current negotiations on the Free Trade Area and on the links to be established with the Six Power Community had reached a sufficiently advanced stage.
  With regard to Recommendation No. 159, the Committee of Ministers have reported to the Assembly that they have not yet reached a decision concerning a conference proposed in the Recommendation but that, for similar reasons, they considered that in any case such a conference could not usefully be held in the immediate future.
  Mr. Marquand: With regard to the second of the two recommendations, whatever the feeling may be about a conference, is the hon. Member aware that the proposals for an Investment Statute and a Guarantee Fund have

  749
  aroused widespread interest and have recently been repeated in a resolution by the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians? In consultation with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, will he do all he can to see that these Recommendations are studied and widely made known?
  Mr. Profumo: Yes, Sir, we will certainly see that they are studied, but the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Recommendations deal with matters of very considerable importance, and, of course, they are by no means simple.
  Mr. Marquandasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Council of Ministers have yet considered the Recommendation of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe concerning the exploitation of natural gas in the Northern Sahara; and what conclusion it has reached.
  Mr. Profumo: As my right hon. Friend told the House on 26th November, recommendation 167 was referred to the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation. That Organisation has meanwhile decided to send the Recommendation to the appropriate Technical Committee for study.
  Mr. Marquand: Here again, may I ask the hon. Member whether he will draw the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Recommendation while it is being studied elsewhere? Is he aware that the Council of Europe unanimously recommended that these immensely valuable new resources in the Sahara should be used for the benefit of the African peoples? Will he draw his right hon. Friend's attention to that opinion?
  Mr. Profumo: I certainly will, but I should point out that the exploration of the natural resources of the Sahara is primarily a matter for the French Government.

  GUINEA (STERLING AREA MEMBERSHIP)
  Mr. Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Republic of Guinea has now officially asked to come into the sterling area; and what reply Her Majesty's Government have given to the request.
  Commander Noble: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "No, Sir." The second part does not therefore arise.
  Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this is not a matter which can be decided by this country alone? Will he make it quite clear that this Government will welcome such a request; and, indeed, would welcome the closer association of Guinea with the Commonwealth?
  Commander Noble: The hon. Member asked whether such a request had been made and I said, "No." I am afraid that that is as far as I can go today.

  U.S.S.R.

    Press Facilities
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he has taken to secure reciprocal facilities for British newspaper men in Russia similar to those afforded by him to Russian newspaper men in Great Britain.
    Mr. Profumo: In April of this year Her Majesty's Government proposed to the Soviet Government that talks should be held on various aspects of freedom of information, including freedom of travel for journalists to and within the Soviet Union and freedom to send uncensored news reports out of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Government refused to take part in such talks.
    Mr. Donnelly: Can the hon. Gentleman say approximately how many Soviet journalists there are here and how many British journalists there are in Russia, and what kind of restrictions on travel are imposed on Russian journalists here and on our journalists there?
    Mr. Profumo: Very little restriction is imposed on Soviet journalists here, in fact no more than on any other journalists. All reasonable requests are granted. Very serious restrictions on travel and certainly on sending reports out are imposed on our journalists in Moscow. As to correspondents, in London there are five, representing Tass, Moscow Radio, Trud, Pravda, Izvestia and Komsomols Kayo Pravda. There are two resident British correspondents in Moscow, representing Reuters and the Daily Worker, and two assistants in Reuters' office.

    London-Moscow Air Services
    Mr. Willeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent representations have been made by the British Embassy at Moscow about the proposed air services between Moscow and London; and if he will make a further statement.
    Mr. Profumo: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation said on 19th November, the introduction of a service depends on a solution of the noise problem. It had been hoped that as a result of an invitation extended by the Chairman of British European Airways, and supported by Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow, it would be possible for the Chairman of the Soviet airline to come to London for discussions on this problem and also for a demonstration of the noise-reducing techniques worked out for the TU. 104. I have now learned that, unfortunately, it will not be possible for Marshal Zhigarev to pay a visit at present.
    Mr. Willey: As these negotiations seem to have become deadlocked and meanwhile we are losing the traffic to Brussels and Paris, will the hon. Gentleman see that the good offices of the Foreign Office are used to try to break the deadlock?
    Mr. Profumo: These are technical matters, and it would be wise to leave them to the technicians to solve.

  UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS)
  Mr. Donnellyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on his progress towards the resumption of diplomatic relations with the United Arab Republic.
  Commander Noble: I have nothing at present to add to the answer which my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the hon. Member on 19th November.
  Mr. Donnelly: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether agreement has been reached on the sums of money to be paid by the Egyptian Government to us for British property taken, and by us to the Egyptian Government for damage done over Suez? Is it true that we have reached a point where the sums have been agreed?
  Commander Noble: I am afraid that I cannot say anything while there is still a probability of the resumption of negotiations.
  Mr. Bevan: Is there any point at all in not extending diplomatic recognition now to that nation? Are we not handicapping ourselves more than we are handicapping the Egyptians? Have we not suffered grave inconvenience from the fact that we have no representation at Cairo at present?
  Commander Noble: I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear on 19th November that we think it advisable that financial agreement should be reached first.
  Mr. Bevan: Why?

  SUEZ OPERATIONS
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the damage caused to this country's reputation by the allegations, of which official notice has been taken, of collusion and misrepresentation in connection with Suez, made recently in the Press, he will propose to the French Government the joint publication of the minutes of the conversations between British and French Ministers in London on 10th October, 1956, and between the British and French Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries in Paris on 16th October.
  Commander Noble: No, Sir.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that the facts are admitted officially in France that there was an alliance with Israel, that French planes were based on Cyprus and from there took part in the operation, and that these plans were concerted between the French and British Governments on 10th and 16th October? Is the Minister really content that the Government should lie under these charges instead of taking steps to ascertain the truth?
  Commander Noble: Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly denied the allegation of collusion and conspiracy, and the position has not changed.
  Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that no one believes that, either on that side of the House or on this?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the spokesman of the Foreign Office at his Press Conference on 3rd December. referring to certain statements by Mr. Randolph Churchill on Suez, said that they appeared in many respects to be inaccurate; and if he will publish the statements to which he referred and the corrections he thinks necessary in the public interest.
  Commander Noble: With regard to the first part, have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "No, Sir."
  Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs aware that Mr. Randolph Churchill has definitely alleged that he has reason to know that Mr. Hope received instructions through the Foreign Office from 10 Downing Street? Is not that one of the reasons why the Prime Minister is silent? Is the Minister aware that I have here the whole of the series of articles written on Suez by Mr. Randolph Churchill? Is the Minister aware that millions of people have now become interested in this controversy? If I sent the Minister these cuttings, would he undertake to mark on them the passages which have been described as inaccurate?
  Commander Noble: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said earlier.
  Mr. Hale: In view of the fact that these articles make a specific allegation against the Government, that of planning an aggressive war, for which fifteen war criminals were hanged at Nuremburg, does the Minister feel that he is upholding the dignity and reputation of the British Government by showing that he is not even concerned to say that he and his colleagues were not guilty of capital offences?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Bevan: Why does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not answer the question? It is a very serious question. A charge has been made that the Government of which he is a member did plan an aggressive war against another nation, and that, of course, is a criminal act.
  754
  What answer has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to make?
  Commander Noble: As I have said, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend has said. What the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) are saying may well be one of the inaccuracies.
  Mr. Bevan: Is this what might be called the negative approach to truth? Must we go on asking a whole series of questions in order to get a statement from the Government that any single allegation may be inaccurate? Are we to assume that what is not declared to be inaccurate is accurate? Is that to be a substitute for the Select Committee we want? Is that the way to get at the truth?
  Commander Noble: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the position quite clear last week, as I have today, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus).

  ICELAND (FISHING LIMITS AND TERRITORIAL WATERS)
  Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent proposals he has made to the Icelandic Government regarding the dispute over fishing limits and territorial waters; and if he will make a further statement.
  Commander Noble: My right hon. and learned Friend has made no recent proposals but, as the Icelandic Government are aware, Her Majesty's Government have throughout been ready to negotiate concerning this dispute. He has also proposed that the issue should be referred to the International Court of Justice, but there has been no response to this suggestion.
  Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether an official proposal for a truce over the dispute over fishing limits has been made until the matter can be settled by convening an international conference? Has Iceland given any reason for not taking the dispute to the International Court of Justice?
  Commander Noble: The answer to the second part of the supplementary question is that Iceland has given no reason for

  755
  not taking the dispute to the International Court. As far as I am aware, Iceland has not referred to our proposal and there has been no suggestion of a truce.
  Mr. Younger: Has the matter not become much more urgent since apparently the United Nations has decided not to hold its renewed conference until 1960? Does not that mean that unless something is done about interim arrangements the fishing fleets will have to go through another summer as well as the winter before there is any amelioration?
  Commander Noble: The United Nations has decided to have a conference in 1960. We would have preferred an earlier conference. We made our position clear. I agree, therefore, that it is all the more urgent that some decision should be taken on this, and, as we have said, we are always ready for negotiations with the Icelandic Government on this subject.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: Does the fact that the conference will not be convened until 1960 mean that the proposal by the Danish Government for an extension to twelve miles of the limit from the Faroes is also in abeyance?
  Commander Noble: Discussions with the Danish Government are still proceeding.
  Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a statement about the incident involving the trawler "Hackness".
  Commander Noble: Her Majesty's Government replied on the 4th December, to protest from the Icelandic Government about the "Hackness". We have proposed that there should be further study through the diplomatic channel to establish the facts. According to the information available to Her Majesty's Government, the "Hackness" was not within three miles of the shore as claimed by Iceland and had not transgressed against Icelandic law as regards the stowage of her gear.
  Mr. Wall: In view of the Communistic propaganda, or rather the use which the Communist Party all over the world has made of this incident, will my right hon. and gallant Friend give as much publicity as possible to the fact that the vessel was not accused of actually fishing inside the Icelandic claimed limit, and was not even fishing at all?
  Commander Noble: I will certainly do what I can, and I am very glad that my hon. Friend has made that point.

  GERMANY

    Berlin
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the discussions which are taking place with regard to the future status of Berlin.
    Commander Noble: My right hon. and learned Friend discussed the question of Berlin with the Foreign Ministers of the United States, France and the Federal Republic of Germany yesterday in Paris. Hon. Members will have seen the communiqué which was issued following that meeting. The question is also to be discussed tomorrow with our Allies at the Ministerial Meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    Mr. Henderson: In view of the unusual legal position which has arisen as a result of the unilateral repudiation by the Soviet Government of their obligations under the Quadripartite Agreement, are the Government considering proposing that the legal aspects of this problem should be referred to the International Court?
    Commander Noble: All aspects of this problem will be considered, but I do not think that I should say anything further today in view of the meeting tomorrow.

    Missiles
    Mr. Bevanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been received by the Council of Western European Union from the Federal Government of Western Germany regarding the lifting of the ban on the German manufacture of missiles.
    Commander Noble: None, Sir.
    Mr. Bevan: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the other day—I think it was 5th December—a spokesman at Bonn made a statement to the effect that the Federal Government were going to ask for certain co-operation with France and Italy and the making of nuclear weapons would soon be put in hand and they would be asking

    757
    the British Government to agree? If that request is made, are we going to agree?
    Commander Noble: Referring to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the Council of Western European Union amended Article 4 of Protocol No. III of the revised Brussels Treaty on 9th May, 1958, in order to permit the Federal German Government to manufacture guided anti-tank missiles. The Council of W.E.U. has received no other representations from the German Government about the manufacture of missiles.
    Mr. Bevan: If such a request is made, what will the answer be?
    Commander Noble: That is a hypothetical question.
    Mr. Bevan: In view of the fact that the other day the Foreign Secretary made a very great point of the fact that the nuclear weapons in Germany were under American control and no other control whatsoever and that the Germans had entered into a guarantee not to make nuclear weapons, do we understand that if such a request is made it might be acceded to without this House being told anything about it?
    Commander Noble: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is mixing up nuclear weapons and missiles. It is laid down in the Treaty of Brussels that the Federal Republic may not manufacture nuclear weapons. If they wish to manufacture certain types of small missiles, they have to apply through the channels which I have just outlined.

  SPECIAL OPERATIONS EXECUTIVE
  Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make arrangements for information contained in the files of the Special Operations Executive to be made available to those interested in them.
  Mr. Profumo: Although for security reasons it is not possible to allow members of the public to have direct access to the archives of the Special Operations Executive. my right hon. and learned Friend considers that grounds exist for
  758
  adopting a less restrictive attitude than hitherto in regard to the release of information.
  Arrangements are accordingly being made in the Foreign Office to assign a former officer with war-time experience of the Executive to advise and assist inquirers and in general to deal with questions regarding the release of information on the Special Operations Executive.
  Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this latest suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has really gone beyond a joke, in view of the harm already done by these amateur spies cashing in on their war experiences by turning amateur authors? Will he ensure that what has not yet been disclosed of Services technique and practice remains secret from now on? Will he deny access to these files to all historians, professional or amateur, or other unauthorised persons?
  Mr. Profumo: The operations of S.O.E. have been subjected on several occasions to criticism, much of it damaging and irresponsible. The arrangements that I now envisage will, I hope, assist in disposing of these charges.
  Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend point out to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) that this new suggestion emanated from the Foreign Office. I thank my hon. Friend for trying to find some way of ensuring that wild statements and rumours are not spread all over the world without some distinction between what should properly be disclosed and what should not.
  Mr. Profumo: I am grateful to have been of help to my hon. Friend, but I should prefer not to get between her and my hon. and gallant Friend.

  FOREIGN OFFICE (OFFICIAL STATEMENTS)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many official spokesmen are employed by his Department to make statements on foreign policy.
  Mr. V. Yatesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Government servants employed in the Foreign

  759
  Office are authorised to make official statements to the Press.
  Commander Noble: Eight officials are employed in the News Department of the Foreign Office to deal with inquiries made by the Press.
  Mr. Hughes: Would not the Minister agree that it is very wrong to embroil civil servants in the maelstrom of controversial politics, as was done in this case? If the Foreign Secretary wished to attack Mr. Randolph Churchill, why did he not have the courage to do it himself? Is any of these eight spokesmen qualified to contradict the statement made in the Sunday Express yesterday by an hon. Member on his own side, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton), who said that the Foreign Secretary had told New York journalists that there were blunders at Suez? If there were blunders at Suez, could not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the Foreign Secretary to resign?
  Commander Noble: I do not know whether the hon. Member knows what happens at Press conferences. A Press conference is held in the Foreign Office every day at 12.30 p.m., when the Foreign Office spokesman, to whom the hon. Member has referred, is bombarded by questions from representatives of the Press, the B.B.C. and other media. The Press seems to like it, and, on balance, I think that it is a good thing.
  Mr. Yates: In view of the fact that one of the eight spokesmen has made statements in respect of matters the accuracy of which I understand hon. Members are unable to verify by way of Questions, does not this establish a very serious precedent? That would appear to be the case if Press spokesmen of Government Departments are entitled to make statements which hon. Members cannot question with any expectation of an answer.
  Commander Noble: Hon. Members have full opportunities of questioning.
  Mr. H. Morrison: As one who knows what happens at Foreign Office Press conferences, I am always amazed that the spokesmen do not get into more trouble than they do. I think that they are very clever at keeping clear of trouble. In the circumstances of this case, have Mr. Randolph Churchill and the Daily
  760
  Express made a contribution towards the Government expense of running the News Department of the Foreign Office, in view of the first-class publicity that the Foreign Office has given to the newspaper and its contributor?
  Commander Noble: I am most grateful to the right hon. Member for the first part of his statement.
  Mr. Bevan: In view of the paucity of the information and the fact that we get nothing at all from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, will he consider inviting hon. Members to these Press conferences?
  Commander Noble: No doubt they could attend, representing any newspaper they may work for.

  GENEVA CONFERENCES (NUCLEAR TESTS AND SURPRISE ATTACKS)
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress made at the Geneva Conferences on the discontinuance of nuclear tests and safeguards against surprise attacks, respectively.
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made at the Geneva Conference on the discontinuance of nuclear tests.
  Commander Noble: As regards the Conference on the Discontinuance of Nuclear Weapons Tests, some further progress has been made since my right hon. and learned Friend informed the House on this subject on 4th December, and the first three Articles of a draft treaty have been agreed.
  The Conference on Measures against Surprise Attack has not so far reached any agreement, although extensive discussions have taken place. It is expected that an agreed statement will be issued on the position in the near future.
  Mr. Henderson: Can the Minister throw any light on the reasons why the Conference on Measures against Surprise Attacks has resulted in a deadlock?
  Commander Noble: I do not wish to say anything on this matter in view of the statement which will be made in the near future.
  Mr. Bevan: The Minister has informed the House that agreement has been reached under three heads at the first of the conferences. In the event of agreement not being reached about the other matters, do I understand that the parties concerned would be prepared to sign this?
  Commander Noble: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. and learned Friend said in his intervention in the right hon. Gentleman's speech in the last debate.
  Mr. Bevan: A great deal of public interest has been taken in this matter, because then we were left in doubt about whether in fact the conference might be rendered abortive because of a failure of agreement on a wide measure of disarmament. If agreement cannot be reached there, will the other document be signed?
  Commander Noble: As my right hon. and learned Friend said, this is a negotiation and we are not prepared to make our position clear at this moment. I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a most important matter and that there is great public interest in it.
  Mr. Swingler: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that progress made at the nuclear test conference is very much to be welcomed? May I ask whether it is now the position that all the Governments concerned in the negotiations have expressed willingness to make an agreement for the complete cessation of tests provided a satisfactory control apparatus is established? Is that now the position?
  Commander Noble: As I said just now, the position is that three articles of the treaty have been agreed—one on the discontinuance of tests, one on control and one on machinery. But the hon. Member will realise that there is a very great deal of detail to be filled in before there is a complete agreement.

  WORLD SECURITY AUTHORITY
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the necessary conditions of international confidence which would enable him to propose at the United
  762
  Nations a commission to study the transfer of armaments to a World Security Authority.
  Commander Noble: Before we could consider advancing any such proposal, there would need to be a relaxation of international tension and substantial progress in measures of disarmament.
  Mr. Mallalieu: Would not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that there is unlikely to be any security felt at any international conference until there is a Security Authority? Would not he take some steps to set about the creation of such an authority?
  Commander Noble: I do not think that any country would be able to support an organisation like that unless it felt greater confidence and greater security from some steps in disarmament.

  CENTRAL EUROPE (PLANS)
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish a White Paper on the various proposals for disengagement in Central Europe which have been received by him from European Governments since Sir Anthony Eden's plan in 1955.
  Commander Noble: I think the honourable Member will find that most of these proposals have already been published in White Papers or elsewhere. If he has any difficulty in finding the texts of any of the proposals which he has in mind, I should be glad to advise him where they may be found.
  Mr. Swingler: As this is now a very important matter for study and about the most hopeful prospect for international agreement, would not it be convenient for hon. Members to have a White Paper to study the series of plans which have appeared since the plan put forward by Sir Anthony Eden for a zone of disengagement in 1955? if we had such a White Paper, might it not be possible to find out the attitude of Her Majesty's Government at the moment to the prospect of disengagement? May I have an answer?
  Commander Noble: I have nothing to add to my first answer.

  ISRAEL-SYRIAN BORDER (INCIDENTS)
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the situation on the Israel-Syrian borders; and to what extent United Nations observers are stationed along this border.
  Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position on the Israel-Syrian borders; and what steps are being taken by the United Nations to prevent future attacks by Syria on persons and property in Israel.
  Commander Noble: In a letter to the President of the Security Council on 4th December, the Government of Israel asked for an urgent meeting of the Council to consider an alleged act of aggression in which a number of Israel villages were bombarded on 3rd December by Syrian artillery. The Security Council began its consideration of this complaint on 8th December and will be continuing it later today. I would therefore prefer not to comment at this stage.
  Since August, 1957, a limited number of permanent United Nations observer posts have been established on both sides of the sector of the frontier in question. There is one such post on either side of the frontier in the area where the shelling on 3rd December took place, and one United Nations observer is reported to have been slightly wounded.
  Mr. Janner: In view of the serious implications of these aggressive acts on the part of the Syrians in regard to peace in the Middle East, will the Minister do everything possible to see that they are stopped?
  Commander Noble: As the Security Council is probably meeting today, I do not think I should make any further statement.

  CUBA (SHIPMENT OF ARMS)
  Mr. Delargyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what authorisation he has given for the supply of rockets to the Government of Cuba.
  Commander Noble: As my right hon. and learned Friend explained to the hon. Member on 19th November, the sale of
  764
  seventeen Sea Fury aircraft to the Cuban Government was authorised some months ago. These aircraft are equipped to carry rockets and a normal complement for each aircraft was authorised in the usual way.
  Mr. Delargy: Having already prized from the Foreign Secretary the terrible information that British tanks and planes are being used by the Cuban dictator to kill citizens of Cuba, may I now ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he is aware that at this moment there is a ship, the "Sarmiento," lying in a British port loaded with more than 100 tons of rockets to be dispatched at any moment to the Cuban dictator? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman assure the House that this cargo will not leave these shores until, at the very least, the British Parliament has been given the fullest information about it, because so far this dirty deal has been done behind the backs of the British people and of Parliament.
  Mr. Hale: And a very dirty deal indeed.
  Commander Noble: I strongly resent the imputation in the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. Hale: You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
  Commander Noble: At the time the sales were approved there was no evidence that the insurgent elements in Cuba had more than a limited measure of support in some parts of the Eastern Provinces of Cuba. I will certainly look into what the hon. Gentleman said about a ship lying in a British port. My information is that all these missiles have been delivered.
  Mr. Bevan: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give an assurance that this ship will not be allowed to sail? We understood from the last reply given by the Foreign Secretary on this matter that his information would lead him to suppose—or rather he anticipated—that we ought not to send any further military help.
  Commander Noble: As I have said, I will look into the matter, but I will give no such assurance.
  Mr. Delargy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am in some difficulty at this late period of the Session. This answer I consider quite unsatisfactory. You may

  765
  recollect that in order to draw the attention of the House to this sad and sordid traffic in arms I endeavoured to speak on the subject during the series of Christmas Adjournment debates. You decided that certain questions, like Scottish horticulture, were much more grave and urgent than the shooting of Cuban citizens with British guns. Does not this throw a peculiar light on your commonsense and responsibility?
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Naturally, the hon. Member is disappointed that his subject was not chosen for debate, but I cannot help that. I make the best selection I can of the most important subjects, and the hon. Member has no right whatever to cast imputations on the Chair.
  Mr. Delargy: Further to that point of order. If any impartial persons considered the subjects you have chosen, my grave allegation would be justified.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue that matter he must put down a Motion in the proper way.
  Mr. Delargy: May I ask a question about the Motion? I am all in favour of putting down such a Motion. But since this Motion cannot now be discussed before the end of January, by which time, no doubt, hundreds more Cubans will have been killed, is not your advice frivolous?
  Mr. Speaker: I meant that if the hon. Member disagrees with the way in which I perform my difficult task of selecting subjects for the Adjournment debates and wishes to criticise the Chair he must do so by putting down a Motion—
  Mr. Delargy: It cannot be debated in time.
  Mr. Speaker: —and not do so now.
  Mr. Hale: On a point of order. Would it be in order to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of Her Majesty's Government to give an assurance that no further weapons will be exported from this country to support the establishment of a dictatorship in Cuba?
  Mr. Speaker: That would not be within the Standing Order.
  Mr. Hale: This is the first occasion in the history of this House when Mr. Speaker has given a Ruling of that kind without giving some reason for it.
  Hon. Members: Order.
  Mr. Hale: I am in order and I raised a point of order to call attention to the fact, which I assert to be true, that never before in the history of this House has an application to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No 9—
  Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the hon. Member that this is not the time to make proposals for raising matters under Standing Order No. 9. He should wait until the end of Questions.
  Mr. Hale: It was my intention when I rose to move a Motion at 3.30 and to ask whether it would be in order to do so at 3.30.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot do it now.

  UNITED STATES AND IRAN (AGREEMENT)
  Mr. Bevanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent joint consultations have taken place between the Governments of the United States of America and Iran, on the one hand, and Her Majesty's Government, on the other, with regard to the proposed military agreement between the United States of America and bran and its effect on the arrangements of the Bagdad Pact.
  Commander Noble: At the meeting of the Ministerial Council of the Bagdad Pact in London last July, the United States Government agreed to co-operate with the member countries taking part for their security and defence and, announced that they would enter into agreements designed to give effect to this co-operation. Negotiations on such an, agreement are in progress between the Iranian and the United States Governments. The conclusion of this agreement will strengthen the Bagdad Pact, and Her Majesty's Government welcome it. The terms of the agreement are, however, at matter entirely for negotiation betweent the Iranian and United States Governments.
  Mr. Bevan: Are the terms of the agreement conveyed to Her Majesty's Government as they are being negotiated?
  Commander Noble: We have been generally informed of the negotiations, but there has been no actual consultation.
  Mr. Bevan: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think that the establishment of a missile base in Iran will be regarded as anything else than an act of provocation? Would it not be much better for peace in this area if some of the £80 million received in oil royalties were spent on the people of Iran, and not push the northern tier right up to the frontiers of Russia like this? What advantage can be got from this ridiculous provocative behaviour?
  Commander Noble: This is a defensive organisation, as are the other organisations to which we and our allies the United States belong.

  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

    Document
    Mr. D. Howellasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) which Government Department published the official two-page document, entitled "Transport at Elections, Origin of Section 88"; and why its distribution by an employee of the Conservative Central Office was authorised;
    (2) whether he is satisfied that the document published by his Department, entitled "Transport at Elections, Origin of Section 88", was drafted in accordance with the usual practice designed to maintain the impartiality of Government Departments.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. Charles Hill): The document was a background note prepared by me for Parliamentary journalists and made available to them in answer to questions some of them had asked. It was factual, objective and accurate.
    Mr. Howell: Is it not rather reprehensible that a document prepared by the Minister, and now admitted to be prepared by him, should bear no sign of its ownership or authorship? Is not the language in which it is couched partisan language
    768
    which we normally accept in political warfare but not the sort of language to be used in everyday Government publications?
    Is it not remarkable that two documents were issued about this matter on the same day? One is from the Home Office on 29th October, which is a perfectly proper document setting out the aims of the Bill, whatever we may feel about it, and the other document, issued by the right hon. Gentleman at the same time, is full of political innuendo and couched in language not normally used in this House but common to party political warfare. The second document was distributed not through Government agencies but by an employee of the Conservative Central Office, who is also a member of the Press Gallery. Does not this show that the right hon. Gentleman's position is synonymous with the Conservative Central Office, and is not that an abuse of Government?
    Dr. Hill:I will take the questions in turn. This document was in answer to questions asked by Parliamentary journalists as to what was the electoral background to the statement made in this House that the party opposite, when in Government, had broken the terms of the Conference on Electoral Reform. This was a factual document answering those questions and to be made available to those Parliamentary journalists who wanted it. If the facts tell an unacceptable story, I cannot help it.
    On the second point, as to its distribution, this was prepared, as I have said, to be available to those who wanted it. As I could not be in the Lobby that day, I asked the Parliamentary liaison officer in question to make it available to any interested. Thirdly, on the question of its partisan character, it is true that I refer to the former Government as a Socialist Government, but that was in the highest interest of accuracy.
    Mr. Gordon-Walker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is common practice for his Department to produce a document for circulation to the Press which bears no indication of either the place or source of origin, and if it is common practice for such documents to be distributed by officials of the Conservative Central Office?
    Dr. Hill:This document was prepared by me to be handed to those who were interested, I have answered the second part of the supplementary question.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are official avenues whereby Government communications can be handed to the Press in this House or elsewhere which have been used by past Governments? I know the machinery well. Will he please understand that it is really most objectionable that a Minister should use a party organisation for an official purpose in distributing Government information? We had it in the case of the Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government. in connection with the pamphlet about housing, and we have had it since. Will he please understand that it is a denigration of the standards of public administration that official machinery of Government should be used by a party organisation for the purpose of distributing information? It has plenty of opportunities of its own.
    Dr. Hill:I reject the right hon. Gentleman's allegation. This was an objective document which the party opposite does not like. It is odd that such an allegation should come from a party which, when in Government, employed as its spokesman, on public funds, a Socialist propagandist. the former editor of the Daily Herald.
    Mr. H. Morrison: If the right hon. Gentleman now repudiates the doctrine which I put to him, it means that he confirms that this Government reserve completely the right to mix their official machine up with the political party organisation? I very much hope that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench will find an opportunity, either now or after the Recess, to raise this matter as an issue of great public importance.
    Dr. Hill:I do not reject the doctrine; I sustain the doctrine.
    Mr. Howell: In view of the fact that the Minister has not even had the decency to apologise or to give any undertaking as to the future, and even now is not willing to stop publishing anonymous documents of this character, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell), in a reference to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, has said that my right hon. Friend has not even had the decency to apologise. Is that a right and proper remark, Sir?
    Mr. Speaker: I think it was an expression of heat, but I cannot say that it was out of order.

CUBA (SHIPMENT OF ARMS)
Mr. Delargy: I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the refusal of the Government to prohibit a shipment of rockets from Great Britain to Cuba.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of the Government to prohibit a shipment of rockets from Great Britain to Cuba.
I cannot find that within the Standing Order. The hon. Member for Thurrock, in the course of a supplementary question, mentioned something about a ship that was loaded with rockets and about to leave these shores. On the other hand, the Minister who was answering for the Foreign Office said that he understood that all the shipments for Cuba had already gone. That was controverted. Further pressed, he said he would look into it. It is one of the rules about the application of Standing Order No. 9 that the House must proceed upon a definite matter, not one in which the facts are in dispute or not ascertained. Therefore, I cannot find this within the Standing Order.
Mr. Bevan: There was a statement of a very definite kind by the Minister of State in answer to a supplementary question by me. I asked shim whether he would give an undertaking that if the ship, loaded with rockets for Cuba, was about to leave it would be stopped, and the Minister refused to give an undertaking. That is a definite fact. If there is such a ship and it is about to sail, we

771
have not received from the Government any undertaking that the ship will be stopped.
Mr. Speaker: I rather think that the position is really this: The Minister did say that so far as he knew all the arms had been supplied. Then the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) asked him whether the facts were otherwise, whether the ship was going to sail, and, if so, would he stop it. We do not know about the ship yet; and in so far as that was concerned it was hypothetical, on the basis that the ship might be in existence and might be going to sail. I do not think that it is a definite matter Within the meaning of the Standing Order.
Mr. Bevan: What is not hypothetical, Sir, is the position of the Government, who will not give an undertaking to stop the shipment of arms to Cuba. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) is now raising and is what I raised earlier. Is it not surprising, in view of the fact that other nations have stopped sending arms to Cuba—[An HON.MEMBER: "Including America."]—including the United States, that we are in this position? If we can have an undertaking from the Government at this moment to take steps to see that no further arms are shipped from this country, the whole matter will end. In my respectful submission, it will be an abuse of the privileges of the House if, after the discussion today, we discover tomorrow morning that this evening the ship sailed and we could not then bring it back?
Mr. Speaker: If that were so I have no doubt that the House would know how to deal with an abuse of its privileges. The original Question put upon the Order Paper by the hon. Member for Thurrock was
"To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what authorisation he has given for the supply of rockets to the Government of Cuba."
That was answered in terms—I do not remember the words—to the effect that authorisation was given some time ago, in the usual way. Then, when pressed about future developments, the Minister said that the supplies had all gone and there were no more. That is what I understood. He was challenged on that,
772
and he said he would look into it. The facts are not before the House, and I really could not find that Motion as coming within the Standing Order.
Mr. Bevan: On a point of order. You have not answered my question, Sir, that what is before the House is the definite refusal of the Government to take steps to prevent any further shipment of arms to Cuba. That is not hypothetical or vague and it might be extremely urgent. We are in possession of sufficient information from the Government, I respectfully submit, to enable the Adjournment of the House to be moved under Standing Order No. 9.
Mr. Speaker: I think not. It has frequently been ruled in the past that the fact that a Minister refuses to give a certain assurance or answer is not a matter that can be raised under the Standing Order. There is a long line of precedents. When the Minister disputes that more arms are going I do not see that the House is possessed of the facts. The refusal of the Minister to give an assurance when the request was put to him like that in a supplementary question is not a matter for the Standing Order.
Mr. Hale: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance. namely,
the failure of Her Majesty's Government to secure that no further tanks, aircraft and other offensive weapons shall be exported to assist the establishment and maintenance of a dictatorship in Cuba.
I think that I am entitled briefly to submit my reasons, Sir. The Minister of State made it clear that he was not prepared to give the House an undertaking that he would conform to our obligations under the United Nations and that he would not take part in any operations which are virtually assisting the establishment of a dictatorship in the island of Cuba and which would easily embroil us in a situation of such gravity that no one would be able to predict with any certainty how far they might lead us. The Minister is doing that when the House is contemplating adjourning for a Recess to celebrate peace and good will on earth.
This Motion is precisely within the terms of many Rulings under Standing

773
Order No. 9. It is beyond any question a definite matter and an urgent matter and I suggest that it is impossible for you to rule that such a proposal is not of very great public importance indeed. The Motion was originally written out in these terms, and I have it here, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of Her Majesty's Government to secure that no further tanks, aircraft and other offensive weapons shall be exported to assist the establishment and maintenance of a dictatorship in Cuba.
For the reason I have given, I cannot find that in line with the Standing Order. Here the facts are as follows. The original Question of the hon. Member for Thurrock on the Order Paper did not ask for any such assurance. The hon. Member said that more arms were going. The impression of the Minister of State was to the contrary, but he said he would inquire. Therefore, the House is not proceeding upon an agreed basis of facts that other arms are going. If the Government had had the facts in their minds and were sure of them and had said aye or nay, that might be a different matter, but I do not think that the fact the Government do not give an assurance straight away on matters which are in doubt, without looking into it, can be made a ground for moving the Adjournment under the Standing Order.
Hon. Members have to be reasonable about this. The House must proceed on a basis of fact which is agreed. We do not know whether more arms are going. We do not know anything definite on this subject at all.
Mr. Delargy: This matter is as urgent as this, Sir. As recently as last Friday 180 Cuban rebels—so-called—were either killed or wounded chiefly by arms supplied by this country. The others have now taken refuge in the mountains and the dictator is badly in need of these rockets to destroy them as soon as he can. An all-out offensive is to be launched next week, chiefly with the aid of British arms. This is something which, so far, has been unknown to British
774
people or to the British Parliament. I am convinced that if the British people knew about it they would strongly disapprove. That is why I said that this deal is being done behind their backs. It is very serious, exceedingly urgent, and is certainly of public importance.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has made an interesting statement about the war in Cuba, but we are not in possession of the facts; the matter is not agreed. I think that before we can apply the Standing Order of the House must proceed on a basis of agreed facts, something definite.
Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order. I submit to you. Sir, that to base your judgment on anything in the original Question is irrelevant to the question that we are discussing. We are discussing the Answer given by the Minister of State, who said that he did not know, that it was not clear, that the dictatorship was being established and there was something of a state of civil war.
Now the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that, I respectfully suggest to you that that gives us the right to demand at once, as a definite matter and as one of grave urgency, an undertaking from Her Majesty's Government that they will at once give instructions to cease this wicked deed, and that, unless they are prepared to do that, we are entitled to demand the adjournment of the House in order to press the Government for such an undertaking.
You will recall that this sort of thing has a long history, dating back to the "Alabama" and that that case brought us near to war with the United States. It is difficult to suggest that this is not a matter of urgent importance about which we should take steps at once.
Mr. Speaker: So far as I can recollect, the answer of the Minister of State was that he did not know these facts, that more arms were going.
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Commander Allan Noble): In one of my supplementary answers I said my information was that these missiles—these rockets—had been sent. I have now checked and my information is that the last of a consignment of rockets for which export licences were approved left on 3rd November. I have no knowledge of any

775
others and I should welcome details in order to check whether the new consignment to which the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) referred has an export licence. I will give the assurance that no further missiles of this type will be sent without informing the House.
Mr. Bevan: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider that last sentence again? We want an assurance from him—and then this unhappy incident can close at once—that no weapon of any sort will be sent from Great Britain to Cuba.
Commander Noble: I will give an assurance that no further weapons of any sort will be sent without informing the House of Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): The Government have been considering the Report from the Select Committee on the Obscene Publications Bill, presented by my noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) and the Bill which the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) subsequently obtained leave to bring in.
As there is reason to believe that the business announced for tomorrow will not occupy the whole of the sitting, we propose to afford an opportunity to debate a Government Motion to take note of the Select Committee's Report, which will enable the House to express its views on the issues involved.
This should be a valuable use of our time since there might well be little opportunity for the Bill now before the House to be fully debated on Second Reading on any of the Fridays set apart for Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that although some hon. Members might be inclined to attribute this change to the fact that Sir Alan Herbert has stated that he is to take part in the Harrow, East by-election, there will be others who will attribute it to the interest of the Home Secretary in the matter? Is he aware that we welcome the opportunity for a debate
776
so that those hon. Members who did not oppose my application for leave to bring in the Bill under the Ten Minutes rule, but opposed it anonymously on Second Reading, may give their reasons for opposing? If the opinion of the House tomorrow is in favour of legislation, will the Government proceed with early action on this matter?
Mr. Butler: What the Government have reflected, in coming to this decision, is that there is an opportunity for debate. Otherwise, I do not see one for a long time ahead. The House has received a Report from its own Select Committee on the subject and I do not see an early opportunity for the hon. Member's Bill at present. Therefore, I think the House should have an opportunity of expressing its views on the subject.
In relation to the extraneous question the hon. Member raised, I think that the relevance of that depends on the attention of the House to the attitude of the Government towards the Bill, which is a very complicated Measure. I shall certainly attempt, when I speak, to put forward a constructive attitude, but what effect that may have on outside feeling I do not know yet. This is a difficult question and has two sides to it. I will, however, take the opportunity of expressing the view of the Government on the Report of the Select Committee and hone that we shall have an opportunity of making progress in this difficult matter.
Mr. Crossman: May I ask when it is proposed to take the Motion for the Adjournment for the Christmas Recess?
Mr. Butler: We propose to do that on Wednesday.
Mr. Crossman: Is it not a fact that there was an understanding through the usual channels to take that Motion on Tuseday? Are there not very interesting reasons why the Government are afraid of taking it tomorrow, hut are postponing it until Wednesday?
Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The facts are that, through the usual channels, I understood that our first notification was that we might take it on Tuesday, but now we propose to take this business—to which I attach great importance and in which I think the House is interested. It has always been reasonable, and has

777
established precedent behind it, to take the Motion for the dates of the Christmas Recess on the day before the actual end of this part of the Session. Therefore, we shall be following the normal practice. We have informed the Opposition and we are not aware that there is any objection on the part of the Opposition to taking the action we suggest.
Mr. Wigg: Is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, that I gave notice to ask for permission to raise the question of Suez and the Keightley dispatches in the Adjournment debate, but withdrew that notice and gave notice that I should raise the matter on Tuesday? Despite the Prime Minister's brave words last week about the grand inquest of the nation, is it not a fact that between then and today the Leader of the House has got cold feet and has deliberately and clearly manipulated the business of the House to prevent what he thinks an adequate discussion of Suez and the Keightley dispatches?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer that question.
Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Leader of the House aware that he is quite in error in supposing that the Opposition raises no objection to the proposed change in business? On the contrary, my hon. Friends have made it clear, through the usual channels, that we did not like this change, not only for the reasons that my hon. Friends have given today, but because we were anxious to have the fullest possible time for the debate on unemployment?
Mr. Butler: I am always very glad to work with the right hon. Gentleman through the usual channels. I hesitate to deny anything he says, because it upsets the integrity of the usual channels; but I can only say that, on the information given to me, I understood that there was no objection. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If there was, I can only say that that was not the information given to me. If there was an objection, then we must note it and accept it, to restore the integrity of the usual channels. In so far as I was given the information, I can only say what I was told.
Mr. Crossman: May we ask the Leader of the House whether, if there has been a misunderstanding, he will put the Adjournment Motion back where it was
778
on Tuesday so that the debate may take place?
Mr. Butler: I must say that the one thing I was not aware of was that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) had any understanding at all or contact with you, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of a debate on Suez and the Keightley despatches. I was not aware of that. If the hon. Member has been crowded out of an opportunity, I am very sorry, but I will say, also, that I do not think that the Motion for the Christmas Adjournment is particularly appropriate for a discussion of the sort that he envisages on Suez and the Keightley despatches.
Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the misunderstanding which has evidently occurred on this, and the fact that there has been no agreement between the two sides of the House, will the Leader of the House undertake to discuss the matter through the usual channels and see whether we can go back to the original arrangement?
Mr. Butler: I do not think that we can go back on this now—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because we have made an announcement about the business we propose to take and which. I think, appeals to the House as a whole, namely, to discuss the Report of its own Select Committee. There can be no refusal of a suggestion that the matter be discussed through the usual channels—we can certainly continue to discuss— but I do not anticipate that the Government will change their mind.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Leader of the House tell us whether his anxiety to discuss the matter of obscene publications arises from his desire to give us an opportunity to discuss the articles of Mr. Randolph Churchill?
Mr. Butler: I had expected that the hon. Gentleman would put that supplementary question. It comes very readily to mind, but it lies very much more easily in his mouth than in mine.
Mr. Wigg: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that not only did I communicate with you, Mr. Speaker, but I went to see the Leader of the House and wrote to him as well? What more does the right hon. Gentleman want? Is it not plain that the Government have gone out of their way to alter business tomorrow to

779
avoid what they imagine to be a rather difficult subject? May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that he has not succeeded? I hope, therefore, that we shall have an opportunity, for at least a brief period, of discussing the matter on Wednesday.
Mr. Butler: That is precisely what I should not wish to stop the hon. Gentleman doing. The procedure of the House, in so far as debate is on the Motion for the Adjournment, is in the hands of Mr. Speaker and hon. Members themselves. If hon. Members are in order in discussing a matter like this, when the Motion is moved, it is far from the wish of the Government to stop them. There is no intention of trying to stop them.
Mr. Gaitskell: What concerns us is the most convenient way of organising our business. Is it not possible that, on examination, we shall find that, even including discussion on the Report of the Select Committee on Obscene Publications, it may be more convenient to take the Motion for the Christmas Adjournment on Tuesday rather than on Wednesday, when we shall, in any event, have an extremely important debate?
Mr. Butler: As I say, there is no question of avoiding any request made by the Leader of the Opposition for a discussion, through the usual channels—no question at all—because we could not possibly operate our business if there were a stoppage of that sort, and I should not wish to see it. It is something which may be discussed, but all I can say is that I do not hold out great hope of the Government altering their mind.
Mr. V. Yates: Does not the Leader of the House consider that it is rather disgraceful that the Government should suddenly come to the view that the House will not take a great deal of time on a subject when there are many of us on this side who are anxious to raise matters in debates and cannot be called because there are too many of us wishing to do so? I refer to issues like unemployment, which affects almost every constituency. Is it not totally unsatisfactory? Should there not be a better arrangement of the business of the House?
Mr. Butler: I do not think that there is anything remarkable about this. The business for Tuesday is the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Bill, dealing with economic controls, and four consolidation Measures. That looks quite a lot, but, on examination, it appears that there is a good chance of debating this other important subject before the Recess.
As regards precedents for moving the Adjournment Motion, nearly all the precedents for many years back, as far as I can see, are that the Government should move the Motion on the day before the Adjournment for the Christmas Recess. Therefore, I do not think that we are doing anything out of the ordinary.
Mr. Short: Mr. Speaker, do you recall that one of my hon. Friends from the North-East and I applied to you for time for an Adjournment debate on Thursday on unemployment in the North-East? We have not been given that time, presumably because there is to be a debate on unemployment on Wednesday. Is it not obvious that every single minute of the debate on Wednesday will be vitally important for the whole country, and, therefore, is it not monstrous that this important debate should be eaten into by this other quite unimportant matter?
Sir G. Nicholson: Will you enlighten the House, Mr. Speaker? Surely the Motion for the Adjournment for a Recess cannot be debated in very wide terms. Is it the sort of debate where one can raise anything? Is it not fairly restricted?
Mr. Speaker: The usual Motion is in the form "That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn until" whatever the date be. That is a debatable Motion, and hon. Members are entitled to advance any argument which is relevant to the plea that the House should not adjourn tomorrow, or that it should come back earlier because of the importance of matters which should be discussed. In the past, we have had such debates, and I must say that I have always found them hard to keep strictly relevant, because hon. Members, in urging the importance of a subject as a reason for not adjourning, have tended to elaborate the subject a great deal and, really, make a speech on the subject itself rather than on the Motion. But I must do my best

781
It is certainly a debatable Motion, and any hon. Member is entitled to rise in his place and advance reasons why we should not adjourn for the length of time specified in the Motion.
Mr. Swingler: I understood the Leader of the House to say that he did not know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) wished to raise the subject of Suez on the Motion for the Christmas adjournment. I understood my hon. Friend to assert that he had notified the Leader of the House of his desire to do that. May we have an explanation of that? As the matter has now been revealed on the Floor of the House, it is surely a relevant consideration to he taken into account by the usual channels. Should not the whole matter be reopened, now that the Leader of the House is aware of the demand from a considerable number of hon. Members to discuss the subject during the debate on the Motion for the Christmas Adjournment?
Mr. Wigg: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I say that there is a slight inaccuracy in what I said? I mentioned three occasions, but there were, in fact, four. When the Prime Minister made his statement last week. I then gave notice that I would try to raise the matter on the Adjournment. I saw you, Mr. Speaker, I saw the Leader of the House, arid I wrote to the Leader of the House as well.
Mr. Butler: I will check immediately I have spoken, but, as far as I am aware. I have not had a letter from the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), though I may get it afterwards.
Mr. Wigg: I saw the right hon. Gentleman as well.
Mr. Butler: The hon. Member for Dudley saw me at about a quarter past three this afternoon, before I came into the Chamber. I told him and the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) of the exact announcement I was going to make about the Obscene Publications Bill.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), I think that the record is quite clear. The point about which I was not aware was that there had been any attempt made by the hon. Member for Dudley to secure a period in the time you
782
allocate, Mr. Speaker, for the business on the Adjournment, that is to say, the Adjournment debates.
I think that the hon. Member for Dudley feels somewhat aggrieved because he feels that he has not been able to get time on the Adjournment, that is, in Mr. Speaker's time, and he has not got any very good opportunity of raising it himself. Of that difficulty, I was not aware.
Mr. Grimond: May I now ask where we stand? The business tomorrow is altered, as the result, apparently, of a misunderstanding. There was no agreement to alter our business. I may be wrong, but that is what we have been told. Further, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is under the impression that he has given up a debate on Thursday for the sake of a debate tomorrow. We are now told by the Leader of the House that he may reconsider the debate tomorrow. First, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will restore the Adjournment debate tomorrow, and, secondly, if he does not do so, may we know what the business tomorrow is to be?
Mr. Butler: I had no previous opportunity of announcing tomorrow's business, and, as I told the Leader of the Opposition, I do not see any great chance of the Government's changing their mind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Further-more, this decision to give an opportunity for a debate on the Obscene Publications Bill arose after consideration of the business on Friday last, when it appeared that the Bill of the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) was being objected to. As there was no further opportunity for this discussion, I thought it reasonable— and the Government are of the same opinion—that we should have a debate on the subject in the spare time on Tuesday, and so provide an opportunity to ventilate the important matter that the House could not discuss on Friday.
Mr. Gaitskell: I am not objecting to the discussion of the Report of the Select Committee on the Obscene Publications Bill, but I ask the Leader of the House whether he will not reconsider his attitude on this, whether, bearing in mind the business decided on for both Tuesday and Wednesday, including the Obscene Publications Bill, it would not be wiser to take the Motion for the Christmas Adjournment on Tuesday? I believe that that

