Sitting of 18 June 1959

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    United States Forces (Civil Offences)
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the number of American servicemen who, on being charged by United Kingdom civil authorities with purely civil offences, have been removed from the jurisdiction of British civil courts and dealt with by United States military authorities; and whether he will draw the attention of the United States authorities to the desirability of allowing American servicemen to be dealt with by British civil courts for offences against British laws.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): A member of the United States forces who is alleged to have committed a criminal offence in this country is normally dealt with by the British courts. In some cases, however, for various reasons, it is more appropriate for the matter to be dealt with by a service court, and the British and United States authorities co-operate closely in considering what action should be taken in each case. Once a person has been formally charged with an offence the charge can be withdrawn only by permission of the court. My right hon. Friend has no information to support the
    618
    suggestion that the United States service authorities remove servicemen from the jurisdiction when such charges are pending against them.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. and learned Friend able to give us some rough idea of the percentage difference between those cases tried by the military courts and those by the civil courts? Secondly, would he consider drawing the attention of the American authorities to the desirability, although under a Measure passed by this House they have the undoubted right to try these cases, that they should not seek privileges which should not and could not be accorded to the nationals of other countries?
    Mr. Renton: As to the percentage difference, we have not got exact figures, but the Director of Public Prosecutions estimates that about 75 per cent. of alleged offences by Americans which have come to his notice have been dealt with by our courts. As to my hon. Friend's second question, candidly I do not think any special action is needed. The Visiting Forces Act is perfectly clear, and there is close co-operation between the American authorities and our own as to its enforcement.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: As the public are interested in this problem, would the hon. and learned Gentleman give an example of the kind of reasons which lead the authorities to decide to take cases in American military courts rather than in our own civil courts?
    Mr. Renton: The general principle is that the British courts deal with offences against British law, but, under the Visiting Forces Act, cases in which American Service people are involved which arise out of or in the course of their duty or are committed against the persons or property of other Americans may be tried by American service courts.

    World Refugee Year
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for the acceptance of a limited number of refugees who are suffering from tuberculosis, and their families, as a practical contribution by Great Britain to World Refugee Year.
    Mrs. L. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, to mark World Refugee Year, he will consult with the Minister of Health with a view to admitting tuberculous persons from refugee camps for treatment in superfluous tuberculosis beds in this country.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): My right hon. Friend will be prepared, in consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, to give sympathetic consideration to specific proposals by the General Committee of the World Refugee Year.
    Mr. Robinson: While thanking the hon. Lady for that reply, may I ask her if she would agree that we in this country are very fortunate in having tuberculosis under control and that we could make this gesture in World Refugee Year without any serious risk to the health of our own people, which would be a most welcome gesture on the part of this country?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I sympathise with the hon. Member's suggestion, but there are various categories in which the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is interested. I think we should await specific proposals before we come to any ultimate decision as to which category we may feel able to help.
    Sir J. Duncan: Has my hon. Friend had her attention called to the suggestion I made recently to the Secretary of State for Scotland for the treatment of patients in Scotland, but not necessarily involving the entry into this country of the rest of their families, which would, I think, when the patients were cured, enable their families in the camps in Europe to be available for transfer to any country in the world? Would my hon. Friend consider that suggestion?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I will certainly consider that suggestion, but so far many of the recommendations have been to the effect that families wishing to emigrate here were prevented from doing so because one member of the family had tuberculosis. I think we must consider all these problems in the light of
    620
    what direct proposals are received from the United Kingdom Committee for World Refugee Year.

    Prison Staff
    Mr. Fitchasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for increasing prison staff.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): The number of prison officers continues to increase. On 1st June there were 4,647 men and women prison officers in post compared with 4,540 on 1st January, 1959, and 4,259 on 1st January, 1958. In February the officer training facilities were enlarged to accommodate over 200 extra trainees a year, with the object of increasing the future rate of expansion.
    Mr. Fitch: Is the Home Secretary aware that there is still great concern among prison officers about understaffing and that this was evident in speeches made by delegates to their association conference held in Dover recently? Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that there is a danger of an increase in homosexuality in prisons where there is not enough supervision?
    Mr. Butler: I should like to give further consideration to the second part of that question. As to the first part, the situation, of course, is not ideal, but I am glad to say that we are receiving plenty of applications and that we are dealing with the accommodation problems. The building programme is going ahead as fast as possible, and we are attempting to meet the obvious needs and desires of prison officers to the best of our ability.

    Newcastle Central Conservative Association (Official Paid Cards)
    Mr. Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now completed his investigations into the use of Official Paid cards by the Newcastle Central Conservative Association; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Yes, Sir, I find that, on discovering that some cards had been re-addressed, the electoral registration officer drew the agent's attention to the irregularity of the practice, and it was at once stopped.
    Mr. Short: Does the Home Secretary recollect that when I first brought this matter to his notice he promised to investigate it and to give me a full report? All that his Answer has done, and all that his letter to me did, has been to recite facts which are already known. Why is the right hon. Gentleman not a little more forthcoming? Why does he not condemn a little more forth-rightly a thoroughly reprehensible and illegal practice on the part of a Conservative Association in using Post Office facilities free of charge for its own purpose? What steps will the right lion. Gentleman take to recover the very large sum of money in postage not paid by this Association for these cards?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Member may say what he likes, but I have given him all the facts in my possession. I think that this is a wrong practice, and directly it was drawn to the agent's attention it was immediately stopped. I hope the fact that I have made these observations in public will prevent this practice happening again. As to the amount of money wasted, I understand that that was not very great, and I am glad to say that the fact that this was stopped so very soon was partly due to the assiduity of hon. Members.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: By "wrong", does the right hon. Gentleman mean that this was an illegal action? If so, why were no proceedings taken?
    Mr. Butler: I have investigated that and, as far as I have been informed, no question arises of any criminal offence having been committed.

    Hornsey Road Police Station (Complaint)
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now investigated the circumstances in which Thomas Halloran, of Isledon; Road, Islington, and Patrick Joseph Cox, of Travers Road, Islington, on Sunday evening, 17th May, were taken to the Hornsey Road police station, and there assaulted, beaten, and kicked by a sergeant and three or four constables, and so seriously disfigured and wounded that their injuries had to be dressed at the Royal Northern Hospital; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I referred this complaint to the Commissioner, who has investigated it very fully and finds no grounds for disciplinary action or for the institution of criminal proceedings. I accept this conclusion. It is, of course, open to the complainants to take the matter to the courts, and I understand that one of them is in fact consulting a solicitor. I cannot therefore say any more.
    Mr. Fletcher: Does not the Home Secretary realise that that is a most unsatisfactory reply? Is he not aware that before I wrote to him and put this Question on the Order Paper I had not only seen these two men, who were in a shocking condition, but had taken statements from eight independent witnesses and had satisfied myself that these quite respectable citizens were subjected to violent, brutal, unprovoked attack by police officers in a police station? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that there ought to be a completely independent inquiry? Does he not realise it is quite useless to say that these people can take the matter to court if they have been manhandled, kicked, and cuffed about by police officers whom they cannot identify in a police station?
    Mr. Butler: I cannot accept the hon. Member's statement. I can say, however, that at his instance and representation an inquiry was undertaken by the Commissioner and all those witnesses whose names were brought to my attention by the hon. Member have been interviewed. I have accepted the Commissioner's conclusion and I am satisfied about his inquiry and about his decision. As one of the complainants is now consulting a solicitor, I think it would be wrong for me to say any more.
    Mr. Fletcher: In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall take the earliest opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment and bringing the full facts to the attention of the House.

    Detained Persons (Treatment)
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions are given by him or by the Commissioner of Police to the police in the Metropolitan area to prevent any violence to or assaults on persons detained in police stations.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Metropolitan Police officers know that they must observe the law and that it is an offence under the Police Discipline Regulations for a member of a police force to use unnecessary violence to any prisoner or other person with whom he may be brought into contact in the execution of his duty.
    Mr. Fletcher: In view of the rumours that are prevalent, would the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that all police officers in all police stations in the Metropolitan area realise that it is no part of their duty in any circumstances to beat up people, whether innocent or guilty, or whether they are to be charged or not, and that it is for the magistrates to administer punishment and not for police officers?
    Mr. Butler: I think that the fundamental principle which every policeman knows is that a police officer is not above the law because he is a police officer. Like everyone else, he is answerable to the law for his actions. I am satisfied that that is well known by the Metropolitan Police, and I should like to say what confidence I have in their general behaviour.
    Mr. D. Howell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some similar cases in Birmingham recently the Chief Constable of Birmingham has commend-ably insisted on bringing about prosecutions so that the matter could be dealt with by a third party, which is the magistrates? Is not this the most laudable method of dealing with these complaints in order to restore and maintain public confidence? Would the right hon. Gentleman therefore commend this Chief Constable's action to police officers elsewhere?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I am quite satisfied that had the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis thought that there was ground for instituting criminal proceedings he would have acted without hesitation. He examined this possibility and rejected it, and I support his decision.

    Murders
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of murders known to the police since 1st January, 1958; what has
    624
    been the sex of the victims; how many have been children under 15 years of age; how many convictions have been obtained; in how many cases the death penalty has been imposed; and in how many this penalty has been carried out.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:

    —

    1958

    1959 (January-April)

    Number of murders known to the police (excluding those originally recorded as murder but subsequently found to be manslaughter or some other offence or no crime)

    126

    58

    Male victims

    53 (20)

    20 (4)

    Female victims

    73 (20)

    38 (14)

    (Figures in brackets indicate the number under 15).

    Number of persons prosecuted in respect of the above cases

    62

    10

    Number found insane on arraignment or guilty but insane

    19

    3

    Number convicted

    26

    4

    Number sentenced to death

    6

    3

    Number executed

    5

    2

    Notes
    1. The figures for 1959 are provisional and may include some cases which will be found to be offences other than murder or not to be crimes. In some cases police enquiries are still in progress, and in others proceedings have been instituted but have not yet been completed.
    2. In 1958 39 persons responsible for the death of 45 victims committed suicide or died before arrest, and in January-April, 1959, 6 persons, responsible for 8 victims.

    Crimes of Violence (Robbery)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the 1,583, 3,183, and 7,079 convictions in England and Wales for violence against the person in the years 1938, 1948, and 1957, respectively, were for robbery with violence; and what were the corresponding figures for 1958.
    Mr. Renton: The number of convictions under Section 23 (1) of the Larceny Act, 1916 (which includes robbery with violence, robbery while armed, and

    625
    robbery in company with others) in the years 1948, 1957 and 1958 was respectively 448, 547 and 781. I regret that the figure for 1938 is not available. These figures are included in the Criminal Statistics under the general heading of robbery and not in the category of crimes of violence against the person. The number of convictions of crimes of violence against the person in 1958 was 7,895.
    Mr. Johnson: Do not these figures show that a new form of violence has now come into being, and does not that therefore make nonsense of the conclusions drawn by the Committee which reported on the question of corporal punishment in 1938?
    Mr. Renton: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by a new form of violence. I do not think that there is anything new about the types of violence used. The position is that since flogging was abolished in 1948 there has been only one year in which robberies with violence have exceeded the 1948 level. That was last year, and there is no reason to think that the abolition of flogging in 1948 caused an increase in that particular crime of violence in 1958.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that he is completely missing the point I am making? My point is that there were 1,583 crimes of violence against the person, in 1938. There are over 7,000 at present. That is the new form of violence to which I am calling attention. It is true that the crime of robbery with violence has not greatly increased in number, but the number of the other crimes has increased. What are they?
    Mr. Renton: The main point is that this increase in crimes of violence generally rightly excites the anxiety of all of us, but my right hon. Friend has considered this matter carefully and he is convinced that the courts have adequate powers to deal with the matter and that they are using them effectively.

    Postal Votes (Local Government Elections)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend the regulations govern-
    626
    ing voting by post at elections so that people moving to a new address, other than in the same borough, can vote by post at local government elections.
    Mr. Renton: This would require legislation, of which my right hon. Friend can hold out no prospect.
    Mr. Johnson: Can my hon. and learned Friend explain the reason for the anomaly which enables a person to vote by post in the constituency in which he is registered in a Parliamentary election if he has moved but not to vote by post in a local government election if he has moved? What is the reason for the difference?
    Mr. Renton: There is a good reason for the difference. A person who leaves a local government area no longer has a stake in the local government of that area and, therefore, no longer has such a strong claim to vote in the local government elections, whereas a person who moves from one constituency to another still has a stake in the Government of the country as a whole, and so the fact that he has moved to another constituency entitles him to vote by post.

    Criminal Offences (Costs on Acquittal)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the last Home Office circular was issued dealing with the subject of costs against the police.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind a circular of September, 1948, which dealt, among other things, with the power conferred by Section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act of that year, to award costs out of local funds to persons acquitted by courts of assize or quarter sessions.
    Mr. Lipton: But as the financial injustice suffered by an acquitted person arises from the narrow interpretation contained in that circular, could not a new circular now be issued stating that costs against the police should be refused only in exceptional cases? This circular has been followed by judges ever since and, in those circumstances, why does not the Home Secretary now issue a new and revised circular?
    Mr. Butler: The circular was issued with the approval of the judges. I

    627
    have said before that I am looking into evidence on the whole of this matter. I would prefer not to undertake to issue a fresh circular until I have completed that review.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Is it not undesirable that a circular should be issued to any branch of the judiciary giving them advice on how they should construe and apply the provisions of an Act of Parliament?
    Mr. Butler: I have read some correspondence to that effect and I have some sympathy with that view. I think there are limits to which the Executive, in a circular, can appear to be interpreting matters which have been enacted by Parliament as the Statute law of the land. There were particular circumstances in 1948 and there would need to be very particular circumstances before I renewed that practice.
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the growing public concern at the unfairness resulting from the fact that persons found not guilty of offences are required to pay their own defence costs thus penalising them from successfully pleading not guilty instead of guilty; and whether he will seek methods of reimbursing persons wrongly accused.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott) on 11th June.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: While I agree that it is undesirable that the Executive should give excessive advice to the judiciary, it is, of course, a matter for the conscience of Parliament to decide. Will my right hon. Friend consider one aspect of this type of thing? A case has come to my notice in which a solicitor for a person acquitted of a criminal charge was able to write:
    "You are quite right in thinking that expenses were greatly increased during the constant adjournments and muddles caused by the police's handling of the case."
    Will he give his attention to that aspect of the matter?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. The last time I answered a Question on the subject
    628
    I undertook to look into the matter and receive representations, and I will add that to the representations that I have received.

    Society for Prevention of Accidents (Grants)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now increase the annual grant given to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents for propagating safety in the home.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: As the hon. Member is aware, my right hon. Friend is anxious that the Society should increase its income from non-Government sources, and it was to assist the Society in carrying on its work while endeavouring to do so that provision was made for grants to be paid to it in the current year. My right hon. Friend is keeping in touch with the Society about the results of its efforts.
    Mrs. Mann: Am I to take it that this means there will be no increase in the grant this year? Is that not a serious mistake after the Government have spent a great deal of money on the national campaign "Guard that Fire"? The effect of the campaign will be lost unless it is followed by immediate action to organise and to establish the home safety committees?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Lady is aware that as this is a voluntary organisation it is naturally of interest what it does from its own resources. I know that the hon. Lady is a very active member and worker on behalf of this cause. The Society wants to know what it will get before it tells us what it will do. We think it should tell us what it will do before it knows what it will get.

    Civil Defence Staff College, Sunningdale
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people annually attend the Civil Defence College, Sunningdale.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: In 1958, sixty -four courses and studies were held at the Civil Defence Staff College, Sunningdale, and were attended by 3,751 students.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend convey to those who are technically and administratively responsible for the college how highly praised they are by those who have attended the course, and will she also convey to those responsible that a great many believe they deserve the highest commendation for the work they do, which is of great service to civil defence?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her kind remarks, which I shall be delighted to pass on. It is rarely that I can so joyfully welcome all that the hon. Lady has said.

    Police Dogs
    Mr. Fitchasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the results obtained by the use of police dogs by the Metropolitan Police; and if he will provide information to local police authorities concerning the use which can be made of these animals for police purposes.
    Mr. Renton: The Metropolitan Police have found dogs most useful in the prevention and detection of crime. Local police authorities should be able to obtain information from their chief officers of police as to the ways in which dogs can be used for tracking and searching and general preventive work but my right hon. Friend will be glad to advise any police authority if requested.
    Mr. Fitch: Would the Joint Under-Secretary agree that training arrangements for dogs and for dog handlers should be co-ordinated, and would not this make for more efficient service?
    Mr. Renton: There is some co-ordination already through the police training centres. As I have said, advice can be given to the police authorities concerned if application is made to my right hon. Friend. I should point out that the use of dogs for police work is increasing, which is some sign that the training is adequate. Last year nearly 1,000 arrests were made with the help of police dogs.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Metropolitan Police have discontinued the practice of using dogs for apprehending women?
    Mr. Renton: I should require notice of that question.

    Air-raid Shelters
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will ask all local authorities to inspect all aid-raid shelters in their areas; and if he will give them discretion to demolish all those deemed to be un suitable for use as shelters in the conditions of nuclear warfare.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: Local authorities are aware of the grounds on which my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider the demolition of shelters and he has no reason to suppose that a survey is necessary. As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) on 11th June, my right hon. Friend thinks it desirable to look at each case on its merits.,
    Mr. Jeger: Why does the hon. Lady and her Department persist in being so stubborn in insisting on retaining these unsatisfactory and unpleasant structures which are cluttering up many of the back yards which could be valuable open spaces for tenants and residents in the houses? Why will she not agree that these structures should all be inspected and that those found to be unsuitable for nuclear defence should be demolished? Is she not aware that another Government Department regularly refuses permission for even a small wooden tool shed or bicycle shed to be put up in a back yard or a garden, whilst the neighbours have to put up with these brick structures which were erected sixteen years ago, are now obsolete and are not required.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures. Shelters in good condition would provide protection against the effects of nuclear weapons outside the area of complete devastation. For that reason we believe they form a necessary part of the Civil Defence programme. If any are insanitary it is for the local authority responsible for their maintenance to take the necessary remedial action.

    Evacuation
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will enumerate the possibilities he

    631
    is considering for the evacuation of 12 million people from Great Britain in the event of war; and what will the priorities for evacuation be.
    Mr. Haleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now completed his plans for evacuation of the civilian population in case of war; what is the present estimate of the number of persons to be evacuated; and what parts of the county of Lancaster are to be reception and what parts evacuation areas.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I have at present nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) on 11th June.
    Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir, but does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this shows the complete absurdity of the Prime Minister's statement? If on a hot Sunday there is a queue twelve miles long going to the seaside, where in the name of God—
    Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
    Mr. Davies: —will they put 12 million people? Why not give up this absurdity?
    Mr. Butler: I do not recognise the wisdom of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's remarks in the gloss provided by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Davies: There was no gloss at all.
    Mr. Hale: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell me, in view of the fact that I heard the remark that he was going to answer two Questions together, what was the answer to the Question I put down, which was about Lancashire, because I heard nothing about Lancashire, and Lancashire is anxious to survive and would be grateful for any information he could give us?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I indicated in my Answer that we are not yet in a position to make a statement which would give satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman, and that remains the position in relation to Lancashire as it does to other parts of the country.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that some four or five
    632
    weeks ago there were several Questions and supplementary questions to his Department and to the Minister of Defence about the reconciliation of the two views of the two Departments on this question? On that occasion, did not the right hon. Gentleman undertake to communicate to the House the result of an investigation he was making into the matter, and can he now tell us when he will be able to tell the House the result of it?
    Mr. Butler: It does not involve only communication with the Ministry of Defence. The question involves the consideration of the strategic requirements, the transport and other facilities and the accommodation in reception areas, and I am not yet in a position to give an answer to the House or to make a statement on the subject.

    Prison Committals
    Mr. Haleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons, during the most recent 12 months for which figures are available, were committed to prison in default of payment of fine, for failure to comply with an order for payment of maintenance of wife or child or of civil debt, or for contempt of court, or for failure to provide bail in cases in which no subsequent conviction resulted; and what is the percentage of daily average population in local prisons covered under this collective head.
    Mr. Renton: In 1957 the number of persons committed to prison in default of payment of fines was 5,539; the number of debtors committed (including those who failed to comply with maintenance orders) was 7,067; and the number of persons committed for contempt of court was 186. These categories of persons represented 7·3 per cent. of the daily average population of local prisons. I regret that no figure is available for the number of bail cases to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. Hale: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that helpful information. Would he not agree that the figures show that an increasingly large number of people are being unnecessarily sent to prison and that one of the first steps in penal reform is to stop sending to prison people who

    633
    should not be sent there at all, including many who are sent merely because of objection to bail? Will he look at the Hale Convention passed by the Council of Europe last March or April, which recommends the complete abolition of imprisonment for debt, and would he not agree that we should not encourage grocers to give unnecessary credit?
    Mr. Renton: I am aware of the Convention. It may comfort the hon. Gentleman to know that the Maintenance Orders Act which came into force in February this year has had an immediate and striking effect, because the prison population of persons committed in respect of maintenance orders has dropped from about 900 at the beginning of this year to 345 on 2nd June.

    Strangeways Prison, Manchester (Library)
    Mr. Haleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange to have a copy of the Income Tax (Repayment of Post-War Credits) Act placed in the Library of Strangeways Prison, Manchester.
    Mr. Renton: No, Sir; but a prisoner would be allowed to obtain a copy of the Act, and of the regulations made under it, if he wanted them.
    Mr. Hale: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Mr. Jack Cromwell, of 20, Osborne Street, Oldham, who is alleged to owe £4 9s. 3d. Income Tax and to whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer owes £50 in post-war credits, is threatened with being sent to Strangeways, the case having been adjourned for an application to balance his post-war credits, which has been refused; that he may be in prison in about ten days' time; that he asked his missus why he was going there and his missus thought it was daft; that I said I thought it was daft; and that I have since found out that my missus thinks it was daft? Will the Joint Under-Secretary speak to the Chancellor and get him to say that he thinks this is daft before the man is sent to prison, or, if not, will he let the chap find out why he is there and who put him there and for what reason?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman places me in some difficulty, because his
    634
    Question relates to copies of a document being placed in Strangeways Prison, Manchester. But Cromwell, the man to whom he has referred in his supplementary question, is not in Strangeways. In fact, I think the only relevant thing is that he appears to be a constituent of the hon. Gentleman. In any event, the payment of post-war credits is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the administration of any part of the penal law is a matter for the court in question.

    Airports (Passenger Landing Cards)
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the annual cost of printing, distributing, reading and studying the landing forms which must be completed by air passengers arriving in this country;
    (2) what information of value to the Government has been obtained from the landing forms which must be completed by air passengers arriving in this country.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: These cards are essential to our present system of aliens control. The cost of supplying and distributing them is not borne on public funds: and it is, I am advised, not practicable to assess the cost of the uses to which they are put.
    Mr. Goodhart: If a man has come here for undesirable reasons, is it not probable that he will give an inaccurate address on these cards? Is not this a rather clumsy, expensive and probably ineffective way of dealing with this problem?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I cannot accept what my hon. Friend says. Every year many thousands of people come to this country ostensibly as visitors but endeavour to dig in and stay as permanent residents. This method of checking that they have overrun their period is effective. It is done at no expense to the taxpayer, and it is most effective. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask a question I will answer it in a moment, but at the moment I am answering my hon. Friend. This is a most effective and most efficient method of dealing with what would be a gross breach of immigration control, and without it we should have many thousands of aliens dumping themselves in this country.
    Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Lady says that all these investigations are carried out without any expense to the taxpayer. Will she tell us, then, who foots the bill?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting what I said. I was referring to the cards, upon which my hon. Friend's Question was based. The cost of producing the cards is borne by the carrying companies concerned.

    Royal Parks (Public Behaviour)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what complaints he has received about worsening public disorderly behaviour in the Royal Parks; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I receive complaints from time to time about the behaviour of prostitutes in Hyde Park. Everything possible under the existing law is being done to deal with prostitutes, and I hope that when the Street Offences Bill becomes law the police will be able to deal more effectively with this nuisance. Complaints about the behaviour of the public generally in the Royal Parks are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Home Secretary aware that, according to Mr. Billy Graham, and others who have written to me since confirming his statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who is Billy Graham? What did he say about it?"]—sexual intercourse takes place in the Royal Parks in daylight in full view of passers-by? If this sort of thing is going on, is there not a duty on the Home Secretary to deal with this blot on the fair name of London?
    Mr. Butler: I have said that, with the passing of the new Act, we hope to make further progress, but in the last three months there have been no fewer than 538 prosecutions in respect of soliciting, indecency and insulting behaviour in Hyde Park alone.
    Mr. Shinwell: While that may be so, are we not getting a little tired of people coming to this country and seeking to expose matters of this kind?
    Mr. Ellis Smith: And others raising the subject?
    Mr. Shinwell: Why do they not do it about things in their own country? What about what goes on in the United States of America?
    Mr. Butler: I admire the patriotism of the right hon. Gentleman's observation.

    Police Officers (Statements)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will appoint a committee to inquire into the extent to which amendment is required in the law relating to the taking of statements, regarding alleged crimes, by police officers.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir, I do not consider that such an inquiry is necessary.
    Mr. Willey: While I do not seek to reflect at all on the conduct of the police, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of evidence that the practice of the police in taking statements has changed a great deal over the past few years, that it has caused a good deal of public concern and that it would be as well if the whole matter could be reviewed?
    Mr. Butler: In the course of my normal duties I have had a look at the operation of what are described as the Judges' Rules, and I cannot find any reason, to date at any rate, for any review such as is suggested by the hon. Member. If the procedure of the Judges' Rules, which is carefully laid down, is not followed in all cases, it is open to the defence to challenge the statement, and for the court to consider whether it is admissible. That would deal with a particular case; but, in general, the Judges' Rules are well understood and, I think, faithfully observed.

  GAN ISLAND (R.A.F. STAGING POST)
  Mr. Brockwayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what conclusions have been reached in the discussions with the delegation from the Maldivian Government on the leasing of a staging post on Gan Island for the use of the Royal Air Force and the future constitutional status of the Maldive territories.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to his Question on 13th April. In reply to Her Majesty's Government's invitation, the Maldivian Government informed the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Colombo on 15th June that a delegation from the Maldives would visit London to resume negotiations. Steps are now being taken to arrange an appropriate date for the talks to begin.
  Mr. Brockway: I thank the Minister for that reply. In view of the information which I have sent him about the appalling conditions of the people in these islands, when the Government are taking part in these negotiations, will they seek to amend the very meagre allowance which is given in respect of British facilities so as to enable the standard of life of these people to be raised?
  Mr. Alport: The hon. Member will recollect that on a number of occasions we have stated that we stand firmly by the undertaking that we gave to the Maldivian Government not to intervene in their internal affairs, but we have also made it clear to them that when these discussions take place the question of aid and technical assistance for them would be one of the subjects that we should be very glad to discuss with them.

  PAKISTAN (UNITED KINGDOM TEACHERS)
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what official requests have been made from Pakistan for teachers from the United Kingdom for Government College, Lahore, and other educational institutions in Pakistan; to what extent those requests have been met; and what particular action has been initiated.
  Mr. Alport: The British Council in London has received no requests for recruitment of teachers from the United Kingdom for the Government College, Lahore. It has, however, received in London a total of 31 requests for teachers from other educational institutions in Pakistan. Teachers have so far been recommended or appointed in reply to 18 of these.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can my hon. Friend assure us that every effort will be made to meet all these requests, which are to the mutual advantage of our two countries?
  Mr. Alport: My hon. Friend can be assured that we will do everything we can to assist the Government of Pakistan in regard to any request they may put to us.

  HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES

    Commonwealth Day
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations how Commonwealth Day was celebrated in Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland.
    Mr. Alport: Commonwealth Day is known as Victoria Day in Basutoland and the Bechuanaland Protectorate. It was celebrated in Basutoland by various public activities for children and adults. In Bechuanaland Protectorate sports meetings for school children, both African and European, were held in all districts, and those present were addressed by district commissioners. Swaziland celebrated 25th May as a public holiday, but arranged no formal ceremony. Parades and sports meetings which might otherwise have taken place on Commonwealth Day were celebrated on The Queen's official birthday on 13th June.

  AUSTRALIA

    Emigrants
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Common wealth Relations to what extent it is the policy of his Department, before granting an application for assisted passage to Australia, to satisfy itself that accommodation will be available there of a suitable standard for the individual applicant.
    Mr. Alport: If assisted emigrants to Australia proceed under nominations, the nominators have to satisfy the Australian authorities that suitable accommodation is available. Assisted emigrants without nominations may, if they wish, avail themselves of hostel accommodation provided by the Australian authorities until they can make their own arrangements.
    Mr. V. Yatesasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what report he has received from the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Australia about Mr. Michael Plunkett, formerly of 7, Darnley Road, Ladywood, Birmingham, an emigrant assisted by his Department, who was taken seriously ill before reaching his destination; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alport: The hon. Member will have received the letter which my right hon. and noble Friend sent to him on 3rd June. I have today received from our High Commissioner a further report which I am forwarding to the hon. Member immediately.
    Mr. Yates: Is it not tragic that when a young man who emigrates to Australia is stricken with illness on the ship before he arrives at his destination and the medical authorities consider that his recovery would be assisted by a sight of one of his family, the family is not in a financial position to send someone out there? Is it not the responsibility of the Minister to assist this family in some way so that they can make contact with this young man, instead of leaving it to the Press to send out a record of the voice of the family?
    Mr. Alport: I have the greatest sympathy with this case, which is a very tragic one, but the hon. Member knows from the information which my noble Friend has been able to supply him—and he will see further from the information that I am sending him today—that there is some disagreement as to how far this youth at this time would benefit from the sort of contact to which the hon. Member has referred. However, I can assure him that whereas I know of no resources which are available to my noble Friend to assist in this matter, the Australian Government have always shown themselves extremely sympathetic in personal cases of a tragic nature of this sort.

  SWAZILAND

    Public Transport (Racial Segregation)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what action is proposed to end
    640
    racial segregation in public transport in Swaziland.
    Mr. Alport: There is no racial segregation on public transport vehicles which ply for hire solely within Swaziland. On buses operating between Swaziland and the Union of South Africa separate accommodation is provided for in accordance with union regulations. The convenience of through services is considered to outweigh the disadvantage which would be involved in requiring a change of bus at the border.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Member aware that in this British Protectorate the laws of segregation of the Union of South Africa are applied in respect of public transport? Ought not we to stand for no discrimination in the public transport system in a British Protectorate?
    Mr. Alport: I have already said that in respect of public transport plying for hire within Swaziland there is no segregation. The other aspect of the question is a matter of convenience, and we have received no representations on the matter from Swaziland itself.

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA

    Legislation
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will recommend the disallowance under the Southern Rhodesia Constitution Letters Patent 1923, of the Unlawful Organisations Act, the Preventive Detentions Act, and the Native Affairs Amendment Act, which have been enacted by the Legislature of Southern Rhodesia, in view of the fact that they are discriminatory.
    Mr. Alport: No, Sir.
    Mr. Brockway: Is not this an outrage? Is it not quite clear that under the new legislation the most scandalous discrimination against Africans is being practised? Do the Government absolutely refuse to protect the African population of Southern Rhodesia under the guarantees which the Government and this House have given?
    Mr. Alport: This legislation has been passed through the Southern Rhodesian Parliament under powers devolved to them by the United Kingdom Government. It has never been the practice of the United Kingdom to withhold those powers, once granted, which are exercised within its constitutional rights by a self-governing territory in circumstances which would mean that if the responsibility were placed on the shoulders of the United Kingdom Government it would be difficult, if not impossible, to carry out.
    Mr. Bottomley: Cannot the Government themselves make representations? Surely the behaviour of the Southern Rhodesian Government in making this discrimination between members of the British Commonwealth calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make the strongest representations.
    Mr. Alport: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that this legislation was the subject of considerable controversy within Southern Rhodesia during the period of its passing, and I am sure that he and other hon. Members will agree that matters of this sort should be left to the pressures of opinion locally as they are expressed.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Member referred to the practice of the United Kingdom Government. Will he confirm that it is within the legal right of the United Kingdom Government to disallow these orders? Is he telling us that it is a pure act of policy on the part of the Government to refuse to do so and, further, that there is not even any discussion with the Southern Rhodesian Government on these matters?
    Mr. Alport: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it has not been the practice to disclose details of any consultation or discussion that may have gone on between Governments in these circumstances. I would remind him that during the whole of the thirty-six years during which the Southern Rhodesian Government have enjoyed these powers, when we have had both Socialist and Conservative Governments in the United Kingdom, there has been no occasion on which this power has been used.
    Mr. Brockway: In view of the entirely unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on a suitable occasion.

  RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

    University College (Grants)
    Mr. Albuasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he has yet received an application for a further grant from the University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations how much financial help was given during the last financial year to the University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland; and how much it is estimated will be given by Her Majesty's Government during the coming financial year.
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to what extent it is his intention to give increased aid to the University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland in the coming financial year.
    Mr. Alport: A colonial development and welfare grant of £190,325 was approved in February, 1959, and another of £40,750 in June, 1959, bringing to £1,475,000 the total of such grants approved since the establishment of the University College. Cash issues against actual expenditure amounted to £96,390 in 1958–59, and provision has been made for the issue of £150,000 in 1959–60.
    Further assistance must depend on the amount which can be made available to the College under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1959. I am informed that the Colonial University Grants Advisory Committee is studying the anticipated needs of the College for further colonial development and welfare assistance, and their recommendations will be considered when they are received. As far as my noble Friend's responsibilities are concerned, he will wish to consider as sympathetically as possible any case for assistance which the University College may put forward.
    Mr. Albu: I welcome the statement made by the Under-Secretary, but will he confirm that in the establishment of universities in the Commonwealth the principle of the freedom of opinion of the academic staff must be maintained? As a gesture, will he therefore agree to

    643
    increase the grant being made to the college by the small amounts which are being withheld by the Salisbury City Council and the Nyasaland Tobacco Association on the ground that 38 members of the staff issued a document which was considered to have a political implication?
    Mr. Alport: As I have said more than once when this subject has been raised in the House, we stand strongly behind the principle of university freedom.
    Mr. Thomson: In view of the great importance of the development of this university, would the Under-Secretary use his authority and express his repugnance at the attitude of those bodies who have withdrawn the grant, or are threatening to do so, because of the liberal views of the university staff to this racial problem? His authority could greatly help in this situation.
    Mr. Alport: My noble Friend is not in any way responsible for any decisions that may be made in this matter by private bodies. As far as the United Kingdom Government are concerned, we have, as I have said on previous occasions, great faith in these experiments in partnership and I hope that we shall be able to continue to support this programme.
    Mr. Bottomley: Would the Under-Secretary consider making representations to the Southern Rhodesian Government suggesting that they might support the same principles as Her Majesty's Government, and also comment on the withdrawing of these funds?
    Mr. Alport: I have no doubt that that is a matter for the Southern Rhodesian Government. If they see fit, they will no doubt do what they consider to be right.

  INDIA AND PAKISTAN

    Indus Waters (Discussions)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what official requests have been received by Her Majesty's Government for a financial contribution towards a settlement of the Indus waters problem; and what reply has been made.
    Mr. Alport: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave him on 11th June. When the President of
    644
    the International Bank informed us of the broad outline of the proposals put to the Governments of India and Pakistan for allocation of the waters of the Indus system he asked whether the United Kingdom Government, in common with certain other friendly Governments, would make a financial contribution. My right hon. and noble Friend informed him that, provided India and Pakistan accepted the Bank's Plan and the other Governments concerned were willing to contribute, the United Kingdom Government would consider most sympathetically a request by the Bank for a contribution from them.
    Mr. Thomson: Whilst welcoming the Minister's reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the situation is now more hopeful than it has been for a long time and that the final successful outcome may well depend on the generosity of the British and American Governments? It is very much to be hoped that the British Government will give very generously to try and bring about a settlement of this old and difficult dispute.
    Mr. Alport: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman about the great importance of this development. My noble Friend had an opportunity of expressing to Mr Black when he was here his delight at the progress that had been made. I have no doubt that what the hon. Gentleman said will be widely echoed throughout this House.

  GHANA

    Volta River Project
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what further offer of financial assistance towards the development of the Volta River project in Ghana has been made by the United Kingdom Government.
    Mr. Alport: Consideration of this project has not yet reached the point at which the question of financial assistance from the United Kingdom Government arises.
    Mr. Bottomley: Can the Under-Secretary say whether, if this arises, the Government will sympathetically consider making some provision to help in the scheme so as to help the engineering industry in this country.
    Mr. Alport: I cannot give a full answer to that until we see the circumstances in which the proposition is put to us. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, as indeed he knows, that we have always been concerned with the future of this important project.

  BECHUANALAND

    Africans and Europeans (Differential Pay)
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations why Africans and Europeans are paid at different rates for the same work in Bechuanaland.
    Mr. Alport: The question of differential pay in the senior services of the High Commission Territories was one of the matters considered by Sir Rex Surridge, who was appointed by my right hon. and noble Friend in September, 1958, as Salaries Commissioner to review the whole range of salaries, allowances and conditions of service in the High Commission Territories. His report, and the High Commissioner's comments on it have now been received and are being studied.
    Mr. Bottomley: Can the Under-Secretary say that the principle is accepted that where Africans and Europeans do similar work and are similarly qualified they will in fact receive equal pay?
    Mr. Alport: I would rather wait until we have had an opportunity of studying this. When I was in the High Commission Territories I discussed the whole of this question of the basic rate of pay for the job in the services there. I am fully aware of the strong feelings that exist.

    Prison Labour
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to what extent it is Government policy to use prisoners as garden labour for the benefit of private house holders, and without payment, in Bechuanaland.
    Mr. Alport: No prison labour is available to private householders with or without pay. Prisoners, as part of their normal extra-mural labour, are, however, employed in preparing and maintaining
    646
    gardens of official residences, for example, those of District Commissioners.

  MALAYA

    Financial Aid
    Mr. Gilbert Longdenasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a statement about the recent financial talks in London with representatives of the Federation of Malaya.
    Mr. Alport: The talks which took place in London ended on the 8th June.
    The Government intend, subject to Parliamentary approval, to provide the Federation of Malaya with a grant of £2½ million in 1960 and £1½ million in 1961 towards the cost of the Emergency in Malaya; and to transfer certain British Service installations in Malaya worth about £2½ million to the Federation free of charge. The Government of the Federation have gratefully accepted this offer.
    I will, with permission, circulate fuller information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Longden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which will be of great satisfaction to all the friends of federation in all parts of the House. May I ask if there are any conditions attached?
    Mr. Alport: There are no conditions whatever attached to this gift by the United Kingdom Government.
    Following is the information:
    The United Kingdom has been giving the Federation of Malaya financial help in meeting the cost of the Emergency in Malaya; and also helping in cash and in kind with the expansion and development of the Federation's armed forces. Certain aspects of the programme of help were due for review. As a result of this review, which has just been conducted, the United Kingdom Government intends, subject to Parliamentary authority:

    (a) to provide a grant of £2,500,000 in 1960 and £1,500,000 in 1961 towards the cost of the Emergency;

    (b) to transfer to the Federation free of charge the R.A.F. installations at Kuala Lumpur airfield, the Batu Cantonment and the site and buildings of H.Q., Malaya Command (these installations, etc., are valued at about £2,500,000);

    (c) to raise no charge in respect of some other camps and properties which have already been transferred to the Federation.