783
would be for the convenience of hon. Members on both sides of the House and would enable us to discharge our business, while also providing an opportunity for many hon. Members to raise what, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, they are allowed to raise on the Motion for the Christmas Adjournment.
Mr. Butler: I cannot go further with the right hon. Gentleman than to accept his request that there should be a discussion on the subject.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why, if this problem arose out of objection to the Obscene Publications Bill, he turned his mind to it on Friday, when, as far as I know, it was objected to by only one hon. Member, and not on the Friday two weeks ago when, I think, it was objected to by three hon. Members?
Mr. Butler: For the very good reason that we had a very crowded programme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is, in fact, the first possible gap that there has been for the discussion. It is quite clear that it is the first time, and the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) knows perfectly well that there has not been another opportunity which we could have afforded, in Government time, for the discussion of the Obscene Publications Bill. I prefer the hon. Member's previous interjection, when he seemed to show some appreciation of the fact that we are finding the first possible opportunity to discuss this matter.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Since the Leader of the House has arranged this debate for tomorrow afternoon because of what happened on Friday—and I was here on Friday, and the right hon. Gentleman was not—is he not aware that there were two Bills preceding that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins)? One was the Workmen's Compensation and Benefit (Supplementation) Bill which dealt with the sufferings of many people now on workmen's compensation. We discussed that for an hour and a half, which Mr. Speaker thought, rightly, in my view, was adequate. There was also the National Insurance (Extension of Unemployment Benefit) Bill, which would have restored Section 62 of the 1946 Act, and would have made possible the payment of unemployment
784
benefit to the long-term unemployed without a means test. If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is anxious that tomorrow should be used to make up for time lost on matters not adequately considered on Friday, could he not consider those other two Bills?
Mr. Butler: What we are to do is to debate a Motion to take note of the Select Committee's Report. That is a matter that is long overdue, the Select Committee having reported on the Bill earlier in the year.
Mr. Griffiths: Are the Government now announcing that they regard that matter as being more important than the two other matters that I have just mentioned, and which affect so many people?
Mr. J. T. Price: Is it not an ironic fact, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the House should now upturn the business of the House to discuss obscene publications, which will have the effect of reducing the time that should be devoted to the greatest obscenity of modern times—the obscenity of unemployment?
Mrs. Braddock: Having listened to this cross-talk for about 20 minutes, Mr. Speaker, may I express my opinion to the Home Secretary? I am certain that the 4·5 per cent. of unemployed on Merseyside will believe that this is the most flagrant piece of sharp practice that has been committed by this Government in an attempt to prevent a discussion on unemployment on Wednesday.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There has been a business statement, and questions must be relevant to that. If his question is relevant. I will call the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman).
Mr. Crossman: Can the Leader of the House tell us where we now are about business; and whether he intends to go back to the sensible arrangement of taking the Motion for the Adjournment for the Christmas Recess on a day when there is a less important debate, and not crowd it into a day when there is a major debate?
Mr. Butler: The normal precedent for this is that the Government put down a Motion for the day before we adjourn. The decision of the Government will be indicated when we put down the Motion,

785
and the exchange for which the Leader of the Opposition has asked will take place before the Government put down the Motion.
Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the right hon. Gentleman's recollection correct? Did we have the Motion for the Adjournment for the Summer Recess on the day before we adjourned? My recollection is that it was on the day before that. But there are many precedents for the right hon. Gentleman to come to the House this evening at seven o'clock and tell us the business for tomorrow. That was done during the Suez crisis, and could be done again now.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is the same question. I did not know anything about this exchange until I came to the House. Indeed, I did not know that the Motion was originally to be put down on Tuesday until the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) informed me. But there is nothing more to be done. I have heard the Leader of the House say that there is to be further discussion about this through the usual channels. I suggest that the House should now go on with its normal business, since there is so much to deal with.
Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely it is possible for the Leader of the House to come to the House later today and tell us what the business for tomorrow is to be. May we have your Ruling as to whether it would be permissible for him to tell us the business for tomorrow at seven o'clock this evening?
Mr. Speaker: I would have to think of some means as to how that could be brought into order. At times of great importance, I have known business to be interrupted by a statement, but I am against it, as a rule. It might be done at the end of the day, quite conveniently.
Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order. Perhaps I could help the Chair in this matter, Sir. As there seems to be some doubt in your mind, Mr. Speaker, would it be of help to you if I went out now, did some research and returned with 10 precedents?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it would. I remember some of them my
786
self. I would have to see, first, what was the actual situation with which I was confronted. I will have to go by that if someone asks leave to make a statement on business.
Mr. Butler: I have just received the letter from the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), and I have been informed that I have his permission to read it. He says that on Tuesday, the 16th, he hopes that
"…we shall have an opportunity to raise the subject of Suez and General Keightley's despatches. If, however, this opportunity does not occur, we shall endeavour to raise the subject on Wednesday, the 17th.
We are giving you this notice personally as, on the 20th of December, 1956, complaint was made that notice was not given.
We hope, of course, that you will make arrangements for a reply to be made."
That is signed by the hon. Member for Dudley, and the hon Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman).
That would be exactly the position; if there were not an opportunity tomorrow, there would be an opportunity on Wednesday.
Mr. Cooper: Is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, that at this time we should be discussing the question of house purchase by people of limited means? That being so, is it not deplorable that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should seek to limit the time available for discussion of that important topic?
Mr. Wigg: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper). Is it not deplorable that Her Majesty's Government should go out of their way to prevent a debate on General Keightley's despatches on the Suez operations?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

BILL PRESENTED
  ELECTRICITY (BORROWING POWERS)
  Bill to increase the statutory limits imposed on the amounts outstanding in respect of borrowings by the Electricity Council and Electricity Boards, presented by Mr. Maudling; supported by Mr. Erroll, Mr. Niall Macpherson, and Sir Ian Horobin; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday and to be printed. [Bill 50.]
  ORDERS OF THE DAY

    HOUSE PURCHASE AND HOUSING BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    4.10 p.m.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Provided people can afford to buy a house and look after it, home ownership is a splendid thing in every way. This Bill is the greatest Measure for assisting home ownership that has ever been introduced by any Government. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I submit it with pride and confidence to Parliament.
    In the whole of Britain about 4 million families own their homes already, the numbers rising every year. Nearly £600 million are being invested every year in house purchase. but it is still not by any means possible for everyone who wants to buy a house to get a mortgage. At present, there is simply not enough money available to lend. If house ownership is to go ahead at an increasing pace—and that is what we on this side of the House, at any rate, desire—more capital for advancing on mortgage must be made available.
    The question which the Government examined was how to do this most efficiently and most conveniently. The necessary capital has to be provided by the Government. That much is clear; but how? To set up a new organisation on top of the existing lending agencies would be administratively expensive; not only that, but it would be a duplication, and an unnecessary duplication. The sensible course is to use one of the agencies that exist already. By far the largest for this purpose is the building society movement. The building societies' sole object is the encouragement of home ownership. They have an organisation covering the whole country, reaching into every town and village, and they are already lending nearly £400 million a year. The building society movement provides the most convenient method of lending the additional money required, and that is why the Government have chosen the building societies to be the instrument of their purpose.
    788
    Discussions were held with representatives of the Building Societies Association to find out whether they would cooperate. With their help, a scheme has been devised, which I will not go over in detail, because it is all set out in Appendix I of the White Paper on House Purchase which we presented to Parliament last month. The Government believe that this scheme will achieve the end we have in mind—that is, to make it possible for any credit-worthy borrower keen on buying a house to get an adequate mortgage for the purpose.
    I have heard it said that the Government ought to use the local authorities rather than the building societies. As a matter of fact, for every £6 the building societies are lending for house purchase the local authorities are lending £1. This is a useful supplement to what building societies and other private agencies are doing. But lending for house purchase is only one of the many functions of local authorities, and it is not by any means their most important function. Nor. indeed, are all local authorities equally interested in it. I hope that they will continue to lend wherever they find a need.
    Even with the assistance which the Bill is extending to building societies, there will still be a part for local authorities to play. The Bill gives them the power to lend up to 100 per cent. which the building societies and other agencies already possess. I doubt myself if local authorities will think it right or find it necessary to lend up to this limit in any large number of cases. The fact that we are removing the existing statutory limit of 90 per cent. on their discretion to lend shows that we look to them to go on lending, but I am sure that for a wide extension of lending facilities the sane course is to look to the building society movement.
    In my speech today I want to clarify some of the details of the Government's plan. The broad picture is known already. It has been greeted with such widespread interest and enthusiasm. Never before has it been possible for any credit-worthy person wishing to buy an old, sound house to be sure of getting a 95 per cent. mortgage on it. That is what this Bill achieves.
    This whole scheme of Government advances for house purchase depends on

    789
    the concept that certain building societies will be approved for participation in it, and approved societies in that sense will be able to receive deposits from trustees. The building society movement, as the House knows, has been urging the Government to give trustee status to their deposits for some time. There is force in the arguments that they have used, and this scheme affords an opportunity for accepting the idea.
    On this part of our plan I want to meet two possible criticisms in advance. The Bill provides that if the Chief Registrar is satisfied that a building society fulfills certain requirements prescribed by the Treasury, he may approve the society. That is in Clause 1 of the Bill. Hon. Members will find the Treasury requirements set out in Appendix II to the White Paper. One of these requirements is that the total assets of the society must be not less than £500,000. I know it is claimed that many smaller societies have got balance sheets just as strong as the larger societies. I certainly do not disagree with that.
    It is also said that to exclude the smaller societies from this scheme will lead to withdrawals of deposits from them and to their ultimate disappearance. With that I do not agree at all. The smaller societies play a valuable part in attracting savings, especially from local people, and I do not believe for one moment that to exclude them from this scheme will hamper them.
    The reason for the limit in size is this. Trustee status ought not to be conferred lightly. Size does not of itself ensure stability, but as a general rule the larger enterprise is more stable. It is harder for the larger enterprise to come to grief. Proposals have been made at various times for allowing trustees to invest in the ordinary shares of companies. I have never heard of a single proposal of that kind which did not include some test of size based on the capital of the companies. In a Private Member's Bill that was introduced to the House in 1955 the limit for building societies to be able to qualify for trustee status was put not at £500,000, but at £5 million—ten times as high as we have in mind today.
    Having regard to the general principle, and also to the fact that some of the smaller societies are conducted by staff who are not employed full time and in
    790
    some cases are sharing offices with other concerns, the Government think that it is reasonable to restrict the badge of trustee status to the larger societies. I particularly want to make it quite clear that this implies no criticism whatever of the manner in which the smaller societies are conducted. It is not possible to say how many societies will gain approval under our proposals, because there are a number of different conditions to be observed, but the societies that will qualify by size account for about 97 per cent. of the total assets of all the societies covered by the Bill.
    Then I have heard it suggested that the proposed minimum ratios of free reserves to total assets are too low. This is only one of several financial safeguards. So far as the safety of trustee funds is concerned, the most important condition is that the total amount of the societies' deposits and all other liabilities must not exceed the total amount due to shareholders. Depositors, therefore, have, in addition to the security of other factors, the benefit of a minimum reserve of 50 per cent. imposed by that condition alone.
    But as well as ensuring the safety, in the last resort, of trustee funds it is desirable that approved building societies should conform generally to minimum financial standards applicable to all well managed and prudent societies. The ratio of 2½ per cent. of free reserves to total assets was arrived at with this objective in mind. It relates to free reserves. It excludes reserves provided for losses on mortgages and other contingencies.
    The House will also note that the power given to the Chief Registrar to approve a society is permissive and not mandatory. A society conceivably might be conforming to the strict arithmetic of the prescribed requirements and, even so, might be pursuing an unsound lending policy. The Bill is drafted to give the Chief Registrar discretion in such cases not to approve the society or to withdraw approval if approval has been already given.
    Mr. A. E. Cooper: Would my right hon. Friend say whether the figures, which have been agreed and which he is now putting to the House, are the arbitrary figures arrived at between the Treasury and his Ministry, or were the figures arrived at between his Ministry and the Building Societies Association?
    Mr. Brooke: The Government take full responsibility for the figures in Appendix II of the White Paper. These are the Government's decisions.
    I now come to what happens when a society has been granted trustee status. Clause 1 empowers my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself to lend to that approved society moneys advanced from the Exchequer. Clause 2 sets up the machinery for this. The arrangements are set out in the White Paper. Building societies receiving Exchequer loans will be required to enter into a binding undertaking which will ensure that they use any money which they borrow from the Government on the terms set out in the White Paper. The purpose of these loans is to help the purchase of all houses, both old and new. The limits set out in Clause 2 (2) are simply a device for defining and identifying Government loans.
    This method has been chosen because up to now it has been on older houses that it has been most difficult to obtain mortgages. Exchequer money will be available for financing all mortgages granted on houses falling within the age and value limits set out in Clause 2, but, of course, this will enable societies to use more of the money obtained by normal deposits to make loans on newer houses. At present, societies are lending between £40 million and £50 million a year from their own funds for the purchase of pre I919 houses. Clearly, therefore, if they now make use of Exchequer moneys for lending on older houses, they will have a considerable additional amount of money to lend on newer houses.
    Mr. Albert Evans: If building societies find that they are unable to grant mortgages on older properties, will they be in a position to use the £100 million mentioned in the White Paper for their normal business of advances for modern and newer houses?
    Mr. Brooke: No. As the Bill is drafted, they will not be able to draw money from the Exchequer to lend on newer houses. But they will be able to lend on as many houses as they think fit and which come within the category set out in the Bill.
    As has been said, the Bill provides for Exchequer advances up to the limit of £100 million. How long this will last is
    792
    impossible for anyone to estimate. After all, so much depends, not only on the demand for mortgages, but also on the success of the societies in getting increased deposits from the public. I am sure that the societies will not relax their efforts to attract savings. It may be that in this healthier economic climate, and aided by trustee status, the societies will not need to draw heavily on the Exchequer to meet all the demands made on them. That is their hope, I believe, and it is the Government's hope. The money will be there for them if it is needed. Should the £100 million all be used, the Government will be prepared to come back to Parliament for more.
    The limits which will govern Exchequer advances are that the house must have been built before 1919 and its value must not be more than £2,500. We believe that these limits are generally suitable, but hon. Members will see that the Bill gives power to vary them by Order, so that at some future date, should they prove unduly hampering, they could be altered. The House will, of course, understand—
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Before he leaves that point, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would say why he selected that method of defining and identifying Government loans?
    Mr. Brooke: I think that I have said that in my speech. The hon. and learned Member will appreciate that some method was desirable. Clearly, the building societies would go on with their normal method of attracting funds from the public and they would not need or wish to be financed wholly from the Exchequer. Therefore, it was desirable to find a line of demarcation, and, taking things all in all, it appeared to the Government that the most sensible and rational thing would be to relate Government loans to mortgage advances on older houses.
    This was a clearly definable class. It was also the class, as I explained earlier, in which the applicant, at present finds greatest difficulty in getting a mortgage, because the building societies, with their present limited funds, not unnaturally tend to lend more freely on newer houses than on older houses, which may be a more doubtful risk.
    I now come back to the figure of £2,500. The House will, of course, understand that the insertion of that figure in

    793
    the Clause does not mean that societies would not advance money on more expensive houses. The main effect of the limit is that a 95 per cent. advance is not promised for houses costing more than £2,500.
    It has been put to me that in London £2,500 is too low. I am not sure that £2,500 is not a high enough figure even in London for houses built before 1919. But I realise that in London house prices tend to be higher than elsewhere; and certainly for houses built between the wars, which are to be covered in agreements with individual societies, £2,500 in the London area may be too low. Subject to anything that may be said today, I am ready to discuss this figure further with the representatives of the building societies in relation to the London area.
    Mr. J. A. Sparks: Will the Minister also consult the London County Council and the other local government authorities on the same line?
    Mr. Brooke: I will endeavour to keep in touch with the local authorities on all these matters. The hon. Member will, I think, appreciate that the first thing to do is to consult the Building Societies Association, because if the societies are not willing to work the scheme at another level, it would be a waste of everybody's time to consult further about it.
    Mr. A. E. Hunter: In London, would not the Minister's suggestion of raising the figure of £2,500 tend to put up prices?
    Mr. Brooke: If the whole scheme were made too generous, it would tend to raise prices. Nevertheless, if one is working a scheme like this, which, by common consent, is a sensible scheme, one wants to ensure that it will have a reasonable application everywhere. What I would propose to discuss further with the representatives of the building societies, subject to anything that is said in today's debate, is whether it would be advisable to fix a somewhat higher level for the London area.
    The Council of the Building Societies Association has already agreed that societies entering the scheme should undertake to make loans in accordance with the terms proposed—that is, among other things, up to 95 per cent. of the value if asked for—not only to the purchasers of
    794
    houses built before 1919, but also, so far as their funds permit, to any purchaser of a house built between 1919 and 1940.
    It has been suggested in some quarters that the Government should support the giving of mortgages of up to 100 per cent. Most building societies are wholly opposed to any general rule of advancing 100 per cent. The Government believe that it is, in general, in the interests of purchasers that they should have something in hand before they start buying a house, whether they have got that something by saving or otherwise. I have expressed that view in the House before.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again. He has spoken about the building societies meeting the needs of borrowers. I do not understand whether at present they are or are not giving any preference to applicants in respect of these small old houses. If they have undertaken to give any such preference, could we know what it is?
    Mr. Brooke: I am not quite sure what the hon. and learned Member means by "preference" and I do not want to take up too much time in expounding a long Bill. These questions may he clarified later in the debate.
    The building societies will be examining every application on its merits. What a particular society will know is that if it decides to make a mortgage advance an the type of house that falls within the limits set down in Clause 2—that is, a house built before 1919 and with a value not exceeding £2,500—it will be sure of getting from the Exchequer an advance to cover the amount which it is lending.
    At present the scales are weighted against the applicant who wants to buy one of the older houses, because the building societies do not have enough money to meet all demands. What we are trying to do is to take away that weighting of the scales and to make sure that everybody who wants to buy one of these older houses can get what he certainly cannot get now—that is, the assurance of a 95 per cent. advance, if the house is a sound one and if the applicant is financially in a position to go forward with the purchase.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: May I ask a question? I have read the White Paper and the Bill to find

    795
    whether the conditions laid down for the granting of a mortgage on a house are such that the house must be with vacant possession. Could a mortgage be given for the sale of one of these older houses if a tenant was in occupation and the house was decontrolled and, as a result of granting a mortgage, the tenant in occupation could be given notice to quit?
    Mr. Brooke: This is a scheme for enabling people to buy houses to live in themselves.
    Mr. Sparks: They may already be in the house.
    Mr. Brooke: Yes; they may already be in the house.
    To return to the point I was making about 95 and 100 per cent. advances, the requirement of a 5 per cent. deposit is not a severe one. It means £50 for a house costing £1,000. There are, of course, other costs associated with house purchase, but there is no evidence that people who can afford the regular payments on house purchase are being debarred from buying a house by inability to find the initial sum in one way or another.
    Clause 2 (1) empowers my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself, with the approval of the Treasury, to direct what interest shall be payable by the societies on the advances made to them. This enabling provision is in a form that is common to many Acts providing for loans out of the Consolidated Fund. In most cases, loans of this kind are made at a rate of interest which is fixed at the time of the loan and which remains unaltered through the whole term of the loan. Here, however, we have a special and unusual situation.
    As the White Paper explains, we envisage a special arrangement for determining the interest charge. It is the traditional practice of the building societies to make loans at rates of interest which may be changed as time goes on. These changes in the lending rates of the societies are not made with great frequency. When they happen, they are a reflection of a definite change in the whole level of interest rates generally prevailing.
    In considering the interest arrangements for the Exchequer loans, the Government think that it would be inappropriate to
    796
    make fixed interest loans to the societies which, in their turn, charge interest at variable rates over the whole of their business. We thus arrive at the plan, described in the White Paper, for an interest charge on the Exchequer loans linked to the prevailing lending rate recommended by the Building Societies Association, but at a differential of one half of 1 per cent. to allow for the expenses of the societies and the risks that they will carry in relation to this business.
    That is our general intention as to the use of the power under Clause 2 (1) to fix the rate of interest on the advances. It is the one best adapted to the circumstances of the whole scheme. I cannot say what will be the exact rate of interest payable on the Exchequer loans under the proposed formula, either when the scheme come into effect or subsequently. That will depend upon the prevailing level of interest rates generally at the time, which, in turn, will be reflected in the rate currently recommended by the Association.
    Subsection (1) of Clause 2 also provides for settlement of the repayment terms for the Exchequer advances. The Exchequer loans will be for a period of twenty years. repayable on an annuity basis half-yearly. This twenty year period has been broadly fixed to reflect the sort of term for which the building societies in general make their loans. There cannot be any exact and precise matching of the terms of repayment to the Exchequer with those of repayment by borrowers to the societies on all the very many loans which may be financed from Exchequer borrowings. Flexibility will be afforded by the right, which we intend to allow the building society, to repay the whole or any part of the loan at any earlier time it chooses.
    What does all this mean to a person who wants to become a home owner? Average earnings in industry are now about £13 a week. Under the ordinary building society rules, someone with an income of £13 a week could buy an £1,800 house, which would cost him about £140 down, all in, and about £12 15s. per month. He need not spend nearly as much as this, because outside London, at any rate, there are good sound houses, built before 1919, available at £1,000 or under, which will be within the reach of almost anyone who

    797
    really wants to own his house. If it is one of the older houses, by the Bill the Government are seeing to it that the building societies will no longer say, as they constantly have to say now, "Sorry, we have not got enough money to meet all demands."
    I want now to come to Part II of the Bill. The vast majority of houses built in the early years of this century are structurally sound and have many years of life in front of them, but they lack amenities which we now think of as essential for any decent house. Social habits have changed, and have changed for the better. The Government are rendering their new Measures to encourage house ownership still more attractive by linking them with facilities for improving the houses and by putting in requirements which everybody nowadays accepts should be part of any house.
    Housing authorities at present, as the House knows, have power to make grants to private owners who are improving their houses. Authorities can also receive Exchequer grants for the improvement of their own council houses if they wish. These grants, which were started in 1949, were hardly used at all until my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he was in my place, overhauled them in his 1954 Act. They then rose from about nothing to between 30,000 and 40,000 grants a year, and at about that level they have stayed.
    This figure of between 30,000 and 40,000 is still small in relation to all the houses which could benefit from improvement. That must be 3 million to 4 million houses. We, as a Government, want to speed up greatly the rate at which these houses are being improved.
    Some people have thought that the prime cause of the difficulty is the unwillingness of housing authorities to make grants.
    Mr. William Hannan: They are dead right.
    Mr. Brooke: We have been looking into this, and it is not so. The vast majority of local authorities co-operate willingly. Only a very small proportion of authorities have never made a grant, and sometimes this is because they never had an application for a grant. The main fault lies elsewhere.
    798
    The present system of grants was designed to cover all the possible variations open to an owner in improving a house or in converting it into two or more separate dwellings. The various combinations of possibilities are enormous. That is why the scheme has to be complex, and also why it has to be at the discretion of local housing authorities. It has to be complex to ensure that the grants are based on the work which must be done; it has to be discretionary because the work needed cannot be defined in general terms, and it has to be examined and discussed in each case. It is the time taken to deal with each individual case that has deterred many an owner from launching out on an improvement grant scheme at all. Besides that, some of the conditions that attach to houses which were improved with grants are more restrictive than there is any need for, and they have deterred some owners from applying for grants.
    The Government have, therefore, decided that the present scheme ought to be modified in some of its details, and, more important still than that, that it should be supplemented by a new scheme with a new and speedier procedure than the old. All this is in Part II of the Bill for England and Wales, and in Part III for Scotland. I will not presume to expound the Scottish provisions, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be doing that later.
    Clauses 4, 5, and 6 set out for England and Wales the new scheme which is being added to the present one. The new scheme is for a standard grant towards putting a bath, hot water supply, water closet and satisfactory facilities for storing food into a house which has not got these at present. The standard grant to cover all four items will be £150 at the maximum. Provided that the local housing authorities are satisfied on the simple points set out in Clause 5, they will have to pay this grant; and it will be paid on the cost actually incurred by the owner, and not on the estimated cost, as at present.
    To qualify for this standard grant, an owner will have to show that his house lacks all four of these things or some of them, and he will have to arrange to make sure that the house is provided with all four at the end of the improvement. He

    799
    will also have to satisfy the local authority that the house is worth improving, and that if the improvements are made the house is likely to last and be lived in for at least another fifteen years. If some of the four items are already in the house the maximum amount of grant which the owner can get would be reduced. The four standard items are the things which experience has shown are commonly lacking from most of the houses still worth improving.
    The details of improvements needed in any particular house, of course, vary widely, and so does the cost of carrying out the work. Even in identical houses, owners wanting the same improvements may want them arranged in different ways, so that even there, there may be wide variations in costs. Any scheme which is to be simple must of necessity have a certain rough and ready quality. The maximum grants and the amounts by which they are made up are not sums which can be calculated precisely and related to the average cost of any improvement. They do not necessarily reflect any particular proportion of the cost of installing these items in any house.
    What they do, however, is to represent a substantial contribution towards the cost of putting these items into a typical house, a contribution which ought to be a strong enough encouragement to the owner to carry out the work, but a contribution which is not, at the same time, extravagant. We have to remember that all the money for these grants is found by the taxpayers and the ratepayers.
    Mr. Sparks: In regard to the local authorities' contributions towards the grants, I presume that the present basis will be maintained whereby the Treasury pays 75 per cent. and the local authority pays 25 per cent. Can the right hon. Gentlemen say whether the 25 per cent., which is the charge on the local authority, will be allowed for in the general grant from the Exchequer each year, or how the local authority is to finance this proportion of the grant?
    Mr. Brooke: It is the case that there is no change in the 75 and 25 per cent. ratio, I shall expound in a moment. The Bill elsewhere somewhat improves the scheme where a local authority is seeking to modernise its own houses. Of course,
    800
    we have let the local authority associations know what we are doing, and the hon. Member will recollect that housing is not one of the services which come within the general grant at all. It does not classify as relevant expenditure under the general grant.
    The Government's hope is that a great many people who buy older houses under our scheme for house purchase in Part I of the Bill will take advantage of this new standard grant in Part II for improving such houses, and I am glad to tell the House that it has been agreed with the building societies that societies lending to people buying their homes under our home ownership scheme will also lend them, if they want it, the balance of the cost of putting in these four standard items. This means that a man buying a house under the Government scheme can be sure of raising the money he needs to make the basic improvement to bring the house up to date. He can receive substantial help by way of grants towards his costs in doing so.
    I want to make it crystal clear that this new scheme for standard grants does not in any way supersede the existing improvement grant scheme. If an owner thinks that in the case of his house the cost of putting in the four basic amenities would be very high, then, instead of asking for a standard grant, he will be perfectly at liberty to apply for an ordinary improvement grant. In that case he will have to satisfy the housing authority that his house has a life of at least thirty years. He will also have to bring the house up to the full standard of fitness at present laid down for improved houses, commonly known as the twelve point standard.
    This standard is designed to ensure that the house, after allowing for its age and structure, is in every respect as good as a newly-built house. It will mean that in many cases the owner will have to do additional work over and above putting in the four standard items. On this basis he can receive a grant of up to £400, not £150. Alternatively, of course, if he takes the standard grant there is nothing to prevent him doing additional work at his own expense.
    Many owners may wish to take advantage of the simplicity of a standard grant even though they intend to do more to their houses themselves. The modifications which experience has shown to

    801
    be desirable in the present scheme are met by Clauses 9 to 12 of the Bill. I will not go into detail, but I will mention the essentials.
    Firstly, local authorities are to be required to give reasons in writing if they refuse a grant or if they refuse to pay the maximum grant available. Secondly, the conditions which attach to a house improved with grants—an example of that is that unless occupied by the applicant or by a member of his family the house must be kept available for letting —are only to apply for ten years in future instead of twenty years. Thirdly, owners are to be entitled to free their homes from the grant conditions by repaying the appropriate proportion to the local authority whenever they wish. The local authority will no longer, as under the present law, have the power to refuse to accept earlier repayment. Fourthly, owner occupiers are to be entitled to sell to other owner occupiers houses that have been improved with the aid of grant without obligation to repay the outstanding balance of the grant, provided that they or members of their families have lived in the houses for at least three years.
    The purpose of all these grants is to improve housing conditions. I am sure that we should keep that test firmly in mind and that we should take as generous a view as we can of the conditions that ought to apply. That is what we have sought to do in drafting the Bill. From the national standpoint, this is the best way to ensure that the nation gets continued use of this huge number of older houses and that they do not go down prematurely into slum conditions. I would remind the House that old houses without modern conveniences tend to go downhill, and that slum clearance is from every point of view, human and financial, a very costly operation.
    Then there is the question of the rent to be charged for houses that are improved or converted with grant. As the House knows, a maximum is laid down by law. If a house improved with the aid of grant is within the control limits of the Rent Acts, then they, of course, settle the maximum rent. In the commonest case they settle it at twice the gross value plus 8 per cent. of the owner's share of improvement. But if a house is outside the rent control limits, or if it is converted into two or more
    802
    separate dwellings—this, of course, takes it out of control—the Rent Act limits may not produce the appropriate figure. The appropriate figure is a rent fairly comparable with the rents of similar houses in that neighbourhood.
    Rents in the free market vary in different parts of the country. No standard formula would or could produce the right result everywhere. Provision is therefore being made in Clause 12 of the Bill for the local authority to fix the fair rent in these cases. I believe that this will be generally welcomed by local authorities who want to see modernisation of the houses in their areas going on.
    In addition to making grants, local authorities, as I have just mentioned in reply to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). can, of course, receive grants from the Exchequer for the improvement of the houses which they own. But the present system has proved in practice to be exceedingly and quite unnecessarily involved. The opportunity has therefore been taken in Clauses 16 to 18 of the Bill to simplify the procedure here and to bring grants for local authorities as nearly as possible on to the same basis as grants made by local authorities to private owners. At the same time we are rectifying errors in earlier legislation which have debarred local authorities from getting grants on some of the houses which they own, and we are enabling county councils to receive grants on their houses.
    No one, not even the wisest of men, can forecast how many more people will take advantage of the new grants system. The Government intend to do their best to see that the new opportunities are widely understood by owners. We mean to do everything to encourage local authorities to make the greatest possible use of grants, and I feel certain that we can count on the willing co-operation of the local authorities. We are giving them new opportunities for getting the housing conditions of the people in their areas improved.
    The comprehensive and imaginative plans contained in the Bill will make a real impact on the improvement of the older houses up and down the country. The Bill is the newest and latest unfolding of the Government's carefully thought out policy for better housing. First of all, we enormously increased the rate of

    803
    building. More than 2 million houses have been built since the present Government took office. We are heavily engaged on a renewed drive, started by the present Government, to clear the slums; and now this Bill will mark a further step forward in the process of improvement. It will also enable thousands and thousands of people to realise their great ambition of owning their own home.
    4.59 p.m.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: May I first congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having quite successfully overcome any traces of the natural modesty which he once used to have? He reminded me of somebody who was trying to sell a watch at a fair. The difficulty about the watch is that he stole it from the Labour Party, and having stolen it, he has put quite a lot of dirt in the works. I am not at all certain that it will now tell us the time, or go. We shall have to look at that in a minute.
    When he came to "the newest and latest unfolding" of the Government's policy to improve housing I was compelled to remember some of the Government's earlier efforts, in particular the 1954 Act which was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Prime Minister. It tried to get the landlords to make some improvements in houses and was described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) as "a mouldy old turnip for the landlords". And so indeed it proved to be. The turnip or swede or mangel-wurzel has unfolded, has now appeared on the scene. Let us have a look at the vegetable.
    First of all, there was one claim that surely nobody who has any knowledge whatever of housing in this country could possibly make, and that was that this was an attempt—or was it the greatest attempt?—to promote home ownership. Arrangements have been on the Statute Book for many years now and, as the right hon. Gentleman himself told us, are being extensively used to enable local authorities to do just that, and they account, he told us, for about one-sixth or one-seventh of the total advances so made.
    I want to point out one thing to the House first—that the terms of this scheme
    804
    and of this Bill are giving to the building societies a distinct preference, a hidden subsidy, if hon. Members like to call it that, compared with what the local authorities are getting. The building societies, at present rates, are to get their money from the Government for 5½ per cent, and lend it to borrowers at 6 per cent. Under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts the margin is not ½ per cent. but ¼ per cent.
    It is perfectly true that a great many advances, an increasing number, are made under what is now Section 43 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958, and used to be Section 4 of the Housing Act. Of course in those cases it depends on the terms on which the local authorities borrow, but one can ascertain from the accounts of local authorities what their working margin is. I do not say that in every case it is less than ¼ per cent., there may be some exceptional ones where it is not, but in the vast majority of cases it is considerably less than the building societies are to be allowed as a working margin.
    I see the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) sitting there. Ilford has been very good in this way. It had about £5 million outstanding by way of advances for house acquisition at the end of March, 1958. Without allowing for tax, which does not come into these figures, it was actually working on a margin a little bit over ⅛ per cent. instead of ½ per cent. Other local authorities with margins in some cases lower and in others higher than that are running distinctly below the ½ per cent. which is allowed to the building societies under this Bill.
    Moreover, there is another point. The local authority goes to borrow, and instead of being able to get its money without difficulty at 5½ per cent., under the rate at present ruling for a 20-year loan it will have to pay 5⅞ per cent. to the Public Works Loan Board. That is supposed to reflect the market rate. On top of that there is another 5s. for stamp and another 4s. for commission, The net result is that between the two sets of lenders the building societies are to get their money from the Government with far less trouble and pay a rate ¾ per cent. less than the local authorities are at present paying. It may be said that the Public Works Loan Board rate

    805
    may change. So, too, will the rates payable by the building societies change, and they will change in accordance with the decisions of the Building Societies Association from time to time.
    Therefore I make the point quite definitely that money is being made available to the building societies on terms preferable both as to the interest rate and as to convenience to what the local authorities are getting, and without objecting for the moment to what they are doing for the building societies I ask the Government, "Why do you do nothing parallel for the local authorities? Why was that important source of funds for this purpose completely neglected?" It is perfectly true they have been allowed to make advances up to 100 per cent., but what I am talking about is where they are to get the money from to do it, and on what terms.
    I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that by and large the local authorities are perfectly willing to carry on this sort of business and carry it further, but when he discussed the matter with the local authorities did they say they felt unable to carry it out on the terms which were offered to the building societies? Not a word was said about that. Without wishing to exclude the building societies I must comment, and comment forcibly, on the omission by the Minister of Housing and Local Government to give the local authorities similar facilities to those which he is giving to the building societies.
    Mr. Cooper: The hon. and learned Gentleman is presenting to the House an entirely misleading picture. The figure he has given in relation to the building societies is a gross figure; that is to say, the total money they receive and the money which they lend, and it takes no account of the cost of administration. The figure which he gives for local government finance for Ilford of ⅛ per cent. is a net figure; that is to say, the sum available to the borough council after charging the town clerk's department and the borough surveyor's fees.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry, but I quite fail to appreciate the point of the hon. Member's comments. No doubt, he will develop it later. All I am on is this, that building societies are getting a margin of ½ per cent. under this arrangement—
    Mr. Cooper: Gross.
    Mr. Mitchison: —for small dwellings acquisition and the local authorities are getting ¼ per cent., and when Ilford apparently succeeds in doing better, taking the Small Dwellings Acquisition and the Housing Acts together, than it is able to do with these fixed rents, I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman so keen to belittle the excellent activities of his own local authority, which is really doing it extremely cheap and on a very large scale. Probably that is why it is so cheap.
    I said just now that the watch had been stolen. I want to make it perfectly clear that it is the policy of the Labour Party when returned to power at the next General Election to provide for advances of 100 per cent. in order to promote house ownership, on which it has always been keen. It was the Labour Party, after all. which introduced these improvements grants. It was the Labour Party which increased the small dwellings acquisition grants, and the Housing Act of 1949 was passed by this party. It is really absurd for anyone to suggest the contrary.
    We want to do it not merely for houses of a particular age and character but for all houses which are worth it, if I may say so, but we do make one important provision, and I want to draw the attention of the House to it. My experience. and I dare say it is also that of other hon. Members, is that only too often people who want to buy their own house. for reasons into which I will go in a minute. stretch themselves to the limit to put down the deposit and pledge themselves for future payments—and forget about the repairs. To some extent this Bill is particularly directed to a type of house, and I will come to that, too, in a minute; and it is obvious that on this type of house the most formidable repair bills are bound to be accrued. I cannot resist the impression that the effect of the Bill, coupled with the Rent Act and with the reduction in council house building, will be to assist landlords to foist on to their tenants the purchase of a number of houses which the landlords are only too glad to sell.
    That depends, of course, on the extent to which the advances in the Bill are to be directed to these pre-1919 houses of not more than £2,500 or thereabouts in value. Unfortunately, I could not get, nor

    807
    did I expect to get, from the right hon. Gentleman any clear statement about that, and the fact is that it is far from clear what the result will be and how far these advances will be taken. The reason is that a great many building societies, particularly the Halifax Building Society, are already making a very large proportion of advances on exactly that type of house. I understand that the Halifax Building Society advances on this type of house about one-third of its total.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: It is 23.3 per cent.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry if I got it wrong, and I can assure the hon. Member that I got it wrong on good authority. Perhaps I need not go into it in great detail, because on the point I am making it does not matter. We both agree that it is above 20 per cent., and that is the figure which will limit the total of advances of this kind; they will be limited as soon as they amount on a capital assessment to one-fifth of the deposit and loan capital of the building societies.
    To a considerable extent, therefore, this is being done already. I agree that the extent varies and that the average figure is probably lower than that for the Halifax Building Society. Quoting from the Building Societies' Gazette of this month, it is suggested that the figure is somewhere over one-eighth—over 12½ per cent. I am taking year-by-year figures, and, broadly speaking, they will work out in the same proportion as the capital figures. Broadly speaking, therefore, it is true to say that a great deal of this is being done already by the building societies.
    The question is, are the building societies as short of money as the right hon. Gentleman leads us to believe? Here we can turn only to the building societies themselves. I find a statement on the subject in the Building Societies' Gazette of this month, made by a gentleman who appears to be the Vice Chairman of the Council of the Building Societies Association. He points out quite rightly that there have been fluctuations and that there have been falls in recent years. Apart from the effect of the Bill—for it can have had no effect yet—he comes to this conclusion:
    "During recent months there has been a remarkable improvement from the national
    808
    point of view and there are now clear indications that so far as building societies are concerned the tide is turning and that funds are beginning to flow in again. It is surprising how quickly the situation can change once such a trend is firmly established, and I am optimistic enough to believe that the time is not far distant when we shall again be able to meet the demand in full."
    This is not with reference to the Bill; this is what is happening at present.
    On 30th October, when the right hon. Gentleman made the first announcement of these proposals, the Financial Times wrote:
    "The more immediate problem of the building societies, that of attracting enough new deposits to continue lending at a steady rate, seems to have been solved for the time being. The… net inflow of funds, and consequently new loans also, fell sharply in the first quarter of 1958."
    Why?
    "This was the result of the high Bank Rate at that time, which caused a rise in the level of interest on investments, like hire-purchase finance companies, which compete with the building societies for short term money….Nevertheless building society deposits in the third quarter of this year, for which definite figures are not yet available are expected to be well up on the second quarter also on the same period of 1957."
    The article was accompanied by a chart showing a very sharp rise in building societies' deposits and shares—in net money paid in, apart from withdrawals.
    Mr. Nigel Fisher: I should like to assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the building society of which I am a director is still turning away, through lack of money, mortgage applications which are perfectly good in themselves.
    Mr. Mitchison: That may be. The position may differ between one building society and another. I should have thought that any building society of which the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) was a director would undoubtedly attract a large number of applicants, so well known must be his kindness of heart. I can give only the general picture, and it is the general picture which matters. I do not want to be unfair about it. The summary is that building societies' funds go up and down. Sometimes they have as much as they want and more than they want, and sometimes they have not. But there is no general and continuous shortage of funds for making advances such as the right hon. Gentleman led us to believe, and it

    809
    is not the case that building societies neglect this type of mortgage. The amount depends on the building society, but they certainly do a good deal of the business already.
    I therefore come to this conclusion: I see advantages in these arrangements, and we do not intend to divide against the Bill. It resembles too closely the working gold watch which we missed from our parlour a short time ago. I have a copy of the working gold watch. It is called "Homes of the Future". But there is a lot of dirt in the works now, and some of the dirt is the complete failure to use the local authorities and a preference given, for no reason that I can see, to the building societies. In addition, there is a certain temptation to people to take these advances without providing for repairs. It was just for that reason that in the original gold watch, "Homes of the Future", we made a stipulation about the general fund for repairs and contributions to it. I am quite sure that we were right, because it is a peculiar difficulty.
    I turn next to the hot water supply, the baths and the rest of it, and here, as in the earlier part of the Bill, there are any number of Committee points. I will not try to deal with them now. Questions about the sufficiency or insufficiency of the qualifications for trustees' status are matters which would be much better dealt with in Committee than on the Floor of the House today. but I have one or two comments to make about the baths and the standard grants.
    The first is that the applicant must be the owner, whether the house is tenanted or whether he lives in it; he is the owner, or at any rate the leaseholder on a tolerably long lease. He is to have his property improved by a compulsory grant made by the council out of the rates, with some Government assistance. Certain consequences will follow.
    First, if rent control remains, the rating of the house may well be put up and the rent limit may or may not go up accordingly. As the law stands at present, that will not be the case, and I want to make it quite clear to the Minister that I do not think that it is the case. But who knows how far rent control will be cut down further? I have a pretty good idea that the party opposite will not get back at the next General Election, but I also
    810
    have a pretty good idea that if it does get back there will be very few rent controlled houses left in the country after quite a short time. For what other purpose have the Government taken power by Ministerial order to extend decontrol?
    To decontrolled houses new provisions will apply. There used to be a provision limiting the amount of rent, either by rent fixed by the "advancing" authority or by the rent limit that is contained in Section 20 of the Rent Act. That is scrapped, not wholly for the benefit of the tenants, and it is now left for the local authority to fix the rent according to the rents of houses in the neighbourhood. That is the first change, which is not wholly for the benefit of the tenant.
    The second change is that the owner of the house may have money put into his improvements and then may sell to someone else three years afterwards at a higher price than he would have got otherwise. That person, wanting the house for his own occupation, can turn out the tenant if there is one, and anyhow will get no particular benefit from those grants. The original owner will have put the money in his pocket and got away with it as part of the price. That appears to be a very useful provision for some landlords, including landlords who have not done this work on their own house previously. They are not confined to individuals. There are many large companies who own blocks and blocks of this property, particularly in the big cities, who will get quite a substantial benefit if they work the Bill as it could be worked.
    I come to the third of the specific points I wish to make, though I have some general observations to make too. It is that this money will come out of the rates and will be an obligatory charge upon the rates. I agree that there are grants in aid, but so far as the money comes from the rates there will be an obligatory charge at the moment when local authority finances are being fitted as tightly as may be into the whole general grant scheme. I do not make the mistake of supposing that housing has to do with the general grant, but housing subsidy is a grant; and a very large proportion of the money which local authorities get from the central Government now comes from a tightly fitting general grant.

    811
    and an additional burden is being put on the rates at a high rate of interest. That is the present position.
    On this matter—Part II of the Bill—I am not sure that I can do any better than quote the Economist of 6th December last under the heading "New Deal for Old Dwellings?" After setting out the broad outlines of the Government's scheme it says:
    "It is easy to see what the Government is trying to do, much harder to feel sanguine about its prospects of success. The home purchase scheme will work, if it works at all, by finding buyers for the rather better old houses within the upper limit of £2,500…."
    Then it makes the comment, which the Minister must have seen, about that not being enough in London.
    It continues:
    "The Government in fact is still tackling a very desirable objective by very costly methods. Might not a better solution be found by taking a leaf from the programmes of both political parties?"
    This is a Liberal paper, but it does not seem to recognise the existence of the Liberal Party.
    Mr. Donald Wade: It often has some very caustic things to say about the Liberal Party.
    Mr. Mitchison: Who am I to interfere in these domestic differences? They have existed before.
    With reference to the original "gold watch" of which I have spoken, the Economist says:
    "… there are blocks of older houses—those which will figure in the next slum clearance drive—for which "—
    I differ from the next four words—
    "(but only for which) it would be sensible to adopt Labour's recipe: to encourage the local councils to buy them and systematically carry out a temporary renovation plan, on the lines of the scheme now operating in Birmingham."
    Mr. Cooper: The hon. and learned Member has quoted from the Economist of 6th December. Would he quote from the issue of 13th December? It deals with municipalisation and under the heading "Planners in Wonderland" it cuts to pieces Labour Party policy in "Homes for the Future" and the municipalisation of housing.
    Mr. Mitchison: No, I will not, because I have no copy with me, for one thing, and for another it is not what I am talking
    812
    about. Those seem very good reasons. No doubt the hon. Member will have a bit of fun in a quiet way afterwards if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
    There are a great many of these old, small houses. They ought not to be dealt with unit by unit. They should be dealt with by dealing with whole areas, which is how Birmingham has been dealing with them. They cannot be dealt with by putting in standard improvements. They need a great deal more than that or else a great deal less. As far as I can see, the Bill will not add one house to the total of houses, except that, in so far as it may increase the amount of money lent, it may result in a little private building. But that was not the ground on which the Bill was put forward, and I think that we all agree that it is not likely to have much effect in that way.
    This is not a Bill to add to the stock of houses. In so far as it is a Bill to improve the use of existing houses and to improve their character, it is unlikely to have very much effect, partly because what it will do is being done already to some extent, partly because it neglects the possibilities of using local authorities to the full, and partly because, in relation to Part II, the standard grants are really too narrow. One can have all these things and one would still want much more to bring a house anywhere near modern standards.
    The last part of the Bill is timorous, and it is the wrong way, on the whole, of dealing with the houses. The use of grants to individual people in this way, while it is useful, can serve only a limited purpose. In the long run, this kind of improvement must be done on a larger scale and in a broader way. Lastly, I trust that hon. Members will remember that the need for the Bill at all, and the need which it is supposed to meet, arises very largely out of the legislation of the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors, and particularly out of two things.
    There would not be a demand to improve houses which are very old— some of which would be worth it and others not—if there were enough new houses. At this moment the right hon. Gentleman is actively engaged in cutting down the building of council houses which meet the needs of the type of people who live in these older houses. How far it is feasible to

    813
    promote the modernisation of houses is always a question about which one can argue, but there is no doubt that to cut down the supply of council houses aggravates the demand for, and puts up the prices of, other houses, including older ones.
    Secondly, there is the effect of the Rent Act. It may not have had much effect in remote parts of the country—I never thought that it would—but it has had, and is still having, a very marked effect in the big towns, especially London. Hon. Members opposite who think that this is a joke should go and rub their noses in any of the big towns, especially if they sit for constituencies in them. They will not find a queue of people miles long on the pavements on the first available date on which they can be turned out. I never suggested that that would happen. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. and learned Gentleman did."] I never did. Hon. Members should read HANSARD. They will find that I did not say that. I said that the Rent Act would lead to two things: firstly, a lot of people having to find new accommodation—many evictions, of one likes to put it that way —and, secondly, a marked increase in the demand for houses to buy, and inevitably for some houses the advisibility of whose repair was doubtful.
    I can only say that those who have looked at the matter impartially believe that the present difficulty in obtaining advances for houses is not nearly as serious as the Government wish us to believe, and that so far as it exists at all it has been seriously aggravated by the failure to keep up a supply of council houses and the difficulties caused by the Rent Act. In consequence, although I do not advise my hon. Friends to divide against the Bill, for it is well-intentioned and may do some good, I believe that it will not have a very considerable effect, and that in a number of points it is quite wrong.
    It is wrong for one general reason, namely, that whenever there is a choice between benefiting the landlord and anyone else the Government benefit the landlord, and whenever there is a choice between using local authorities or some other body or collection of bodies for a certain purpose the Government always turn down the local authorities. It is not a satisfactory Bill for that reason, but we hope that it may do some little good.
    5.33 p.m.
    Mr. Brian Batsford: Knowing the friendliness which is always shown to new Members, I ask for the indulgence of the House on this occasion. I have the honour to represent a West London constituency which is largely residential, much of it consisting of streets lined with houses built between the years 1840 and 1890. Those hon. Members who are students of architecture will know that that is a very interesting period, and one which is worthy of increased respect.
    I welcome Part I of the Bill, which enables higher mortgages to be obtained in respect of older houses, and I welcome Part II even more. This will enable amenities to be improved by the provision of standard grants. There is, however, the more intangible aspect of the Bill which should appeal to hon. Members on both sides. By aiding the restoration and conversion of old property within our towns the Bill may reduce the threat of development on the outskirts.
    It is, perhaps, appropriate that I should make my maiden speech on the subject of house purchase on the same day that my own family is moving house. Other hon. Members who have moved into smaller quarters will know that it is practicable to do so only if one is scrupulously tidy. That applies to the whole of Britain where a very large population is living in a comparatively confined space. We have to be tidy. There is a danger that with the spread of so many towns and villages we may reach the stage where we do not know where our towns end and the countryside begins. By rehabilitating old property we shall make better use of areas already developed and shall be saving our countryside.
    I want to raise a few more detailed points which, I hope, will not be too controversial. The first concerns the operative date—1st January, I919. I am tempted to suggest that the most significant and most depressing change in English domestic architecture occurred almost exactly 100 years earlier, in 1819, but we must recognise that 1919 marked the introduction of newer but less durable types of houses, which are less worthy of investment than many houses built in the years before, in some cases even centuries before.
    I have always had the impression that building societies were rather hesitant to

    815
    advance money on any property which was not absolutely new. I am, therefore, glad that the White Paper which accompanies the Bill suggests that besides advancing loans on pre-I919 houses, the Government will be able to lend money to the same extent on houses built between 1919 and 1940.
    My second point concerns the limit of £2,500, which has already been mentioned by my right hon. Friend and by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). This limit is bound to impose a varying restriction in different parts of the country. From inquiries I have made I can say that there are very few houses in my constituency which are for sale at £2,500 or less. I would suggest that there is an argument for increasing the limit in respect of houses in the London area, where the land values are so much higher than in the rest of the country. The Minister made provision for this differentiation in recent legislation.
    I also hope that when Exchequer loans are made in respect of pre-1919 houses they will not prejudice in any way the lending of money by building societies upon the more valuable older property, which is equally worthy of conversion and adaptation.
    Many of the roads in my constituency are tree-lined and bordered with the larger type of house built in Victorian days. While, under no circumstances, could these homes be classified as coming within the £2,500 limit, such is the scale and the solidity of their construction that they are eminently suitable for conversion into flats and maisonettes. Nowadays, as we all know, it is a common practice for smaller units and larger buildings to be sold as opposed to being let. I understand that today building societies will make advances on flats and on these smaller dwellings.
    Specific reference is made in Part II of the Bill to dwellings, while Part I refers to houses. I would suggest that, if these Exchequer loans are made for houses of that value, in certain approved cases they might also apply to portions of buildings or to flats. Were such a concession made, it would be welcomed by the large number of people who prefer that type of accommodation.
    816
    I am glad to have had the opportunity to support a Bill which, I believe, will do a great deal to benefit those who are seeking homes and, at the same time, serve to modernise and to protect many of our older buildings.
    5.41 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Skeffington: First, it is my pleasant duty to convey to the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford) the warm congratulations of hon. Members on both sides of the House on his maiden speech. Many of us know something of the activities of culture and learning with which the hon. Gentleman is associated outside the House. Now he has entered into another sphere and has shown, I am sure the House will agree, the same distinction. The hon. Gentleman survived the ordeal of making his maiden speech much better than many of us, and certainly better than I did. We listened to him with great interest and we shall look forward to hearing him again many times in the future, when he will bring his great knowledge to bear upon the subjects which we debate.
    I turn now from the pleasant part of my task to something which is not quite so pleasant. The Minister said that he introduced the Bill with great pride. We on this side also wish to see every opportunity accorded to those who desire, and are in a position, to purchase their own house. For that reason, in the policy statement, "Homes for the Future", issued in 1956, the Labour Party specifically included a proposal that mortgages of 100 per cent. be afforded for prospective house purchasers at the lowest possible rate of interest. We on this side are bound to wonder how far this Bill is the result of the very friendly reception which our proposal received from the public.
    Unlike the Government, the Labour Party, in its scheme, visualised local authorities as being the main vehicle by which such a proposal would be effected. I am glad that even under the provisions of this Bill the local authorities are in future to be able to grant mortgages of 100 per cent. in certain cases; though, as was pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), local authorities will operate under much harsher financial conditions than those to be enjoyed by the

    817
    building societies. I could never understand why the limitation existed in the past.
    While everyone wishes to see people undertake mortgage repayments if they are in a position to do so, I hope that a general warning will be given to prospective house purchasers not to undertake heavy weekly or monthly financial repayments which would strain their personal finances. People must realise the extent of the burden that they will be assuming, particularly when purchasing pre-I914 houses. Before the war many people were unable to get rented accommodation, because in vast areas of the country there was little municipal building activity at that time; and to have somewhere to live, those people were forced to buy houses through building societies or in some other way. We all know of cases where far too heavy financial burdens were assumed by people in receipt of very low incomes. When they were faced with an unexpected crisis, such as a serious repair bill or inability to work through illness, such people found themselves facing a very real financial catastrophe.
    Before the war the average mortgage repayment, including rates, amounted to between 12 per cent. and 17 per cent. of personal incomes. Those paying at the higher figure often found themselves in difficulties which caused them to economise on other essentials, sometimes even on food. Today, it appears that the average repayment does not represent quite such a large proportion of personal expenditure. In considering these averages one must always bear in mind that they include mortgages taken out a good many years ago, and that they conceal the heavy charges being borne by house purchasers who had to buy at inflated prices since the war and who were forced to borrow at high rates of interest.
    I believe that if mortgage repayments account for much more than 10 per cent. of an individual's income, difficulty is likely to arise. On the existing national distribution of incomes a person in receipt of less than £750 a year before tax may well get into financial difficulties if he purchases a house. If one has an income of between £1,000 and £1,200 before tax I think that, even at high rates of interest, monthly mortgage repayments will not prove too heavy a burden—provided always, of course, that such an in-
    818
    dividual is lucky enough to escape the calamities which are liable to beset us all in the form of ill-health or a local occurrence like subsidence.
    There are about 3 million people in receipt of incomes of between £1,000 and £1,200 who may be regarded as being in a position to afford house purchase. I believe that it is our duty to warn others whose incomes are not so high of the serious burdens which they may find that they have assumed by undertaking the responsibilities of a mortgage.
    Mr. Cooper: The hon. Member makes great play with the fact that a man buying his own home may run into difficulties through illness, or for some other reason, and find it a hardship to carry on his mortgage repayments. Assuming That a similar difficulty is experienced by the tenant of rented property, whether privately owned or local authority property, who stands the racket?
    Mr. Skeffington: I have in mind an incident which occurred in a part of South-East London where serious subsidence problems were encountered and where house purchasers were faced with an expenditure of £300 or £400 as a result. Such individuals would be gravely embarrassed because there would be no one to help them. That would not be the experience of a man occupying rented property. A great many people, if they had the opportunity to choose between buying good property or renting it, would prefer rented accommodation. All that I am pointing out are the real dangers which have to be faced by people who are to assume this burden.
    The second question which I must pose is; why is all this Government finance to be made through the building societies? Over the years most successful public relations work has been done by the building societies and that has often been echoed by politicians. The image has been created that the building societies are wonderful, idealistic organisations. I believe that their value has been very considerably overstressed. After all, the building societies have no interest in a house as such; they have no interest in the buyer as such, and they do not really care whether he buys wisely or badly. They are, in fact, moneylenders plain and simple and not public benefactors.

    819
    I am not saying that the building societies have not performed a service, but I think that it is important to try to understand what their real function has been and why it is inadvisable for the Government to give them such extraordinary preferential treatment.
    One example of the activities of the building societies and their indifference to the buyer is that in the ordinary way the house purchaser has to pay for the surveyor's report which the building society requires, but he is not allowed to see the contents of it himself. In 1949, a newly-built house upon which a building society advanced a loan actually collapsed. A High Court judge said, following that event
    "Building societies might perhaps consider whether the great help which they give to people …who want to own their own house might not be extended by giving them the benefit of the expert advice for which the prospective owner is himself paying."
    In the Economist of 2nd February, 1952, a spokesman for the Building Societies Association said that the learned judge's remarks
    "…have been studied by the association with the respect due to them and that discussions are now taking place with other bodies with the object of making arrangements which will carry his suggestion into effect."
    I made inquiries and up to last year— five years later—there had been no change in the societies' practice. I do not know whether, under the scheme set out in the White Paper, a prospective purchaser will still have to pay for this report. There is a condition which says that no premium or any other charge shall be payable to a society. It may well be in this case, although, obviously, there will have to be a surveyor's report, that no extra charge is to be made. If there is an extra charge, I hope that the report will be available to the man who has to pay it. That is to me only right and proper. I should like to have an answer to this point.
    I mention this as an example which proves the point that I am making, that building societies are really only moneylenders—there is nothing dishonourable in that—but do not let us assume that they are idealistic organisations keenly interested in the personal welfare of the house purchaser or of society in general; they are not. Once a loan is made, the society has no further interest in the
    820
    property or the owner so long as the payments are kept up.
    I can never understand, for example, why building societies have not thought that it might be a very good thing to have provided for one of the calamities which I mentioned earlier by creating a repairs' fund. If that were done, those who are in difficulties when they get repairs of more than the ordinary kind— I am not referring to decorating—would have some resources to fall back upon. If the building societies show no interest it may well be that this will have to be left to the local authorities to do something in the future, as suggested in the Labour Party's pamphlet, "Homes for the Future".
    Why, again, are the rates of interest always so high? Generally, a building society is lending on a cast-iron security. After all, no one can take the house out of the country. I realise that there may be difficulties at certain times in getting sufficient deposits. That may be so if resources of this kind are allowed to be only available on their profitability. I should have thought that from the point of view of society mere profitability on making advances for the provision of a house ought not to be the sole criterion. But if that is the case, then I believe that local authorities should provide these sums of money which they could do more cheaply by raising the money locally or through the Public Works Loan Board, provided that the Government restrictions now in operation were taken off.
    It is the height of folly that people should have to pay so much by way of interest for loans granted on a cast-iron security. On a loan of £1,600, running at 6 per cent. over twenty-five years, the payment is £125 a year, which means that by the time the purchaser has paid for the bricks and mortar he has paid £3,325. Even if the money is advanced at 5 per cent. for twenty-five years, it works out at £120 a year, which is over £3,000, practically double the cost of the house.
    This is a crazy system of getting houses. Far from believing that we ought to go about bowing to building societies, I think that we ought to realise that they make a jolly good thing out of this system. It is time that people realised that this is a crazy system of

    821
    financing house purchase. We should do something to lower the interest rates if that is possible.
    Sir Herbert Butcher: Can the hon. Gentleman give similar figures for local authority loans, say, at 5½ per cent.?
    Mr. Skeffington: If the hon. Gentleman had been at our housing debates, he would have heard me and other hon. Members complaining that under the dear money policy of the Government it costs sometimes as much as £5,000 over sixty years for a £1,600 council house. That is equally crazy, but it is at least within the means of the Government to reduce the high interest rates for such a socially useful purpose as housing.
    The Halifax Building Society attempted, in 1954, to come outside the closed shop and offer slightly more generous terms. It was encouraged by the Prime Minister at that time to do so. The Prime Minister made a speech—perhaps it was the kiss of death—in which he said that what Halifax did today let England to tomorrow. When the other societies were charging 4½ per cent. it kept its rate down for some time to 4 per cent.; but in 1955 the Lord Privy Seal spoiled all that. The Bank Rate was advanced still further and the 4 per cent. disappeared.
    It is often said that apart from the fact that the building societies lend house purchasers the wherewithal they are a wonderful means whereby the small man can save. Let me get these facts on record. The Oxford Survey said, in 1952:
    "Only 4 per cent. of income units, owned building society deposits, and the average holding was just over £500; this compares with 16 per cent, of people who own bank deposits, 23 per cent. with Co-operative shares, 24 per cent. with savings certificates and 36 per cent. with deposits in the Post Office. Less than a fifth of building society deposits are owned by manual workers, or by people with incomes below £400 in 1952."
    That was the position in 1952, and I have no reason to think that it is otherwise today.
    I can see no justification for giving the building societies such preferential treatment of public funds. It is true that they have enabled people to get money which they could not get elsewhere to buy their own houses. It is like the man with a heavy load and a long distance to walk. He would rather travel in a horse and buggy than walk. I am suggesting that
    822
    in the twentieth century we should provide a streamlined limousine or, at any rate, a utility wagon which would help people to get along easier and more quickly.
    I am glad that the Government are not to make these facilities available to all societies. I read year after year, in the Chief Registrar's Report, of the warnings that he has given to some of the smaller societies. The time has come when there ought to be a searching public inquiry into the building society set-up and their methods of financing what they do, and the proliferation of small societies, so that we can draw our conclusions as to their general state and how far they are an indispensable adjunct to society. I believe that they perform some service, which could be greatly improved and fairer to the borrower.
    I have one thing to say about improvements. The Bill will make very little difference to the present situation, certainly for the ordinary tenants. It is an advantage that money will be available for the house purchaser, but it is astonishing how few applications there have been from landlords for improvement grants. Why is it? I am sure that it is because the landlord has to provide 50 per cent. of the capital himself. As the Ridley Committee pointed out, many years ago, there is a good deal of evidence that if landlords have to pay for improvements themselves those improvements are not carried out. Therefore, I imagine that the Bill will not make very much difference.
    In so far as the Bill will enable anyone to have a house or to improve it, obviously one must welcome it, but it has been given exaggerated praise by the Minister. Perhaps that will not matter very much, because I hope that before many months are past there will be a Labour Administration, which will take hold of the Bill and really give it some teeth.
    6.3 p.m.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I hope that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) will forgive me if I do not follow him closely except to point out that although the Government may be able to control interest rates to some extent the building societies are entirely governed as to the rate at which they lend money by the rate at which they borrow it. I would also point out that it is not only the

    823
    smaller societies that have come under the disapproving eye of the Chief Registrar.
    I would add my congratulations to those offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford). I have long been glad that, although he is a business rival, our firms do not directly clash. His speech now makes me glad that we are on the same and not on opposite sides of the House. I want my speech to be as short as possible and I will therefore make it clear that, though I am confining my remarks to Part I and have a great deal to say that is critical, I welcome the Bill in general.
    I agree with some parts of the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I do not think I quite agree that considerations of trustee status should be relegated entirely to the Committee, nor with the conditions under which the Government are advancing up to £100 million for up to twenty years. The Minister pointed out that the whole of this scheme depended upon the concept of approved societies. I cannot quite see why the conditions of approval involve linking the loan with trusteeship status. It surely is not necessary to have trusteeship for a loan to be approved.
    The conditions which are set out in Appendix I of the White Paper are those upon which money will be lent. The rules for trusteeship in Appendix 2 could easily be merely rules for prior compliance by building societies before they even got to the stage of agreeing to the conditions in Appendix 1. It will still be a two stage operation. The first stage concerns the conditions which building societies have to meet before being considered, and the second concerns the agreement which they must undertake. I can only presume that my right hon. Friend has taken this opportunity for including trusteeship in the Bill because he regards trusteeship as a good thing in general for the building-society movement. I cannot believe that it was necessary for the Government house-purchase scheme. It is true that trusteeship has long been wanted by the movement, but so far has been frustrated by lack of a satisfactory formula; but I doubt very much indeed whether the formula contained in the White Paper is satisfactory.
    824
    It is not known at all whether or not the mere granting to a society of trusteeship status will lead to a general accretion to its funds. If it does, it must mean a rapid expansion of the total assets of the society and will have a concomitant adverse effect on the reserve ratio. Surely it is not possible for a society's funds so to increase rapidly without this effect. If one looks at the rate of expansion over the last five years of the seven leading building societies it is obvious that two of the fastest expanding societies have the lowest reserve ratio and that the two with the slowest expansion rate have the highest ratio of free reserves. I should have thought that the obvious deduction was that any rapid expansion envisaged by the Government as a result of the trusteeship status will lead to this sort of difficulty. There are other limitations. If a building society does not have to limit the amount of expansion in order to preserve its reserve ratio, that may lead to other difficulties.
    The Government have eliminated two thirds of the societies from trusteeship status because of size. I do not think that that should be considered a reasonable criterion. The Minister said he did not believe that limitation of size was the only criterion and that his method had included other standards. I notice that 500 out of 750 societies are so eliminated, although it is true that they handle only 3 per cent, of the total business. It is also true that the smaller societies are more local and individual. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering mentioned that the average figure of loans for pre 1919 houses was about 12½ per cent. I have not been able to find any evidence of it, but I think the tendency is for the smaller societies to do a rather higher average proportion of pre-1919 business.
    Mr. Mitchison: If it is of any help to the hon. Gentleman, I will say that the figure came from an address delivered by the Vice-Chairman of the Council of the Building Societies Association. He put it as rather higher than 12½ per cent. The hon. Member will find it in the Building Societies' Gazette.
    Mr. Macmillan: I thank the hon. and learned Member. I saw that, but I did not see any evidence that the smaller societies did, in fact, have a higher than average proportion, except that that seemed to be the general feeling in the movement.

    825
    The Minister mentioned that when the question of allowing trustees to invest in industry was concerned it was widely accepted that there should be a criterion of size. With great respect, I suggest that an argument which is applicable to a purely commercial undertaking is not necessarily applicable to a mutual undertaking. In fact, the whole tendency of the means my right hon. Friend has chosen to grant trusteeship status is an encouragement to building societies to adopt a more commercial attitude to their activities.
    Whatever he may say about not wanting to give the impression that the smaller societies are not so good as the larger ones, I am afraid it is inevitable that that impression will get about. It should not, because many of the small societies, by prudent management and low working expenses, have succeeded in building up a better position than the larger ones, one or two of which are now in some difficulties. If the standard of soundness of a small society is reserve ratio I have a random sample of fifteen small societies which will not qualify. The reserve ratio varies between 3·6 per cent. and 14·8 per cent. compared with the 2½ per cent. which eventually is to be demanded. On the other hand, there are two large societies which only just make it under that standard, the Co-operative with 1·65 per cent. in 1957 and the Woolwich with 1·9 per cent.
    It is the same if the liquid funds standard is taken as the criterion of soundness. The same sample of fifteen societies chosen at random gave a proportion of liquid funds between 8·7 per cent. and 17·3 per cent. as opposed to the 7·5 per cent. demanded in the White Paper.
    In my view, the Minister is creating a sort of first and second division of building societies, to use football terms. To continue those terms, that is bound to have some adverse effect on the gate money. I cannot help feeling that the situation of some of the marginal societies is very unfair. There is the St. Helens and Rainford Society, for example, with assets of £410,000 and a reserve ratio of 3·6 per cent., the Glasgow Society with £418,000 and—perhaps coming a little nearer home—the Bromley Society which very nearly qualifies, but not quite.
    There is an incentive to increase assets given to these marginal societies.
    826
    That must mean an incentive to increase profit by keeping up mortgage rates, which is giving a commercial rather than a mutual criterion to the organisation. One view taken of building societies' activities is that should pay a fair return for the investment and then do the maximum business they can with the available funds: rather than seeking to attract the maximum amount of money when conditions are right. It is possibly ironic that the Bill may well lead to less prudent management of some societies in an attempt to qualify under the size criterion and it may even lead to the demand for the maintenance of high mortgage rates to keep up a reserve ratio large enough to qualify for trusteeship status.
    I wish to say a word about the reserve ratios. I hope that the societies, some of which I have quoted, with ratios above the average will not feel they can reduce them. If the Bill encourages some others to reduce their growth in order to qualify under the precentage of reserve ratios, that would be a good thing. Despite the additional requirements the Minister mentioned, I do not feel that 2½ per cent. of free reserves is really adequate, especially in view of the recommendation of the Building Societies Association that 5 per cent. should be the figure. I know that that recommendation allows for the book value and not the written down value of gilt-edged securities; but that is not an adequate reason for reducing it by half in the White Paper.
    There is the danger that societies may qualify, or cease to qualify, even with the period of one year's grace after three years in the "first division." There is the additional trouble of how societies are to raise their ratio of free reserves from 1½ per cent. to 2½ per cent. in two years. If to do this they have to retard their growth, how can they take full advantage of the extra money that has to be made available to them under this scheme? If they do not retard their growth I cannot see how they can reduce mortgage rates without also risking not raising the ratio of free reserves in time. I do not know whether that consideration has had anything to do with the recent decision of the building societies on mortgage rates.

    827
    I understand, also, why 1½ per cent. was chosen as the initial figure for qualification. The fact that it is to rise to 2½ per cent. implies that it is inadequate. Therefore, the only reason I could see is that 1½ per cent. was fixed to allow some societies which would not otherwise qualify to qualify for trusteeship status. Nearly all the smaller societies are already higher than this level in their reserve ratios. Of the seven leading societies all except two are already higher than the reserve ratio. Only the Co-operative and the Woolwich are between 1½ per cent and 2½ per cent. Surely that is going to leave smaller societies to feel they have been excluded, however prudently managed, by a strict size qualification; whereas on the criterion of free reserves the Government have chosen to stretch a point and to include certain individual societies.
    As with the size ratio, the question of reserves is surely made worse by this linking of the conditions for the loan with the qualification for trusteeship status. I had quite a lot to say about the terms in which the Bill is drawn and some of the dangers I see in it and the safeguards I should like to see, but, in deference to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, I will leave that to a later stage in the career of the Bill.
    I now want to say a word or two about the rate of interest. Of course, the Minister was right when he said that a fixed rate of interest for normal and other transactions of this kind cannot be paid by the building societies on money they borrow from the Government, but I cannot understand why that has led him to tie so closely the rates they have to pay to the rate which the Building Societies Association chooses to fix for mortgages on private houses for owner occupation, with a ½ per cent. differential. Under this scheme, all are to be charged at the same rate. Obviously, that is equitable. Societies cannot charge their borrowers less; and under the terms set out in the White Paper, they must not charge them more.
    In effect, all building societies which wish to benefit by the scheme must follow the Association's recommendations. At the moment, these are recommendations only and it is left to the boards of individual societies to decide whether to adopt them. The fact that they nearly
    828
    all follow them does not alter the principle. There is no compulsion on them to do so. Under the Bill, however, the board of directors of a building society must follow the recommendations of the Association unless it is willing to discriminate against pre-1919 house purchasers or to maintain an unnecessarily high rate of mortgage to all.
    The House has gone to considerable trouble to prevent manufacturers applying a joint sanction through a trade association to those who do not comply with the price levels laid down by that association. Now, in the Bill, the Government themselves are taking over the sanction, because they are in effect to reduce by one-fifth the total funds available to a building society for loan by withholding the Government loan from building societies which do not comply with the recommendations of the Association concerning mortgage rates.
    There may be many reasons why it is necessary to keep up mortgage rates to obtain money for building societies to lend out. On the question of competition, I suggest to the Government that they would do better to examine again the highly subsidised rate of interest on National Savings, which is a competing source for the savings and investments that people might consider putting into building societies. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary replies we can have some assurance on this and on other points which have been raised, not only concerning trusteeship status but also in relation to qualifications, both as to size and as to reserve ratio.
    I beg my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider, even at this late stage, whether he cannot remove the link between measures designed to encourage home ownership and the conferment of trusteeship status on part of the building society movement. To me, the conferment of trusteeship status by a method which excludes two-thirds of the societies fails to do justice to the fine work which has been done by the movement as a whole.
    6.23 p.m.
    Mr. Michael Cliffe: I find it an ordeal to address this old and traditional assembly for the first time, and I hope that if I stray a

    829
    a little from the contents of the Bill it will be accepted that my intention is only to try to make the points I wish to raise.
    I have the honour to represent Shore-ditch and Finsbury, two very ancient boroughs. They were, in fact, referred to by Charles Dickens. Until about twenty or thirty years ago, the conditions prevailing in both Shoreditch and Finsbury were very much like the days of Charles Dickens, until the Labour local authorities who took control were responsible for their policies. Now we see some marked improvements.
    Part I of the Bill deals with the proposed loan of £100 million to building societies to enable people to purchase as their homes houses forty or more years old. One hon. Member has already said that the building societies are moneylenders. It appears to me that we are financing them to do a job that could be done better by the local authorities, which have a wealth of experience. Many Members of the House have gained tremendous experience as a result of their connections with local authorities. I refer particularly to the Minister himself. The town hall has now become the centre to which local citizens come with all their problems and difficulties.
    The Bill means that a local authority has to lend up to 100 per cent. of the purchase money of which it will be allowed only 95 per cent. and must make up the difference. No provision is made for the granting of money for this purpose. Much could be done in this direction by enabling money to be advanced to the local authorities for housing purposes for periods at the discretion of the loans commissioners, repayment to be on a maturity basis and the rate of interest to be a realistic figure. This could easily have been done. It is generally accepted that the present high rates for loans fixed by the Treasury are keeping up an artificially high rate on the money market. These are problems and difficulties that the local authorities recognise, but to meet them they must make calls upon the general rates.
    Part II of the Bill deals with the four types of amenities which it is proposed should be provided for the older type of house. These are
    "the provision of a bath, a hot water supply, and a water closet and satisfactory food storage in houses which lack these amenities."
    830
    I may be wrong, but there does not appear to be any interpretation of the relationship of these four items. Does the provision of a bath mean, for example, the fixing of, say, a shower in an already existing bathroom, or must a new bathroom be provided? If so, from one's knowledge of the houses that were built in about 1919 and earlier, one would regard this as a provision that would apply mainly to industrial dwellings. I should have thought that, generally, it would be extremely difficult to make any provision for the inclusion of a bathroom.
    All of us would like to see improved that type of property of which we are speaking, but it is just that type that is in very much over-crowded areas, particularly in the industrial centres. The Bill contains no suggestion at all about how we are to deal with the populations affected by these improvements.
    It would have been an excellent thing had there been in the Bill a proposal to withdraw from the Act of 1956 those parts that took from local authorities all subsidies except that for slum clearance. I can well imagine how welcome this Measure would have been if local authorities had had restored to them those subsidies. Lacking that, I fear that the Bill will suffer the same fate as did the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, I954, and the housing legislation of 1950. It will be recalled, too, that the only parts of the 1954 and 1957 Acts that were supplemented were those that gave the landlords additional rents. It will also be recalled that the landlords did not undertake the necessary repairs.
    In central London we have acute difficulties. It is not generally known, perhaps, that about 20 per cent. of our properties have only gas as a means of lighting. Some of the older dwellings—what are called industrial dwellings—belong mainly to trust companies, and although tremendous pressure has been put upon the owners, the reason that they give for not installing electricity is that they have not adequate financial resources. It would have been excellent if that had been provided for in this Bill.
    Had some financial assistance been given towards the cost of installing electricity in these dwellings, I am sure that there would not have been much objection. It is a scandal that in the very

    831
    heart of the Metropolis, where we so very often speak about a new age and where we talk so much of atomic power, there are houses with only gas installations, so that those who occupy them are denied the new electric gadgets that would take away some of the domestic drudgery. In addition, provision should be made for financial assistance to cover rewiring, and wear-and-tear repairs. I hope that the Minister will consider providing grants for these purposes.
    There can be no serious objections to what is proposed, although I believe that local authorities ought to have the main responsibility in dealing with the matter, because I have no doubt that, in the ultimate, it is they who will have the headache. What I complain of are the things that are not provided for in the Bill. It may envisage certain practical steps, and those steps may be good, but they are by no means a substitute for housing, and ought not to be regarded as such. The only satisfactory way to deal with that problem is the restoration of the housing subsidies.
    In Shoreditch and Finsbury we are permitted to build to a maximum density of 200 persons to the acre, but in much of the existing property we have a density of 500 or 600 to the acre. The only way in which we could, at present, remedy that position would be so to tackle the job as to lose one flat in three. If we are serious about housing, and I assume that the Minister is sincere and that these proposals are intended to help housing, I suggest that the only possible way of dealing with it is to restore the housing subsidies. That would enable us to provide accommodation for overspill populations who will be affected by this Measure.
    6.38 p.m.
    Sir Herbert Butcher: It is always a pleasant task to extend to an hon. Member who addresses the House for the first time congratulations in which one feels that one speaks not only for oneself but for those present in the Chamber at the same time. Certainly I count myself fortunate on this occasion to be able to extend to the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe) congratulations on his maiden speech.
    832
    In that speech, I detected the desire to conform to the rules of the House—to be brief, and to be non-controversial. I also detected the seeds of controversy which, I believe, we shall hear on some future occasion. I only add that if the hon. Member's future speeches are as well reasoned as that which we have heard this evening we shall have no complaint.
    I speak as a director of a building society, and I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) describe those in the building society movement moneylenders, and in no way idealistic. He should direct his mind to the origin of this kind of society. Building societies, trade unions and the chapel all grew up together in a desire to enable the ordinary working men to improve their lot in various ways. Though their courses have diverged, the building society movement still has the same principle, which is to enable those who wish to do so to live in their own homes.
    The societies, of course, have grown very much bigger, but the local interest is of the utmost importance and goodwill. It is not sufficiently appreciated how heavy a responsibility lies upon the building society movement to keep the balance fairly between the lender and the borrower. I confess that, having a certain amount of commercial instinct, I occasionally pull myself to attention before I enter the Abbey National boardroom and say to myself, "Remember, you are not going in here to make a profit. You are going to do exactly as fairly as you can between the two kinds of members of the society." The fact remains that, as my right hon. Friend mentioned in introducing the Bill, there is at present not enough money at the disposal of the building societies to go round. Therefore, this accession of assistance coming from the Government under Part I of the Bill is much to be welcomed.
    I believe it is right—and here I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan)—to link this question of trustee status for societies with willingness to lend on the pre-1919 houses. In another attractive maiden speech the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford) referred to the fine structures which were erected some hundreds of years ago and which, in

    833
    the light of modern planning, are not in entire accordance with modern ideas. On those houses the building societies have not been able to lend in the past because of the shortage of money. Yet the people who live in those houses are in every way as creditworthy as those who desire to live in the more modern houses. It is very much a question of taste.
    It is equally worthwhile bearing in mind that it is not possible to adopt the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and leave everything to the local authorities. It is not only the cost of council houses which is preventing them from building nowadays. In many cases it is the absolute unavailability of conveniently placed land. The houses on which the Government are now proposing to enable the building societies to lend occupy, on the whole, fine positions near the centres of towns.
    That brings me to a point where I think the Bill could be improved. While the limit of £2,500 may be right for the vast majority of houses, and in the majority of districts. I think it is perhaps a little too low for the London area, bearing in mind the high cost of land in London. It might well be that this amount could be lifted in about the same proportion as the Ministry itself used in determining the appropriate limits in connection with the recent Rent Act. I appreciate that much could be said on this subject. I equally appreciate that, listening to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, there may be several Committee points on which we will not all feel in entire agreement with the Minister, but I think it is worthwhile pausing for a moment to consider what is likely to be the effect of this kind of legislation on the future of the building society movement.
    This substantial influx of additional funds derived from the Government, additional control under the Registrar, and trustee status which is going to be of enormous importance and assistance to the societies, will necessitate much more skilled and competent management on the part of the building societies than ever before. It is of great regret that some of the societies with less than £500,000 assets will not be able to be accepted by the Government as worthy of this trustee status. But I am bound to say that just as at a certain period in the history of
    834
    British banks there were many amalgamations, I believe the introduction of this Bill will probably equally mark a period when there will be many amalgamations within the building society movement. The desire and opportunity to do the best for both classes, borrowers and lenders, is present in the minds of the boards of all societies whether large or small.
    There is the practical difficulty that if a society is to be well administered it must have a good staff. If one has a good staff and wishes to keep it one must offer opportunities for promotion and advancement in accordance with ordinary ambition. Because of that it may well be that this will be the starting point for some amalgamations inside the building society movement. It will be regrettable if the local touch is lost. Provided that can be preserved. I think the newer, larger and stronger societies may offer better opportunities of promotion for the staff, and, indeed, greater security for the borrowers and lenders.
    Part II of the Bill is a very workmanlike way of approaching the problem. It can be criticised as being rough and ready, but the answer is that it is ready and can be speedily applied. A large number of houses in this country, if they are dealt with promptly and put into happy, comfortable circumstances, can provide homes for people proud to live in them and willing to purchase them through the assistance of this Bill. This is a first-class Bill. I congratulate the Government on having introduced it, and I am not in the least surprised that the party opposite have no intention of dividing against it.
    6.47 p.m.
    Mr. Thomas Steele: The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher) began his speech with a very sincere and well merited tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe) and I should like to associate myself with his remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury mentioned houses built in the time of Charles Dickens. I want to speak of houses which were built before the days of Charles Dickens, in which some of my constituents are still living. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire. North (Miss Herbison) will, no doubt, have more to say about them in her speech.

    835
    The hon. Member for Holland with Boston, in the course of a thoughtful speech, mentioned the necessity for skilled and competent management of building societies. I hope to say something about that later, but, first, I should like to mention a small point which the Minister raised. He drew attention to the fact that under Clause 5, and Clause 20, which applies to Scotland, if a local authority refuses to give a grant to an applicant under the improvement provisions the applicant may, if he so desires, obtain a written explanation of the refusal of the grant.
    This is the provision which, I think, was put in the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954, and which, perhaps, we thought was substantial at that time. I have had experience of the working of this obligation upon local authorities. I hope to return to this point during the Committee stage of the Bill. When an applicant has been given a reason why a grant has been refused, what resource has the applicant to a further authority if, in his view, the local authority is giving misleading information about the reason why it has been refused? That is a small point, but I mention it now because of the importance which the Minister attached to it.
    All of us in Scotland would very much welcome any provision which enables new or better housing accommodation to be provided for the people of Scotland. If any part of the British Isles requires that improvement, it is certainly Scotland. I do not think that the Bill will bring those improvements. I do not think that it is a Bill which can possibly bring those improvements.
    I have been discussing this matter with certain insurance people who have the responsibility of deciding whether or not an applicant will receive a grant for a new house under the present provisions. I was interested to hear the figures given by the Minister. He said that if a man with an income of £13 a week was able to put down a deposit of £140, and paid £12 15s. per month, that would, in effect, enable him to get a house valued at £1,800. I very much doubt whether that would be so. On those figures, £12 15s. is almost a quarter of his monthly income. But that is not the end of the story. There are all the other commitments for Schedule A and other things and, as my
    836
    hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said, there is also the fact that in the majority of cases a big repair bill will have to be met if the house is to be habitable at all. These figures should be considered.
    From my conversations with insurance people who deal with this matter, the reason they do not give the grant is not because they do not have the money; it is because they are unwilling to lay an obligation upon people in this way because they are confident that it cannot be met. What I think might happen under the Bill is that they will give an impetus to something which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering mentioned. One would imagine that building societies are not giving loans for houses which were built prior to 1919.
    My hon. and learned Friend stated that the Halifax Building Society is making large advances for this purpose. I know what is happening in my own constituency, where, unfortunately, there is a lot of old property. Much of it is tenement buildings and not in a very good state of repair. The local authority is unable to do anything, and I say to the Joint Under-Secretary, who is interested in solving Glasgow's overspill problem, that what happens is that the local authority rehouses those people and houses are being sold to Glasgow people who do not understand or appreciate the circumstances.
    A person who is involved in this matter in a big way is a man called Mr. McClughan, with offices in Bridge Street, Dumbarton. He is the owner or agent for a great amount of property in my consituency and also, I understand, in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) and Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser).
    Mr. Thomas Fraser: We sacked him.
    Mr. Steele: My hon. Friend says that he has been sacked. After what I have said tonight, I hope that the other people concerned will do the same.
    The unfortunate thing is that, through the operations of this gentleman, people are being offered houses and are buying houses at present and it has now become clear that he is not interested in selling houses to people who can afford to buy them; he is interested only in selling

    837
    houses to people who cannot afford to buy them. This racket has been going on for some time. What happens, in effect, is that he sells the house, gets a deposit and after the person who has bought the house fails to keep up those payments he is evicted, and the process starts again. He is obviously working within the law, but the unfortunate thing is that he will not deal with the law.
    I will give one example of what is happening. A farmer in Dumfriesshire had a faithful and loyal servant, but, unfortunately, because he had to sell the farm and, because the new occupant wanted the house for himself, he had to tell the employee that he would have to go. This employee thought that he would like to come up to my part of Scotland. In a local paper he saw an advertisement for houses for sale. He looked at a house, thought it was all right, and went back to the farmer and said that it was satisfactory. To help the employee, the farmer said that he would put down the deposit, would pay his removal charges and would ask his own solicitor to make the necessary arrangements.
    The man left Dumfriesshire, came to my constituency, and took occupancy of the house before the arrangements were made. When he arrived at the office of Mr. McClughan, the following week, and wanted to make the arrangements, as soon as he told Mr. McClughan that the farmer's solicitor in Glasgow would make all the arrangements he was shown the door and told to get out of the house. Mr. McClughan was not prepared to have anything to do with the solicitor. This man, his wife and family went to the health department of the local authority and were rehoused by the local authority.
    This is not the only case. It has happened on a number of occasions, and I can tell the House that the local authority would like to get rid of Mr. McClughan. This man sells the houses, by instalments. Having sold them, he acts as agent for the collection of the instalments. Then he appoints himself as factor or agent of the property. I find that, in certain cases, where the new owner of the property has paid the rates to the local authority, this man has collected sums of money in instalments actually for the rates. This has had to be challenged.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: Has he his own private building society?
    Mr. Steele: My hon. Friend anticipates what I am going to say. I am coming to that. This man even increases his own salary as factor without consulting the owners of the property, although there is a provision about that laid down in the title deeds.
    With great seriousness, understating the facts, I say that this man is absolutely unscrupulous. That is moderate language, certainly not like the language used about him in the area from which I come.
    This gentleman has a door plate which indicates that he is the local agent for the Halifax Building Society. I am not sure whether these things are being done under the ægis of the Halifax Building Society or not. My hon. and learned Friend said today that the Halifax Building Society was lending vast sums of money for this particular purpose, but the book which Mr. McClughan uses, in which the instalments are recorded, is of the kind which can be bought at Woolworths for 2d. It is very difficult to get any satisfactory information at all about him. When I advise people about writing to him, they are unable even to obtain a reply. If this man is operating his scheme on behalf of the Halifax Building Society, then the Halifax Building Society ought to know something about it. I can say that the Halifax Building Society is being associated with him because he is known as the local agent for that society, and the names of this man and of the society stink in that area.
    This is a racket. It is a racket which might even go further under the operation of the Bill. There is a maximum amount of money which can be lent, but there is no minimum amount. As far as I can gather, the decision about whether money will be lent or not depends upon the building society. According to the speeches we have heard and to what the Minister said, the building societies will lend money if the applicants are worthy people—" credit-worthy "I think was the phrase—
    Miss Margaret Herbison: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. The exact words were "creditworthy borrower".
    Mr. Steele: I thank my hon. Friend for recalling the exact words. The impression was that money would be lent if the applicants were credit-worthy borrowers and sound in that way.

    839
    As far as I can see, there is no guarantee or provision that any building society will not be unable to do the sort of thing which is being done in my area. If a building society wishes to make a loan in such circumstances, what is there in the Bill to prevent it? Who decides whether a person is credit-worthy or not? Surely it is the building society. If these things are happening in my constituency at present, then, having regard to the number of properties in Scotland now empty and the number in respect of which these things could go on, we have a grave responsibility in Scotland to ensure that safeguarding provisions are inserted in the Bill.
    What I have already told the House is a clear indication that the proper method for doing it, if it is to be done, is not by way of the building societies at all but through the local authorities.
    7.5 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) has raised some interesting points. As to the last of them, I do not think that he will expect me to go into detail about the various charges he made against an individual firm. I listened to what he said with the greatest interest, and it may well be that some ventilation of the problem is desirable, but I think that it would be wrong for me to attempt to follow it up in any way on the information available to me and with the short notice I have of it. I do not think that he would expect me to do that.
    Mr. Steele: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I am sure that. having heard what I said and having just said what he has, he will accept that some inquiries should be made. I hope that he will brief himself on the matter with a view to making a further statement.
    Mr. Maclay: In the latter part of his speech, the hon. Gentleman suggested that some steps should be taken to enable control to be exercised over building societies lending money in such conditions, if such conditions exist, and that I will certainly look at. I think, however, that it is a Committee point which we shall have to examine very carefully, because the principle of the matter is that building societies, through all their
    840
    history, have shown themselves extremely able and competent at discovering who are credit-worthy borrowers. That is one of the great advantages of the particular system which we propose.
    The hon. Gentleman raised another point about an applicant for an improvement grant who had notice in writing stating why he would not get a grant. As I followed the implication of his argument, it was this. Has the man any right of appeal? If not, what is the point of having it in writing? I suggest that the main point in putting it in writing is that it lets the man know why he has not got his grant, and gives him a chance of conforming to the conditions which would make it possible for the local authority to give it to him. That is obviously very much better than just having a blank refusal and not having any idea why the refusal has been given.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Is not it likely that the letters now saying why a grant has not been given might lead to litigation? They could not under the earlier provisions of the Scottish Act because the local authority had a discretion as to whether or not it would give a grant; nobody could advise the local authority to give a grant. Now the local authority must give the grant in certain circumstances. Could not the letter now lead to litigation?
    Mr. Maclay: I think that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has a point there which we shall want to examine to see whether anything like that could arise under the new provisions. Again, this is something which may well be followed up in Committee.
    Mr. Willis: The right hon. Gentleman will not be on the Committee.
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) will realise that, strong as is my desire to answer every possible question on every possible subject on every possible occasion, it is not always appropriate for me to try.
    Before I come to the detail of what the effect of the scheme will be in Scotland, I will mention another point raised about whether the £1,800 house could properly be the subject of action under the Bill, having in mind the theoretical man with the weekly wage of £13. There

    841
    is room for argument as to who should or could properly be expected to fulfil all the conditions necessary to make it a safe proposition, but there will be many houses well below the £1,800 level which will come under consideration, particularly the pre-1919 houses. I do not think that £1,800 is necessarily the figure on which one should base all one's thinking, because there may well be many cases coming below that figure.
    Now may I go on to say something about the Bill as it applies to Scotland? In its essentials, the Bill applies to Scotland just as it does to England and Wales, and I am not proposing, therefore, to go again over a lot of the ground which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government covered in opening the debate. I shall not have much to say about Clauses 1 to 3, which deal with the proposals to facilitate house purchase. The only point which I should explain there is that, while both the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland are empowered to make advances to approved building societies, it is proposed that the Minister should make arrangements with building societies incorporated in England and Wales, and the Secretary of State with building societies incorporated in Scotland.
    In practice, this will mean that in some cases the Minister will be advancing money to English societies lending to Scottish borrowers, and, of course, vice versa, because the whole operation is thoroughly tangled up as between England and Wales and Scotland. As the building societies are organised on a United Kingdom basis, it would be impracticable, for administrative reasons, to differentiate between English and Scottish loans made by individual societies; it is obviously simpler and more convenient to have provision for each Minister to deal with his own group of societies, so that no one society has arrangements with the two Ministers. That is why we have made the provisions now in the Bill in the way we have done.
    I have not much to add about these Clauses. The need for measures to encourage house purchase in Scotland is, if anything, even greater than in England and Wales, because of the lower proportion of owner-occupation in Scotland.
    842
    Less than 300,000 houses out of the Scottish total stock of 1·6 million are at present owner-occupied. These are as accurate figures as I can get, and the reasons for that position are historical. I think that some of the historical reasons are beginning to change, and I believe that we shall all wish to see a much higher proportion of houses in Scotland occupied by their owners than we have at present.
    I should now like to refer to the Scottish provisions for improvement grants which are contained in Part III of the Bill. Although the provisions relating to standard grants to private persons are the same in Scotland as in England and Wales, there are certain differences in the other improvement grant provisions as they apply in Scotland. For this reason, the Government thought that it would meet the general convenience if the Scottish improvement grant provisions were incorporated in a separate part of the Bill, even though this means repeating in Clauses 19 to 23 much of what is said in Clauses 4 to 8.
    The scheme of standard amenities, as my right hon. Friend has already explained, will meet a need that has become very apparent in the operation of the existing provisions. The amount of grant which local authorities in Scotland have undertaken to pay from the inception of the scheme in 1949 to date is approximately £5·2 million on the improvement of some 17,300 houses; that is. an average grant of about £300 per house.
    It is worth while analysing these figures a little further. An analysis of the grants paid by local authorities over the last two years shows that over 60 per cent. of the improvements have attracted grants within the £300 to £400 range, 20 per cent. within the £200 to £300 range, and 14 per cent. within the £100 to £200 range. All the houses so far improved with the aid of grants have, with very few exceptions, been modernised up to almost new-house standard.
    Many owners must, however, have been deterred from undertaking improvements because they knew beforehand that this standard could not be achieved except at a prohibitive cost. That is really the moral that we can draw from these figures—that there was grave need to do something more effective without

    843
    involving the owner in excessive expense. The new scheme will give them an opportunity to bring houses without the basic amenities up to a reasonable standard of habitability at a cost which they can afford.
    I do not want to go over the same ground as that which my right hon. Friend covered when he opened the debate, but I will at this stage point out that the duty of local authorities to make standard improvement grants is the same in the English provisions as in the Scottish provisions in the Bill. The handling of applications for standard grants and the amount of standard grants as well as the change in the period of the conditions from twenty years to ten years also apply to Scotland, as they do to England. There are, however, a number of points that I should like to mention particularly, which my right hon. Friend did cover, and which have no application to Scotland, and to say why this is so.
    The first, on rents of improved houses, is referred to in Clause 12 of the English part of the Bill, and the second is the change in the basis of the grants for local authority improvements. If I can deal straight away with the point about the rents of grant-improved houses, I will deal with the other one a little later in my speech. My right hon. Friend explained the effect of Clause 12 and the kind of case with which it is intended to deal in England and Wales. Our position in Scotland in the matter of maximum rent of grant-aided improved houses is very different, going back as it does to the original provisions of the 1949 Housing Act.
    I will not detain the House with a detailed description of the Scottish position in this matter beyond saying that, as a good many hon. Members know, where a house has not been let in the preceding five years, the maximum rent is fixed by the local authority, and in other cases, the maximum rent is the last rent increased by 8 per cent. of the owner's expenditure in respect of improvements. This question has been considered very carefully, and after discussions with the local authority associations we concluded that it was not possible to find at present a new basis for fixing maximum rents for improved houses in Scotland. For this reason, no Scottish counterpart to the
    844
    English Clause 12 appears in the Bill. It leaves the matter where it was under the Act of 1949. I should add that it may well be that, after the revaluation in 1961, we may have to look at this again, but I thought I should give a short explanation of this part of the English Section of the Bill and say why it does not apply in Scotland.
    Mr. James McInnes: Surely, the local authorities whom the right hon. Gentleman has consulted were very emphatic in their attitude that there ought not to be any alterations. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, having accepted that advice, now indicates that we shall have to review the matter again.
    Mr. Maclay: I said that it may well be that after the revaluation a matter like this would need examination, but we cannot tell until we have revaluation. Clearly, a new set of circumstances may well arise at that time.
    In addition to this proposal, which will not apply in England and Wales, the period during which the conditions have to be observed is changed from the present period of twenty years to ten years. We are proposing that the general conditions of ownership and occupancy of improved houses in Scotland should be changed and brought into line with those applicable in England and Wales. The conditions now in force in Scotland require that an improved house must be occupied by the owner, a tenant or a member of the agricultural population in pursuance of a contract of service. We are proposing to extend the provisions so as to allow occupation without breach of the conditions by a member of the owner's family or a person who, on his death, becomes entitled to an interest in the house. The Bill also includes provision, for application in Scotland as well as in England and Wales, to allow the sale of an improved house by the applicant for grant after a period of three years from the time when the conditions began to apply.
    We are also removing the conditions with regard to voluntary alienation—and for the benefit of any non-Scots now in the House who do not know what it means, I should say that it is the sale or transfer of a house in certain circumstances to another person—which are peculiar to the Scottish code and might

    845
    involve the owner in liability to repay the grant. These provisions were originally enacted in the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1949, which may have been applicable, and I do not think I need to go into the circumstances of that time. Now, after nearly ten years, a great volume of additional housing accommodation has been provided—
    Mr. Willis: Privately owned.
    Mr. Maclay: —and we consider that the conditions that made the voluntary alienation conditions necessary have now largely disappeared. It is only fair that the Scottish owner should now be placed on the same footing as his counterpart in the rest of the country. As I have said, in both countries sale will be possible after a period of three years without breach of the conditions of the grant.
    Mr. Willis: Surely this Part of the Bill applies to all the property which has been rehabilitated and modernised? Surely that has not been added to in recent years?
    Mr. Maclay: No. Of course that is not the case. I have been trying to discover, if the hon. Member wants me to put it crudely, why the party opposite made this peculiar provision in 1949. I was charitably trying to understand their motives without going into excessive detail about it. I really think that it is true that they must have had their minds conditioned at that time by the number of houses then available, and that this was the estimate they made of what they then could do to deal with that total stock of houses available. In the years since then the total stock has increased, and we feel that some of the dangers, which may have been contemplated by hon. and right hon. Members opposite, and which made them put this provision in then and which is a definite hardship which Scotland has, compared with the rest of the country, have gone, and that it is only right and fair that we should correct this anomaly.
    Lastly, I think I should explain that we are retaining the existing basis for the calculation of the Exchequer subsidy payable on improvements undertaken by the local authorities themselves, and therefore there is no mention of this in the Bill. We do not need to touch anything there. Under the current arrangements the amount of subsidy is based on the estimated annual loss and takes into
    846
    account such varying factors as the cost of acquisition, the estimated cost of improvements, the estimated life of the property after improvement, the estimated future rent, and the current long-term rate of interest.
    In Scotland the sort of houses which local authorities have to improve are mostly of the pre-1914 tenement type, of substantial, stone construction, and it is an expensive undertaking, and the cost varies considerably, depending on the amount of adaptation or reconstruction required. Again, after very careful consideration, we reached the conclusion that the present arrangements are more suited to the special Scottish conditions than the new system which it is proposed to introduce for improvements carried out by local authorities in England and Wales. This was discussed with the local authorities, and the decision I have announced has their full support. I think it is a real advantage to us in Scotland, bearing in mind the special type of housing we have got to deal with.
    I do not wish to go on any longer than necessary. I have tried to cover the main differences in the Bill. However, I would say this. The 1951 census showed that at that time there were in Scotland over 600,000 houses—I am ashamed of this myself—without a fixed bath and about 500,000 households who had no indoor W.C. or who shared one. That position has considerably improved since then. One cannot give the figures without another census, but the position has improved.
    Every hon. Member will agree, however, that there is still a great deal to be done. It is really hoped, and I have every reason to believe, that, in spite of some doubts expressed by hon. Members on the other side about the effects the Bill will have, the simplified scheme of grants —and simplification is extremely important in this matter—and the relaxation of the conditions for making the grants, and the financial assistance to be given by the building societies will encourage owners to modernise their properties and achieve a notable improvement in housing conditions in Scotland. I have every hope we shall achieve a considerable improvement by this Bill.
    Miss Herbison: There is a clarification I should like to have. The right hon.