    647
    Certain other installations not required by the British forces, which the Government of the Federation would like to acquire for use by the Federation's forces, will be bought by the Federation at a price, which has been agreed at the talks, of $ Malayan 11 million, viz. about £1,280,000.

  BOXING
  Dr. Summerskillasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the concern in the medical profession, an instance of which has been sent to him, about the medical dangers of boxing; and whether he will move to set up a Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of boxing contests with special reference to the physical damage sustained by the boxers and the adverse psychological effect on the audience.
  Mr. Knox Cunninghamasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the physical and mental value to youth of amateur boxing; and whether he will move to set up a Select Committee to inquire into the best methods of maintaining the highest standards in the refereeing and judging of contests, and in instructing would-be competitors.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I am not persuaded that the appointment of a Select Committee would be appropriate for either of these purposes. I think we should look to the bodies responsible for controlling the sport, both amateur and professional, to pay due regard to all these matters.
  Dr. Summerskill: Whilst the Prime Minister may not think that the time has come for a Select Committee, would he consider the legal aspect of the position? The young boxer with a permanently damaged brain has no redress. He is not entitled to compensation or to any protection from the men who exploit him in this unsavoury business.
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady puts down a Question on the legal points, I or one of my colleagues will do my best to answer it.
  Mrs. Braddock: Is the Prime Minister aware that the boxing profession very much resent the comments that are continually made by the right hon. Lady? No boxer is compelled to box. It is a completely voluntary matter. If it is a question of looking at the things that
  648
  hurt people, there are very many other things that could be looked at to more advantage that kill people off very much more quickly.
  The Prime Minister: I must be careful not to be drawn into any controversy which might develop into something more than shadow boxing.
  Mr. Knox Cunningham: May I thank my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "What for."]—for entering the ring as a referee in this contest? Will he use his powers to persuade certain people, well meaning but ill informed, to keep under their bonnets the bee that seeks to ban boxing?
  Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is it not a fact that boxing is no more dangerous than certain other sports, particularly when it is properly supervised, as it is in this country, by a very efficient Boxing Board of Control?
  The Prime Minister: All these are very relevant points, which I am sure the House will take notice of, but I think I prefer to stand by my original answer and not be drawn any further into the matter.

  ANGLO-FRENCH RELATIONS
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the need for greater co-ordination between the policies of Her Majesty's Government and the French Government regarding the North Atlantic Treaty, he will consider inviting General de Gaulle to London for consultations.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will know that immediately on my return from my visit to Moscow I went to Paris for discussions with the French Government, and with President de Gaulle. Since then the French Prime Minister, Monsieur Debre, has been to London, and I attach great importance to contacts of this kind.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that since that time General de Gaulle has announced his intention of doing away with the American bases on French territory? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is a good thing for France to enter the nuclear arms race? Will not this add a new terror to

  649
  humanity? Can he do something to persuade General de Gaulle to prevent it?
  The Prime Minister: Regarding the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, I understand that these matters are still under discussion between the French Government and the Commander. Regarding the second part of the Question, this is much wider than the point of whether I would invite General de Gaulle to come to London. I am always happy to meet the General, partly because of my very old friendship with him. But we have to remember that he is both President of France and head of the State as well as head of the Government. I am very glad that the Prime Minister was able to come, and, of course, we shall always be happy to have such meetings as can conveniently be arranged.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Have there been any discussions between the British and French Governments on the possible transfer of these N.A.T.O. planes from the United Kingdom to France?
  The Prime Minister: I should like notice of that question.

  NYASALAND (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS)
  Mr. Woodburn: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when we were discussing the case of the Rev. Tom Colvin, you were good enough to say that you would give further consideration to the point about whether his return to his home and place of work in Nyasaland could reasonably be held not to be immigration and might be something upon which we could legitimately ask a Question of the Minister.
  Mr. Speaker: Yes, I am still awaiting a certain piece of information for which I have asked. Until I get it I cannot add anything to what I said yesterday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 22ND JUNE—Second Reading of the Education Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution;
Report and Third Reading of the Post Office Works Bill [Lords];
Second Reading of the Licensing (Scotland) Bill [Lords], which is a Consolidation Measure; and
Consideration of the Anti-Dumping (No. 1) Order.
TUESDAY, 23RD JUNE—Report and Third Reading of the Cotton Industry Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 24TH JUNE—Consideration of the Motion to approve the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations; and
Second Reading of the National Assistance Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
THURSDAY, 25TH JUNE—Supply [17th allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on the case of Messrs. S. G. Brown, Limited until 7 o'clock; afterwards a debate will take place on
Housing in London.
Motions to approve the Calf Subsidies Schemes.
FRIDAY, 26TH JUNE—Report and Third Reading of the Pensions (Increase) Bill;
Committee and remaining stages of the Chevening Estate Bill; and, if there is time,
Committee and remaining stages of the Metropolitan Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords]; and of the
Rights of Light Bill [Lords].
Mr. Gaitskell: In view of Thursday's debate on the case of Messrs. S. G. Brown, Limited, and the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would consider publishing a White

651
Paper if there were a debate on this subject, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government intend to publish a White Paper or to provide information to hon. Members in detail in some other way before the debate?
Mr. Butler: I have not yet had an opportunity of giving a final answer on that pending further consultation with my right hon. Friend. But we are aware of the request of the Opposition, and perhaps we could convey the information in the usual manner.
Mr. Gaitskell: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean convey the information about what the Government are going to do?
Mr. Butler indicated assent.
Mr. Gaitskell: Thank you.
May I ask, further, whether the right hon. Gentleman can give any idea about when the Devlin Commission is likely to report to the Government and whether the Government propose to publish the report as soon as possible?
Mr. Butler: I do not think that arises strictly out of business. Of course, it is a matter which is very much under the control of the Commission; but we hope that it will report as soon as is reasonably possible, and if I am able legitimately to obtain any information, I will not only convey it to the right hon. Gentleman, but to the House.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: Has my right hon. Friend still in mind the general desire to have a debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure? Can he give any further information about when this is likely to take place?
Mr. Butler: We hope to fit that in before the Recess. I know there is a general demand for a debate, and so we shall, so to speak, cater for such a debate; but at the moment I cannot give the exact date.
Mr. Janner: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether he will provide an opportunity for the Second Reading of the Small Business Dwelling Houses Bill, which should be a non-contentious matter, in view of the anomaly which has been created regarding small shopkeepers who
652
are now excluded from enjoying the same privileges as persons occupying houses where there are no shops? Will he give consideration to the possibility of this Bill receiving a Second Reading? There will probably be no opposition.
Mr. Butler: I cannot give any assurance. On the last occasion the Bill came up for Second Reading on its own account during private Members' time, but the House was counted out during the discussion on the preceding Bill, with the result that this Bill suffered. I cannot give any assurance about it at the moment.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has my right hon. Friend studied the Motion on the Order Paper concerning the review of the Charter of the United Nations Organisation and the Amendment to that Motion in the names of about 36 of my hon. Friends and my own name? May we be assured that Her Majesty's Government will take steps to ascertain the views of this House before making or accepting proposals for such a review?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to propose at the forthcoming meeting of the Committee on Arrangements for a Charter Review Conference that the Committee should recommend to the Fourteenth Session of the United Nations General Assembly that a Charter Review Conference be held in 1960, and that, meanwhile, Her Majesty's Government consider what changes should be made in the Charter, with a view to promoting world peace through the development of enforceable world law.]
[In line 6, leave out from "peace" to end and add "on the basis of respect for treaties, international law, the independence of nation-states, and the co-operative exercise of their sovereignty for mutual and general benefit; to preventing subversive or irresponsible interference with the discharge by the United Kingdom, France, the United States of America and other Powers of their special responsibilities for international security and the peaceful advancement of their overseas territories; and to ensuring that the United Nations Organisation and connected international agencies are not misused so as to weaken the Commonwealth, whose strength and solidarity are essential to world stability".]
Mr. Butler: I have before me copies of the Motion and the suggested Amendment. I do not think that at the moment my hon. Friend need feel that his point of view would be neglected by the Government. I do not think there is any immediate likelihood of action.
Miss Herbison: Since the Leader of the House honoured the Church of Scotland by being present for many hours at its debate on Central African Federation and Nyasaland, and since he knows about the deliberations and the nature of the debate and the proposals, is he considering giving time for the House to discuss these matters in an attempt to prevent any further deterioration of the situation in Nyasaland, and in an attempt to bring about better race relations there?
Mr. Butler: These matters are of very great importance and I think that in the usual course of events they will be considered by the usual channels with a view to considering whether a debate should take place. The relevance of my attendance as a visitor at the meeting of the Church of Scotland should not be overrated. It is an assembly of a different character from that of the Imperial Parliament. The education I derived was of course beneficial to me, and I hope to all concerned.
Mr. Grimond: Reverting to the report of the Devlin Commission, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that it is the intention of the Government that the report will be available before we rise for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Butler: I must stick very closely to the constitutional proprieties. I think it would probably be preferable if it were published before the Houses rises, because we all want to know what the Commission has to say. But I do not think that I can speak for the Commission. I have only said that if I am able to ascertain any information, I will impart it to the House.
Mr. Short: Now that the Government have had before them the proposals of the Cunard Company for some time, can the Minister say when the House is likely to have an opportunity to debate this further subsidy from public funds to yet another private firm?
Mr. Butler: We must be quite sure that we base an answer on this matter on the latest information. I shall have to consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation before giving a reply.
Mr. P. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the Motion on the Order Paper referring to the stockpiling of nuclear warheads? Will he assure the House that he will give an opportunity for debating this matter at an early date, so that the point of view of the Opposition may be made known to this House and to the country?
[That this House, noting the refusal of the French Government to permit nuclear warheads in American custody to be stockpiled in France, is equally opposed to their being stockpiled in this country, and to any transfer to Great Britain from French territory of American nuclear-weapon-carrying aircraft.]
Mr. Butler: I can quite see the relevance and importance of my hon. Friend's question. Whether the opportunity will arise and time be made for a debate, I am not yet able to say.
Dr. Stross: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has noted that the Gulbenkian Foundation has now reported on the needs of the provinces concerning the arts? Is he aware, also, that the Arts Council will soon be publishing its views on provincial needs, and may we have an assurance that the Government will find time for a debate on this matter before the Recess?
Mr. Butler: We have a somewhat crowded programme. While I do not underestimate the importance of the report of the Gulbenkian Foundation, I cannot give such an assurance on this occasion.
Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the Motion on the Order Paper calling for an inquiry into the advertising industry which has now attracted the support of more than 200 hon. Members? In view of the great interest in what is a very important matter—which should be a non-party matter—both in this House and outside, will he consider giving time for a further debate on the subject?
[That this House, noting the increasing power of the advertising industry and its influence upon our national life, and the growing impact of advertising on the individual, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to set up an independent inquiry to consider whether further safeguards are desirable in the public interest and, if so, what form such safeguards should take.]
Mr. Butler: We have had more requests this afternoon for time for debates than we have ever had before. I cannot give an assurance that there will be time to discuss this Motion, however important it is.
Mr. Janner: Reverting again to the matter to which I have referred previously, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Minister of Housing and Local Government regarding a Second Reading for the Small Business Dwelling Houses Bill, in view of the extreme urgency of the matter? The people concerned have no protection at all. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision about giving time for a Second Reading to a Measure which I believe will not be opposed?
Mr. Butler: I will consult my right hon. Friend, who has very conveniently come to sit beside me.
Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether there will be an opportunity to hear more about the Shipping Conference? I appreciate the work done by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, but I think it would be generally agreed that the future of shipping is of tremendous importance to this country. We have had very little opportunity to hear details of the Conference. Will my right hon. Friend try to find time so that we may be given more details because of the interest in this matter?
Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend is right in attaching importance to the future of the shipping industry. I will discuss the matter with my right hon. Friends and draw it to the attention of the Opposition as being a possible subject for a Supply Day debate.

DIVISION No. 140 (CORRECTION)
Mr. Osborne: May I draw attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that in page 475 of the Votes and Proceedings, yesterday, it is recorded that Mr. T. Oswald voted. It should have been my name. May a correction be made?
Mr. Speaker: Yes. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald) will be equally interested to see that a correction is made.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [16TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1959–60
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £30, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the following services connected with Local Authority Housing, namely:

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1959–60

  £

  Class V, Vote 1 (Ministry of Housing and Local Government)

  10

  Class V, Vote 2 (Housing, England and Wales)

  10

  Class V, Vote 11 (Housing, Scotland)

  10

  Total

  £30

  LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING
  3.43 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: My object today is to review the history of the administration of this Government since the last General Election in the matter of local authority housing and to see how we stand today.
  There can be very little doubt that there is an immediate need for more council houses. Some of that need is desperately urgent. The Minister is usually coy about housing lists. He does not inquire about them or know about them, but in March of this year 523 housing authorities, covering more than half the population in England and Wales, answered an inquiry from the National Housing and Town Planning Council. Those housing authorities had on their lists over ¾ million applicants of whom more than a third, that is to say, more than ¼ million applicants, were treated as in urgent need. We can apply those figures to the whole country. They mean about 1½ million on housing lists of whom more than ½ million are urgent cases. If we take an average family of three and a half people, that means that
  658
  more than 5 million people of all ages are represented by those applications. That is to say, 1 in 8 of the population of England and Wales, or thereabouts, and nearly 2 million of those are urgent cases.
  No doubt the standard of what is an urgent case differs from place to place, but the average will not be far off the mark. I would remind the Committee that cases of that kind include medical cases, tuberculosis, for instance, cardiac weakness which prevents people walking upstairs, illnesses resulting from damp, and so on. Hon. Members know very well the kind of case I have in mind. If they choose, they can give instances from their own experience, not only of illness cases but other instances, of people living in intolerable conditions of overcrowding and unfit houses.
  This need is largest in the big towns. I shall begin with London. In London in 1956 the L.C.C. had 160,000 applicants on its list, including 53,000 urgent cases. It had to tell the great majority that there was no hope of rehousing them. Up to 7th March this year, 5,000 families, and no more, had been rehoused from that list and the estimate is that about 1,500 families will be rehoused from it this year, plus a certain number of priority allocations. That is no criticism of London County Council, which has done better than it expected in 1956 to do. The inadequacy of what it can do is no fault of the Council, but a measure of the insufficiency of Government policy. A list of that kind would mean that out of 3¼ million people in the L.C.C. area more than 1 in 7 requires a council house, but, naturally, with the warning given in 1956, people have not sought to put their names on the list of the hopeless. Otherwise, it would have been much larger.
  The figures I have given so far do not relate to Scotland, and in speaking today I can touch only very lightly on the problem in Scotland. I hope that my deficiencies in this respect will be supplemented in the course of the debate. In Glasgow the situation is even worse. There, among a population of rather over 1 million, there is a waiting list for council houses of 120,000 families or, on the basis which I have taken, well over one-third and nearly half of the whole population. I am not concerned today to make estimates of the rising need in

  659
  the future. I simply take those figures because they show the size and urgency of the problem today.
  What have the Government done? I propose to keep to the point—the record of the present Government. I am not going to talk about the number of houses built in post-war conditions and the number of houses built when the present Prime Minister was in office as Minister of Housing and Local Government. I am not going to do that for a very simple reason. Those figures are misleading and were intended to mislead. They take no account of post-war conditions, they take no account of other demands, partly in connection with housing and partly not in connection with housing, on the building force. At the end of the day, they take us no further whatever in the problem we have to consider today, which is, what are we to do in the present situation?
  When the Government came in after the 1955 Election, houses were being built at the rate of nearly 300,000 a year in England and Wales. That figure had been reached in 1954, but ever since 1954 the total of building, both for local authorities and for private owners, has fallen steadily, until last year it was just over 240,000. What is much more significant is the fact that it has occurred steadily and increasingly in the proportion of houses built for local authorities. These are houses to let. They are the houses built for people who, even with building society aid, cannot afford to buy houses of their own.
  The number built for them by local authorities in 1954 was nearly 200,000. Since then it has fallen year by year, and last year it was only just over 113,000. The Government have succeeded in nearly halving the number in five years. Meanwhile, the rate of building for private owners who can afford to pay for their own new houses has risen from 88,000 in 1954 to 124,000 last year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear hon. Members applauding, but what about the people on council waiting lists who cannot afford to pay for their own houses? For the first time since the war, private building has reached a figure larger than that of council house building.
  660
  In Scotland, the position is similar. Some 39,000 houses were built in 1954 and the total fell to 32,000 last year. Local authority housing—always especially important in Scotland—has fallen from 35,000 in 1954 to 27,000 last year. Meanwhile, there has been a small rise in private building.
  There is no doubt that both Government legislation and Government administration have had their effect in reaching these results. The Government did not take long to get to work. In October, 1955, they restricted the expenditure of local authorities, they removed their freedom to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board. They intimated that housing subsidies for general need would in future be reduced from £22 1s. per house to £10 per house and, after a year or so, would stop altogether. They duly did all that in 1956, and in October of that year the present Minister of Defence, who was then the Minister of Housing and Local Government, told the Conservative Party Conference at Llandudno that the policy of the Government was
  "progressively to abolish rent control altogether."
  The first step was the Rent Act, introduced in the following month on the lines he indicated at Llandudno. It decontrolled what he called a slice of the higher value houses. It extended decontrol to any new tenancies and decontrolled houses a stage further to such houses as the Minister might order subject to affirmative procedure. The new rent limits on controlled houses had the effect of roughly doubling the rent. The result, as a contribution towards solving the housing problem, was, of course, not to provide a single new house. It was to raise rents by something like £100 million a year and to put an additional burden on public funds, since the National Assistance Board has to pay many of these rents, and it caused grave disturbance in the larger towns. Tenants of decontrolled houses were obliged either to move from the dwellings, which often they had occupied for most of their lives, or to come to terms with landlords who had the whip hand. The Opposition and public opinion between them forced the Minister to mitigate the effect of what he had done by temporary provisions enacted in 1958, but

  661
  the protection given to tenants was both temporary and very limited.
  Of course, the Rent Act has caused moves into and out of houses, but there is no evidence whatever that it has made it any easier to get a house, let alone to get a house at a reasonable rent, nor that it has reduced the demand for council houses. Complete decontrol which, we have been told, will happen if the Tory Party comes back to power again, will make no contribution to the housing problem. It will only put more money into the pockets of landlords, cause more hardship and more disturbance, this time among people living in smaller houses who are even less fitted to face it.
  On these facts, I turn to the Minister. I do not ask him whether this is what he wanted. It is exactly what he wanted. On 11th November, 1957, as reported in column 638 of HANSARD, he said:
  "I am taking as my aim that in the financial year 1959–60 local authorities … in England and Wale; will complete 100,000 houses."
  May I remind the Committee that there are 1½ million people, ½ million of them urgent cases, on housing lists? How did he justify this? He said:
  "Although there is still a severe shortage in some places, particularly London and the big cities"—
  how right he was—
  "over the country at large local authorities have found that they have built enough to satisfy urgent needs or that they are within sight of this.…"
  May I point out to him that "the country at large" includes London and the large cities and that the figures I have given apply to the country at large? The right hon. Gentleman went on:
  "In other places authorities are finding their building programmes contracting through shortage of sites."
  He concluded with these words:
  "In these circumstances, there is no doubt at all that housing can make a contribution to the Chancellor's anti-inflationary measures."
  I shall have something to say about that in a moment. Later, the right hon. Gentleman said that
  "all local authorities should review their housing programmes. Most of them are already doing so. Most of them are already deciding how they will reduce their programmes in the light of a 7 per cent. Bank Rate and 6¾ per cent Public Works Loan Board rate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1957; Vol. 577, c. 638–9.]
  662
  That, of course, helped them. He has now nearly reached his goal. At the end of March this year there were only about 100,000 council houses under construction and of those less than a half were for general need housing, including. I hope, one-roomed dwellings for old people where the subsidy has been preserved. If we take those one-roomed dwellings as about a fifth of the total—that is what the right hon. Gentleman says it is—there remain fewer than 30,000 houses under construction for general need in the whole country, with housing lists mounting to about 1½ million applications.
  I turn from that to the condition of the houses. There are about 6⅔ million houses let by private landlords at present and 6 million—80 per cent.—of those are houses which were built before 1919. Those houses are more than forty years old. It is not so bad in the case of owner-occupied houses. Only about 30 per cent. of those are more than forty years old. With local authority houses, naturally the proportion as old as that is negligible. That gives some indication of what the position is, but when the right hon. Gentleman is faced with this he relies on the effect of the Rent Act. His usual argument is that under the Rent Act machinery only 37,000 certificates of disrepair have been issued by local authorities. Does the right hon. Gentleman really contend that only 37,000 houses out of 4 million left under control and tenanted were out of repair? He omits all kinds of things, landlords undertakings, arrangements made, and so on.
  My conclusion is not that those were the only houses which needed repair, as the Minister seems to suggest, but that the machinery of this part of the Act has been so dilatory, so complicated and so weighted in favour of the landlord against the tenant that it has not fulfilled its purpose and that these houses stand unrepaired. I suggest that the total of repairs done under the Rent Act is not very large, that it is certainly far less than the increased rent which has been given to landlords and that it is even to a greater degree less than the profits which have been made out of managing and speculating in houses

  663
  decontrolled now or expected to be decontrolled after the next General Election.
  Mr. Robert Jenkins: Has the hon. and learned Member any evidence to give to the House to show that that is in fact so?
  Mr. Mitchison: I was about to give an example. The case which I take is that of a company called A. Peachey and Co., Ltd. I find from the Stock Exchange Yearbook that this company has over 200 subsidiaries, that it has temporarily ceased its building activities, and that it now invests and deals in property and that it holds in the main rent-controlled houses, maisonettes and freehold ground rents. It is difficult to find a suitable company, because so many of them also hold a great deal of office accommodation, and no doubt this company has some, but I think that it is a fair instance.
  In June, 1955, its 2s. shares stood at 19s. They were split in the February of the next year into 1s. shares and there was a bonus rights issue of another million 1s. shares. This watered matters a little, and in June, 1956, the 1s. share was worth only 7s. 4½d. The right hon. Gentleman's legislation and administration seems to have helped the company. In June, 1957, the 1s. share was worth 12s. 9d. In June, 1958, it was worth 14s. 9d. In July, 1958, it was bought out for the equivalent of £1 a share.
  That is one case, and I hope that the Committee will accept it from me that I tried to select a case which I thought was fair. If I find one case in Stock Exchange dealings, I am quite certain that there are many others where the same thing has happened on a smaller or a larger scale in respect of companies and individuals holding masses of rent-controlled property all over the country. I add one further comment. I do not blame the present frantic boom which is taking place in property shares entirely on the Government's housing policy. I believe that there are other factors involved. I say, however, that without that housing policy it would not have gone as far as it has gone.
  Mr. Robert Jenkins: During the discussions of the last three or four years evidence has been put forward similar
  664
  to that which the hon. and learned Member has put forward today in respect of a property company, and I know that the Committee would be very grateful if he would break these figures down for Messrs. Peachey and Co. Ltd. What is the extent of the house property and the industrial and office property involved? I think that it is fair to put this point. I should like to know how much the effect on the shares was due to the Rent Act or to the advantages gained from it and how much of the increased value of the shares is due to other reasons.
  Mr. Mitchison: If I took too long in my speech I should be stabbed from behind, if not from in front, with the last remaining flick knife in the country. I described the character of the company as I read it in the Stock Exchange Yearbook, and I tried to select a company which was likely to be most affected by the type of legislation and administration about which I am talking. I cannot do more than that. Only someone in the company, such as an accountant with access to the books, could split the figures and give them in detail. Moreover, it is not the detail which matters. What matters is that shares of this type have risen substantially and that the contribution which was required to be made to the Chancellor's anti-inflationary campaign may have been made by local authorities but it has certainly not been made by property owners or by those who speculate in property shares. I regard as a poor contribution to the anti-inflationary campaign a rise of that sort over the period of the credit squeeze. It is a rise which, I suggest, is very marked and it is against the general tide.
  In his defence the right hon. Gentleman mentions his so-called slum clearance campaign. In 1955 the local authorities made their proposals about slum clearance, as was required of them under the 1954 Act. Those proposals showed no fewer than 850,000 slum houses in the country, of which the local authorities proposed to clear rather over 395,000 in the next five years. That was at the rate of 79,000 houses a year.
  Thereupon the Government took two steps to start the slum clearance campaign. The first was that in cutting out the general need subsidy they left the slum clearance subsidy untouched. They

  665
  did not increase it by a penny. The argument seems to have been, "if you reduce council house building for general need you will enable or oblige local authorities to demolish more slum clearance houses than they would otherwise have done." It must be borne in mind that the local authorities' proposals had been made before the cut in the housing subsidy. Given the way in which local authorities usually tackle their housing problem, that seems to me like telling someone that by cutting off one leg he is bound to hop faster on the other.
  The next step which the Government took was to tell the world at large that their target of slum clearance was 60,000 houses a year, or about three-quarters of what the local authorities had proposed. The effect of all this was to do in three or four years about half what the local authorities would have done if they had been left to themselves. That is the Government's slum clearance campaign.
  I turn to another question. What methods has the right hon. Gentleman used in reducing council house building to the level to which he has succeeded in reducing it? I need not go into the ordinary procedure of disallowing programmes, refusing loan sanction and all the rest. I am sure that he has used all those or we should not have the present figures. There are, however, some questions referring to room to build upon which I want to say a word.
  The Permanent Secretary at his Ministry said at Nottingham in 1956 that there were about 2 million people in the large cities who could not be housed inside them and who would have to be moved out. The right hon. Gentleman told us afterwards that he regarded this estimate as too high and that the true figure was, in his view, 1,100,000.
  Mr. Robert Jenkins: Does that figure refer to 1,100,000 people or 1,100,000 families?
  Mr. Mitchison: I have said that it was 1,100,000 people. Those were the figures which were given at the time.
  On any showing that is a very serious problem. What has the right hon. Gentleman done about it? He has omitted to do one thing and he has done another. He has omitted to designate
  666
  any new towns at all. I hope that the Committee will not take this deficiency on the right hon. Gentleman's part too seriously in this connection. It is serious enough in other connections, but people do not realise how small is the contribution which new towns can make to the solution of this problem.
  The best figure which I can give is that of the L.C.C.'s exports of people, if I may use that rather inelegant phrase. In the last calendar year, 1958, they put 376 families into the new towns and another 105 families into other places by way of overspill. Incidentally, the right hon. Gentleman's encouragement of overspill has at times taken rather curious forms. He will be well aware that there was a real prospect of Kettering, in my own constituency, taking a slice of the London population and that the matter went no further because he would not let it go further. Whatever contribution has been made or may be made and while I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman has neglected this matter as he has neglected the possibility of further new towns, I do say that his encouragement of it has been distinctly partial.
  I now turn to another aspect of the matter. A large city seeking to let out its population and to do something to cope with its housing lists will have to get sites for the purpose. I have some evidence, and I agree at once that it is, and in cases of this kind must be, slight evidence, that the right hon. Gentleman, and, for that matter, his predecessors in office have deliberately preferred private development whenever they could do so to giving the local authority a chance.
  These cases, of course, take some time to develop, so I have to start rather far back. I will take two in London to begin with. The Abbotsbury Road site in Kensington was the subject in February, 1952, of a resolution to acquire it. The first compulsory purchase order was made, and hon. Members will remember that making is not the point but that confirmation is. Objections were received from an estate and from some leaseholders. There was an inquiry on 27th June, 1953. The Minister, not the present Minister, decided to refuse confirmation of the compulsory purchase order, and the reason that he gave was that there was a reasonable chance of redevelopment by the owners by the

  667
  erection of flats within the next two years. That appears in a Written Answer on 28th July, 1953.
  In March, 1956, no redevelopment had been done, and a second compulsory purchase order was made. Objections were taken again by the same people, and there was another inquiry in December, 1956. The neighbouring estate produced the building agreement for the redevelopment of the land. It said that it could not have done anything earlier because of the credit restrictions imposed by the Government. The London County Council pointed out to it that these credit restrictions were not, in fact, imposed until after the two-year period had ended. But I am not concerned with that dispute now.
  In April, 1957, the Minister refused confirmation of the second compulsory purchase order because he was of opinion that the land should be left to be redeveloped by the owners. This is a site of round about seven acres, and on it, if it had had the chance, the London County Council would have provided either 242 or 282 dwellings. There were two alternative schemes with accommodation for just under 1,000 people.
  What is the present position? It is that on half the southern portion of the site redevelopment began in January, 1958, and about sixty houses are now completed and occupied. It is actually rather more than half of the whole site. I suppose that, finally, we may expect about 100 houses. But no start has yet been made on the other half of the property at all. It seems to me that that is a case of preference for private development which requires an answer if the right hon. Gentleman claims to be the Minister of Housing.
  The second case is in Woolwich. In February, 1954, there was a resolution to acquire the site in Woolwich. Apparently, these things take time, because it was not until June, 1955, that there was a public local inquiry about it, and in October, 1955, the right hon. Gentleman refused confirmation of the compulsory purchase order in order to allow a firm, Messrs. Wates, to develop the land concerning which the firm had a building agreement between itself and the owners.
  668
  This was a site of about four acres. If the Minister had confirmed the order, the London County Council could have begun to build in about September, 1956. Messrs. Wates began building in June, 1957, and the development was completed by June, 1958. The London County Council would have provided eighty dwellings and Messrs. Wates provided sixty-nine. The same story on a slightly smaller scale.
  The third instance comes from Newcastle. The Parliamentary Secretary and I had an opportunity of talking about housing there the other day. This case relates to the efforts of Newcastle to find enough room to build, because, like other large towns in the country, it just has not got room. The Newcastle Council, then Tory controlled, and the Northumberland County Council between them got an option on a site at Newburn which is just outside Newcastle. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hillhead."] Hillhead. At any rate, it was the site in Newburn. Being Tory-controlled, the council let the option lapse, and the owner took it back. But it became a Labour-controlled council this year and that Labour Council went to the Minister and asked, "May we buy this land?" So far, my information is that the right hon. Gentleman's reply has been, "No, it is possible to have it privately developed"—probably by the person who owns it; I do not know.
  What is Newcastle going to do to solve its housing difficulties? How is it going to get on with its slum-clearance programme when it has nowhere to decant the people from the slums? How is it going to deal with the overcrowding which exists in that as every other town?
  Mr. Ernest Popplewell: Not only has the Minister allowed the appeal for it to go to private building but he has also refused to meet a deputation of the town council to talk over the problem, which is absolutely disgraceful.
  Mr. Mitchison: I take these three cases as instances, and I am quite certain that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members, probably on both sides of the House, if they are honest, will be able to tell us of many others in which, as it seems to me, an ideological preference has been given to private development against council houses.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: May we ask the hon. Members representing Newcastle constituencies if they proposed to go with the delegation to see the Minister?
  Mr. Mitchison: I am afraid that I do not know. Perhaps the question will be answered in the course of the debate.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Excuse me, but this is no laughing matter. There is a very serious Parliamentary practice at stake. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a point of order."] Not exactly. I would like to ask the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell), who made the previous intervention, if the hon. Members representing Newcastle constituencies proposed to go with the deputation to see the Minister.
  Mr. Popplewell: if I may be allowed to intervene, I would like to say that if I catch the eye of the Chair I propose to go more fully into the situation. The hon. Members concerned would certainly have accompanied the deputation if the Minister had agreed. A request was submitted to the Minister that they should accompany such a deputation.
  Mr. Mitchison: I am concerned for the moment not only with the Minister's procedural misdeeds but with matters of general importance in this connection. My hon. Friend will know that I am not in any way slighting what he said.
  I want to say a word or two about private housing. We in the Labour Party have always been anxious to help the owner-occupier. We introduced improvement grants for his benefit, and we have other proposals concerning him in our electoral programme. But we do not regard private house building as any substitute for council building. The two must go on together.
  When the Government claim to have built private houses—that is the language they usually use—they have done little or nothing, except to make some limited provisions for advances through building societies. The substantial point is that a man who has to pay interest and repay principal on a building society loan for twenty years on a house costing £1,700 has to pay 49s. a week. That is not a high figure for a house, but 49s. a week is a great deal more than the rate even for an unsubsidised council house.
  670
  What the Government are doing in connection with private houses is to provide for one class of people who, with or without help, can afford to build their own houses. They are not meeting the needs of many people, indeed most people, who want a house of their own in which to live. They are not meeting the needs of young couples who cannot afford to build a house of their own, who are on council lists and who, on present figures, stand no chance of obtaining a house, council or otherwise.
  I must ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, to which I expect an answer. Does the right hon. Gentleman really consider that the steps he has taken to encourage private house building—he has not built the houses, though he says that he has—are any substitute whatever for council house building? How does he intend to meet the need exemplified by the housing lists?
  In a year when we stand a prospect of having a General Election, for political or economic reasons the right hon. Gentleman has told local authorities that they can add slightly to their housing programmes. The question we must consider today goes far beyond small additions of that sort. It has taken the right hon. Gentleman and the Government five years' hard work to reduce the council house building programme to about one-half of what it was when they came to power. What do they intend to do? Do they expect that they will ever solve a housing problem of this magnitude and urgency by that kind of conduct? I cannot see that they will ever solve it if they continue on present lines.
  In this country we have had bad housing for centuries. We have had it worst since the Industrial Revolution. For decade after decade through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries masses of people in this country were living under intolerable conditions. Conditions became so bad that after the First World War we took two steps towards remedying them. The first was a little patchwork, namely, rent control. It was only patchwork, but we had to keep it on during two wars and many years of peace between, because we knew that patchwork was needed. Rent control has been taken away.
  The second thing we did was to introduce council house building on a large

  671
  scale. That was done to provide houses for the people, not just to provide houses for those who might be able to show that they could not otherwise obtain a house. The intention was to make housing what it must be in this country if we are to avoid the conditions prevailing at present, namely, to make it a social service. On those lines council housing grew and prospered. We are discussing today the extent of it, but there remain this mass of old, tenanted, small houses, at present rent-controlled, but intended to be de-controlled by the Tory Government after the General Election.
  What are we to do about it? Councils try to make exchanges. The right hon. Gentleman encourages them to do so. They do not succeed, because one private landlord will play and another will not. Companies, speculators and others continue to make their profits out of housing. They make their "contribution to the Chancellor's anti-inflationary measures."
  We cannot go on like that. Those who sacrifice council house building in this country to building by private persons for their own use or for profit are the merchants of misery. They are sacrificing to ideological conceptions and to property rights the happiness and the chance of living a decent life of people in this country, partly those who have to live in these old and wretched houses and partly those young couples who want to start a family and start in life on their own, but cannot afford to do so under a Tory Government. That is what is happening at present. That is the meaning of this debate.
  The right hon. Gentleman said the other day at Welshpool—speaking to a Conservative conference, I believe—that bad housing is the root of all evil. Perhaps that was a little exaggerated, but there was much in it. He had the right intention, but do the things he has done and failed to do follow what he said then? Do they follow the idea he had in mind?
  The Committee is dealing today with the Estimates. I cannot go too far into this, but I see no solution to this in the long run except the disappearance in general of the private landlord of the small house in favour of the municipal landlord. I shall not develop that. I would be out of order if I did so. The Govern-
  672
  ment should not tell my right hon. and hon. Friends and I that it will cost a lot. The councils will receive the rents and they can pay the interest on the compensation out of them. I will not go any further into that. Indeed, I cannot go further today.
  I remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that we in the House of Commons are not only representatives. We are human people. Every hon. Member present, including the right hon. Gentleman, knows full well that if the Government make mistakes or fail about housing policy they inflict great cruelty and hardship on those people who can least afford to stand it. I exhort them not to let their ideological notions and their insistence on the rights of property stand in the way of the task which faces us all today and will face us tomorrow. The task is to meet the needs of those people who are on the housing lists today and will come on to them year after year, and who under the present system stand no chance.
  4.28 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins)rose—
  Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Sir Charles. Is it not a fact that, owing to the absence from this important debate of a large number of Government supporters, who are no doubt at Ascot, if it were not for the presence of hon. Members on this side of the Committee the Committee would be counted out?
  The Chairman: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Bevins: It seems to me, as I am sure it seems to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that the Opposition must be pretty hard up for some stick with which to beat Her Majesty's Government if they have to pick on housing, of all subjects. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) ranged fairly wide in what he had to say this afternoon. He referred mainly to the tempo of council house building, to the cut in subsidies, to high interest rates, to the Rent Act, to land difficulties, and to a number of other broad issues, most of which I hope to comment on in the course of my