    847
    Gentleman was quoting figures for grantaided improvements. As far as I could hear, he gave a figure of over 17,000. I have here the latest Housing Return for Scotland, dated 30th September, 1958, which indicates that the total, including private and local authority houses, is 12,489. I wonder where the difference comes in. It is important that we should know.
    Mr. Maclay: I am afraid I should have difficulty in giving a snap answer to that. I will try to find the answer and to make it available to the hon. Lady if necessary.
    Mr. William Ross: Here is a fundamental point. The right hon. Gentleman ended by telling us of the disgraceful conditions of pre-1919 houses, saying there were so many hundreds of thousands without baths and W.Cs. Will he give me a categorical answer to this question? Will he say whether this money to be given to the building societies is to enable people in Scotland to buy those property liabilities from slum landlords?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member is picking up the same point I dealt with at the beginning of my speech. He realises very well that the intention is to improve properties, and, where right and proper, people will buy what is right and proper and it will be possible also to do improvements under the Bill. I would only say to the hon. Member that by this we can make real progress, and that the fears he has expressed in that respect are not right.
    Mr. Ross: Disgrace to Scotland.
    7.25 p.m.
    Miss Elaine Burton: I wish to raise a matter which I think is of particular substance to many people in this country, and I hope that if I can prove my case tonight I shall have the support of hon. Members on both sides and of the Minister, as I am quite sure I shall have the support of the public outside.
    On page 6 of the White Paper there is a sentence with which my entire speech is concerned. I am sure that the Minister knows in advance which sentence that is, but I quote it to him:
    "A society entering the scheme will undertake by formal agreement, in return for receiving Government money on the terms set out
    848
    above, to grant to any borrower who, in the opinion of the Society is creditworthy, a mortgage for the purchase…."
    I have known for a good many years that a definite prejudice exists on the part of certain building societies against the granting of mortgage loans to women. A friend of mine went, about five years ago, to the Abbey National Society to make application for a mortgage. She was aged 45, her salary at that time was £1,000 per annum, and it was with complete bewilderment that she learned that this application had been turned down. After the Abbey National, she went to various other societies, of which I have not got the names, and received the same answer. Being at a loss to appreciate the reason she asked her bank manager why this could be, and she received the answer, "Well, of course, it is because you are a woman."
    At that time I had no means of raising this in the House, because it did not seem to me that I could attach any Government responsibility to such a decision. I have had to wait until the Queen's Speech of this Session. In that Speech we learned that it was to be Government policy during this Session to make loans to building societies for the conditional granting of mortgage loans to would-be borrowers for houses of pre-1919 construction. To make the case more strong from my point of view, the Queen's Speech went on to talk about enhancing
    "the freedom and status of the individual."
    On 12th November last there appeared in The Times a statement of which I should like to quote only two paragraphs:
    "A spokesman of the Building Societies Association, whom the Government consulted in framing their plans, admitted yesterday, that although there is no hard and fast rule prescribed in building society practice, women are discriminated against simply because they are reckoned to be less credit-worthy. The societies argue that a man's future can be predicted with more certainty over a long period of years than a woman's.
    If a woman in search of a mortgage is young the society must take account of the fact that she may soon change her circumstances by marriage, when the husband will not be legally liable for repaying the loan. If she is less than young, the society must bear in mind "—
    Mr. William Hamilton: Less than young? What does that mean?
    Miss Burton: I do not know. These are the words of the society.
    "If she is less than young, the society must bear in mind that she may retire, even from a well-paid job, earlier than a man."
    These conditions would seem to apply against the young and the not so young, as well as against he married and single. It escapes my comprehension what type of woman would be exempted from that rather inclusive category.
    The Times was optimistic—as I was— in assuming that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would answer a Question which I had put down for the same week. It seemed to me that a Question concerning Exchequer policy might properly be addressed to the Chancellor. As he did not wish to answer it, however, he got rid of it to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and it will probably arrive on the Order Paper tomorrow, after a delay of six weeks. This delay, which caused me a good deal of annoyance at the time, has enabled me to acquire a considerable amount of factual information, which I shall be able to lay before the Minister tonight.
    I wrote to the President of the Building Societies Association—the Duke of Devonshire—because I thought it my duty to lay before him the extreme concern of women's organisations at the apparent has shown by some building societies in connection with the granting of mortgage loans. I heard from the Secretary of the Association, Mr. Garratt-Holden, that the matter would be raised at the meeting of the Council of the Association on 12th December last. I have not yet had a communication about it, but, wishing to be scrupulously fair, I should say that it may be awaiting me at this moment— although I would have thought that it had had time to arrive before now.
    On 10th December a letter from Mr. Garratt-Holden appeared in The Times. It refers to two matters which are very relevant to what I am saying. First, the Secretary of the Association says:
    "The necessarily condensed account of the conversation which your Political Correspondent had with a spokesman for the Building Societies Association (published in your issue for November 12) contained the words ` discriminated against, in reference to women applicants for loans, although these words were not used by the spokesman and certainly do not represent the attitude of building societies."
    850
    I was not present at the discussion, but there are three comments that I want to make on that point. The original item appeared in The Times on 12th November, but it was not until about three weeks later that any refutation reached me and, I believe, the Press. I submit that three weeks is a long time for an error so great to go without being refuted.
    My second point is that it is not the custom of The Times to be lax in regard to quotations from associations. Thirdly, if the poor, unfortunate spokesman did use the words "discriminated against", he spoke very truly.
    The letter in The Times went on to supply a statement on behalf of the Association, as follows:
    "Whether to make an advance and, if so, how much to lend to any particular applicant on the security of any property is essentially a matter for the directors of each building society to determine."
    I appreciate that. It would obviously be covered by the agreement.
    The statement goes on, however, to say:
    "Subject to this, the Association believes that the policy of most of its members is to treat a woman applicant for a loan in exactly the same way as a man if she is in regular employment and earning a sufficient income. In such cases there is no discrimination on grounds of sex and no male guarantor is normally required."
    That statement is not true. If I wished to be ultra-polite, I could say that it is incorrect, but I feel strongly about the matter. It is not a true statement, and if the Secretary of the Association believes that it is—and presumably he would not have so written if he did not believe it— he is living in a world of make-believe or in one of his own imagination.
    I wish now to show the House the reasons for my statement. Here I find myself in some difficulty, and I believe that every hon. Member will appreciate my position. Certain people have written to me giving me definite information on which I could speak tonight. They have no wish to have their identity revealed either to the House or to the public. We all appreciate the very great help that we receive from the Press on these occasions, and we know that its detective work is in many instances first-class. I am, however, particularly anxious that the names of these people shall not come out.

    851
    One or two of those who have written to me have mentioned the names of local building societies, or local branches, and if I gave them they might aid the tracking down of those who have written to me. But I shall try to be fair. I have a good case, which there is no need to exaggerate, and if the House will bear with me I want to give proof of the good faith in which I make these accusations.
    I have a very big file on the subject, and I thought that the only way in which I could present this matter to the Minister tonight was by trying to make him realise that it concerns people living all over the country. I shall not give particulars of the cases in detail, but I have eleven of them and I can tell the Minister, without giving the actual dates of actual cases, that while two are recent, but I have no actual date, others occurred in I943, 1951, I952, 1954, and 1956—and there were four cases in I958. I will start with the North—excluding Scotland. I would never venture to go into Scotland.
    Mr. Hannan: Why not?
    Miss Burton: Because I should not have sufficient courage.
    Miss Herbison: My hon. Friend would be very welcome.
    Miss Burton: First, I want to deal with a case from the city of Durham. It concerns a single woman who, acting on the advice of her solicitor, asked the Bradford Building Society for a mortgage of £1,000. Her statement reads as follows:
    "Although I was teaching in a permanent post and receiving the maximum salary for a woman they insisted that I should have a man's signature to my agreement. From all the information which I could solicit, it was of no importance whom I asked—his occupation was asked for, but the question of financial backing did not arise. His responsibility seemed to be nil. Should I default, he was not under any obligation—should I die before the agreement was completed, he could not automatically assume my place. His was merely a male signature."
    My second case comes from West Hartlepool, and concerns the Halifax Building Society. My information says:
    "I applied to the West Hartlepool branch of the Halifax Building Society for a loan … My.application was refused on the grounds that I was a single woman and I was informed that the case would be renewed if I could produce a male guarantor."
    852
    I come now to a case from Carlisle, from where my informant writes:
    "About six weeks ago my sister and I were discussing the possibility of raising a mortgage… A married sister enquired of the secretary of the "—
    blank—
    "building society about the prospects. The reply she received was that the society did not lend money to women. She pointed out that we were single, both in superannuated jobs—one Civil Service, one nationalised industry, but apparently this made no difference."
    My last case from the North comes from Sunderland, where I am told that one of the women known to me there was refused a mortgage without a male guarantor some years ago by a reputable local building society. I can assure the Minister that the letter goes on to say that the name and particulars can be supplied to him if necessary.
    Now I come nearer home, to the Midlands, to Northampton. My informant from Northampton says:
    "I was refused a loan on these grounds"—
    the grounds being the demanding of a male guarantor.
    "I was a depositor in this Society and no investigation of my financial state was made at all. No man, no money."
    That, I think, puts the case rather pithily. The letter goes on:
    "The same thing happened to a friend of mine, but I have no knowledge of which society refused her."
    Now we move to Leeds, where I am told that there a woman was prepared to pay half the purchase price of a house, yet a society would not advance a mortgage without the brother of this person standing as guarantor. The brother was a married man with many commitments, while my friend in Leeds lived alone, had no dependants and ran a business of her own. I am assured that the name of the building society could be produced.
    I come now to Oxford, but I am not dealing with a building society in Oxford itself—I wish to make that quite clear. From Oxford a person writes to me that she made inquiries of this building society about a mortgage:
    "The man gave me all the details of their mortgage service, including the statement that is was necessary for a single woman to have a male guarantor to enable her to raise a mortgage. I approached another building society … and the same thing was said about the guarantor."

    853
    Now I come to something which I consider even more important. I have here a letter from someone who works for an insurance society. She tells me—I hope that the Minister will note this—
    "A superintendent midwife in the Midlands already with good endowment life assurance, took a £1,000 endowment in 20 years, paying the first annual premium of £52 1s. 7d., for the purpose that at such time as a suitable property was found she would use the policy for house purchase or building society mortgage. When her father died in May, 1952, she had a transfer appointment early in July to her home town … where her invalid mother had decided on a house. In mid-September, before the second premium was due, she returned a policy to the company with a letter stating that she 'had no wish to carry on the policy as it will not be accepted for a deposit on a house or as part mortgage by the building societies.' She told me she was misled in taking the policy since she could not get any building society to give her a mortgage, being a single woman."
    My informant, who works for this insurance company, went on to say:
    "On my reporting this a confidential note came to me. '… it is unnecessary … to remind you that building societies usually require a woman applicant to provide a male guarantor for the amount advanced'."
    I am quite sure that the Minister will have had brought to his notice the issue of the Birmingham Post and Gazette, dated 10th December, in which Mr. E. J. Wilson—whom I do not know—the Secretary of the Birmingham and District Property Owners' Association, said he understood that discrimination did exist to the point of women being asked to supply a male guarantor when they sought a mortgage. If the Minister has seen that newspaper, and has noted the article, he will have realised that of all the women's organisations approached by this Birmingham paper every one was solidly in agreement that this discrimination did exist and that male guarantors were asked for.
    I wish now to deal briefly with cases in the South. First, I come to somewhere near London, where a person known to me writes:
    "I decided to buy a place of my own"
    with another friend sharing.
    "In spite of the fact that our combined incomes amounted to over £1,000, we were unable to obtain a mortgage without a male guarantor even from the larger building societies."
    From the South-West—as the place is rather small I do not propose to give the name—I have received a letter which states:
    854
    "My sister, who is a member of the profession of estate agents, has told me that out of three applications for mortgages two had to be supported by a male guarantor."
    My last example comes from Kensington—not exactly a Labour province. The person who writes to me is not a member of my party. She says:
    "I myself was recently shocked to be told that I should be refused a mortgage loan although I hold an apparently secure and well paid job simply because I am a woman."
    That concludes the case I am making for single women against male guarantors. To put it most kindly, I think that the House would agree that it makes nonsense of the statement by the Secretary of the Building Societies Association which I quoted earlier, that the policy of most members of the Building Societies Association
    "is to treat a woman applicant for a loan in exactly the same way as a man if she is in regular employment and earning a sufficient income. In such cases there is no discrimination on grounds of sex and no male guarantor is normally required."
    In addition to the case of the single woman, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to something a little more difficult, the case of the widow. I have here a letter from a Lancashire widow —the Minister cannot complain that I am not going fairly well round the country. I wish to read sections of this letter, because I think it important. I am a Yorkshire woman, but I think that both Lancashire and Yorkshire women speak bluntly, and this letter is simple and straightforward.
    "I am a widow and I hold a senior executive position with my company as office manager. My salary works out at the rate of £12 a week and I am guaranteed my full salary for a period of six months during illness. A few months ago I approached the manager of the local branch of the Halifax Building Society for a mortgage."
    She goes on to say—and I think that this is of particular interest—
    "I was well within the credit-worthiness required by building societies, i.e., that the client is able to earn in one week an amount at least equal to the monthly premium and outgoings payable. At £12 per week I was well within this. Furthermore, I was also able to provide references from my employers as to my status, and salary—from my bank manager and from prominent people in the town. Nevertheless, I was told by the branch manager that unless I was willing to obtain a male guarantor the mortgage would not be allowed, that it was no use my even filling in an application form. He assured me that there was no way round this as it was a rule of the society."

    855
    The manager even added that the previous month a woman school teacher had been in the same position and the society had refused to grant her a loan unless she found a male guarantor. That is the case of my widow.
    There are only two examples of married women that I wish to quote. The first concerns the Woolwich Equitable Building Society. The married woman I have in mind made application there, but the society would not even hear of it. She tells me that her name was crossed off the proposal form and her husband's inserted in its place. When she asked why this was so, she was told that a woman could not take out a mortgage with the society.
    The last case which I wish to quote concerns a woman in Oxford, who writes as follows:
    "My secretary tells me that three years ago she wished to apply for a mortgage and applied to various building societies. The first was to "—
    I do not wish to name it, because it is a small one. The second one was
    "to the Halifax and the Abbey National, which refused to grant her a mortgage without her husband as guarantor. As the house was being built with her money, and the leasehold was in her name, this seemed to her unfair and unreasonable."
    I would end on that eminently reasonable note and finish my quotations.
    I think that, in view of what I have said tonight, I am not being unreasonable when I ask the Minister whether, when conditions come to be finalised as to the granting of these loans to building societies, we might not ask that such conditions shall include a statement to the effect that any building society, so approved, shall guarantee that a woman applicant for a loan shall be treated in exactly the same way as a man if she is in regular employment and earning a sufficient income and that in such cases there shall be no discrimination on grounds of sex and that a male guarantor shall not be required. It would seem to me, going back to the letter of 10th December in The Times, from Mr. Garratt-Holden, that as he is in complete agreement with me about the desirability of this being the case no difficulty should be envisaged in writing in such a condition.
    856
    Concerning the widow, I realise that it is not good practice to argue from a particular case to general cases, but in the case that I have quoted it is obvious that a guarantor should not be required there either and I would ask that this matter be looked at. As for the married woman who wanted a house to be built with her money, and where the leasehold was in her name, surely such out-of-date ideas might at least be allowed to pass away. I have tried to be very moderate, but I submit that I have made out an unanswerable case against the male guarantor for a single woman who is credit-worthy. Every fair-minded person would agree that these ideas are unfair, stupid and belonging to mediaeval times.
    I also want to speak about something which I think is serious and about which I think we would all agree. It would be quite wrong if the taxpayers' money were allowed to be used for any purpose that involved sex discrimination. I have proved tonight that this does exist in some building societies. I want to be fair. I am quite sure that there are some branches of the big building societies which make this mistake perhaps unknown to the headquarters office. but the remedy lies with the headquarters' officers. However, this does exist in some societies and some branches of some of the national societies. As I explained earlier, I have been in some difficulty regarding identity of cases, but I have to give my information on this matter, and the House has been very patient.
    I say to the Minister that although I would be reluctant to do so, I am perfectly willing to show these letters to him, including the ones from which I have quoted, if this may be in confidence. I would show them to him as evidence of the good faith on which I have made these accusations, which cover the entire country. I would ask him to treat these accusations accordingly and to demand that there shall be a guarantee from the Building Societies Association that, on its part, it will do everything possible to ensure, and will ask its member associations to agree, that there shall be no sex discrimination in the granting of mortgage loans arising out of money lent to them by the Government.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I would not for a moment doubt the hon. Lady's good faith. It would, however, be helpful to have the dates of some of these cases.
    Miss Burton: I think that the Minister did not catch what I said at the beginning of my speech. I gave the dates in general. I am willing to bring the letters to him, when he can see all the dates.
    Mr. Brooke: The cases differed from one another and I do not know which case applied to which date.
    Miss Burton: I hoped that the Minister would not, because I did not want my informants' names to be revealed.
    7.56 p.m.
    Mr. Donald Sumner: I am very glad to be called after the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), for two reasons. One is that I can support in general terms what she has said. I am very pleased to do so. I have had instances brought to my own attention. I think that it is particularly hard on young widows who are otherwise fortunate enough in having means to get houses but who are refused for no better reason that one can see than of their sex and the difficulties which it may be thought that brings in train with it.
    The other reason I am very glad to follow her is because I want to focus attention on a rather different aspect of the word "creditworthy". I shall keep the House for only a few minutes, as I know that a number of other hon. Members wish to speak and it is getting rather late.
    When I was last fortunate enough to be able to speak in this House on the subject of housing it was about a year ago. I referred then to the difficulty which all people were finding in embarking upon house ownership at all because of the economic position. The general answer then was, of course, that one could not protect one particular section of the community from the general economic position. That was an answer which I think one had to accept at the time.
    I am therefore particularly glad now to be able to welcome a Bill of this sort which creates such a big advance in the general housing situation. I mentioned then—and no doubt it was very obvious —the difficulties that young people were
    858
    having. It seems to me from a general view of the matter, and from the view of those who come to me in my constituency, that the balance has rather swung and it is now elderly people who are finding most difficulties.
    This is quite likely to be some effect of the Rent Act and that these difficulties will clear away in the process of time, but there will still be contractual tenancies coming to an end. These older people are considered not credit-worthy not because they are not earning good money at the time but simply because of their age. It seems to me that this is one of the problems which really remains in the housing field. I think it right to say that the normal requirement is that the last repayment should be made by the age of 65 and the terms of this Bill seem to envisage a 20 year loan, so it does not directly help older people, or those who are not really old but are about middle age. We all wish to overcome this difficulty and to make house ownership as widely enjoyed as possible.
    The first way in which it can be done is to examine the way in which local authorities handle their housing lists. My own authority does not allow people on the list who have an income exceeding a certain amount. If we are to help older people it is essential that loans should be taken up by those who are credit-worthy. If all those who are credit-worthy remain on the housing lists that will react to the detriment of those who are older. Before anyone is granted a council house I should like to see an investigation into why he cannot get a loan under the existing provisions and the provisions of this Bill.
    I wish the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South had told us what those ladies whom she mentioned did after they had been turned down by the building societies and whether they went to the local authorities and what effects that had. We should then have had a picture which covered the matter as a whole.
    There is another matter of importance. Someone who has to deal with these things and knows better than I do about them thinks that local authorities would be in a better position to help the older applicants if allowed to take a collateral form of security, like an insurance policy. That is a point to be put to my right hon. Friend in Committee.

    859
    When my right hon. Friend speaks of London I hope he speaks of it in the same context as in the Rent Act. If the figure of £2,500 is to be extended I hope that it will be to the same area as is covered by the Rent Act.
    I found myself in some agreement with the hon. and learned Gentleman for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) when he said that more of this work might have been put into the hands of local authorities. I do not quite know why I should agree with him unless it is because we occupy the same building, one for the purposes of work and one for residence. I have nothing against building societies. I believe they perform a very valuable function, and I say this not because I do not want building societies to be helped in the way proposed by the Bill but because I want local authorities to be used to the fullest extent for loans, running their efforts in this field parallel with their ordinary work in housing. I give a very hearty welcome to the Bill and in particular to Part I which extends the scope of house ownership.
    8.3 p.m.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: I am sorry that neither the Secretary of State for Scotland nor the Joint Under-Secretary of State are present because some of my remarks will be applied particularly to Scotland. I have all my life believed, and so have the majority of my party, that it is very desirable to encourage families to own their own houses. I come from South Wales, where owner-occupation is a great tradition. We believe that a landlord is a monkey on the roof and we do not want a monkey on the roof if we can help it, because it can be a very wicked monkey.
    We should be careful how we encourage young people to take upon themselves burdens which they cannot fulfil. A Bill enabling people to acquire houses on 100 per cent. mortgage if built before 1918 gives me great concern, and I am very worried about it. People can get a loan or grant of £250 to bring the house up to modern conditions, which may mean that they have to spend another £150. if young people are so credit-worthy that they can envisage the prospect of spending £150 as well as undertaking a mort-
    860
    gage, they should go in for a new house and not an old one.
    One of my hon. Friends mentioned a Mr. McClughan. I do not want to mention any names and I do not know whether the gentleman I am thinking of is Mr. McClughan, but I know that houses are changing hands in Clydebank. A young man came to me and said he had bought a house for which he was paying £2 a week. He had not been in it long when he complained to the local authority about damp, and all the rest of it. The sanitary engineer made an order that he should get these repairs done. When the local authority told him that he was now the owner and must get the repairs done, he asked me whether he would be justified in not paying his rates because the local authority would not do the repairs. He had been talked into paying £2 per week for a number of years and within three months it looked as though he was going to be pushed into repairs costing about £200. I hope that the Secretary of State will give me some answer on this question.
    I have looked through some of the legislation. I see that in the 1950 Act, and I believe in the 1949 Act, the granting of a mortgage on a property will include all the burdens which are part of the tenure of the property, like feu duty and ground rent, but exclusive of other burdens. I am assured that in Scotland today unscrupulous factors are selling property to tenants who are in occupation. There is one case where a young couple will have paid about £600 over ten years, and when the payment is finished they will find a bondholder behind that property. Those young people will have to satisfy that bondholder by redeeeming the bond duty before they can get the deeds of their property.
    Mr. Willis: And pay the legal expenses.
    Mr. Bence: And pay the legal expenses.
    Is there not a danger in the Bill that some young people may be misled into purchasing these properties, not realising that at the end of the day there is a heavy bond to clear off? No building society will give an advance on the value of property when the valuation includes a bond. The Bill quite clearly says that the loan will be granted up to 100 per cent. mortgage on the valuation of the house or the price, whichever is the lower.

    861
    We know that in present circumstances the valuation of property is very much higher than any local authority valuer would have accepted.
    I do not say that the Minister is motivated by this, but I have no doubt that many owners of property who have not carried out repairs may follow this line. They look upon the properties as a burden. They were built before 1918. This Bill seems a wonderful instrument, not to enable young people to own their own homes but to enable property owners to get rid of something which has become a burden. I am convinced of that. All of us know many property owners who have tried to get rid of their properties but there is no market for them. Anyone who has the cash to put down would not buy a house built before 1918. They would buy houses built since the last war, or just before, because they can get advances from building societies.
    Unemployment in Scotland is now up to 95,000, and it will be difficult to find among the wage earners those who are considered credit-worthy. How in the present Scottish situation of employment building societies are to assess creditworthiness, I do not know. They can find the credit-worthy only among the top executives, and I am sure that they will not go in for buying houses built before 1918. If they are really credit-worthy and in good secure positions they are selling houses which they occupy and around which local authority houses have been built and are trying to buy houses further out away from local authority houses.
    Mr. Harold Gurden: The hon. Member said that buyers could not be found for these houses, but now he is saying that people are selling them.
    Mr. Bence: They are trying to sell them and cannot. There is a tenement house opposite where I live which has been advertised for sale for six years. The owner is a top executive of a large engineering company and the house is in a road which used to be a highly attractive residential quarter. Now it is surrounded by local authority houses and he cannot get a price for it. That house was built before 1918. It may be that he will sell it now—I do not know— but, if so, he will have to sell at a very low price because of the environment. I
    862
    do not agree with his view on the environment because I think the environment of working-class people is very fine and better than that of those in the top flight, because working-class people are more warm-hearted.
    Does not the Secretary of State for Scotland agree that what is needed in Scotland is not the financing of building societies or of local authorities to enable people to buy houses built before 1918 because the vast majority of them are tenements, and those which are not tenements are nothing like up to modern standards. This Measure will do nothing at all to increase the amount of housing and the number of houses necessary to Scotland today. After all is said and done, what person who has a security and who is really credit-worthy and able to see twenty or thirty years ahead is going to buy a house which is more than forty years of age? Of course they will not buy these houses.
    Working-class people will be talked into buying these houses which may need £300 or £400 spent on them in repairs in the next five-years. They will be talked into taking on a burden which in a few years they might not be able to carry. They will be involved in repayments over twenty years, plus repairs and rates, amounting to anything from £3 to £3 10s. a week. We should work that out with the 6 per cent. for repairs which will be entailed and the Measure going on the Statute Book to give building authorities and dean of guild courts powers to compel owners of property to bring their property up to standards laid down by the building authority. We may be asking young people who have committed themselves to 6 per cent. for twenty years on £800 or £600 to spend £300 in bringing the property up to the standard of modern amenities.
    It is not sufficient to say that up to £250 can be granted. People have come to me almost in tears because they have been asked to pay £20 in road charges and they have not got it. With this Bill going on to the Statute Book young people trying to raise families may be enmeshed in a burden they cannot bear, and that is dangerous. The worst thing we can do is to burden working-class people with years and years of debt. It is debt which breaks up families and creates misery in the home. I beg the Secretary of State and the Government

    863
    to be wary of how they burden young people with debt on property which should have been pulled down and new homes built in its place.
    8.16 p.m.
    Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) with interest and did not agree with any of it. When we in Scotland buy houses we generally see what the burdens are and what the proposition is. We are not such fools as to purchase a house blindly.
    I wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the Bill. It is an excellent Measure and will do a great deal to bring about home ownership by many people, old and young. What delights me is that the Bill is in accordance with Unionist principle and shows that the Government wish to help all sections of the community.
    My speech is going to be short, and when I say "short" I mean it. There is one point I should like to raise. No doubt it might be dealt with in Committee, but there is a principle involved and I should like to ask my right hon. Friend about it. Clause 20 says that the standard grant shall be approved provided the building is likely to last for fifteen years or more. It may happen that a local authority might be very willing to give this grant but considers that the building will not last that number of years. What happens where there is a conflict, when the applicant says that it will last for that time but the local authority says that it will not?
    Mr. Bence: It is some house if it will not last for fifteen years.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Is there to be a right of appeal or not? I suggest that it would be fully in accordance with our party's philosophy if there were a right of appeal by the applicant to the sheriff. I do not ask that my right hon. Friend should give an answer now, but I should be grateful if he would study this question and incorporate a right of appeal in the Bill between now and the Committee stage.
    8.18 p.m.
    Mr. Donald Wade: It is clear from the interesting debate which we have had that the Bill
    864
    deals with three distinct items of policy: firstly, the granting of trustee status; secondly, the provision of loans by the Treasury to the building societies to enable mortgages to be provided for pre- 19I9 houses; and, thirdly, the alteration of the rules relating to improvement grants.
    There may be some political or administrative reasons for dealing with all these subjects in one Bill, but I think that it leads to some confusion, and I should have preferred to have seen the important subject of trustee status dealt with in a separate Bill. The only comment I would make on Second Reading concerning trustee status of building societies is that I agree with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan). The limit of £500,000 assets will exclude some of the smaller building societies. Obviously, some conditions must be laid down and the line must be drawn somewhere, but it is a little unfortunate that some of these very sound, smaller building societies should be excluded from trustee status. I would rather have had a somewhat lower limit and stiffen the provisions concerning reserves. The question of reserves is most important and I have raised it on other occasions when we have talked about building societies.
    The Bill recognises the value of the building society movement and with that I have no quarrel. Any criticisms which I have to offer are not directed against the building society movement or against the idea of home ownership. As a Liberal, I welcome the extension of home ownership. We must look forward to a change in the pattern of ownership. My view is that there will be more owner- occupiers. There will always be some people who wish to rent their accommodation and that will be provided partly by local authorities, partly by private landlords and partly by housing trusts.
    I would like to see housing trusts encouraged. In future, I do not expect many people with a small amount of money to invest it in house property, as they have done in days gone by. There will, I think, be a gradual and steady increase in the number and proportion of owner-occupiers. The Bill will help in some respects, but we must get it in the right perspective.

    865
    The grim truth is that home buyers have had a difficult time ever since the war. There has been a shortage of houses and high prices, due partly to the shortage and partly to inflation. More recently, there have been high interest rates and undoubted difficulties in obtaining mortgages. Already in this debate, the Deputy-Chairman of the Building Societies Association has been quoted. I should like to quote further from him, from some remarks he made to a conference of National Registered House Builders, reported this month in the Building Societies' Gazette. After pointing out that the investments in building societies had fallen off during the years 1956 to 1958, he went on to say:
    "During this same period a number of local authorities ceased lending altogether, because they could only do so at what they regarded as a penal rate of interest. Insurance companies cut down their lending in many cases in favour of other forms of investment. At the same time the banks were directed to cut down their lending, and trust funds could he better employed in the purchase of gilt-edged, with the prospect of substantial capital appreciation in due course. You will see that there has been a reduction in the flow of funds from every source available to the would-be house purchaser, because of the prevailing monetary conditions. In practice, therefore, during the past three years, the climate has been very discouraging…"
    He did, however, go on to say that the position was improving and that more funds were flowing into the building societies, but I think it is fair to say that on the whole, home buyers have had a rather difficult time.
    The Minister was just a little overoptimistic in referring to his Bill as the greatest Measure ever. He seemed to be expecting a great upsurge of electoral gratitude. I was reminded of the man who for many years maltreated his wife and who, when he finally ceased to do so, said, "Why are you so ungrateful? You ought to be very thankful that I have stopped hitting you." I hope that this indicates an intention on the part of the Government to stop hitting the home buyers.
    I have purposely used the expression "home buyers" rather than "house sellers", because there is some distinction between the two. Encouraging home buying is not quite the same thing as encouraging house selling. There have been references to 100 per cent. mortgages. During the autumn of this year
    866
    there were some inspired statements to the effect that the Government were coming out with a scheme for 100 per cent. mortgages, backed in some way by the State. I understand that the Labour Party also has advocated 100 per cent. mortgages. I have always felt rather doubtful about that proposal, partly because it is a good idea that the buyer of a house should have some financial stake in it from the outset, but also because any widespread adoption of 100 per cent. mortgages would, in my view, lead to an all-round increase in the price of houses. It would inflate the market value.
    There are only two sets of circumstances in which 100 per cent. mortgages would not have that effect. There might be private arrangements between a seller and a buyer whereby the seller agrees to lend back the whole of the purchase price. That is their own affair. Secondly, local authorities may grant a 100 per cent. mortgage to a tenant who wishes to buy. In that case, all that happens is that the tenant pays a little bit extra every week and starts buying the house. I see no objection to that, but I would like to know what exactly the Minister envisages when he refers to the local authorities granting 100 per cent. mortgages.
    Mr. Mitchison: It is just for this sort of reason that we in the Labour Party included in our pamphlet, which I commend to the hon. Member for purchase and attention, a provision in that event in favour of the house going to the local authority on the first refusal.
    Mr. Wade: I appreciate that, but I still have doubts about the wider application of 100 per cent. mortgages. Today, therefore, we must ask ourselves whether the 95 per cent. building society loans will have the same effect. A great deal depends upon the valuation. During this interesting debate, insufficient attention has been paid to the valuations that will be made before these mortgages are granted. A good valuer will not only look at property carefully, but will also make recommendations about repairs which are required.
    The would-be purchaser would be well advised to hear what is said about the property by a valuer before entering into a contract. Unfortunately, some buyers sign a contract before going to a building

    867
    society to apply for a loan. They will then find, maybe, that the amount of the grant is not based on the purchase price they have agreed, but on the valuation. The public should understand that this 95 per cent. loan is to be on the valuation or on the price, whichever is the lower, and not necessarily on the price the purchaser has agreed to pay.
    I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong about that. It would be a great mistake to try to make political capital out of this Bill and, in order to gain electoral popularity, to give the impression that anybody who wants it can get a 95 per cent. mortgage. In the long run, that would do more harm than good to would-be home buyers. I would sum up my views on the danger of inflating prices by saying that local authority advances up to 100 per cent. should be limited to their tenants, and great care should be taken over valuations on building society mortgages. I think that the building society movement is well aware of that.
    I return, for a moment, to the smaller building societies. Some will not qualify for the Treasury loans, but it seems a little unreasonable to rule them out for reasons of size. Even though it may be thought necessary to apply all the tests before granting trustee status, I do not think it necessary to apply the test of size in relation to the utilisation of the Treasury loans in order to lend on the pre-1919 houses.
    The Minister may not be willing to lower the level for trustee status, but there is a case for lowering the level for the purpose of these Treasury loans, although, obviously, other conditions must be applied. I would not suggest that these loans should be available to all societies, unconditionally, but some of the smaller societies are quite well qualified to lend on the pre-I919 houses, they know the local conditions, and the creditworthiness of the borrower. It is an anomaly that that condition should be imposed.
    There is another anomaly. It seems ironical that the taxation policy of the Government should handicap the smaller societies. The imposition of Income Tax and Profits Tax on surpluses has the effect of making it more difficult to build up reserves and, therefore, for the smaller
    868
    societies to reach trustee status. It is also a handicap on the larger societies, because, as I see it, one half of one per cent. will, roughly, cover working expenses. It will not lead to any increase —certainly, not any material increase— in the reserves.
    It will, in fact, have an adverse effect on the reserve ratio, and here, perhaps, I may quote very briefly the chairman of the taxation committee of the Building Societies Association. He said:
    "… in the case of a society which takes up its permitted maximum of Government loans, namely one-fifth of its assets, its reserve ratio will drop by one-sixth …"
    I hope that the Minister will pass on these observations to the Chancellor. I recognise that by this Bill we cannot very well alter the taxation of building societies, but it is illogical that the Government should lend money to the societies in order to facilitate their expansion and, at the same time, tax their surpluses in such a way as to curtail their expansion.
    I calculate that if we were to revert to the pre-1932 position—in other words, if we were to abolish both Income Tax and Profits Tax on surpluses, the building societies could make an immediate reduction of half of one per cent. on mortgage interest rates, in addition to any other reduction in interest rates that they may be contemplating in the near or the more distant future. A taxation policy that curtails development and makes it more difficult for building societies to build up reserves, really does not fit in with a policy of lending more money to them.
    Improvement grants are a subject that we can discuss in greater detail in Committee. We must keep in mind the point that I made earlier—that we are trying to help home buyers, not, primarily, house sellers. I think that the term of three years contained in Clause 11 is rather too short a period after which to allow the owner to sell, and gain the whole benefit of the grant. I should have thought that a longer period would have been reasonable, but that, perhaps, can be discussed in Committee.
    I hope that the Committee stage will be taken on the Floor of the House. The Bill affects many people. It affects those who have money to invest, those who are buying their homes, and owners and tenants who wish to make improvements to their property. I hope, therefore, that

    869
    the whole House will have an opportunity of discussing the Bill in Committee. When it reaches the Statute Book I hope that it will help in some measure those who wish to become owners of their own homes. I hope, also, that it will help all occupiers, whether owners or tenants, of these older properties who at present have not the essential amenities of a comfortable home.
    8.36 p.m.
    Mr. Harold Gurden: The House will have noted with great interest many of the remarks which have been made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), but I hope lie will forgive me if I do not follow him in his speech except to indulge in a brief summary, since time is passing quickly. I would say that, broadly, his real criticism is that the Bill was brought in by a Conservative Government. Apart from that, he supports it fully.
    It seems to me that the chief criticism of the Bill from the other side of the House is that it proposes to use the existing agencies, the building societies, as the vehicle for easier home purchase. It has been asked why should building societies he helped when, indeed, they have said that sufficient funds are available. Sufficient funds may have been available in many quarters at the rates at which building societies have decided to lend. They lend at 65, 70, 75 or 80 per cent. according to what funds are available. But if it is proposed, as it is in the Bill, that 95 per cent. of the valuation should be available, obviously the building societies will want some backing.
    We on this side of the House understand why the building societies are not liked by the Opposition. Some time ago the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said that building societies were mere moneylenders; he said it in a derogatory sense and not, as I would say it, in a complimentary sense. However, I do not want to occupy the time of the House for too long, so I have deliberately omitted much of what I would have liked to say about the Bill.
    May I ask my right hon. Friend to take it from me that I and many of my friends are very grateful to him for bringing this Measure before the House so quickly, and for the way in which it is
    870
    drafted. I, for one, did not expect the improvement in the grants to exceed the level at which they are proposed in the Bill. I think that they will be extremely helpful. We believe in home ownership because it is much better that the individual shall own the property, and not the local authorities. Many of us believe that the local authorities are not the right people to own the houses, and neither is the nation. We believe that the people who live in them should own the houses. I am very disappointed to learn that only one-third of the houses in the country are owned by people who live in them. I hope and believe that the Bill will go a long way to make it two-thirds. I would rather see it at that figure.
    In the Midlands, houses are not owned in this proportion. Unfortunately, local authorities own far more houses there than local authorities do in the rest of the country. The trouble in Birmingham, for instance, is that people have very little option but to live in a council house. The council house system is not satisfactory. It is difficult to exchange a house. One may live in a council house which is 10 or 12 miles away from one's work. The Birmingham City Council exchange system is unwieldy. Practically, it does not work at all. I get many letters from people who badly need to change their house. Home ownership will give people the chance to sell their houses and buy another house nearer the place where they wish to live.
    A terrific load is being thrown on the streets of Birmingham, which are already choked with traffic at peak hours. I often think, probably wrongly, that the problem is worse than in London. Many people in council houses who wish to move are in fear of losing their homes, and this Bill may help them. It would help a good deal more if the councils would sell their houses to the people who live in them. As I said a few minutes ago, the people who live in the houses are the right people to own them, not city councils. The Birmingham City Council does not sell any houses to the occupiers; it refuses to do so. Since it owns most of the land in Birmingham, and probably half the houses, the people of Birmingham are faced with great difficulties.

    871
    There are old-aged people whose children have got married who are probably in a three-bedroom municipal house but are occupying only one bedroom. This is most uneconomic. We in Birmingham have more houses per head of population than ever before. The system of municipal landlord is not satisfactory. It is unwieldy and the council cannot properly manage the number of houses which it owns.
    Miss Herbison: The hon. Member referred to old people who live in three bedroom houses when all they need is one bedroom. Old people like to have their families come and stay with them occasionally. Why should old people have to live in a house with only one bedroom and be deprived of the pleasure they get from having their families stay with them?
    Mr. Gurden: To some extent, I agree with the hon. Lady, but I am going only by the number of letters which I get from people saying, "We do not want this size of house". I have them on my files at the moment and I will willingly let the hon. Lady see them. I never receive letters the other way round. These people complain that the local authority will not give them exchange facilities to a smaller house. I am not blaming the Birmingham authority too much because it tries, but the matter is too large.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he will remember that it was his party which prevented the introduction of arrangements by which exchanges could be facilitated. Exchanges are at present held up only too often by the landlords' unreasonable refusal of consent. When we tried to eliminate that, the hon. Member's party divided against it.
    Mr. Gurden: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman is putting a valid point, but the complaints I get concern local-authority-owned houses. In most of the other cases landlords are willing to help in the exchange of houses.
    Mr. John McCann: Oh, no.
    Mr. Gorden: I am speaking from my personal experience. I have yet to hear of a landlord refusing to help my constituents in this way. The local authority does not refuse either, but it is so slow.
    872
    Many of my constituents have been waiting years to exchange their house. Living accommodation is not economically used. No local authority could possibly handle the number of houses which have to be controlled and, at the same time, give satisfaction to all tenants.
    I suggest that it would be much better if the houses were owned by the people who lived in them and if the local authority in Birmingham, for instance, would offer their houses for sale to the tenants. It would solve the problem of the ratepayer who is having to subsidise, through the rates, people who live in municipal houses and who are better off than he is himself. It would certainly help people to buy their houses at a reasonable price. Then, if they wished, they could probably sell them and move nearer to their work. It would certainly help the finances of local authorities.
    Many local authorities have houses standing on their books at £300, £400 or £500, which they could quite comfortably sell, without hurting the purchaser, for £1,400, £1,500 or £1,600. This would be a way to help local authority finances and enable them to have more money to build more houses. There is no need for difficulty. The help it would give to the ratepayers would be tremendous. One of the biggest complaints on this subject I have from old-aged pensioners is that they are having to subsidise people living in houses owned by the local authority when there is, perhaps, £30, £40 or £50 a week coming in. That is a genuine complaint; they have to do that.
    The trouble is that my right hon. Friend has not been able to include in the Bill a Clause under which we could see to it that local authorities sell their houses to tenants who wish to buy them.
    Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he will vote against the Bill, in view of the fact that the improvement grant is a subsidy?
    Mr. Gurden: No, I certainly shall not vote against the Bill. After all, the improvement grant will help some of the people who have been subsidising the municipal property tenants.
    Mr. Ross: Who will pay for that?
    Mr. Gurden: It is about time that they had a little out of it.
    Mr. Ross: And the people in the municipal houses will pay for it.
    Mr. Gurden: It is only 25 per cent., I understand, which is to come from the ratepayers.
    We know that the Opposition would have it that houses must be owned by the municipal authorities. This Bill expresses the essence of Conservative policy, and we ought to go as far as we possibly can in seeing that every occupier has a chance to buy his own house.
    Mr. Ross: A slum-owning democracy.
    Mr. Gurden: There is another advantage in the Bill, and I should have thought that the Opposition might be attracted to it because of their anxiety to have a policy for the aged. If we can ensure that local authorities offer their houses for sale to the occupiers, and encourage people to buy their own houses, how much better it will be for elderly people who are trying to live on a pension in the years to come. In fifteen or twenty years' time, they will have no rent to find. We ought not to underestimate the value of the Bill in that respect. I hope that my right hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to this asset. If two-thirds of the people, instead of one-third, own their own houses, the pension problem in twenty years' time will be very greatly relieved.
    Mr. McCann: The position in the cotton towns today is that there are literally hundreds of houses which people have bought as an investment against old age, but, because of rising unemployment, those people have had to move out of the town and go somewhere else to find work. Now they cannot possibly sell the houses because there is no one who can afford to buy them.
    Mr. Gurden: I have an idea that Wednesday will give a better occasion to debate that matter. However, if these people have bought their own houses and, some years ago, entered into contracts with a building society or a local authority to borrow the money, probably 70, 80 or 90 per cent., at least they have an asset. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They will. I expect that they are asking too much money for it, because it is quite clear, if I accept the Opposition's argument, that houses are still in short supply. But I
    874
    will try not to be side-tracked again, or hold up the debate any longer, because I should like other hon. Members to have the opportunity to speak.
    Finally, I would say that we can all look forward, I hope, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer supporting my right hon. Friend's policy for home ownership and making this easier by removing the Schedule A tax when he presents his next Budget. If he does not do that, and if the Opposition, as they claim they will, win the next General Election, perhaps they will help us. May I add that we ought not to forget another matter while dealing with this, and that is the problem of leaseholds. If we are to help the purchasers of old property we shall have to consider some way or other of getting rid of the difficulty of short leaseholds, as against freeholds or the long leaseholds of 999 years.
    8.51 p.m.
    Mrs. Joyce Butler: I regret that I cannot take up the points made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), because what I want to say has to be confined to about five minutes, and, therefore, I shall have to summarise my remarks.
    I want to stress to the Minister that there is a real dilemma on the part of those of us who have welcomed—and I do welcome—his statement that local authorities will now be able to advance 100 per cent. mortgages to would-be home owners. I have been very keen on this for a long time, and the Minister will remember that I put down a Question to him just before the Recess, asking if he would consider making such a policy possible. What I had in mind particularly was that 100 per cent. advances would be very valuable to some of the people on housing waiting lists who could not possibly be accommodated by the local authority because of the shortage of council houses. The local authority knows these people very well. It knows their income, and also that the only thing that holds many of these people hack from purchasing houses is that they cannot get the deposit together.
    The Bill will be a real help to people in that category, and to people who have known from the inception of the Rent Act legislation that their landlords would seek orders for possession under the

    875
    decontrol provisions, and who, since the Rent Act was first introduced until the present time, have had a sufficient period in which to weigh up all the pros and cons of home ownership and to calculate whether they can afford to become home owners or not. To these people, too, I think it will be very valuable; but what distresses me is that there are many others who are being forced to become home owners, whether they want to he or not. They are being compelled to take over this burden—and home ownership is a real burden—because of the Minister's own policy with regard to the Rent Act.
    I have watched very carefully in the last few months the workings of the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, which, we were assured, was going to make things very much easier for these unfortunate people. I have been to the county court myself, and have heard a judge give a landlord an order for possession in four weeks' time against a tenant of 61 years of age, because, he said, the tenant had not made sufficient attempt to buy his own home. This case is a typical one. At that time of life, this man, an ordinary working man, with a daughter living with him, and two relatives of similar age to himself, is now scouting round trying to find a building society that will lend him the money to buy a house. I do not think that man should become a home owner. He does not want to be, but he is being forced to be one. If the Minister will look through county court cases of the last few months he will see that there are many more of these instances in which people are being forced against their will to buy houses.
    I have had some experience of this sort of thing in a quite different connection. I refer to the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board. If the Minister will look at what it has done he will find that many refugees from Egypt have been helped by the Board with deposits to put down on the purchase of houses. He will find that now many are coming back to the Board to say that they must give up the houses which they have started to buy because they cannot keep up the payments and cannot meet the responsibilities for repairs and so on.
    There is a good deal I should like to have said about this aspect of the problem, but there is not time to do so. I just
    876
    want to touch on the problem of the local authorities in making advances for home ownership. I shall be very brief. I want to support what has already been said, that the Minister should have put into the Bill some provision to give local authorities the same facilities he is giving to building societies in the raising of money. It has been pointed out that the conditions under which local authorities raise money are much harsher than those which the Minister is now offering to the building societies. But even if the money were available from the Public Works Loan Board on the same terms art which the building societies are getting it from the Government, it is extremely difficult for local authorities in fact to get money from the Public Works Loan Board at all. As it is, they have to pay more than the building societies will have to pay in the rate of interest. If the Minister is serious in wanting to enable the local authorities to make 100 per cent. advances, he should look at this again to see whether he can do something about it.
    There is the further consideration that building societies can pay off loans at will without a penalty clause, whereas local authorities can pay off only with a penalty clause—that is, what the Public Works Loan Board would consider to be the amount of the loss of the interest.
    There is another matter which I do not think has been mentioned so far, and which affects the problem of local authority finance. Local authorities in recent months, when they have had to make financial advances, have had great help from the trustee savings banks, and have been able to raise money from them. The National Debt Commissioners have recently relaxed the 10 per cent. liquidity ratio which the trustee savings banks had been required to observe, and have given them discretion as to the ratio they should maintain. Therefore, they have run down the ratio by calling in 7-day money previously lent to local authorities. This is an important point.
    I quote now from the Municipal Journal on a further aspect of the matter:
    "The National Debt Commissioners have also instructed trustee savings banks that mortgage advances to local authorities must not exceed two-thirds of the banks' total investments. These initiatives are clearly designed to encourage the trustee savings banks to go into the market for short-dated Government

    877
    securities—a worthy objective but one which should not be attained by damaging, as is being done, one of the sources from which the local authorities have been deriving considerable resources."
    There is very much in this point, but I have not time to elaborate it. I would ask the Minister to consider this before the Bill goes to Committee to see if he can do something that would put reality into Clause 3 and give the local authorities the wherewithal to make 100 per cent. advances to people who want to undertake home ownership and who should be encouraged to do so.
    8.59 p.m.
    Miss Margaret Herbison: We have had a very good debate, during which we have had two maiden speeches, one from the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford)—I am sorry that I did not hear his speech, although I heard that it was a good one—and the other from my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe). That speech I did hear, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House realised that here we had a Member with very great knowledge of the subject he was discussing. I am sure that we all look forward very much to his future contributions.
    Another speech to which I wish to make reference was that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton). She showed, with a great deal of evidence, how disgraceful was the treatment of women by building societies. I hope that the Minister has taken note of what she said and that in his discussions with the building societies —and especially in view of the great help that he is giving them under the Bill—he will do everything he can to ensure that women get at least equality of treatment with men in the matter of mortgages. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) made one of the most valuable contributions to the debate. She had only a few minutes, and yet during that time she showed very clearly the grave difficulties experienced by local authorities who wish to help in this matter.
    The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land, according to the speech he made. How right was my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann) in his intervention in relation to the houses
    878
    of the cotton-workers—those thrifty and good people who have bought their houses and now have to leave them to find work elsewhere, being left with their houses on their hands. The only reply that the hon. Member for Selly Oak could think of was that possibly they were asking too much money for them.
    I turn now to the speech of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. He said that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland were proud of the provisions of the Bill. The Minister claimed that it would provide new opportunities for improving housing conditions. Again, haw right was my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury when he pointed out that whatever the provisions of the Bill might be they were no substitute for more houses. He realised the very great need that existed in his constituency, and we in Scotland also realise what a crying need there is for more houses, and not merely for transfers of houses from one owner to another.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland, in his fairly short intervention, did not seem so proud of the Bill as did his right hon. Friend, and he certainly did not sound so confident. How could he feel either proud of the Bill or confident that it would do much for Scotland? He knows the shocking housing conditions which still obtain in Scotland.
    One interesting aspect of the debate has been that only one back bench Scottish Tory Member has spoken. Not only that, but he was the only one who tried to speak. Apart from the Secretary of State's P.P.S., he is the only one who has adorned the benches opposite during the hours that we have been discussing the Bill.
    Mr. Ross: And he spoke only for about one and a half minutes.
    Miss Herbison: That does not surprise me. Hon. Members opposite are either not interested in housing or know, as we do, that the Bill will do very little for Scotland.
    This Measure is a further recognition by the Government of the failure of private enterprise. They propose to give £100 million to building societies, at a rate of interest ½per cent. below that recommended by the Building Societies

    879
    Association for ordinary mortgages. Why cannot the Government make the same provisions for local authorities who know the needs of their people? My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green said that her local authority had been asking for the opportunity to advance 100 per cent. loans. Local authorities will consider that they should have the same generous treatment as is being extended to building societies.
    The present rate being recommended by the Building Societies Association is 6 per cent. If the Government start immediately, they will give money to building societies at 5½ per cent. Local authorities have to borrow money at rates from 5⅞ per cent. to 6 per cent. They have to lend money to would-be purchasers at a rate which is a little higher to cover their administrative costs. In October, 1951, under a Labour Government, local authorities were able to offer mortgages at 3¼ per cent. We have always believed that people wishing to buy a house should be given every help. What a difference between that figure of 3¼ per cent. and the present figure of over 6 per cent! At the beginning of this year local authorities could not lend at less than 7 per cent. The present figure is 6⅛ per cent.
    In our publication "Homes for the Future" we of the Labour Party say that we will have a special rate of interest for money used by local authorities to build houses for letting and to provide mortgages for those who desire to buy their own house. There is no doubt that this will benefit would-be purchasers much more than will the provisions contained in the Bill.
    In this case, as in many other instances, the Government have borrowed their ideas from published policies of the Labour Party. But in this case, as in the case of the pensions legislation, the Government proposals are a poor second. The Rent Act legislation was introduced in December, 1956. At that time there were 2,616 unoccupied houses in Glasgow. The landlords refused to let them because they wished to sell them. Hon. Members on this side of the House continually urged the Secretary of State for Scotland to intervene, but the right hon. Gentleman would not do so. When the Rent Act was introduced he said that it would solve this scandalous problem. What is
    880
    the position today? Are these 2,616 houses sold and occupied or are they let, as the Secretary of State insisted that they would be? Of course they are not. Instead of there being fewer houses, the figure for May, 1957, shows that there are 3,539 empty houses. So much for the claims of the Secretary of State in that regard.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) suggested that building societies were already lending for pre-1919 houses and gave figures for certain building societies. The Government now want to lend on those houses that the building societies up to the present time have considered to be a bad risk. It may he that these are the ones that we were talking about in Glasgow. The Secretary of State said that, of course, we were not just discussing houses which would cost £1,800 or £2,500. Many of them would cost less and these are possibly the houses on which he is hoping that the building societies will now advance money. This ½ per cent., in the Minister's own words, is interest for work and the risk to be taken by the building societies. It is, therefore, again made clear that where private enterprise will not take the risk with its own money, the Government are willing to allow public money to be exposed to a very serious risk.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I must clear this up. What I said was that at the present time the building societies had a shortage of money in relation to the demand on them and, therefore, they naturally were willing to lend more freely on the attractive risks, that is, the new houses. The older houses are less attractive, but that does not necessarily mean that they are bad risks.
    Miss Herbison: It certainly does mean, so far as the Minister is concerned, that they are a greater risk than the ones on which the building societies are lending at the present time. I am most interested in the Minister's concern for the building societies being short of money. I have here the Building Societies' Year Book for 1958—possibly the Minister knows it— and on page 128, Section 17, lending policy, this is what the building societies say about the shortage of money:
    "The total of advances made during the nine months of 1957 were substantially higher than during the corresponding period of 1956,

    881
    but the rate of lending declined in the fourth quarter owing to a decrease in the supply of available funds."
    So far the Minister is correct.
    "The year was marked by a high demand for mortgages which forced most members to institute schemes for allocating their resources. This high demand was due partly to the effect of the Rent Act and (following the increase in the Bank rate in September, 1957) to the fact that a number of local authorities ceased to make advances for house purchase."
    That puts the blame clearly on the shoulders of the Minister and the Government for building societies today being short of money.
    The Minister gave figures for the £I,800 house. He said that if a man were earning £13 a week and obtained a mortgage from a building society for £1,800, it would cost him about £12 12s. a month. That would not be his only cost. He would have to add to that the rates each year on his house, and in some places the rates are very high. Again, the Government can take a very great part of the blame for the high rates in our country today. So, when he adds the rates, that puts a further burden on the £13 a week man. In the first instance, he will have to pay out every four weeks at least one week's wages for the house.
    Then there are these old houses, the ones that are perhaps a heavier risk than those for which the local building societies are lending at the present time. One never knows when there will be a heavy repair cost. I live in an old house. Year after year something which we just did not expect would happen does happen and the cost is very high indeed. One would have to look very carefully at what the Government are proposing, because it may put heavy burdens on families that they will not be able to face.
    I turn to the standard grants. Private landlords and people who own their own houses have already been able, by legislation passed by a Labour Government, to improve their houses, but has a great deal of that improvement taken place? In Scotland, from 1949 until September of this year, the number of houses improved and the improvements completed were only 12,004. The figure that the Secretary of State gave us was for applications for improvements. That figure is 17,300. The English and Welsh figures show that there were 130,315 applications for improvement. The other figure is not given.
    882
    Are the provisions for standard grants likely to cause a great improvement in that position? I doubt it. I hope they will, but all the evidence we have so far has shown that in Scotland—the figures for England and Wales are not very much different—private landlords have not made use of those provisions that they could have made. If they put into the houses the four items listed in the Bill, they will get a grant of £150. I have examined those four items and I do not imagine that this will be anything like 50 per cent. of the cost.
    Knowing the landlords of Scotland and their record, I shall be very surprised if they are willing to find anything from £150 to £250 for houses that need to be improved. There are in the United Kingdom about 4 million sub-standard houses. If the rate of improvement continues as at the present time, it will take nearly 100 years to bring them up to what we consider a modern standard.
    I want to mention a point which has been raised by a number of Members on this side of the House. If a grant under the Bill or under previous Acts is given to a landlord, the house, if it is owner occupied, may be sold within three years, and no part of that grant will have to be paid back by the person who received it. That is wrong. I would not expect the whole grant to be paid back, but this is public money. The house will have been improved, and no doubt when the owner comes to sell it he will get more than he paid for it because of the improvements. In other words, he will be making a profit out of public money. I have no doubt that we shall have Amendments to propose in Committee on this matter.
    I am seriously worried about the position of Scotland. We have more than 1½ million houses, more than half a million of which were built more than seventy years ago. If we take the 1955 figures we find that 48 per cent. of the houses in Glasgow were of one or two rooms. What work would have to be done either to put two rooms or four rooms together, or to modernise them in any way? Can the Secretary of State tell me that he expects the private landlords of Scotland, with the provisions in the Bill, to do the job which is so necessary? Of course he cannot.

    883
    The Secretary of State said that there have been great improvements since the 1951 census. There have been some improvements, but almost all of them have been due to building by local authorities. In Scotland more than one third of the houses are owned by local authorities at present. If we take the census of 1951 we find that in Dundee more than half of the people live in houses of one or two rooms. The figure for Birmingham is only 2 per cent., in Manchester it is 2 per cent. and in Liverpool—which is considered a very badly housed city—it is 3·4 per cent., as against more than 50 per cent. in Dundee. I say to the Secretary of State for Scotland that he cannot in all honesty claim that this part of the Bill is going to make any worth-while addition to better housing for the people of Scotland.
    Mr. Maclay: I made no tremendous claims for the Bill. I believe that it can do a great deal to help, a great deal which was not attempted by the party opposite when it was in power. With all this talk about what is happening in Scotland. I am bound to remind the hon. Lady of what the party opposite was doing in 1950 and 1951 and what its views were of the optimum number which could be built and which we have built. It was very much lower than the number which we said could be built. It is very dangerous for the party opposite to take that line. I agree that we have a long way to go in Scotland to get houses as good as they should be. I am desperately anxious to help. I believe that the Bill will help, but it is not for the party opposite to talk as the hon. Lady has been talking.
    Miss Herbison: That is a most interesting confession by the Secretary of State and shows how different he is from the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The Minister made wonderful claims. I was not wrong in suspecting that the Secretary of State was not quite so happy. I am going to deal with the points he has raised. He said that we on this side of the House did nothing about this great number of unfit houses, or houses which needed to be modernised, but it was the Labour Government which led the way by putting on the Statute Book legislation
    884
    which would allow landlords in Scotland, if they had the desire, to do the job. The figures I have given show that landlords have not done that job.
    The Secretary of State talks of the number of houses which have been built. There were great election promises before I951 of all the houses which were to be built, yet the Government very soon became tired in well-doing. Now we have the picture I have presented. We estimated in 1955 that there were about 250,000 unfit houses in Scotland. The working party appointed by the Secretary of State reported in 1956 that in the four cities where we have more than half our population—Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee—they had more than their share of slum houses. Even so, they had a greater need to house the homeless and the overcrowded. It was a substantially higher rate, the report said, than the number that was needed to replace unfit houses. What a picture of misery, suffering and ill-health that depicts.
    Mr. Maclay: What a legacyߞ—
    Miss Herbison: The Secretary of State has just taken the words out of my mouth. What a legacy of private landlordism and private enterprise in Scotland.
    Faced with that picture, what did the Secretary of State do? On 11th November, 1957, he announced that the rate of building by public authorities in Scotland was to be reduced from the level of 27,000 houses a year to 20,000 in 1959.
    Mr. Maclay Mr. Maclay rose—
    Miss Herbison: I am sorry, I cannot give way. Those are figures given by the Secretary of State. If he had had his place in this debate, he would have been winding-up rather than, like a little office boy, intervening in the middle. I cannot give up any further time to him.
    We are not opposing the Bill tonight because it may do a little good. I would not put it any higher than that. We know that even the little that can be done until the General Election will be better than nothing. After the General Election. we on this side will begin to operate our plans outlined in the document "Homes for the Future". The policy therein contained is the only policy that will bring hope in Scotland to those thousands and thousands of people who are still living in the most shocking conditions.
    9.27 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): The whole House will agree that we have had an interesting debate. Until the last five minutes or so, it has been tranquil, also.
    First, I should like to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford) and to the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe) for two very attractive maiden speeches. I am sure that we shall have the pleasure of listening to both non. Members again. I am equally sure that the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury will be more controversial next time than he was today, and, if so, no one will begrudge him that.
    I should like next to refer to one or two more detailed questions before coming to the burden of the debate. I took note of what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said in his allusion to the gold watch and what my right hon. Friend had done with it. I should like to leave that particular jewel until a little later in my speech.
    The hon. and learned Member said. among other things, that the new arrangements for the payment of improvement grants might well prove an added burden to the ratepayers. Of course, nobody can say to what extent advantage will be taken of the new arrangements. I have, however, made a calculation on the basis of the number of standard grants being trebled during the first twelve months of the operation. In that case, when one allows for the Exchequer grants to the local authorities, the net burden on local government throughout the country as a whole would be about £500,000. It is, of course, conceivable, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise, that that figure might be somewhat diminished by the increased rateable values which those improvements will give.
    My hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, South and Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher) suggested that the ceiling figure of £2,500 for the pre-1919 houses was too low, particularly in the case of London properties. My right hon. Friend is perfectly willing to look at this again.. and, if necessary, to engage in discussions with the Building Societies Association. The hon. Gentleman the
    886
    Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury emphasised his own view that the general need subsidy should be brought back. I gathered that it was his view that we should never make the necessary housing progress until it was. I do not think that he would expect me to give an affirmative answer to that question.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton)—and I apologise for missing her speech—had a good deal to say about sex discrimination by the building societies. There are one or two things that I can usefully and, perhaps, helpfully say on this. First, there are, as I think she knows, the better part of 400 building societies which are not members of the Building Societies Association; and, of course, the rules that have been referred to in the Press and elsewhere apply, as far as we know, only to members of that Association.
    Secondly, the hon. Lady mentioned, I think, about a dozen cases, spread over a period of about five years. She may well have knowledge of more cases than the dozen or so that she quoted, but one has to keep this in focus, against a background of mortgage advances made during that period by the building societies in about 300,000 cases.
    I have refreshed my memory on the provisions in Appendix I to the White Paper, to which the hon. Lady referred and also on the correspondence in The Times. It may well be, as she said at the end of her speech, that notwithstanding the instructions that are issued from the head offices of building societies the administrative action taken in the provinces might be at variance with it. The most I can say now is that although, obviously, we cannot dictate, and are not in a position to dictate to the building societies, my right hon. Friend certainly has it in mind to bring her comments to the Building Societies Association, and to have discussions with them on what, I appreciate, is an important matter—
    Miss Burton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I intervene for only a moment. Would I be right in assuming that the three larger societies to which I referred—the Abbey National, the Halifax and the Woolwich Equitable —are members of the Association?
    Mr. Bevins: Two of them are, but the Halifax Building Society is not.

    887
    I turn for a moment or two to the rather technical questions governing trustee status, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan). This is a highly technical matter, and my right hon. Friend would very much like to examine in detail what my hon. Friend had to say. There are, however, two very short comments that I should like to make.
    There is, first, the point that building societies with assets of less than £500,000 are excluded. That is because trustee status, in our view, should be conferred only on the borrower of the most demonstrable security. I agree that size, of itself, does not ensure stability, but the larger enterprise is generally regarded as being more stable than the smaller. Proposals have been made at various times for allowing trustees to invest in the shares of companies, but these have almost always included a test of size, and the limit proposed has, in some cases, been a capital of £1 million.
    On the other major question raised by my hon. Friends, as to whether the ratios proposed in paragraph 2 of the Appendix were not too low, the ratio of 2½ per cent. of free reserves to total assets is intended to conform generally to the minimum financial standards which are applicable to well-managed building societies. It relates to free reserves and excludes reserves provided for losses on mortgages and other contingencies. As I say, these are highly technical matters which we should like to examine.
    Coming to the body of the Bill itself. it is all very well to say that if people wish to own their own homes they should be free to do so. That is not good enough. What we have also got to see is that the facilities exist whereby people are enabled to do so. Although it is true that savings have increased during the last few years, the building societies have to compete for funds with such things as National Savings, stock markets, unit trusts and finance corporations, and, while the flow of money to the building societies has recently increased, as several hon. Members have said, they are still unable to meet the demands for mortgages in full. This has reflected itself mainly in the inability of the societies to give mortgages for the older houses.
    888
    At the outset of this operation my right hon. Friend had to decide what would be the most effective medium or media for the encouragement of house purchase. Was it to be the building societies, was it to be the local authorities, or was it to be an entirely new State organisation? We dismissed the last alternative, and although, in the Bill, we are giving local authorities power to lend up to 100 per cent. if they so wish—and I do not suggest for a moment that that power will frequently or generally be used—we concluded that the building societies themselves constitute the most appropriate agency for this task.
    Of course, the local authorities, like some commercial institutions, the banks and the insurance companies, are prepared to lend money on mortgage for house purchase, and hon. Members on both sides of the House are grateful to local authorities for what they have done and are doing in this respect. But I think we have to bear in mind that this is only one of the many subsidiary activities of the local authorities.
    The building societies' sole function is to lend money for house purchase. Moreover, there are about 1,750 local authorities in Great Britain, and many of them, as hon. Members have discovered from time to time, do not engage in this particular form of activity. Not only are building societies responsible for the advance of the great bulk of the money which is loaned for house purchase— at present, they are lending about six times as much as the local councils—but, as one would expect, their organisation is better adapted for the purpose. It was chiefly for those reasons that my right hon. Friend and the Government decided to devise a simple scheme which would cover the whole country and which would be operated by the building societies.
    A great deal has been said in the debate about some of the financial implications of these proposals and it is only right that I should say something about that. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, it is part of the Government's scheme that there should be a margin of one-half of 1 per cent. between what the building societies pay for their money and the price which they will be able to charge for that money. In 1957, the building societies' average costs worked out at about 12s. per £ 100. Some societies, it

    889
    is true, have to meet overhead charges which are rather more than that figure. Others have costs which are below 12s. per cent. Indeed, I am told that there are some societies, although perhaps not many, whose overhead charges or total costs are rather less than 10s. per cent.
    The average costs for all societies is about 12s. per £100. This means that under our scheme the societies will have less money, not more money. for expenses than their average cost of transacting their ordinary business. The building societies have accepted this proposal, and we think it right that they should do so. After all, under this new arrangement, the societies will not incur such expenses as the cost of advertising for funds, as they normally do. I suppose it is a safe bet, too, that the more business building societies do the more likely it is that their overhead costs will fall.
    I turn to the rather vexed question: why are the Government proposing to lend to building societies at 5½ per cent. and persisting in charging local authorities 5⅞ per cent. for the same twenty year period of lending? It is not possible to draw an exact comparison between advances which are made to and from building societies and those to and from local authorities, because the building societies' interest rates vary from time to time. That is inherent in the scheme. In the case of local authorities, the rates will remain fixed throughout the whole period of the loan.
    I ask the Opposition to recognise that, accepting the decision to use building societies for this purpose, there must be a margin of ½per cent, and that even on this basis they will do less well than on the business which is financed by private as opposed to public money. More important still, the Opposition have argued this question today on much too narrow a front. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering I think, both narrowed it within the context of why we should charge building societies 5½ per cent. and local authorities 5⅞ per cent.
    It is well known that, even if building societies borrow more cheaply from the Exchequer than local authorities, that in itself is only a bit of the picture. The financial relationship between the Government and local authorities is not
    890
    merely a matter of money rate. It is not merely a matter of whether they can borrow at 5½ per cent. or 5⅞ per cent. Such things as subsidies and grants are also embraced, which considerably ease the position of local authorities throughout the country.
    For example, a local authority may build a school. Whatever it pays in loan charges—and this is very relevant to the argument the State defrays more than half, either through specific grants, as at present. or through the general grant in future. After listening to the debate, my own feeling is that hon. Members opposite are attaching far too much importance to the question of interest as it affects local government.
    Mr. Steele: What have schools got to do with it?
    Mr. Bevins: Perhaps I can illustrate the argument by giving one or two figures. In the last full financial year, the total expenditure of local authorities throughout Great Britain was £1,352 million. Interest payments were £140 million. Interest was, on the average, a shade over 4 per cent. Suppose that during the whole period of borrowing local authorities enjoyed a rate of interest ⅜ per cent. lower than they do, in fact, enjoy.
    Supposing, for the sake of illustration, that that had been going on all the time, there would then have been a saving in interest by local authorities of flit million a year, half of which, of course, is defrayed by the Exchequer by means of grant, leaving a residue of £7 million. This is exactly one two-hundredth of the total local authority expenditure and is the equivalent of less than Id. rate. Really, this is the merest bagatelle.
    Mr. Mitchison: Without wishing to disturb this touching picture of the intimate and warm relationship between local authorities and the Public Works Loan Board, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman to explain what this has to do with the point we have been discussing.
    Mr. Bevins: It has this to do with the point we are discussing. What my right hon. Friend says is that, given the decision to use the building societies, there must he a margin of ½ per cent. between the rate at which the building societies lend and the rate at which the Government advance funds to the building societies. As I understand him, the

    891
    hon. and learned Gentleman has argued that, if the building societies are entitled to money at 5½ per cent.—nobody knows, of course, what the rate will actually be —then the local authorities also ought to be entitled to borrow money on the same terms. All I am saying is that the relationship between the Government and the building societies, in the one case, which is a special case, and between the Government and the local authorities, on the other hand, is entirely different.
    Mr. Steele: Why?
    Mr. G. W. Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman said that the local authorities would not give a variable rate. His own Minister, of course, gave them permission for a variable rate for this specific purpose less than fifteen months ago. However, it is not only a question of 5½ for the building societies and 5 for the local authorities. It is really a matter of 5½ per cent. for the building societies and nothing for the local authorities from the Public Works Loan Board. It is £100 million for the building societies, whereas most local authorities are refused any money at all from the Public Works Loan Board for this purpose.
    Mr. Bevins: That is wholly untrue. Local authorities, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, are encouraged to raise their money in the market. [Laughter.] If hon. Members are not aware of the experience of local authorities which have. in fact, raised millions on the London market during the last six months or so, they really must learn their facts. If a local authority is unable to borrow in the market, it can go to the Public Works Loan Board. There is no question whatever about that.
    I come now to the hon. and learned Gentleman's "gold watch". He said that my right hon. Friend had "pinched" his gold watch and proceeded, I think, to put sand in the works. What he meant by that figure of speech was that the party on this side had stolen the programme of the party opposite, as set out in various not very intelligent pamphlets which have been produced from Transport House. To our utter astonishment, he went on to say that these statements of policy showed the desire of the Labour Party to promote home ownership, on
    892
    which, he added, it had always been so keen.
    Over the weekend, I enjoyed a little light reading connected, in a peripheral way, with this subject. One of the pamphlets I read was written by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here. On the subject of the owner occupier, under the heading "Property owning Democracy?", he said:
    "There is no fundamental objection to a man owning his own houses any more than to owning his own trousers."
    I am tempted to observe that the enthusiasm of some hon. Gentlemen opposite for home ownership is very deep-seated indeed. However, let me turn from the promise to the performance, from the speculation to the reality. During the last year in which the party opposite enjoyed power, 20,000 houses were built for sale.
    Mr. C. W. Gibson: Here we go again.
    Mr. Bevins: Yes, here we go again, and we shall go on a lot longer, too. Those houses were all built sparingly and all under licence—the old "one-in-four" formula.
    During the last nine months, more than 100,000 private houses for sale have been started, and 120,000 have been finished in the last year. What is the reason for this remarkable contrast? Whatever the Opposition may say now, in their aim to achieve respectability and in their attempt to escape from the clutches of the "Victory for Socialism" group, the fact of the matter is that the Labour Party has always been secretly, not publicly, contemptuous of the conception of a property-owning democracy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Of course, they have. Indeed, from their own point of view, they are probably right, because it is not part of the Socialist mission in this land to manufacture Conservatives.
    The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), speaking in the House in 1951, made this striking declaration:
    "Inside the Labour Party, there has always been argument as to whether we ought to have allowed any private building for sale at all.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1951: Vol. 494, c. 2256]
    In 1958, we are told that this argument has been resolved, but has it been

    893
    resolved? This House debated housing in the local government sphere on 1st May, 1958, and, towards the end of that debate, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering himself rose to interrupt, and this is what he said:
    "Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that building licences would be a much more effective and better method of combating inflation than cutting down the building of necessary houses by councils? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1958; Vol. 587, c. 602.]
    Those are the actual words of the hon. and learned Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is wrong with that?" 3 What is wrong with it? Hon. Members on this side of the House, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, are perfectly well aware that, given the smallest suggestion of inflationary pressure at a time of a Labour Government in this country, the first thing that such a Government would do would be to reintroduce building licences, not only for general building, but over the whole area of private house-building for sale.
    Mr. Mitchison: Not merely for houses, and the hon. Gentleman knows it, but building licences were required for many other purposes—to prevent too many petrol stations and the rest.
    Mr. Bevins: The House will have noted the hon. and learned Gentleman's expression when he said "not merely for houses, but also for petrol stations and the rest", with the implication that there would be building licences for private houses as well. No doubt, the promises in the Opposition's glossy pamphlet are very attractive and appealing to gullible people. The idea of 100 per cent. mortgages at 3 or 3½ per cent. Ís, naturally, very attractive, but the fact of the matter is this. What is the use of a full mortgage on easy terms if the prospective house purchaser is not able to buy, which was the position between 1945 and 1951?
    For our part, we on these benches believe passionately in the conception of home ownership, and, because we do, we mean to extend and encourage it. I commend the Bill to the House.
    9.54 p.m.
    Mr. G. W. Reynolds: It has been very interesting listening to the Parliamentary Secretary trying to justify the Bill. I am surprised that he sat down so quickly after referring to only
    894
    one or two different aspects of Labour Party policy.
    I have got the statement here which deals with the Labour Party's housing policy, and I also have a question and answer pamphlet which makes it clear. As the hon. Gentleman referred to one or two points, I also should like to refer to them. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister and that of hon. Members opposite to pages 24 and 25 of "Homes of the Future" in which a definite pledge is given, showing that we believe 100 per cent. mortgages should be given by the housing authority to those people in housing need, and I should like to say that the idea of 100 per cent. mortgages has been lifted straight out of this pamphlet and put into the Government's Bill. That is the first thing.
    Then we go on to the second part of the Bill. The Government have now decided that local authorities which improve housing accommodation should get the same type of grant from the Exchequer as would be given to private landlords. The 1949 Act provided that there was a rather curious idea of a percentage worked out in the Ministry with which nobody in the local authority would agree.
    I would ask the Minister to look at pages 44 and 45 of this document, where he will see it quite definitely laid down, approved by the annual conference of the Labour Party, that we believe that local authorities should be given sums from the Exchequer to improve accommodation on exactly the same basis as the private owner. It goes on to say that the local authorities shall be obliged to make certain grants to persons who wish to improve their housing accommodation.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to Question 26 in the Question and Answer pamphlet. where, once again, it is quite definitely laid down that we in the Labour Party. when in the next Labour Government, would make it obligatory on local authorities to give grants for improvements under the 1949 and 1954 Acts as well as those which the Minister is at present introducing.
    The hon. Gentleman also said that part of the reason for asking building societies to help out in this work, to give 95 per cent. mortgages, was that they covered the entire country. I think that he will

    895
    find that even where district councils are not operating the provisions of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts and the Housing Act, 1949, the county council is doing so, and I doubt very much indeed if there are any substantial parts of England and Wales at present where, either from the district council or from the county council, it is impossible for someone to obtain a mortgage from a local authority.
    Mr. Farey-Jones: Would the hon. Member give a list of county councils that are doing that at present?
    Mr. Reynolds: London County Council, Middlesex County Council, and, I think, Essex and Kent County Councils. One can go right through the whole lot. London County Council, I can assure the hon. Member, is doing it. Middlesex County Council, since it became Labour controlled in April this year, has started doing it. The Tories, when they controlled it, took the first opportunity to do away with that provision and of packing up the scheme, but when Labour gained control in April it restarted the scheme again.
    I am convinced that there is really only one way in which we can get most of the property in this country improved and brought up to a proper standard. In my own constituency literally hundreds of people are being forced to live in one or two rooms in parts of Victorian houses which were built simply for one family each, but are now occupied by three or four families. There will be hardly any landlords at all in the Borough of Islington who will come along and ask even for this new improvement grant. I do not think that any of them will be prepared to spend even £150 to improve their properties, because there is no profit or hardly any profit in it for them.
    I should think that by now even the party opposite, which tried to solve this problem by the Housing (Repairs and Rents) Act, 1954, and failed miserably, must realise that. It had to repudiate that Act and bring in the Rent Act, 1957, because in 1954 it completely failed. I should have thought by now that that party would have realised that it cannot drive landlords to carry out repairs and improvements because they still have to find a bit of their own money. The days
    896
    of the saying, "Safe as houses" are long past. People are not interested in investing in housing when they can invest in far more profitable shares of one kind or another and get a far better return.
    There is only one way to deal with this problem. It is the way proposed by the Labour Party, that the local authorities get in and get on with the job. They have a wonderful record in housing administration, and I think that they are the only bodies which will give us homes fit for the majority of the people to live in.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
    Committee Tomorrow.

    HOUSE PURCHASE AND HOUSING [MONEY]
    Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]
    [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to authorise Exchequer advances to building societies and make further provision for grants by and Exchequer contributions to local authorities towards the improvement of dwellings, it is expedient to authorize—
    A. the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be required for the purpose of making to building societies advances not exceeding one hundred million pounds, the borrowing in any manner authorised under the National Loans Act, 1939, and payment into the Exchequer of any money needed for providing or repaying such sums, and the repayment into the Exchequer, with interest, of any such sums and their re-issue out of the Consolidated Fund;
    B. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament to local authorities making grants towards the cost of providing dwellings with certain amenities of such contributions as may become payable as a result of applying to such grants the provisions of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958, or the Housing (Scotland) Acts, 1950 to 1957, relating to Exchequer contributions in respect of improvement grants;
    C. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament to a local authority executing works required for providing a dwelling with certain amenities of an annual contribution for twenty years of an amount equal to three- eighths of the loan charges referable to the cost of the works;

    897
    D. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such increases in the moneys so payable under the enactments mentioned in paragraph B of this Resolution as are attributable—

    (1) to any relaxation of the requirements as to which a local authority must be satisfield before approving an application for an improvement grant;

    (2) to any addition to the authorities which are local authorities for the purposes of section nine of the said Act of 1958;

    (3) to the substitution for the annual sums payable by way of contributions under sections nine and twelve of the said Act of 1958 of annual sums equal to three-eighths of the loan charges referable to the cost likely to be incurred by local authorities in carrying out approved improvement proposals or by housing associations and development corporations in carrying out arrangements with local authorities for the provision of dwellings by conversion of houses or other buildings or for the alteration, enlargement, repair or improvement of dwellings;

    E. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of this Session in the sums payable by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Penalization Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland;
    F. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the Secretary of State under the said Act of this Session;
    G. the payment into the Exchequer of any sum received by the said Minister or the Secretary of State from a local authority by virtue of the said Act of this Session.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
    Resolution to be reported.
    Report to be received Tomorrow.

    SLAUGHTER OF PIGS (ANAESTHESIA)
    10.0 p.m.
    Dr. Barnett Stross: I beg to move,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Slaughter of Pigs (Anaesthesia) Regulations, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 1971), dated 24th November, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be annulled.
    There are very few, if any, Statutory Instruments that I have awaited with greater interest than this. My hon. Friends and I are very happy to have this opportunity of discussing it. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) raised the matter in Committee, on 5th March,
    898
    1958, and that I had a few words to say at that time. Tonight, we wish to take this opportunity to ask some questions of the Parliamentary Secretary, and to request certain assurances.
    Before anything else, we welcome the opportunity to say how grateful we are, as I am sure are the Parliamentary Secretary and all his hon. Friends, to all those who have been responsible for inventing the machine that we are to discuss, and those who have effected improvements upon the type of machine that we discussed in March. We ask the Minister to make it clear to individuals and organisations—in particular, to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare—that we are deeply grateful to them. We hope that the hon. Member will let those organisations know without delay that we have been deeply interested in their work, and feel that we have cause to be grateful to them.
    Although I have been on my feet for only a few minutes, the Parliamentary Secretary may have realised by now that I do not possess an electric goad and have no intention of driving him into the Lobbies, either on a conveyor belt or on his own feet. We do not propose to divide the House; we are using this opportunity to ask questions and to try to obtain further reassurances.
    When we discussed this subject in March we had before us the description of a machine to which was attached a moving belt upon which pigs were to be delivered to the machine itself, which stood in a chamber. We understood that in this chamber there would be a release of carbon dioxide gas, and we were advised that animals would be rendered unconscious by it within twenty or thirty seconds. We knew that it cost only about 1d. per animal to bring about anaesthesia. We had a discussion about the use of the electric goad to drive the animal on to the conveyor belt, and was asked for a proper training of attendants. Some hon. Members made remarks not entirely complimentary to certain hon. Members who are termed Whips, and who drive us from place to place. We asked for people who were not likely to become excited, who were well experienced, and had had proper training.
    We note that under the Regulations specific modifications have been made

    899
    to the details of the machine we were discussing, which had been used in the United States in the first place and also, in an improved form, in Denmark and Holland. I have noted four modifications in the Regulations. The first is that every pig is now to be confined in a separate compartment of the machine. This was not made apparent to us before. If this be a new modification, and a new British modification, we are glad to hear about it. Secondly, a visible and audible warning to the operator will take place if the concentration of carbon dioxide gas rises above 70 per cent. or falls below 62 per cent. I should like some information about this. Why is it that the ideal concentration has been found to be within a limit of 62 per cent. to 70 per cent.? Human beings exposed to carbon dioxide gas lose consciousness in about a minute if there is a 10 per cent. concentration. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that a concentration of about 65 per cent. which we discussed last March must be pretty cold, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman has information which is not available to me and will tell us about it.
    The third modification which we like very much is that means of access to each animal is to be available in every part of the machinery. I had hoped that something like this would be done, that it would be possible to stop the machine or rescue the animal from any part of it if something was going wrong. The fourth modification I note—if it is a modification—is that there will be means of rapid extraction of the gas from the chamber if and when that is required.
    I wish to put these questions. First, may we have a specific reassurance about what will happen to animals in the machine? When I spoke about this in March, I asked whether an inspection chamber could be fitted so that we could watch. We had been advised that in an experiment conducted in connection with this technique in anaesthesia, observers noting 60 pigs passing through an electrically operated type of machine—not the one we are now discussing—had remarked that one in 15 or 20 animals had screamed. and that two out of the 60 came out of the machine bleeding at the mouth. It was thought that they had bitten at the containing bars and hurt themselves. I wondered whether something had happened to make them panic.
    900
    At that time we discussed the grading of the animals and decided that a difference in height of even two inches— if the pig were two inches higher than the average height of animals being put through the machine might prevent the animals from being anæsthetised. Carbon dioxide gas is an inert gas and the action is that of asphyxiation by the prevention of the inhalation of normal oxygen. The gas lies at the bottom of the machine, and to obtain ideal results pigs must be of an even graded height. That brings me to one reason why we cannot use the machine for birds or for cattle at the present stage, because we could not guarantee to grade cattle and birds, and so we know that the operation would not be successful. I ask, therefore, what grading for height is thought necessary and whether the conditions are as before?
    Another question is, what percentage of failures occur? The Regulations make clear that steps are to be taken to ensure that if there is a failure, something can be done at once. The Regulations say that there should be someone standing by with an electrical stunning machine at his disposal, in good order and ready for use at once. I presume that this is in case something goes wrong. Will the Parliamentary Secretary advise us whether there is any possible likelihood of failure with the type of machine that we now have in mind, and if so what percentage of failures he thinks there may be? I am assuming that the machine runs perfectly and is licensed by the local authority as being in good order.
    I should also like to know whether research is being continued to bring about further improvements. In discussing this, all of us hoped—and I think that I spoke of this myself—that if we continued with our research and experiments there was no reason why we should not ultimately achieve a machine which was quite foolproof, something perfect, and something with which we could all be completely content.
    Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether any films have been taken? I think that a film could be taken inside this machine, using infra red photography, to show what really happens. If this has not been done, will the hon. Gentleman take the matter up to see whether it can be done because continuous inspection of that kind would teach us a great deal.