  673
  speech, Neither my right hon. Friend nor myself has any intention of evading any of the questions which the hon. and learned Gentleman addressed to the Government this afternoon.
  While the hon. and learned Gentleman was addressing the Committee, my mind went back to the many debates on housing to which I, and I am sure many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, have listened in the last nine or ten years. I very well remember, within a few weeks of coming here in 1950, listening to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan)—who, in those days, made very uninhibited and interesting speeches—defending a total building programme of 175,000 houses a year and arguing that the then Labour Government could not possibly hope to improve on that performance without slashing school building, power station building and all the rest. Actually, it was not quite "all the rest," of course, because in those days there were no new hospitals and very few new roads.
  I remember, too, the first housing debate that took place after the fall of the Labour Government in 1951, when many right hon. and hon. Members opposite dowsed with buckets of very cold water the notion that my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister could do very much better than build 175,000 new houses a year. That, coming from a radical party such as the Opposition, I used to find not only very restrictionist, but very defeatist, very sad and very depressing.
  A great deal has happened since those days. Looking back, I think that the country can fairly congratulate itself on the enterprise, and the courage, of successive Conservative Housing Ministers who, over the years, have got to grips with almost every facet of our housing problem—
  Mr. A. Blenkinsop: Then could the Parliamentary Secretary say just how many houses are being built to rent at the present time?
  Mr. Bevins: Naturally, I do not propose to evade anything, and I will come to that point in a moment or two.
  If my hon. Friends were to accept at its face value the indictment that has been made against us by the hon. and learned
  674
  Gentleman, we should certainly be in sackcloth and ashes—and, of course, the electorate would be straining at the leash to oust my right hon. Friend into the political wilderness. But even after eight years of alleged Tory misrule, the political pendlum seems to have stuck. It refuses to swing. Whether this is due to the virtues of Her Majesty's Government or to the Opposition's ineptitude I do not know; it is probably due to a bit of both.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the difficulties of local authorities in acquiring sufficient land both within their own boundaries and outside them to rehouse the people in need. I believe that my right hon. Friend will wish to say something about that later, but there is one short point I want to make on the Newcastle case that was referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Without going into the history of that matter, it is the case that the Newcastle City Council has a compulsory purchase order before my right hon. Friend at the present time. In those circumstances, it would be quite improper for any member of the Government to comment on the merits and demerits of that proposal—
  Mr. Popplewell: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that Newcastle has had to make the request for a compulsory purchase order for this strip of land because of the Minister's refusal to allow the council to take up the option on the land that it has had for some years.
  Mr. Bevins: I am just as well versed in the history of the case as is the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members representing Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
  Hon. Members on both sides realise perfectly well that when questions of planning appeals and of compulsory purchase orders come before my right hon. Friend, he, as Minister of Housing and Local Government, has to consider those questions on their merits, whatever they may be. That, in fact, is what my right hon. Friend, without bias or prejudice, invariably does—
  Mr. Edward Short Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central)rose—
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. James H. Hoy): Order. If an hon. Member does not give way, other hon. Members must resume their seats.
  Mr. Short: On a point of order, Mr. Hoy. I should like to point out that my hon. and learned Friend gave way on several occasions when hon. Members opposite wished to intervene.
  The Temporary Chairman: That may be so, but it is not a point of order.
  Mr. Bevins: I give way to the hon. Member.
  Mr. Short: I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. I wanted to say that he was seeking to mislead the House by trying to give the impression that this issue had not yet been decided. It was decided four or five weeks ago, when the Minister allowed an appeal which meant that the land would be used for private house building and not for council house building.
  Mr. Frederic Harris: What about it?
  Mr. Bevins: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it frequently happens that there is a dispute as to whether or not land should be used for housing purposes. As I understand it, the purpose of the earlier proceedings was to decide whether the land should or should not be used for housing purposes. That question was resolved, and there later arose a question as to whether the local authority concerned should be able to exercise its compulsory powers in order to use the land for its housing purposes—
  Mr. Popplewell rose—
  Mr. Bevins: No.
  Mr. Popplewell: But this is important—
  Mr. Bevins: There are many important matters—
  Mr. Popplewell: On a point of order, Mr. Hoy. The Minister is giving totally wrong facts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes. The dispute over this land is not whether or not it should be used for housing. It will be used for housing in any case.
  The Temporary Chairman: That, again, is not a point of order. There may be a dispute here, but it is not a point of order.
  Mr. Bevins: With respect, Mr. Hoy, I did not say anything that contradicted
  676
  the view that the hon. Gentleman has just expressed. If he is successful in catching your eye, I am sure that he will develop his argument involving the Newcastle City Council. Therefore, perhaps we might leave Newcastle out of this for the moment and come to the gravamen of the charge against the Government.
  As I understood it, the hon. and learned Gentleman's allegation against us refers to our inhumanity—that is what it amounts to—in the housing of the people and, in particular, refers to our alleged indifference to council housing. I must say, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to, that I have a rather higher opinion of his unquenchable eloquence and untiring tenacity for bad causes than I have for his selective arithmetic in this debate—although I agree that with so thin a case as that presented this afternoon he must be selective with his figures. Nobody minds that.
  I should like to concentrate for a moment on the arithmetic—and the arithmetic is perfectly straightforward. Between 1947 and 1951—and here I refer to England and Wales, and not to Great Britain—the total number of houses built each year averaged less than 170,000. Between 1952 and 1958, a period of seven years, the average annual figure has been over 265,000 houses—an increase of 55 per cent. Those figures, however impressive, can never reveal how much happiness has been brought to Millions of men, women and children by the success of the housing drive—
  Mr. J. A. Sparks Mr. J. A. Sparks (Acton)rose—
  Mr. Bevins: No—I shall not seek to evade anything.
  Between 1947 and 1951, the average annual figure of council houses built in England and Wales was 142,000, and the corresponding average for the following seven-year span under the Conservatives has been over 170,000. In our judgment, these figures stand up for themselves, and require no political embroidery at all.
  But, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, what about council building in 1958 and 1959? That is the relatively narrow issue from which the Opposition criticisms derive today. Even in the year 1958 the total number of new houses built was 70,000 more than the number built in 1951, the

  677
  last year of the Labour Government. Admittedly the figure for council houses was lower, but why on earth should the Committee isolate the council house figures? The idea that only houses built by local authorities have any social value at all is an utter absurdity. A house is a house, whoever builds it, whoever occupies it, and whoever it is built for. People who go into new houses, whether they be tenants or owner-occupiers, do not come out of holes in the ground. They vacate other accommodation, and the fact is that every new house which is constructed in this country makes its contribution to lessening our housing difficulties.
  Mr. Mitchison: I must correct the hon. Gentleman on two points. On the first point, they sometimes do. We have a case of a woman who is trying to rent a house and who had to live in a cave.
  Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Ask the Parliamentary Secretary about his own constituency. Read the Liverpool newspapers. They know all about it.
  Mr. Mitchison: As to the second point, the rate of council house building has been halved, and deliberately so, by this Government. What I said was not that no houses other than council houses have a social value, but that council houses are needed, particularly when there are 1½ million applications on the housing lists.
  Mr. Bevins: I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's point of view, and, as I said at the beginning, I do not propose to shirk any of these questions. As to the person who was living in a cave, all I can say is that the local authority must have been of a different complexion from the party on this side of the Committee. People do not live in caves when the responsible local authority is decently run.
  I should have thought that the reasons for the fall in council house building are perfectly well known and understood in the Committee and throughout the country. When the country was faced with economic difficulties in the autumn of 1957—and this is not the first Government to be faced by economic difficulties since the end of the war—the Government decided to retard the pace of council house building.
  678
  There was no concealment whatever about that. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to this Box, as did my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and explained with perfect candour what the Government proposed to do. We said that, while about 150,000 houses would be put up by local authorities in 1958 for the country as a whole, the programme would be slowed down during the next two years to about 80 per cent. of that figure.
  There is, I submit, no doubt at all that in 1958 the reduction in the building programme—and, after all, house building had been accounting for between one-quarter and one-fifth of the national investment programme—made a very real contribution to the country's economic stability. That stability is now clearly reflected in the cost of living index, which has remained firm during the past twelve months. I would go so far as to say that the surging fortunes of the Conservative Party and the deepening gloom of Labour supporters in the country is evidence of that.
  Here I come to the hon. and learned Gentleman's other point. It is precisely because of the Government's success in dealing with inflation and not because of the approach of any General Election, that the Government decided in the autumn of last year to ask the local authorities to step up the rate of house building. I think the Committee would like to have the comparative figures for last year and this year.
  Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman did hold out, from his brief I believe, some suggestion that the proportion of investment was satisfactory in this country. Has he looked at the table in the report relating to the finance of housing all over Europe, and observed that, out of the gross national product, this country pays the smallest percentage of any but three—Portugal, Southern Ireland, and one other? The United States and most of the Western countries pay a higher proportion of their national product towards housing than we do under this Government.
  Mr. Bevins: I think that anyone who knows of housing conditions in this country and housing conditions in the rest of the continent of Europe, or, for

  679
  that matter, throughout the world, realises that housing conditions in this country are at least as good as, and probably better than, anywhere else in the world.
  Mr. C. W. Gibson: The hon. Gentleman is making the point that the Government's economic policy to restrict capital investment resulted in the reduction in the number of houses built. That is true; it did. But why was it only on local authority housing? The figures in the Ministry's Annual Report this year show that while local authority housing went down, private building went up. It is up to the Government to explain the reasons for progress under private enterprise as against municipal enterprise.
  Mr. Bevins: If hon. Members opposite will be a little more patient, they will find that all their questions will be answered either by myself or by my right hon. Friend before this debate is over.
  I should have thought the Committee would like to know the comparative housing figures for last year and the current year as a result of the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government to step up the rate of house building. Last year we approved tenders for just over 100,000 houses for England and Wales, and, of these, 28,000 were approved in the first four months. In the same period of this year—that is to say, the first four months—we have approved tenders for more than 42,000 houses. In the first four months of last year a start was made on 32,000 council houses, and this year a start has been made on 41,000 council houses during the same period. In the case of private enterprise building, starts in the first four months of last year were 40,000. This year they are 51,000. All told, 70,000 houses were started in England and Wales during the first four months of last year, whereas this year's comparative figure is 92,000. I think the Committee will realise that that is a very appreciable improvement on the 1958 figure.
  Mr. D. Howell: It ought to be.
  Mr. Bevins: I am trying to deal with this subject with perfect candour. I agree that it would be disingenuous to
  680
  put it about that changes in the pattern of the housing programme are dictated wholly by economic considerations. That is not so. When we took office in 1951 there was a crying need for more houses to be quickly erected, and for that reason we made housing one of our top priorities during the early years. But by 1958 that situation had dramatically changed. After all, nearly 2 million new houses had been built in England and Wales alone. In many parts of the country—I do not say all, because that would be a false thing to say—the need to continue new building was very much less urgent in 1958 than it was in 1951.
  It was once said in this House that Socialism is the religion of priorities. Be that as it may, I have noticed that even the Socialist writ sometimes writhes under rather painful changes of emphasis. One might almost call them agonising reappraisals. That would be very rightly so, because the country needs schools, hospitals, roads and all the rest as well as houses, and to go on building 300,000 houses a year for ever and ever might be very nice, but the shortage of new houses is not the only housing problem. There is the really intractable problem, as the hon. and learned Gentleman very rightly pointed out, of the older houses, of adequately maintaining them and of seeking to improve them. That, of course, is precisely what my right hon. Friend has been seeking to do through the Rent Act and the House Purchase and Housing Act.
  This afternoon the hon. and learned Gentleman once again paraded his argument—I do not say that offensively—that only 30,000 to 35,000 houses were being built for general need. How is that figure arrived at and what is the reasoning behind this argument which, after all, goes to the root of the debate? To begin with, we ignore the houses which are put up by private builders for sale. Presumably nobody ever goes to live in them. They are the useless product of the speculative builder. They are no use to man or beast. Then we take the total number of houses built by local authorities in 1958, and from that we subtract the houses occupied by families which have come from the slums, the numbers built in the new towns and the dwellings built solely for elderly people. What is left—perhaps

  681
  30,000 or 35,000 houses for general need—is the figure on which the hon. and learned Gentleman so largely bases his argument as to inadequacy.
  Mr. MitchisonI thought I provided the hon. Gentleman with plenty of figures. He seems to have misunderstood this one. It comes from his right hon. Friend's Answer to a Question about the number of council houses at the end of March, and I said so quite clearly. That number was 100,000. The right hon. Gentleman said that rather less than half of them were for general need housing, including the old folk houses—the one-roomed bungalows. The right hon. Gentleman says that the old folk houses represent one-fifth of the total. I therefore took 20,000 off. I reached a figure of 30,000, and I said quite clearly that those were houses for general need. I meant—and the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what I meant—houses built for general need by councils not attracting any subsidy.
  Mr. Bevins: Indeed, there is no doubt at all about it, and there is nothing at all between the hon. and learned Gentleman and myself so far as the figures and the superficial argument go. But what I do say to the hon. and learned Gentleman is this. The residual figure of houses for general need, whether is be 30,000 or 35,000, is a purely fictitious and misleading figure of the number of houses available for general need.
  For example, there are many families, as hon. Members on both sides of the Committee realise, who are at present unfortunately living in slum conditions and who are recorded on the local authority housing lists. Many of those families are, in fact, accommodated under the existing system by the local authorities. It is also perfectly true that many of the people who come from the large congested cities into the new towns have been on the general housing lists of the local authorities.
  Finally, of course—I think this requires saying—there is a growing number of people who have been on the local authority housing lists and who have been hoping for local authority houses provided for general needs but who are today turning to the prospect and opportunity of purchasing their own homes from private sources.
  Mr. James Griffiths: The Parliamentary Secretary has been speaking about the housing lists and changes in the housing lists. Could he tell us exactly what is the actual number of live applicants on the waiting lists at this moment?
  Mr. Bevins: I am sorry that I cannot oblige the right hon. Gentleman with that figure. The fact of the matter is that I have no figure.
  Mr. D. Howell: Why does not the hon. Gentleman find out?
  Mr. Bevins: The truth, of course, as we all know, is that many of the local authorities themselves throughout the country, in spite of all their efforts, do not really know—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—how many of the names on their lists refer to live applicants.
  Mr. I. Griffiths: Do I understand, therefore, that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government does not know and has not itself taken any steps to acquire the knowledge, which seems to be basic to the problem, in order to find out how many live applicants there are on the waiting lists in this country at any time, either last year or now?
  Mr. Bevins: I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that that information is not available.
  Mr. Sparks: The Minister can get it.
  Mr. Bevins: I am bound to add—and here I agree with the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale—that, even if that information were available, it would be totally misleading the Committee to give it.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman was highly critical also of the Government's slum clearance progress. The proposals of the local authorities, as he rightly said, involve the demolition of about 375,000 slum houses in England and Wales by the end of 1960.
  Mr. Mitchison: There are 4,000 which the hon. Gentleman has forgotten.
  Mr. Bevins: In 1956, there were 36,000 houses demolished and closed, and that number has risen progressively since 1956. Last year, it reached more than 55,000. Since the beginning of the programme, more than 400,000 people altogether have been rehoused. My

  683
  right hon. Friend is confident, from the rate at which clearance and compulsory purchase orders are coming to him, that the present level of slum clearance will be maintained both in this year and in 1960.
  We believe that the achievement so far is satisfactory. Considering the very real complexities of slum clearance operations, we feel that the local authorities have done a very good job. The Committee and the country are in their debt for all the valuable work they have done and will continue to do.
  Mr. David Weitzman: I wish to ask one simple question. How can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the extent of the need if he does not know the extent of the lists?
  Mr. Bevins: I really do not see how that helps the Committee at all. Hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the Committee recognise quite freely that there is a great demand for houses in this country, especially in the large cities—
  Mr. William Ross: Really?
  Mr. Bevins: —and it does not help matters to have the precise figure, which might be 500,000 or 600,000. The great thing to do is to get the houses built, and that is what Her Majesty's Government have concentrated upon.
  Mr. Popplewell Mr. Popplewell rose—
  Mr. Short Mr. Short rose—
  Mr. Bevins: I have really given way a great deal, and I am seeking—
  Mr. Short: On a point of order, Mr. Hoy. The Minister has been unable to give us the figure which, on any intelligent assessment of the matter, seems to be the basis of the major premise upon which a national housing policy should be based. The need is the first premise. My point of order is this. Would you be prepared to accept a Motion, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again", in order that this information might be available later?
  The Temporary Chairman: It may be an important point, but I could not accept such a Motion in order to hold
  684
  up the debate. It would be for the Minister to provide the information if he had it, but I could not accept that Motion.
  Mr. Short: Further to that point of order. How can we have an intelligent debate on the Government's housing policy without this key figure showing the nation's need?
  The Temporary Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member is asking the Chair too much if he asks it to decide what is an intelligent debate. That is for the Committee to decide.
  Mr. Bevins: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Hoy. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) has to clutch at such insignificant straws as that. It really does not help at all.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman made some references to the abolition of the general need subsidy and to high interest rates. If I may say so, the effect of these two factors on council house building is, in my view, really grossly exaggerated. They ought not to prevent the local authorities from continuing to build even for general needs, nor should they lead to excessive rents.
  What are the facts? The present Public Works Loan Board lending rate for housing is 5¾ per cent., but, of course, what matters to a local council more than the lending rate at any particular point of time is the average rate of interest which it is paying on its outstanding indebtedness. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I am perfectly prepared to give way at this point if some hon. Member wishes to try to refute that incontrovertible statement. The fact of the matter is that, between June, 1946, and August, 1955, during which time, as the Committee knows, local authorities borrowed very heavily on housing account, the Public Works Loan Board rate ranged from 2½ per cent. to 4½ per cent. During many of those years, of course, a Conservative Government was in office.
  Although I have no exact figure, I should be very surprised if the average interest rate were anything like either 5¾ per cent. or even 5 per cent. My conjecture, based on the best researches I have been able to do, is that the

  685
  average rate is not likely to have exceeded 4 per cent. up to the present time. Hon. Members opposite say, in their latest party publication, of course, that, if they formed the Government of the day, they would give local authorities loans for housing purposes at a low rate of interest.
  Mr. D. Howell: Why not?
  Mr. Bevins: The hon. Member asks, "Why not?" Does it mean the market rate of interest, in which case the statement is meaningless, or does it mean at a rate of interest below the market rate?
  Mr. Ross: What about the rate on the money the Government are handing over to Colvilles?
  Mr. Bevins: If it means the latter, does it mean that some future Labour Government would be prepared to give a hidden subsidy through low interest rates?
  Mr. Mitchison: May I deal with the hon. Gentleman's first point? It is, of course, perfectly true that the rates of interest prevailing under the Labour Government were about 3 per cent., and they have gone up since then. In my view, a local authority considering housing development at present is deterred by the high rate of interest, and I notice that that view was shared by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister who, in the passage from which I have already quoted, said:
  "Most of them"—
  that is to say, the local authorities—
  "are already deciding how they will reduce their programmes in the light of a 7 per cent. Bank Rate and a 6¾ per cent. Public Works Loan Board rate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1957; Vol. 577, c. 639.]
  If all they were considering was the average rate over the past ten years, that observation would have been meaningless, and I do not think that it was.
  As to the hon. Gentleman's second question, I can assure him that the Labour Party, when it comes into power, will ensure that local authorities fulfil necessary needs such as housing with money at a low rate of interest.
  Mr. Herbert Butler: On a point of order, Mr. Hoy. In the interests of those who want to make a contribution to this debate, is it
  686
  possible for you to stop this "Flanagan-less-Allen" double act and let some of us who wish to make a contribution have an opportunity? Is it possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to be allowed to give us the meat in order that he can satisfy our appetites when we want to tear him to pieces later?
  The Temporary Chairman: I think that what the hon. Member says is quite right, I was about to intervene. If I may say so, there has been considerable interruption this afternoon. We are still only on the second speech. Over twenty Members have put down their names to indicate that they wish to take part in the debate. I hope that from now on the Parliamentary Secretary will be allowed to complete his speech so that other hon. Members may have their opportunity.
  Mr. Bevins: Once again. Mr. Hoy, I am grateful to you. I feel that a little time has been wasted this afternoon because practically every question which has been raised I have subsequently come to in the course of what I have to say.
  In reply to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering the present Public Works Loan Board rate is 5¾ per cent.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: Far too high.
  Mr. Bevins: The hon. and learned Gentleman entirely agrees with my right hon. Friend that it is, of course, the average rate of interest on all existing loans which really matters.
  I come now to subsidies. One might almost think, judging by some of the statements which are made from time to time, that the Government were contracting out of their subsidy liabilities altogether and that Exchequer subsidies were falling. This, of course, is a myth and a fiction. We are still paying subsidies on houses built for general needs started before 1957. On top of that, we are continuing to pay subsidy for slum replacements, for overspill, and for one-bedroom accommodation. This is why we find that whereas in 1951 Exchequer housing subsidies amounted to £23 million, last year they had risen to £53 million. That is some financial measure of our success in getting the houses

  687
  built by the local authorities since 1951. It is the view of my right hon. Friend that, if the local authorities use the subsidies which they receive to help those tenants who need help, they ought then to be able to build new houses without charging unreasonably high rents. As it is, there are, I think, between 350 and 400 local authorities in the country, some Socialist-controlled, which are operating differential rent schemes. The number is increasing, as it ought to be.
  I do not wish to keep the Committee for more than a few minutes. The hon. and learned Gentleman said a brief word or two—I will try to emulate him—on the very difficult question of the maintenance and improvement of our older houses. On this matter there is a sharp difference of view between the two sides of the Committee. I think that the Committee is entitled to know, at least vaguely, what the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition is in this respect.
  Mr. Sydney Irving: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us his policy?
  Mr, Bevins: I have a rather curious turn of mind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I read most of the party literature which emanates from Transport House in Smith Square. I read pamphlets which are long-winded but accurate, hoping to learn something from them, and, also, I read those which are shiny, slick and inaccurate, for amusement.
  What would the Opposition do to rid us of this very difficult problem? The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), when he spoke on this subject at Blackpool in 1956, said clearly that if municipalisation were to be carried out it would have to be imposed on local authorities by the Government and that it would have to be done slap bang or it would not be done at all. However, later, at Pontefract, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in the best traditions of inevitability of gradualness and Ramsay MacDonald, declared that the transfer to municipal ownership would have to be done slowly, and he added that it would be a very difficult operation.
  When we come to "The Future Labour Offers You" we find nothing at
  688
  all about the municipalisation of rented houses. All that it says, with one eye on Labour policy and the other, I suspect, on the floating voter, is that the Labour Party will tackle the problem of improving homes by empowering local authorities to buy these properties and to modernise them as soon as possible.
  Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. I feel a little hard done by. I was longing to expatiate on my party's programme, but I thought that it would involve legislation and would not be in order in a debate on the Estimates. For that reason, I touched on it only generally. I do not mind the hon. Gentleman doing this. In fact, I like to hear him, although he usually gets it wrong. I wish that I had thought of touching on party policy, because, apparently, it is in order.
  The Temporary Chairman: Anything involving legislation cannot be discussed, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to confine himself a little more closely to the Votes in question.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Further to that point of order. I do not for a single moment quarrel with your Ruling, Mr. Hoy, but since it precludes us from dealing with the problems to which the hon. Gentleman was referring, I take the opportunity of saying that the hon. Gentleman has given a completely garbled version of our publication which one would expect from a man who once belonged to our party but went over to the party opposite.
  The Temporary Chairman: I appeal to hon. Members because there is a considerable number of hon. Members who want to take part in the debate and who wish to discuss housing.
  Mr. Bevins: Thank you, Mr. Hoy. I recognise that the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman were, either out of desire or out of necessity, rather brief on this subject. The point that I was trying to make was this. Whatever may be the differences of approach between this side of the Committee and the Opposition to this difficult question, at the end of the day, when the problem is approaching solution one way or the other, it is bound to mean a vast expenditure of money by private interests, by the Government or by local authorities.

  689
  It is idle for any hon. Member to give the impression, wittingly or otherwise, that the problem of the five million old houses which so require improvement and modernisation can be carried out without a big increase in rent, in rates or in taxes.
  I do not believe that the approach of the party opposite is the right one. My belief, and that of my right hon. Friend, is that the approach of Her Majesty's Government since 1951 to our housing problem has not only been comprehensive but has also been successful. Not only have the houses been built but we are now turning our attention energetically and sensibly to the difficult problems of maintenance and improvement.
  5.15 p.m.
  Miss Alice Bacon: We have heard a pathetic performance from the Front Bench opposite. The Parliamentary Secretary said at the beginning of his speech that he thought that the Opposition were hard up if we could find only the question of housing to raise in this debate.
  Mr. Willis: Garrulous.
  Miss Bacon: After his speech, for him to suggest that we on this side are hard up for argument is dreadful. The hon. Gentleman mentioned what he called public opinion at the moment and the by-elections. Perhaps he has been asleep for a week or so and has not seen the result of the Penistone by-election. He introduced the very unfair accusation that in the immediate post-war years we on this side did not build as many houses as have been built since hon. Members opposite have been in office. He quoted averages. How unfair it is to quote averages when from 1945 to 1950 we had the years 1946, 1947 and 1948 when not only did we have to build factories to turn the depressed areas into development areas but also many of our builders were not available to erect houses at that time. There was also the war damage as well.
  Today, the position is entirely different. Far from there being economic expansion, hardly any new factories are being built, and far from there being a shortage of builders, they are, in fact, out of work. The fact remains that in 1951, the year we went out of office, local authorities were building 141,587
  690
  council houses, whereas in 1958 the Government built 113,146 council houses, a reduction of almost 30,000.
  The speech of the Parliamentary Secretary was typical of the kind of complacent attitude which the Government have shown towards our housing needs. As I say, fewer local authority houses are being built now than in 1951, yet there are long waiting lists of people who are living in appalling conditions. It has been the deliberate policy of the Government to cut down local authority housing by making it much more difficult for councils to build council houses through the reduction in subsidies and the increase in interest rates.
  A good deal has been said this afternoon about private building. I want to emphasise that we on this side believe that there is a lot of good in home ownership and owner-occupation, but what the Government are doing is compelling young couples and others who cannot afford it to saddle themselves with payments which they cannot keep up. It is not that people are deliberately choosing private houses rather than council houses, but because council houses are not available they are having to saddle themselves with large payments. We say that priority in the building of houses must go to those in greatest need. There is no doubt that, by and large, the people in greatest need are, first, those on local authority housing lists, and, secondly, those living under terrible slum conditions.
  It is sometimes said by hon. Members opposite that our housing problem has been solved. Anyone who thinks that we have no housing problems today should go to the big cities where the surface of the problem has only been scratched. I represent the centre of Leeds and the area around the centre of Leeds, and I make no apology for speaking principally about Leeds. Leeds is an example of a city with an acute housing problem, and I am sure that it is only typical of Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Birmingham and all the other big cities.
  Since the war, Leeds has completed 18,000 new dwellings, but even so there are 23,298 families at present on the waiting lists. Only 2,350 of these are regarded as being adequately housed and over 6,000 of them are classified as living

  691
  in overcrowded conditions. The Parliamentary Secretary says that most of the people in the slum clearance areas are on the council waiting lists, but not all of them are. Indeed, the number of houses to be provided by the city of Leeds is far greater than the numbers on the housing lists, because many of the people who live in the clearance areas are not on the housing lists.
  The people in my constituency live in the most shocking conditions. Housing is still the greatest single problem. I have more letters about housing than on every other subject put together. More people come to see me about housing than about all the other problems in the constituency. Every post brings letters. I have a typical one today. It is a letter from a woman who is in some respects not quite as badly off as some of my other constituents, because she happens to have two bedrooms. The majority of the houses in my constituency have only one bedroom for the whole family.
  This woman writes to me in desperation, saying:
  "I am writing this short letter pleading for your help. This house we are living in is getting on my nerves. It has two bedrooms and a box room, two ground floor rooms and a basement. The basement cannot be lived in as the walls are all damp. My water supply is down there, and I have all my water to carry up 20 steps."
  She adds that her husband has just come out of hospital, that he is being visited by the nurse and that there is no hot water supply of any kind.
  This woman is lucky in some respects, although she has five children, in that she has two bedrooms, but she is perhaps unlucky in that because she has two bedrooms she is not regarded as living in overcrowded conditions, and because of that she stands scarcely any chance on the general housing waiting list.
  This year the Leeds City Council has asked to be allowed to let out contracts for 2,500 houses, but so far the Minister has agreed to the letting of contracts for only 2,000 houses. I hope he will allows Leeds to let contracts for the other 500.
  One of the problems which my local authority faces is concerned with the finance to build houses, because the rate of interest which it is paying is a very great burden. In Leeds we have a very
  692
  great slum clearance programme. In 1955 we published a programme to get rid of some 22,550 houses, but we have not got rid of even half of them; in fact, 15,000 remain.
  I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary in one respect. He said that the problems of local authorities are not only in the building of new houses, and I agree with that. However, I do not agree with the way in which he dismissed the subject and did not put forward any constructive suggestion to deal with the older houses There ought to be a shortening and simplification of the procedure for repairs and closing orders. During the winter months people come to me because the rain and snow are coming through their ceilings and walls, and I find that, although the local authority does everything it can to speed things up, the inevitable lapse of time means that almost the whole of the winter goes by before the repairs are done.
  When we were considering the Rent Act we were told that rents had been allowed to be increased so that repairs could be done. In my constituency I have seen no rush by landlords to do those very necessary repairs. The position today seems to be no better than it was before the passing of the Rent Act. I want to put this point to the Minister, because the situation will be acute in the next year or two. Houses of over £30 rateable value in the provinces have been decontrolled, but as each week goes by other houses are being decontrolled as the tenancies change. That means that we shall have among the decontrolled houses not only some of the better ones with a rateable value of over £30 but some of the worst property with rateable values of much less than £30. As these other houses become decontrolled there will be no protection whatever for the tenant I wonder what the tenant can do in those circumstances to get any repairs done to the house. How can the tenant take any steps knowing that there is no protection and no security of tenure? I feel that every year that goes by this problem will become much worse.
  We have also the problem of the preservation of houses which—although they are not slum houses which should be cleared—are good structurally but

  693
  have no modern facilities, no bathroom, no hot water and no toilet of their own. The Government's new Measure makes it compulsory for local authorities to offer improvement grants up to £150 for owners who will provide baths or showers, hot water, private toilets, proper storage for food and so on. I believe that this part of that Measure will prove to be absolutely worthless.
  Local authorities have had these powers for a long time—not compulsory but permissive powers. There have been isolated cases where landlords in various parts of the country have wanted improvement grants and local authorities may not have allowed them, but in the main the chief reason why so few grants have been taken up is that the landlords have not wanted to make improvements.
  I will give a very telling example from my own city. In 1951 31 per cent. of the houses in Leeds shared a toilet, and the position is not much better today. The 31 per cent. represents thousands of houses. Also, 32 per cent. shared a bath or had no fixed bath, mainly having no fixed bath of their own. The Leeds City Council has not only encouraged owners to take improvement grants but has actually approached owners of suitable property and suggested that they should take advantage of improvement grants so that their houses might be given modern facilities. Where the owners have not been willing to do that the Council has offered to buy the houses from them so that it could carry out the improvements.
  What has been the result? Although the city council has gone out of its way to encourage landlords to take advantage of improvement grants, since 1949, in a city which has thousands of houses without water, thousands without baths and thousands without toilets of their own, only 634 applications have been granted. Of those, 459 have been granted to owner occupiers and only 175 to the landlords of tenanted property. I think that shows that, although they are encouraged, landlords are not going to make the necessary improvements to property. In the meantime, property is becoming much worse.
  We believe—I hope I am not out of order in saying this—that unless the Government do much more about this problem, unless there is a blitz on the
  694
  part of local authorities to take over whole blocks of houses and convert them, more and more houses will fall into disrepair and the improvements will never be carried out. The Government's record in housing is indeed a black one, as my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon. We have seen a decrease in the building of local authority houses when, as I said at the beginning of my speech, there is no shortage of builders and when the Government cannot give the excuse that they are building factories or hospitals. They have built no hospitals at all.
  We have seen the Rent Act and we have seen what has happened with regard to decontrol. I hope that it will not be very long before this Government have no more opportunity of making housing conditions worse for the people of our country and that we shall have a Government that will really treat housing as a social service, which indeed it is.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. John M. Temple: I am very pleased to have the honour of speaking after the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), but I am afraid that I cannot agree with her that the record of the Government is a black one. I think it is an exceptionally bright one. I think, however, that the hon. Lady and the whole House will agree with me when I say that we can all acknowledge that good housing is the bedrock of human stability and of family life.
  I am afraid that I am not able to follow the hon. Lady in what she has said about Leeds, because I have no personal knowledge of Leeds. There is a fundamental difference in concept between the party opposite and the party which I have the honour to support. In our view, private enterprise and private ownership have a very big part to play in our housing programme, and I would deprecate a vast expansion of public ownership. This debate has pinpointed these fundamental differences between the two sides of the Committee.
  I shall concentrate this afternoon on the main policy issues and not on details of any particular locality, except in one respect. We have followed up four main priorities with regard to housing. The first and fundamental priority must be to build the houses, and in that we have

  695
  succeeded. I shall not weary the Committee with figures, but I must refer to building in the local authority sphere, and here I am referring specifically to building in England and Wales.
  The best record in local government house building by the party opposite was in 1948, when in England and Wales 175,000 houses were built. We started our building programmes in 1952 and immediately surpassed that figure by 1,000. Our figures of council house building rose to a peak in 1954 of 220,000. It is the total that counts. In the private enterprise sphere the party opposite, when in power, brought about a state of affairs where building under private enterprise dwindled from 39,000 houses in 1947 to 21,000 houses in 1951. In the sphere of private enterprise, since the Conservative Party was returned to power, that figure has steadily risen from a total in 1952 of 32,000 houses to 124,000 houses in 1958. I maintain that it is total building that we must look at, because that is what the great British public is looking at.
  Mr. Willis: I wonder whether the hon. Member is aware that in Edinburgh, when we had a census of the needs of the people on the housing list, 95 per cent. wanted municipal houses to rent?
  Mr. Temple: That certainly surprises me. I am not a Scottish Member, but as I believe there is to be a Scottish interlude, let us leave that part until Scotland is discussed.
  I was most encouraged this afternoon by the figure given by the Parliamentary Secretary of new houses started in the first quarter of 1959. Here we see the figure building up again. The figure of council houses built showed a 30 per cent. increase on the similar period of last year and in the private sphere a 20 per cent. increase. I admit that the total amount of building declined in 1958, but that was for a reason of policy. Our first priority was to defend the £, and we realised that cuts had to be made. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the Dispatch Box and gave out that figure and the reasons for it.
  Mr. D. Howell: That is extremely revealing. We appreciate that the hon.
  696
  Member has been extremely frank. Would he therefore tell us why, so far as his party is concerned, when it was necessary to save the £ local authority building had to be cut down and simultaneously private enterprise building went on almost uninterrupted?
  Mr. Temple: The cuts took place all over the economy and, if my recollection is correct, those cuts were spread over the nationalised industries as well.
  My second point, which is a very important point, is that we concentrate our help where help is needed, and the whole point about the council house building programme is that it is for those who are in genuine need. The Housing Subsidies Act, 1956, brought about a cessation in the subsidy for general needs. I support that policy wholeheartedly, but we carry on a triple policy of building at the present time in the public authorities sphere. We have heard of the slum clearance programme, and that is going extremely well. The new towns programme, which has been referred only briefly to by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), is also going extremely well. As regards the houses in the new towns, I have recently been to Crawley and seen almost the completion of that new town. It is an excellent new town and all the houses built there by the authority carry a subsidy of £24 a house.
  Mr. Popplewell: Would the hon. Gentleman say what new town has been commenced since this Government came to power in 1951? Does he not realise that every one of the new towns he has mentioned was planned under a Labour Administration?
  Mr. Temple: What I am saying is that these towns have been brought towards completion and that programme has been pressed ahead.
  As to the housing in the new towns, I agree with the second interim report of the Reith Committee, published in April, 1946, which stated that the large majority of the Committee felt that it would be unwise
  "to combine the functions of land owner and local authority in a single body."
  I entirely agree with that. I support the dual system of owner-occupation and building in the private sector and

  697
  in the public sector where there is genuine need. I think that our priorities in that respect are getting things just about right.
  I would ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government one question, and that is what is the proportion of owner-occupiers at the present time in these new towns? I feel that the new towns are being a success and that they will become much more like the traditional towns when we get the proportion of owner-occupiers increased in those towns. I hope that he will be able to tell me something about that when he speaks.
  Another sphere in which we have continued the subsidies is in respect of one-bedroomed council houses. I have seen many of these small settlements of one-bedroomed council houses going up, and they are extremely well planned into the new housing estates. We know that the number of these one-bedroomed houses is 20 per cent. of the whole. I believe they make a valuable contribution to and are a real part of our housing programme.
  The hon. and learned Member for Kettering, who, I am glad to see, has just resumed his seat, referred very briefly to the Rent Act. I am not going to speak of it at any length, but there is one thing which is relevant in the context of local authority houses, and that is that all local authority houses have always been outside the ambit of rent control, and the Rent Act brought in a period of four weeks' notice which would apply universally to council houses and to other houses.
  My fourth point is home ownership. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering and I are in agreement on this, I believe, although I believe that the party I have the honour to support goes far further than his party in this respect. The House Purchase and Housing Act which has recently gone on the Statute Book will, I believe, help young couples. The hon. and learned Member asked what we were doing to help young couples. I believe that that Act will he a great help, because in the provinces there is no doubt that the older houses are for sale at the present time at figures in the region of £1,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] There are building societies, and these young
  698
  couples will be able to purchase those older houses, and the total cost will be about £8 a month. This is an amount which is within the compass of many young couples. Under the House Purchase and Housing Act the local authorities will have a tremendous task.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to improvement grants. These have recently been running at the rate of 35,000 a year. I want to see a huge task imposed on the local authorities, for I want these improvement grants to be taken up at the rate not of 35,000 a year but of 350,000 a year, and I hope very much that the local authorities will get busy. Like Harry Corbett's Sooty, I would say,
  "Izzy, wizzy, let's get busy."
  I hope the landlords will wake up and take advantage of these grants, because we are tackling a figure of 3,500,000 houses which have not got the standard improvements which the improvement grants are intended to help to provide.
  Mrs. Harriet Slater: Why does the hon. Gentleman make that statement, when since 1949, in the country as a whole, only 15,000 landlord-owned houses have had improvement grants compared with 135,000 owner-occupied houses? How, then, is he going to convince those landlords that they ought to do it?
  Mr. Temple: If the hon. Lady had followed the debates in the Committee on the House Purchase and Housing Bill. I think she would have been convinced by hon. Members of her own party, because on that occasion they constantly referred to over-generosity to the landlords. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. It is just this over-generosity to the landlords which is encouraging them to take up grants. I hope very much they will take advantage of these improvement grants, and at a rate of 350,000 a year, so that in ten years all those houses will have those standard improvements.
  Mr. Mitchison: May I just say to the hon. Gentleman before he sits down that we did not say that there was over-generosity for the landlords? In fact, we got a washbasin added. What we did say was that the tenant ought to be able to insist on the improvements being made, and against that proposition, I am afraid, the hon. Member and his hon. Friends divided.
  Mr. Robert Jenkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that of the 135,000 mentioned by the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) of owner-occupied properties which had improvement grants, the vast majority had improvement grants in respect of accommodation which was being provided in parts of the houses? Perhaps my hon. Friend will accept this from me. A very large proportion of them were given to owner-occupiers and were actually paid for making improvements to the houses.
  Mr. Temple: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. H. Butler) intervened an hour or so ago to say that a rather "Flanagan and Allen" note was being sounded in this Chamber. I would support him in that remark. If I am allowed to make my own speech in my own way, I shall finish the sooner and other hon. Members will be able to take part in the debate.
  Finally, on the question of improvement grants, I hope very much that throughout the country there will be a boom in sanitary fittings. I hope that all those houses which do not at present contain those attributes for the provision of which the improvement grants are intended will very soon have those very necessary and useful attributes.
  Now I come to a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering when he asked, what are we to do in present circumstances? I am going to answer him. I have said that I believe that the decision to abolish the general needs subsidies for new building was entirely right. Where do we go from there? I believe we have a triple approach which should be followed. I believe that differential rents schemes should be used much more universally than they are at present. The November, 1958, booklet of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants gave the figure of 363 councils which were operating either differential rents or rent rebate schemes out of a total of 1,223 authorities; that is, approximately one-third of the local authorities were operating schemes of this nature. That is, in my opinion, not sufficient, and if those schemes of differential rents or rent rebates were used on a much more extensive basis, then indeed we should get into those houses people who are the people really in need.
  700
  My second point is the sale of council houses. That has not been going exceedingly well. The 454 councils which at present are operating the scheme have sold only 10,408 houses. If we could get more council houses sold, then indeed the local authorities would have the money with which to build more houses for general needs.
  I want to cite my own local authority, the council of the City of Chester. It is at present building an experimental group of 24 houses. Those houses are being built at an all-in cost of £1,890, and those houses are going up for sale to existing tenants in houses which are carrying a general needs subsidy. It is interesting to note that at the end of December last year there were 70 applications for those 24 houses but up to the present time the number of applications for those houses has risen to 105. I believe that this is a wise policy. I believe it is a sensible policy. I believe that if it is pursued it will free an enormous number of houses for those people who are referred to as being in special need at the present time.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering, to whom I keep referring, briefly touched on municipalisation. He did not enlarge on this project—I think probably for very good reasons. Nor shall I enlarge upon it myself, except to quote what the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) said in a letter to The Times on 5th December, 1958, in which he confirmed that the policy in "Homes of the Future" was still the policy of his party.
  Miss Bacon: On a point of order. As one who bore some responsibility for the Labour Party policy statement, along with others of my hon. Friends, I deliberately refrained from replying to what had been said on the other side, because it was ruled to be out of order. Do I take it, Mr. Hoy, that now the hon. Gentleman is in order?
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Lady is quite right. Anything requiring legislation is out of order in discussion now. I certainly corrected the Parliamentary Secretary when the matter was introduced, and I hope that it will not be reintroduced.
  Mr. Mitchison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Hoy. I think I owe to you and to the Committee an apology for even having mentioned the matter. I cut it as short as I possibly could, but I think I ought not to have mentioned it at all.
  Mr. Temple: I agree, and I shall cut it as short as I can as well, but, it having been mentioned, I thought it in order to refer to it.
  Mr. Willis: On a point of order. Does the matter become in order because it is cut as short as possible?
  The Temporary Chairman: It is out of order whether short or long.
  Mr. D. Howell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Hoy. As Birmingham is the only authority which has taken over nearly 60,000 old houses and is in fact managing them, is it not a fact that only hon. Members representing Birmingham will be in order in talking about Labour's, policy?
  Mr. Temple: Now that I have had the opportunity of resuming my speech, I have to say that I am very near its conclusion. I firmly believe that our policies have been right. They have produced the results. Bad houses are coming down, and good ones are going up. I have every confidence in my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and I trust that he will be spared for many years to carry on his excellent work.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest Popplewell: I am sure that many hon. Members will deplore the exhibition given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government when he spoke on behalf of the Government today. The speech was full of inaccuracies and of many instances of relying for an argument on saying, "What did you do?" or "What did Gladstone say in 1878?", or "What did the Labour Party do in 1945 or 1951?" This was the main point of the hon. Member's speech, in an attempt to attack the Labour Party on its council housing programme. It was a pitiful exhibition. The hon. Gentleman tried to say what a local authority housing programme should be, and then had to
  702
  acknowledge that he had not the vaguest idea of the total number of people on council housing lists.
  The hon. Gentleman stated that changing economic circumstances should not be utilised with a view to changing the pattern of house building. But almost in the next sentence he argued that economic circumstances completely changed the pattern of house building by giving rise to greater concentration on owner-occupied houses and private house building than on local authority building. We are entitled to more courtesy, and to have a more reasonable case put forward.
  I want to talk chiefly of constituency maters. This subject has been raised already in interchanges in the debate. In Newcastle-upon-Tyne there is a considerable feeling of frustration among people on the subject of the city's housing needs and the way in which they have been tackled. I wish to outline some of the difficulties which have given rise to this feeling. In case my two hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) are not fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Hoy, I want to say that they fully share the opinions which I shall express on this matter.
  When the Government ended the housing subsidy for all but slum clearance properties and for the housing of aged persons, there was in Newcastle a waiting list of 15,000. An estimate made of the city's needs indicated that by 1971 there would be 28,400 people awaiting accommodation. An estimate was also made of the city's slum clearance needs and a five-year plan was prepared to rehouse 5,310 families, out of 2,392 houses, between 1st January, 1954, and 30th June, 1958.
  I regret to say that the local authority failed pretty miserably in the task that it had set itself to rehouse these slum dwellers. By May, 1958, house building had already declined considerably. Only 587 dwellings were under construction, and tenders for a further 257 had been approved. That was the rate of progress under a Tory Progressive administration. Very few indeed of the 5,310 people who had to be rehoused in that period had been dealt with. It was not surprising