    901
    We believe that this is a very real step forward in the slaughter of animals. Many thoughtful people are not very happy at our having to use the flesh of living animals for food. We do not talk much about it, but we are not always happy about the thought. It may be that in 10,000, 50,000 or a million years' time the practice will cease altogether; but today, and until such happy event, it is essential that we shall take every possible step that we can before slaughter, as I am advised, and I think that it is true, that most of the pain and suffering can happen to the animal at the point of slaughter and we should do everything in our power to minimise all possible pain and suffering.
    Of all our discussions on the Bill—and we had a number—this was, I think, one of the most pleasant that we had. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that we always enjoy coming back to this subject, with him sitting in his seat. It is rather like a reunion of old boys. He knows that, if ever we made him perspire a little as a result of our efforts, we meant it in good heart as we wished to improve the Bill.
    On this matter the Minister himself mentioned on Second Reading—I am speaking of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—this type of anaesthesia. We are very happy to know that we now have what may well be the best type of machine available in the world. Therefore, I say that we should continue with our research, never ceasing to take every possible step that we can because ultimately we can achieve almost the ideal.
    10.14 p.m.
    Mr. F. H. Hayman: I beg to second the Motion.
    I would say, at the outset, that it always seems rather odd that when one wants to say something in praise of Regulations of this kind one has to speak on a Motion to annul them. There is no need for me to say very much, except to say that we on this side of the House are very grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for bringing forward these Regulations so soon after the Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Bill was passed.
    I must admit that it was a very great shock to me to learn that there were considerable doubts about the efficacy of the
    902
    electric stunning of pigs, particularly because there are two bacon factories in my constituency. When I learned of this method through the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare I was rather staggered at the newness of the approach.. During a Committee debate on the subject we found there were doubts even about that procedure. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) assures me that the new Regulations will provide the finest machine of its kind in the world, and we hope that it is so.
    On a non-controversial subject of this sort we congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on submitting these Regulations.
    10.16 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) for saying, at the outset of his speech, that in praying to annul these Regulations that was the very last thing that he had in mind and that he wished them to be continued.
    I am grateful to the hon. Member and also to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) for the points which they have raised on the Regulations and what I take to be their clear welcome for them. The Regulations will provide a definite improvement, as the hon. Members have rightly said, in our methods of dealing with the slaughtering of animals and I believe that they are a very big step forward.
    The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. Central was kind enough, in his reminiscences, to refer to the happy time that we had together in Committee on the Slaughterhouses Bill. Those who had the privilege of serving on that Committee look back upon it with interest. Had we had the benefit of this anæsthetic at that time it might have made the occasion even more pleasant for some of us. I shall be happy, if any hon. Members wish, to take them through the new installation, so that they can test it anæsthetically for themselves.
    More seriously, perhaps, I might deal with the points which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central raised—important points. He welcomed one or two new matters brought forward in the Regulations, such as the provision for

    903
    separate compartments. I was glad to have his welcome of it, and also of the provision for visible and audible warning. This will prove very helpful. It takes the place of the need for an inspection chamber, to which the hon. Member referred. It is quite an effective counterpart for it.
    We went into this question of the inspection chamber with great care. We took the advice here of the R.S.P.C.A., who felt fairly strongly that it would be unwise to put in an inspection chamber, because the chamber would need lights which would tend to irritate and alarm the pigs. It was thought better not to have them. We therefore have the visible and audible warning, which will provide the same benefits without that danger.
    Dr. Stross: I am sure that the advice given to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is correct. I had in mind not an inspection chamber for the machine in the abattoir, but for purposes of research.
    Mr. Godber: Yes, that was the point which the hon. Member raised. It is one which I would wish to look into, to see whether we can interest any of the welfare bodies in carrying out something of that sort. We will welcome any further information we can get on that matter.
    The hon. Member asked me about the percentage of 62 per cent. to 70 per cent. which we have laid down. We have done this on the best advice we could get from countries which are already using this type of anæsthetising chamber. We find that they have reached the conclusion that something between those two figures gives the best results. There is a rather interesting article, incidentally, in the Sanitarian for this month, in which it is stated:
    "If the concentration of carbon dioxide in the chamber is too high, it may irritate the mucous membranes of the nose and throat, and pigs tend to scream and struggle."
    If it was over 70 per cent. that would be the sort of occasion when that would happen; but it is the experience of those other countries that those particular percentages are the most suitable.
    The hon. Member asked about the grading of beasts for size. This is something at which we looked carefully after the comments made in Committee. In
    904
    these Regulations we are providing for a uniform type of chamber and it is the normal custom, we find, for the type of pigs which go through to be of the normal bacon size. There is a rough standardisation and animals over a certain size would not be able to go through. For instance, large sows and boars would not be able to go through. We think that from our present knowledge this is an adequate safeguard, but, again, it is something we shall watch. This method of slaughter will be done in a relatively small number of cases and we are asking local authorities to let us know where these installations are set up. We shall make it our duty to be satisfied that in this respect. as in others, all is well.
    The hon. Member asked about the percentage of failures and did so on the basis of the fact that under Regulation 5 (b) we are requiring a mechanically operated instrument. That provision is purely as a safeguard and not because we believe there will be failure. From the inquiries I have made there are no reported cases of failure from any of the countries which are using it. I should have thought the likelihood of failure is very small. Nevertheless, we felt it right and proper to make this provision that there should be a mechanically operated instrument ready in case anything wrong should happen. It is a sort of double check. I think that it would be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House to know that we have made that provision.
    Those were the main points to which the hon. Member referred. I emphasise again that we are anxious to learn more about this method and that we shall keep the closest watch and check on it. If we find any need, we shall not hesitate to come back to the House and ask for amendment of the Regulations. We are entering a new field, something of which we have no previous experience in this country. We have taken advantage of all the knowledge we can obtain from other countries, but, as I say, we shall keep the closest watch on it so that we may satisfy ourselves that under the conditions obtaining here we have made adequate and proper provision for this method.
    As to the possible use on other animals at a later stage, we must see how we get on. That is a time-honoured phrase in this House and it is not unfitting here. If we find that there are possibilities of

    905
    being able to make further progress in this way, we shall certainly not hesitate to come forward with fresh regulations.
    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne for reminding us that we have brought the Regulations forward as soon as we conveniently could after the passing of the Act, because we are anxious, as I am sure all hon. Members are, to try to reduce any element of unnecessary suffering in slaughterhouses. We think that these Regulations are a useful contribution to that end, and I am most grateful to hon. Members for the way in which they have received them.
    10.25 p.m.
    Mr. Frederick Willey: I am sure that the whole House is greatly obliged to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary both for the replies and for the assurances he has given. For once, we are praying not to criticise, but to acknowledge what the Parliamentary Secretary has done. He will remember that in Committee when we discussed this provision we were anxious that there should be full consultation with the manufacturers, the trade unions and the animal welfare societies. It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman has said that there has been consultation and that it has been beneficial. It is a good thing to bring in these bodies to participate in legislation when it takes this form.
    We had one or two doubts when discussing the matter in Committee, particularly concerning the inspection provisions. I have had an opportunity of speaking both to the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare and the R.S.P.C.A. They are both satisfied that the provisions which the Regulations make are right and that any form of inspection window might make the pigs less docile and make the arrangements less effective.
    The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that we were also concerned about the use of the machine. The Regu-
    906
    lations contain provision for instructions and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will keep in touch with the trade union about these instructions and consult the union in due course about them. It is important not only that we provide this new form of slaughter, but that we should ensure that it is used as humanely and efficiently as possible. I also remember the point about uniformity. From what he has said, the hon. Gentleman has probably taken the most effective step in ensuring uniformity. Again, however, I hope that this will he kept under review and, if necessary, supplemented in the instructions.
    I am pleased also to see the provision for the certificate of approval. This, too, was a point we discussed in Committee. We were anxious that the manufacturers should be brought into this. It is clear that such a provision will make the manufacturers anxious to ensure that they obtain the necessary certificate of approval and that the appliances will tend to be standardised, therefore giving a greater degree of certainty that they will be humane.
    One final point that the hon. Gentleman touched upon was the use of similar appliances for the slaughter of cattle. He appreciates, I believe, that the animal welfare societies have some considerable doubts about this. From what he has said, however, there is no question of an extension of this provision to other animals until tests have been conducted and have satisfied those who endeavour to provide the most humane conditions in our slaughterhouses.
    We are greatly obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. We are not all vegetarians in this House, but we want to ensure that the most humane conditions apply in the slaughterhouses. The Regulations will help to ensure this.
    Dr. Stross: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    BASUTOLAND
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]
    10.28 p.m.
    Mr. James Johnson: I wish to detain the House tonight to speak about a little far-off land which has enormous significance, far outweighing its size, to the world outside. If we sometimes say that Hong Kong is the democratic shop window for China, we might equally say that Basutoland is the democratic shop window for the Union of South Africa.
    This land is of vital importance from the ideological point of view. What Her Majesty's Government do there with these people will echo and re-echo among millions of Bantu people. For some weeks we have had a distinguished delegation led by the Paramount Chief, Mantsebo Seeisio, and some of her leading chiefs. Not least in the delegation is a South African who has been advising them, Professor Cowen, of the University of Capetown—a fine type of Liberal. We are glad to see them here, and we welcome them in our midst.
    The Bantu are a loyal and an attractive people, who live in a very harsh land. This tough land has made of them a tenacious people. Their country is completely land locked by the Union, and, indeed, if the Union cared to impose economic sanctions it would be very difficult for them. The lowlands begin at some 5,000 feet, and the gaunt highlands go to about 11,000 feet, while the sandy soil has been sapped for over 80 years by excessive cropping. There is no organic manure, for the animal dung is used for fuel.
    Here, therefore, we have one of the worst examples of erosion, on a spectacular scale, and I hope that the Minister may be able to tell the House what is being done about this erosion. Is he satisfied with the number and the calibre of his agricultural officers? Is the Administration advancing sufficiently large numbers of young Bantu into these jobs? Are we thinking of mechanising the farming, in place of old and insufficient numbers of oxen? Is timber being planted on the high mountain slopes
    908
    behind? All these things are of vital concern to these farming peoples.
    Again, there are no large towns. Maseru has a population of less than 5,000, and, alone of the capitals of South Africa, does not have a Barclays Bank. There are no roads, no industry, but, lucky for these Africans—and they are luckier than some—no white settlers are allowed to own land. They are a genuine nation, welded together by their famous Chief Moshesh. They became wards of the Queen in I884, and I would like to quote the words of the then Chief Moshesh, as they apply now just as much as when they were spoken. He said:
    "Let me and my people rest and live under the large folds of the flag of England, before I am no more."
    For over fifty years they have had an Advisory Council, and then before the last war, they asked for a legislative council, and repeatedly since but have not been satisfied. As late as 1943 they were given indirect election, which has worked well, and, at the moment, there are 42 elected members out of 100 on the Advisory Council. Only four years ago, there was a Government Commission, under Sir Henry Moore; but, fantastic to say, this Commission did not say a single word about a legislative council, despite the fact that no less an authority than Lord Hailey had been saying for many years that such a council was the obvious and only step forward in the history of these Basuto people.
    There has been this increasing misunderstanding between Her Majesty's Government and the local administration. They are a loyal people, and have an honourable record in two world wars, and they wish to go on their way and develop uninhibited. I think the Minister will agree with me when I say that they would become bitter if South African apartheid should thwart their advance.
    In September, 1955, the Basutoland Council, a body of 100 members which, as I say, had been in action for over 50 years, passed Motion 90, requesting that it be given power to make laws in all internal matters. In May, I956, the Secretary of State said that he was willing to consider proposals along these lines, and we have now had a delegation here

    909
    for some weeks, conferring with the Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State.
    Their proposals can be summarised as follows: the establishment of a legislative council; the association of Bantu in the 'work of an effectively-powered executive council, and the establishment of local government. In the legislative field, it is proposed that the elected elements of the council be increased from 36 per cent. to 50 per cent., giving both chiefs and commoners a fair say.
    Those are the proposals that they have put forward, but it is the franchise that is so very important, because they say that those who are members of the Bantu nation should vote. In addition, of course, they have the usual other qualifications about being aged 21, having lived six months in the Colony, paid their taxes, and so on.
    I think that the only advance to be made in our African Colonies or Protectorates is along the line of a common roll, where Europeans and Africans, and, indeed, Asians, will vote on a common electoral register. I understand that the Secretary of State for the Colonies thinks so too, but does the Minister think so? Of course, I think in terms of white Basutos and black Basutos. There is nothing whatever to stop the 2,000 Europeans who are in the Colony voting upon the same list as the 650,000 native peoples, or, at any rate, those out of that number who qualify.
    Basutoland is the ideal place for a common roll to be enacted in this way. There would be no apartheid there, although I am told by those who have been to the Colony that they have been shocked by the application of the colour bar which operates at the present time. There is a hotel called Lancers, to which entry is refused to even distinguished people in the Colony, people such as some of those who appear in the delegation. Even leading chiefs are not allowed to enter the hotel. I understand that the Paramount Chief herself and a few civilians are given permits to enter the hotel. This state of affairs is quite appalling in a colony where Europeans are not even allowed to own land and who are there under terms laid down by the great Mushesh Chief seventy or eighty years ago.
    910
    Turning to economic development; any young man of the Colony has to leave the country in order to get a job. Some 150,000 go to the Union in the mines and farms. What are the Administration and Her Majestys' Government doing about developing the Colony's internal economy? What about the development of water power on the Orange River? What is happening in the matter of diamond mining with a gentleman named Colonel Jack Scott? What about the possibility of starting a tobacco or blanket factory there? There are over I million sheep in the Colony and blankets are the natives chief item of attire.
    There has never been a high-powered economic survey of the Colony. The Minister might consider sending somebody like Mr. Arthur Gaitskell, or someone of his calibre, to investigate the possibilities of the Colony, for activities by C.D.C.
    I come next to the question of education. There is an enormous thirst among the Basuto people for education. It is amazing to find how many girls in the Colony attend school. There are about 116,000 pupils in the schools of whom 72,000 are girls. This is an amazing difference to the pattern for Africa as a whole, where usually the boys are at school. They are nearly all literates, even the high shepherds and the cattlemen in the mountains.
    Unfortunately, what about the lack of facilities for higher education? I think that there are only 11 Basuto students in the United Kingdom and nine in the Union. The Union is now clamping down on Basutos coming to its territory. Would the Minister consider sending these young people to the new university in Salisbury? That seems logical. The Canadian Catholics in the Pope Pius XII College at Roma are doing fine work in this field—where their students number 100 Africans and seven Europeans. They are completely non-racial.
    It would be much more logical and sensible, since we are not to send these Basutos to the Union as in the past, to tie up the schools matriculation examination with that of the Federation of Central Africa and, also, London, and have the college in Basutoland linked with the University of London and with the Inter University Council.

    911
    The Basutos are vehement in their opposition to Bantu education. Therefore, I ask the Minister to think about matters on these lines. The sensible thing to do is what the Basutos want.
    What about the future constitutional position of these people? Are the Basutos to be denied advance because of their country's geographical position? There they are land-locked by the Union and the only way out is through Bloemfontein. It is thought that Dr. Verwoerd wishes to absorb Basutoland. Certainly the Basuto nation wishes to avoid this at all costs—they have an abhorrence of apartheid just like ourselves. It is interesting to see this view expressed by a member of the executive of the official South African Bureau of Racial Affairs, in its news letter of July and August:
    "The Basutoland proposals, which at the moment are enjoying the attention of the British Ministry of Commonwealth Relations, is an important step in the direction of the political coming of age of Basutoland. In the event of its acceptance it would, without a doubt, influence the relationship between the Union and Basutoland. It would possibly make the incorporation of Basutoland by the Union less likely and even eliminate such a possibility completely. On the other hand it can be a demonstration lesson as to the direction in which the Union can move in connection with its own Bantu territories."
    Perhaps the Minister saw The Times last week in which Dr. Verwoerd was stated to be thinking in terms of Bantu states—Pondoland, Zululand, Ciskei and Ternskei, which he intends to develop as a Commonwealth inside the Union, with their own emissaries to Cape Town, while he would send a Lieutenant governor to these Bantu states. Dr. Verwoerd is constantly gibing at us about the lack of development of the High Commission Territories of Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland. He says in overtones that we do not do enough in social services for these territories. Why cannot we do more than we are doing for our colonies like Basutoland? Why cannot we compete with Dr. Verwoerd and show him that states like Basutoland will be on a par at least with his own Bantu states? Her Majesty's Government must give the Basuto people the urge to build up and compete with the Bantu peoples inside the Union. Let us have more Basuto in the Administration and get away from this paternalism of the past. Give the Basuto a chance to develop and
    912
    get away from this over-anxious regard for Dr. Verwoerd and this fear of offending the Union. This is a challenge to the Government, and I am convinced that Basuto people and their leaders will more than vindicate the faith that we place in them.
    10.42 p.m.
    Mr. Patrick Wall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) on raising this question on the Adjournment. I should like to express from this side of the House the wish for continued good relations with these brave and loyal people. We have all been much impressed by the Basutoland delegation which has been here in the last few weeks.
    As he is now in the middle of constitutional talks, I will not press my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on the subject of political advance. All I would say on this subject is that both sides of the House join in hoping that the Basuto people will be given a greater say in running their own affairs.
    I want for a few minutes to discuss education which has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Rugby. Of course, the snag, as usual, is money. I believe that it is very unfortunate that the teachers who are educated in the secondary schools and universities in Basutoland, tend to go to the Union of South Africa just when they are qualified and can do useful work in their own country. The reason is that the standard of pay for teachers in Basutoland is well below that of the Union of South Africa. Would my hon. Friend look into this and see what can be done?
    As throughout the whole of Africa, secondary education could be much improved, particularly in technical and trade schools. But there again, money plays a great part.
    I should like to take up a point raised by the hon. Member, namely, the question of the Pope Pius XII University which plays a great rÔle in Southern Africa. I believe that considerable expansion is hoped for and I hope to visit the university during the Christmas Recess and see exactly what is required. I believe they wish to affiliate with the University of London for the reason already given, namely that it will enable them to establish a truly multi-racial university on the

    913
    same lines as Salisbury. I hope that my hon. Friend, as far as it lies in his power, will encourage that aim.
    I understand, however, that there is one difficulty, namely, that this affiliation would mean a five-year degree course, which might well be too long for people in an emergent, growing country which wants to have educated people in circulation, if I may put it in that way, as soon as possible. If this affiliation with London proves a real difficulty, perhaps affiliation with some provincial university or with Edinburgh University, where I understand the degree course is three years, could be considered. This would, perhaps, be more suitable for the Basuto people.
    I understand that the grants made to the various religious denominations vary very much in size. The religious denominations, both Protestant and Catholic, are doing fine work in the Territory, but I think I am right in saying that the disparity in grants between the denominations causes certain difficulties. Perhaps my hon. Friend might consider this also in relation to education policy for the Territory.
    I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be generous both politically and financially in their discussions with these loyal and happy people. After all, it is up to us to show that our system of government is better than the system practised by the existing Government in the Union of South Africa. In Bechuanaland and Basutoland, we have a test case in order to show that our ideas of freedom and democracy and our leadership of the emergent peoples offer them a better future than is offered by the present Government in the Union of South Africa.
    10.46 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) who opened this debate on Basutoland asked me to refer to the constitutional discussions which we are at present holding with the Basutoland delegation, led by Professor Cowen. I am afraid that I must disappoint him. At this stage, I can only say that my noble Friend hopes to make a statement on these negotiations before Parliament rises. One thing I can tell him is that there is now a branch of Barclays Bank
    914
    in Maseru, though what significance he will draw from that I am not quite clear.
    Both the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby and my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) concentrated most of their remarks on education, and I fully agree with the hon. Member for Rugby that the thirst and desire for education in Basutoland is, perhaps, greater than it is in any High Commission Territory. When I was in Basutoland last June, I had the opportunity of seeing something of the educational progress which has been undertaken both by the Government and also by the three great missionary societies which work there.
    I did not have a chance of visiting the headquarters of the French Evangelical Mission, although I did learn a good deal about its work and some of its many difficulties in conversation with its leaders. I spent a day at Roma, and I am delighted to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice intends to go there, if only for a brief visit. It is a most interesting experiment in higher education in Southern Africa. I had the opportunity of meeting both Bishop des Rosiers and Father Guilbeault, who is rector of Pope Pius XII College.
    As my hon. Friend said, this college is associated at present with the University of South Africa. That is purely for academic purposes. It meets the normal degree requirements of 'bachelor of art, bachelor of science and bachelor of commerce. In recent months, there has been a great deal of first class building undertaken by the college authorities. With these improved facilities and further improvements which will take place in the near future, it is fairly certain that during the course of the next few years, Pope Pius XII College will be able to absorb most of the likely Basuto matriculants. The college not only takes students from Basutoland but also from other High Commission territories and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and reciprocally the University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland takes students from Basutoland. I personally hope that this exchange of students will increase in the future.
    As for my hon. Friend's point about the affiliation of Pope Pius XIIth College to some other University, I should like to study his remarks and the contribution made by the hon. Member for Rugby.

    915
    Under the overall direction of the Education Department, there were in Basutoland last year 116,000 Basuto children at school, which we estimate as being more than 50 per cent. of the child population, and most of them are attending the higher or lower primary schools run by the two missions to which I have referred, and by the Church of England Mission, which, with the somewhat more limited resources available to it, has been doing splendid work in Basutoland under the leadership of the Bishop. Grants-in- aid are paid by the Basutoland Government to the tune of £238,700 a year to assist and supplement the salaries of all teachers on the approved establishments. Indeed, 20 per cent. of the Territory's total revenue is spent on education, and there is really a substantial number of lower and higher primary schools available in Basutoland, and of teachers to work there, although I would not claim that we are ever satisfied with the existing circumstances, particularly regarding education.
    Although some progress has been made recently in the technical and agricultural field, I hope the resources of the Territory would enable further expansion to take place in due course. That must depend in some degree on the development of the country's economy. This, after all, is based on agriculture and it has been true for a long time that the amount of land available has been insufficient to provide the average needs of all families. The result has been that the economy has been greatly assisted by the movement of something like 100,000 or 150,000 men at any one time into employment in the mines and farms of the Union.
    The Basuto have the reputation generally for hard work and reliability, particularly in the mines, and I am certain that mine managements would agree that they have contributed greatly in turn to the development of the mining industry in various parts of the Union.
    It is extremely disappointing that up to the present it has not been possible to discover any substantial mineral resources in Basutoland itself. Quite recently Colonel Jack Scott, whose family have had a long association with Basutoland, was given certain prospecting and mining rights by the Paramount Chief, and has
    916
    shown great energy and initiative in his search for diamonds. But so far his success has been limited and I can only hope, in the interests of Basutoland, that his efforts will obtain a better reward in the future.
    There have been rumours of the presence of uranium and thorium in the Territory, but I have no information which confirms that that is so. Indeed, the information that we have on this is, frankly, negative. But it may well be that there is a good case for a follow up to the minerals search that was carried out some years ago, and the truth of the matter is that if one takes the example of Swaziland, the potential development not only in agriculture but in minerals there has made a tremendous difference to Swaziland, transforming it, perhaps, from the Cinderella to the most highly developed of the three High Commission Territories.
    A similar windfall in Basutoland could change overnight the economic prospects of this Territory. I know that the Basuto themselves are keenly alive to their own economic interest in the finding of mineral resources in their Territory, and they know they are safeguarded in this because the rights to these are vested in the paramount chief, in trust for the Basuto nation.
    In developing their arguments, hon. Members opposite, like the hon. Member for Rugby, tend to give the impression that the United Kingdom does very little for these Territories. I am not complaining about that; I have no doubt that when I sat on the benches opposite I took the same sort of line. But we have made a substantial contribution to the development of Basutoland between I945 and 1955, and, indeed, right up to the present day. Under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts £2¼ million has been allocated, and £1½ million actually spent upon various forms of development. In addition, there has been a loan programme of £500,000, running up to 1960. In the allocation of these moneys particular attention is being paid to the improvement of communications, both of roads and telephones, and the extension of water supplies. Indeed, no one who has visited the Territory and been up the mountain road can be other than impressed at the feat of engineering which it represents.

    917
    Apart from any assistance that we may be able to give, Basutoland depends primarily upon its agricultural and pastoral activities. I know of no land that is so treeless, or so much in need of modern methods of soil conservation. if the hon. Member were to go there now he would still find it pretty treeless, despite the efforts made to plant millions of trees. He would, however, be greatly impressed with the progress made in soil conservation in certain agricultural schemes in different parts of the Territory.
    This work takes time, and requires patience, when it affects long-established rights, but the evidence I saw at the agricultural training school, and the expansion of co-operative organisations in the Territory, are clear proof that the Basuto are energetic and enterprising, and keenly anxious to improve their own standards of living by the introduction of modern methods of marketing organisation. Her Majesty's Government are only too anxious to assist in that, because we realise clearly the importance of making a contribution to a Territory which has been more than normally handicapped by
    918
    lack of economic resources in these many years.
    The hon. Member for Rugby referred to the "failure" of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the appointment of Basuto civil servants. I would only say that, hitherto, the emphasis has been placed upon the junior service, which is practically all-African at present and consists of about 1,000 civil servants, but a start has been made—and I am sure that this is most important—upon the appointment of Africans to the senior service, and 17 have already become members of that service. I can assure the hon. Member that as it becomes possible, with the coming forward of candidates with the sort of qualifications required, we will continue to promote this policy.
    The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at one minute to Eleven o'clock.

UNITED NATIONS
  Military Service (Conscientious Objection)
  Military Service (Conscientious Objection)
  Political Rights of Women (Convention)
  Political Rights of Women (Convention)
  N.A.T.O. PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE, WASHINGTON
  N.A.T.O. PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE, WASHINGTON
  CUBA (MR. TOPHAM)
  CUBA (MR. TOPHAM)
GERMANY
  Heinz Reinefahrth
  Heinz Reinefahrth
  British Subjects (Compensation)
  British Subjects (Compensation)
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES
  British Books (India and Pakistan)
  British Books (India and Pakistan)
  Oversea Services
  Oversea Services
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk, Butter and Cheese
  Milk, Butter and Cheese
  Small Farmers
  Small Farmers
  Imported Foodstuffs (Examination)
  Imported Foodstuffs (Examination)
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Farm Land
  Farm Land
  Beef
  Beef
  Grassland Utilisation (Report)
  Grassland Utilisation (Report)
  Peas
  Peas
  Development Plan, Long Newton
  Development Plan, Long Newton
  Heifers
  Heifers
  Radioactivity
  Radioactivity
  Export of Cattle (Conditions)
  Export of Cattle (Conditions)
  Sheep Worrying
  Sheep Worrying
  Sheep Shearing
  Sheep Shearing
NATURE CONSERVANCY
  Field Stations (Catering Losses)
  Field Stations (Catering Losses)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Widows' Benefits
  Widows' Benefits
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  War Pensions Committees
  War Pensions Committees
  War Pensioners
  War Pensioners
COAL
  Mining Subsidence, St. Helens
  Mining Subsidence, St. Helens
  Opencast Mining, Aberkenfig and Bryncethin
  Opencast Mining, Aberkenfig and Bryncethin
  Opencast Mining Operations, Notton
  Opencast Mining Operations, Notton
  Uneconomic Pits
  Uneconomic Pits
  Domestic Coal, London Area (Distribution Charges)
  Domestic Coal, London Area (Distribution Charges)
  Smokeless Fuel
  Smokeless Fuel
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Steel Industry (Capital Expenditure)
  Steel Industry (Capital Expenditure)
  Atomic Power Stations (Programme)
  Atomic Power Stations (Programme)
ELECTRICITY
  Power Stations (Oil Consumption)
  Power Stations (Oil Consumption)
  Rural Electrification
  Rural Electrification
  Canterbury-Lydd (275 k.v. Line)
  Canterbury-Lydd (275 k.v. Line)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Radio Telescopes
  Radio Telescopes
  Aircraft and Aero Engines
  Aircraft and Aero Engines
  Aircraft (Supersonic Flights)
  Aircraft (Supersonic Flights)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  General Practitioners (National Health Service)
  General Practitioners (National Health Service)
  Kent Executive Council (Dentist)
  Kent Executive Council (Dentist)
  Imported Food (Contamination)
  Imported Food (Contamination)
  Mental Disorders (Treatment)
  Mental Disorders (Treatment)
  Mental Health and Welfare Services (Expenditure)
  Mental Health and Welfare Services (Expenditure)
HOSPITALS
  Tonsil and Adenoid Operations (West Bromwich)
  Tonsil and Adenoid Operations (West Bromwich)
  Private Beds (Northern Region)
  Private Beds (Northern Region)
  Children (Burns and Scalds)
  Children (Burns and Scalds)
  Patients (Length of Stay)
  Patients (Length of Stay)
  National Health Service Employees, West Riding (Sickness)
  National Health Service Employees, West Riding (Sickness)
  Mentally Defective Children, West Riding (Accommodation)
  Mentally Defective Children, West Riding (Accommodation)
MEDICAL RESEARCH
  Neurosis
  Neurosis
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Egypt (Negotiations)
  Egypt (Negotiations)
SCOTLAND
  Aberdeen (Fishing Industry)
  Aberdeen (Fishing Industry)
  Red Deer (Survey)
  Red Deer (Survey)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Senior Officers, Metropolitan Police (Proof of Identity)
  Senior Officers, Metropolitan Police (Proof of Identity)
  Maintenance Orders Act, 1958
  Maintenance Orders Act, 1958
  Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board
  Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board
  Importuning (Metropolitan Area)
  Importuning (Metropolitan Area)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Huddersfield County Borough (General Grant)
  Huddersfield County Borough (General Grant)
HOUSING
  Crawley Development Corporation
  Crawley Development Corporation
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Wales and Monmouthshire
  Wales and Monmouthshire
  Portuguese Boxboards
  Portuguese Boxboards
  Nuclear Equipment
  Nuclear Equipment
  G.A.T.T. (Anglo-Swiss Trade)
  G.A.T.T. (Anglo-Swiss Trade)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Radar Station, North of Scotland
  Radar Station, North of Scotland
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Recruitment
  Recruitment
  Bomber Command (Flight Refuelling)
  Bomber Command (Flight Refuelling)
EMPLOYMENT
  Docks, London (Surplus Labour)
  Docks, London (Surplus Labour)
  Lincolnshire
  Lincolnshire
  Coatbridge and Airdrie
  Coatbridge and Airdrie
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Economic Development
  Economic Development
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Welwyn Garden City
  Welwyn Garden City
ROADS
  King's Lynn (Congestion)
  King's Lynn (Congestion)
  East Mill Road, Morpeth
  East Mill Road, Morpeth
  Tyne Tunnel
  Tyne Tunnel

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the woolsack.
Prayers

BRITISH HOSPITAL IN PARIS
2.35 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the total capital cost of acquisition, rebuilding and equipment of the former Hertford Hospital in Paris, the present total number of medical and nursing officers and the average number of patients (excluding out-patients).]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the total capital cost of rebuilding and equipping the Hertford Hospital in Paris is estimated to be £261,000. There are five R.A.M.C. officers on the staff of the hospital and seven nursing officers of the Q.A.R.A.N.C. The average number of in-patients is twenty-nine.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, while commending the Government for providing these excellent hospital facilities for British personnel and their families in Paris, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he is satisfied that this fully-staffed hospital, with more than half its beds unoccupied, is justified? Would it not be just as effective if we could arrange for the French or the United States hospitals to supply these services on an agency basis? Alternatively, could he arrange for this hospital to be fully used by making it available to British Commonwealth citizens who are in Paris?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, in reply to the first part of the noble Lord's suggestion, I think I should say at once that the whole future of this hospital is under active consideration at the present time, so it would be better for me not to anticipate any decisions that may come out of those
242
deliberations. As regards the second suggestion, I am informed that out of the sixty beds that are available in the hospital, thirty-five are for military personnel and their dependants, and twenty-five are for civilian patients; so up to a point I think the suggestion of the noble Lord is already met—it does apply to civilian people in Paris and not only to military personnel.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, with regard to the consideration mentioned by the noble Marquess, I should like him to know that I should have no criticism whatsoever if I could feel that this hospital was going to be fully used in one of the two ways which he mentioned—for service and civilian personnel.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, might I just ask the noble Marquess whether the hospital is available for British civilians, not merely from Paris but from the rest of France; and whether these are people who work in France or are people visiting France for their holidays—such as myself or the noble Marquess?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I must confess that I do not carry the answer to that question in my head. I will make it my business to find out but I am under the impression that the answer is, Yes, it is for Britishers in France and is not limited to Britishers in Paris only. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and I am grateful to him for putting forward his view.

PROBATE AND ESTATE DUTY
2.38 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is true that executors of estates cannot get probate until they have paid duty and cannot pay duty until they have got probate, and if so, what action do they propose to take.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the law requires, as a necessary safeguard for the collection of Estate Duty, that executors shall pay the duty in respect of the deceased's own personal

243
property before they obtain probate. They need not, however, at that stage pay the duty on the deceased's real property. So long as the property is not sold the duty on real property is not payable until a year after the death and may, at the executors' option, be paid by instalments with interest over a period of eight years.
The duty the executors have to pay before probate is that in respect of the personal property of which the deceased was, to use the words of the Act, "competent to dispose;" that is, broadly speaking, his own personal estate. It does not normally include the duty payable on property passing under family settlements or on property given away by the deceased within five years of his death. Although the executors cannot, of course, dispose of the deceased's property until they have obtained probate they can in practice raise the money for the duty in a number of ways. I understand that what is often done is that money is lent to the executors on the security of the estate by a bank or other financial institution and that it is very exceptional for executors to meet serious difficulty in making these arrangements.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for his long and full reply to my Question, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government do not think it places rather a burden on the executors if they have to borrow money from the hank, for which they have to pay interest on a bank overdraft? It may sometimes take a little time for the estate to be settled and a substantial sum might be spent in that way. The second point I am not clear about is this. Suppose the bank were to refuse to grant the executors an overdraft, what would be the position if they found difficulty in raising the money in the manner suggested by the noble Viscount?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I understand that in practice little difficulty is found, and that the Revenue authorities are prepared to discuss particular cases should any difficulty arise. I must say that the law has been in existence, according to my recollection, since 1881, and therefore it is possible to exaggerate the extent of the grievance
244
which apparently has only just come to light.
LORD AMULREE: Yes; but that, I am afraid, does not answer my question, which is, do the Government propose to take steps to make it easier for executors not to be forced to pay large sums of money by way of interest for bank overdrafts? Furthermore, I gather that sometimes if the estate duty is not paid at the right time, the Estate Office charges interest, which puts a double burden on executors. Can the noble Viscount give me some hope that somebody might some day give consideration to that matter?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the natural life of Treasury spokesmen who seek to anticipate Budget proposals is nasty, brutish and short.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I draw this point to the attention of my noble friend: that executors are often put in another great difficulty through the method of calculating death duty, in that it is possible for a whole estate to have to pay duty at a higher rate by reason of a few pounds having been swept in at a late stage in the executorship?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, that is another question.

DRAFT INTERNATIONAL SUGAR COUNCIL (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER, 1958
2.43 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the International Sugar Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1958, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on the 26th November. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I should like first to apologise to the House for any inconvenience which may have been caused by my inability to present this humble Address last week. I am most grateful that it was made possible for me to do so to-day.
The International Sugar Agreement, 1953, expires at the end of this year, and Her Majesty's Government and the other twenty-seven Governments concerned have concluded a new Agreement which

245
was laid before Parliament on November 20. We hope that it will be possible for this new Agreement to come into force next January. It is almost identical with that at present in force, but has one amendment concerning privileges and immunities; in Article 38 (6) the word "funds", in the original Agreement, is replaced by the words "assets, income and other property." This proposed amendment is reflected in Article 3 of the Order which is now laid before your Lordships. The effect of this change will be to confer upon the Sugar Council a partial exemption from local rates on their London offices, similar to that accorded to the official premises of diplomatic missions. I should emphasise to your Lordships that no new personal privileges or immunities are involved. This small amendment will bring the arrangements for the International Sugar Council into line with those for other commodity councils. I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the International Sugar Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1958, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on the 26th November.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
2.45 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we on this side are somewhat handicapped by the short notice that we have had, and by the fact that we have to look at this matter in the light of the explanation which comes along only at this moment. We should like to know whether it is correct that under the present Order which is to come to an end, and which this proposed Order is intended to replace, there was no exemption from local rates—that is that the organisation paid rates in respect of their London offices—and that if this Order is accepted they will not pay rates. I should like to ask, if that is so, what is the reason for making this further concession. Will it he the actual borough in which the offices are situated which suffers; and will the concession apply to any other offices which the organisation may have in the future during the currency of this Order? A further question: is this the only difference between the present Order and that which it supersedes? I understood the noble Marquess to say that was so, but I should like him to confirm it. The real question is whether we are right in assuming that the only difference between the two Orders is this immunity
246
from rates. Would the noble Marquess explain why, if that is so, it is felt necessary to grant this immunity, and state who is to compensate the local authority for the loss of rates involved?
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to say one word in support of the noble Lord who has just spoken, for I remember that when we debated the earlier Order several of your Lordships expressed grave doubts about the wisdom of giving all these international bodies, diplomatic and otherwise, all these immunities. It seems to me that any suggestion to extend it one degree further, would be a very doubtful and unnecessary thing to do. In view of what was said before, I should have thought that Her Majesty's Government would be very careful about increasing such immunities and privileges. I do not want to say anything more, but I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in what he has said.
2.48 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, first of all I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the difference I have mentioned is the only difference of any substance at all between this and the previous Agreement. As regards the details of this partial exemption—and it is only partial: it is not a complete exemption—from rates, what happens is that Her Majesty's Government pay to the local authority the amount of the local rates leviable on these premises and then reclaim from the Sugar Council that proportion (which in fact amounts to between one-fourth and one-third) of the rates assigned to municipal services from which the organisation is considered to derive direct benefit. That sounds rather complicated, but the kind of services involved are street lighting, removal of garbage, and so on, which can be deemed to be directly benefiting these premises: the Sugar Council continues to pay those rates. On the two-thirds, three-quarters or thereabouts—the balance—there will be an exemption.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, does that mean a loss to the local authority?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, that would be a loss to the Government, because the Government handle this transaction. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked why we were doing

247
this at all. The reason is simply to bring this Council into line with other similar Councils. The International Wheat Council already enjoys the same immunity, and so does the International Tin Council.
As regards the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, I can assure him that we are not extending immunities and privileges. The Government are well aware that it is undesirable to extend privileges and immunities; and I can assure the noble Lord that privileges and immunities enjoyed by this Council are less than those enjoyed by others, except bodies such as those I have just mentioned—namely, the Wheat and the Tin Councils. So I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured on that point.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged for that answer and it carries us on a good deal in what had been in our minds. I say that at once. On the other hand, I am a little intrigued as to how it fits in with the second paragraph in the explanatory note at the back of the Order. It says:
"The only amendment to the provisions of the Order … takes account of the amendment to Article 38 (6) to the Agreement by which the Council is to enjoy exemption from taxation upon its 'assets, income and other property' instead of only upon its 'funds'."
That rather makes me want to search and find out what is the difference between these two interpretations—assets, income and other property. Is there, in fact, income accruing to the International Sugar Corporation from its stay in this country, its operation in this country, which would normally be subject to income tax; or was that formerly taxed by inclusion in the funds? Because here is a very subtle difference in the actual wording of the interpretation and I should like to know that in fact there is going to be no change on that point. It seems to me that there is a change.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition. His difficulty was shared by a very distinguished legal mind in another place. But I can assure him that, by some strange mysterious means which is quite beyond my comprehension, what I have explained to the noble Lord is in
248
fact the truth and there is nothing mysterious whatsoever behind it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It seems an impossibility.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

MARRIAGE (SECRETARIES OF SYNAGOGUES) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL
2.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Withdrawal of restriction on use of motor cars at parliamentary elections]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I indicated on the Second Reading that, of course, we did not wish to vary the practice which the two sides of the House have so often upheld of not voting against a Bill on its Second Reading. But I am bound to say that in listening to the debate on the Second Reading I found little to console me in the explanation of Her Majesty's Government for introducing this Bill at the present time. The whole operation of the Bill is under Clause 1, and the only possibility that we have here of making any political

249
protest against the action of the Government is to vote against that clause. There is no possibility of examination of it or of making a fundamental amendment to it; but I myself should regard it as a neglect of duty on my part as Leader of the Opposition to let Clause 1 go into this Bill, in view of its operation, at this stage, without making our protest.
I do not think it is necessary for us to debate the matter at any length, but we feel it was by no means an exaggeration of the position when one of my colleagues said on the Second Reading—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds—that this Bill is really a piece of political chicanery. It is brought in at this time because, in the present political circumstances, it is no doubt felt that there would be some advantage to the Government who are introducing this Bill and their supporters at the next Election. A great deal has been said about the extent to which the ownership of cars is now spread among different classes in the community. But what stands out a mile in respect of the difficulty of getting people to the poll, especially the working classes in scattered areas, is that we have never yet been able to obtain anything like an adequate supply of cars for the purpose if there was going to be no limit at all placed on the other side. We shall have to see how the measure operates in practice before we attempt, maybe, amending legislation, when perhaps the balance of power in Parliament will be the reverse of the present situation. Nevertheless, I feel that this is a point upon which we this House have every right to record our vote against Clause 1, because we think it is unnecessary and we think also that it is likely to give bias in favour of one Party in the State instead of fairness to all the Parties.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): I intend to follow the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition in not enlarging at all on the arguments which I think were thoroughly canvassed in the debate we had on the Second Reading. Therefore, I simply state in headline form the points on which we rely. We rely first on the fact that the number of cars has increased from something under 2 million to something like 4½ million in the time since the section was inserted in the 1949 Act at the
250
request of certain Labour Back-Benchers. That number of cars is amply sufficient for both of the major Parties. Even making all allowances for the different parts of the country, if the average number of cars is 1,300 per constituency, it is really unthinkable that there would not be enough for the Labour Party in any constituency. The number of 1,300 per constituency is the number of supporters among the car owners which, on the Gallup Poll figures would inure to the benefit of the Labour Party.
The third point is that too much time is spent at elections at the moment watching whether this provision, which has become ridiculous, is complied with; and that time could be much more profitably spent in getting electors to the poll. The fourth point is that, as has been said by my right honourable friend the Attorney General, the law cannot be enforced; and it is very unfortunate if you have an unenforceable law because that merely brings the law into contempt. The last point is that this provision is, as I have said, contrary to the general desire and the principles to which we all should adhere—namely, that everything should be done to enable all electors to vote, and anything which stands in the way of their voting is to that extent bad. That is the argument the other way. As I say, I have put it simply in headline form because I wanted to deal with it as the noble Viscount dealt with it. There is a difference between us, and I fully appreciate that he wants to mark that difference by a Division.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am much obliged. I do not think that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor would expect me to accept the heads that he has submitted, but I want to make one point. The comparative numbers of those, in different sections of the political community, who own cars can have no sort of relation to the use of those cars for elections on the basis laid down by the Lord Chancellor. The occupations of the owners in the respective spheres and their ability to give the time—and at the right time—are simply not comparable. If the Government had at the same time said: "We think more cars ought to be used, and we will see that each side gets an equal opportunity in each constituency", there would have been something

251
in it. However, they have not done so. I therefore ask my colleagues to go to a Division on this matter.
LORD AILWYN: I wonder whether I, as a Backbencher, might say one word in regard to what has just been said. It was stated the other day, during the debate on the Second Reading, and has again been stated to-day, how few are the cars (particularly in rural areas, it was stated in the debate the other day) which are owned by people belonging to the Labour Party. But perhaps I may quote my own experience at the moment. I have just had built around me a large housing estate of 2,500 houses. If I say that there is at least one motor car to every three of those
Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 1 agreed to accordingly.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed. Bill reported, without amendment.
council houses, I am probably underestimating. Therefore, I really cannot let that statement pass again to-day without a respectful contradiction. The cars in these rural areas belonging to the Party opposite are quite sufficient.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am glad to know that the noble Lord assesses housing estates as containing practically all Labour voters. Perhaps that is the bee in his bonnet. But I must repeat that those people have not the time to give such as you find can be given by other classes of car owners.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 17.

CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bridgeman, V.

Elliot of Harwood, Baroness.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Devonport, V.

Ferrier, L.

Lambert, V.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Atholl, D.

Soulbury, V.

Grenfell, L.

Templewood, V.

Hampton, L.

Ailsa, M.

Hawke, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Aberdare, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Ailwyn, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Airedale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bathurst, E.

Amulree, L.

Moyne, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Auckland, L.

Moynihan, L.

Home, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Newall, L.

Howe, E.

Colyton, L.

Ravensdale of Kedleston, Baroness.

Munster, E.

Conesford, L.

Perth, E.

Derwent, L.

Sandford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Dovercourt, L.

Strang, L.

Selkirk, E.

Dynevor, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ebury, L.

Teviot, L.

Bledisloe, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Stansgate, V.

Ogmore, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Pakenham, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Shackleton, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Silkin, L.

Hall, V.

Henderson, L.

Stonham, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Baroness.

Then Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 11), Bill read 3a, and passed.

RECRUITING FOR REGULAR FORCES
3.15 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE rose to call attention to the Report of the Advisory Committee on Recruiting (Cmnd. 545) and Her Majesty's Government's comments there-on (Cmnd. 570); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Committee who have produced the Report we are to consider to-day upon a forthright and able Report. The background to the Report is the Government's plan to bring National Service to an end by December, 1962, and after that date to depend upon Regular Forces, amounting to a total of 375,000 men. The Committee are of opinion that it will be possible to recruit this number or thereabouts by the date in question, but they express no opinion on whether this figure is the right one. We have debated this issue on several occasions and I have no doubt we shall be debating it again shortly. Therefore I do not propose to-day to enter into this particular issue. For the purpose of this debate I will take the figure as being a satisfactory one for the total strength of the Armed Forces.
The most recent figures from the Ministry of Defence would seem to be encouraging. According to them, 7,421 recruits were obtained in October, 1958, as compared with 4,812 in the same month a year ago. I congratulate the Government upon this figure and I hope that it will be maintained, because I can assure the Government that no one is more anxious than I for a Regular Army to be obtained from volunteers. I believe it to be the very best system for this country. The Committee say that the task of maintaining volunteer forces at the desired level will be no light one, and also that the main task will be to raise general recruiting and re-engagement rates to a level which will show an overall surplus of 15,000. This will help the less popular arms of the Service. In other words, they say that the Government will require, not 375,000 men but, in fact, 390,000, so that they can obtain from this overplus of 15,000 recruits men for the less popular branches of the Service. And they include the R.A.O.C., for example, as one of the less popular branches. Special considerations apply to the recruitment of officers and women,
254
which we shall hear about during the course of the debate.
We must look at this problem against the backcloth of social conditions in this country. In the inter-war years, as we remember only too well, there was heavy unemployment and low wages. The Regular Forces were maintained at between 320,000 and 375,000, which is more or less the sort of total the Government are hoping to recruit now. The Committee point out that in the early 'twenties and 'thirties there was a revulsion against war and a fervent, if not always consistent, belief in the League of Nations and collective security. Today, although perhaps these feelings are not present to the extent they were then, family and social influences are stronger than they were in those days, and the defence policy, with its reduction in numbers and its reliance to a large extent on the nuclear deterrent, has had a serious effect upon the supply of recruits.
The Committee then set out a number of factors affecting recruiting. These are not new ones, because on either side of the House we have mentioned all of them in our various debates. Indeed, the Committee do not pretend that they are new; they say rather that they checked, as it were, the various considerations and have not tried to obtain any new ones. Nevertheless, one or two of them are rather surprising. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that I do not propose to go through all these factors to-day—that would be only wearisome—but have no doubt that noble Lords will in the course of the debate touch on all of them. I intend to pick out a few of those which have appealed to me and on which I think comment is necessary.
First of all, there is a rather surprising finding of the Committee on remuneration. They find that the pay of both officers and men in the Services is reasonably equivalent to that in civil life. They find, in general, that those in the Services are better off than they would be in civil life, although there are exceptions. The pay and allowances for the Services for the current year amounts to £325·8 million. This is a most gratifying finding, if perhaps a somewhat surprising one. I should not have thought that the Forces would feel that they were being adequately and reasonably paid. But as the Committee find this, we can only welcome that finding and be glad that the old

255
question of pay and allowances seems, for the time being, at any rate, to have been settled. Nevertheless, the Committee have made certain recommendations. They recommend that there should be an automatic biennial review of pay; and to this the Government agree. They recommend that the rates of disturbance allowance for other ranks should be increased; and again the Government agree. They recommend that education allowances for children at boarding school should be increased; and here, too, the Government accept the recommendation. The Committee further recommend that simplification of pay and allowances should be taken as an immediate action; and again the Government accept the recommendation.
The Committee then go on to make what I think is a surprising and, I should have thought, challengeable finding with regard to unemployment. They say that the experience of the inter-war years indicates no clear correlation between enlistment and unemployment, and that in recent years there has been no relationship between the areas where there are pockets of unemployment and those where recruiting is good. This is dealt with rather sketchily in one short paragraph of the Report, and it is accompanied by a graph which, like most graphs, is not, perhaps, very clear, in that it does not take in all the circumstances that might arise. For example, the factors militating against recruiting might have had a much more serious effect in the inter-war years if unemployment had not been high in those years; if, in fact, unemployment and the other factors had not been present, there might have been a much smaller Army than there was.
Moreover, the Committee do not deal with the effect of unemployment on recruiting for the Territorial Army, which is, to some extent, an analogy to recruiting for the Regular Army. My impression is that without heavy unemployment during the inter-war years, given the social conditions and political background to which the Committee refer, the Regular Army would have been hard put to it to maintain those numbers, and certainly there would have had to be a tremendous improvement in pay and conditions to attract the number of men who were attracted.
Whenever I think of recruiting I always remember the tale of a man in my own regiment just after the First World War. He was a little man, but he was very hungry and very poor. He came down to the depôt of the Welch Regiment to join, and the medical officer said that he was half an inch under height and therefore could not join the Army. He then went out. He had ninepence in his pocket, and he went to the public house, which was conveniently situated just opposite the depôt, and bought a large bottle of beer, which, for the benefit of those of your Lordships who are not accustomed to the terms of the trade, is known as a flagon, for ninepence. He then asked a man who was standing at the bar whether he would hit him over the head with the bottle of beer, and he agreed. He got a piece of sacking and wrapped it round the bottle and this man hit him over the head with it and knocked him unconscious. Then this little fellow, whom I shall call Jones, although, surprisingly, that is not his name, when he regained consciousness, got up; he waited for a time, and an enormous swelling appeared on the top of his head. He then went back to the depôt and again saw the medical officer. He said to him: "I think you have made a mistake." The medical officer said: "I do not think I have made a mistake, but we will try again." He then measured this man again, and said: "Good gracious me! you are just the right height." This man, my Lords, served his King and country for many years, until his time expired, and he was a perfectly good soldier, although, strictly speaking, he was half an inch under height. I cannot think that if there had not been a lot of unemployment in South Wales in those days this man would have gone to all the trouble of getting someone to knock him unconscious with a bottle of beer to get into the Army. However, I may be wrong, and the Committee may be right in thinking that unemployment had no effect on recruiting.
The Committee then criticise the slowness in Service procedure whereby valuable office buildings are lost for recruiting premises. They commend the Royal Air Force for using young General Duties officers with recent flying experience, but criticise the Army for relying upon retired officers, and the Army habit of using special recruiters to recruit at recruiting stations. "Special recruiters" are senior

257
N.C.O.s, surplus to establishment, who are posted at recruiting offices to recruit for special regiments. This practice the Committee regard as "potentially dangerous"; and I have no doubt that the "special recruiters", as their whole object, try to get men for their own regiment; otherwise they would not be there.
The Committee do not say whether the pre-war link with the Territorial Army still exists, but in the days when I was a company commander in the Territorial Army I found it a curse that my permanent staff instructor on two days a week had to go off on a journey over a wide area, either on foot or by bicycle, signing in at every sub-post office on the way to show that he had been there, in order to try to obtain Regular recruits. Of course he hardly ever did obtain any. As I say, it was a nuisance. I do not know whether that practice still subsists, but, if it does, I think it should end. In those days, recruiting sergeants used to be anxious to get Horse Guardsmen or Life Guardsmen, because for those they got 30s., whereas they got only 5s. or 10s. for an ordinary soldier. Why a Life Guardsman or a Horse Guardsman was thought to be worth 30s. when everybody else was worth a maximum of 10s., I do not know; but that was the case pre-war, and it may still be the case to-day. That is the sort of point, unless the Government are anxious for very large Life Guards and Horse Guards Regiments at which they might look.
The recommendations on this matter of recruiting offices are that they should be well sited; and the Government agree. The Government do not altogether agree about the special recruiters; they think that the system has produced good results, although they do not say for whom; and they say that in any case the point will be carefully watched.
Then we come to discipline. The Committee say:
"Where it is plainly indispensable, it should be strictly enforced. But there is room for the removal of pointless formality."
And they instance pay parades and working parties as matters which the Government should look into. I am not sure where the dividing line should be drawn on the question of discipline: it is so essentially a unit matter, and it is difficult to lay down hard-and-fast lines. We must remember that to-day young people chafe more than they did years ago at what they
258
regard as unnecessary discipline, and that the educational climate and social environment tend to encourage a relaxation of discipline.
The biggest irritant, as I am told by people now serving in the Army—although it is realised that it is inevitable—is the frequency and uncertainty of postings (a matter to which the Report refers), not to mention the uncertainty of being able to keep engagements, not six months hence but tonight—a matter to which the Report does not refer. It is realised that this is a necessary concomitant of Service life, but if a young man has made an arrangement to meet a young lady to-night at eight o'clock, he takes it a bit hard if perhaps, at twelve, noon, he is told off by the sergeant major to be on fatigue or guard, so that he is unable to meet his young lady. That, far more than some of the things mentioned in the Report, is the sort of thing which upsets the young soldier. However, as I say, he realises that in Service life that sort of thing often cannot be helped.
When we are dealing with discipline, one thing we must remember is this. To a large extent, in the last few years the various wars that we have had have not been generals' wars or colonels' wars or even captains' wars—they have been subalterns' wars. In the case of Malaya and Cyprus the unit has been the platoon; and when one hears of great policy pronouncements on Cyprus from the United Nations, President Eisenhower, Mr. Dulles, the Prime Minister, Archbishop Makarios, and all the rest, one has to realise that the man who is often responsible, who has to take decisions and who has an enormous burden cast upon him at short notice is the young man of, perhaps, nineteen, twenty or twenty-one years of age, in command of twenty-seven to thirty men, and often a National Serviceman. He is put in that difficult position in the present day and we must always try to give him the maximum help we can. So any discussion on discipline must be looked at carefully from the unit point of view, and from the point of view not only of the young soldier but of the young officer, who is responsible for the lives of the men entrusted to him and, it may be, for the lives of many other people among whom his platoon is operating.
Training and equipment are closely allied to discipline, and the Government

259
agree with the Committee's recommendations. On the whole the Committee link them up, I should have thought, to a rather closer degree than most people would. They say:
"Training is the raison d'être of the Services in peace time. At the moment facilities are not always adequate. … Discipline is less of a problem than we had imagined. But there is still something to be done."
The Government fully endorse the Committee's remarks about the importance of making training interesting and providing adequate facilities. We should all agree with that. There is no doubt that training must be made interesting and that it has its bearing on discipline. But when we come to equipment, equipment is fully bound up with training and discipline. It is in fact fully bound up, and the caustic comments of the Committee on this subject are no surprise to many of us in this House.
Your Lordships may remember that in the debate on the Army Estimates on March 27 last, I referred to the parlous condition of the British Army of the Rhine and the state of their vehicles and other equipment. The Committee also raise this matter and deal in a trenchant way, pulling no punches whatsoever, with the condition of equipment in the British Army in Germany. I do not want to go into this subject at any length, but it is surprising to find—or it would be surprising if we did not know it already—that the Army have attempted to keep on the road rebuilt three-tonners from the Second World War. It seems quite a common practice in the Army to send two cars on a journey to ensure that at least one of them finally reaches its destination. One piece of military wireless in general use goes back to the last war, and is now quite out of date. Now this is really shocking. We were told of British units in Germany borrowing equipment from the armies of other countries so that they can make a passable show in combined exercises. Considering the vast expenditure the country has made on defence during the last seven years, that is a most extraordinary comment: that the British Army cannot go on exercises and make a good show so far as equipment is concerned—not maneffort—unless it borrows equipment from the other armies. I do not think I need say anything more about that.
So far as uniform is concerned, the Committee have made certain recommendations, and I think we should all agree with them. They say it is essential that soldiers should have, as they have not now, a uniform properly designed for fighting and training, and also something smart for walking out. We have said that repeatedly over the years, especially about the walking out uniform. The Government agree, and models of new uniforms are being tested. I should like to ask the noble Earl who is to reply whether he can give us more details of the new uniforms which are being tested and when they are likely to come into service. The Committee also recommended that the soldiers should be issued with a raincoat instead of the groundsheet which up to now has been their only protection from the weather. It cannot on any basis at all be regarded as a smart garment. In fact, it is not intended as a garment at all; it is intended to be beneath the soldier and not above him. The Government accept this recommendation. Then there is the kitbag, from which we have all suffered. It is the most awkward thing to carry. You cannot carry it in your hand, and if you try to sling it over your shoulder it feels as if the cord is cutting through the cloth into your skin. At least the Government have accepted the proposals of the Committee that the kitbag should be replaced by a robust holdall with handles, and we are glad to hear that.
Now I come to the last factor affecting recruiting with which I shall deal, although, as I have explained, there are many others which will be taken up, no doubt, by noble Lords an both sides. This is the question of food. I do not know what the experience of other noble Lords has been, but my experience has been that food in the Army and, no doubt, in the other Services is of vital importance. If we had complaints during our Service careers it was generally something to do with food. The odd part about it—and this is really the only criticism I have of the Report, which I think is an excellent one—is that the only reference to food in this Report is contained in three short paragraphs and the Committee make only one recommendation. They seem to be quite satisfied as to food.
The only recommendation they make is that messes should be equipped with

261
cutlery so that people in the Services do not have to carry their own knives, forks and spoons with them when they go to meals. The Government, a little hastily I think, have accepted this recommendation. If you regard this recommendation as meaning what it says, it means that no longer will men be issued with or required to carry personal cutlery. It is all right if you are stationed at Aldershot in modern barracks, in the Artillery Depot at Woolwich, or in any of the other barracks. But what happens to the man who suddenly has to go out and chase terrorists in Malaya, or who has to round up people in Cyprus? He has no equipment with him because it is all in the mess. What does he eat with? What does he drink out of? I should have thought that the need for that recommendation, and still more for the Government to accept it, is rather extraordinary. Are not there still people in the War Office who remember the days when they had to go away from the clubs in Whitehall and depend on what they took with them? I do not know.
I agree, as I shall show in a moment, that it is most desirable that there should be cutlery in the mess and that it should be of a distinctive character. What the Army says is that if you provide cutlery in the mess the men will "pinch" it to make up the cutlery that they ought to have but have lost, or that somebody else has taken from them. The Committee recommend that there should be distinctive cutlery—not any sort of cutlery that a man can produce on parade as being the cutlery that was issued to him. That seems quite sensible, and nobody would object at all to that.
But to leave it that a man may not have in future any personal cutlery issued to him is most dangerous. It is unworkable now and will never be workable. What will happen is that the War Office Finance Department will seize with avidity upon this recommendation and say, "We will cut off the cost of supplying equipment of that kind to the soldier. There is no need for it. The Grigg Report has said that there is no need for it." So the unfortunate soldier will not get any cutlery; he will have to pay for it out of his own pocket. That is what will happen if this recommendation goes through. Some of us with experience in the Army will want to watch that one.
262
I have given the noble Earl notice of this matter in general terms. I hope that the Government will add to the acceptance of this recommendation a rider on the lines that I have suggested.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, the Government have not said that the soldiers will not have cutlery.
LORD OGMORE: That will be the effect of this recommendation. If you look at the recommendation, plus what the Grigg Committee have said in the Report, I think you will find that that will be the result. If the Government will now say categorically that that will not be the effect of the recommendation, that the soldiers will still be issued with personal cutlery and that this will be, in fact, distinctive cutlery, I am quite satisfied. I am asking only for elucidation on this matter. I do not think that either the recommendation or the acceptance goes far enough in this sphere.
On the question of food and messes generally, I must say that I feel that the Committee have not gone into this subject nearly closely enough. I cannot believe that the situation as regards food and cooking is nearly so happy as they indicate, and I am greatly surprised that they have not made any recommendation whatsoever (except this minor one that the soldiers should have their own knife and fork) about food, eating places, utensils, or anything else. My impression, based on a certain amount of inquiry from present-day soldiers, is that they are not altogether satisfied with the way in which food is cooked and served. They always say that the food is good, but that there is still a lot to be done—we know that to be true—with the service and with the cooking.
I do not see why their eating places, especially in established barracks or depôts, have to be so dingy and dismal—why they have to look like canteens. Why do they not look like restaurants and cafes' Where is the imagination in this matter? Only a short time ago—I think on the fourth of this month—on the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Bill I made some comments about married quarters. Again, it has been shown in this Report that there is a considerable

263
lack of imagination on the part of Service architects and those in authority over them, with regard to colour, design and that sort of thing. Why should not the Services be able to eat in places which are attractive, with bright colours, clean, and having equipment of a modern type, instead of the type that one too often sees in these places? If the Service architects cannot provide it then, for heaven's sake! go outside and get someone who can.
That happened quite recently at Rhoose Airport, near Cardiff. Prior to the Empire Games it was desired to build a really attractive place for the reception of visitors, and the Committee responsible were permitted by the Ministry to go outside and to get a local architect. If any noble Lord would go down there he would find it worth while to have a look at that place. Out of an old hangar, no new building, that local architect produced something which was most agreeable—modern, bright, light and everything that one could desire. I cannot help feeling that, with a little imagination, it could be done in this case.
In conclusion I should like to say that it appears to me that Government reactions, as you have heard in these cases—and there are many others—are good so far as they go. The Government have given the soft answer that turns away wrath. We hope it is not just soft soap as well as a soft answer. In this case, as in all others, action will speak louder than words. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has certainly done the House a service in putting down this Motion and in drawing attention not only to the Grigg Report but to the Government's comments on it. I rather gathered from his concluding remarks that not only was he in general agreement, apart from a number of points of detail, with the terms of the Grigg Report, but was also (I hope I have not misunderstood him) in a certain amount of agreement with the Government's comments on it. My attitude will be much the same, because I should like in general to give as strong a welcome to the Report, and, although I, too, shall have some
264
comments in detail, a welcome also to the Government's recommendations.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was quite right when he said that this Report and the subjects therein considered were part of the undertaking to reinstate the voluntary system as our sole method of recruiting. I think they will go a long way to do that. He talked at one moment on the question of unemployment. I agree with him that the effect of unemployment on recruiting is a most curious one. I myself was a Regular soldier between the wars, and although some of us thought at that time that because of the heavy unemployment figure in the early 'thirties recruitment to the Forces would increase, actually it did not. There was another force at work: the force which told the intending recruit, "If you want to get a job at all you had better stay around in civilian life and not take the risk of going away and finding your job when you come back after seven years."
However that may be, we are now in a different era. Unemployment in the early 'thirties would have forced the recruit into something which was the last choice. Let us hope that now, particularly if these recommendations are implemented, service in the Regular Forces will stand as a career in its own right to be chosen by a young man, and not as something into which he is forced until he can get a job on the land or in the mill. I am going to resist (as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, resisted) the temptation to talk about the Territorial Army. That was not within the terms of reference of the Grigg Committee, and although I am sure that the time has come when we should talk about the Territorial Army I believe it would be right to defer doing so until some time next year, perhaps after the publication of the White Paper on Defence; because there is a great deal to be talked about on that subject.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, I am rather doubtful about the recommendations in the Grigg Report on recruiting. I feel that they want further examination. I, too, have always wondered why Life Guardsmen should be more expensive than the ordinary line soldier or anybody else, but, after all, it has always been so; and if the Life Guardsman was expensive, so was his

265
horse. This Report has received a pretty good welcome all round, both in the House and out of it. It is a Report which lets in a breath of fresh air and brings a lot of common sense to bear on the problems that are discussed. I myself, in past times, have been the recipient of the opinions of Sir James Grigg, both written and by way of the spoken word, and I feel that I know his style well enough to make a guess, having carefully studied the wording of the Report, that the greater part of it has not been drafted by secretaries or other "back-room boys" but has been written, word for word, by Sir James himself.
I feel that this is one of the biggest contributions we have had for a long time to helping in the solution of the problem of Regular recruiting; and if Parliament approves this Report one cannot possibly say that that is surprising, for if noble Lords care to do even the most elementary research in the matter they will find that practically every single thing that has been recommended by the Grigg Committee has been recommended in Parliament at some time or other, by Tories or Socialists, by noble Lords or by honourable friends. That is the fact of the matter. Therefore I feel that the recommendations of the Grigg Committee have told Her Majesty's Government and the Departments hardly anything that they did not already know or that their advisers did not know if they cared to tell them. Looked at in this context, this Committee is a rather different affair from other Committees which are appointed from time to time. For the benefit of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack let me take the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, where a very obscure and complex problem had to be looked into—one which wanted a lot of time from weighty minds. We have had first-class minds at work on the Grigg Committee but the problems have not been complex or obscure, and therefore that Committee have told Her Majesty's Government and everybody else only what anybody who understood the problem already knew.
We must observe this modern tendency, which I am bound to say I find a rather dubious one, of not relying upon the power of Ministers to make up their minds or on the power of their Departmental advisers to give sound, balanced, non-partisan advice. No; nowadays we
266
must have a Committee of this kind to fortify the opinion of Her Majesty's Government or the Departments before coming to Parliament. And against whom are we fortifying opinion? Are we fortifying opinion against the Government? Against Parliament? Against the public?—or whom? We are doing no such thing. We are fortifying the Departmental opinion against the Treasury, against the Gladstonian Liberalism in the Treasury with regard to the Forces which has been responsible for military disasters from the time of General Gordon, through the South African War, through unreadiness, through the First War, through unreadiness, and up to 1939, again through unreadiness.
If, therefore, we look at it in the context of the Grigg Committee we can see it as an incident in the ceaseless battle between the Service Departments in peaceful England, who try to obtain for the Forces a larger share of available Government funds and who can see that in standards of living, dress, feeding and all such things, progress in dealing with the Forces is nothing approaching the progress which has been made, say, by a Department like the Home Office in dealing with prisoners or delinquent children, or the progress made by the Ministry of Education; and when the two are put together the comparison becomes really grave.
Before long your lordships will see another example of this type of Committee when we come to consider the Report of the Committee which has been appointed under Lady Albemarle to deal with the Youth Service. There, again, if I make no mistake (and I do not think I do), we shall be dealing with a Report to fortify opinion which already exists and has already been expressed, and about which the facts are perfectly well known. Having said that, I believe it will be only right to go on to say that matters of this kind are never absolute; they are all a question of degree. What the Grigg Committee have done is to confirm that if we want to secure the right number of Regular recruits provision for the Services must be better in several directions, and therefore it is certainly very gratifying to those who care for the Services to see that Her Majesty's Government have gone so far as to accept the Report in many directions.

267
I feel that the White Paper which we have in front of us is very largely the answer to the Motion for Papers by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and may simplify the task of my noble friend Lord Selkirk in making his reply. May I follow the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in saying that this Government White Paper really amounts to a very marked step, in that it provides for a biennial review of pay and pensions? I also think that it is a matter for great relief that Her Majesty's Government do not go so far as to link pay and pensions to the cost of living, however much those who are fond of the Services may wish it. I believe that that would be a fatal mistake, as anybody who knows what has happened in Australia would agree. Here I feel a happy medium has been struck. But again it remains to be seen what happens when those biennial reviews take place, and whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, says, they take place in the spirit which I understand is behind the acceptance, by Her Majesty's Government, of this part of the Report. Again, they agree to increase certain allowances, but one cannot be entirely happy with that, for, as I have ventured to say to your Lordships more than once before, the only proper principle in dealing with allowances is that the allowance should cover the full cost of what it is intended to cover—the cost of the meal, the night accommodation, the journey, lodgings or whatever it may be; and I am bound to say that that principle still has not been accepted.
Again, it is very good to read that the Report recommends simplification of allowances, and so forth, but I wish it had gone a little further and made the point that simplification, if it is to be achieved, depends on delegation of responsibility; and so far as I can read, Her Majesty's Government, in their acceptance of the Report, have not accepted that principle. Your Lordships may take it from me that unless we get delegation we shall not get simplification. The Report deals very sympathetically, and on the whole very favourably, with the problem of careers for those who have to leave the Service before their working day is done. Had they accepted the principle that once a man joins Her
268
Majesty's Forces his pension rights become continuous we should have had a really worthwhile recommendation; but we have not got that. The Report deals fairly adequately with the pensions of those who are serving now. I do not think it touches the point which my noble friend Lord Jeffreys has made before and I believe will make again before this debate is concluded, concerning the pensions of those who have left the Services but whose plight or happy state, as the case may be, is bound to have a very great effect on recruitment.
There are a certain number of references in the Grigg Report itself to the question of officers, and whether they come from the right sources. I have a feeling that possibly the Grigg Committee did not have time to go fully into those matters. It is easy to say that more officers ought to come from the industrial north of England. But they never have come in large numbers from this area. One of the reasons is that the number of schools from which officers are likely to come is very much smaller in the North of England than in the South. The incidence of the combined cadet forces in the North is much smaller. It may be that we could get more officers from the North, and it may be that that would be a good thing; but I do not feel (and I am bound to say this) that the Grigg Committee have brought us any nearer to a solution of that problem, if, indeed, it can be solved. But I rather wonder whether the Grigg Committee had all the evidence they could have had about the sources from which officers come. I should have thought that at the present time, in the Army at any rate, a very high proportion of officers have actually served in the ranks, not merely as cadets at Sandhurst or at an O.C.T.U., but in such a way that, if they had not been considered suitable in the ranks to be officers, they would not have become officers and would still be in the ranks.
Then, my Lords, the Grigg Committee said a certain amount about discipline and training. They talked, as people always do, about "spit and polish"—which is now called "bull"—unnecessary parades and so forth. I do not think they made two points which I myself regard as rather important. One is the point which I remember making, when noble Lords opposite were in power, about the

269
impact of National Service on this question of finding enough to do. Some years ago, when the Labour Government were in power, I am pretty well certain that about 35,000 people were called up who were not really wanted; they had to be called up, because of the incidence of National Service, but they had not enough to do. Work had to be made for them or not, as the case might be; and a great deal of the crime in the Forces—and there was quite a lot at that time—was caused fairly and squarely by soldiers not having enough to do in the day time and going out on Friday night.
The other point which has not been made in the Report is the importance of the non-commissioned officer in this matter. As I have said before in this House, in other contexts, we concentrate on the Generals and on the privates; on the directors and the men in the works. We do not give enough time and attention, in considering Service matters, to the importance of ensuring a high standard and proper training and education of the middle piece: of the non-commissioned officers. We have certainly never given it since the war. And anybody who knows what it is like to serve in a Regular unit knows quite well that in these questions of "spit and polish," unnecessary parades and all the rest of it, unless the non-commissioned officers have the same ideas as some of us have—and the Grigg Committee have—about eliminating these things, they will never be eliminated. Everybody who has soldiered in the early 'twenties (and there are some in this House) will know that the major part of the cry, "Back to 1914!" came from the sergeants' mess. So it did after the last war. If we want to implement those recommendations of the Grigg Committee which deal with these matters—and I for one most sincerely want those provisions implemented—then we shall have to concentrate on paying more attention to the non-commissioned officer and warrant officer, and ensure that they are educated in these ideas and do not provide the stronghold of reaction.
We then come to quartering, but here there is no need to say very much because Her Majesty's Government have had the Report of the Weeks Committee and everything that needed to be said on that subject was said by Lord Weeks and his colleagues. There is no more to be said,
270
except that the more the Government implement the Report of the Weeks Committee the better.
Then we come to that curious paragraph (I must call it curious) where equipment is discussed. It appears on page 9 of the Government White Paper, as distinct from the Grigg Report. The Government reply is:
"The Government fully recognise the importance of good equipment."
I hope we can be satisfied with that statement. But, with all the good will in the world, which I have for my noble friends in front of me, I really cannot do so. I would much rather they had said, "We cannot anticipate the Defence White Paper and the Service Estimates in the spring." I should have let the matter go if they had said that; but this question of equipment is on a slightly different plane from all the other questions about personnel which the Grigg Committee have been talking about. Those questions about personnel, uniforms, rations, and all the rest of it, are straightforward questions relating to the recruitment of personnel. This question of equipment is mixed up, as we all know, with all these far more far-reaching, inter-Allied and N.A.T.O. discussions, and all the rest of it, about the nature of future war; and this is not the debate in which one can go into it in great detail. We shall have that opportunity, I am sure, when the White Paper on Defence comes out next spring.
We all know that the tactical doctrine and the strategical doctrine of the Western World are in transition, and we must recognise that, while they are in transition, it is manifestly wrong to expect this or any other Government to spend a lot of money on equipment. But I think that we are coming to the end of this phase of strategical doubt and tactical despair. A little while ago the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, gave a lecture to the Royal United Service Institution where he said—and I am quoting from the R.U.S.I. Journal:
"The first priority for the N.A.T.O. nations is to be able to tackle quickly and effectively cold war activities, and to play their full part in limited wars."
If that is good enough for the noble and gallant Viscount—from whom I hope we may, before long, hear a little more in this House—it is most certainly good enough

271
for me. Then again if noble Lords have read the Sunday papers they will have seen a review of a book by the American General Gavin, who commanded the 82nd Airborne Division and who touches the same note. I feel we are coming to the time when the Government can be fairly expected to come down firmly on the side of one strategical doctrine or the other, and for that reason to adopt one tactical doctrine or the other, and then begin to equip the Army for it.
It is perfectly true, of course, that we have saved a lot of public money and contributed a great deal to the Welfare State by "stringing along" as we have done over the past years; and so far we have felt very few ill-effects. But we must remember that in a policy like that there is bound to be a point of no return, just as there was a point of no return m the 'thirties which we passed without noticing that it was there. And, sooner or later—I think sooner—if we follow this policy of "stringing along" over equipment we are going to reach the point of no return. All of us who know how these things work will know that this is no time to pursue this question, any more than it was possible for Sir James Grigg and his Committee to pursue it in their Report. The time to do that is at the time of the next Defence White Paper and the Service Estimates, which no doubt we shall have in the spring. Meantime, I feel, from what I know, that those criticisms on equipment are thoroughly justified. Although a good deal of development has taken place in weapons, very little development has taken place in transport, either armoured or unarmoured. I, for one, shall try, as I always do, to take a charitable view of my noble friends on the Front Bench, and I hope that what they have said in the Government reply is merely a means of indicating that the proper time to discuss this question will be at the time when the Estimates and the Defence White Paper are produced—and I agree.
So, my Lords, we have this Report of the Grigg Committee. I am sure that all of us who have read it—and particularly those who know the Forces—are grateful to the Government for having appointed Sir James as Chairman of this Committee and to Sir James and the other members for their Report. if
272
I have been critical of certain points of the Government's reply, I should not like those criticisms to obscure my feeling that the White Paper and the Government's reply represent a very clear and welcome advance in the treatment of this problem by Her Majesty's Government.
LORD REA: My Lords, before the noble Viscount resumes his seat, may I ask him to clarify one point which arose earlier in his speech? I understood him to say that the Gladstonian Liberals were, in many cases—if not all—to blame for the state of unpreparedness of the Armed Forces.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, did not hear me quite accurately. I said "Gladstonian Liberalism". I think I am right in saying that the Gladstonian Liberals were in office at the time of General Gordon. I did not say—and, for obvious reasons, I would not say—that the Liberals were in office at the other times. I said "Gladstonian Liberalism "—the attitude of mind.
LORD REA: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount; and of course I accept his explanation. But would he dissociate himself from those who are of the opinion—I think informed opinion, and informed military opinion—that Lord Haldane, one of the greatest Gladstonian Liberals, was, in fact, responsible for a greater state of preparedness than could have been expected if he had not been in office?
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: There I would entirely agree. Since we are talking about these things, while I would agree unreservedly as regards Gladstonian Liberals in the matter of organisation, I think the noble Lord would agree that in the matter of equipment and munitions and the state of the personnel side much of the work had been done before.
LORD MESTON: Would the noble Lord tell me which political Party was in power in 1939?
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: The noble Lord knows as well as I do which political party was in power in 1939. If he will read Hansard, he will find that I was not talking about the Liberal Party but about the Gladstonian Liberalism in the political departments.
4.17 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I rise after this exchange of civilities, dating back to some time in the past, as to whether Liberalism or the Liberals were to blame at any particular time. I shall not labour that point, and I shall keep you only a very few minutes, because, as I look down the notes of my speech, I am able to cross off a great many which have already been touched on so ably by the mover of the Motion and by the noble Viscount from the Benches opposite. In general, I like the Report. Frankly, I do not think it has got us very far, but as far as it has got us it seems to me that the Government are sympathetic to the recommendations—none of which is very revolutionary.
Sir James Grigg is a most distinguished man and a distinguished ex-Secretary of State for War, and I have no doubt that the members of the Committee were carefully chosen and did a very good job of work. But some of the statements made in the Report lead me to think that their total experience of the Forces was not very great. I say that because of the fact that some of the statements made are somewhat naive and display the sort of attitude of mind that people who have never actually served in the Forces have about them. They perhaps have heard about them and had relations with them and have served in them briefly, but have not borne the heat and burden of the day—particularly in peace time, when conditions are more normal and when you can see what is happening. I think that many of the things that appear in this Report would not have appeared had there been appointed to that Committee or co-opted on to it, shall we say, a serving officer or warrant officer of each of the Services, aged, say, thirty-five, who could have given the Committee what I think our American friends call the "low-down" on one or two things. I merely mention that in passing because I think that it has to some extent detracted from the sense of reality, as opposed to the general aura of knowledgeability, of the Report. Having said that, I do not wish in any way to be critical of the work of the Committee. I am sure it was most conscientiously carried out; and the Report is instructive, as say, so far as it goes.
274
My Lords, may I divide my remarks into a few comments on other ranks and then, later, on officers? Although my own service was limited to twenty-six years in the Regular Army, I will try to say things which will apply equally to the other two Services, because it is easy to make the mistake of seeing a matter through your own eyes and your own experience, whereas it may not apply to the other Services. Both speakers so far have mentioned the question of the co-relation of recruiting to unemployment. I think we can get a misleading picture there. To take a certain era and to look at the unemployment and then look at the recruiting can lead one, I think, to a totally false conclusion of one's own selection.
We must remember that the Forces are not interested in getting men in who are, in some cases, practically unemployable. I was at the receiving end in that respect in the very early 'thirties as a company commander. There was then a certain amount of unemployment, as your Lordships know, and there was no lack of recruits coming to recruiting offices, but some of the material that came to us, though perhaps tall enough and having passed the physical standards, was really not what we wanted at all. One must remember that, when talking about the availability of recruits and also about the standard of recruitment. I am talking about the other ranks now, and not about the officers. We do not want in the Services people off the streets who cannot get a job anywhere else. I think that matter is related indirectly to this question, although the particular point I make was not dealt with in the White Paper.
As to Lord Ogmore's touching story of the recruit who caused himself to be struck on the head in order to get up to the height standard, I am afraid that few such men exist to-day. I am sorry to say this—and what I am going to say will be unpopular in most parts of the House—but I believe that there was a time when a substantial number of men in the country in all walks of life wanted to join the Services, because they felt they were doing something for their country. I am sorry to say that that number has dwindled. I do not believe the same number of men or anything like it, with regimental associations exist. I am talking about the Army; so far as the other Services are concerned, the question of

275
loyalty to a ship or to a squadron of the R.A.F. does not exist. A man is on the move all the time and he really joins the Service.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I do not agree at all about units of ships.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, to be corrected by an Admiral of the Fleet is no small reverse; but, all the same, I believe that postings in the Navy are fairly frequent and I hardly think that a rating posted to a ship spends the whole of his service on that ship—at any rate, if it is so, I am surprised to hear it. The point which I am trying to work up to is this. Such things as the amalgamation of regiments, which was inevitable and has been done recently, and other developments, pull against any sense of regiment, any loyalty or tradition to particular regiments, and I believe that few men are so keen to get into the Service just to serve Queen and Country. I just do not think that there are many actuated by that feeling, although it is a great pity that that should be so. The Report says, in paragraph 39:
"Life in the Armed Forces is in some ways highly attractive … It gives a chance of travel, sport and adventure."
It certainly gives a chance of travel and adventure, but not always of the type that the recruit would choose—for example, chasing bandits round the jungles of Malaya; chasing the Mau Mau, or dealing with terrorists in Cyprus.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has mentioned that a man may be told of his next posting and given adequate warning so that his private arrangements are not interfered with. But, as he also said, it is rather a question of what a man is going to do this evening. That is what he is interested in. It is what is known as the "working to whistle" mentality: the factory whistle goes, and the worker is off, finished, knowing that he is not required until next morning. His life is his own in the meantime. That attitude has grown up until to-day a man does not want to feel that he is on the end of a string when not actually on duty.
We are told in the Report that Army life offers a great deal of leave on full pay. I agree. But it is leave of a sort. When is a man going to get his leave?
276
He does not know. He may get his month's leave in February, when he does not want it; he cannot claim to have it in August, when his friends are on holiday and when he can go to the seaside. It is the same with week-end leave. He may be on duty. His civilian counterpart has his week-ends free, and he can book ten weeks ahead if he wants to go to a football match. He can do what he wants to do, and he knows that he is free to do it. Again, a young man in civilian life gets engaged. He may not be able to get married for two or three years, but probably the girl is a local girl, and one day they will get married. But a Service man who gets engaged may find, three months later, that he is posted off in some emergency; and when he gets back he may find that his girl has made other arrangements. We cannot ignore this possibility.
These are the factors which I believe no number of high-level pronouncements will alter. I believe that, generally speaking, recruiting is unpopular for just those human and down-to-earth reasons that I have mentioned. And I believe that the Report has not, perhaps, visualised the importance of these angles. Before leaving these questions, there is one small point which I should like to stress. A great deal of time and trouble have been spent on the question of a walking-out dress. I believe that a walking-out dress is unnecessary, for the reason that the majority of men walk out in plain clothes. Would it not be better for soldiers to have a really tough battledress, in which they can do anything at all, and a parade dress in which they can walk out, if they so wish? The money saved by these means would, I believe, be much better put towards some kind of plain clothes allowance.
I come now to the question of officers. The question of officers' pensions will be dealt with in a minute, much more ably than I ever could, by my noble and gallant friend Lord Jeffreys, who, indeed, some few weeks ago encompassed the defeat of the Government on this precise subject. So I think that I can leave that matter in his most able hands. Turning to the questions of the recruitment of officers and the difficulty of getting officers to re-engage, there is much said in the Report about the type of officers wanted. One paragraph strikes me as being a little rough on the War

277
Office. At the end of paragraph 195, the Report says:
"As we see it, time in the War Office could be spent more profitably on redesigning the methods of officer entry than on framing arguments in favour of pay increases to buttress up the system as it now stands."
It seems to me that the Committee are of the opinion that the War Office are being a little obstructive, or at any rate unhelpful, in the matter of finding officers by new methods: the War Office want to go on with the old methods and merely offer more pay; and if young officers still will not come in then the War Office attitude is that there is nothing they can do about it.
In paragraph 198 the Report says:
"… if the numbers of grammar school boys applying are comparatively small, it suggests that they do not consider themselves wanted. There are plenty of ambitious boys from that back ground entering other professions."
That statement strikes me as being very naïve. I do not think it is a question of grammar school boys not being wanted. The Army certainly wants them. They just do not want to come in. If they are ambitious, it means that they want to get more money, and they will not get it in the Army. I am sorry that I have to harp on this aspect. Your Lordships may consider it a mercenary argument, perhaps even a sordid approach to the matter; but I think that this is what is happening. A young man likes sports and games. But his parents say to him "Yes, that's all right, Tom, but what happens to you when you want to get married, when you are twenty-five or twenty-eight or thirty—what is going to happen then?" The Government are promising better pensions, better replacement and education allowances—and I am very glad to see all this—but it barely replaces the conditions of life of the officer's civilian counterpart. At least, dial is the view of young men. I hear it on every side. I have four children between twenty-one and twenty-eight, and I hear very little else. I will leave that aspect and pass finally to two other questions.
There are two suggestions that I should like to make to the Government. Would they consider looking into the possibilities of the Supplementary Reserve? A young man becomes, at the age of nineteen or twenty a National Serviceman, and cannot, perhaps, quite make up his mind whether or not he wants to stay in
278
the Services. Could not we try to get the best of both worlds, put him on the Supplementary Reserve and bring him in for a month's training? He would then be on the strength; he has some training and he will be useful in an emergency. He could say: "I want to go away and get settled in a business." But you would still have his body, to some extent. I believe that something could be done in this direction, and perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will be able to give us an assurance that he will ask the Service Ministers to look at that aspect of the matter.
Finally, I come to the question of public relations. This I believe to be largely the core of the matter. The Services in peace time, particularly after a few years of peace, become more or less unpopular—not on the day of Trooping the Colour, of course; you cannot get a seat to watch that—and are, generally speaking, a target for criticism in the Press. We find The Times and the Daily Telegraph treating the Services kindly and reasonably, but there are other organs of the Press, a little less responsible, which treat them with abuse and ridicule. We all know that. It could be that they feel that the Services are, to use a slang expression "a little upstage", and that they do not let them in enough on what they are doing. I do not mean that the barrack gate should be left open and that any reporter who wants to come in should be allowed in; but I do feel that the public relations directorate is too small. It is concentrated at the War Office and employs few officers; and not all of them have had sufficient training.
There is only one officer on Army Command level on the public relations side. Supposing he is sick and a story breaks in an Army Command, what happens? The Press ring up and say: "Can we come along?" The Army officer on the public relations side is sick, and no staff officer wants to take the responsibility. What then happens? The Press man is told: "It is nothing; run away and play." After all, the Press have to earn their living, like the rest of us, and they do not like that treatment. I think it would be advantageous if public relations existed at a rather lower level, and a smaller formation level, of junior officers who could be given training. They should be told that if there is anything going on in their command or formation

279
which they think the Press might like to print, they should give it to them before they ask for it, because they will get it anyway and will probably get it all wrong. What happens to-day? The stories one sees in some parts of the Press in regard to the Services are more or less derogatory. People pass on these stories to each other, and it gives the Services generally a bad name. I have spoken strongly on this matter, because I believe that to try to keep out the Press, when I have no doubt they would like to have the news, is absurd. I hope that the Minister of Defence will apply himself to that, in my view, most important aspect of recruitment to the Services.
4.34 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, there is much in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on which I should like to comment. However, I will deal merely with the one last point of public relations. I am not so sure (and I think that probably other noble Lords will agree with me) that the Press are always quite so helpfully engaged in the matter of reporting incidents that occur in the Services. But against that, there is the fact that it is all the more important that there should be frankness and firmness in handling matters. I think some of the difficulties that arise do arise out of a lack of quickness of reaction; and this is a point with which the Grigg Committee deal in their Report.
This Report has received a warm welcome all round and, in my view, whether Sir James Grigg wrote the Report, or whether Mr. Hugh Cudlipp wrote it, as was suggested in another place—whoever wrote it; and it may well have been the civil servants who do so much of this work—it is an admirable and readable document. Perhaps I may get rid of one or two of the brickbats before dealing with matters in which I hope I shall have the support of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I must echo the remarks of other noble Lords as to the really deplorable state of affairs revealed by the fact that such obvious recommendations as those made by this Committee, which have been pressed by so many Members of Parliament and noble Lords in all Parties, have to wait for a Committee to be put into effect. I will not draw the Party political conclusion that might be drawn in this matter, but we
280
have to-day, I should hope, a more co-ordinated approach to defence. We have a Minister of Defence, and the eagerness with which he and the Service Ministers have jumped on to this Report and accepted the recommendations, almost, one feels, before the Treasury had time to argue about them, suggests that we may have to wait for another Grigg Committee before further necessary reforms take place. I hope that the Government will give consideration as to how they can keep the thing moving along, so that we do not have to wait for another instalment in a few years' time.
My other main criticism, not so much of the Report as of the Government's rather easy optimism, is on the question of recruiting; and when I say that, I refer to the attainment of the target. There are several rather disingenuous remarks. There is the comment quoted by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, with regard to equipment—I will not repeat it, but I think it is almost the most futile remark that any Government has made on a subject like that. Of course they are in favour of good equipment. The matter in relation to the attainment of the target smacks a little of the same sort of approach. When we look at this rather complicated Appendix A, and see that the Grigg Committee take the view that something like one in three or one in four of what they call available young manpower will be required in the Services, I would say that that seems a very high proportion. I am not sure that we should necessarily accept the assumptions of the Committee that that recruiting will take place only from a particular section. It will be recalled that they rule out the whole of the apprentices and articled pupils, but I should hope that every effort will be made to provide a career which will fit in with these apprentices and more specialised young men.
The other point concerns the high proportion of unfitness. Out of a possible 400,000 young men of the age of eighteen, 52,000 are unfit for the Services. This may accord with previous standards, but surely, with the generally acknowledged improvement in feeding, nutrition, education, and all these things, there ought not to be a total of one in eight men who are not fit for the Services. I do not know whether this hangs on matters of colour blindness, or some minor technical defect, but I hope this

281
point will be examined by the Government, because it reveals a rather frightening state of affairs which I think should be kept in mind. That, I think, concludes my more critical remarks, and I should like now to turn to a number of particular matters which are dealt with in the Report.
First of all, there is this problem of officer selection. Everybody is, I think, keen on the idea of creating the maximum opportunity of promotion from the ranks. On the other hand, if we are to move into a less unequal society than has existed in the past, then the available manpower in the ranks—the untouched and untapped capacities—is almost bound to be less. This is something that we should welcome, rather than deplore. It is a problem which I know gives rise to anxieties, and sometimes confuses the principles of some of my noble friends and friends in my political Party. But it is a trend which we have to confront. It is a trend which also exists in industry.
None the less, we are confronted by indications that the structure of promotion on the ranks side, as opposed to the officer side, is too rigid. We all know of N.C.O.s who were promoted during the war and given commissions, of which in peace time they would not have been given the chance, and who made a great success of it, not merely in war, but with permanent commissions afterwards. I hope, therefore, that, so far as is possible, a more flexible approach will be brought to this particular matter. This is a problem which applies much more in the Army. Indeed, I am happy to say—and I am sure the noble Earl is also happy to note—that it is the Army, rather than the Air Force and the Royal Navy, which requires the services of this Committee. The Air Force, of course, has much more opportunity in its technical field for promotion, both through the new entry or through the colleges. There is one point I should like to ask the Minister; that is, how the Grigg Committee got hold of the wrong figure of 640 Army Officers. We have had no explanation of this matter. The Government baldly said, "It is a wrong figure." Perhaps I missed the explanation, but certainly it seems to me rather extraordinary that such an important figure should have been allowed to get wrongly into the Report.
282
Now I should like to turn to the question of careers and, of course, the question of resettlement. Again, I will confine my remarks mainly to officers, because I do not believe—and I believe the Grigg Committee Report bears this out—that the problem of resettlement is anything like so acute for men from the ranks, provided, of course, that full employment is maintained. Here again, this is a tempting field, but one into which I shall not enter at this moment. Assuming that the Government are a little more successful than they have been lately in this matter, and are able to reverse the present trends, I have no real anxieties with regard to providing suitable opportunities for the Serviceman from the ranks. The Grigg Committee recommended widening the range within which retirement should take place. They urged that, if possible, opportunities should be given to men to serve up to the age of sixty, but rather reluctantly they said, "We are told that it is not possible." I am sure that it is impossible, as the Minister said in another place, in a service which is seeking to provide a world-wide mobile police or striking force. Other armed forces of other countries have done it, I know. I believe that the Portuguese Army have done it, and I believe that certain of the Scandinavian armies were organised on the basis of local commandants, where the officer was as much as anything else a local official. I do not believe that that is possible here.
Therefore, although it is desirable to extend the career so far as possible, we ought to look at the real need, which is the conditions of release from the Forces for officers who are not likely to move into higher grades. In this matter the Royal Navy have a great advantage. There is no definite recommendation on this point by the Grigg Committee, but they refer to it in paragraph 189. I should like to ask the Government whether they would not consider making it easier for officers to retire a little earlier if they want to, say at the age of thirty-eight or forty, without the penalty of the reduced pension which attaches to them if they do so retire. This is an important proposal which did not quite get as far as being made into a recommendation.
Against that, there is the need for industry to recognise that there is probably a great measure of untapped adminis-

283
trative ability available in the Services to-day, if it can be employed. I would go so far as to say—and I hope some noble Lords who have been Regular officers will accept this from somebody who was only a temporary one during the war—that a great deal that business men have learned about administration they were lucky enough to learn during the war, when they learned some of the efficient principles which are to be found in Government service. But the difficulty is that in business there is nothing like the scope for administrative opportunity. There are not these jobs, and except in a number of very large undertakings ex-officers are not likely to find quite the scope for their talents that they have in the Services.
Furthermore, many of them have a mistaken idea of the rates of pay they are likely to get. A Group Captain in the Air Force, with his full emoluments, is paid, I think I am right in saying, something approaching £3,000 a year. Unless he is very lucky he is not going to get that in civilian life. Contrary to general opinion, pay for officers in the Services is, on the whole, probably higher than the rate of pay the same man would have received if he had pursued a civilian career. It is important that officers who are hoping to find openings in industry should be aware of that. But there is no doubt that, particularly among the higher ranks and the product of the Staff colleges and the Imperial Defence College, there is a great measure of ability that ought to be used.
May I refer briefly to the Women's Services? There has been some criticism in this Report of the reluctance of the Army to make use of women and to extend the Women's Services in the same way that the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force have done. I know that the Navy and the W.R.N.S. always boast of the fact that the W.R.N.S. are not under the Naval Discipline Act. I would say that one of the advantages of the Women's Royal Air Force is that they are fully integrated into the Service. I should have thought that this was a development that might be considered by the soldiers, and I hope the noble Earl will mention this to his military colleagues.
284
Of course, we come back, as always, to the problem of too much discipline. It is not that the senior officers are wrong, but it is the inevitable petty restrictions of a kind that many of us have seen in the Services. I remember that during the war the station which I was on was very heavily bombed and practically everybody had fled out of the station down to the sea. There were only the flying control, certain operations and intelligence people and air crew left. There were about ten W.A.A.Fs. left on the station and about a hundred were on the beach. The W.A.A.F. officer was wringing her hands, worrying not about the ten left in danger from German bombs but about the hundred who were exposed to the dangers that were to be found, apparently, on the beach.
The Report makes reference to the military policeman at the railway stations. The W.A.A.F. officer, with a torch at night, symbolises the same thing. I am happy to have heard of the greatly improved administration, certainly in the Air Force; and again it is integration which has largely effected it. But one or two incidents of what might be called the schoolmistress approach can spoil the career of somebody who might be happy to stay in the Women's Services to-day. I hope that in this connection the Minister will say something about the Benson experiments. These experiments were made and have now, so far as I know, been dropped. They were not applied, by the way, to the Women's Services in the Air Force, but they were worth doing, and I should like to know why they were dropped and what has happened. Were the ideas so bad? At any rate, I do not think anybody outside the Air Force knows very much about it.
I would refer briefly to the position of the Air Force. I am happy to say that, on the whole, their recruiting position for most airman grades and for officers is fairly satisfactory, though not as satisfactory as the position of the Navy. The Navy have a special advantage, which perhaps we shall hear about. There is the long tradition and the esprit de corps which, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, I think still is maintained in those Services where it is possible to maintain it. The Royal Air Force are in a different position. Unfortunately, there is not the same unity.