  703
  that in that month the Tory Progressive council was defeated at the election. The Tory Progressives had been in power eleven years. They were turned out and Labour was called upon to take over responsibility.
  A new check was made of the waiting list and it was found that the real waiting list probably numbered 9,000 people. Since then, I am told, the number has been increasing at the rate of about 60 a week. A further reappraisal of the city's slum clearance needs was made. This indicated that an additional 1,428 houses were effected, involving 2,917 families, which would have to be dealt with in a second five-year programme.
  Mr. Graham Page: These figures are extremely interesting. Can the hon. Member say whether any of the slum clearance figures are included in his 9,000 estimate of live applications? It would be useful to know to what extent those living in unfit houses are on the housing waiting list already.
  Mr. Popplewell: As far as can be ascertained, according to a reply given by the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central, the number on the waiting list in July last year was 14,570 and the number in slum clearance houses was ascertained as far as possible. By a process of deduction, an adjusted figure was obtained.
  It had been well known for a long time that the corporation lacked building land. Very little land was available in the city and it was obvious that land occupied by unfit houses would have to be used to rehouse these people. This, of course, meant that the houses would have to be demolished and the sites prepared before rebuilding could take place. No real effort on a large scale had been made to accomplish this in the previous eleven years' rule of the Tory Progressives and when it assumed control a year last month the Labour Party had to prepare its plans accordingly.
  This, of necessity, is a very long process. First, vacant possession of the houses had to be obtained. This meant that priority in respect of all new houses had to be given to people who were living in slum clearance areas.
  704
  They had to be given priority also in respect of any ordinary houses that became vacant. This naturally involved great hardship, by increasing the waiting period, for those people already on the housing list who were living in overcrowded conditions, often with relatives where domestic strife had developed. I know many such cases as were quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon). These hardships are realised by the members of the council, and are a challenge to them to go forward with their development plan with all speed. This planning policy will eventually ensure that more people will remain within the city, instead of having long distances to travel to their places of employment.
  The housing situation in Newcastle is serious because people who urgently need houses feel frustrated when they find that those living in unfit houses are receiving priority. There must be a reason for this, since eleven sites are now earmarked in the city for building on them forty-two blocks of 10 to 15 storey flats. These will be sound-proof and will be fitted with lifts and all possible modern conveniences. They will bear no relationship to the shocking barrack-like three-storey flats dotted all over the city which were built under the Tory Progressive administration, where young women had to take their children in prams up three flights and had to carry coals, because no provision was made for those things by the previous administration. Preparatory work on the new venture is well in hand, so that the work can commence as soon as the cleared sites become available. It is hoped, therefore, that there will be no delay in the approval of the plan at Ministerial level.
  In spite of utilising all the land available in the city, there is not nearly sufficient to meet the housing need, and certain land outside it has already been acquired. Yet even when this has been fully developed there will still be a shortage of accommodation amounting to 1,200 dwellings. At least that was the figure until the recent decision of the Minister, when he refused to allow the corporation to develop the Hillhead, Chapel House site at Newburn, which was referred to earlier. I will give the Parliamentary Secretary the full story.

  705
  The Minister has decided that instead of the corporation building houses there the land can be developed by a private builder. This confirms what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), namely, that the Minister is far more concerned about the profit of the private builder than about the urgent needs of the people who are waiting for council houses. On this site of approximately 200 acres it was proposed to erect 2,000 corporation dwellings. Bearing in mind the shortage after using all the available land, one can realise the city's urgent need of this land. The loss of the site will mean that, according to present requirements, the corporation will be without land for the accommodation of over 3,300 people, and within the next few years that figure will be greatly increased.
  It is the Minister who is putting the corporation in this difficulty. Its members were greatly disturbed when the Minister allowed the appeal of a private builder. The story behind this is that many years ago the land in question was designated by the town and country planning authorities as a site for corporation houses which would solve the overspill problem. Because of the inertia of the Tory-controlled council this site was not developed within a reasonable time and the private builder who appealed to the Minister was allowed his appeal. The land will still be used for housing but, of course, for private instead of corporation houses. When the members of the corporation were advised of this they were seriously alarmed. They realised that the Minister had reached his decision and probably would not change it, but the scarcity of land in Newcastle was so great that they asked the right hon. Gentleman to meet a deputation accompanied by the four Members of Parliament concerned.
  The letter requesting this was sent to the Minister on 29th May this year, and on 2nd June the Minister replied refusing to meet the deputation, shielding himself behind the fact that the Newcastle Corporation had decided to ask for a compulsory purchase order in respect of the land. A public inquiry is to be held on either 14th or 24th July, and it is hoped that the Minister will approach that inquiry with an impartial
  706
  mind and will not let the sins of the past affect the welfare of the future.
  The members of the corporation are greatly disturbed because they feel that the Minister is more concerned with the profit motive in housing than about the bad housing conditions of many people who cannot afford to purchase their own homes. The corporation believes in encouraging the individual owner-occupier, as it has shown by the various measures initiated in the past to assist him. He is a valuable asset and there is plenty of scope for him and for private housing development outside the city on land not available to the corporation.
  Since, as I have said, the Hillhead site was designated many years ago as one available for the corporation, and since the need of Newcastle for land is desperate, I beg the Minister even now to meet a deputation. The Northumberland County Council, as the planning authority, is in full agreement with the corporation using this land, and the type of house to be built there, also the layout, would be comparable with the very high standard of the Newburn District Council in whose area it is sited. This, incidentally, is a far better standard than was that of the Tory-dominated council.
  I beg the Minister to give further consideration to this matter. Newcastle, like other local authorities, is in great difficulty over its housing problem. As I have indicated, the slums must be cleared from the sites before houses can be built within the city boundary, and this will have a penalising effect on those upon the waiting list. Newcastle cannot build houses for these individuals because the Government insist upon an economic rent being charged, and this would be in the region of at least £2 10s. to £3 a week, plus rates. Therefore, if any new housing becomes available to be let to these people, the increased costs of these houses must be shared by increasing the rents of the other council tenants.
  Until last year, Newcastle let a lot of people on the waiting list go into those homes. Lip service has been paid to slum clearance but nothing else. Consequently, Newcastle is now faced with a difficulty and will have to raise the rents of its existing council houses because of the spreading of the burden. These rents

  707
  have been forced up. It is right, therefore, that people living in the council houses should know who is responsible for these increases. Responsibility for them rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the present administration. High interest charges and high costs all play their part.
  Since the Government came into power in 1951, Newcastle, like many other authorities, has been forced to reduce the standards of the houses it is building. A lower standard of specification in house building has been allowed. In effect, the same Tory policy is being carried out as was followed before the war, when the main incentive was to build a brick box, call it a home and give it as few amenities as possible. There has been a big tendency for that kind of trend to return.
  Following World War I, there was a realisation by all parties that house building to let at an economic rent could not be a business proposition. The 1919 Addison Housing Act embraced the policy of subsidies to allow houses to be let at rents that workpeople could afford. Until recently, every succeeding Housing Act has embraced the subsidy principle. The present Government, however, have entirely thrown overboard all those lessons from the past in housing development and have reverted to their practice of 1914, returning to true Toryism.
  During the debate earlier this week on the Finance Bill, the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and other back bench Tory Members complained that the Government were not following true Tory policies. In housing, they certainly are doing so. They are reducing the standard and they are making it more difficult for local authorities to fulfil needs. For the ordinary individual who wants to own his own house, they have increased the charges at which he has to borrow his money and have made the proposition a difficult one for him.
  In housing, the Government are showing complete disregard of their social responsibilities. By their policy, they are jeopardising the welfare of the nation. It is humbug for them to claim that private building can ever meet the housing demands. It can play its part, but it is only a small part. Local
  708
  authorities must still play the major part in solving this one of the most important social problems of the day.
  Even at this late hour, I appeal to the Government to consider again the whole policy of council house building. They know that councils cannot provide houses to let at an economic rent. The Parliamentary Secretary has juggled with the effect of adjustment of interest rates over a given period, but saturation point has been reached in the juggling process. This has been revealed not only to Newcastle but to all other local authorities who constantly have to increase the rents of their existing houses to meet present needs. Therefore, even now, and before the election, I hope that the Government will give some indication of a change of heart.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Frederic Harris: It is inevitable that for back benchers the pattern of this debate should centre around their constituencies. This has happened in the case of the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell). In my remarks, I propose to direct my attention mainly to Croydon. Before doing so, however, I should like to say to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West that to suggest, as he did, that the main concern of my right hon. Friend the Minister is simply to encourage the profit motive in housing, is rubbish and nonsense. Everybody who knows my right hon. Friend knows this, too.
  It was a poor taunt on the part of one hon. Member opposite who suggested that hon. Members on this side were so little interested in the country's housing problem that they had virtually all gone to the Ascot race meeting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] We all know that several hon. Members from the other side are at Ascot this afternoon. Furthermore, the owner of the first favourite at Ascot today was a former Socialist Member of this House. The horse also lost.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: He is a funny Socialist.
  Mr. D. Howell: We know which horse is running in this race and which horse will be first past the post in the electoral

  709
  race. May I, however, point out that conditions have now worsened, because there are only three back-bench Conservative Members present for this vitally important matter? [An HON. MEMBER: "There is now a fourth."] Oh, yes. The Conservative lack of interest is only worsened by the Liberals, who have not had a representative here at all during the day.
  Mr. Harris: As was evidenced in the opening remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), there appears to be little sting in the attack that is being made in this debate. It is a poor case which tries to show that a Conservative Government who have produced something like 50 per cent. per year more houses in their years of office compared with the Socialists, have done a bad job for housing. For this reason, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in reply, was able to make some devastating comments; the reason he had such a large number of interruptions was because that was all the Socialist Party could do on this occasion.
  We in Croydon consider that the Ministry, and my right hon. Friend the Minister and also his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in particular, have done a first-class job of work for housing generally. We in Croydon are proud to feel that we have shared a considerable proportion of this progress. Croydon indeed has a proud record of housing progress. Since the war the Croydon local authority has built 6,000 permanent houses and flats and nearly 1,000 temporary homes.
  Mr. George Darling: What is its population?
  Mr. Harris: Today, it is approximately 300,000. Formerly, it was about 260,000. Further work is progressing and contracts have been let for an additional 1,300 permanent corporation houses and flats. That is a record number for Croydon at any time since the war.
  In addition to the figures that I have given, private enterprise has built since the war over 3,300 permanent houses and flats. I say that to satisfy hon. Members opposite that the proportion of building is very much in favour of the corporation. All these new houses
  710
  and flats, which will be completed by the end of the year, have already been allocated to cases which have been approved for rehousing by the corporation. Although the council is building as quickly as it can, we know the limitations in regard to land—
  Mr. Willis: Make this speech to the Press.
  Mr. Harris: The hon. Member is expressing his ignorance if he does not know that most local papers are not printing this weekend. I will leave the hon. Member to say something on behalf of Scotland later. Perhaps it does not apply there.
  In Croydon we have our difficulties in regard to land, because it is a very built-up area and a very developed town. There are about 2,400 qualified families already on the waiting list for houses. Croydon is trying to deal with this problem by a rather special method, which a few months ago excited a certain amount of interest—to put it mildly. The authority feels that it has a statutory obligation to give reasonable preference to people in need. The housing list has recently been severely pruned in order to satisfy the local authority that all those on it are genuine cases. I must say that I cannot understand why it should be difficult for the Ministry to obtain this sort of information in respect of authorities all over the country. I know that Croydon is progressive, but I did not know that it was as progressive as all that.
  In the area covered by the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London there are about 106 housing authorities. Outside the County of London there are 76 authorities, which include three county boroughs, of which Croydon is one. Inside the County of London there are 30 housing authorities, comprising the London County Council, the City Corporation, and 28 Metropolitan Boroughs. These 106 authorities are responsible for about 20 per cent. of the population of England and Wales.
  The Ministry of Housing and Local Government, in the evidence it tendered to the Royal Commission said that the multiplicity of local authorities in Greater London was, in the absence of any co-ordinating machinery, an obstacle to the effective handling of London's

  711
  housing problems. It makes it difficult to deal with the reality of the housing situation. An acute shortage of housing land in Great London also makes it quite impossible for the large majority of these authorities to solve their problems within their own areas. For instance, Croydon has taken a very active participating interest in the new town of Crawley right from its commencement.
  The Ministry also said that in its experience there is not necessarily any connection between the size of the authority and the efficiency or quality of its house building. It went on to say that it believed that, though size and resources cannot be ignored, they are less important than the personnel employed on the work. Many hon. Members will agree with that. The final comment I wish to quote that was made by the Ministry was:
  "One medium-sized authority has produced some of the most attractive housing schemes in London. They owe this to their engineer who has had the imagination and enterprise to bring in good architects from outside and give them the opportunity of doing something out of the ordinary, without, however, being wasteful or extravagant."
  We in Croydon like to think that this reference must apply to us, although it was not specifically stated in the evidence.
  A few months ago national publicity was given to the Croydon Corporation's decision to impose conditions on council house tenants with incomes exceeding a certain figure. I am very pleased to see that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. McDermot) is in the Chamber. I have been trying to find him during the day because he did us the honour of coming to Croydon and telling us how we should run our town, and I want to make a few remarks about that. The local authority decided to give notice eventually to tenants who were earning over £20 a week, and not to accept on its housing waiting list tenants earning over £15 a week.
  The intention behind this action was to free council houses occupied by people in a good position to help themselves, so that the corporation might comply with the statutory requirements placed upon it to provide houses for the more needy members of its population. Needy people are considered to
  712
  be those living in unsatisfactory conditions—in the main, people with small incomes—and with little prospect of getting houses unless the corporation provides houses for them. In so doing the corporation is endeavouring to comply with the obligations imposed upon it by Section 113 of the Housing Act, 1957, which requires that in the selection of council house tenants reasonable preference should be given to people occupying unsatisfactory or overcrowded houses, and people with large families, or living generally under unsatisfactory conditions.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: It does not say anything about their earnings.
  Mr. Harris: It does not specifically refer to their earnings, but I am endeavouring to make it clear that the corporation is trying to deal with the more needy of those on its waiting list. I can assure the Committee that those requirements and conditions apply to all the 2,400 families on the present waiting list. The list has been most carefully vetted of late.
  When the hon. Member for Lewisham, North came to Croydon, I believe he stated that council tenants should be given the same protection as tenants of controlled tenancies under the Rent Restriction Acts. In expressing that view he had the support of many of his hon. Friends. I would tell him that in my view certain difficulties would obviously follow from the adoption of that course. One of the grounds upon which a private landlord can obtain an order for possession is that the house is required for his own occupation, or for occupation by a member of his family. That ground cannot possibly apply when the landlord is a corporation. The hon. Member also said that the court should require proof that there are proper grounds for possession, such as arrears of rent, breach of the terms of tenancy, nuisance or annoyance.
  Mr. Niall MacDermot: Or the landlord must offer suitable alternative accommodation. All these problems of overcrowding and under-occupation could be dealt with by that provision.
  Mr. Harris: I concede that point, but I wish to continue my argument.

  713
  It is principally on these very grounds that I have stated that responsible local authorities evict the comparatively few people evicted nowadays. Councils would be put to unnecessary work and expense, and ratepayers would also be put to considerable expense, if they had to obtain authorisation in order to exercise a necessary right which they already exercise today in limited circumstances.
  I also find it difficult to know why there should be any difficulty in the hon. Member understanding why local authorities should he treated differently from private landlords. There is surely a simple answer to that. The private landlord selects his tenants by their suitability and ability to pay rent. Local authorities cannot be selective. They are faced with the obligation of housing those who, because of lack of means or for some other reason, cannot find a house under a private landlord, and have little or no prospect of getting a house unless the corporation assists them. As the corporation has to deal with tenants left after all private houses are taken, it is to be expected that local authorities must enjoy the widest possible powers of management.
  As we know, these powers have in the past been given by Parliament. It is also to be expected that responsible local authorities—and in this I certainly include my own Croydon Corporation—would exercise the discretion given by Parliament with reason and without oppression. Responsible local authorities throughout the country do this.
  Local authorities should have as much power as possible to deal with local matters. Council representatives are elected by the ratepayers who have the facility to ensure that the council representatives do their jobs properly. They must have as much jurisdiction as possible in the management of their own affairs. I know the Socialists generally do not agree with this. In the main they believe in the maximum central control from Westminster. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I have been a member of the local authority for many years, and that Socialist view has often been expressed. I do not believe in that policy nor do Conservatives generally. Why, for instance, should the Croydon authority not have unfettered rights over its council houses? In reply to a ques-
  714
  tion, the Croydon Council made it clear that it would deal with all applications for houses reasonably and fairly and that it would examine all such cases individually, taking into account all the relevant circumstances. Further, each tenant would have a right of appeal to a sub-committee.
  It is fair to state, too, that the leader of the Socialists on the Croydon Council conceded the principle of limiting council tenants to definite earnings because in a television broadcast he said that if the limit had been £25 instead of £20 he would have been in agreement with the scheme.
  The Croydon Council can be trusted to manage its own affairs to the benefit of its ratepayers. This was endorsed at the May elections when the anti-Socialist party on the Croydon Council gained a further two seats from the Socialist party in spite of the national criticism of its housing policy.
  I think the Minister, too, was unnecessarily critical of Croydon's action. Croydon Council has done a first-class job of work. In the same way as the council would praise the Minister and the Ministry for what they had done for their part, I think the Minister should recognise that Croydon has also done its job extremely well.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. James McInnes: I was very interested in hearing the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) indicate the endeavours of the Croydon Corporation to give priority, or preferential treatment, to the more needy cases when dealing with applications for houses. We are having this debate today so that we can indicate to the Government that they are not giving priority and preference to the more needy people who require housing accommodation. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West would have supported us in our condemnation of the Government's failure to concentrate all our resources in the areas where houses are most needed. The most needy areas are the slum areas and those areas where people are living in houses that are 120 to 140 years old. This applies to 40 per cent. of our people in Scotland.

  715
  I should have liked to have heard the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West develop his argument and castigate the Government for their failure to do what Croydon, a Tory-controlled council, did. It had the sense to realise that the best basis for the allocation of houses was to give the houses to the people who required them most. However, I will not traverse further into Croydon, but will content myself with dealing with an area of Great Britain that has a serious housing problem.
  In Scotland the problem is so serious that, by its very nature, Scotland finds itself in the position of having a problem that is without parallel in the whole of Western Europe. By its very nature, the solution of the problem depends in the main on the efforts, and only the efforts, of the municipalities in Scotland. I hope that as I proceed with my remarks I shall be able to demonstrate that the policy now being pursued by this Government is one which is restricted and retarded, and, indeed, has played havoc with the efforts of local authorities in Scotland to provide houses for our citizens who need them.
  I listened to what I can only call a masterpiece of gabble, garble and garrulity by the Parliamentary Secretary. I was amazed at the apparent pride of the Government in their post-war housing achievements. I do not know why they should feel proud of their record. There is more cause for despondency than there is for satisfaction.
  I do not wish to concoct my own figures, but to base my case entirely on those produced by the Government. I propose to refer to Table 5 of the Housing Return for Scotland issued by the Scottish Office on 5th March of this year. The table sets out the tenders for houses in Scotland approved from 1945 until the end of last March, and it also analyses the size of the houses. I wish to discuss both the numbers and the size of those houses.
  The report reveals that during the six years of the Labour Government, from 1946 to 1951, the total number of tenders approved was 148,080 for permanent houses and 32,176 for temporary houses, making a total of 180,256. Taking comparative figures for six years under a Conservative Government, from 1952 to
  716
  1957, I find that tenders were approved for 178,734 houses. In other words, the Conservative Government actually approved less tenders than were approved under a Socialist Administration.
  The size of the houses is very important, as the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will realise.
  Mr. Willis: If the hon. Gentleman is listening.
  Mr. McInnes: I think he is listening—he does not understand, but he is listening.
  I find that from 1946 until 1951, when a Labour Government were in office, no fewer than 658,711 apartments were included in the list of tenders. Under a Conservative Government there were only 587,148 apartments. That represents a reduction of 72,000 apartments. It is equivalent to a reduction of 24,000 three-apartment houses. Yet the Government boast of their housing achievements, as did the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we were hard up for a subject when we selected housing for a debate today. I do not think that there is any need for the boastfulness and the pride which was exhibited by the hon. Gentleman. We shall not solve the housing problem in Scotland by building one-, two- and three-apartment houses.
  I was shocked to find that, according to the table which I have mentioned, during their six years of government the Conservative Party built over 14,000 one- and two-apartment houses in Scotland.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: Shocking.
  Mr. McInnes: Over 60 per cent. of the houses built in Scotland are of the small type. On several occasions I have said in this Chamber that small houses are the curse of Scotland, and I wish to emphasise that again this afternoon. Already half of the municipal houses which we built during the inter-war years are grossly overcrowded. I think that the Scottish Office recognises that a solution to this problem will not be found by allowing 60 per cent of the houses to be of a small type.
  I wish to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State why there has been such a serious decline in the number of

  717
  tenders approved in recent years. He will have observed that in 1953 the number was 36,000; in 1955 it dropped to 26,700; it went down in 1957 to 22,800 and in 1958 to 20,000; that is, a decrease of 46 per cent. in the last few years. When we have discussed—as we have done on many occasions—why there has been a reduction in the number of houses built in Scotland during the last few years, and when we have asked for the reason, we have always received the same reply from the Joint Under-Secretary of State or the Secretary of State himself. They say that it is due to the smaller authorities having completed their housing programmes. That is absolute nonsense. To advance such an argument is to ignore completely the realities of the situation.
  I have gone through the Housing Returns to see whether I could find some explanation which would fit the realities of the situation. The figures which I have extracted reveal that 55 small local authorities have completed their housing programmes. I find that those authorities built a total of 3,123 houses in the last 14 years, from 1945 until 1958. Putting it in another way, each local authority has built 57 houses during that period. To put it even more clearly, it means, in essence, that each of these local authorities has, on average, built four houses each year. And it is suggested that because we are losing four houses per year from 55 authorities, there is a decline of 46 per cent. in house building. That is the explanation adduced by the Government. What a fantastic situation. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary now realises that the fact that those small authorities have completed their housing programmes has comparatively little, if any, influence on the decline in house building in Scotland.
  Mr. Ross: As much influence as the Secretary of State for Scotland has on the Cabinet.
  Mr. McInnes: I can tell the Joint Under-Secretary of State or the Secretary of State where they will find the real explanation of this trouble. It will be found in areas where houses are most needed. That is where there is a decline; in areas like Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Lanarkshire, Dunbarton, Clyde-
  718
  bank, and Inverness. These local authorities have a permanent problem.
  In 1951 Glasgow had a waiting list for houses numbering 98,000. Between 1951 and 1958 no fewer than 37,000 municipal houses were built in Glasgow, and therefore one would naturally assume that the waiting list would have gone down at least to 70,000. But we find that, despite the building of those houses, the waiting list has actually increased to 120,000. Of that number of applicants over 30,000 are homeless and over 40,000 live in grossly overcrowded conditions. Is there another city in the whole of Western Europe with such a problem? Yet we note the complacency of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George), who has been briefed by the Government and who will probably speak after me, and of the Joint Under-Secretary of State. They will set out to justify the decline in local authority building which has taken place.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George), I think I should tell the hon. Gentleman that I have not a clue about what my hon. Friend is going to say.
  Mr. McInnes: Probably the hon. Member for Pollok has not himself a clue.
  Glasgow has a desperate and tragic problem. In 1955 there were 95,000 municipal houses in the city. In 1958 the figure had increased by 13,000 to 108,000. The number of privately-rented houses in Glasgow in 1955 was 189,000, but four years later that number had dropped to 172,000, so that in those four years we had actually 17,000 fewer privately-rented houses. Despite the fact that in those years we provided 13,000 new municipal houses, we have sustained a net loss of rented houses in Glasgow of more than 4,000. I know that the number of owner-occupied houses has increased in those four years from 34,000 to 47,000, an increase of 13,000; but these are not newly-built owner-occupied houses—far from it.
  The bulk of the increase which has taken place arose from the slum tenement type of house which, on becoming vacant, is put up for sale. That is the

  719
  type of house which the Joint Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State himself told us would be improved under the Rent Act and made available for renting. I remember the Joint Under-Secretary telling us, during the debates on the Rent Bill, of the great pool of houses which would be created for letting and how those houses would be improved. We have always had a number of empty houses in Glasgow. The houses are empty and the pubs are full. What I want to emphasise is that in 1955 we had 2,616 houses unoccupied and awaiting a buyer, but in 1958, after almost a year of the Rent Act, that number had increased to 3,300. I think it was the hon. Member for Pollok who described that as absolute sabotage on the part of the property owners in Glasgow. I have it here in black and white.
  Miss Herbison: What did he say?
  Mr. McInnes: Sabotage on the part of the factors and the property owners. What we are seeking to find out this afternoon is the reason for this decline in house building and when it took place? Glasgow, in 1954, built over 6,000 municipal houses. In 1958 the number dropped to 4,000. There was a decrease of more than 2,000. Edinburgh has a waiting list of 9,000 and a slum clearance problem of 7,000. In 1954, Edinburgh built 1,920 houses and in 1957 the number dropped to 874 houses, a decrease of more than 1,000. Dundee is another illustration. When I study this return, I ask: why is it that places like Clydebank had only four houses under construction at the end of 1958? Why in a place like Dumbarton has no house been under construction? Why has Inverness only 21 houses under construction? Those local authorities are far removed from having completed their housing programmes. Surely there must be some reason for this tremendous decline in house building in Scotland.
  There are one or two factors which I regard as of crucial importance in the decline. First, there is the steep rise in interest rates, and secondly, the substantial reductions which have taken place in housing subsidies. In the last three or four years interest rates have jumped
  720
  from 3½ per cent. to 6¾ per cent. Subsidies have been reduced from £42 5s. per house to £24 per house. What has that meant over the years? In 1951 the interest rate was 3½ per cent. and in 1957 it was 6¾ per cent., and by that increase an annual burden has been put on the local authority of £51 9s. 9d. for every house built. The reduction in the subsidies of £18 5s. has meant that the annual debt charge placed on a local authority in Scotland has been increased by £70 each year.
  What does that mean to a city like Glasgow, which builds more than 5,000 houses a year? It means that the city is faced with an additional financial burden of more than £350,000 every year for sixty years until eventually it reaches the fantastic total of £21 million. No wonder the magic of our financial civilisation makes it utterly impossible for most of us to comprehend all that is involved. It should be abundantly clear to the Secretary of State that when high interest rates are imposed and subsidies are reduced, a climate is created in which it becomes utterly impossible for local authorities to build houses or, indeed, to charge reasonable rents for the houses that they do build.
  Why does the Secretary of State for Scotland, in his public utterances, continually denigrate council tenants by referring to them as a new privileged class who live at the expense of their fellow citizens? That was in a speech he delivered at a dinner of the National Federation of Property Owners on 20th May at Pitlochry. The Secretary of State talked about this privileged class who live at the expense of their fellow citizens. We have had twelve Secretaries of State in the last thirty years, but the present occupant of the post is the only one, to my knowledge, who has engaged in such slanderous and cowardly statements which affect almost 2 million of our people who live in council houses.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: Almost half the population.
  Mr. McInnes: Yes, almost half the population. Now that he has been as far north as Pitlochry to make a speech to the factors and property owners, I ask whether he could pluck up courage and spare a few moments at his office in Edinburgh to meet a deputation of the

  721
  tenants he has so maligned and so consistently refused to hear. He could then tell the tenants about the privileged industrialists who get subsidies of £4½ million every year by way of rating relief. He could take the opportunity of telling the tenants at such a meeting about the privileged farmers in Scotland who get £25 million every year in subsidies—subsidies to build pigsties for the pigs, but no subsidies to build houses for the people. He could tell the tenants about property owners who, in the inter-war years, got subsidies for building houses to rent. It was the only way to get them to build them. Since the war private builders have not built 1 per cent. of houses to rent in Scotland.
  Mr. Willis: They did after the first war.
  Mr. McInnes: Yes, after the first war, because they were heavily subsidised to do so. When the Secretary of State meets this deputation of council tenants, I should be obliged to him if he would read this quotation to them. It is from a speech made in this House on 6th November, 1950. Here is the quotation:
  "It is not only a question of building houses, … but the cost has risen to a point which, despite subsidies on an enormous scale, involves rents which many of those in most need of houses cannot afford. The rents charged to the tenants have risen remorselessly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 696.]
  That was in a speech made by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) when he was attacking the Labour Government in 1950 for imposing such high rents on the tenants of municipal houses. If it was true then, how much more true would it be today when costs are still rising and subsidies are much less? I ask the Secretary of State to be a man and to meet these tenants.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. J. C. George: We always listen with great interest, if not with unfailing agreement, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) when he speaks on housing. No one gives the subject more study, as is obvious from the amount of arithmetic which he has done in the past week and the amount of time which he has spent this evening trying to prove that the Scottish housing situation is black and that progress in recent years
  722
  has been poor. I will take up a few of the points which he made.
  First, he tried to show us why certain areas have few houses under construction. He attributed that to the high interest rates and to the cut in the subsidy. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made it clear this afternoon—I had the temerity to say the same thing a year or two ago—that local authorities do not judge the interest rates per day or per week, or even per year; they judge the interest rates which they are paying over the whole of the money which they have borrowed. With interest rates at 7½ per cent., 7 per cent., 6¾ per cent. and 5¾ per cent., we find that in 1958 Glasgow was paying 4·23 per cent. on all the money it had on loan. Throughout Scotland local authorities are paying much about the same rate, just over 4 per cent. That is not a level of interest which should prevent local authorities from building houses. I am certain that it does not prevent them. The Department of Health says in its Report that it can find no evidence that the rate of interest has in any way led to a reduction of the figures.
  I will leave that on one side and turn to the question of the subsidies. The hon. Member said that the cut in the subsidies had led to a slowing down in the building of houses and had led to some areas having very few houses under construction. What was the purpose of the subsidies? Who introduced them and what was said when they were introduced? Were they to be permanent and to go on growing or were they to be cut and eventually to be abolished? Perhaps I may read to the Committee what the late Joseph Westwood said when he was introducing the subsidies in 1946.
  Mr. T. Fraser: What does the hon. Gentleman say?
  Mr. George: I will give way to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) in a moment if he wishes to intervene, although if he would keep quiet through just one of my speeches I might appreciate him more than I do.
  Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member would be disappointed if I kept quiet.
  Mr. George: I expect that I would.

  723
  Speaking on 19th March, 1946, Mr. Westwood said:
  "I wish to make it clear that the contributions now proposed—this applies to the rate contributions as well as the Exchequer contributions—are maxima, and it is the intention of the Government that they shall be reduced at the earliest opportunity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1946; Vol. 420, c. 1706.]
  It must be remembered that there is a rate contribution as well as an Exchequer contribution. I have read to the Committee what was the intention of the Labour Party.
  Mr. Ross: The fact remains that we increased the subsidy.
  Mr. George: The intention of the Labour Party when it introduced these subsidies was to cut them out as soon as possible. The subsidies have been cut down? Why were they cut down? We must remember that while in England subsidies were abolished in certain cases, we still enjoy them in Scotland, and we are in a preferential position.
  Why have subsidies been reduced? The reason is that the subsidies were being abused. They were not being used for the purpose for which they were originally introduced. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central has spoken a great deal about rents. We find in Glasgow and in other areas that whenever a man applies for a council house he is automatically considered to be in need The need for a house is not synonymous with financial need. Many people who apply for council houses, and many people who enjoy council houses, could well pay a substantially higher rent and would willingly pay a substantially higher rent than they are being allowed to pay by the local authorities. The subsidies were therefore being abused. In order to bring some method into local authority work in Scotland, subsidies were cut.
  Mr. McInnes Mr. McInnes rose—
  Mr. George: I did not interrupt the hon. Member during his speech and I will not give way now. He challenged the Secretary of State for having said that the council tenants were a new privileged class, and he ridiculed that statement. What did the hon. Member for Hamilton say on this very subject? I will quote from a report of an Institute
  724
  of Housing meeting at Dunoon on 27th March. He said:
  "Rents are on average too low and should be increased, with the adoption of reasonable rent rebates for low income tenants. … Rent levels and the contribution to housing from rates should be reviewed thoroughly once in every three years."
  The hon. Member went on to say:
  "It is my experience that tenants are usually surprised to learn that the rent they pay for a modern well-maintained house is the equivalent of twenty cigarettes a week."
  That is the hon. Member's view. Does not that indicate that he thought that they were a privileged class? Does it not suggest that he thinks that the equivalent of twenty cigarettes a week is not a proper rent to pay? I am certain that in their quieter moments hon. Members opposite have exactly the same views as the Secretary of State, and there are sound reasons for it.
  What is happening to rents in Glasgow, about which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central waxed so eloquent? In 1958, through the local authority rate contribution, £3 million was taken from the citizens of Glasgow by way of rates and put into the housing account, while only £1·4 million was taken by way of rent. Is not that privilege? In other words, 22½ per cent. was paid into the housing account by rent and the remaining 78 per cent. was put into the housing account by the infliction of rates upon those who in many cases are less well off than the council tenants themselves.
  Of course they are a privileged class and of course something has to be done about it. One-third of the people in Glasgow are council tenants, and two-thirds are paying subsidies to keep them at an unreasonably low rent. In that way I agree with my right hon. Friend that they are a privileged class. I wonder how long the other two-thirds will bear the imposition which Glasgow is putting upon them increasingly year by year.
  The hon. Member gave it as his view that the Government's policy for housing had been to restrict, to retard and to play havoc with the local authorities' efforts to provide houses. Let us turn to Table V, with which the hon. Member made such play. He spoke of the drop in the approval of tenders. I well remember, when hon. Members opposite were in power, the number of skeletons of houses standing incomplete for years

  725
  all over Scotland. Too many were approved and to few were finished. We determined to approve only those which we could complete in a reasonable time, and we have always tried to follow that policy. In those years a large number of houses were under construction because they sometimes took over two years to complete. When we can complete houses sometimes inside a year it is not necessary to have as many under construction. That is why the number under construction has fallen.
  The hon. Member also referred to the fact that smaller houses were being provided. Of course we have more and more smaller houses, because that is what is required. We are building to meet the need which faces us. We have not built on theory. Perhaps the hon. Member would care to look at the new development in the Gorbals, by the corporation of which he is so proud. His own authority is building in the new development in the Gorbals 33 per cent. of the houses of one or two rooms. Why is it doing that? Because it has seen the actual need. It has seen that in the City of Glasgow the larger and the growing families have moved out to the city borders into the new housing schemes, and in the heart of the city we have the smaller and the older families. As a result, the authority of which he is so proud is building 33 per cent. of the houses in that great scheme, which it opened with righteous exaltation, of only one or two rooms.
  Mr. McInnes: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) for giving way. Where else in Scotland but Glasgow would the situation be found which the hon. Gentleman described of the young family going out to the perimeter of the city to new housing schemes, leaving the old couple in the Gorbals? That is why Glasgow, rather than shift old couples out to the smaller houses in the perimeter, decided to provide that 33 per cent. for old couples, because the families were moving. Where else in Scotland would that be found?
  Mr. George: What the Glasgow authority did was to face up to realities and build to meet them. That is what we have been doing in the last seven years. That is what we shall continue to do.
  726
  After that intervention, I will now return to the initial charge that the policy restricted, retarded and played havoc with local authority building in Scotland. I am sometimes amazed at the course which our housing debates take. Without any party bias in this, I think that we should count our blessings with regard to housing in Scotland. We have great cause to count our blessings. I cannot understand this narrow, carping criticism at a time when housing is being provided at a speed which has never been equalled in the history of Scotland.
  Mr. T. Fraser: Untrue.
  Mr. George: Perhaps hon. Members opposite will allow me to proceed. Approximately 50 per cent. of the people in Scotland have been given new houses since 1919. Approximately 20 per cent. have been given new houses since 1945.
  Mr. Willis: Not "given".
  Mr. George: I will state the figures. It is remarkable that between 1919 and 1944 365,000 new houses were built in Scotland, re-housing 1,100,000 people. Between 1945 and 1958 the same number—I repeat, approximately 365,000—were built, again re-housing 1·1 million. Therefore, since 1919 we have built 730,000 new homes in Scotland and rehoused approximately 2·2 million. Out of 1½ million homes in Scotland, 50 per cent. are less than forty years old and 25 per cent. are less than fifteen years old. The average annual pre-war rate of building was 16,800 for the twenty years before the war. The average annual rate during the time the party opposite was in power, excluding 1945, was 21,600. The average over the last seven years was 34,300.
  I cannot but rejoice at all these figures. I rejoice to think that the speed of building to get rid of the housing problem in Scotland is gaining velocity year after year.
  Mr. Ross: It is going down. It has lost its velocity.
  Mr. George: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) interrupts to say that it is going down. It is true that we had two peak years. We should again rejoice that we had two peak years. Hon. Gentlemen opposite remind

  727
  me of an old general manager for whom I used to work. We had tried to bring our output in the colliery up to 2,000 tons a day for a long time. We had failed. We achieved 1,950 tons or 1,970 tons, but never 2,000 tons. One day I succeeded in raising the output to over 2,000 tons. I telephoned the general manager and told him so. All I had by way of answer was, "Something to think about tomorrow". On the Thursday the output was less than 2,000 tons, so Thursday was a bad day. If I had not exceeded 2,000 tons on the Wednesday, Thursday would have been a good day. Thursday was still a good day, because I had not achieved 2,000 tons before. In Glasgow we had two good years—something to think about tomorrow.
  Having had those two peak years, what has happened since? In those two peak years we supplied the needs of many areas. In the years since then we have approached the end of the building programme in many areas. I can speak with authority, because I was a member of two councils which, before I entered the House, were rapidly approaching the end of their housing programmes. They had practically completed the job. That is repeated many times over the whole of Scotland.
  In Glasgow and other towns we had large sites to start with, on which we could build houses quickly and make them cheaper by virtue of the vast area available. We are building far more gap sites than ever before. We have tackled slum clearance. All these factors are bound to slow down, but it has not seriously reduced the output of houses. The average over the last four years is 32,000 without much variation one way or the other. We intend that it should be kept at that level.
  The slum clearance campaign was started three years ago and we have practically accomplished our three-year plan. One hundred and twenty thousand people have been removed from slums in the last three years. The only two drives upon slums in our history have been from this side of the Committee. Hon. Members opposite never at any time turned their minds to removing slums. We made one drive and we started another. We consider the first three years of the second as being successful, and we intend to go on
  728
  with that slum clearance in the years ahead.
  Mr. Ross: The first slum clearance drive about which the hon. Gentleman is speaking ended just before the Second World War began. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that such was the general housing policy that, as a result of overcrowding, we had more slums at the end of that drive than we had at the beginning of it.
  Mr. George: One thing which is always obvious from the conduct of hon. Member opposite is that, if a good thing is achieved, they will find an argument to make it look a bad thing. The two slum campaigns were undertaken, and both have been successful. A third slum clearance campaign will soon be under way. That also will be successful, because we shall ensure that it is.
  This is a great subject on which we could spend a great deal of time. In our time, we have organised every agency to plan, to produce and to build. We have co-ordinated these agencies in such a way that we have beaten all past records. Never in the history of Scotland has housing been provided for so long at such a high level, and it never will be again. We have driven on with the general needs programme, with high priority at the beginning. When the picture changed, we switched to the slums and to the old people who did not get a fair crack of the whip in the years between. Between these years we have tried to save that great mass of private houses which are rotting due to rent control. They will be saved. I do not see as many efforts as I would like to see to spend money on repairing old property, but the Committee must remember that today repairs are costly and landlords must be given time in which to accumulate some money to put repairs in hand. I am confident that rent decontrol will result in saving many thousands of houses which have fallen into decay.
  We have gone on to assist the provision of the essential amenities in perfectly good houses. There are plenty of well-built houses without amenities in Glasgow, and the new Act will give, by right, grants to install the given amenities and give them an extra fifteen years' life. We have also brought in new arrangements to show our intense desire to cure

  729
  the housing problem. We have a new arrangement to assist house purchase, both for old and new houses.
  In the seven years that we have been in power we can record a catalogue of earnest endeavour to improve and preserve the old, where justified, and build the new far faster than ever before. We have a proud record on which to face the country, and I for one will face it with an easy mind.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mrs. Mary McAlister: I have always had a great respect for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George), whom I regard as a very solid man, but tonight I find that he has another quality which, as a Celt, I must admire—he has a very rosy imagination. I can only say that if 50 per cent. of the people in Scotland have had new houses since 1919 I shudder to think of what the situation was before then. If those in the party opposite are the only people who have tackled our slum clearance, I wonder how it was that Glasgow entered the Second World War facing one of the biggest slum problems in the whole of the English-speaking world?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) dealt with a number of the points that I had in mind, and I shall not cover that ground again. He gave facts and figures of the situation in Glasgow to show that housing there is a public scandal—a statement that cannot be challenged by anybody. It has been a scandal for a great number of years, despite the fact that the 100,000th house was completed two years ago. Can hon. Members imagine the previous situation?
  I was shocked to read a statement made by the Prime Minister on his recent visit to Glasgow. He visited Kelvingrove—he must have been looking over the annual general report of the Conservative Party there. The right hon. Gentleman was reported to have said: "Nobody nowadays hears a word about the Rent Act." I know that we are not debating that Act tonight, but its results cannot be divorced from the gigantic problems facing local authorities.
  One of the virtues claimed for the Act—and had it been a genuine virtue I should have supported it, irrespective of who said it was bad—was that it would end under-occupation of large
  730
  houses. Childless couples, elderly spinsters and the like were to move out of the large flats in the centre of the town and, presumably, go into other houses. Heaven alone knows where they would get them—the Rent Act did not state that.
  Making full allowance for the fact, and it is a fact, that no scheme ever works as smoothly as its formulators hoped, I challenge anyone in Glasgow to tell me of anything remotely resembling that having happened. Where such houses have been compulsorily evacuated a notice has gone up to sell or let them, not for residential but for business purposes. A very respectable newspaper—not the gutter Press of which we have been hearing so much lately—described the old people who have been thrown out of the big houses as squatters of thirty, forty, fifty and sixty years' occupation. These are people whose fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers before them paid rates in the city where now they find themselves thrown on the street without option. Yet a very respectable newspaper which I shall not name described them as squatters.
  I hope and pray that before it comes down or falls down the Minister of Housing will come with me to see a property in the ward of Anderson, the rent of which under the Rent Act the owner was allowed to increase by 25 per cent. I say no more than that. I hope that he will be able to see it before it falls down. As I have already said, I was utterly amazed that the Prime Minister should leave Glasgow saying that we hear nothing of the Rent Act now. I can assure him that he will hear plenty about it. The electors will give their verdict on the Act at the General Election when it comes, and I hope that it comes soon.
  7.35 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I will start on a pleasant and friendly note by replying to something said by the hon. Lady the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mrs. McAlister). She said that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had mentioned that we now hear nothing about the Rent Act. In my experience, we have pot heard about the Rent Act. The

  731
  hon. Lady said that it has not worked out as smoothly as its formulators hoped. I must say to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that if that is so the reason is that it has been sabotaged by the Labour Party. I cannot think that any sensible person would spend money on a house if he was threatened with having it taken forcibly from him.
  The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) denigrated our slum clearance proposals, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes)—whose speech I so much enjoyed; it was so characteristic—also made reference to the importance of slum clearance. In April, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government was able to announce that in 1958 the Government's aim of rehousing 200,000 people from the slums had been realised.
  That is a notable achievement, and I am proud to say that Scottish local authorities have played their full part in it. In that year, they closed over 6,000 unfit houses and demolished another 6,000. Altogether, between 1955 and 1958, nearly 35,000 Scottish houses which were unfit for human habitation were closed or demolished as a result of the statutory action taken by Scottish local authorities. That represents over 88 per cent of the number of houses included in the first three-year programme of slum clearance. I think that even the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), for all his interventions, will agree that the local authorities have done a fine job in getting so near the target they set themselves.
  As a follow-up to the first programme, my right hon. Friend asked local authorities last August to draw up yet another three-year programme, for the period 1959–61. So far, we have received programmes from 159 authorities which provide for the closing or demolition of nearly 29,000 houses, and I estimate that when all the local authorities plans are in the total will be about 35,000. I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central that the problem of the slums has been the bane of Scottish housing, but these figures show that the problem is being tackled energetically.
  732
  But we cannot, we dare not, be complacent. As well as demolishing slum houses, it is vital, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) said, that we should not let existing older houses deteriorate into slums, and I hope that both private owners and local authorities will take full advantage of the improvement grants, including those provided for in the House Purchase and Housing Act. In particular, I think that there should go out from this House a plea to local authorities to concentrate on trying to get rid of the shared W.C., which is still far too common and far too unpleasant a feature of our Scottish housing—
  Mr. Willis: What about the private owners?
  Mr. Browne: We have appealed to the private owners and have given them standard grants to do the work.
  Reference has been made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central, to what he called restriction and havoc in housing policy caused by the present Government.
  Mrs. McAlister: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government has appealed to the private owners, but if they have had to appeal so constantly to the private owners, what good was the Act?
  Mr. Browne: To be fair to the private owner, I think I am right in saying that the Act came into force only last Sunday.
  The housing position in Scotland different from that in England. We are still building more houses per year than were built at any time under the Labour Government. This reduction in building in Scotland is not due to any restrictions imposed on local authorities by the Government. In Scotland, local authorities are free to build the houses needed in their districts. The hon. Member quite rightly was a little worried about the number of tenders approved and about the slow fall in the number of houses being built. Many local authorities have stopped building, and I will deal with that in a minute.
  In the industrial areas, where the need is still urgent, there has really been no slackening of effort on the part of local authorities—
  Mr. Ross: That is just not true.
  Mr. Browne: Perhaps the hon. Member will at least do me the kindness to let me finish my sentence.
  As I was saying, there has been no slackening of effort on the part of local authorities, hut, of course, the effort is becoming a little more difficult, and it is being directed into slightly different channels.
  First of all, the local authorities, especially in the industrial areas, are tending to concentrate more and more on slum clearance and redevelopment of their central areas, and who would disagree with that? We must make the best use of the sites available. Secondly, they are now tending to concentrate, in order to give a slightly higher density, on multi-storey flats. Multi-storey flats take a long time to design and build as compared with ordinary houses. I do not think any hon. Member opposite really wants us to go on building in the fields and to allow the centres of our towns to decay. In any case, there is now a difficulty about building in the fields because virgin sites are getting smaller and harder to find.
  Instead of blaming the Government, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central did, we should realise that the local authorities, who are doing such a wonderful job, have a difficult task to perform. The hon. Member said that the decline in house building is due to high interest rates and low subsidies. There is not a great deal that I can add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok said. We refuse to be put on the defensive about this question.
  I listened to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering and others talking about low interest rates. If the Government wish to assist housing, is it not better to come out in the open and give suitable housing subsidies than to upset the whole economy by suggesting preferential interest rates and opening a flood of difficulties? I should have thought that the Labour Party would suggest that we should put up the subsidies rather than have the ridiculous idea of taking one sector out of the economy and saying that we will give that sector a low interest rate.
  Mr. McInnes: I have listened with great interest on this question of prefer-
  734
  ential interest rates. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to extend that to housing, why does he extend it in certain instances to private enterprise industries like Colvilles and others?
  Mr. Browne: That is not in the local government field.
  Mr. T. Fraser: That is another question!
  Mr. Browne: I am not going to be put on the defensive. Considering that Scottish subsidies are paid by the United Kingdom taxpayer, I am surprised that any Scot on either side of the Committee wants to raise the point of Scottish housing subsidies.
  I am not going to deal any further with the point when we said that we had built 300,000 houses and hon. Members opposite said that they had built 200,000 houses, or that our record in Scotland is better this year than any year under the Labour Administration, even including the prefabs.
  I want to come to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central about the local authorities who have no building on hand, of which there are 115, according to my advice. I want to be honest about this—not that I have not been honest about everything else that I have said. Of the 115 local authorities, only 11 have said that the lack of building is due to high interest rates. Nearly all of those 11—I have got the names of those authorities, but I do not think any hon. Member wants me to give them in detail—are small burghs in rural areas, which will not be building houses anyway. In short, there is at present no evidence to suggest that the number of houses being built by local authorities has been materially affected by the level of interest rates.
  Mr. Willis: Really!
  Mr. Browne: Yes, that is a fact. We feel that if the local authorities would pool the subsidies already available to them on the vast number of houses already built and if they would charge reasonable rents for those houses with rent rebate schemes, the present rate of interest and the present subsidy would be quite sufficient for them to continue building without causing any undue burden.
  Mr. Willis: We hear a lot about this argument of the high interest charges spread over all the earlier loans. I dealt with this in the House some time ago and pointed out that even when that is done there is an increase on all local authorities in Scotland of anything between £9 and £18 per house. That makes a considerable difference to the rents.
  Mr. Browne: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman. But if the subsidies are pooled the weight is taken off the house that is having to be built at a time of high interest rates. Does the Committee realise exactly how much money all Scottish housing gets by way of subsidy? It is over £17 million a year.
  Mr. T. Fraser: Most of that goes to the moneylender.
  Mr. Browne: That is nearly £3 10s. per head per annum on the Scottish people, and not all Scottish people get the benefit of that £3 10s. per head. I would also remind hon. Members that despite the high interest rates, which I agree have prevailed recently—and we are now glad to see it steady at last—according to the Rating Review for 1958 issued by the Scottish branch of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, the average interest rates on all debt for the majority of local authorities in Scotland was less than 4½ per cent.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pollok gave a figure of 4·23 per cent. paid by Glasgow, so Glasgow is getting its money a little cheaper than the average. I am sure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central will agree that the hon. Member for Pollok did not need a brief from me. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central blinds himself with figures and science. He tries to prove a reduction in the size of houses by dealing with the number of rooms. I would remind hon. Members that homes are not rooms. We cannot measure homes by the number of rooms. He said that we shall not solve the Scottish housing problem by building one, two or three-apartment houses. He knows better than I do that this is a matter which the local authority, and not the Government, decides.
  Mr. McInnes: Was it not the local authorities who so decided in the interwar years? In the light of experience today, more than half—in fact, about 60 per cent.—of our existing municipal accommodation is grossly overcrowded.
  Mr. Browne: This is a democratic country and we leave it to the local authorities to decide on the size of their houses. Several local authorities, including Labour-controlled ones, pressed the Government to be allowed to build a smaller type of house at a time when the Government were not allowing smaller houses to be built. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) knows what I am going to say. The first steps in reshaping the policy were taken in 1949 under the Labour Government. Part II of the Scottish Housing Handbook contains a table analysing a representative sample of Scottish households and showing that 75 per cent. of families require houses with three apartments or less.
  Mr. Willis: That is because they cannot afford larger ones.
  Mr. Browne: There has been a lot of misunderstanding about the large number of smaller houses. After the war we had a large number of fairly big families needing homes in Scotland.
  Mr. Ross: We still have.
  Mr. Browne: Quite rightly, the local authorities at the time built a very large number of three, four and five-apartment houses.
  Mr. Willis: Not three-apartment houses.
  Mr. Browne: The difficulty was that they built their four and five-apartment houses in long rows and they forgot one important point, namely, that what we need is a planned community. The children grow up and the old people want to move into the area where their children are, but there are no homes for them. So we in Scotland are faced with too high a proportion of unbalanced communities. It is in order to retain, or to return to, that balance that the local authorities quite rightly have done what my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok said. We have built to need, and the smaller houses are built for those who need them. We must have them if we

  737
  are going to get balanced communities. [Interruption.] I am excessively well-informed.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about conditions in Glasgow and implied that nothing was being done, and the hon. Lady the Member for Kelvingrove referred to conditions in Glasgow as a public scandal. This is not a matter on which we can bandy words. I felt that I would be less than fair if I did not agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Kelvingrove. Of course, conditions in Glasgow are today a public scandal, as she says.
  Mr. Ross: Really?
  Mr. Browne: Yes, I am prepared to say that. I feel the Committee should know what is being done about it. We accept that generally the conditions under which people in Glasgow live are the worst in the United Kingdom and probably the worst in Western Europe. I do not have to tell the Committee of the degree of overcrowding and the large number of unfit houses. Half the houses in the city, with over 400,000 people living in them, have only one or two rooms.
  Mr. T. Fraser: That is the answer
  Mr. Browne: This is a legacy of past generations.
  Mr. Willis: The Under-Secretary is getting worse and worse.
  Mr. Browne: I do not believe that the people of Glasgow will be entertained by hon. Members treating this subject with such a degree of levity.
  Mr. Willis: We are very serious about this.
  Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that we are engaging in levity when he says that half the population of Glasgow are living in houses with one or two apartments, only five minutes after speaking in defence of providing small houses at this time, more than half of them with one, two and three apartments. Does he not see how ludicrous he was making the Government's case?
  Mr. BrowneI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In Glasgow there are 400,000 people, families of all sizes, living in rows of houses with one or two
  738
  apartments. That is wrong. But in every area of these new housing schemes how I wish, and how the hon. Gentleman will wish, that we had a higher proportion of small houses. That is the dividing line. Over 200,000 people in Glasgow have no separate sanitary facilities in their homes, and 700,000 live within three square miles of central Glasgow—a density of 400 or more persons to the acre.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central said that houses were falling down. The situation is worse than even he said. Every year 2,000 houses collapse or have to be closed because they are dangerous. This is not the type of house, as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central said, when this Government or anyone would suggest could be improved or made available for selling but the hon. Gentleman has provided the opportunity for me to say that we all hope that anyone who wishes to buy a house will first find out from the Glasgow Corporation whether it is due for demolition.
  Mrs. McAllister: That is just what I want to remind the hon. Gentleman, about. He was talking about houses being on the verge of collapse. He will remember that I mentioned a similar case earlier in my speech, and I am not speaking ironically when I say that I hope the Minister will be able to see it before it does collapse.
  Mr. Browne: These conditions cannot be allowed to continue. The Glasgow Corporation, as the Committee or, at any rate, Glasgow Members will know, has identified 29 areas of obsolete development which it wishes to demolish and rebuild. It is no good doing this tremendous job if we do not do it properly. The trouble is that there are practical difficulties in the densities at which rebuilding can take place. More space must be left for the traffic to circulate. The children must have proper playgrounds. Who will deny them proper playgrounds for the first time? The houses must have adequate daylight and sunlight if they are to be healthy and comfortable homes. Sites are needed for the industries which will remain and will have to expand.
  I can assure the Committee that I have been personally into this whole question in very great detail and I am

  739
  entirely satisfied that anything higher than an average density of 150–160 persons per acre, which is the present proposal, would be quite impracticable if worthwhile new living conditions are to be achieved. This is not a low density. It involves a substantial proportion of very high building. This figure will surprise the Committee: 80 per cent. of the houses will be in buildings of 17 storeys or more in the first stage of the Gorbals scheme, to achieve that density. To go higher or build closer would merely result in the creation of new slums and would perpetuate the lack of privacy which has caused the social evils which we all deplore in Glasgow.
  Even at that relatively high density of redevelopment, with over 150 people per acre, Glasgow Corporation estimates that it can replace only 40,000 of the 100,000 houses which at present exist in the 29 major redevelopment areas which it proposes. This gives an absolute minimum of 60,000 families for whom houses must be found. In addition to those 60,000 families, there are 120,000 families on the waiting list. It is very hard to give an exact figure, but I estimate that, of those 120,000 on the waiting list, 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. are not in any of the 29 redevelopment areas and are homeless or living in overcrowded conditions. Thus, in Glasgow, we are faced with something between 100,000 and 120,000 families needing homes. If one built on every available site and gap site in Glasgow, and one built up to 17 storeys or more, one could, at the most, provide 10,000 more homes.
  Mr. Willis: That is a good case for a new town.
  Mr. Browne: I have made my statement on the new town previously. I do not think I will add to that. I want to get on.
  In order to put the whole matter in perspective, I wish to do two things. First, I wish to outline very briefly the legislation undertaken by this Government in relation to Scottish housing during the last few years and then, if I may, I will make an announcement which may be of some interest.
  First, we had the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, the Sorn Bill, on
  740
  which we had some sparkling debates. This put an end to the anomalies in the old Scottish rating system. Then we had the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957, which was not of so much interest to the public then, in 1957, but, in 1959, there is plenty to say in Glasgow about overspill and how we welcome the Act. That Act laid down the statutory framework for the great overspill and town development operations and introduced a new pattern of housing subsidies, including, of course, a special subsidy for high flats.
  There was the Scottish application of the Rent Act. This was a courageous and long overdue Measure which grasped the nettle of rent restriction while, together with the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1958, retaining a reasonable measure of protection for the tenant. There was the Building (Scotland) Act, 1959, which provides an up-to-date basis for the administration of building standards.
  Mr. Ross: Oh, dear!
  Mr. Browne: I quite understand. The hon. Gentleman does not like it. Recently, we had the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959, with the dual purpose of facilitating house purchase, especially in respect of older properties on which loans were formerly difficult to obtain, and introducing a new and simple system of standard improvement grants.
  Mrs. McAlister: Is the hon. Gentleman honestly telling the Committee that the Rent Act is operating smoothly in Glasgow?
  Mr. Browne: Yes. I should be grateful to the hon. Lady if she could tell me otherwise.
  Mrs. McAlister: I will tell the hon. Gentleman later.
  Mr. Browne: I had reached the point of saying that the House Purchase and Housing Act is intended to encourage and will encourage owner-occupation, we hope, to a great degree.
  We Scots must face the facts. One in five Scots, as compared with one in three Englishmen, owns his own home. This Scottish drive for increased home ownership and the possibilities of being able to buy a house on a lower deposit,

  741
  together with the elimination of the Stamp Duty on cheaper houses, has highlighted the cost and the complexity of conveyancing in Scotland. The hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) asked my right hon. Friend a Question about this on 25th November. In the last few days, two Scottish newspapers, the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail, have very properly ventilated this matter, including the question whether a system of registration of title to land on the lines of that in force in parts of England and Wales could be adopted for Scotland.
  I am advised that, because of the differences in land tenure between the two countries, a thorough inquiry into the legal and practical problems would first be essential. Such an inquiry was set on foot a good many years ago under the chairmanship of Lord McMillan, who, unfortunately, died before progress could be made. My right hon. Friend has now considered the matter in the light of current events and he has decided that this inquiry should be resumed just as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made.
  Mr. T. Fraser: When will that be?
  Mr. Browne: I am afraid that I can go no further at the moment. The announcement I have made adds just a little—
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Just a little.
  Mr. Browne: —to a record of achievement in housing of which any Government should be proud.
  Dr. Mabon: Referring to this announcement the hon. Gentleman has made, will he tell us, having regard to the fact that the inquiry was conducted so far, then stopped, and is now to be resumed, how long he expects that the inquiry will take before it is concluded?
  Mr. Browne: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that information. If he will put down a Question at the appropriate time, we will try to give him the information.
  The facts show that this Government always have been, and are, fully alive to the Scottish housing problem. They are determined to take any steps that are necessary, provided that such steps
  742
  will help to give Scottish people better homes.
  8.3 p.m.
  Mrs. Harriet Slater: I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary will not want me to speak about Scotland. On this side of the Committee there are hon. Members who wish to speak about the very grave problems facing the large cities from which some of us come. A great deal of attention during our debate has been devoted to the subject of slum clearance. Listening to the speeches from the Government benches, one might almost imagine that the large cities of this country were not faced with a grave slum-clearance problem. Hon. Members opposite have tried to suggest that the Government have done a marvellous job and that not so many people are living in slums as there were several years ago. The fact remains that in this country, out of 14 million dwellings there are 1 million slums, 750,000 near-slums and 4 million dwellings which are structurally sound, but which need modern amenities to make them into decent homes.
  Stoke-on-Trent has had a very good housing record since 1945. We in Stoke-on-Trent, until a few years ago and since this Government came into power, were at the head of the county boroughs in our record of house building. Out of 86,000 dwellings in the city, 24,000 are council houses. That is a very creditable record. But still in Stoke-on-Trent there are 7,000 slum dwellings. Three thousand of them are in my own constituency. There are 4,000 near-slums, and there are 10,000 houses which have only a fifteen-year life and which will soon be slums unless something is done.
  In spite of all that has been said from the Government benches today, these slums are a relic of Tory rule during the years between the wars. They are a relic handed down to us because landlords in the past did not do repairs and did not improve their houses. Those houses gradually became slums. Unless something is done to the 10,000 houses in Stoke-on-Trent and the 4 million houses in the country which are structurally sound but which need modern amenities, those dwellings, too, will in another fifteen years be added to the slums with which the local authorities will have to deal.

  743
  The problem of slum clearance is increased by the difficulty in finding sites. I was very interested to hear the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland say a few minutes ago that Glasgow's problem could be solved only if one built 17 storeys high. What a thought—17 storeys high in an overcrowded city where people have, as it were, already built in on themselves. In Stoke-on-Trent we could not build up to 17 storeys. We can build to only three storeys because Stoke is a place from beneath which the mine owners of the past got the coal. As a consequence, we face two problems. First, we dare not build more than three storeys high, and, secondly, before a brick is put down we have to spend a very large amount of money putting in concrete and steel foundations to make the houses safe.
  Also, we have the difficulty mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon). It takes far too long to obtain Ministry approval for compulsory purchase orders. In my constituency there is a site which has been bandied backwards and forwards for quite a while. Unless we have that site or sites like it, we can do nothing to start to clear the 3,000 slums, never mind about building houses for ordinary letting. Our problem, and the problem in every large city, is such that we need to build on sites such as the one I mentioned in order to rebuild on the sites which we clear.
  There is a demand that people should not be sent too far away from the places where they work. Quite frankly, I would rather live a long way off, but many people feel that to do so adds to the cost of transport. It means that they have to have their meals out, and perhaps the women have to pay for their children to be looked after when they come home from school at lunch-time. All those added costs go on to the mounting figure of rent in the new houses, which is, because of the Government's interest rate policy, considerably higher than the rent they paid in the houses from which they are moved There is, therefore, a need for sites to be cleared so that where the services are and where people have lived we can again put houses and make it possible for people to live at a lower density, but
  744
  nevertheless, closer to the places where they work.
  Another problem we have is that we almost dare not put a closing order on a house because we cannot provide accommodation for the people there. Consequently, unless a house in Stoke is dangerous to live in—even though it may be one in a street and it ought to have a closing order on it—we are unable to issue a closing order because of the difficulty we have in rehousing the people there.
  I come now to the improvement of existing houses. Listening to the Government speakers today, one would imagine that everything possible had been achieved in inducing private landlords to improve the houses which they own. Since 1949, of 3 million landlord-owned houses, in spite of all the publicity and in spite of "Operation Rescue" about which we heard so much from the Prime Minister, only 15,000 have had improvement grants. In Stoke, out of 5,000 owner-occupied houses 1,200 have had improvement grants. Since 1949, of 15,000 landlord-owned houses only 65 have had improvement grants. This is an appalling figure and just shows how little landlords are prepared to take advantage of improvement grants in order to improve the amenities in their houses in spite of the fact that if they improve their houses they are allowed to increase the rent. It just shows that they do not want to improve the houses. They are prepared to go on letting them as they are, without making any attempt to make it possible to increase the life of the houses and to enable the people in them to live under better conditions.
  Not that we in Stoke have not done anything about it. We have modernised houses in which the firemen lived in the centre of the town. Inside lavatories, bathrooms, new grates and sinks have been put in. The old-fashioned ranges were taken out. The front room, which we called a parlour and which went straight through from the front door, was made into a separate room by putting a lobby in the house. Because of those improvements 5s. a week was put on the rent.
  Sir Eric Errington Sir Eric Errington (Aldershot)rose—
  Mrs. Slater: I will not give way, because many of my hon. Friends want to speak. The hon. Member can make his speech in his own time.
  There was a demand for those houses, but only 65 landlords took advantage of the publicity which we gave, of the advertisements which we inserted in the Press and of the speeches which some of us made in the local council. The Government have very little hope of encouraging private landlords to improve their houses, even though they have sent out another booklet on the subject.
  In addition, there is no way of finding out how many tenants have improved the houses themselves by putting in new grates, baths and sinks and by taking out the old-fashioned little brown sinks. Because of the Rent Act and because they did not know that they had to get their assessment changed to take advantage of it, people are faced, in many cases six and even twelve months after putting in the improvements, with Form A giving them notice of an increase in rent and with no possible chance of opposing it. The landlord wants the cake as well as eat it.
  In any future housing programme we must consider housing for the aged. This is a terrible problem. When slums are cleared the people sometimes have to be moved a long way away, perhaps from all their family. We should build separate houses for the aged. What we have done in Stoke is to build maisonettes at the side of other houses so that the old people are not stranded from their friends. It may be possible, although I am not enamoured of it, to put a bed-sitting room in the house in which a family is to be rehoused. It is much better that old people should be rehoused on their own, providing that they are among people they know and are close to the shops, the health centre and other facilities.
  I could say a lot more about the housing problem, but it is evident from the speeches of hon. Members opposite, especially that of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, that the Government are definitely on the defensive. They could not possibly be proud of their housing record. Even the houses which they have built were built because the Labour Party found the sites, and
  746
  stepped up the production of bricks and other things.
  Mr. Bevins: I think that the hon. Lady is overlooking the statement made, I think, by the then Leader of the Labour Party on the eve of the 1951 General Election, that it would not be possible to build more than 200,000 houses.
  Mrs. Slater: That was because of all the other things that we wanted to do. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that one. He has not an answer.
  Mr. D. Howell: The Government have not built a single hospital.
  Mrs. Slater: At the beginning of 1945, and after, we had to step up the production of bricks, doors and other things needed for houses. We encouraged workers to go into the building trade, but because of the Tory record in the last few years they have had to go on the dole.
  As I have said, the Tory Government have not a proud record in housing. If the people of this country are to have decent homes in which they can rear their families we need more than an "Operation Rescue" of the Tory kind. We need an "Operation Rescue" which will adequately deal with this problem and make a drive not in the interests of private building but in the interests of the welfare of the people we represent.
  8.17 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) was intensely interesting, informative and constructive while she stuck to the facts and drew from her own experience and knowledge of her constituency. I do not agree with many of the conclusions which she reached from those facts. The early stages of this debate were, if I may use the phrase, rather bogged down in political issues, but when hon. Members addressed themselves to their constituency problems the debate was most informative and constructive, from whichever side the comments came.
  Housing will always be a hot political issue. It is no misfortune to the general public that it is a political issue. It was, after all, the failure of the Socialist Government from 1945 to 1951 to

  747
  produce an adequate programme for housing which put the Conservative Party on its mettle to produce the challenging programme of 300,000 houses a year. I carefully say that it was the failure of the Socialist Party to produce an adequate programme for housing. I do not wish to comment on whether it was possible from 1945 to 1951 to build more than 175,000 or 200,000 houses a year. I think the failure was that the party opposite did not promise anything more than that for the future. Therefore, as it became a political issue, it was of great benefit to the public that we on this side were prepared to put forward the policy of 300,000 houses a year.
  Mr. Sparks: There is a very important aspect which the hon. Gentleman has completely ignored. Between 1945 and 1951 more than 250,000 war-damaged houses had to be repaired. The hon. Gentleman's party did not have that problem in 1951. If they had had that problem, they could not have said that they would build 300,000 houses.
  Mr. Page: The hon. Member was not listening to what I said. I did not complain of the failure to build the houses during that period. What I complained of was the failure of that Government to promise anything better in future than that it was quite impossible to build more than 200,000 houses a year. That challenge produced a promise from the Conservative Party to build 300,000 houses a year and the promise was faithfully carried out. Taking the average over the past seven years, 1952–58, the figure has been over 300,000 houses a year. If one likes to translate it into days, it works out at 822 houses completed each day, which is a formidable figure.
  I do not, however, want to be controversial about whether during the last year of the Socialist Government it would have been possible to build more than the 194,000 houses that were built. The promise of that Government at that time was that no more than 200,000 houses a year could be built. Within that figure of 200,000—and this is the point we are debating today—there were to be approximately 170,000 local authority houses a year. From 1952 to 1958, the Conservative Government have
  748
  made it possible for the local authorities to build over 200,000 houses a year. That is the simple comparison of the policies of the respective parties, one saying that for the future, as from 1951, only 170,000 local authority houses a year could be built and the other, the Conservative Government, achieving a figure of over 200,000 local authority houses a year.
  Mr. Sparks: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Page: Does the hon. Member query my figures?
  Mr. Sparks: No. We want to be fair about this. The latest return of the number of completed houses—for 1958—shows that the number of completed local-authority houses was 113,000, and at no time since 1953, when the figure was 202,000, has it ever been higher than that. It is quite wrong, therefore, to give a figure of over 200,000 houses.
  Mr. Page: Possibly the hon. Member is looking at the figures for England and Wales, whereas I am quoting those for Great Britain. If he adds up the figures of local authority houses built in Great Britain between 1952 and 1958, he will find that they come to an average of over 200,000 houses a year built by the local authorities.
  From that, it is fair to ask what would be the policy of the Socialist Party if in office. Is the Socialist overall figure of 200,000 houses to continue, only 170,000 of them being built by local authorities? Do hon. Members opposite censure the Conservative Government for building an average of 200,000 local authority houses a year? What is the right figure, bearing in mind the rapid increase in local authority building over the past seven years?
  Mr. Mitchison: Rapid increase?
  Mr. Page: In the last year of the Socialist Government—1951–170,000 local authority houses were built.
  Mr. D. Howell: That was years ago.
  Mr. Page: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was shaking his head about the increase in local authority building. [HON. MEMBERS: "Look at the time."] If I were not interrupted so much, I would not take so long.
  Mr. Mitchison: I was expressing surprise, because the rate of council house building has been about halved in the last five years. That is what the hon. Member must answer.
  Mr. Page: It is most unfair to say that the figure has gone down from the peak figure reached by the Conservative Party—
  Mr. Sparks: It is, indeed, going down.
  Mr. Page: Admittedly, it has gone down in the last year, and the reasons have been explained. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, however, the figure is going up again this year, as is shown by the number of tenders accepted and the number of starts made on building.
  I am trying to discover what figure the party opposite would suggest as the proper level of local authority building. That has not been mentioned so far in the debate. I do not want to compete on figures, but the public should know what is being said by the Socialist Party, why hon. Members opposite say that we have failed, why they say that our average of 200,000 local authority houses a year is insufficient, and why they say that they could do better.
  For either party, the answer must depend upon two things. The first is the purpose for which local authority houses should be built, whether they should be built for general need, as. I understand, is the policy of the party opposite, or whether we should concentrate on clearance of unfit areas and their replacement. That is the issue between the two sides. Are the local authorities to build freely, with no limitation as to number, for general need, or should we try to canalise their efforts towards clearance of unfit areas and their replacement by modern housing?
  The second consideration must necessarily be the prevailing economic conditions of the nation. I merely name that as a factor and do not propose to discuss it at this stage.
  In its recent pamphlets, the Socialist Party has made great play of its belief that housing should be a social service. Perhaps I shall disappoint hon. and right hon. Members opposite by saying that
  750
  I entirely agree. I differ only on the sector in which it is to be a social service and on the extent to which that social service is to spread over housing. I understand that the idea of hon. Members opposite is that all rented property, except a very small margin of property of higher value, should be in public ownership and should be a social service. That would result in two-thirds of the houses in the country being in public ownership and the subject of a social service. On the other hand, we on this side believe that the current proportion of local authority houses to the total houses is about right. It is about one-fifth of the total number of houses in the country. I would not be dogmatic about a fraction like that. I would imagine that between one-quarter and one-fifth would be the right amount of publicly-owned houses which would form a social service in housing.
  Mr. Albert Evans: I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Member arrives at his figure of one-fifth. I can only think that it must be a guess. Is it not true that the need for local authority ownership must exist as long as there are waiting lists for local authority houses?
  Mr. Page: Indeed. I shall develop that argument as quickly as I can. This is how I arrived at my fraction of one-fifth. There are about 3 or 4 million council houses out of a total of 15 or 16 million houses throughout the country. The hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North gave a figure of 14 million. I regard that as low. The total number of houses in Britain is between 15 and 16 million. Council houses, therefore, account for about one-fifth of the total.
  The fault with Socialist belief in housing as a social service is that it is proclaimed as a universal social service, rather like the National Health Service, but that the practical proposals to bring it into operation are not universal, yet they do not define the purpose or the people to be served. Our policy at least has the merit of defining the extent to which we believe that housing should be a social service. We define the type of person and the type of dwelling for which a subsidy should be provided, our main purpose being to rehouse people from clearance areas. Added to that are such

  751
  things as overspill and single-person dwellings.
  In carrying out that policy, a local authority has certain benefits over the private developer. It is able to acquire land at site value in a clearance area and have a subsidy for building on that land. This policy of redevelopment within a definite limit and area is one that has been gathering momentum since 1956. I am not sure whether the figures have been quoted, but in 1956 the persons rehoused from the slum clearance areas numbered 142,250. In 1957, the figure went up to 188,383, and in 1958 again went up to the very substantial figure of 204,975.
  It seems to me that the policy which is advocated by hon. Members opposite of allowing local authorities to build for general needs would put the clock back to the time when not only was there no slum clearance under the Socialist Government but they were not even thinking about it. They had no plans for it at all. For hon. Members opposite to complain about insufficient slum clearance is, if it is a Parliamentary word to use, hypocritical.
  Mr. Sparks: The hon. Gentleman is boasting about it.
  Mr. Page: Indeed, we are boasting about it, because the plan is gradually gathering momentum and my hope is that it will be developed still further. Even the figures which I have given are, in my opinion, no more than just touching the fringe. It is said in a Socialist pamphlet that there are 1 million scheduled slum properties. I agree. I think that to have rehoused only 204,000 persons in a year is only touching the fringe. More than 1 million persons have to be rehoused. I am sure that it is the Government's policy to encourage local authorities to make rapid progress with that. There is quite enough for the local authorities to do in that way without overburdening them by their taking over all rented property, and also having the job of housing for general need.
  To say that there are 1 million people more to be housed from the slums might mean that we would have to increase the sector of publicly-owned houses. I think that it would mean that if we did not undertake something else as well, and
  752
  that is a review of existing council house tenancies. A review is essential.
  Mr. D. Howell: Extend the Rent Act.
  Mr. Page: I am not saying extend the Rent Act I am now dealing with local authority property. I am going to say something provocative. I believe that we have created a privileged class—the tenant who got a council house some years ago and who now remains in that council house at a subsidised rent. There are many of them who do not need it. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to say something, will he rise to his feet and do so?
  Mr. D. Howell: The question whether public money is to be used for subsidies is a very interesting one. At the moment, under this Government, higher subsidies are being paid for building pigsties than for building municipal houses.
  Mr. Page: I should be only too willing to debate that question of pigsties with the hon. Gentleman at some other time. I think that it would be out of order now. There is no doubt whatever that there are many council-house tenants who do not require to be subsidised—well-to-do tenants—and they are keeping out those from the slum clearance areas.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. Member has been subsidised all his life. He has never done a tap of work.
  Mr. Sparks: Why does the hon. Member object to council-house tenants who manage to have television sets or cars and whose circumstances are somewhat better than they were five, ten or twelve years ago? Why does he object to that? Why does he want to turn them out?
  Mr. Page: I object to them because they are keeping out those who are really in need. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) pointed out that one of the reasons why Croydon adopted the course that it did was that it had many tenants really in need and there were tenants in council houses who were not in need of the council services which the local authority gives by housing.
  Mr. Mitchison Mr. Mitchison rose—
  Mr. Page: I cannot give way. I do not want to turn this into a debate about turning out council house tenants.
  Mr. Darling: That is what the hon. Member was talking about.
  Mr. Page: As I see it, the programme could be operated in the following way. If there is a clearance area in which there are a number of families to be moved and rehoused there is bound to be a substantial surplus who cannot be rehoused on the site itself, but have to be rehoused elsewhere; but some can be rehoused on the site, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) will agree that Liverpool has done that well, with blocks of flats—
  Mrs. Braddock: I could tell the hon. Member a lot about it, but it would not suit him.
  Mr. Page: I was paying the hon. Lady a compliment. I believe that the majority can be rehoused on the site, and that accommodation can be found for the surplus—without necessarily greatly increasing the existing number of council houses elsewhere—by encouraging the building by local authorities of houses for sale, and the consequent movement of council tenants who are prepared to purchase their houses.
  Each district has its individual problems. In some there are a sufficient number of vacant properties, both for sale and for letting, to house the council tenants who do not require any further subsidising.
  Mr. Darling: Name one. Where are they?
  Mr. Page: In some Lancashire towns there are vacant properties for purchase and for letting.
  Mr. Darling: A sufficient number to carry out the operation which the hon. Member is describing? A sufficient number to take up the two-fifths left over from the slum clearance area?
  Mr. Page: I do not recollect mentioning a figure of two-fifths.
  Mr. D. Howell: That is what it is.
  Mr. Page: I am told that Nottingham can provide more accommodation on a cleared site than is required for those needing to be rehoused by reason of clearance of that site. I know that in other places, such as London, as large a proportion as one-third must be rehoused
  754
  elsewhere. I am quoting figures given to me; I cannot prove them in any way. I believe that the proportion varies throughout the country.
  It might be thought that if we carried out the purchase of houses in that way we should eventually come to the sticky end to which the Socialist's policy would come—a nation of council tenants and owner-occupiers, and no privately-let sector. That may be the object of hon. Members opposite, but it is not the desire of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and in the absence of a deliberate policy to take over all rented property I do not think that that could happen. We would have to go a long way before we would squeeze out the privately-let sector, which consists of between 6 million and 7 million houses, or about one-third of the total number of houses in the country.
  Incidentally, the proportion of owner-occupiers, which is also about one-third, is very much smaller than in America and in some Continental countries. We can go much further in encouraging owner-occupation and home ownership without being in any danger of reducing to too small a limit the sector of houses to let.
  The time has come when private developers can contribute to the development of cleared sites. Cases which have been mentioned during the debate have been decried by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering, but those examples show that the private developer is prepared to come in and serve a useful purpose by building houses to let. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering seems convulsed with laughter. Why should we not welcome the private developer? Why must it be traditional for the local authority to do all the redevelopment? I should like to see more development by the private developer.
  Mr. Mitchison: In the cases to which I referred, fewer houses were being built and for people who needed them less.
  Mr. Page: Surely it is a matter of town planning for the local authority to decide the type of dwelling needed in any area. The hon. and learned Gentleman chose examples which suited his case.
  Mr. Mitchison: I know of no other examples.
  Mr. Page: There are many examples throughout the country where there has been development suitable to the area by private developers. A large number of dwellings have been provided.
  Would the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering try and keep his hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) quiet. The hon. Member for Widnes has written a pamphlet "Plans for Rented Houses" in which he offers compensation on the basis of £6 a year for twenty years for a house. That will frighten any private developer. I suppose that is the intention, because the private developer would be afraid to develop in case the houses were taken over by a Socialist Government for a mere song in compensation.
  If this operation of increased slum clearance and redevelopment and rehousing is to run smoothly, we must think more about the management of local authority houses, the allocation of houses, and the method of allocation. At present it is done on some sort of points system by local authorities, in secrecy by some small committee, and great resentment is felt by applicants on housing lists.
  The allocation of houses is of vital importance to a family on the waiting list. At present the allocation is done in secrecy as an administrative act. Although justice may be done, I feel it ought to be done openly. I have aired this subject in an Adjournment debate and I do not want to deal with it in great detail now, but we should look into the methods of selection of tenants and the allocation of houses.
  It is a matter of astonishment that hon. Members opposite have chosen the subject of housing for this debate after the failure of their Government to produce an adequate programme for housing and after the success of the Conservative Government's housing policy. One can see how the future programme is to be developed by the rapid progress of slum clearance and redevelopment over the past three years. That is the pointer to the future Conservative Government's programme—a programme as impressive and as bene-
  756
  ficial to the public as was its programme of over 300,000 houses a year.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mrs. Joyce Butler: I feel tempted to follow up some of the things said by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), but I have not sufficient time in which to do so. Some of the tortuous schemes which the hon. Gentleman propounded would be completely unnecessary and he would have had no need to suggest them were there sufficient houses in the country for those families which need them. Because there are not we have asked for this debate, and the hon. Gentleman has been forced to make suggestions about how the existing pool of accommodation may be re-allocated.
  The hon. Member for Crosby wondered why we on this side of the Committee desired a debate on housing. I wanted it because so many people in my constituency, particularly in the Tottenham area, have been asking me recently whether the Government realise the position regarding housing and whether something can be done to draw their attention to the problem. I wish to refer mainly to my own constituency and the problems in Middlesex, which are a little different from problems in other parts of the country so eloquently described by my hon. Friends.
  In Tottenham, there are more than 7,000 families waiting for houses. This in itself is a tremendous problem, because there is no land available in the borough on which to build, except for five acres which are scattered about in small parcels. In the Wood Green area there is no building land at all. The same situation applies in other parts of Middlesex, in boroughs like Willesden, Edmonton and Acton, and I am sure that the hon. Members who represent those areas wish to put their problems to the Minister.
  In the last few years the Tottenham authority has had to find accommodation, or is in process of finding accommodation, for a thousand families which are housed in requisitioned property. In an area where there is no land on which to build and where there is a long list of people waiting for housing accommodation, there are these priority cases, and a thousand families must be found accommodation. I wish

  757
  to add my plea to that which will be made next week that the Minister should consider extending the date by which requisitioned property has to be released.
  Authorities like Tottenham cannot solve their problems without assistance from the Minister. They cannot rehouse the people on their waiting lists; they cannot release requisitioned property or clear pre-fabs on open spaces, and house people evicted because of the operation of the Rent Act as well. They cannot find accommodation for overspill population from the slum areas without some outside assistance.
  I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to two consequences which flow from the difficulties experienced by local authorities. The first is the human problem. Recently I have spoken to many homeless families. It is a curious situation. The Minister has recently sent out a circular regarding homeless families and voluntary and welfare organisations have been pressing the Ministry for a considerable time to do something about this problem. Voluntary workers are spending a great deal of time and energy trying to prevent families becoming homeless because they have not paid their rent, or for other causes which occur when families get into difficulties and have to be evicted from the accommodation which they are occupying. While these efforts are being made to prevent families from becoming homeless in this way through their own fault, as a result of the Rent Act other families are being made homeless through no fault of their own it would appear that on the one hand the Ministry is trying to stop families from becoming homeless while on the other it is deliberately forcing families to become homeless by the application of the provisions of the Rent Act.
  I should like to reinforce what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Kelvingrove (Mrs. McAlister) and invite the Minister to visit my constituency. I should like him to go to a hostel for homeless families in Tottenham. I went into one room in which a family had been living for nearly three years. The family consisted of the father and mother and two children. There was washing strung across a line and washing airing over the gas stove. There were four beds in the room and the conditions
  758
  under which the family lived were appalling. The room reminded me of the little hut erected at the back of St. Martins Church to show the kind of accommodation in which the people live who are in refugee camps in Europe. I welcome the drive being made to aid these displaced persons, but I wish the Minister would do something to solve the problems of the homeless families in this country.
  Local people blame the local council for the conditions which exist, but what can local councils do? They have no land on which to build. Families are being evicted by private landlords under the provisions of the Rent Act. There have been 45 families evicted in Tottenham under the Act, and still more because of the usual reasons with which we are familiar. Perhaps the wife is expecting a baby and the landlord says, "Out you must go". Some couples have found accommodation with a householder who is buying his house through a building society and he fails to keep up the mortgage repayments. The building society forecloses and then not only the householder and his family but also the tenant and his family are evicted.
  In Middlesex the problem of homeless families is pressing. Yet when the county council invited the Minister to meet a deputation to discuss the problem, in a letter sent from the Clerk of the Council the local authorities, it is stated, paraphrasing the reply of the Minister:
  "The Minister is apparently not aware of any serious increase in the number of families which might justify special action."
  I wish to read a letter I have just received, one of a great many from my constituency, pointing out the human aspects of this problem. The writer says:
  "I am an old man. That is the only crime have committed. It seems a crime to live long enough to get to my age of 74. I realise that I have got to get a little more than the old-age pension so I still do a day or two's work a week. I take the liberty to write to you to inform you that I am a victim of the vicious Rent Act. I have been in front of the judge three times at Edmonton County Court. At last my visits there are over as the time he gives me to hand over with vacant possession is 6th July. Then I suppose my home that I have striven for all my life will, be put in the street. A nice prospect isn't it? All this anxiety is making my wife ill. It is not much I am asking, just somewhere to live. …"

  759
  That is the kind of problem with which authorities all over Middlesex have to cope. It is anticipated by the county council, which is drawing these problems together and summarising them, but the number will appreciably increase as time goes on.
  That is the human aspect, and there is the other aspect, in the problem of building. With regard to that I want to put to the Minister that there are two solutions of the problem, both of which lie in his hands. We have heard a great deal tonight about the past. I want him to look to the future and to realise that he has got to do something about this problem. If boroughs like the two I represent and many others are to solve their housing problems they can do one of two things. They can concentrate on re-development of rundown central areas. The hon. Member for Crosby said this was Conservative policy. If so, I wish the Minister would realise what is happening.
  I have an example from Coventry where there are two exactly comparable housing schemes, one on the periphery and one in a central area. The cost of exactly similar schemes is 80 per cent. higher in the central area than on the outskirts. That site in the central area had special features which made the cost lower than in other cases, but there was 80 per cent. difference, and in other schemes the difference would be 100 per cent. If local authorities are to redevelop central areas, clear away rundown areas and then build modern flats and houses as those congested towns must, the high cost will either make rents prohibitive or will make a very heavy drain on the rate subsidy. This tendency will increase the demand for land on the outskirts of the towns. In other words, it will increase the pressure on green belts.
  If the Minister does not look at this problem of the greatly increased cost of land in central areas it will be aggravated when the Town and Country Planning Act comes into operation. We shall have derelict central areas in towns and enormously strong pressure on green belts which will be extremely difficult to resist. That pressure will come from all sides, from private developers as well as from local authorities.
  760
  Another point the Minister must look at is the problem of overspill. It is not enough to say that he is encouraging overspill by a special subsidy. He knows as well as I do the problem in Middlesex. He knows that Middlesex authorities have agreed that their housing problem is such that they need some special method of solution. He knows they are considering the possibility of having a new town. I ask what he intends to do to help. He has refused permission for a new town under the New Towns Act. Now that the county council is under Labour control, I am very glad that it is working with the local authorities in Middlesex to try to find a solution of this problem of a new town. Such co-operation is essential because as the planning authority the county council has the power to refuse planning consent for extensions of industry in Middlesex and it can extinguish industrial uses.
  It is essential that industries as well as houses should be moved out. I therefore ask the Minister what he intends to do to help Middlesex to achieve a new town. If he will not allow one to be made under the Act, what powers will he give to the county council to help Middlesex solve its problems? Recently his own Ministry has been giving evidence to the Commission on Local Government in Greater London. It is estimated that from now until 1971 35,000 additional houses a year will need to be built to meet the housing needs of Middlesex. That is the problem and 2,000 families a year have been going from Middlesex into the new towns, but the new towns are rapidly completing their building programmes. By 1962 Hemel Hempstead, which has taken the majority of the Middlesex families will have completed its allocation of houses for families coming from outside.
  Something must be done. The remedy lies in the Minister's hands. If he will not permit a new town under the New Towns Act, it is for him to provide some other means to solve the overspill problem for Middlesex. He must also look at the problem from the National point of view, because what I have said about overspill from Middlesex is true of many other parts of the country. It is his responsibility to look at this as an overall problem and as a future problem, instead

  761
  of merely reiterating what has been done in the past. He must look ahead and help the authorities, which are doing their best but which need a national policy if they are to succeed.
  9.0 p.m.
  Sir Eric Errington: I have only about two minutes and in them I want to deal with two points which I consider are important. First, the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) spoke about housing as a social service. I agree with her that it is a social responsibility to provide an adequate supply of houses, but it seems to me that there can be no social obligation on the taxpayer to subsidise a tenant who has sufficient money to pay for his own accommodation. May I draw attention to some comments of the secretary of the Labour Party, Mr. Morgan Phillips, who said that the Labour policy was one of compulsorily acquiring houses, which he would sell to sitting tenants and others on the basis that they should repair and put them in order? There is a clear acceptance of the fact that there are certain people who are not entitled to look upon housing as a social service.
  If we apply that to council houses—and this is a matter of which I have some experience—we often find that council tenants are prepared to buy privately-built houses and to leave the council houses which they occupied for others whose need is greater. Although the Labour Party is a little doubtful about turning out council tenants of any kind, it ought to realise that there is a strong feeling against financing council tenants in certain areas and that the view is by no means unanimous that those who occupy council houses but have means of their own should receive the benefit of a public subsidy.
  The second point which I wish to make is that in my opinion council housing subsidies are in a muddle. Some are for sixty years, some for forty years and some for twenty years and at varying rates of interest. I believe that the country would welcome a clear and definite statement about the full position of housing subsidies. It is proper that the State should look after those people who require help in housing matters, but it seems to me nonsense to make provision for those who do not need it. I am sure that the time is ripe for this
  762
  information to be given to the country about the subsidy position in order that the whole problem can be considered in the light of the proved needs of the present, not of the future or of the past.
  9.4 p.m.
  Mr. James Griffiths: The Parliamentary Secretary began his speech earlier in the course of the debate by chiding the Opposition that we must be very hard pressed to find subjects on which to attack the Government or we would not have chosen housing. Does the hon. Gentleman think that now? Later in the course of the debate, during a very lively Scottish interlude, his colleague in the same Government, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, confessed to the Committee that after eight years of Tory rule the housing situation in Scotland was a public scandal. That is the answer to the Parliamentary Secretary.
  During the course of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), having heard that statement, handed me a letter. I have been in two minds whether I should read it, because it is horrifying and I do not want it to be thought that I am approaching this subject from that point of view. However, in view of the Parliamentary Secretary's attitude, as if housing were no longer a problem and as if everything was all right, I will with the consent of my hon. Friend read this letter. I hope that I shall read it quietly. I can give the Parliamentary Secretary the letter if he likes, and he can discuss it with my hon. Friend. The letter comes from Glasgow. Glasgow is in this country and is the responsibility of Parliament. Part of the letter says:
  "We live in the above tenement For a fortnight now we have been up to our knees in water from the foot of the stairs to the entrance of the close. The water is thick and vile in this heat and, as the property is infested with rats, you can imagine how we dread any disease spreading. Just now there are three dead rats floating in the water amongst the garbage and 'stepping stones'. I have written to the sanitary and the Factor, and still no response. Just now five of the children in the tenement are down with chickenpox, our mail is stopped and I have lost a job through it, the dustbins are full and the hack courts strewn with rubbish. The rents of course have risen 75 per cent. on average. … At the least you could offer us legal advice."

  763
  The Parliamentary Secretary began his debate by saying that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I had a cheek to discuss housing, yet conditions exist of the kind stated in that letter.
  I express my regret to many of my hon. Friends from many towns and cities who have not been able to intervene in the debate. I should like to have given them my time. The speeches we have heard from Leeds, from Newcastle, from parts of London, from Stoke-on-Trent and from hon. Members on the other side of the Committee have revealed to us clearly that housing is still the gravest of our social problems. I believe that we are not only right to bring this matter before the House of Commons at this time, but that we shall be dead right in expressing our condemnation of the failure of the Government when we reach the end of the day.
  The debate was opened by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I marvelled at his knowledge and his grasp of the subject. I want to thank him for the speech he made today and for the immense service he rendered to our party and to the nation in this field. I am proud to be associated with him. I speak as one who does not claim to be an expert in this field, and for that reason I shall deal with some special aspects of it. I thank my hon. and learned Friend and all those hon. Members who have spoken today and presented their problems before the Committee and before the country.
  Since I have given some of my time quite willingly, I will deal with two or three special aspects. First, the Parliamentary Secretary told us that his Department has no figures to give us as to what are the waiting lists. I do not know what the arrangements in the Department are, but since housing is now, and is likely to remain for some considerable time, one of our greatest social problems we ask the Department to provide us with figures of waiting lists and all the other information required to enable us to see the size, nature and character of the housing problem.
  Since the Government themselves have no such figures, I presume that they will accept those quoted by my hon. and
  764
  learned Friend, which are derived from a survey made by the National Housing and Town Planning Council. We must take them as the most authoritative that we can have, because the Ministry has none of its own.
  The Council inquired of 523 housing authorities, covering 52 per cent. of our total population, and found that they had over 750,000 applicants on their waiting lists. Of those, one in three was regarded as being in urgent need and, as my hon. and learned Friend said, if that is representative of the whole country it means that one in eight of our whole population is in urgent need of housing accommodation—
  Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Has there been any check on how many of those on the waiting lists are on more than one list? It is quite common for people to put their names on several lists.
  Mr. Griffiths: All I can say is that this survey was conducted by a very reputable body. Why does not the Minister take such a check and provide us with the figures? Until he does, figures of this kind have to be accepted as the basis, and they show that on the waiting lists are hundreds of thousands of families, many in urgent need. There are cases of tuberculosis and other types of sickness. There are people living in frightful conditions, and we know that there are thousands of young people still waiting for houses. These are all cases of urgency—and this is the position in 1959. Figures such as these show quite clearly that housing is a grave social problem, and that we are far from having developed policies to meet the need.
  Very many questions have been put to the Minister by my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, who have also given detailed statistics and figures of their own areas. They have also questioned him about the future. Therefore, if I do not deal with those matters it is because they have already been amply dealt with. Instead, I shall speak on the aspect of the problem that we face in the big towns and cities. My own view of housing there is that we cannot solve it by treating it merely as a housing problem—as we say in our policy statement. It is part of a bigger

  765
  economic and social problem, and many of the speeches which have been made this afternoon clearly illustrate its gravity.
  I have here the British Journal of Sociology of December, 1958, in which there is an article by Mr. J. B. Culling-worth, who deals with the measurement of housing needs. Speaking of the cities and big towns he says:
  "Indeed, in the large cities—even those which have declined in population—the local authority waiting lists are now longer than they were ten years ago despite"—
  and this meets the point made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson)—
  "annual checks to keep these live."
  Does the Minister accept that? Lots of houses have been built—since the war we have had a net increase of 2½ million houses—yet this reputable authority says that the live housing waiting lists in the cities and big towns are greater than they were ten years ago. What we are facing is the problem of overspill in the great conurbations. There are what are officially described as six great conurbations in England and Wales—Greater London, the Tyneside, the industrial West Riding, South-East Lancashire, based on Manchester, Merseyside, based on Liverpool, and the West Midlands, based on Birmingham.
  Of the total population of this country, 37·3 per cent. live in these six conurbations. The acreage of these conurbations, expressed as a proportion of England and Wales, is 3·56 per cent. This shows, therefore, that over one-third of the population of England and Wales are living in about one-thirtieth of the total land area. This is a topsy-turvy system. Talk about free enterprise—this is stupidity.
  See what has happened in my lifetime, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) has experienced this, too. Far a quarter of a century, during the depression—and we cannot he blamed; the Tories were there all the time—the population of the country was drained into these conurbations. In the 1920s and 1930s the Ministry of Labour subsidised men and families to move from South Wales, Durham and Lancashire into the conurbations. The Minister of Labour still does that. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing knows this because I met him earlier in the week and I mentioned it.
  766
  My valley has lost 2,000 of its people in the past twenty years and my town has lost 200 of its families in the last twelve months and many of them have been subsidised to go into the conurbations. For 25 years we drained them into the Midlands, into London and the other great cities. We paid to transfer them. We gave them a removal allowance. Now we are confronted with the insoluble problem of overspilling them out again. If people call that Tory freedom, they can have it.
  This problem cannot be solved without decent planning. The waiting lists in these large conurbations are greater than they were ten years ago, in spite of the fact that houses are being built. We are building houses all the time and draining people from the other areas so that we have these concentrations of population. What a way to run a country! What a topsy-turvy system!
  We have heard about Glasgow. The Under-Secretary, who is not here at the moment, described it as the city with the worst housing conditions in Western Europe. My interview with the Minister earlier in the week was lively, and I enjoyed it. I was also appalled by it. I was quite frank, and I marvelled at the patience with which people put up with conditions of this kind. In Glasgow—and this is true of all the conurbations—there are no available sites for building. There is not the land on which to provide houses for the population. We have got to spill people out. What is the good of the Minister trying to build houses when the President of the Board of Trade allows new factories and new people to go to these places to add to the overspill problem? In twenty years' time we shall have another overspill from these conurbations because we have not the sense to distribute industry properly.
  Let we come to the medal of the week. I am told that in Glasgow they have got to find room for overspill. I am credibly informed that one of the suggestions which has been considered is that some of the overspill population of Glasgow shall go to Kilmarnock, 22 miles away. See what happened yesterday. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) had a Question down to the

  767
  Minister of Labour. He asked the Minister about a proposal by the British Transport Commission to move the railway workshops from Kilmarnock to Glasgow, and this has been agreed. Did hon. Members ever see anything more like Bedlam in their lives? Here is Glasgow planning to overspill some of its population to Kilmarnock, and here is the British Transport Commission, with the consent of the Government, after consultation, moving people from Kilmarnock to Glasgow and subsidising the removal. The overspill from Glasgow to Kilmarnock will meet the workers from Kilmarnock going to Glasgow.
  We cannot solve the housing problem without dealing with those considerations. In these big towns and cities there are terrifying problems, but unless we tackle this problem of the sensible distribution of our industry we shall create a housing problem in all our cities which will be with us in twenty and thirty years' time.
  The debate has concentrated upon local authority housing. Figures have been given, and I do not want to repeat them, but what is quite clear—and this is one of our major charges against the Government—is that as a piece of deliberate policy there is a shift from Government house building to private house building. I hope the Minister will reply to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell). Land which the local authority wanted for building council houses was given in preference to the building of private houses. On what ground was that done? Very often we on these benches are told that we are doctrinaire. Who are doctrinaire now? Who are putting private profit and private ownership before public need?
  My hon. Friend gave examples and figures to illustrate this continuous shift from local authority housing to private building. We have heard so much from the benches opposite about what is called the Tory social policy. Indeed, it is sometimes called the Tory social philosophy, though, as a Socialist, I cannot see how philosophy and Toryism go together. The Tory philosophy is to concentrate our endeavours and, in particular, our national resources on meeting the greatest need. The Minister of
  768
  Pensions and National Insurance waxed eloquent about it earlier this week. He justified the new National Assistance Regulations by saying that they would concentrate the resources of the nation upon meeting the greatest need of those who were on National Assistance. That is the philosophy. The whole effort of the State should be to provide for those who are in greatest need.
  How do the Government square that with their housing policy? It is only the local authority which can meet the housing need where the need is greatest. It is only the local authority which takes need into account in letting houses. If private builders build houses, they have no points system. They give no preference to those in need. There is for them no question of testing need. With them, the question is, who will pay the biggest rent? Not only are the Government doing injustice to the people, but they are doing more than that. If their philosophy is as I have stated it, they are betraying their own philosophy. But that is typical of them. When their philosophy conflicts with private interest, the philosophy goes and private interest comes in.
  The question which we hope the Minister will answer is this. What role does he see the local authorities playing in meeting the housing need? In the first place, does he admit the need? Does he claim that private building will meet the need? If not, the only alternative is for the local authorities to meet it. Yet the whole trend of his policy, particularly in the last few years, has been away from the local authorities and towards private building. Our charge against the Government is that our national housing policy is being distorted for private ends and is failing to meet the real needs of the people today.
  I want to say a word now about home ownership, because so much has been said about it for our party. If I may say so, I give way to no one on the benches opposite who talks about home ownership and about the virtues of home ownership. I was born in an owner-occupied house. I live in one. I represent a town which was one of the first in the country to adopt the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. I lived in a valley where 75 per cent. of all the houses are owner-occupied by coal miners.

  769
  Why do hon. Members think that the miners sacrificed, saved and skimped in order to own their own houses? It was not because of any doctrinaire ideas about a property-owning democracy. They did it because of their memories of the past. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George), who has the enviable distinction of being the only miner on the Tory side—how he comes to be there, I do not understand—knows the reason perfectly well. We have our history and tradition. We are as proud of our tradition as hon. Members opposite are of theirs. There is a memory among our people of the old days when the owner owned the pit, the shops and the houses. When there was a strike or a lockout, often the men were beaten by their families being evicted. There grew up a passion for each man to own his own castle so that he could stand up to the boss on more or less equal terms.
  Hon. Members opposite speak as though they were the only ones Interested in home ownership. Of course, we shall provide for home ownership, but we shall provide for it in such a way as not to make it a lifelong burden for young people starting off family life. I ask the Committee to remember the present rates of interest and all the other conditions involved. I shall not speak today about our policy. We have explained it already, and we cannot discuss it now.
  We regard housing as a social service. Because we see no answer to the problem of housing except public ownership, we have our policy. But when we take them over for public ownership, we shall make the first offer to those who live in them so that they may buy at the take-over price and add to real home ownership in this country.
  I come now to the subject of the older houses. Not so long ago we listened to the present Prime Minister, who was then the Minister of Housing, talking about an inspiring adventure. Hon. Members will remember that speech. Through his Housing Act, the repair of old houses would be achieved. Then we had "Operation Rescue". Very shortly afterwards it was a flop. It was the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok who called it a flop. He admits that, does he not? Now the Government
  770
  have a new scheme. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how the new scheme is going along. They tried "Operation Rescue", and it failed. They have tried this new scheme to deal with the problem presented by the millions of old houses which need repair and improvement.
  There are millions of houses today without a water closet. We live in a topsy-turvy society. We travel in space, yet there are families living in houses without a water closet. What sense of social values is that? If the new scheme fails, what then? There is no alternative. The Minister knows it. The nation will know it. There is no alternative to ours.
  I hope that the Minister will say something about the Rent Act and about control. In the unlikely event of the present Government returning to power, the country will be entitled to know whether they will increase rents again and carry out further measures of decontrol. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), when introducing the Rent Act in 1956, said—I am paraphasing his words, but I believe that I do them full justice—"We are in sight of a solution, and, within twelve months, we shall reach a stage when, over all, the supply of houses and the demand will be equal". He described to us how in those happy days, which should have come in 1957, landlords would be going about looking for tenants. That is the assumption on which they based their legislation. That assumption, like so much of their policy, has been completely falsified by events, and it is because of their failures that we shall ask the Committee to divide against them when the time comes.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Henry Brooke): No one who supported the Labour Government of 1945–51 has the smallest right to criticise the Conservative Government's housing policy. What people want is not talk but houses, and for every 30 houses built under Socialist policy, 40 are being built today. There are 700,000 families now enjoying new homes who would not have had them if the Conservatives had not got in and set a much faster pace in house building than the Socialist Government were contented with.
  Mr. Ross: Just go up to Glasgow.
  Mr. Brooke: Because we have helped to make 2 million people happy, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) calls us merchants of misery. I think that he must have got up on the mantelpiece this morning, like Alice, and walked through the looking glass because he is living in a backwards world.
  I want to deal with the specific points raised in the debate, answer the questions asked, and finally come to the general argument. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a speech which I made in November, 1957, and he quoted me as saying that I was taking as my aim that local authorities would complete 100,000 houses in the year 1959–60. We shall, in fact, do better than that. I do not know whether he criticises us for doing better than that, but we shall. I was perfectly frank with the House at that time. I said that housing could not contract out of the steps that had to be taken towards economic recovery and to achieve victory over inflation. I hold to that view, and no responsible Minister standing at this Box could say otherwise. Unless the economy of this country is soundly based, it is goodbye to successful housing, social services and everything.
  Do the Opposition venture to say that, whatever the economic situation, the country should go full steam ahead with house building? That is the only ground on which they could criticise what we did 18 months ago. If they hold the view that, regardless of the situation, we should as a country simply aim at constantly building all the houses that can be conceivably put up, why did not they do that in 1950 and 1951? Of course, I appreciate that when the Socialists are in power there is no way to economic recovery except by a change of Government, so that the problem for them is a different one.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman's next point concerned interest rates. His party's policy of artificially low interest rates produced inflation in the years after the war. That was one of the largest factors in launching this country on the slippery slope of inflation. It produced inflation and sent building costs soaring. The rise in building costs is something which we have had to struggle against during the post-war years. We have used
  772
  interest rates to counter inflation, and we have been so successful that for the last three years building costs have stopped rising for the first time since the war. For three years building costs have been absolutely steady.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman contended that local authorities were suffering from high interest rates and were being prevented by them from building the houses that were necessary. He seems to forget that in our legislation we have provided for discretionary subsidies. Any local authority which cannot build without putting either the rents of its houses or its rates unreasonably high can apply for a discretionary subsidy under the Housing Act. These subsidies are substantial and no fewer than forty local authorities in England and Wales are receiving them.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and other hon. Members asked for further information about the housing waiting lists. They presumed to complain that the country could not reach any assessment of the housing situation unless somebody added up all the waiting lists of the local authorities and gave an authoritative figure. That is exactly what the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was repeatedly asked to do when he was Minister and as repeatedly refused—rightly so—saying that any such figure would be valueless. There was then, and there is now, a housing shortage in many places. Do not, however, let us divert the energies of valuable people to adding up lists when those lists can tell us nothing unless we know in advance that all of them are drawn up on the same basis and according to the same criteria.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelly, in his speech, also read out a letter which had been sent to one of his hon. Friends. I gather that it was written from a Scottish address. I am not responsible for housing policy in Scotland, but from what I gathered from the terms of that letter I would have said that had the writer been in England, the local health authority was not doing its job.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) suggested that the Government were stopping local authorities building houses that were badly needed by giving them inadequate allocations, and she quoted the case of

  773
  Leeds. It is true that in November last year, before 1959 began, the Leeds Corporation indicated to me that it would like an allocation of 2,500 for 1959 as against its 1958 allocation of 1,800. I said that I would give the corporation 2,000 at that time and would review the position later in the year. That is exactly how matters stand. According to the information available to me, although we are nearly half-way through the year. Leeds still has in hand no fewer than 1,800 houses approved but not yet started.
  Other hon. Members made the charge against the Government that my predecessor and I had not always permitted local authorities to build everywhere that they wished to build. In particular, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) raised a question concerning the city which he represents.
  Dame Irene Ward: Part of which he represents.
  Mr. Brooke: Part of which the hon. Member represents. I am sure that he will understand, and the House will appreciate, that I could not possibly meet a deputation from any local authority when questions relating to the same land were before me on a compulsory purchase order. I am always ready at the service of any Member of the House who wishes to see me or to see my Parliamentary Secretary about any matter within my responsibilities arising in his constituency, but I seek to make it an absolute rule—and I hope that both sides of the Committee will support me in this—in declining to see those who are not Members of the House on matters which are before me and in which I have to act in a quasi-judicial capacity. I feel certain that that is right. I assure the hon. Member that when I get the report of the further inquiry which is to be held, I will consider it with an open mind on the basis of all the evidence which is brought forward at that inquiry.
  Mr. Popplewell: May I take it that the fact that an appeal has been allowed previously which hands this land over to private enterprise will not have an undue influence with the right hon. Gentleman in his decision on the compulsory purchase order?
  Mr. Brooke: I said to the hon. Gentleman that I would consider it with an
  774
  open mind on the basis of all the evidence brought forward at that inquiry. It will be on what takes place at that inquiry rather than on anything that has taken place or might take place outside the inquiry that I shall seek to reach my decision.
  If hon. Members opposite reproach the Conservative Government for not having invariably given local authorities power to build wherever they will, let me say that no Minister in my experience has ever done that. I was a member of the London County Council when the Socialist controlled L.C.C. sought to make a compulsory purchase order over 800 acres of land at Chessington, and it was Lord Silkin, who was then Minister, who refused to confirm that compulsory purchase order, just as he refused to confirm in whole a further compulsory purchase order which the Socialist controlled L.C.C. sought to make in those years at Hurlingham.
  We must consider all these cases on their merits. In the last few weeks and months I carry in my mind a case where I authorised private enterprise rather than a local authority to build on certain land because it was clear that the local authority had enough building land for several years already in its possession, whereas private building in that area might otherwise have been at a standstill. I have done the reverse, and in another case that I bear in mind I have authorised a local authority to build on land which was being sought after by private enterprise because in that case I believed the local authority's work would be brought to a standstill and it would not be able to carry out its statutory duties, whereas it appeared to me that there was other land in the neighbourhood on which private enterprise could build.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) raised the question of requisitioning. She will appreciate that any extension of the date of 31st March, 1960, would require legislation, and, therefore, I cannot answer any questions on that. I think that she should give me credit for making a decision—and not an easy decision—lately in favour of her Borough of Wood Green. She spoke of overspill problems, and these are very present to my mind. About 120,000 more people

  775
  will be going to live in the London new towns before further development is completed, so it would be wholly wrong to say that the Government have clamped down and prevented any further overspill from London taking place.
  Then there was the claim made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering that the Labour Government had introduced improvement grants for modernising older houses. That is perfectly true, but the Labour Government's scheme was so impractical that from 1949 to 1953 only 6,000 houses were improved with the aid of those grants. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister held my office he altered the scheme, and since then they have been running at the rate of about 35,000 a year. I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East that that is not enough, and that is why we have put on the Statute book the House Purchase and Housing Act. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) said about the importance of these grants being made use of, and I am sure that I can rely upon the hon. Lady, and, indeed, upon hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, for support—for part of that Bill has had all-party support—to do everything they can to publicise the new standard grants scheme and get it used to the full.
  Miss Bacon: The whole basis of my argument and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) was that even though we represent those cities where landlords have been entitled to use these improvement grants hardly anything has been done.
  Mr. Brooke: That is why we have amended the law and made the scheme simpler and more attractive.
  The Opposition make the charge that in these days the Government allow only wretched boxes to be built in place of houses. Do hon. Members opposite never go into modern council houses or flats? I have been into a good many newly built houses and flats lately in different parts of England and Wales. I was in some new flats last week in two London boroughs, one under Socialist
  776
  and the other under Conservative control—Finsbury and Kensington. They were not boxes. They were not cramped. They were charming flats, and all the tenants said how delighted they were to have got them.
  I want to pay a tribute to what local authorities are doing for the old people. In the years after the war we did not build enough for them. We naturally had to build mostly for families. The result was that when the Labour Government went out of office only 7 per cent. of the council houses and flats being built were designed for old people. Now the figure is about 20 per cent., and I hope that it will go up to 25 per cent. Is that what the Opposition criticise when they seek to debate local authority housing?
  Mr. Mitchison: We want the others, too.
  Mr. Brooke: The hon. and learned Member says that he wants the others, too. The truth is that once again the Opposition are censuring the Government for building too many houses. This time their case is that they are not the right sort of houses. Half the houses now being built are houses which people are choosing to live in for themselves.
  Mr. Mitchison: The Opposition case is quite simple. The right hon. Gentleman has reduced the rate of council housing. He has nearly halved it in the course of five years. Why?
  Mr. Brooke: I have another ten minutes, and I have ten minutes' worth to say. We think it is a good thing that houses should be built both through private enterprise and through public authorities. The Opposition do not; they imagine that all our people want to live in council houses. They will find that they are mistaken. The vast majority of our people want to live in houses of their own. It is for the people who cannot make their own arrangements that the councils must build.
  Between 1945 and 1951 the people who could and would make their own arrangements for housing were not allowed to do so, because that was contrary to Socialist philosophy. We got rid of the Socialist housing controls on private building, and the Socialists said that this would cut down council house

  777
  building. It did not. Council house building expanded as soon as the Conservatives came into power. In England and Wales, in the five years from 1947 to 1951 public authorities built 707,000 houses—an average of 141,000 a year. In the last five years, from 1954 to 1958, no less than 807,000 have been built—an average of 161,000 a year. Are the Opposition so ashamed of their record that they are censuring us for building only 20,000 a year more than they did?
  Slum clearance has been referred to. The Labour Government did not attempt it. It is not possible to carry out large scale slum clearance if a Government is content with a small building programme. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) said, the only two great slum clearance drives in history have been under Conservative Governments. We gave a pledge before the General Election. We said that we would aim at rehousing 200,000 people a year. We have not only aimed at it, we have done it. We hope to do it again in 1959, and 1960 too, provided there is not the disaster of a change of Government.
  This summer I have been making it my business to get around and see for myself slum clearance and redevelopment in different towns. I have been to some of the oldest towns which grew up in the early days of the Industrial Revolution. I have been to places like Merthyr and Oldham. Last week I went round London, and tomorrow I shall be in Wolverhampton, so I say to the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green that I do not need further opportunities to see how people are living.
  Conditions in which thousands of people are still having to live in this country are shocking. During the last week I have been to houses where the sanitary facilities have to be seen to be believed, and sometimes, as everybody who visits slum property knows, one goes into a house where there is a brooding depression of evil over the whole house. I am the first to say that bad housing produces viciousness and vice. These houses must come down, and the quicker the better. As long as the Conservative Government remain in office we shall continue our programme until every house that is not fit for human habitation is pulled down.
  Mr. Ross: In the meantime, the landlords are allowed to charge more rent.
  Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is ignorant even in his interruption. He should know that under the Rent Act it is not possible to charge more rent.
  Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman is showing his ignorance. Under the Rent Act, rents in Scotland went up without any condition at all about improvement to the houses.
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Brooke: I will certainly answer for England. In England the Rent Act is one of the most powerful instruments for improving the condition of houses which otherwise would deteriorate.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: If the right hon. Gentleman comes to Newcastle I will show him houses which are utterly disgraceful but where the rents have been increased.
  Mr. Brooke: If the hon. Gentleman has allowed people in his constituency to pay increased rents for houses which are not fit for habitation, with respect to him, he has been failing in his duty as a Member of Parliament.
  The Opposition asked for this debate. They have chosen the date for the debate. It is the date on which the latest housing figures are those for the first four months of 1959. The total number of new houses started in the first four months of this year is higher than in the corresponding period of any year since the war, bar two. I need hardly say that both of those other years were when a Conservative Government were in power. But the gravamen of the Opposition's charge seems to be that the Government are making it impossible for local authorities to build. Let us examine that.
  The number of council houses and flats built is governed by the approval of tenders. Every local authority has to submit its tenders to the Ministry and get them approved. The Committee is perfectly entitled to know how the approval of tenders has proceeded. Here, I think, we come to the real crux of the criticism of the Opposition. In the first four months of 1950, when a Labour Government were in power, the number of houses in tenders approved

  779
  by the Government for public authorities in England and Wales was 40,098. In 1951, the last year of the Labour Government, it was 42,145. Now the housing need is not so extensive as it was then—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as 2¼ million houses have been built under a Conservative Government meantime, and 1½ million of those are council houses and houses built by public authorities.
  Under our Government, nearly twice as many houses have been built by public authorities than at any time under the Labour Government. Nevertheless, despite this enormous improvement in the situation, the figures for tenders approved in the first four months of 1959, the current year, was more than in
  either 1950 or 1951. So, as usual, the Conservative Government are doing better than the Labour Government did. I realise that hon. Members opposite find that difficult to bear. I am now going to wait with interest to see whether the Opposition really will dare to go into the Lobbies to censure the Government for having a better housing policy and a finer housing record than theirs.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: In response to the Minister's challenge, I beg to move, "That Item Class V, Vote 1 (Ministry of Housing and Local Government) be reduced by £5.
  Question put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 241, Noes 299.

  Division No. 143.]

  AYES

  [9.58 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Finch, H. J. (Bedweilty)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Albu, A. H.

  Fletcher, Eric

  Lawson, G. M.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Foot, D. M.

  Ledger, R. J.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Forman, J. C.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Baird, J.

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Lewis, Arthur

  Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Gooch, E. G.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Benson, Sir George

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Logan, D. G.

  Beswick, Frank

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Grey, C. F.

  McAlister, Mrs. Mary

  Blackburn, F.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  McCann, J.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Bowles, F. G.

  Hale, Leslie

  McInnes, J.

  Boyd, T. C.

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Hamilton, W. W.

  McLeavy, Frank

  Brockway, A. F.

  Hannan, W.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hastings, S.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Hayman, P. H.

  Mahon, Simon

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Healey, Denis

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

  Mason, Roy

  Carmichael, J.

  Holman, P.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Holmes, Horace

  Mellish. R. J.

  Champion, A. J.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  Messer, Sir F.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cliffe, Michael

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Clunie, J.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Monslow, W.

  Coldrick, W.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Moody, A. S.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Cronin, J. D.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Mort, D. L.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Moss, R.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Moyle, A.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Janner, B.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Deer, G.

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  O'Brien, Sir Thomas

  Diamond, John

  Jeger,Mrs.Lena(Holbn & St.Pncs,S.)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Oram, A. E.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Orbach, M.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)

  Oswald, T.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Owen, W. J.

  Edelman, M.

  Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Padley, W. E.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Paget, R. T.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Kenyon, C.

  Pargiter. G. A.

  Parker, J.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Viant, S. P.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Warbey, W. N.

  Paton, John

  Simmons, C. J, (Brierley Hill)

  Weitzman, D.

  Peart, T. F.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Pentland, N.

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Prentice, R. E.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Price, Philip (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Wigg, George

  Probert, A. R.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Stones, W. (Consett)

  Willey, Frederick

  Rankin, John

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

  Reeves, J.

  Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Reid, William

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

  Rhodes, H.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Winterbottom, Richard

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Woof, R. E.

  Ross, William

  Thornton, E.

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Royle, C.

  Tomney, F.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Short, E. W.

  Usborne, H. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Cooper, A. E.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Aitken, W. T.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Cunningham, Knox

  Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

  Atkins, H. E.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Baldwin, Sir Archer

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hesketh, R. F.

  Balniel, Lord

  Deedes, W. F.

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Barber, Anthony

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Barter, John

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Batsford, Brian

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Hobson, John(Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

  Drayson, G. B.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Hope, Lord John

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Horobin, Sir Ian

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

  Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,E.)

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs Evelyn

  Howard, John (Test)

  Bidgood, J. C.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Bingham, R. M,

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Finlay, Graeme

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Bishop, F. P.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh,W.)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Foster, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)

  Body, R. F.

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Hyde, Montgomery

  Bonham Carter, Mark

  Freeth, Denzil

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Gammans, Lady

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Braine, B. R.

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

  Brewis, John

  Glover, D.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Glyn, Col. Richard H.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Godber, J. B.

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Kaberry, D.

  Bryan, P.

  Gower, H. R.

  Keegan, D.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Grant-Ferris,Wg.Cdr.R.(Nantwich)

  Kimball, M.

  Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Green, A.

  Lagden, G. W.

  Campbell, Sir David

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Carr, Robert

  Grimond, J.

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Leavey, J. A.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

  Grosvenor, Lt-Col. R. G.

  Leburn, W. G.

  Cole, Norman

  Gurden, Harold

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

  Cooke, Robert

  Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  782

  783

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Lloyd,Rt.Hon.G.(Sutton Coldfield)

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Osborne, C.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Longden, Gilbert

  Page, R. G.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Peel, W. J.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Teeling, W.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Temple, John M.

  McAdden, S. J.

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Pitman, I. J.

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Pott, H. P.

  Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Profumo, J. D.

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Maddan, Martin

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Redmayne, M.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

  Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Marshall, Douglas

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Wall, Patrick

  Mawby, R. L.

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Webbe, Sir H.

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Webster, David

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Sharples, R. C.

  Whitelaw, W. S. I.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Shepherd, William

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Neave, Airey

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

  Speir, R. M.

  Woollam, John victor

  Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

  Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Noble, Michael (Argyll)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Nugent, Richard

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Legh and Mr. E. Wakefield.

  Original Question again proposed.
  Mr. Ray Mawby Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes)rose—
  It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING

    ADJOURNMENT
    Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]
    Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Leeds Prison (Allegations)
  Leeds Prison (Allegations)
  Trooping the Colour
  Trooping the Colour
  Metropolitan Police (Removal of Vehicles)
  Metropolitan Police (Removal of Vehicles)
  Women and Girls (Assaults)
  Women and Girls (Assaults)
  Pentonville Prison (Laundry Facilities)
  Pentonville Prison (Laundry Facilities)
BASUTOLAND
  African Civil Servants (Salaries)
  African Civil Servants (Salaries)
EDUCATION
  Teachers, Tamworth (Housing Accommodation)
  Teachers, Tamworth (Housing Accommodation)
  Schoolchildren (Extended Education)
  Schoolchildren (Extended Education)
  Village Halls, Leek Division
  Village Halls, Leek Division
  Education Act, 1944 (Section 105 (3))
  Education Act, 1944 (Section 105 (3))
  ATOMIC ENERGY (COMMONWEALTH CO-OPERATION)
  ATOMIC ENERGY (COMMONWEALTH CO-OPERATION)
  RADIOACTIVITY
  RADIOACTIVITY
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farms, Leek Division (Electricity Supply)
  Farms, Leek Division (Electricity Supply)
  Improvement of Roads
  Improvement of Roads
  Farm Improvement Grants
  Farm Improvement Grants
  Forestry Workers (Safety and Health)
  Forestry Workers (Safety and Health)
  Forestry Commission (Joint Consultation)
  Forestry Commission (Joint Consultation)
  Potatoes (Subsidy)
  Potatoes (Subsidy)
  Forests (Thinnings)
  Forests (Thinnings)
  Forest Area
  Forest Area
  Woodland Acreage, West Riding
  Woodland Acreage, West Riding
  Leek Division (Improvement of Roads)
  Leek Division (Improvement of Roads)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Subsidies to Industry
  Subsidies to Industry
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Commonwealth Industrialists (Sites)
  Commonwealth Industrialists (Sites)
  Overseas Visitors
  Overseas Visitors
  Imports from U.S.S.R.
  Imports from U.S.S.R.
TANGANYIKA
  Northern Province
  Northern Province
GAMBIA
  Constitution (Discussions)
  Constitution (Discussions)
  Tourist Industry
  Tourist Industry
  Rice (Experiments)
  Rice (Experiments)
KENYA
  Hola Detention Camp
  Hola Detention Camp
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  School Accommodation, Aden
  School Accommodation, Aden
TRANSPORT
  Oxford-Bletchley-Cambridge Branch Line
  Oxford-Bletchley-Cambridge Branch Line
  East Midlands Transport Users' Consultative Committee
  East Midlands Transport Users' Consultative Committee
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  General Grant
  General Grant
  Air Pollution
  Air Pollution
  Clean Air Act
  Clean Air Act
ROYAL NAVY
  Nuclear Propulsion Systems (Research)
  Nuclear Propulsion Systems (Research)
HOSPITALS
  Nurses, Hull
  Nurses, Hull
  Surgical Cases, Hull
  Surgical Cases, Hull
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Infant Mortality, Wales
  Infant Mortality, Wales
EMPLOYMENT
  Ship Painters
  Ship Painters
  Older Men and Women
  Older Men and Women
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Smokeless Fuels
  Smokeless Fuels
SCOTLAND
  Industry, Kilmarnock (Transfer)
  Industry, Kilmarnock (Transfer)
  Agriculture (Grants and Subsidies)
  Agriculture (Grants and Subsidies)
  Hospital Building Projects, Western Region
  Hospital Building Projects, Western Region

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Viscount Simonds

GERMAN MEMBERS OF KRUPP MIXED COMMITTEE
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can give the names of the three Germans on the Krupp Mixed Committee, and their political, business, economic or other associations.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the three German members appointed are Dr. Wilhelm Vocke, former President of the Deutscher Länder Bank, and a well-known anti-Nazi; Dr. Rolf Stodter, Judge of the Hamburg Constitutional Court, Professor of International Law at the University of Hamburg, and a partner in a shipping firm; and Herr Ludwig Kattenstroth, an Under-Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Economics, who formerly worked in the economic administration of the combined Western Zones of Germany.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK:My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his Answer. May I ask whether the seventh member under the terms of Article X of the Bonn Convention has yet been elected; and can the noble Marquess say whether he has any idea when the meetings of the Mixed Committee are to commence?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The answer to the first part of the question is that the seventh member has not yet been elected; he will be elected by the other six. In answer to the second part of the question, the Committee are to meet on June 25.
LORD OGMOREMy Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether the
1256
second and third gentlemen he mentioned are also anti-Nazis?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I have rather more complete biographical information, if your Lordships would care to hear it. Dr. Wilhelm Vocke is known as a fervent Protestant and anti-Nazi; Dr. Rolf Stodter has no known political affiliations, either now or during the Nazi period. As for the third gentleman, Herr Ludwig Kattenstroth, he was not a member of a Nazi Party, and has no known political affiliation.

ESTATE DUTY AND SALE OF RUBENS PICTURE
LORD FARINGDON: 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 what approaches were made to the Executors of the Westminster Estate to persuade them to sell the picture by Rubens of the Adoration of the Magi to the nation and whether it was pointed out to them that in the event of their agreement to such a sale the price paid would not be liable to estate duty towards the payment of which the money could be applied.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in another place on Tuesday, the executors of the estate in question are aware both of the importance of this picture from the point of view of the national art collection and of the various means by which it might be transferred to the nation, including the implications as regards death duty.
LORD FARINGDON:My Lords, arising out of that reply, for which I thank the noble Viscount, I wonder if I could ask him whether further negotiations are going on at the present time; and could we have an assurance that, in any case, this picture will not be allowed to leave the country?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM:I do not think that I am in a position to say anything about negotiations. I was not aware that I had discussed any. The potential purchasers from abroad have

1257
been clearly warned by the National Gallery Trustees that the latter will seek to prevent the export of this picture if it is sold abroad; but whether export is or is not stopped after auction is a matter for the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art, which Committee is also responsible for determining any price which a United Kingdom public gallery would have to offer for the picture if a licence were withheld.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount this question? Under the terms of the trust, are the executors not bound to obtain the best possible price that they can for this picture; and how can the best possible price be obtained unless the picture is put up for auction?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not think that I can discuss the legal obligations of the trustees of a private estate.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether the announcement that he has just indicated as having been made is not the very thing which prevents the executors from getting a good price at an auction?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not think so. I think that the terms of what I said have made it quite clear that the announcement has not only just been made.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether, in the event of the nation deciding to purchase this picture at Sotheby's, the amount received by the executors of the estate will be liable to estate duty?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, these are very difficult questions, and I shall do my best to get the answer right; but the House will forgive me if I make a mistake. I think that when there is a sale by auction, duty is always payable on the proceeds.
LORD FARINGDON: Is the noble Viscount aware that the prices paid by the nation for pictures of national importance which are sold direct to the nation have always been most generous?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am always glad to hear tributes paid to Her Majesty's Treasury.

CALF SUBSIDIES (ENGLAND AND WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND) (VARIATION) SCHEME, 1959
3.9 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD(EARL WALDEGRAVE)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD(EARL WALDEGRAVE) rose to move, That the Calf Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) (Variation) Scheme, 1959, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on the 5th of May last. The noble Earl said; My Lords, if it is convenient to your Lordships, I think it might be well if I were to discuss the England and Wales and Northern Ireland Scheme and the Scottish Scheme at the same time, as my noble friend Lords Forbes is unable to be here this afternoon and has asked me to take this matter for him. We could then discuss these two Schemes together.
The purpose of these Schemes, of course, is to give effect to the decision announced in the White Paper on the Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees, 1959 (Cmnd. 696), paragraph 23, to increase the rate of calf subsidy from £8 10s. to £9 5s. a head for eligible steer calves born on or after April 1, 1959. These Schemes therefore vary the existing ones which apply to calves born up to October 29, 1961, and the new rate, unless again varied, will apply to steer calves born up to that date. The Schemes make no other change.
Your Lordships will be aware that the purpose of the subsidy is to encourage the rearing of calves for beef production. The number of calves so reared has shown a steady rise over the years since the introduction of the subsidy, and it is fair to infer from this that the increase has been materially assisted by the subsidy. It is most important that this trend should not be reversed at the present time, owing to the general shortfall of beef supplies, particularly from the Argentine: but even now an appreciable number of male calves are still slaughtered within a few days of birth which could well be reared as stores. To encourage them to be reared it is proposed to increase the subsidy on steer calves. For several years it has been clear that practically all heifer calves,

1259
except those not fit for rearing, have been saved for breeding or rearing for mature beef; and it has been the policy since 1956 to limit any increase in the subsidy to steer calves only. But there is still a substantial subsidy of £7 10s. a head on heifer calves.
Your Lordships may wonder why the increase applies to calves born on or after April 1, since this date falls in the middle of the spring calving season and might therefore be thought unfair to owners of calves born in February and March. I agree that April 1 is not an ideal date, and we did give careful thought to possible alternatives. However, we could not justify making the increase retrospective, because its purpose is to provide an incentive to farmers to rear more steer calves in the future, and not to pay a bonus on calves already reared.
In some ways it might have been fairer to start the increase with calves born in July or August, so as to avoid cutting into a calving season. Unfortunately, since calves do not usually qualify until they are eight months old, this would have meant that no calves would have earned the increase during 1959–60 season. This was not acceptable. On balance, therefore, and since April 1 marks the beginning of the livestock year, when changes in guaranteed prices of livestock and livestock products under an Annual Review award take effect, we considered this to be the best date.
During the ten years it has been operating the calf subsidy has made a very valuable contribution to increasing our supplies of home-produced beef, and a further increase in these supplies is very desirable. I confidently expect that the increase in the subsidy will result in more calves being reared for beef, and I commend the Schemes to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Calf Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) (Variation) Scheme, 1959, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on the 5th of May last.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the explanation he has given. I think on reflection that
1260
the explanation he gave about fixing April 1 as the date is a reasonable one. It can hardly be said to be quite fair to increase the subsidy for someone who would determine his policy on these calves months before the date given. The thing that strikes me about it is that the trend is satisfactory and it shows that the subsidy has been successful. It is also pretty certain that we shall want to go on increasing the number of animals reared for beef. On the other hand, what the Minister says is perfectly true: that a large number of steer calves are still being slaughtered. One can understand why some of the steer calves from dairy herds are treated as "bobbies" right from their date of birth and got rid of in three or four days, but, surely, if a steer calf of a dairy Shorthorn or Ayrshire can be reared to a state satisfactory to the person who makes certification on behalf of the Ministry, it ought not to be ruled out from the subsidy. Is there any bar remaining to prevent its being kept with a view to certification at a proper age?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I would say that I am not quite sure what the noble Viscount means. All steer calves, even Jersey steer calves, that reach certification standard are eligible for subsidy.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am glad to have had that statement specifically made by the Minister, because it is not fully understood by a large number of farmers. In fear that they are not going to get a subsidy, it has become a matter of habit to send off steer calves of dairy herds within three or four days.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CALF SUBSIDIES (SCOTLAND) (VARIATION) SCHEME, 1959
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Forbes, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Calf Subsidies (Scotland) (Variation) Scheme, 1959, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on the 5th of May last.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FERTILISERS (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME, 1959
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the Fertilisers Scheme for 1959, like the present one, covers the whole of the United Kingdom. It extends the fertiliser subsidy arrangements for a further year from July 1. It provides for the payment of contributions to occupiers of agricultural land and to associations of farmers, allotment holders, smallholders and the like, who acquire fertilisers in bulk for redistribution to their members, for nitrogenous and phosphatic fertilisers delivered to them during the year ending June 30, 1960. The estimated cost of the subsidy for the year 1959–60 is about £28 million. Since no change was made in the fertiliser subsidy at the Price Review this year, the scheme is substantially the same as the existing one as there are no alterations in the basic rates of contribution. The amount per ton for sulphate of ammonia has, however, been raised by 1s. 6d. to take account of a slight increase in its guaranteed nitrogen content, from 20·8 per cent. to 21 per cent., as from July 1.
The main purpose of this production grant of course is, to encourage farmers to increase their efficiency by using more fertilisers, and I am glad to say that consumption has been rising steadily since the present form of subsidy was introduced in 1952. The use of nitrogen has gone up by about 50 per cent. since 1952–53, while the consumption of phosphates has also risen, although not to the same extent. Potash is not subsidised but its use has also risen at about the same rate as nitrogen. It is of course included in a great many compounds which do receive a subsidy because of their nitrogenous or phosphatic content.
This increased consumption is very satisfactory. But no one, I think, would argue that there is not room for further improvement. The Committee on Grassland Utilisation, under Sir Sidney Caine, looked at this question and pointed out that there is much scope for the greater use of fertilisers on grassland. I am pleased to be able to say that some of the largest manufacturers have recently announced reductions in prices of certain fertilisers. I am sure that the House will welcome these reductions which, taken in conjunction with the assistance given to farmers through the subsidy, should
1262
lead to greater efficiency on the farm. I hope this scheme will meet with the approval of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1959, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on the 13th of May last.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Motion agreed.

AGRICULTURAL LIME SCHEMES (EXTENSION OF PERIOD) ORDER, 1959
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, It is proposed to make the Agricultural Lime Schemes (Extension of Period) Order, 1959, which extends the operation of the Scheme for the next live years—that is, to July 31, 1964. It applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. This subsidy has been in continuous operation since 1937. The Agriculture Act, 1947, extended the Scheme until August 1, 1954, and the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1954, extended it to July 31, 1959, with provision for extension for further periods of five years.
The subsidy on agricultural lime enables every farmer in the United Kingdom to obtain a refund of 60 per cent. of his costs of liming—increased to 70 per cent. for summer months in recent years to encourage the liming of hill lands and grassland. The annual cost of the subsidy is likely to be about £9 million.
Liming is the foundation of soil fertility. A satisfactory lime status is essential for maximum crop production and to support thrifty stock and milk production. It is an important factor in securing the full value of the nitrogenous and phosphatic fertilisers now being used in increasing quantities. The greatest loss of lime from the soil occurs naturally by leaching, and the latest estimate of the soil chemists of the National Agricultural Advisory Service is that the equivalent of nearly 2 million tons of calcium oxide is lost annually from the soils of the United Kingdom by this and other causes. Our annual lime need is, however, greater than this. We started off in 1937 with very serious and widespread lime deficiency attributed to neglect of liming practice in

1263
the inter-war years. The 1958 assessment by the National Agricultural Advisory Service soil chemists is that, quite apart from making good annual losses, an additional 15 million tons of calcium oxide is called for over the next six years to make good the overall lime deficiency of United Kingdom soils. Together, the two requirements of making good annual losses and making some inroad on accumulated lime deficiency call for the application of some 4½ million tons of calcium oxide per annum, equivalent to about 9 million tons of product, over the next six years.
Liming is not a short-term investment which the farmer can look to for immediate and spectacular results, and I think there is little doubt that, if the subsidy were to be removed, the consumption of lime would fall considerably short even of the level recommended by the soil chemists for replacement of annual lime losses. This would jeopardise our present high level of agricultural production. The lime subsidy is one of the most useful of the agricultural production grants and one which has stood the test of time. It makes a positive contribution to the improvement of the land; and land in good heart is a national asset. The lime subsidy has been reviewed frequently and the 1937 legislation has been extended by various Acts and by various Governments. I ask your Lordships to approve its extension for a further five years. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Agricultural Lime Schemes (Extension of Period) Order, 1959, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on the 14th of May last.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, we support the action that has been taken by the Government in this matter, but there is one question that I should like to ask about the long-term investment of lime. It seems to be a general impression among farmers that if they lime heavily with lump chalk it may last up to eight, nine or ten years. But in some cases, sometimes after crops have been sold, it is now the practice to carry out lime-spraying in powder form, sometimes by air. Does that have the same long-term effect, or is it likely to be of not more than one or two years' duration?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I should not like to answer that technical question without notice. Quite frankly, without looking up the technical papers, I do not know what is the length of life of the different forms of lime. However, I will certainly communicate with the noble Viscount on that point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FIRE SERVICES BILL [H.L.]
3.22 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 6 [Appointments and promotions]:
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS, had given Notice of two Amendments to Clause 6, the first being after "paragraphs" to insert "(a)". The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships are aware, the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Fire Services Act, 1947, and to do away with the great majority of the powers which the Secretary of State for Home Affairs possesses in regard to the verious fire services. This Bill does, in fact, abolish various requirements whereby the Home Secretary's approval is required to a number of matters, but the Bill insists upon retaining the present power of the Secretary of State to approve appointments to the office of chief fire officer. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure, if your Lordships approve it, that these appointments of chief fire officer shall now be handed over to the local authorities, as are the appointments of all other officers in the fire brigades, and not left subject to the approval of the Home Secretary. I say this on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations, who feel strongly about this matter, supported by the County Councils Association.
Your Lordships may remember that my noble friend Lord Stansgate raised the matter on Second Reading, and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack was good enough to reply to the arguments we then advanced. The Associations, however, are not satisfied with the position, and have pressed that this Amendment might be put down. On Second Reading the noble and learned Viscount indicated that the Government felt that as the fire brigade services were a disciplined organisation it was vital to

1265
the operation of the service in peace, and unquestionably in war, that every possible care should be taken to secure the appointment of the right men as chief fire officers. For that reason the Government insisted on retaining power of control of these appointments.
The local authority associations do not accept that argument. They say that they are no less capable of making the appointments than the Home Secretary; and they do not accept that, because of the interest of the Secretary of State in the fire services consequent upon wartime responsibilities, it is necessary for him to approve these peace-time appointments. In war time the position is different; but, as your Lordships are aware, it is proposed to nationalise the fire brigade services in the unfortunate event of war. In peace time, however, in the view of the local government associations, there is no necessity for the Home Secretary to approve the appointment of chief fire officers. I might remind your Lordships that in the case of war the Home Secretary has the power to appoint regional fire brigade officers who command the various areas in which the chief fire officers work. So that in this way, in the view of the local government associations, the position is safeguarded.
The chief fire officers are obviously in no different position from other chief officers of local authorities, who are, incidentally, responsible for services no less important than the service rendered by fire brigades. As your Lordships will also appreciate, the freedom to make these appointments is fundamental to important, and indeed to all, local authorities having the right to their own fire brigades. At present local authorities have the right to appoint clerks of county councils, town clerks, treasurers, medical officers, surveyors, engineers, architects, planning officers, welfare officers, land agents and, indeed, civil defence officers, to whom one would have thought the same argument advanced by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor would apply. There appears to be no cogent reason why chief fire officers should not similarly be appointed.
I would remind your Lordships that there is no absolute guarantee as to the propriety of appointments approved by the Home Office, as has been evidenced by recent cases affecting chief constables.
1266
In the case of chief constables the Home Secretary has to give his approval, to an appointment, if he does not actually appoint. Yet his approval has not in recent years ensured the propriety of all those appointments. The noble and learned Viscount mentioned the analogy, though I do not think he drew it too closely, between chief fire officers and the office of chief constable. But chief constables are not the servants of local authorities; they have certain statutory duties outside their local duties, over which the local authorities have no control. Chief fire officers, however, are subject to the control of the local authorities by whom they are appointed. There is the same relationship of master and servant as between local authorities and the other officers whom I have mentioned to your Lordships.
The noble and learned Viscount said that there was no guarantee, if this power were not retained by the Home Office, that the fire authority would consult the Home Secretary. I am instructed that there would be no difficulty in putting some provision in the Bill, if so desired, to ensure that such consultation takes place—indeed, I am told that on all occasions consultation does, in fact, take place, and that the local authority associations will do all they could to encourage that practice. Obviously it is desirable for local authorities, before making these appointments, to have the benefit of the advice of Her Majesty's inspectors of fire brigades. I should have thought that among the powers handed over to local authorities, this power might well be included. I submit that this is not one of those cases where "the man in Whitehall knows best", and that the local authorities, important and autonomous bodies, are fully competent to appoint their chief fire brigade officers. With that purpose in mind, I beg to move my first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 45, after ("paragraphs") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
3.31 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds. Local authorities are very sensitive about interference with their functions, especially in matters of this kind, where

1267
they are the responsible authority. They feel, it seems to me quite correctly, that with that responsibility for the general administration of the service should be coupled responsibility for appointing the chief officer of the service. This Bill goes—and they are glad to have it so—a long way towards removing the centralised control of fire services which took place during the war. The fact that it does so is, I think, a recognition that if this country should have the misfortune to be involved in another war it would not he difficult to create such central organisation as was required for the purpose of co-ordinating fire services.
As my noble friend has pointed out, local authorities have the full responsibility, without any central guidance or interference, to appoint other chief officers, such as town clerks, medical officers and surveyors, all of whom, in practice, have very high responsibilities in time of war. If the local authorites can be trusted to make those appointments, it is difficult to see any reason why they should not be trusted to make the appointment of chief officers of fire brigades. I am sure that it would give a great deal of satisfaction to local authorities generally if this Amendment could be accepted, and it is fairly certain that there will be no appreciable damage to any public interest. It is, of course, conceivable that on occasions appointments might be made of persons who turned out to be somewhat unsuitable for the post; but I do not think that the Home Secretary himself can guarantee that that will never take place. It is one of the misfortunes of public affairs generally that such things occasionally happen, but there are generally means of correcting the trouble if it should become of any serious importance. For these reasons I submit that this is a case in which local authorities should be trusted to exercise their duties in a responsible and considered fashion.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I rise to make a brief intervention in support of the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment. I do not propose to weary the House by repeating his arguments, with all of which I entirely agree. But I suggest that as a matter of principle, of administrative efficiency, it is a good principle, especially in a democratic
1268
country, that the exercise of responsible authority should be pushed down as low as it can efficiently and reliably be exercised. We have in our dealings abroad to-day in the Colonial Empire innumerable instances of responsibility being entrusted to bodies superficially far less able to face them and undertake them than are these local authorities in our country.
I suggest that if we regard county councils and municipal corporations as reliable, responsible, autonomous bodies, then we should not give way to this tendency to wonder whether they can be entrusted with such appointments as these. It is in many ways a remarkable thing that the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations, who do not always agree, are unanimous in this matter, and feel that their members are competent to exercise the authority. They are perfectly willing to, and no doubt will, consult the Secretary of State, but it is, I suggest, a good principle that they should have the power to appoint their own chief servants in the fire services as they do in other cases.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the Lord Chancellor was kind enough, when I raised this point on Second Reading, as to give an interim reply. But a new point has arisen since then—namely, the willingness of the county councils to have it put in the Bill that they should consult the Home Office before they make such appointments. I believe that that undertaking completely overcomes the difficulty which the Lord Chancellor put forward, and I would ask him to consider it.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I venture to hope that Her Majesty's Government will resist this Amendment, and for three reasons. If I may say so with the greatest respect, I do not think that the other positions enumerated by my noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds are parallel positions with that of chief fire officer, because what the noble Lord has overlooked is the fact that chief fire officers operate, on many occasions, over their own borders when bringing reinforcements to other brigades. If only on account of this overlapping of spheres of influence, it is extremely important that there should be a standard form of operation throughout all brigades throughout

1269
the country, and for this reason again I believe that it is as well that the chief fire officer should be appointed by the Ministry.
I should like to make one other point. Your Lordships will have gathered during the earlier stages of this Bill that I have considerable anxieties as to the efficacy of the Minister's influence over fire authorities which would force them to give additional cover in areas where new risks had grown up. This, again, is important in this connection, because if the chief fire officer is so to speak, appointed by and in the closest relation with the Ministry, then I think he will be far more likely than he would be if he were purely a local authority nominee to press for enlargements of his powers in cases where he deemed it to be necessary, and despite the opposition of a local authority which might not be prepared to incur the expense. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will resist this Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY:My Lords, I should like to support what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Faringdon. I do not want to go over the ground which I went over on the Second Reading of the Bill. While I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, in regard to the general position of local authorities, I do not think one ought to allow oneself to be too much influenced in regard to this particular matter by a general consideration of that kind, because the fire brigade officer is unique in his position. He is quite different from a town clerk or a city architect or anybody of that kind, and in the event of war he will fill one of the key positions in relation to the defence of this country. Think about the situation which will arise in the event of war with the use of nuclear weapons. It is perfectly clear that what the nuclear weapon does is to cause conflagrations of a tremendously difficult character to control, even by the most efficient fire-fighting organisation.
I do not believe that all local authorities are really capable of exercising this important choice efficiently. I am sorry to have to say that. I made a slight slip in my speech in saying that town clerks and county clerks had to be
1270
appointed by the Home Secretary. That, of course, is wrong. But during the war—and that is really what my mind was occupied with; I spoke impromptu—arising out of the fact that the town clerk or the county clerk normally fulfilled a very important position in the civil defence organisation, the Regional Commissioners had control over the appointments of these officers. There were a number of cases where, even at the height of the war, a local authority could not be relied upon to appoint the right man and the Regional Commissioner had to prevent the appointment.
If a war breaks out, it is quite obvious that these fire officers are going to be extraordinarily important. The set-up in the fire services before the war was very inferior to the present one, but in the fire-fighting services before the war there were some outstanding brigades which were highly competent. Any survey at the end of the war would have shown that a large proportion of the first-class officers were drawn from a comparatively small number of outstanding brigades. I believe that the only way of getting a corps of officers of real ability is to increase the considerable amount of control at the centre in regard to this matter, which is one of very great importance.
As to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, made about chief constables having in a number of cases not proved satisfactory in recent times, surely that cuts against that argument, because if, even with the assistance of the Home Secretary, the local authorities cannot be relied upon to appoint the best men as chief constables, then it is still more so in this particular case. It seems to me that the case for reserving to the Home Secretary this power under this Bill is overwhelming, and I hope that the Government will not give way to this Amendment.
3.43 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, there are two points which make this Amendment deserving of full consideration. The first is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, has said, it is put forward at the instance of the Association of Municipal Corporations, who are supported by the County Councils Association. I

1271
myself have the happiest recollections of working with the A.M.C. in various matters where central Government meets local government. I have the greatest admiration for their work, and although I disagree with them on this point I hope they will believe that I have given full consideration to it. The second point was the general one put forward by my noble friend Lord Milverton. I again have the greatest sympathy with the general thesis of devolution. I would ask my noble friend to note that the whole purpose of this Bill is to increase devolution, and that the Government have gone a long way on various points, and especially, of course, on the financial point where the Government check has been withdrawn. In fact the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, speaking on the Second Reading, and with all his experience of the work of Regional Commissioners during the war, told your Lordships that in his view we had gone rather too far in the direction of devolution and had not retained sufficient controls.
What I said on the Second Reading was that the principle of the Bill was that we should give as much devolution as possible, subject to the retention of the key controls; and I think that, on reflection, your Lordships will agree with me that the approval of the appointment of a chief fire officer is one of the most essential key controls that we can have. In answer to the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Stansgate, on the Second Reading I deployed a number of arguments. I have counted them up and there are nine of them, and they are to be found, for those of your Lordships with antiquarian interests, at columns 546 to 548 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for June 2.
Today I want to deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, and also with the point which the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, mentioned in his speech. With regard to the first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, I want to emphasise that the purpose of the Secretary of State's power of control is not to secure the appointment of a particular candidate of his choice but to ensure that the candidates who are definitely unsuitable for the post are eliminated. I think that is most important, because this is the way that it
1272
works in practice. The Home Office indicate, on the basis of a short list, which candidates they consider suitable. The final selection is made by the fire authority within that field, subject, of course, to subsequent confirmation by the Home Office. That is the way the system has worked, and I think that meets an underlying fear of my noble friend Lord Milverton that this is an imposition. It is not that: it is to secure that the person who is appointed will be one of a number who are in the opinion of my right honourable friend qualified for the task.
I did mention on the Second Reading—and your Lordships might at first consider that this cuts both ways—that the power of approval has not had to be used in the last ten years to reject a candidate selected by the fire authority because of the method which I have mentioned to your Lordships. But the fact that none of us—the four of us—has had to reject a candidate at the end of the day is, in my view, an argument for the reasonableness of the scheme and the way that it has been operated. It is certainly my experience and that of my right honourable friend Mr. Butler (and, though I do not know, I should think that our two predecessors would agree) that the existence of the power has influenced fire authorities to take the advice.
But even if, as the noble Viscount suggested, the requirement of consultation were put in the Bill it would be no guarantee that the local authorities would continue to take the advice of the Home Office if the power were abolished, even if their associations supported the consultation. Consultation is one of the most useful and most dangerous words in modern legislation. It is one of the most useful words because it is the easiest piece of paper to plaster in where there is a disagreement. Where the real question is, shall one side or the other have the right to veto? then you blur it over, and say, "No, there shall be consultation." All that consultation means in law is that one party will put forward its suggestion and the other party will consider it. But, of course, the second party is not in the least bound to adopt the suggestion or to go further than consider it. I think it is an argument for the point of view that I put to your Lordships that the existence of the power operated

1273
in that reasonable way, of putting forward a short list of approved persons for the choice of the fire authority, is immensely valuable in securing the right choices.
I think that really meets the point that the noble and gallant Viscount has put forward. In the majority of cases I concede that there would be agreement by the fire authority. But the difficulty is the case where, for some reason which might arise in any way, there is a great local feeling to adopt a local man who would not be so good as the other candidates—for example, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, in his speech to-day. It was because of that that I emphasised on Second Reading, and I remind your Lordships to-day, about it being a disciplined service—one that has to be ready to be re-nationalised in time of war and one which has to deal with very serious problems in that regard. Therefore, I think it is just as important that there should be this check which would ensure that the best man is appointed.
There are two other points. One is that I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, that this is a service which does not necessarily operate within the confines of its own borders; and the other is that although it is a great service and one which has already acquired great traditions in our own lifetime, apart from those of long ago, it is nevertheless a service where there are no definite qualifications. It is not like the other posts that have been mentioned, where there is a well-defined standard on qualifications. In the fire service that is not so. Therefore, the process of selection for the key post, the most important job, is one that I think requires very serious consideration. For this reason, in my submission to your Lordships, it comes within the sphere—and this is an answer to my noble friend Lord Milverton, which I should like him to consider, quite apart from the matter before us to-day—where there ought to be an actual partnership between local and national Government.
As has been seen from the various speeches we have heard, this is not at all a Party matter, but it is a most important matter in the science and functioning of Government. The keenest devolutionist must recognise that there
1274
is a sphere where national Government and local government must work together. In putting forward this Bill—and I would repeat that it is a Bill that has been most forthcoming in freeing the local authorities from control—I have suggested that there is a sphere where the national Government cannot abrogate its responsibilities. I would say to my noble friend that the criterion is the key points of control. Where a disciplined service is concerned, the central Government has a responsibility, which it may be necessary to exercise in time of war—though we hope that will not arise. It would be wrong of the national Government to abrogate its responsibility to keep these key points. And clearly, this is a key point. We have heard the others.
The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, questioned me at the Committee stage about the powers under the Act of providing schemes if necessary—whether they were enough to ensure sufficient fire cover in expanding localities where conditions change rapidly. That is obviously another example of the key control. I hope that I was able to reassure the noble Lord that we had retained sufficient of that.
It is on these broad questions, and on the broad issue of not only the health of our general administration but the proper balance in the partnership between the national and local Government, that I should ask the associations to think again on this matter. It is not an argument which absolves your Lordships from deciding to-day, and it is a flatter which is worthy of consideration. This Bill is starting in your Lordships' House. It has been well discussed here, and I ask your Lordships to accept my argument that it is not the end of the day if the Amendment is not pressed this afternoon. But I do not put it on that ground, which is a ground which commends itself to me as a general matter: I put it on the broad ground that in this Bill we have achieved a proper partnership between central and local Government which adoption of this Amendment would undoubtedly disturb, and I ask your Lordships not to agree to it.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds replies to this part of the debate

1275
may I ask, really for my own information, two questions? I ask them because I have not been in consultation with my local government friends in Scotland, and therefore my recollection is perhaps a little hazy. But am I right in thinking that in Scotland, where, for instance, a city like Glasgow is itself a fire authority, but in which a city like Edinburgh is part of a joint authority, the appointment of a chief fire officer is not in a sense controlled by the fact that the grants available to fire authorities can be used as a kind of sanction where an appointment is not approved by the Secretary of State? The second point is this. Am I right in thinking that this procedure is part of a larger system, as for example in the appointment of a chief constable, where again the central Government or the Secretary of State may intervene in order to say that they do not, or he does not, approve of the appointment of a particular individual, and that the local authority must select a man of whom the central Government or the Secretary of State does approve? Those are my two points. Have I made myself clear?
THE LORD CHANCELLORWould the noble Lord put the second point again? I have not quite followed him.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, the second point is whether we are now witnessing a new kind of administrative scheme in which the central Government, or the Secretary of State, more or less determine who will be the chief constable, in spite of what a local authority may decide, by choosing their own man. Is that clear? Is that part of the general scheme or is it something which applies only to chief fire officers?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on the first point—the question of the grant—I should have thought that the position today was that it was more difficult, but I do not think impossible (there are more checks on it), to use the grant as a method of compulsion. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, will allow me to write to him on that point because I am not so well equipped on it; therefore perhaps he will take my impression, subject to my writing to him to give him the position fully—because I do not think it affects
1276
very closely the immediate point. It is, however, a very important general point and I should like to inform him fully upon it.
On the second point, of course this Bill is not altering the position. At the moment the Secretary of State is in control. The Amendment would alter the position so as to remove the control of the Secretary of State. It does not affect the police position, which remains in both countries exactly the same as it is to-day. It is not part of a general policy to get a further control; it is an exception to a policy in which a large number of controls are being relaxed on both sides of the Border. The Bill contains all these relaxations and I went through them, and at the instance of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross I assured the House that they applied, too, to Scotland. So that here we are dealing not with a new policy but with the question are we to retain one of the controls which we believe are key controls?
On the other point, I am sorry that I cannot tell the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, of the exact position that had been taken up by the three Scottish local authority associations. I believe I once knew, but the noble Lord will have to forgive me for it has gone out of my mind and I cannot find a note in my papers. Those associations have been consulted in the matter, of course, but as to their actual position on this specific problem, unfortunately I cannot inform the noble Lord.
LORD GREENHILL:My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Viscount very much.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS:My Lords, while the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will not expect me to agree with all the arguments that he has advanced, he has obviously taken great care and has extended the courtesy which he always extends; and in those circumstances, and having regard to the suggestion that the matter may be reconsidered by the local government associations on whose behalf, if necessary, the matter may be raised in another place, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Amendment (privilege) made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.5 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. On December 3 last the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, initiated a debate on the White Paper Provision for Old Age, which I think was one of the best Parliamentary debates that have taken place on that subject. It contained a great many authoritative contributions not only from the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, himself and from the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, but from many of your Lordships in all parts of the House who are particularly well qualified to speak about insurance. I have been looking through the OFFICIAL REPORT, and although our debate actually took place before this Bill was printed it seems to me that there is little which your Lordships can say about the Bill, or at least very little which can usefully be said about it, which we have not already said in our debate six months ago.
Apart from one or two very minor alterations, the only change of any consequence which the Bill has made in the original proposals of the White Paper is that the Exchequer contribution, which under the White Paper was to have been a flat rate of £170 million for all time, is now, under the Bill, liable to be increased if and when individual contributions are increased; but that, of course, is not going to happen, anyhow for quite a long time. The purpose of the Bill, as your Lordships know, is, first, to put the Insurance Fund on a sound basis, and, next, to superimpose upon the existing fiat-rate insurance scheme a graduated insurance scheme under which insured people who have an income of between £9 and £15 per week will pay higher contributions in accordance with their income and become entitled to higher retirement pensions.
The flat-rate pension is a very favourable bargain for the insured person. The higher graduated pension—that is, the flat rate plus the additional graduated portion—if it is taken as a whole, is also a good bargain. It has often been
1278
pointed out that the additional graduated part of the higher pension, taken by itself, is not such a good bargain as one would get through an insurance company. That is because the scheme has a redistributive element in it, and the higher paid workers to some extent carry the lower paid workers, considering the scheme as a whole. The Bill also provides for the right of an industry which has an occupational scheme of its own to contract out of the graduated part of the general scheme (but not the flat rate part) if those who are running the occupational scheme consider that it would be advantageous to do so.
I think that these proposals of the Bill are very well known to your Lordships in detail and in principle. They have been before the country now for fully six months, and many of your Lordships are experts on the subject; and while I am, of course, anxious and ready to give your Lordships to the best of my ability any information you may want and which I am able to give (and so, of course, is my noble friend Lord Bathurst) I think I might better meet your Lordships' wishes if I were to say a very brief word on a point which is perhaps not quite so well understood, and that is the social principles on which the Bill is based. In doing that, I may incidentally be able to meet one or two of the more general criticisms which are commonly brought against this Bill as a whole. But I hope that I shall be able to avoid the acrimony, most of which in my view is quite unnecessary, which has distinguished the passage of this Bill in another place.
In our debate last December I argued that in establishing what is called the Welfare State, of which retirement pensions are such an important part, there may sometimes be some inevitable conflict, which can only be resolved, I think, by common sense, between the principle of adequate subsistence and the principle of personal freedom. If you start off by saying that whatever happens you are going to provide a retirement pension which will satisfy everybody's ideas of what an elderly retired person ought to have to live on, then in order to raise the money to do that you may have to take away so large a proportion of people's incomes in the form of compulsory insurance contributions that you will deprive them of the right to do a

1279
great many other things which they may want to do with their own money and which in a free country they ought to have. On the other hand, if you legislate for a retirement pension which is palpably below most people's ideas of even the minimum subsistence, you will then always be subject to continual pressure to increase the pension.
I do not think that any politician has ever tried to give a definition in terms of pounds, shillings and pence of what constitutes either a minimum or a reasonable standard of subsistence, and if he did so I think he would be a very foolish politician. But your Lordships will remember that the Beveridge Report—one of the most important documents in connection with our social policy in Great Britain—endeavoured to lay down minimum standards of subsistence in terms of money, and that Report recommended that retirement pensions should aim at making it unnecessary for a pensioner to apply for National Assistance.
I think the history of pensions in this country since the Beveridge Report illustrates the difficulties which you get into if you try to begin with some fixed standard of subsistence on which to base your legislation. Many people have different ideas of what constitutes either a minimum or a reasonable standard of subsistence. Our ideas on the subject as a whole very often change from time to time, and even at the same moment people may use these terms in different senses when one man may be thinking of an adequate standard of nutrition and no more, while another man may be thinking of an income which will provide certain comforts which everybody would like old people to have, and so on.
The truth of the matter is that "subsistence" is a vague and shifting notion. People's needs vary a great deal and different people have different ideas on what constitutes "subsistence". It may be worth mentioning that the Phillips Committee do not take the same view as the Beveridge Report. What they say is:
"The concept of what constitutes decent and tolerable subsistence changes—generally upwards—with time."
And they further say:
"A contributory scheme cannot in our view be expected to provide a rate of benefit which
1280
would enable everybody, whatever their circumstances, to live without other resources either of their own providing or by way of national assistance."
They further state that
"there cannot be any stereotyped formula for fixing the level of benefit",
and the level of benefit must depend on the balance of a number of considerations including the amount of contributions required and the charge on the Exchequer.
If you were to take the original retirement pension provided for after the war, based on the recommendations of the Beveridge Report, as a sufficient standard of subsistence, it would, of course, then follow that the present rate of retirement pensions provides a very much better standard of subsistence, because the rate of pension has increased since 1946 by 90 per cent. on 100, while the cost of living has gone up by only 68 per cent., and the result is that the present pension for a married couple of 80s. is worth in terms of real purchasing power about 11s. more than the pension of 42s. which we started off with after the war.
But one of the criticisms of this Bill is that under the fiat-rate retirement pensions which it continues, nearly one million old age pensioners are in receipt of National Assistance. The National Assistance Board, of course, are put where they are for the purpose of finding out what is a reasonable standard of subsistence, not for people in general but for each individual case; they have to examine each case in particular. If the person who is in receipt of a retirement pension applies to the National Assistance Board and is given an allowance, that implies that the flat rate pension which he is receiving is not as much as is regarded by the National Assistance Board as a reasonable standard of subsistence. I would say that I do not think it is a good or reasonable criticism of the Bill to say that we have not provided under it a large enough pension to make it either impossible or very unlikely that any pensioner will apply successfully for National Assistance.
Of course, I do not mean for a moment to argue that it would be a bad thing if you found, having regard to the rate of contribution which you could reasonably impose on the wage-earner, that the

1281
pension which would result from it was large enough to make it unlikely that anybody would apply for National Assistance. It would be ridiculous to fix a pension lower than National Assistance rates merely in order give the National Assistance Board something to do. What I mean is that you ought to begin rather by considering how much money you can reasonably take away from the wage-earner in order to pay a pension; and, in fixing the optimum retirement pension in any given set of circumstances, you must have regard to that as well as having regard to your ideas on subsistence.
I think your Lordships would all agree on this, at least: that it is quite wrong now to hold the view that there is anything discreditable or derogatory to human dignity in applying to the National Assistance Board for an allowance. I think that it is now generally agreed that the old idea of the stigma of the Poor Law does not apply, and ought not to apply, and that we should emphatically discourage anybody from thinking that it does apply, to the National Assistance Board. But in present circumstances what we believe is that if we were to legislate for a flat rate retirement pension of a size which would make it certain that no pensioner would be able to have his application entertained by the National Assistance Board, the result would be, first, that you would have to take away more money in the way of contributions from the lower-paid workers than they could really afford; and from the higher-paid workers you would have to take money in the way of contributions which they could perhaps afford but which many of them would much rather spend on some other kind of provision for their old age, or on some other investment which they thought would bring them better results. We think that if you did that you would be going too far in the direction of interfering with the liberty of a man to spend his own money as he thinks best. Therefore, while we certainly do not think it is a bad object to hope that, in different economic circumstances, the flat rate retirement pension might become sufficient to enable all pensioners to live without applying at all to the National Assistance Board, we do not think that the fact that, in present circumstances,
1282
a considerable number of them do so is a valid argument against this scheme.
What is perhaps an argument with more substance in it is that the limit of £15 for the graduated part of the pensions scheme is too low. Wages, I hope, are going to continue gradually to rise; and there are many people with incomes greatly in excess of £15 a week who may want much more ambitious provision to be made for their old age. I would, in reply to that, make two suggestions to your Lordships. The first is that this graduated scheme is an entirely new departure in our social legislation. We do not yet know how it is going to work, and I think it is probably better to begin in a modest way and not try to be too ambitious. The other suggestion I would make is that we want to encourage greater freedom and variety of saving. It is not only a question of these occupational schemes which are run by many industrial firms and which we want to encourage: we want also to encourage the wage-earner to invest his money according to his own judgment, either in an insurance policy or in some ordinary kind of investment which he thinks will do better. We want to encourage greater freedom; we do not want to nationalise savings.
I think it is a question of degree rather than principle that divides Members of both Houses on this Bill. Some people may think that one ought to go a little further in taking more money by way of compulsory contributions in order to give a more satisfactory pension which the man can have as of right; other people may put the emphasis rather on the right of a man to spend his money in his own way. We all agree that you should take from wage-earners by way of contributions a certain percentage of wages. In this Bill the percentage is 8½ per cent., which is a fairly high proportion; and I think we must be very careful. You cannot, of course, lay down any fixed, magic percentage which is a dividing line between a reasonable compulsory contribution for this purpose and an undue interference with liberty. I think you must be careful not to put the amount too high.
I do not think it is necessary to remind your Lordships that, as is made plain in paragraph 34 of the White Paper, the

1283
whole insurance scheme under this Bill will be subject to review from time to time. The present scheme has been altered five or six times in the last ten years; and it is not perhaps an altogether foolish assumption that this power of review will be exercised, possibly with as much frequency, in the future, although in what manner we cannot foresee at the moment. I would remind your Lordships that there are two assumptions made by the Government Actuary in drawing up the tables concerning the future of this pensions scheme. One is that there will be an average unemployment rate of 3 per cent.; the other is that there will be an average annual wage increase over the country as a whole of about 2 per cent. With regard to the unemployment percentage, one does not want, of course, to be unduly optimistic, but even at the peak of the recent depression unemployment did not reach 3 per cent. It was only 2·8 per cent.; and it is now, I think, just a little over 2 per cent. Of course, while the Government Actuary is entirely right to be cautious and prudent in making an estimate of this kind, it is perhaps not unreasonable to hope that the average rate of unemployment may be considerably less than 3 per cent., and your Lordships will easily be able to calculate, much more quickly than I can, what difference that may make to the estimated finances of this scheme.
Similarly with regard to the estimated 2 per cent. increase in wages, it has often been pointed out in connection with this Bill that if that increase takes place, the time is not far distant when nearly everybody will be outside the flat rate and coming up to £15 a week and even going beyond it. Therefore, it may be necessary to review the scheme for that reason. Even now the figure of the number of insured workers earning £9 a week and less is 7 million, and of that over 4 million are women and juveniles. The 3 million men includes all those who are unemployed, a number of part-time workers and, of course, a large number of young workers who are not classed as juveniles because they are over 18 and are soon going to earn much more than they are earning now. Apart from agriculture, the number of mature, fully-employed men earning £9 a week, even
1284
at the present time, is not a very large proportion of all wage-earners.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, surely other young people will come along to take the place of those who have passed to the higher category.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Certainly, my Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing that out. But if wages are going up 2 per cent., presumably the wages of the new young people will be a little higher, too, and, of course, young persons starting off on a flat rate scheme can come into the higher scheme as soon as their wages rise to the necessary sum.
But, as the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, so rightly pointed out in our debate last December, while we may build up a right to retirement pension at fifty years by our contributions, the actual pensions which are paid out every year have to be earned in that year by the country in economic reality. Obviously, what is going to happen in future to our retirement pension scheme must depend to a very great degree on what is going to happen to the general economic prosperity of the country. Meanwhile, I would commend this Bill to your Lordships as a modest but useful advance in our social legislation, which all Parties have been working on for about fifty years now and on which I hope we shall all continue to work in future. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
4.34 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, we have listened with attention and interest to the defence of this Bill which has been given by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. He has spoken to us with his usual charm and his usual fairness. There is nothing he has said of fact that I would venture to dispute in any way whatever. I could not help feeling that his heart was not altogether in the defence of the Bill. If he will allow me to say so, he seemed to me as if he were damning the Bill with faint praise. He recommended it to us as a useful step, something which no doubt would be improved in days to come, and suggested that if we did not altogether like it there was no reason why we should not amend it in due course. In fact, he rather took

1285
the line of the woman with the baby who said that it must be accepted because it was "such a little one".
I am afraid that I cannot follow the noble Earl in taking that view. The situation has changed very little since we had our debate on the White Paper on December 3 of last year, in which I pointed out the difficulties that my Party and I saw in the scheme which the Government indicated in that White Paper. The noble Earl himself said that there has been practically no change of any substance in the scheme as it now comes to us in this Bill from another place. I think that there has been one change: Exchequer grants have been increased, and we have had the report of the Government Actuary. Otherwise, we are still where we were, and I am afraid that I must tell the noble Earl that, so far as I can see, nothing has happened since October 3 of last year which has made me change my opinion that the Bill is not a sound one and that in our view the Government have failed to meet the situation which the noble Earl laid before us.
I will come to these points as I proceed, but I should like to say this at the outset. This whole scheme is very complicated. I am not disagreeing with it on that account, but it is very complicated and I do not pretend for one moment that I understand all its ramifications. I doubt whether a small handful of people in either House really comprehend the Bill in anything like its entirety; and as for the general public outside Parliament, I have no doubt whatever that most of them are in profound ignorance about what the Bill does and what it does not do, where it succeeds and where it fails. Having said that, I want to come to our case against the Bill. Our first point is that the 13ill sets up a vast machinery and what it grinds out at the end of the sausage machine is not commensurate with the immensity of the machine set up. Only in one particular—and I shall come to that later—does it really meet the problems it sets out to face.
The first point I want to make is that the benefits are inadequate. The noble Earl devoted a considerable part of his speech to arguing that the benefits could not be said to be inadequate because in considering what are the necessities of
1286
life in old age everybody has a different standard. The position is this. Do the benefits really give to a person who is retiring such a proportion of his former income that they represent anything but dire poverty to him? I venture to think that the Bill fails in what I should have thought would have been its prime purpose. In other words, the benefits are too low. It may be said that that is just the view of my Party, but I am going to read to your Lordships extracts from the report of an important person—namely, Mr. Jackson, the leading Pensions Officer of Unilevers. Your Lordships will remember that in the debate on December 3 I quoted him with regard to the question of contracting out of the scheme. I am now going to quote him on the point I am at present making. This is what he says:
"The level of benefits is too low. In forty years from now the £12 man will get only £5 pension—and he must never earn less than the full £12 in that period."
I would make this comment: that even that £5 assumes that he is a married man. If he is a single man, adding the basic pension and the graduated pension together, he will not get anything like £5.
Mr. Jackson goes on to say:
"People of that level of earnings need more than half pay, merely for the purpose of keeping body and soul together, and a roof over the lot. Accordingly the Government scheme as now proposed"—
and he wrote this before the Bill came into being, although the position is still the same—
"will require some augmentation from the private fund even for this level of employee. What a waste of manpower and effort that means! Duplicate records for two sets of benefits, whereas the State would not add one penny to its administration costs if it pitched the benefits at an adequate level for the lowest paid in its scheme."
He goes on to meet the point which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, argued in the course of his speech this afternoon. The noble Earl pointed out that if the contributions were to be much higher than they are a large number of people might not be able to pay them. This is what. Mr. Jackson says about that:
"I have the impression that the inadequacy of the scheme stems partly from an understandable fear of charging higher contributions. My experience is that it is greatly exaggerated. Employees will pay—and expect to pay—a proper price for the proper benefit,

1287
so long as it is fair between one and another. Other people share this view. In Holland workers pay 6¾ per cent. of earnings. In West Germany workers pay 7 per cent. of earnings, and the employers the same; a joint contribution which provides them with an adequate retirement and death benefit, on the slice of earnings covered."
That statement does not stand alone. I therefore contend that it is not only a Party point of view, but one that is shared by men who know what they are talking about, that the benefits that this Bill provides are too low.
I am now going to proceed to put a point—I want to be quite frank about this—where I should not carry Mr. Jackson with me. I think the £15 line is pitched much too low. If you are going to have this scheme, in my view you have to take into account the proportion of people earning over £15 today and also the proportion of people who will be doing so as time goes on. I have here the Report of the Government Actuary, and he estimates that in the year 1961–62 5 million men will be earning over £15 a week. It is true that the proportion of women is lower, but I think that is because, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, many of them are part-time workers. That figure of 5 million men is out of a total of 15 million employed. Therefore, one-third of the men will be earning over £15 a week. It seems to me, in view of that fact, that there is nothing to recommend stopping at £15. If we take into account, and assume what the noble Earl assumed, a 2 per cent. per annum rise before a very few years are out, and before the scheme has got fully going, the proportion of those earning over £15 a week will be not far short of, and may even exceed, half the total number of males employed. So I take the view that the benefits are too low; that the line drawn when the graduation ceases is pitched too low, and that the scheme ought to have taken a much higher figure in both cases.
Closely allied to that question is the question whether the benefits provided are commensurate with the contributions paid. There is no doubt at all that the graduated contributions, if they were invested in public assurance companies, would, in fact, give a much greater yield of benefit than those provided in the Bill. Perhaps that sounds
1288
outrageous, but there is a perfectly good reason for it. One of the main objects of the Government in introducing this Bill was to deal with the deficit which is expected to arise in the course of the next few decades of this century; and because that was one of the objects, it was necessary that the additional graduated contributions should produce the money, unless there was to be a large increase in the Exchequer contributions. That is why it would be possible to get much better terms than those people who are paying these graduated contributions will get for their money under this Bill. I do not think there is any doubt about that whatever. That is the one point on which the Bill achieves the purpose it sets out to achieve; and I admit that.
I will go even further, and say this. All well-informed people, in both Parties, recognise that this question of the deficit in future decades has got to be dealt with, and that some share of it must fall on the persons in the higher income ranges who pay National Insurance contributions. The Labour Party recognise that just as well as the Government. We say, however, that the failure of the Government, and the reason the benefits derived from these contributions fall so far below what people could obtain in the open market, is due to the fact that the whole scheme is based on too low a scale; and in particular, that the gradations stop at £15 a week. I see no reason whatever why you should stop at that figure. I have shown that one-third of the men in work will be earning over £15 a week by 1961–62, and that the proportion is steadily increasing. I should have thought that a figure of at least £24 was far more realistic; and speaking for myself, I see no objection to putting it higher than that—up to as much as £40 a week. We feel that that is a grave defect in the scheme.
The noble Earl talked about the actuarial position of the Bill. I venture to suggest to the noble Earl that the whole actuarial principle has gone, and that for it there has been substituted a pay-as-you-go scheme. I am supported in that by a document coming from a very high authority. It is issued by the Councils of the Institute of Actuaries and the Faculty of Actuaries in Scotland.

1289
This is what the document says on page 5. The heading is:
"Meeting the Cost: the Government Proposals."
It says:
"Under the Government proposals the cost is to be met—as in the present scheme—by what is known as the 'pay-as-you-go' system. Income is raised each year to meet the costs of the benefits for that year. No fund is built up to be invested and earn interest as happens in most private pension schemes."
A little later on the document says:
"Contributions paid by one person are used immediately to pay current benefits to some other person, and nothing is left to be carried forward. Thus the eventual payment of the graduated benefits is an additional obligation placed directly upon future generations. We are promising ourselves, now, that our children will pay us larger pensions in the future than we are willing to pay now to our parents."
That is not my statement; that is the statement of this very expert body of people. Personally, I am not opposed to putting aside the actuarial basis, though I think it may be, and to a large extent must be, the only genuine factual basis on which any pension can be based. At the same time, I do not think the Government can appeal to actuarial figures when the whole actuarial basis—which was the basis on which the old original Beveridge Scheme was founded—requires, I think, the application of entirely different standards. That does not mean, of course—I am not suggesting this for one moment, and I hope the noble Earl who is to reply will not assume it—that I think we can throw caution to the winds. I think we have to make our scheme with great care and with due attention to what the country can afford and is likely to be able to afford in the years to come. I suggest that there can be a modest scheme which not only is not something to be proud of, but, indeed, is something which is in itself a danger, just because it is too small to carry on its back the real requirements and to be worthy of the vast machinery which this scheme is bringing into operation.
Those are not the only objections we have to the Bill. There remain the other objections with which I dealt in the debate on December 3. There is the exclusion of the self-employed, which I have never felt was justified. A large proportion of persons are self-employed at the present time, and they ought not to be
1290
left out of any scheme of this kind. I do not in the least see why they should be left out, and I consider that a grave blot on the Bill. Then there is the question of contracting-out. Nothing has happened since the scheme was originally put forward to make the contracting-out position more acceptable. I do not propose to go into that aspect to-day, because to some extent it concerns detail, but it is a difficult matter to know what should be done.
All employers who have a contracting-out scheme—I mean an industrial superannuation scheme—of their own have this problem to face: whether they shall contract out or whether they shall not. It may well be that the scheme which they have is better to-day than this scheme of the Government. But the noble Earl himself has hinted that probably in the next ten years there will be frequent changes in this scheme, and I suppose we all, including the noble Earl, hope that they will be changes for the better and not for the worse. If that is so, it may well be that, while an employer has an industrial superannuation scheme which comes within the Government's proposals to-day, in days to come the situation will change and there will be a great deal of trouble. The employer will be placed in great difficulties in knowing whether he can keep his scheme up to the level which he should, and upon which the Government will insist, in order to remain outside the Government scheme.
Those are the main criticisms we have of this Bill. There are considerable minor criticisms which also apply. Anybody who has made any attempt to follow the path which the Bill pursued in another place will realise that there were constant Divisions, both in the Committee upstairs and on the Report stage of the Bill. The Government did not see their way to meet any of the substantial Amendments. Perhaps the most prominent one was the refusal of the Government to deal adequately, as my Party considered it, with the question of widows contracting out. My Party desired to ensure that one of the conditions which would decide whether or not a private scheme was acceptable, was that it should provide a pension for the widow. The Government resisted the Amendment

1291
which we put forward in another place. That is one of the minor objections we have to the Bill.
In conclusion, my Lords, I should like to say this. The Government claim—and it was particularly prominent in the speech of the noble Earl to-day—that though this is an imperfect Bill, and though it does not meet the full desires of large numbers of people, it is nevertheless a modest Bill which is capable of amendment; that although from our point of view it may be only half a loaf, half a loaf is better than no bread. My Party do not take that view. They think this Bill in many respects a bad Bill, and that when it comes to proving it it will be a matter of recasting it. That recasting process will involve a great deal of waste, a great deal of unnecessary argument and a great deal of money in setting the scheme on a right basis. Therefore, in another place, as your Lordships probably know, the Labour Party divided against the Third Reading, which is not a common thing for them to do. The Opposition in this House at the present time do not take the view in general that they would wish to divide against the Second Reading of Bills. In any case, the powers of this House on these quasi-Money Bills are, at the best, limited, and we realise that it is not for us to attempt to make any major change in a Bill of this kind. Therefore, though we do not differ from our colleagues in another place in our criticism and in our feeling of dislike of the Bill, we do not propose to go to a Division against the Second Reading.
5.0 p.m.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, I do not propose to take up very much time in what I should like to say in this debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. But I would point a moral, perhaps more than one moral, even if I am not able to adorn a tale. The noble Earl made play with the term "social principles". I rather think that when he spoke of social principles he was really referring to actuarial principles, which are not necessarily the same thing. I know, of course, that if you are going to base the whole case for pensions upon finance and upon an actuarial scheme, then you have all the difficulties that have been indicated by the noble Earl and in another place
1292
by the Government in respect of the finance of the measure.
But I want to put this: it may be a very idealistic point, but I think it is an important point and one that should be put. This question of dealing with old age, the question of pensions and superannuation, is not really a matter of generosity or even of duty, even of the duty of the nation to the older people who have served in the battle of life in industry and so forth. It is not a question of that kind at all. It is a question of the prosperity of the country. We hear a great deal about the prosperity of the country and about the possible increase of that prosperity in the near future. I think a great deal of nonsense has been talked about it and a large number of plain facts which can be found if they are looked for are completely overlooked.
We will take it, however, that at present, at any rate, we are living in a prosperous period and one that has the promise of still greater prosperity. The argument from this side—my argument, at any rate—is that that prosperity justifies not generosity but something else in regard to the treatment of the old people of this country by the nation. I want to put this point—and I used the term idealistic, and it may look like it for a moment, but it is a genuine point, I think. You know, that prosperity we talk about, the industrial progress of this nation and every other nation, is not merely a question of current ability, labour and power: it belongs to history; it is the result of a historical process; it is the result of the fact, among other things, that we have had ages upon ages of invention and discovery in the history of mankind. This being the case, every man, woman and child in the country is entitled to share in that national heritage. It is a national heritage. They are entitled to share in it, at any rate up to the point of a reasonable insurance scheme for the treatment of old age.
I know, of course, that we have to deal with the question of morale and whether it is altogether desirable to make a State payment without also an individual payment and without also encouraging a sense of responsibility. Those are minor points. Primarily the

1293
fact is that it is not a question of duty; it is a question of right. I cannot at this time speak for the Labour Party as a rule, but I think I do upon this occasion. We stand upon the principle that people who have helped to make the prosperity of the nation ought to be treated as human beings, not upon an actuarial basis necessarily or not altogether, but upon a basis of humanity, a basis of the recognition of their right to their share in what is really a national heritage. That is one point I wish to make.
The other point is this, and with this I will conclude, because there will be plenty of opportunities to get closer down to the detail in the course of the progress of this measure. The other point is this question of who is to pay and where is the money to come from. It beats me. We boast in election addresses and election speeches and all the rest of it about the tremendous advance there is in the prosperity of the nation. I do not deny that there is that advance. There ought to be. Why should there not be? The ingenuity and the power of the people of this country has increased, and should increase, and must increase. When the trade unionist says: "We must have our share of that", I, as a Socialist, say that the share should first go to the whole of the people; it does not belong to any section at all. The trade unionist and the actual operative Workers should join in with the rest, if there is anything in the principles of Socialism at all. I will not digress; that thought just occurs to me at the moment.
I want to put a practical suggestion to the noble Earl, and to the Government if it gets as far, with regard to this question of raising money. Let us have a real superannuation scheme, one that will not mean just a perpetuation of something a little bit above depressing poverty. After all when we come to these figures about the people who apply for National Assistance, let us get those figures right. There are 1,640,000 people who apply for National Assistance, and they are not all old people—not by any means. I do not think it would be unreasonable to presume that there are at least as many again who really are living upon a very narrow margin but who would not apply for public assistance,
1294
because just as miners and shipwrights object to a means test they, too, object to a means test.
I think the point which the noble Earl raised in this afternoon's debate is of very great importance indeed. I think the idea that public assistance is not the old Poor Law and ought not to be regarded in any such light is an idea that ought to be encouraged and expressed in everything that is said in propaganda upon this subject. You have a vast number of people who are living upon the edge of poverty. You have artificial prosperity, very largely; a lot of it is artificial. You have over 3½ million married women going out to work. I am not raising any question of the rights of women as against the rights of men, but I do say this: that married women at work are not looking after their homes and families properly; they cannot do it. I know what running a home means; I know that something has to go if married women go out to work. That has to be taken into account when you are talking about prosperity. Then you have these artificial wages where men are able to talk about striking for £40 a week and that kind of nonsense. It is purely artificial; it will not last. In any event, it applies just to key industry men, to a limited section, although a large section, of the wage-earning class of the country.
But behind all that there is a vast community which is living in a state of desperate poverty in relation to any standard of decent private existence. They are not taken into account, and they do not come into the Bill. You talk about wages and about wage workers and the rest. The trade unionist talks in those terms. But there are other people besides wage workers who are to-day living upon a far lower scale than ever they have lived in past history. So when you are talking about progress and when you are talking about prosperity, at least take those facts into account. That is what I meant when I said that we should look at the thing socially rather than from the point of view of groups and particular interests.
There was raised the question of where the money is to come from. I put forward this suggestion very briefly. I know that my facts are right because I have taken the trouble to confirm

1295
them. If for the twopenny stamp duty that we pay when we draw a cheque there were to be substituted a halfpenny poundage, your Lordships would find that on the number of cheques that go through the clearing houses of this country there would be realised an income of between £400 million and £500 million. That is a remarkable figure; but the number of cheques which go through the banks is a remarkable figure. I doubt whether a halfpenny poundage would interfere very much with the enjoyment of private incomes or would injure industry to any large degree. In any case where we have prosperous industry we can afford that amount of extra expense if we are to guarantee what we all want—namely, decent living conditions for people who have borne the burden of life. I suppose I speak with some kind of interest for I am an octogenarian myself.
If there is to be a decent standard, do not let us talk so much in actuarial terms. Let us realise that we can afford to deal properly with these people. Let us cut out all this deadwood of talk, talk and more talk about where the money is to come from. It will come from the industry, the work and the sacrifices of the community, and we are entitled to expect that it should come from them. For the reason that I have given—that is why I said at first that my first point was an idealistic one—it has a real, practical bearing. The wealth of nations is a historic process. It is not a mere question of people who are working now or people who are contributing in any practical form to the production of goods. It is the result of the history of the progress, the invention and the discovery of hundreds of thousands of people in the past. Those things constitute a national heritage which, at any rate, ought to be big enough to provide decent treatment for the other people of this country.
5.14 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I need trouble your Lordships about only one matter, particularly as in dealing with insurance I must declare my interest. We on these Benches have taken exception to the principle of graduation. We can see no sufficient reason for discrimination in a payment
1296
which is designed to ensure that no one falls below a certain minimum. I am not going to deal to-day with the question as to what should be the minimum subsistence allowance.
We are aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has pointed out, that graduation is introduced as a measure of redistribution of the burden to meet the mounting deficit on the basic pension. But as we have pointed out, we believe that this is a very slippery and dangerous slope and for this reason I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the pamphlet to which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has already referred in part, issued last month by the Institute of Actuaries, and ask that it should receive special consideration from Her Majesty's Government. In effect, the proposal which the Institute of Actuaries has made is that there should be set up an independent expert advisory committee on a high level to keep both Government and people informed of the likely consequences of any suggestions which may be made, as from time to time it is certain they will be made, for an expansion of the present proposals. In his opening speech, the noble Earl referred to the possibility of review from time to time, and as it is likely that suggestions will be made from time to time to alter the provisions of this Bill, I should like to commend the suggestion made in the booklet published last month, and ask the noble Earl to see that it is studied.
5.17 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I stand before your Lordships to answer on behalf of my right honourable friend, because I suppose that to-day, at any rate, I must be the youngest Member of your Lordships' House here present, and I should like to remind your Lordships that by the time all your Lordships here have reached the age of sixty and are drawing your pensions, or even by the time your Lordships have reached the age of seventy and are drawing your maximum increment, probably I shall still be paying my graduated contribution. Whether or not that will be. I do not know. It is disappointing, in a way, that there are not more noble Lords able to take part in this debate; yet, on the other hand, I think it is encouraging and reflects

1297
great credit upon my right honourable friend and my noble friend that they bring before your Lordships this Bill, especially when one considers the hours which it occupied in another place and the considerable amount of time which was spent in your Lordships' House when the subject was last discussed.
I imagine that many of the points raised by those who contributed to the last debate in your Lordships' House must by now have been answered in the speeches of my noble friend. Indeed, I know that my right honourable friend and my noble friend would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, for intervening in this debate and for all the time and trouble that he has put into all affairs to do with pensions, which all your Lordships know is his greatest interest. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, did say something about producing a baby, but that it was "only a small one." Your Lordships have been discussing legitimate or illegitimate babies at great length in recent debates, and no doubt in the near future we shall be having still further discussions. The noble Lord may care to call this baby which my right honourable friend has brought forth, a small one, but I think it is a good one. I should like to point to the example of my noble friend, and to compare his size at the Dispatch Box to-day with the size of a very small baby.
The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, said that the benefits are too low. He even mentioned the words "dire poverty". All of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, who also made this point, would like to see pensions rise to almost any limit; but we must consider what is practicable and what is possible. My noble friend gave us a recommendation that we should keep pensions out of politics. By that he means, of course, Party politics, because the subject cannot be kept away from politics. By the ancient Greek usage the root word of "politics" means "the art of the possible", and Her Majesty's Government are trying to find a way that is possible and practicable. We believe that the scheme which my noble friend has described is a possible and a practical one, for reasons which I hope to put forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, suggested that the graduated
1298
pension at the £15-a-week rate was somewhat niggardly when compared with the actuarial basis—a term for which the noble Lord, Lord Amwell does not care.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, I said "social".
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, the graduated portion of the pension should not be considered alone; it is a question of the basic pension taken with the graduated pension. I have here some figures which I hope will show that it is not such a bad bargain, even for the young worker, for whom, we must admit, it is a worse bargain. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, mentioned the figure of £12 a week but he did not give the age at which that particular worker would enter into this scheme. If he should enter at a fairly late age, say at the age of 50, his maximum pension if he is a married man, would be 86s. 6d.; and the total contribution would be 16s. 7d. weekly, of which his personal share would be 8s. 3½d.—leaving out contributions in respect of industrial accidents and National Health Insurance.
We must look at the question of what it would cost, on an actuarial basis, for him to get that pension of 86s. 6d. I am afraid there can be no other way of obtaining a pension than by putting down so much in small amounts and expecting to get back in the future some other amount in return for the contributions paid. The man entering the scheme at 50 would have had to pay 51s. 3d. in order to get a pension of 86s. 6d. Going back to the worst end of the scale, and taking a young man of 18, earning £12 a week, he would expect to get, if he is married, 100s. 6d., and he will pay a total of 16s. 7d. per week, of which his share, again, is 8s. 3½d. On an actuarial basis his pension would cost him 15s. 8d. weekly, so that it could be shown that his return is not quite so good. It must not be taken, however, that he is necessarily going to earn £12 per week all his life.
Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, mentioned that there was in the Bill provision whereby there might be all kinds of variations. We heard reference to the prosperity of the nation. Who can tell what may be the position

1299
of the £12-per-week man entering the scheme at the age of 18, in the year 1990? I do not think, therefore, that we need to take that argument of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, too far. Nor is it true to say that the actuarial basis has been lost. I can assure the noble Lord, as I believe he knows well, that actuarial assessments are relevant to the basic pension and benefits right through the scheme.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, having suggested that this was a bad bargain, said that people who are already in an occupational scheme should not have the right to contract out. If, by the noble Lord's assessment, the scheme which Her Majesty's Government are putting before the country is a bad bargain surely those people with their own occupational schemes should have the right to contract out.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the interesting and informative speech of the noble Earl, but I do not think I ever said they should not have the right to contract out. What I said was that a noble Lord had already pointed out—and I agreed with him—that it was very difficult for an employer to contract out because as times, and schemes, change, an employer, having contracted out at the beginning, might want to come in afterwards. I do not think I ever said there should not be the right to contract out.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord said that they should not be denied the advantages of a national graduated pension. I think that was what the noble Lord meant, was it not? Therefore a man with an occupational scheme should not have to contract-out, as undoubtedly he would have to do should his firm decide that contracting-out gave the best bargain to all the men in his particular pay group or age group in that factory or possibly in the industry. As to whether the Government scheme may possibly improve in course of time, as the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, has shown us, it is prosperity and savings, profit—in other words, the country's profit—which will make it possible to improve the scheme. And I have no doubt that as savings and profits improve—
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, I take it that the noble Earl means "prophet" in the Biblical sense, not in the economic sense.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I hope it will be in both the Biblical and the economic sense, and I feel that that is the main object of Her Majesty's Government—to secure the prosperity of the country. When that is achieved, as it is being achieved, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and his friends may be able to devise certain ways and means of competition or ought to be able to provide some manner of competing with the Government scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Amwell, has already referred to the prosperity of the country, and I think it must be right to refer to the point raised by my noble friend—that since pensions were introduced on this scale in 1946 the increase in the real value of the pension has been 11s. in the case of the married couple. The National Assistance benefits arc being increased up to 85s., and that, again, comes from taxation, from the profits that the country has made. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided that so much more can be put to one side, and it has been decided—and I believe the country will commend the decision—that this little extra (though, taken all over the country, it is really quite a considerable extra) should be given to those who deserve it most and whose case is direst, as the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, suggested.
The noble Lord did not like the means test for the National Assistance grant, and there is no doubt that what he says is true. But my noble friend made it quite clear that it is the intention of my right honourable friend that we should try to break down this resistance to securing benefits which can be received under the National Assistance scheme. It is, however, public money which is being handled, money which has been saved—the money of the taxpayer; and it is being dispensed. I do not believe, my Lords, human nature being what it is, that one can "dish out" money "ad lib.", if your Lordships will excuse such a term in your Lordships' House; it cannot be done. There must be some test to find out who is

1301
deserving of such assistance and also who is not deserving of such assistance but trying to make a fraud.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, my point was not whether I agreed with the means test or not in regard to public assistance, but the sheer fact that a large number of people—I put it at about as many again as apply for National Assistance—so much object to the means test that they do not apply. It had nothing to do with my own views on the matter.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, that is what I had in mind. I thoroughly appreciate that that is not the noble Lord's view; it is the view of these people who will not apply. That is one of the reasons why my noble friend begged such people not to consider National Assistance in such a light. Nevertheless, we must have some control, some inspection, as to what happens with the public's money.
With regard to the noble Lord's interesting idea of a halfpenny poundage, I seem to have read somewhere or another in an economic textbook or something like that, which I did not understand very well, something of such an idea, and I think that that idea has probably been considered also by economists of far greater standing than myself or even my noble friend. But possibly the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, would be able to put forward reasons why such an idea is, unfortunately, a little too simple.
LORD AMWELL: I will wipe out all taxation for that matter, quite easily.
EARL BATHURST: The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, welcomed the fact that there are enabling clauses in this Bill which allow my right honourable friend at any time to vary or alter provisions in the Bill to meet the consequences of the time. I do not intend to go over the point in detail, but I maintain that the first objective of this Bill, of my right honourable friend's scheme, is to make the scheme financially stable. The present scheme is losing each year, and would have lost £144 million in 1961–62. It is estimated that the deficit would have come to over £400 million in the year 1981–82, twenty years forward. That state of affairs cannot go on. The scheme is designed to give as much as is practicable to the old person who has retired and who is in need, yet at the same time it is designed to be as small an incubus as possible upon the subscriber—that is, both the employer and the employee—and also the taxpayer. Finally, it is the intention to provide a graduated pension, related to the earnings of the worker concerned.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUCKS WATER BOARD BILL
The Queen's consent signified and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before six o'clock.