285
It is a single corps, and although there will be loyalty to a particular squadron, there will always be a tendency to move. None the less, I think that except in the matter of air crew and certain of the senior technical grades, like radar operators, the Air Force is doing fairly well.
But the long-run problem of the Air Force—this is the sort of thing which discourages recruiting, but is none the less true—is that it will end up as a non-combatant service. To a large extent, it is already a non-combatant service. I hope that this problem of providing interest and opportunity to the young men who come in to fly aeroplanes will be carefully considered, and that they will not be allowed just to wait on rumour in the matter. This, again, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said, brings us back to the overall strategic plan. It is of extreme importance—this is one of the difficulties—that these air crews should be put fully in the picture.
That is one thing. The other is the problem of the instability of life in the Service—what I believe is called "turbulence". I think the French have a saying that two moves equal one fire. The number of Service wives who have had the equivalent of three or more fires in their homes in it the course of their married life is enough to discourage many people from joining the Services. That is why it is so important that we should maintain the real advantages of the Service. These are not merely the obvious amenities but the further opportunities. Young men who joined their regiments as officers in the early part of the century did so not merely to serve Queen and Country but for the life that went with it. It was frequently a very successful life, with lots of opportunity for outdoor sports, walking in the mountains and so on. Today, these opportunities are available to the ranks. The yachtsmen of today are not only the officers but the corporals and members of the ranks.
It is extremely important that the type of men that we want in the Services are made aware of these opportunities, and that the opportunities are increased. Unfortunately, to some extent they are dependent on the profitability of N.A.A.F.I. and the central funds that are available. One looks back to what I may perhaps
286
call the unprofitable enterprise of Suez and realises that such things most seriously affect N.A.A.F.I. funds and the size of the central funds that are available for developing this type of amenity. For instance, we have the Outward Bound school at Kilimanjaro, where to-day there are good opportunities for young men not only to climb mountains but perhaps to go on safari—to do things that would not have been considered possible for their fathers. I hope that this more adventurous approach will be increased, and that it will be provided not merely for the boys. We are always seeing advertisements illustrating adventurous advantages for boys. I hope that they will be made available to older men as well, so that they can take part in these things. To a limited extent, those in the Royal Air Force can indulge in mountain rescue and go ski-ing in the mountains. They may even be able to take part in organised excursions like the Falkland Islands Dependency Survey. I hope that we shall be able to do a little more in that connection. In so doing, we shall be providing the type of opportunities and interests which go particularly well with Service life and which we ought to maximise at this moment.
My Lords, there are many other points that I shall not deal with, but some time, perhaps on the Service Estimates, we shall once again have an opportunity to return to this question of civilianisation, and the economies that may be brought about by a greater degree of unification of the Services. I congratulate the Government, or at least the Service Ministers concerned, on the promptness with which they have contrived to accept these recommendations. I hope that some of the points that other noble Lords have made will also be considered and answered by the Government.
4.55 p.m.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, in commenting on this Report I would first allude to paragraph 186, which compares the prospects of a youth entering the Civil Service, or possibly banking, with one entering the Armed Services, in which pension, although generously assessed in the light of the time he has served, is not by itself sufficient to allow him a tolerable standard of living for the rest of his life. Next, in regard to paragraph 271, I agree

287
very much with my noble friend, Lord Bridgeman, that the Army's equipment is out of date. Surely that is the fault of Her Majesty's Treasury. The Treasury always find some good reason for not spending money, and they have succeeded in deferring for an undue time the spending of money on modern up-to-date equipment.
Next, I would allude to paragraph 272 which says:
"Too much of the present accommodation … is nothing short of scandalous."
And I would add that none is worse than the accommodation here in London, close to where we are now sitting. Again, I would suggest that the Treasury are the enemy. The Treasury always find a good reason for not spending money when it is necessary to spend it. To my knowledge, there was an estimate for rebuilding certain barracks in London a considerable number of years ago. These barracks have not been rebuilt. Having regard to inflation and the increased cost of everything, the present estimate is much higher than the original estimate.
But paragraph 262, says this:
"The biggest single impediment to the recruitment of officers is the length of career now offered,"
The recommendation on this point is that the career structure should be redesigned so as to give choice of retirement before forty, or serving on to sixty. I would say that retirement at forty would undoubtedly be difficult, but if officers could take the place of civilians occupying sedentary posts in the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry, that would, I believe, be a great improvement; and I think ex-officers would do those jobs at least as well as the civilians who now occupy those posts.
Paragraph 256 refers to widows receiving "ludicrously low pensions". I suggest, as I did a month ago, that all officers' widows should get one-third of the 1950 rates of officers' retired pay. At present, only two out of ten get Service widows' pensions of over £189 a year, and that is ridiculously low. Three out of every ten get less than the National Assistance rates, that is to say, less than £117 per year.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: Shame!
LORD JEFFREYS: Sixty per cent. of those widows cannot get National Insurance pensions because they are over seventy years of age. I consider that that is a scandalous state of affairs, and that widows of officers ought at any rate to get a little more than the National Assistance rates, for most of them are in very great need. Moreover it is only the widows of the future—not present-day widows—who will get the benefit of the new rates. If difficulties arise over making the full scale payable to them, surely it would be possible to pay them, even if it is on a lower scale, something which represents an improvement on their present receipts.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Bridgeman that the instruction of non-commissioned officers is a very important matter. The Committee say:
"Amongst the complaints is … dislike of taking orders from unintelligent or bullying non-commissioned officers."
Some non-commissioned officers do not know how to give orders and I do not think that their training is altogether what it should be—not so much as regards duties in the field, but as regards general duties, methods of doing duties, discipline and system. In these there are differences between units. Some units are excellent others are less good.
If I may, I should like to inflict upon your Lordships a story from personal experience. In the South African war—not the day before yesterday—my then commanding officer had a friend who succeeded to the command of a certain line battalion. The friend asked my commanding officer whether he could have a good non-commissioned officer to be his regimental sergeant major. The reason why I took a personal interest in this matter was that it was the colour sergeant of my company who was sent. We lost sight of him for a little while, but a few months later we were not far distant from his battalion, and he came over to see us. We asked him, "How are you getting on? How do you like your new battalion?" His reply was, "Well, sir, it is a rather funny battalion. The first day I was there the commanding officer said to me, 'Now, sergeant major, I want you to change this, amend that and alter the other,' and I said to him, 'With your permission, sir, before I recommend any changes to you I should like to have a

289
few days just to get to know the system of the battalion.' The commanding officer then said to me, 'Sergeant major, there is no system in this battalion—that is why you are here. I have sent for you to make a system'."
More than thirty years afterwards, when I was an army commander in India, I went to inspect the troops at a certain station. The local commander came to see me. He had with him a list of the various troops and some notes on the different units, and he told me, "I am afraid there is one unit with which you will not be pleased." I asked him which one it was and what was the matter with it. He told me and gave me a list of the various deficiencies; and he ended by saying, "The fact of the matter is that there is no system at all in that unit"—and that unit was a battalion of that same regiment to which my old colour sergeant had gone many years before. I suggest that if there is a bad system, or lack of system, in a battalion, that is very liable to go on from generation to generation.
I would just advert to one paragraph, No. 133, which refers to discipline and uses the words:
"Where it is plainly indispensable …"
I am certain that every officer who has ever served in any of the three Services will agree with me that discipline is always indispensable: there is no time when it is not indispensable. By that I do not mean that there should be unnecessary bullying or shouting, or anything of that kind; but it is always indispensable that orders should be strictly obeyed and rules strictly enforced.
I have just a few more words to say. Her Majesty's Government talk a great deal about inflation and the cost of living. The increase in the cost of living since 1913 has been 322 per cent.—no less; and since 1950 it has risen by over 45 per cent. I hope this is not the case, but I suggest that possibly Her Majesty's Government may regard that as an important matter for civilians but unimportant for ex-officers and their widows. As I say, I hope that that is not so, but it looks a little as if it might be, and I wonder particularly whether that is good for recruiting. If officers' sons see their parents' difficulties—and they cannot help seeing them—and no effort being made, apparently, to meet them, I
290
cannot believe that it can be good for recruiting.
In paragraph 52 the Committee state that officers' pensions are, on the whole, reasonable. That is not altogether incorrect as regards officers when they first go on pension; but inflation has made the position of officers and their widows very much worse. Those who went on pension in 1939, or earlier, are in a really impossible position. It is the so-called immutable pensions which are utterly and completely unfair, and particularly the failure to compensate for increases in the cost of living. I have ventured previously to bring some cases before you.
I believe that it would be a very good thing if there could be schools of instruction for non-commissioned officers, schools of instruction not merely in duties in the field—that is catered for by, for instance, Hythe and various other places. But I suggest that there should be courses of instruction for non-commissioned officers where they could be taught the proper way to give orders, the proper methods and system of running a battalion, the proper way of doing duties; to realise, for instance, that it is not necessary for there to be bullying or unnecessary shouting at men. I believe that if non-commissioned officers were put through a proper school of that kind that would be very much to the benefit of the Service in general. My Lords, I still hope that there may be improvements as the result of this Report of the Grigg Committee, and that those improvements will include improvements in the pensions of officers who retired before 1939 and in the conditions of officers' widows.
5.13 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: By Lords, I have listened with a great deal of interest to this very interesting debate, and I think we are indebted, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said, to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for bringing forward this subject for us to discuss. I also find the Grigg Report most fascinating reading and I am sure that the writer, as others have said, is probably Sir James Grigg himself.
I should like to devote such remarks as I am going to make to questions relating to Part VI of the Grigg Report which is devoted to the Women's Services—recruiting and conditions of the

291
three branches of the Women's Services. In the last war these Services achieved remarkable success in their service to the country, not only in work out of the danger zone but also in the front line, as in the "Ack-Ack" batteries and many other joint sections of the fighting Services. Although I never had the opportunity myself of serving, I was a member of the Markham Commission which was appointed to report to the Prime Minister, then Mr. Winston Churchill, in 1942 on the work of the Women's Services during the war, and I visited units of all the three Services in all parts of the United Kingdom. I think that of all the experiences I have had in public life and public work, this Commission of Inquiry was the most interesting I ever took part in, and I shall never forget the impression I had of the devotion to duty and the high standards of efficiency and skill which I saw in all the many units that I visited.
It is difficult for the Women's Services to show long lists of battle honours that are the pride of the great regiments and the historic ships of the line, or the great triumphs of the Air Force in the various Commands. These stories are written in the history books and recorded down the ages. But not for the Women's Services. They are young Services and their traditions are not written as largely or as clearly as those of the men. Nevertheless, they are there and recognised by all who know and appreciate their work, and by none more than the officers and men with whom they served in the war.
This morning I was looking back at the Markham Report and I was interested in the Conclusion to read again a few words that were written in 1942:
"What is to be the future of the Women's Services? When the cease fire sounds, is a curtain to fall on the remarkable contribution they have made to the war? Officers and other ranks naturally at times ask themselves this question and it has forced itself on the attention of your Committee."
That was the Committee on which I was serving. Since the war that question has been answered. A great demobilisation has taken place, but there has been far too little talk about the contributions which women are still making to the defence forces, and if we are going to recruit women in the necessary numbers for our modern and somewhat streamlined Services it will be necessary for
292
Members to create among the general public a different climate of opinion about the Women's Services—not only among the general public but also in the Service Ministries and more particularly in the Defence Ministry.
I have read, as I am sure many noble Lords have, many speeches made in the other place and in public by politicians and by high-up commanding officers in which practically nothing is said about the need to recruit women into the Services to-day. I would not blame the general public for not realising how very much they are needed in our defence forces, because it is so seldom mentioned. We must change this if we are to encourage girls leaving schools and universities and looking for careers to consider joining the Women's Services. In paragraph 217 of the Grigg Report the Committee use the following words:
"The greatest single deterrent to the recruitment of women is the lack of emphasis on the need for Women's Services in time of peace."
And they go on to comment on the fact that the 1957 Defence White Paper—a document of the greatest importance in the planning of our defence policy—does not mention women once. This surely is a disastrous omission if the Service Departments really want to get first-class people to volunteer for the Services. One must not forget that girls who have reached university level or have taken the general certificate of education at advanced level are in demand by numbers of other professional bodies—teachers, the nursing profession, social workers, probation officers, medical social workers—an endless list which is never full. If, therefore, the Services want to compete with the other professional bodies they must show as much enthusiasm and interest in providing a career for girls as do these other organisations.
In a paper which I had from the Ministry of Labour there are quoted two very interesting facts about careers in the Women's Services. The paper says:
"There are many trades in which recruits can enter direct if they have certain educational qualifications or civilian experience. For example, a girl who has reached ordinary level of mathematics and physics in the general certificate of education can become an experimental assistant gunnery or telecommunication mechanic in the W.R.A.C., while a woman with an honours degree in mathematics, physics or geography may be accepted for a

293
short service commission in the W.R.N.S. for meteorological duties with the Fleet Air Arm."
These sound fascinating things of which I am sure the general public have no idea.
What exactly are the needs of the Women's Services to-day? Compared with the astronomical numbers which were recruited during the war—and sitting in front of me on these Benches is Lord McCorquodale of Newton, who was chairman of the Ministry of Labour Committee on which I served during the war, which recruited these women for the Services, and he will bear me out as to the problems we had to face then—the small figure of 5,000 to 6,000 girls seems to be of quite manageable proportions. Add to that the fact that conditions of pay and service compare quite favourably with other professional careers for women, and the problem should be capable of solution.
From inquiries I have made at the Ministry of Labour, I find that the numbers required in the separate Services are as follows: The W.R.N.S. require by 1963 3,250, and their strength on January 1 in 1958 was 3,219. They are, therefore, up to strength. They require an annual intake of 1,100 to allow for wastage due to marriage and other factors. The Women's Royal Army Corps require a strength of 6,500 by 1963, and at January 1, 1958, they had 4,059. Their annual requirement (which is larger than that of either of the other two Services) is 3,200 other ranks, 45 for Regular commissions, and 20 for short-service commissions. Their total number of officers is 307, and they are very short of officers. The Women's Royal Air Force require 5,500 by 1963, and their present strength of 4,410 includes 366 officers. Their annual requirement is 2,000, and they also have a great need for officers.
These figures, as the Grigg Report points out in paragraph 247, should be capable of being recruited when one realises that 340,000 girls reach the age of eighteen in any one year. Surely it is possible to set about finding these small numbers among the vast numbers of girls choosing careers. I would suggest that the Women's Service chiefs should cooperate on this subject of recruiting. After all, what we want is suitable girls and young women with the desire to serve their country in the Services, and I believe
294
that it would be wise, when approaching the possible centres of recruitment, if, instead of presenting a competing front one with another, an appeal was made on behalf of all three Services, leaving the choice naturally to the recruit.
I would suggest that, in addition to going to the labour exchanges and to the youth employment officers, the Women's Service chiefs should go to organisations such as these: The Association of Headmistresses; the National Union of Teachers; and the Committee known as "The Joint Four"—that is to say, the Incorporated Association of Headmasters, the Incorporated Association of Headmistresses, the Incorporated Association of Assistant Masters, and the Association of Assistant Mistresses. The "Joint Four" has its own careers sub-committee, and it touches all the grammar schools, a great many independent schools which are not run for profit, and a good many secondary modern schools. The National Union of Teachers has in its membership primary teachers, but also a good many teaching in secondary modern schools. I believe that the Women's Services could safely be urged to inform these professional associations of the need and the opportunities of the Women's Services, as well as keeping in touch with youth employment officers and the other centres from which they already recruit.
In paragraph 202, the Grigg Committee recommend that a headmaster might be specially appointed to help with recruiting young men from schools, and in paragraph 237 they recommend that a headmistress might be associated with recruitment of girls on the same lines. I believe that that would be a useful avenue of recruitment. There is also no doubt, if one reads the attractive prospectuses issued by the three Services, that the Services can offer girls a very interesting and attractive career. I have these three extremely attractive booklets here. The most popular recruiting appeal is the chance of employment overseas, and as all three Services have units in Europe and the Middle East, the West Indies and the Far East, there are many opportunities for girls to go overseas. I do not know whether it would be possible to enlarge these opportunities. If there were an increase in recruiting, I believe it would be. I am told that in the Services they would require a ratio of one to three

295
if they were to increase the overseas service. But even without the attraction of foreign travel, if many of the recommendations of the Grigg Report are put into effect by the Services it should be possible to offer such an interesting and worthwhile life that I am sure many women will wish to join.
Of course, soldiering in peace time—and this applies to all the Services—can be very boring, judged by the accounts which one has had from National Service recruits who, in some way or another, did not appreciate their training; but it seems to me that the smaller numbers and the highly-mechanised and skilled operations that have to be performed by the women should do away, to some extent, with the enemy of boredom. Like the noble Viscount, I also read that very interesting article in the Sunday Times yesterday by our distinguished Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, Sir Brian Horrocks, which gave an account of the space-age war which seemed to me to be terrifying, but nobody could say that it was dull.
I do not want to go into the many details and recommendations of the Grigg Committee, save only to say that they seem to me admirable and I hope very much that the Minister of Defence and the Service Ministers, following on the White Paper recommendations, will see that they really are put into effect. All this will help, I am sure. But the most important thing, as I said at the beginning of my speech, is to create the climate of opinion which will encourage girls to join the Forces. This cannot be done unless the generals, admirals, air marshals and, indeed, all the officers and civil servants who prepare speeches, write articles, appear on television, make broadcasts, and generally use the media of public relations which are so widespread to-day, speak with pride of the Women's Services as an important integral part of the Defence Forces of our country. Only in this way will the public begin to realise that the women are very much needed in these Services, that they have important and skilled jobs to do, that it is a worth-while career, that they are really wanted, and that their work cannot be done by anyone else. I hope that the noble Earl who will reply to the debate will assure the
296
House that never again will a major plan, involving the whole of our Defence Forces, be announced without any reference to the essential part that women have played and are required to play in Her Majesty's Forces.
5.29 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, the cry is "Join the Army and See the World!" The number of places in this world where Servicemen and Service-women can now go is gradually getting less and less. In some ways perhaps this is a good thing. If one looks at it from the point of view of the international situation, one might be forgiven for thinking that the situation is improving. However, from the point of view of recruiting, the young man or young woman frequently joins up to find adventure, but he or she will not find very much adventure in places like Catterick, Aldershot, or Bad Oynhausen. It is true that Cyprus, Malaya and the West Indies are still important bases which have to be manned, but the slogan, "Join the Army and See the World!" no longer holds good. Nor is it any more true for the Navy and the Royal Air Force.
I have served in the ranks, both in the Territorial Army and in the Army, so much of what I am going to say will be from the other ranks' point of view. First of all, may I say something about Aldershot? While in the Territorial Army, I remember proceeding to Aldershot on manœuvres and seeing a large notice "Aldershot—the home of the British Army." I can only say, "Some home!" Some of the barracks are disgraceful. Admittedly, that was seven or eight years ago, and I do not know whether there have been improvements; but friends of mine in the Territorial Army who have been on similar manœuvres recently tell me that they are still unsatisfactory. Any foreigner reading that notice outside Aldershot might well have a few shocks. Paragraph 273 of the Grigg Report says:
"Overmuch money is spent on patching up sub-standard buildings."
The Government's reply on this point reads as follows:
"The Forces are at present in process of contraction. It would not be economical to replace sub-standard accommodation which will not be needed when the process of reduction is complete."

297
Anybody who has had experience of decorating will know that when a building gets into a really deteriorated state, as many of our barracks and hutments are, it is much cheaper to demolish the building and rebuild than to try to patch it up by putting on a few coats of paint and some "Polyfilla" or any of the modern handiman's requisites which are on the market.
I should like to say a few words about food, a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, dealt with adequately. The old saying that "an army marches on its stomach" is true. We could pay a man £10,000 a year, and house him in a mansion, with central heating and plush carpets, but if we fed him badly, he would not join. In Austria, where I did my National Service, the ration corporal of my unit and I were great friends, and I used to see the meat coming into the cookhouse—prime cuts of Argentine beef; but when it got to the mess hall, an extraordinary transformation had taken place. It was like prodding shoeleather. What happened, I do not know. I do not think that all the blame can be ascribed to the cooks. Much of it was due to an inadequate and antiquated cookhouse, and to inadequate cooking utensils and stoves. I believe that considerable modernisation is going on in that sphere now, but much still remains to be done.
Not many months ago there was much publicity about the varied, almost Savoy Hotel style, menus at Woolwich Barracks. I read it with considerable satisfaction. But surely we must look forward to the day when not only Woolwich but many other Army units, large and small, enjoy good catering. It is not so much a question of quantity, of having a Choice of twenty items on the menu; if food is not properly cooked and served up, then the whole plan fails. It is much better to have a choice of four items, decently cooked and, more important, decently served up, than a large variety. I stress the importance of food.
The Grigg Report makes reference to the increased employment of regimental cooks. I think that that is important. A regimental cook is going to take much more pride in feeding his regiment than an Army Catering Corps cook, who is
298
probably unwillingly drafted to a unit and has no interest in it whatever.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, may I ask a question on that point, which is an interesting one? Surely the regimental cook is likely to be drafted unwillingly to the cookhouse when there is a need in the unit, whereas a man does not join the Army Catering Corps unless he Chooses it and has an interest in cooking.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Earl's point, but I think that regimental pride still exists among many National Servicemen. It was the case in my unit that at least two of the Army Catering Corps cooks had never been cooks before. One of them was a plumber and the other a cooper, or something like that. We also had Austrian cooks, who, I must say, produced better food.
I should like to take up a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and other noble Lords, about non-commissioned officers. I served under a number of sergeants and sergeant-majors, and they were, almost without exception, reasonable men. It is true that sometimes one cursed the sergeant-major, who used to shout at us, and sometimes swear at us. But perhaps the most important man in an Army unit is not the commanding officer or the adjutant, but the sergeant-major. He has a tremendous responsibility on his shoulders. He has to guide the C.O. and the young subalterns; he has to be a combined disciplinarian and, at times, psychologist and psychiatrist, and has all sorts of other duties to his men. I believe that the vast majority of the sergeants and the sergeant-majors in units in the British Army are, at heart, very reasonable men. They do their best to try to show National Servicemen that they have a duty to perform; and the National Servicemen, in their turn, show him that they are keen to help.
There are, of course, annoying items of "spit and polish" in every unit: blancoing coal, whitewashing stove surrounds, cleaning boot polish tins and all kinds of so-called petty tyrannies. But does it really hurt a man to polish his boots and make sure the toecaps are clean? Does it hurt a man to press his uniform? I submit not only that it does not hurt him, but that it is good for him.

299
After all, a civilian going to an office does, or should, wear a clean collar and a nicely pressed suit. Why should not a man go on parade with blancoed webbing, clean brasses and clean boots? I submit that certain sections of the Press try to show that commanding officers and sergeant-majors are petty tyrants, and that National Servicemen are glued to the "spit and polish" brush, to the blanco, to the Duralite or whatever may be used. But basically speaking, certainly in my experience, that is not so.
I believe that one great mistake was made in drafting National Service men into the Territorial Army. I was in the Territorial Army during the time when the National Service men served two years in the Regular Army and a year in the Territorial Army. Most of the men buckled down to the job well, but there were a few who tried to rebel. They made it bad for everybody else; it got the Territorial Army and the regiment a bad name. I think that many people who have served in the Territorial Army will hope that there is not a repetition of drafting National Service men and of compelling people to go into a volunteer organisation. To my mind, it just does not work.
I want to say a word or two about the Women's Services. I worked for a time with members of the A.T.S. (as they were then) and they did a wonderful job; and my wife served in the W.R.N.S., a very smart Service. It makes me angry, as I am sure it does many others, to read letters in the Press saying that the Women's Services are useless, archaic and a nuisance. That is not so. During the war they did a splendid job on antiaircraft sites, in offices and in nursing; and they continue to perform very useful service. Not all of them, of course, are first-class types—not every soldier is a first-class type—but, by and large, they do a fine job, and I do not think there is enough stress laid on that in this Report.
Generally, I feel that the Report is a good one. I hope that it will be widely read, because it will help to allay some of the legends which one hears about National Service and the Army. The ending of National Service is something for which we all hope, but few people have not benefited from it. How many Teddy boys and such types have benefited
300
by it? They have been under a good sergeant-major who has made them have their hair cut and made them wash themselves. They may not have liked it at the time, but when they come out a good many of them settle down to an ordered life. I grumbled during National Service many times, as do most men, but when I look back I find that it did me a tremendous lot of good. In my first two years in the Territorial Army my commanding officer was the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who I know is revered in this House, as he was in the regiment. More commanding officers like the noble Earl would, I am sure, encourage recruiting greatly. As I say, the Report has blown a breath of fresh air into this most important subject, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has done great service in introducing this debate.
5.49 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I will keep your Lordships for only a few moments on one or two points which I think must be made, and rather forcibly made; some have been slightly touched on but there is one on which nothing has been said. When a young man comes to the age when he is going to decide what he will do in the future his parents will probably influence him a great deal, and they will say, if they are wise: "You must not think of the present, but of the time you are married and have children; of the time when you retire, or else you leave this world and your wife is left behind you." I am going to take first of all the question of the children. When this young man grows up, he gets married and has children, and his first object will be their education. I am sure that in the age in which we now live every young man who has children wishes to see them well educated.
In paragraph 252 of the Report, Recommendation (iii) is that the education allowance should be raised; and we are delighted to see that. But there is one trouble which is felt by all the officers of the Army, and that is that if you serve abroad your education allowance is free of tax, but if you serve in this country it is not. One can fully understand that when you are abroad there are more expenses than at home. Perhaps, not having your own home, your wife may be living in lodgings, or you

301
may be boarding your children out. But still, that little extra, by having the allowance free of tax, would, I feel sure, be a great encouragement and would help a young man to decide to come into the Services.
That is my first point. I am moving on from there to the question about which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Jeffreys, spoke to us, not only to-night but on a previous occasion. Unfortunately, for some time it has been the policy rather to ignore this very important question of widows' pensions. In paragraph 256, the Report says:
"Existing scales of family pension result in widows receiving ludicrously low payments."
Again, we are delighted to see the recommendation that the pensions should be raised. But the decision that that shall take account only from April next year cuts out completely all existing widows, on whose position the Grigg Committee have made such strictures. It cuts out the future widows of officers and other ranks already in retirement or who will retire before April 1 next year. I do not think that a widow with a young son would advise him to go into the Services at this moment.
There is one case of a widow who is forty-four years of age. Her husband was a lieutenant-colonel. She gets £189 a year. She is living with her daughter of eighteen years of age in one room and a kitchenette. They are both working behind a counter, and if she had not got the £189 she could get National Assistance which would consist of £2 5s. 0d. a week, and £2 10s. 0d. a week towards rent—£247 a year. Now, under the new scale—and this is an estimate; I say "estimate" advisedly—she would be able to get £266 a year. I own that she can work for her living, but I think that those people who have served us so well in the past must be considered, especially when future widows' pensions are to be put up fairly reasonably.
I beg the Government to consider this matter. I do not know how much it would cost, but I should like the noble Earl who is to reply—I have not given him notice of this question—to tell us when this £4 million which it is said it will cost to put up these widows' pensions, will come to its peak. It must be many years hence, because naturally after April people will not be retiring so quickly. That would
302
not only be to the interests of morale but also an expression of gratitude to those who have gone before. I think we should ask Her Majesty's Government to think this matter over carefully and see whether past widows can be given the same increase as those of the future.
5.56 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, this has been a debate full of interest, and it has covered the entire field of the Services or, rather, the personnel matters in the Services. There have been a number of instances of coat-trailing, but the main object has been to elicit from Her Majesty's Government a statement of their views; what they are going to do to implement the recommendations, and how soon they will be able to do it. In particular, we hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us something on the question of widows' pensions.
The Grigg Committee made recommendations on all sorts of levels—from the purely domestic to the policy level. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, called it a "breath of fresh air", but I thought a number of noble Lords were rather quick to shut the window and keep out the air, because, clearly, a number of the findings of the Grigg Committee did not accord with some noble Lords' views of what was best for the Services. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, thought it was a good thing for people to have to polish their equipment. It has been an old argument, and a longstanding one, and the views held on both sides are usually held very strongly. I would remind the noble Lord that attempts were made in 1938, 1939 and 1940 to reduce severely the amount of time soldiers spent on cleaning their equipment. The principle was accepted by the Government, by Parliament and by the Army Council, but by the time it reached the troops there was almost nothing left of the original intention. I have even heard it said that buttons which were made of a special alloy that could not he polished were, in fact, sand-papered and polished by order of certain officers.
That is a point of which I should like to remind the Government: that while Whitehall and the Service Departments may have the best intentions and the most liberal ideas, and may lay them down in black and white to be carried out in the Services, in fact they often do not get carried out. The noble Viscount, Lord

303
Bridgeman, said that the non-commissioned ranks in the Army often have the most reactionary views on reforms, discipline and so on. Whose fault is it that the N.C.Os. have those ideas? Surely, it is the officers' fault? And whose fault is it that the officers have those views? I think we are entitled to look at the method of selection and training of officers. Those thoughts, it seems to me, must have been in the minds of the Grigg Committee—not explicit perhaps, but some of their recommendations were clearly covered by views of this sort.
I think we should admit straight away that the material factors in a soldier's life do not really have a decisive effect in influencing him when he chooses his profession. He can get his pay, which, as is now admitted, is not at all bad by comparison with that of the rest of the community. It is true that the living conditions are bad—barracks are bad. But I doubt whether that enters much into the mind of a young man when he is deciding whether or not to go to the recruiting office. The same applies to food. I do not believe that whether the food is good or bad, well cooked or indifferently cooked, has a great deal of influence. But I would, in parenthesis, ask the noble Earl what has happened to the admirable system of Army schools of cookery and the Army Catering Corps which were set up in 1940, with eminent advice from the catering world. That system had the most remarkable results, in the war, in raising the standard of Army cooking. I wonder why the standard has been allowed to deteriorate since then?
Going back to the material factors, I do not for a moment believe that the uniform question is of any great importance. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that it has always been the experience that as soon as he qualifies for the privilege of wearing plain clothes, a soldier puts on his plain clothes when he walks out of barracks. The walking-out dress that has been so much talked about, and on the design of which so much time and energy has been spent, is not, I believe, a factor of any importance. I maintain that what we have to look at is the prospect of a career and of a useful and pleasant life, with prospects of advancement according to a
304
man's ability. I cannot go with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in saying that in the old days there was a spirit of service. I do not think men considered it as a form of serving Queen and country, or King and country, to join the Regular Army. I think it was one among a number of careers or walks of life that he might choose; and I think he was influenced by the prospects he had of getting on.
No matter how much the figures for recruiting between the wars are examined—different people find different conclusions from them—the fact seems to be that there are only a limited number of men in the population who have the inclination towards a career in the Services. In order to reach the target which the Government have set themselves, I think that probably they will have to attract a high proportion of that small section of the population. I believe that that is borne out by everything we hear. Now a word about the selection and resettlement of officers. The Government were rather "cagey" in dealing with the recommendations of the Committee on the selection of officers. There was the question of the North versus South, and the grammar schools versus the rest. Obviously this is too big a matter to go into now, but I would tell the Government that the Grigg Committee were right in their interpretation of the general opinion in the country—namely, that if you have a North country or a Cockney accent you do not stand as good a chance of getting a commission as somebody who has not. That is a situation which, if the Government accept the Grigg Committee's view and take action on it, they may be able to correct. They may be able, in time, to remove that impression. But the impression is strong that the type of officer who has hitherto been recruited and who has risen through the ranks to high rank does not look at the boy from the North country grammar school as a suitable officer—in other words, the system as it is is self-perpetuating. That is the danger, and that is why the Grigg Committee blew in this breath of fresh air. But it will do no good if people shut the windows.
It is true that the young man whose father joined the Regular Army or the Regular Forces does not now see any future in it, for various reasons, chiefly

305
financial. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, in saying that the Army does not now give scope for seeing the world. The Army is scattered all over the world, as it has been for many years—not always in the same places: old garrisons have been given up, but new ones have been found. It still seems to me to offer chances of travel all over the world. But the officer thinks of his future when he has to retire at the age of forty or thereabouts. I know that something has been done about officers' resettlement. There is one point that I should like to put to Her Majesty's Government—namely, the employment in established posts in the Army of retired officers. The same possibly applies to the other Services, but I do not know the details.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Does the noble Earl mean the War Office?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I mean in particular in the War Office. I see that, according to the Army Estimates for this year, there are 197 retired officers employed of first, second and third grade. In command headquarters, pay offices, record offices and the like, there are another 300 or so retired officers of first, second and third grade. That is a total of 500 retired Army officers who hold posts in static formation headquarters and the War Office.
Why cannot Her Majesty's Government make more posts for retired officers in these static headquarters and other places? It seems to me that that would be a means of giving a congenial career to an officer who has to leave the Service in middle life, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider it. So far as I can see from the figures, the numbers of retired officer posts are not increasing, and may in fact be diminishing slightly, in proportion to the total number of staff posts. I suggest that Her Majesty's Government might give that matter some thought.
Finally there are the questions of training and equipment. The Grigg Committee—quite rightly, I think—said that realistic training means a great deal in giving a satisfying life and career to the mart in the Services. Everybody knows that it is an extremely difficult job to occupy the whole working week of people of different specialities and capabilities.
306
Some people are naturally good teachers, but most are not; and the most difficult of a commanding officer's tasks is to know how to fill the time of his men profitably and usefully. That does not mean handing them over to the sergeant-major for an hour's drill. I believe that that is at the bottom of a lot of the unpopularity of the Army, particularly, as compared with the other two Services. Admittedly the Grigg Committee said they thought that there was a good deal of exaggeration, but if one talks to parents of National Servicemen many will say that the harm which their son suffered from the Services was caused through idleness, through not having enough to do. The Grigg Committee recommended that the working day should be shorter but should be better filled.
On equipment, surely the War Office are not falling into their old bad habits of waiting until they have 100 per cent. perfection before anything goes into production. It was because of that that it took eighteen years, between the first and second wars, to develop a light automatic weapon to replace the Lewis gun. The fact that modern equipment has not been ordered is surely a demonstration of that old failing. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be encouraged to remedy that failing, among other things mentioned in the Committee's Report.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, may I just clarify two points made by the noble Earl on matters to which I had referred. First, regarding "spit and polish" I agree that unnecessary "spit and polish", such as the cleaning of boot-polish tins, is entirely wrong. But surely there is nothing wrong with pressing one's uniform and polishing one's boots—even to the extent of shining the toecaps. Secondly, when I described the Report as "a breath of fresh air" I really meant that it was the first time that I had seen a Report on the Armed Services which was frank and easy to read and to follow; but that did not necessarily mean that I agreed with every word it said.
6.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like at the outset to thank noble Lords for taking part in this debate and for bringing to it, as they did, a great deal of experience. Those such as the

307
noble Lords, Lord Windlesham, and Lord Auckland, brought out personal experiences for the benefit of Her Majesty's Government.
This Report has been very well received and I would venture to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that I do not think it is simply a statement of self-evident facts. I believe that it has applied a sense of proportion to the relative degree of weight which should be attached to different factors. There is also the side to which my noble friend Lord Auckland has referred. This is a readable document which has brought to the attention of many people factors concerning the Services which may have been misrepresented up to now. From this point of view alone the Report has been of great value. It is not just a weapon which Service Ministers can use, at the right moment, against the Treasury, although it is of value to me to see the relative importance of certain problems which other Services face.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that this Committee was quite representative of the Services. I am told that five out of the seven members have had first-hand experience of the Services. One was a commandant of the Women's Royal Auxiliary Service; and of the secretaries, one was a serving Army officer and the other two were civil servants, one of whom had served in the Army and the other in the Royal Air Force; so I feel that they were speaking with quite a lot of authority.
I find in the Report some encouragement for saying that we shall get the requisite number of recruits for the Armed Forces provided that we substantially fulfil, as Her Majesty's Government have said they will, the recommendations made. The Report also says—I am sure rightly—that the abolition of National Service makes the possibility or the probability of satisfactory Regular recruitment a good deal higher. The problem that we have to face—and it is no good burking it or pretending that we are not going to have to face it—is that first of all we must have a large number of men who will be young. We cannot pretend that we need a large number of older people in the Armed Forces, for we do not. This is, and always will be, essentially a young man's sphere. That means that the majority of men cannot
308
have a full career. Secondly, they are very liable to be moved about. Some people like seeing the world and it is fair to say that to-day a very large part of our Armed Forces is overseas. It would be wrong to give the impression that there is a large percentage cooped up in this country. Her Majesty's Government have accepted, or at least have not refused, the recommendations in the Report, and I feel that it is right to say that we are facing the difficulties of recruiting frankly; although we believe we shall get the figures, we do not pretend that it will necessarily be easy.
May I turn first to the subject of pay. My noble and gallant friend Lord Jeffreys said that the trouble with the Treasury is that it is not spending money. Many people think the Treasury spend too much money and would be very grateful if they did not spend so much. I think it is proper to set this Report against the background that what might be regarded as certain incentives to entering the Services were introduced early this year at a cost of about £37 million and implementation of the recommendations in this Report will eventually cost a further £13 million in a full year; so that there is a total payment of about £50 million a year to the Services as an inducement for recruitment. Secondly, the Report has stated (and Her Majesty's Government have accepted) that there should be an automatic biennial review of pay. That will take place. This is a considerable advantage, for it means that there is no need for preliminary arguments about whether there shall be a review; we can go straight into the argument of what rates shall be covered by the review. This I feel is an important step forward.
Then, there are a number of arrangements, particularly with regard to education and disturbance, which are of real importance to officers and other ranks, many of whom have to change their accommodation on a number of occasions. There is also the question of general simplification, which I can only say is being examined. I should admit that I was once serving on a station when the accountant officer came to me and said: "I have paid every man on the station wrongly. Only one found out, and I 'squared' him." I think that that is rather typical of the complexities into which Service accounts have on occasion grown.

309
If I may pass to pensions, I would first say this to the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, who called attention to paragraph 186 of the Report to the effect that a soldier
"must be prepared to seek other work in his mid-forties, when he has qualified for a pension which, although generously assessed in the light of the time he has served, is not by itself sufficient to allow him a tolerable standard of living for the remainder of his life."
That, I am afraid, is the position and, if I may say so, quite rightly, of officer pensions. As to existing pensions, I would only remind the House of what I said previously. If we start improving those, we may have to take account of other Crown servants and eventually land ourselves with repercussions which may cost as much as £60 million a year. That is why the Grigg Committee did not recommend a general increase in all pensions. What they did was to recommend an increase in future pensions. That is being implemented as far as other ranks' and family pensions are concerned.
As to officers' pensions, they will be part of the review on pay and pensions which must take place in the course of next year in order that recommendations may be ready for implementation by April, 1960. That review will be automatic, and it will include family pensions. As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has pointed out, there is the question of the widows of existing pensioners in the future. A statement has been made on that subject in another place, to the effect that this matter is under review. It is hoped that the Government will be able to make some statement about it shortly. I hope that the noble Lord will not press me to say anything further now because I am not able to do so. He asked also what would be the cost of the future widows' pensions scheme. The ultimate cost will be about £4 million, but that will not be reached for about thirty years.
My Lords, I would now return to the point of career structure. I believe it was the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, who said he thought that more could be done by keeping officers in employment after retirement. I will only say to him that this point is being carefully examined at the moment and I am not able to say what will be decided. As he has said, quite a large number of officers who retire are retained in their respective
310
Services. The noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, raised the question of retirement of officers. I am unable to identify the suggestion he made that, from the point of view of retired pay, it is more advantageous to retire earlier from the Navy than from the other two Services. So far as I am aware, the three Services are identical on that point. We are examining the possibility of making service shorter for some, with earlier retirement, and of allowing a certain number of others to serve longer.
But one of the most important things which will always remain, regardless of what we do, is the work of the Resettlement Service. Here I am glad to say that the Regular Forces Resettlement Service, under the direction of Air Chief Marshal Sir Ronald Ivelaw-Chapman, has been doing very valuable work. This is the body which is advised by the Resettlement Advisory Board, under the Chairmanship of Sir Frederic Hooper. Of the officers who have retired this year, of whom there are about 5,500, only a little over 1,000 were shown on the register as unemployed at the end of September. At the same time the number of vacancies shown as suitable for ex-Regulars and notified by industry is increasing. It is extremely important that this should be the case, and I hope that all your Lordships who have influence in that direction will draw attention to this point. There is not the same difficulty about other ranks, and employment for them is being found fairly readily. I would briefly add the fact that I think that all the Services now have short reorientation courses which help officers and other ranks to adapt themselves in a short period to civil life.
I should like to turn to the subject of officer recruitment about which there has been some discussion. There has been criticism in the Grigg Report on this, particularly in relation to the Army: first as to whether the Services are selecting in sufficient numbers boys from schools other than public schools; and, secondly, as to whether enough commissioned officers are coming from the ranks. May I say a word or two about that? First of all, I think that the difficulty is not in selecting the officers, but in getting the best material from, shall I say, non-military schools to offer themselves for officer training in one of the Services. I

311
personally feel that we should be extremely grateful to a school such as Wellington which for a long time has educated boys particularly for military service. Other schools have not the same tradition. But if the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, really believes that there is an undue susceptibility concerning accent, then I offer him, and any other noble Lord, on behalf of both myself and the two Secretaries of State, an invitation to visit the officers' selection centres to see whether the sort of anxiety he has expressed has any foundation. However, I believe that the real difficulty is that boys from schools who have not been associated with military service do not readily come forward.
The second criticism is that not enough officers have been selected from other ranks. That criticism is primarily directed towards the Army, but I have here figures showing the numbers of officers now serving who have served in the ranks. The figures are: in the Royal Navy about 30 per cent.; in the Army (which is the figure my noble friend asked for) about 50 per cent.; and in the Royal Air Force about 33½ per cent. I want to emphasise that this is, of course, no guide to what may be the future position.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, would the noble Earl say what is meant precisely by "previous service in the ranks"? How many months of service does that mean?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. I imagine that it is a reasonable period, but I am afraid that I cannot give precise information off hand. My statement does not include National Service officers, if that is what the noble Earl has in mind. What I would say (and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is perfectly right) is that, while in these days, with improved education, the sort of people who come from the ranks are often not lacking in educational standards and are fit to be officers, I am sure the House would agree that it would be quite wrong for the entrant from the ranks to be given a commission unless he comes up to standard. A lot is demanded of officers to-day, and it is right that we should choose the best people.
312
May I turn momentarily to the subject of accommodation, on which not a great deal has been said to-day, in spite of some recent criticism by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I should like to give him one or two figures on this point, because, while we entirely accept that much remains to be done, I think it is right and proper to record how much has been achieved in recent times. In the last five years the Armed Forces have spent on single and married quarters about £50 million at home and about £23 million overseas, totalling £73 million. And in the next five years they hope to spend another £90 million on both single and married quarters. And as I said recently, we shall have spent by 1960 about £67 million on the loan scheme. We propose to spend a further £28 million by 1965: indeed, nearly £170 million will have been spent over a period of about ten years.
LORD OGMORE: As the noble Earl has mentioned the loan scheme, perhaps he will also reconsider the decision by the Government not to spend before 1962 the £8 million which they have available to them under the loan scheme.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I went into that point in some detail because I knew that the noble Lord might be interested, and I found that there was no under-spending in the Army Vote at all.
LORD OGMORE: I was referring to the loan scheme.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I meant that there was no under-spending by the Army under the loan scheme. The whole of the loan, so far as it was allocated to the Army, was spent. The only under-spending, in fact, was by the Air Ministry, where the difficulties of settling the deployment of permanent accommodation have been very great indeed.
I should like to remind the House that since the war the Army has provided 25,000 married quarters at home and abroad, and has built permanent quarters for about 18,000 troops, other than those in Germany. Work will start next year on a further 34,000 married quarters and on barrack accommodation for 13,000 men. The Army has good modern barracks at Tidworth, Bicester, and Donington, and work has either started, or will shortly start, on barrack accommodation at Aldershot and Catterick.

313
Developments are also taking place at Colchester and Woolwich. Abroad, we have provided permanent accommodation for nearly 4,000 troops in Cyprus, and initial contracts have been placed for new cantonments at Kahawa in Kenya, and at Malacca in Malaya. The R.A.F. are also going ahead with a considerable programme of domestic building in the current financial year. They are putting up forty-four new barrack blocks, thirty of which are for airmen, nine for apprentices and five for airwomen, and they are modernising a further thirty-four. They are building five airmen's clubs, and are modernising seventeen mess kitchens.
I think that perhaps the House is a little inclined to underestimate this problem, which arises from the changing shape of the defence structure. It is easy, of course, to point out where things ought to have been done. It is also easy to point out where things have been done and where they have now become redundant. I refer, for example, to the stations of Ford and Anthorn, which are not now going to be used, and to Chatham, where our requirements will be a good deal less. The same thing applies in the Army, where we spent about £3½ million in Egypt and, I understand, about £500,000 in Jordan.
I think it was Lord Ogmore who raised the question of discipline, and we have heard a lot about that subject. I felt that this subject of "bull", as it is sometimes referred to, was put in excellent perspective in the Grigg Report. I am certain, if I understood Lord Shackleton correctly, that the emphasis which he put on leadership is really the answer. Strict discipline is a matter of pride to the regiment, whether it be the Guards, the Parachute Regiment, or the Royal Marines. What also matters is that the men should always have a sense of purpose in their training; if soldiers do not have that then they will not feel that they are being usefully employed. I have here a quotation from the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein. He says:
"The British soldier when properly led responds to a challenge and not to welfare benefits. Man does not live by bread alone. The soldier has to be kept active, alert, and purposeful all the time."
I think that this sense of purpose may be perhaps more easy to obtain in the Navy and the Air Force than in the Army,
314
which, of necessity, plays a static rôle at times.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, raised the question of public relations. As Lord Shackleton has said, this is not a simple problem. If I may express a general opinion, it is that the Services have little to fear from the Press. I think that, taken by and large, they get an extremely good run; and the Press are, as I understand it, only too glad to accept what they consider to be good copy. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked about dress. I am able to say that a number of possible types are going to be tried out next year, and I very much hope that they will be available for use in the fairly near future.
LORD OGMORE: As this subject has been prominent in our minds for some time—indeed, we have heard to-day, though I do not think we have heard before, that it is not desirable to have any walking-out dress at all—would it be possible for the noble Earl to arrange a demonstration, or for models, or something of that kind, to be placed in the Royal Gallery, when details of these various uniforms are about to be promulgated, so that we could see them?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I imagine that that is a matter for my noble friend the Secretary of State for War, but I will certainly pass on that suggestion, and see what he feels about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, raised the question of food, which is a very important matter. It is always difficult to feed a large number of people without hearing some complaint; but there was an improvement in the Service ration scales in April, 1957, and a special Cyprus Supplement has been introduced fairly recently. I think that the Grigg Report is fair in its comments on this question. It says that there has been a general improvement of recent years, and I believe that that is correct. I can tell the noble Lord—I thought I was right—that men will still be issued with knives, forks, and spoons when they are on active service or are training in the field, but will not need them when they are living in barracks.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked why a wrong figure was given in the Grigg Report. This is really a misunderstanding of a simple character. The

315
statement in the Paper was that the annual requirement of officers for the Sandhurst arms was 648. I am sure the noble Lord is aware that the Sandhurst arms are all those except chaplains, dentists, doctors, vets., and the Pay Corps. The requirement on that basis was 648; but in fact, Sandhurst does not hold more than 480, so that all that happened was a misreading of the document.
I do not think that at this stage I will say much about equipment. This is not a debate on equipment, but on recruitment. We are well aware, of course, of the importance of it. All I will say is that the F.N. rifle is now coming into service, and we hope very much that within two years the Regular Army will be fully equipped with it. Other equipment is also coming in—armoured cars, and so on. I do not think that now is the moment to go into that in any detail.
My Lords, may I point out one curious thing? The Women's Services made no complaint at all about food. Whether it was because they have more sympathy with the cook, I cannot say. However, I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, for referring to the Women's Services as she did, and I hope that her words will be very carefully read. We have—and let there be no illusion about it—a very urgent need for women in our Services. There is a climate of opinion which has gone slightly astray in this matter, and I think it is a very great pity. I was extremely glad that she read out the opportunities that are given in the Services to university-trained women. We should like to have women who have been trained in universities. I believe that women can get a pretty good run for their money. For instance, whether trained at the university or not, a girl may very possibly reach the rank of major, and receive pay and allowances amounting to about £1,000 a year. It is quite a good career.
My Lords, I do not for a moment pretend to have answered all the questions which have been put this evening, but I should like to add one last point: it concerns the broad question of morale. I believe that there is a danger sometimes of people thinking that war is becoming simply a matter for scientists. I should be the last to underestimate the value of scientists and the important rôle they
316
play, but I have no doubt at all that our position will always depend on well-trained and well-disciplined soldiers, sailors and airmen. I think, therefore, that it is vitally important to have full public recognition of the importance and value of the Fighting Services. Every soldier, sailor, and airman should feel that he holds a position which is dear to the hearts of the whole country. Indeed, he and his officers should be able to feel a sense of pride in their units, whether they be ships, aeroplanes, or guns. It is that sense of pride, and the fact that they are appreciated by the country, that will contribute, I am sure, more than anything else to the high morale the Services require.
6.40 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am sure we shall all agree with the concluding sentences of the noble Earl's speech, in which he talked about the necessity for high morale. We know, for instance, that the Russian Army, in their magazine, have stressed the point that in an era of push-button warfare the morale of the sailor, soldier and airman is of the greatest possible importance. I am grateful to all noble Lords and to the noble Lady who have spoken, and to the noble Earl, who has replied on behalf of the Government and given the House a great deal of information on the various points which were raised. These are important considerations relating to the whole future of the Armed Forces of our country. After listening to the various speeches, and I have heard all of them, I think that the House has dealt conscientiously with the Report. I do not think that there is one single aspect of it that has not been touched upon, at least in some degree, and I hope that the members of the Grigg Committee and the Government will feel that your Lordships' House has given this Report the attention and consideration it deserves. I feel satisfied with the reply of the noble Earl and his assurance that the Government have not only accepted these proposals but will carry them into effect.
I do not propose at this stage to deal with any of the points in detail, but I would just mention one matter. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, mentioned the name of the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, actually quoted something he had

317
said or written. Once more I must admit that I am disappointed—I have expressed this sentiment on many occasions in your Lordships' House—that in a debate affecting the whole future of the Armed Forces we have not had the counsel of the great Field Marshals, Marshals of the Royal Air Force and Admirals of the Fleet who were ennobled in recognition of the distinguished services which they rendered to our country in war. I feel that we ought to have had some contributions from them. I think that it is significant that the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, who was recently a private soldier, came to give us his views. We all appreciated them very much. It was the sort of contribution which is helpful to your Lordships. Here is a private soldier, who has no baton or memoirs or diary in his knapsack, giving us the benefit of his experience, while these great figures, to whom we would listen with such attention, have once more failed to make their appearance.
Some time ago I made a similar comment with regard to the great industrial magnates who have been ennobled for their industrial contributions, pointing out that time alter time we had debates on civil aviation, aircraft supply and other questions, and not a "peep" out of the distinguished industrialists who, in many cases, were making the very aircraft and components about which we were talking. I am glad to say that they took notice and came along to the next debate and gave your Lordships useful and valuable information. They admitted that the caps fitted, and that what I had said had spurred them into action. So I hope that what I am saying now (I do not know whether Field Marshals are tougher subjects than industrialists) will spur the Field Marshals and others to speak. With those few words, and again with thanks to the noble Lords and noble Lady who have spoken, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
6.45 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that the House will adjourn for the Christmas Recess on Thursday next, after the Foreign Affairs debate, until Tuesday,
318
January 20, when the principal Business is expected to be the Report stage of the Deer (Scotland) Bill.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  PEERS AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE
  PEERS AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE