Sitting of 11 March 1959

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BRITISH ARMY

    Rocket Range, South Uist
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made with the preparation of the guided-missiles project in South Uist; the total expenditure to date; how many civilian workers are at present employed; and when the range will be fully operational for the firing of the Corporal or other missiles.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): Progress is up to schedule and the range will be fully operational early in the summer, although construction work will go on for a time after that. Expenditure on works services so far in South Uist totals £106,000. There are about 170 men employed in the island.
    Mr. MacMillan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, has the civilian employment now reached its peak and how many men will be retained permanently at the range? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman reassure the local people that this is a purely training project and that atomic or nuclear warheads will not be either stored or employed at the range?
    Mr. Soames: As to the second part of the supplementary question, I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks. In reply to the first part, we are rather beyond the peak. More men were employed earlier than are being employed today. Once the constructional work ends, there will not be the same possibilities for the employment of large numbers of civilians.

    Personnel, Cyprus (Sentences)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for War how many officers and other ranks in the Army have been dismissed from the Service, demoted or sentenced to imprisonment for offences committed during their service in Cyprus.
    Mr. Mellishasked the Secretary of State for War the number of British Army personnel who have been subjected to disciplinary action as a result of their activities during operations in Cyprus.
    Mr. Soames: No central record is kept of summary convictions. So far as courts-martial are concerned, there have been 57 officers and 1,340 other ranks convicted in Cyprus since the emergency began in November, 1955.
    Of these, 22 officers and 353 other ranks received the sentences listed by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). Most of the remainder were sentenced to detention.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the strong feeling which has been expressed on both sides of the House about the continued detention of some of these officers and men? In view of the action of the Governor of Cyprus in referring to Colonel Grivas and his friends and accomplices as if they were heroes, and of Archbishop Makarios in pinning a medal on Colonel Grivas, does the right hon. Gentleman consider it reasonable that our men should be retained in detention?
    Mr. Soames: This is an inter-Service problem and the right hon. Gentleman has a later Question on the specific point to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the Secretary of State aware that as I was afraid that the Question, being No. 71, would not be reached, I took no chances and had it deferred until next Wednesday? Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, give me the Answer which his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence would have given?
    Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Defence has asked my permission to answer the right hon. Gentleman's Question, if it is not reached, at the end of Questions. I thought I had better tell the right hon.

    1227
    Gentleman, because he will get an answer whether his Question is reached in the ordinary course or not.
    Mr. Shinwell: That is only pouring coals of fire on my head.
    Mr. Mellish: While recognising the right hon. Gentleman's desire to retain the disciplinary code in the Army, he will nevertheless understand that this is a matter which surely warrants investigation of each individual case to see what can be done in view of the strong feelings which exist here, although we recognise the difficulties involved. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on this?
    Mr. Soames: This is an inter-Service problem in which not only the Army is involved. This very Question is being answered later.

    Vickers Machine Gun
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Secretary of State for War to what extent the Vickers machine gun, with which the Army is still equipped, will be modified to take ·300 ammunition.
    Mr. Soames: The Vickers gun will not be modified. It will be replaced in due course by a sustained fire machine gun now under trial. This gun will fire the standard N.A.T.O. round.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is it quite out of the question to use the ·300 ammunition on the present gun?
    Mr. Soames indicated assent.

    Tanks (Gun Tests)
    Mr. Masonasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the overturning of a tank in recent tests of a new gun; and, in view of the risks involved for soldiers taking part in such tests, what consultations he has had with the Minister of Supply in order to avoid further risk of this kind.
    Mr. Soames: I cannot trace any such recent incident. The new 105 mm. gun is safe to fire and there is no unusual risk to the crew of a tank armed with it.
    Mr. Mason: While I am glad to be assured that a recoil system has now been developed, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that when the gun was tested on completion at Solway Firth, Dumfriesshire, it recoiled
    1228
    violently for twenty yards? Luckily nobody was hurt, but I should like to know what happened to the crew on that occasion. Is not it ridiculous that a test should take place in this fashion without any scientific analysis having been made beforehand to determine what the recoil would be?
    Mr. Soames: I assure the hon. Member that there is no foundation whatsoever to that report.
    Mr. Mason: If I obtain details of this incident, will the right hon. Gentleman look into it?
    Mr. Soames: Certainly I will, but the hon. Member will not find them.

    Three-ton Trucks
    Mr. Masonasked the Secretary of State for War how many different main types of three-ton trucks are now being provided for the Army; what are the major differences in main components, such as engine, gear-box and transmission; and for how many different types of instruments and accessories spares have to be held in Army supply units.
    Mr. Soames: We are providing one standard three-ton chassis on which can be built eight different bodies according to need. This keeps the range of spares to a minimum. There are no additional instruments or accessories.

    National Service Men
    Mr. Mellishasked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to segregate National Service men into separate units.
    Mr. Soames: None, Sir. The proportion of Regulars to National Service men varies from unit to unit. The proportion of Regulars increases as recruitment improves and as the number of National Service men called up is reduced.
    Mr. Mellish: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman said that in the re-equipping of the Regular Army we were to have new weapons, new equipment and new uniforms? As I gather that these will go only to the Regulars, will not the Army be a ramshackle affair, with a proportion of the men having new equipment and the poor, wretched National Service men using the old?

    1229
    Surely it is intended to do something about that?
    Mr. Soames: I am surprised at the hon. Member getting hold of the wrong end of the stick to such an extent. As the equipment goes out and is issued to units, it goes to all men in those units, including National Service men.
    Mr. Mellish: Including uniforms?
    Mr. Soames: They are not out yet.
    Mr. Mellishasked the Secretary of State for War to what extent he is considering the possibility of releasing National Service men before the completion of their two years' period of service where the Army can no longer provide them with useful employment.
    Mr. Soames: The number of men being called for National Service is being progressively reduced as the Army gets smaller. Those already serving will complete the period of two years.
    Mr. Mellish: But that does not answer the Question, does it? I was asking whether, when the Army can no longer provide them with useful employment, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to keep these men kicking their heels.
    Mr. Soames: That is not so. I was asked whether I was considering releasing National Service men before completion of their two years' service and I said that those already serving will continue for the two years.

    B.A.O.R. (Divisional Headquarters)
    Mr. Stracheyasked the Secretary of State for War how many of the new streamlined divisional headquarters are located with the British Army of the Rhine.
    Mr. Soames: Three, Sir.
    Mr. Strachey: If the right hon. Gentleman will not tell us the number of brigade groups in Germany, out of exaggerated deference to security, as I should have thought, can he say whether these three divisional headquarters now control brigade groups which he considers equal to the four divisions that we are pledged to maintain in Germany?
    Mr. Soames: There has been considerable reorganisation and new thinking not only in tie British Army but in the armies
    1230
    of all our Western Allies on the size and scope of divisions and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Army in Germany is organised in terms of brigade groups now.

    Junior Leader and Apprentice Schools (Commissions)
    Mr. Stracheyasked the Secretary of State for War how many candidates for commission have come forward from the junior leader and apprentice schools, and over what period; how many have been successful; and what proportion of the total intake this figure represents.
    Mr. Soames: In the time available I have not been able to obtain figures in the form set out in the Question. I will send them to the right hon. Member. There are at present about 1,500 officers in the Army who entered the Service as boys or apprentices.
    Mr. Strachey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we should like to have these figures, because the Under-Secretary spoke of the remarkable number of young officers who have passed through these schools? I very much hope that that is the ease. It is an important and good development if it is so. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I should like to have the real figures not only in private but on the Floor of the House?
    Mr. Soames: The Question was tabled on Monday and I am afraid that I have not been able to complete my inquiries. I will send the figures to the right hon. Gentleman or answer a Question later—whichever he wants.

    National Service (Grants)
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Secretary of State for War why the sum allocated to National Service grants for 1959–60 is so much greater than the estimate for 1958–59.
    Mr. Soames: As hon. Members know, the age of call-up for National Service is being allowed to rise. Because the recruits are older more of them are married and in general they have in civil life heavier obligations than was previously the case. We are making allowance for this by providing for more and larger National Service grants in the coming financial year.
    Mr. Chetwynd: But has there been any improvement in the actual scale of the National Service grants? If so, can they be made retrospective to apply to those already made?
    Mr. Soames: No, Sir. Each National Service grant is considered on its merits. We have to take account of the fact that over the past three years the number of grants has risen from 7,000 to 9,600 and the average annual amount of individual grants from £80 to £105.

    Personnel, Cyprus (Withdrawal)
    Mr. Stracheyasked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are being made to ensure that British Service personnel will not suffer financial loss as a result of being withdrawn from Cyprus.
    Mr. Soames: Large-scale movements of troops out of a country at the end of an emergency always bring their special problems. I have asked the Commander-in-Chief to inform me of the scope and size of the problem in Cyprus.
    Mr. Strachey: I shall be glad to hear that information, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we all feel that British Service personnel ought to receive very special consideration, because this is entirely different from an ordinary posting? It is the result of a dramatic change in the Government's own policy—a change in their mind—which could not have been anticipated by the personnel. I should have thought that there was a strong case for special treatment of these men.
    Mr. Soames: I cannot accept it when the right hon. Gentleman says that there has been a change of policy. It is the successful fruition of the Government's policy.
    Mr. Bellenger: What is the purpose behind this inquiry by the Commander-in-Chief? Is it to find out whether circumstances warrant help to troops who may be penalised because of withdrawal from Cyprus?
    Mr. Soames: Large-scale withdrawals, such as from Kenya and Korea, in the past have brought their problems and I am anxious to know their scope.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Advertisements
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, during the screening of the play, "Hot Summer Night", recently on Independent Television, an artificial break was made in the play for advertisements, the action being stopped at a climax with a character talking from the top of some stairs and being resumed with the character again talking and descending the stairs; and, as this is a breach of the Television Act, what action he is taking against the Independent Television Authority.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): The Authority does not regard this break as natural and instructed the programme company the following day that breaks of this kind, though perhaps suitable in the theatre, could not be allowed in its transmission under the Act's "natural break" rule. It has emphasised this to all the companies.
    Mr. Chapman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am glad that one of these practices is condemned by him? Has he seen the Gallup Poll which shows that viewers in a proportion of three to one dislike the intrusion of advertisements into programmes in unnatural breaks? How long are these gentlemen to get away with it? If the right hon. Gentleman wants an all-party agreement on the extent of the intrusion of advertisements into programmes, would not it be a good idea to direct the I.T.A. to go some way to meet our point of view?
    Mr. Marples: In this case, the I.T.A. has condemned the mistake without reservation. It has cautioned the particular company and it has informed other companies. I doubt whether we shall ever have complete all-party agreement on commercial television.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the pleasure it has given us that a Daniel has at last come to judgment?
    Mr. Marples: Not a bit of it. This really shows that the Authority is doing its job.
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that

    1233
    at 6.15 p.m., approximately, on Saturday, 14th February, a singer on Independent Television was apparently faded out before the end of his song in order to insert advertisements; and, as this is a breach of the Television Act, what action he is taking against the Independent Television Authority.
    Mr. Marples: The Authority tells me that the hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that the singer was faded out to make room for advertisements. The presentation technique for this particular song allowed for the final words to die away deliberately as they are repeated several times. I understand that the same technique is employed in a gramophone record of the song in question.
    Mr. Chapman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is just another example of the way in which these programmes are being manipulated so as best to allow the intrusion of advertisements in the middle of them? Would not it be a good thing, in view of the extent of public opinion, as shown in the Gallup Poll, to instruct the I.T.A. to go at least some way to meet these criticisms that there are too many unnatural breaks in the programmes?
    Mr. Marples: That supplementary question is based on the assumption that it was an unnatural break at that point. I have listened to the gramophone record which has gone on sale. I have it downstairs in my room with a gramophone. I am quite prepared for the hon. Member or any other hon. Member to listen to it, because the treatment of the song on television was precisely the same as its treatment on the gramophone record. The song is called, "Real Wild Child". It was sung by a man called Ivan and it fades away with "Wild child, wild child, wild child." I have listened to the gramophone record, which is more than the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has done.
    Sir R. Grimston: In order to get some sense of proportion on this matter, may I ask whether my Tight hon. Friend has seen the letter which appeared in today's Times, written by a gentleman who has made some researches into this matter? The conclusions he has reached are that the complaints come almost entirely either from people who have no television sets or those who have sets which will receive only the B.B.C. programmes?
    Mr. Marples: I have read the letter with great interest, especially as the gentleman has made some scientific investigations.
    Mr. Shinwell: If we avail ourselves of the invitation extended by the right hon. Gentleman to come to his room to hear this gramophone record, will he put on a little liquid refreshment?
    Mr. Marples: The Post Office does not finance those things.
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, contrary to the rules laid down by the Independent Television Authority about the use of statistics in advertisements, claims are being made that a particular bread is exactly eight times more good for the viewer than any other bread, that a particular sweetmeat is seven times less fattening than ordinary chocolate, and that a particular oil reduces engine wear by exactly 80 per cent.; and whether he will issue regulations under Section 4 (4) of the Television Act to make sure that the Independent Television Authority enforces rules about this misleading use of figures.
    Mr. Marples: It is a matter for the Authority to ensure compliance with its "Principles for Television Advertising". In general advertisements in which there is doubt are referred to the Authority by the programme companies. If the Authority is in doubt it refers them to its Advertising Advisory Committee. These advertisements were not so referred, and in view of the hon. Member's allegation I have asked the Authority to obtain the opinion of the Committee.
    The answer to the last part of the Question is "No, Sir".
    Mr. Chapman: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. We are making progress. He is being kind in asking for this matter to be investigated. May I draw his attention to the fact that when an ordinary citizen wrote to the advertiser about the claim in regard to engine wear, and asked him to substantiate the claim, in reply the advertiser evaded the question about substantiating the figure of 80 per cent. That figure, of course, meant that an engine would last five times as long as any other engine which was not using his oil. Does not

    1235
    the Minister agree that, if that kind of thing happens, it ought to be stopped as soon as possible?
    Mr. Marples: I have no doubt that the Advertising Advisory Committee will read HANSARD in respect of the Answer to this and also the previous Question.
    Mr. Gower: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to an advertisement which exaggerated a great deal by pretending that Labour could meet Britain's needs in the future?
    Mr. C. R. Hobson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply to the Question presupposes the fact that the advertisements are not submitted by the programme companies to the I.T.A.? Indeed, he admits that.
    Mr. Marples: That is not so. I will read my reply again so that the hon. Gentleman gets it right. In general, advertisements in which there is doubt are referred to the Authority by the programme companies. In this case the programme company did not think there was doubt, but as an hon. Member of this House has said to the Postmaster-General that there is doubt, I have taken his allegation at its face value and I have tried to meet his point by referring it to the Committee, which I thought was reasonable.
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of complaints by professional bodies and individuals that advertisers are making extravagant claims for their products on Independent Television, he will make regulations under Sections 4 (4) and 4 (5) of the Television Act that any such claim must be capable of proof and demonstration before an independent committee.
    Mr. Marples: One of the functions of the Authority's Advertising Advisory Committee is to give advice to the Authority and programme contractors with a view to the exclusion of misleading advertisements. Such advice has been given and acted upon. I see no need therefore for regulations by me under Section 4 (4) or directions under Section 4 (5).
    Sir L. Plummer: Is the Postmaster-General aware that when his predecessor announced the setting up of the Advertising Advisory Committee, he
    1236
    allayed the fears of a large number of hon. Members as to whether exaggerated claims would be made. Now, demonstrably, exaggerated claims are being made, so will he now look at the constitution of the Advertising Advisory Committee to see whether it is advisable to have representatives of advertising agents on it?
    Mr. Marples: I am satisfied with the composition of the Advertising Advisory Committee, which is a responsible body of experts drawn from all spheres of life. The B.M.A., the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, the Ministry of Health and the veterinary surgeons, all are represented on this body. I am certain that they are expert and efficient. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific exaggerations in mind, I will do what I did for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), and refer them to the Advertising Advisory Committee.
    Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the advice of medical experts. In the case of the engineering claim that a particular oil saves 80 per cent. in the wear of an engine, surely medical people are not the best to advise him on that point?
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir, but we cannot have a representative from every profession and industry in the country on that Committee. It would be a very unwieldy body if we did that. However, the Committee can always seek advice from outside experts, and I am sure it will do that.
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Postmaster-General what consultations have taken place under Section 4 (5) of the Television Act, 1954, between the Independent Television Authority and himself relating to advertisements; and how many directions he has given to the Authority as provided for in Section 4 (5).
    Mr. Marples: On 22nd June, 1955, my predecessor told the House that he had approved the "Principles for Television Advertising" in so far as they related to matters falling within his jurisdiction under Section 4 (5) of the Act. Since then the Authority has consulted me formally about the advertising of four different items. In each case I was m agreement with the Authority's proposals and therefore no need for directions from me arose.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been conflicts over the Floor of this House about his powers in this matter? Does not he recognise that he has power to issue directions to the Independent Television Authority, in any case in which he thinks fit, under Section 4 (5) of the Act, and may we have it clearly stated now that the right hon. Gentleman accepts some responsibility in this matter?
    Mr. Marples: The Television Act seems to be capable of infinite interpretation by different hon. Members. Section 4 (5) relates to consultation on admissible classes of goods and services. In those cases where the Independent Television Authority has consulted me, I have done my best to look at the point dispassionately, and in the last two years we have taken out four items which were inadmissible.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a matter of great consequence? Will be consult subsection (5) again, which lays down specifically both the type of goods and the methods of advertising in respect of which he has power to give directions?
    Mr. Marples: Section 4 (5) calls for consultation with the Postmaster-General as to the classes and description of goods and services which must not be advertised and the methods of advertising which must not be employed, and calls on the Authority to carry out any directions he may give in those respects. I am quite satisfied that at the moment the Authority is carrying out its duty of consulting me on any possibly inadmissible case.
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Postmaster-General on what date the Independent Television Authority decided that certain toothpaste advertisements offended against the rules approved by him; and on what date those advertisements ceased to be transmitted.
    Mr. Marples: The Authority tells me that one advertiser on being asked to substantiate his claims, or to revise his script, withdrew his advertising as from 1st January this year. Another asked to amend his script on 27th January is revising his advertisement. The present advertisement will not appear after the end of this week.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in December the Advisory Committee decided that these advertisements ought to be withdrawn? Why was it that the I.T.A. gave the advertisers a few weeks in which to withdraw their advertisements?
    Mr. Marples: That is another question. Personally, I am of the opinion that it was too long a time and in that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. However, I must ask the House to remember that this discrimination refers only to television advertising and that the same advertisements have been carried by newspapers of all descriptions. The same advertisement has appeared in a variety of newspapers, including the Daily Mirror and the People. The Television Authority is more scrupulous about its advertisements than any other body I know.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is not responsible for newspapers but is responsible for television advertising?
    Mr. Marples: I do not know who is responsible for the newspapers I have mentioned.
    Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Are we right in assuming that the toothpastes to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are Colgate and Gleam? Why is it that the objections to these advertisements were brought to his attention and to that of the House on 21st November when evidence was given in the debate of that day of the grave apprehensions of the dental profession, and that nothing was done about the matter until January?
    Mr. Marples: The Advertising Advisory Committee discussed this matter on 20th October. It was called to the Committee's attention by a member of the British Dental Association who is on the Committee. The Committee considered it before it was mentioned in the House. I do not think that it is right and proper to mention individual firms in the House.
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Independent Television Authority permits eight minutes and more of advertising an hour when serious programmes are broadcast and if he will make regulations under Section 4 and Schedule 2 to the Television Act to limit the amount of advertising time.
    Mr. Marples: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) on 4th March.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply gave the impression that the reason why more than six minutes' advertising was allowed was the nature and length of the programmes, whereas in fact it depends on whether or not the programme is shown at peak hours or off-peak hours? Will he correct that impression, since the true reason for excessive advertising is that the programme contractors find it more profitable to advertise at peak hours?
    Mr. Marples: A lot depends on the nature of the programme being transmitted. At present the transmitted programmes average between 60 and 65 hours, and between January and February on up to eight occasions there were six advertisements lasting for eight minutes, there was one lasting eight and a half minutes, and on two occasions at the most they lasted more than nine minutes, all depending on the nature of the programme.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are far more breaks at peak times than during low viewing times? How does it come about that it is a regular occurrence for more breaks and more time devoted to advertisements to come in peak periods rather than at any other time?
    Mr. Marples: The curious thing is that there is no complaint from the general public. Where people can view I.T.A. and B.B.C., of the time spent in viewing twice as much is spent watching I.T.A. as B.B.C. If people object, they can switch to the station where there is no advertising.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: But that is no excuse for breaking the law.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Gallup Poll on Tuesday showed that 81 per cent. of I.T.A. viewers were annoyed by the breaks and that the vast majority of I.T.A. viewers pronounced themselves in favour of the Bill which I am presenting to the House? Would he agree that it would be a shame if that Bill were killed without the House being given an opportunity to discuss it?
    Mr. Marples: I should hate to see any Bill of the hon. Gentleman's killed. In reply to this reference to the Gallup Pall, there is a letter in The Times today from Mr. Geoffrey Gorer, who carried out 2,000 scientific investigations and who found that the people he interviewed did not really mind about advertisements.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Does the Postmaster-General mean that the results of the Gallup Poll are not worthy of consideration and that the poll is unreliable? Is he repudiating it altogether? All of us have doubts about the Gallup Polls from time to time, especially when they are not favourable to us, but surely the Gallup Poll has sufficient reputation not to be treated in the contemptuous manner which the Postmaster-General has shown.
    Mr. Marples: I have not treated it in a contemptuous manner. I said that there was another poll which gave different results, and I have to balance the one against the other.
    Mr. Freethasked the Postmaster-General to what extent he has received specific complaints from the general public about the rules relating to natural breaks in Independent Television Authority programmes.
    Mr. Marples: I have seen the News Chronicle Gallup Poll based on specific questions. As regards spontaneous complaints from the general public I have received since 1st December, 1958, four letters of criticism about the insertion of advertisements in natural breaks. For two years prior to that date I received none.
    Mr. Freeth: Would my right hon. Friend infer from that information that there is no strong public agitation? Is not it confined to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite?
    Mr. Marples: I think that that is the right conclusion.
    Mr. Mayhew: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the replies to protests from viewers about natural breaks are now sent out by I.T.A. in duplicated letters?
    Mr. Marples: I shall have to have notice of that supplementary question. I do not know the answer myself.
    Mr. Freethasked the Postmaster-General what evidence he has that viewers are dissatisfied with the way in which, under the rules contained in the Second Schedule to the Television Act, 1954, advertisements are inserted in Independent Television Authority programmes.
    Mr. Marples: I have received in the last six months four letters only from the general public. They have all come in since 1st December. The Authority itself has had five letters from the public. It tells me that its audiences are as large as ever, and that at least two-thirds of the time spent viewing television in homes with a choice is given to the Independent Television programmes.
    Mr. Freeth: Does my right hon. Friend, therefore, agree that there is no case for amending legislation further to restrict the programme contractors as to the places where they insert advertisements into their programmes?
    Mr. Marples: I think that the introduction of Independent Television has had a beneficial effect on television as a whole.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are not asking for new legislation; we are asking that the provisions of the present legislation shall be faithfully carried out?
    Mr. Marples: The right hon. Gentleman was against the present legislation at the beginning, and has been ever since. I am satisfied that its provisions have been carried out efficiently and well.

    Western Isles and North-West Highland Coastal Areas
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Postmaster-General when he intends to authorise the expenditure by the British Broadcasting Corporation of the money necessary to provide television and very high frequency services for the Western isles and north-west Highland coastal areas.
    Mr. Marples: The matter is under consideration.
    Mr. MacMillan: In view of the fact that this has been the Answer for quite a long time past, will the Postmaster-General say something a little more practical and sympathetic and announce a target date for a service in this area?
    Mr. Marples: I cannot give a target date at the moment.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the Minister aware that the B.B.C. is extremely anxious to get on with this job, that there is no difficulty as far as it is concerned, and that it is purely a matter of authorising it to spend the money? What is the delay now?
    Mr. Marples: There are quite a number of problems to be solved.

    Colour Television
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Postmaster-General what is the present stage of research into the practicability of colour television; whether any more economical system has yet been devised; and whether the Television Advisory Committee has yet reported to him on the matter.
    Mr. Marples: The technical problems of colour television systems are being considered by the Television Advisory Committee whose report I still await.

    Line Definition
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Postmaster-General what decision has been made to increase the line system of television to harmonise Great Britain with other countries.
    Mr. Marples: None, Sir. Such a decision must be preceded by consideration of a report on the matter by my Television Advisory Committee which I still await.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that there will be consideration by this House before he takes a decision?
    Mr. Marples: I promised the House that as soon as I received the report I would place a copy in the Library, so obviously hon. Members will have a chance to study it.

    Independent Television Authority (Members)
    Mr. C. R. Hobsonasked the Postmaster-General when he proposes to change the members of the Independent Television Authority.
    Mr. Marples: As and when existing appointments expire it will be my responsibility to consider how vacancies can best be filled.
    Mr. Hobson: In view of the repeated breaches of the Television Act with unnatural breaks and the advertising of quack medicines, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the present membership of the Advisory Committee should be reviewed, since the members are not safeguarding the interests of the public?
    Mr. Marples: I do not accept the assumptions on which that supplementary question is based.

    Independent Television Authority and Programme Companies
    Mr. C. R. Hobsonasked the Postmaster-General if he will move to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the Independent Television Authority and the programme companies.
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir.
    Mr. C. R. Hobson: Again, in view of the breaches of the Act which are constantly made by the programme companies and condoned by the I.T.A., and the repeated criticisms of hon. Members on both sides of the House, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that we should have a Select Committee, with power to send for papers and persons, to discover the real relationship between the I.T.A. and the programme companies?
    Mr. Marples: I cannot accept those assumptions, particularly the suggestion of criticisms from both sides of the House.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a director of one of these companies has publicly said that he regards this attitude as permission to print pound notes—the profits being so exorbitant in television? Should not some of this money go back to the public to develop television services?
    Mr. Marples: A great deal of it does go back to the public by way of taxation.

    Programme "This Week" (Transcript)
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Postmaster-General if he has yet ascertained who was the author of the transcription
    1244
    of the programme, "This Week", on 1st January, sent by the Assistant Postmaster-General to the hon. Member for East Woolwich.
    Mr. Marples: The Authority tells me that the transcript was provided by Associated Rediffusion.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no serious check on the working of the Television Act is possible unless the monitoring and transcribing of the programmes is done not by the programme contractors themselves, but by I.T.A. officials? Is he aware that when I made a complaint against Associated Rediffusion, all that happened was that the Minister asked I.T.A. to ask Associated Rediffusion for the evidence? Is he aware that when I made that complaint, the Assistant Postmaster-General sent me a document, typed on Ministry paper, which referred to the employees of Associated Rediffusion by their Christian names and which was inaccurate and slovenly in all respects?
    Mr. Marples: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has written to my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General, who is to answer that letter, and we had better wait until the hon. Gentleman has had that answer.

    Television Advisory Committee (Report)
    Mr. C. R. Hobsonasked the Postmaster-General when the Report of the Television Advisory Committee appointed by him will be made available to hon. Members.
    Mr. Marples: I am not yet able to say. I have not yet received the Report, but I repeat my promise to lay a copy in the Library as soon as I receive it.
    Mr. Hobson: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the question of a third television channel has been referred to the Television Advisory Committee?
    Mr. Marples: Without notice, I am not sure what its terms of reference are, but generally speaking it is going into the problem of line definition, including colour, and the necessary measures required to carry that out.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Overseas Calls (Charges)
    Mr. Russellasked the Postmaster-General (1) what plans he has for reducing the charges for telephone calls from the United Kingdom to Commonwealth countries, especially as many of the charges are the same irrespective of distance;
    (2) what plans he has for reducing the charges for telephone calls between the United Kingdom and European countries.
    Mr. Marples: Although anxious that our rates should be as low as possible, the present financial results of the overseas telephone services as a whole would not allow me to make any general reductions. The existing scales of charges—which have remained unchanged since the war—are, I believe, generally accepted as fair. The uniformity of our charges for Commonwealth services reflects the fact that, apart from the important Canadian link, these services are provided by radio, so that costs are largely independent of distance.
    Mr. Russell: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his Answer, may I ask whether he can say why there are so few night rates, except to Canada, and when will it be possible to have more, particularly in countries in roughly the same longitude?
    Mr. Marples: I should like notice of that question.

    Telephone Directory, Edinburgh
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Postmaster-General how many cases have been reported to him of omissions or inaccuracies in the new issue of the Edinburgh telephone directory; and what steps he is taking to recompense subscribers who suffer financial loss in consequence of these errors on the part of the Post Office.
    Mr. Marples: Of the 60,000 amendments which were made to this directory, 68 major errors and 30 minor ones have been reported. I am very sorry that these mistakes have been made and the inconvenience they have caused.
    As soon as the mistakes were brought to notice we did all we could to reduce the inconvenience, and I am now arranging
    1246
    for a directory supplement to be issued. I could not justify the payment of financial compensation.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his helpful reply, may I ask him to take steps to avoid a repetition of these unfortunate mistakes in the future, because they cause serious financial hardship to those affected?
    Mr. Marples: We shall certainly take all possible steps to do so, and I have myself asked for a report.
    Mr. Ross: May we be told the cost to the Post Office?
    Mr. Marples: Six hundred pounds.

  POST OFFICE

    Hutton Lane Estate, Guisborough (Sub-Office)
    Mr. Palmerasked the Postmaster-General if he will now reconsider his decision not to authorise a new sub-post office on the Hutton Lane Estate, Guisborough, in view of the further representations made by the local authority and residents.
    Mr. Marples: I have considered this matter again very carefully but I am sorry I should not be justified in authorising an office.
    Mr. Palmer: Does not the right hon. Gentleman sometimes boast that the Post Office has not been the same since he took over? In those circumstances, could not he show a little more flexibility of mind in the provision of sub-post offices?
    Mr. Marples: If the hon. Gentleman has any further evidence to submit to me, I will look at it again; but, in the light of evidence already submitted, I would say that there are other places which would deserve a sub-post office before the place in question.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    El Adem (Amenities)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Air what steps he is taking to provide adequate amenities and recreational facilities at the Royal Air Force Station, El Adem.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): We shall be making a start on a building programme at El Adem very soon. The programme includes, among other things, the extension of three messes, a new airmen's club, and a swimming pool. Meanwhile, existing club rooms are being improved and augmented.
    Mr. Wall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very satisfactory reply. Will he look particularly into the question of amenities for warrant officers and senior N.C.O.s, which I understand are very sub-standard?
    Mr. Ward: Yes, that is part of our programme.

    London Airport (Unidentified Light)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement on the official reports received at the Air Ministry about the pale yellow disc which recently hovered in the sky over London Airport for 20 minutes; and what observations were made of it on the radar screens.
    Mr. Ward: A pale yellow light was seen by officials at London Airport above one of the runways from 7.25 to 7.45 on the evening of 25th February. There was no corresponding response on the airport radars or on air defence radars. The light was not identified.
    Mr. de Freitas: Should not the Secretary of State's Department have pointed out that there were natural conditions which could quite easily have led to this apparition, and not have given, by implication, the idea that there was some Martian saucer hovering and waiting for permission to land?
    Mr. F. M. Bennett: The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse).
    Mr. Ward: There was insufficient evidence to determine what the cause of this light could have been.

    Rocket Range, South Uist
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Air the total and the average amount of compensation payable to crofters in respect of loss of land and other adverse effects resulting from the establishment of the South Uist Rocket Range.
    Mr. Ward: The amount awarded to South Uist crofters by the Scottish Land Court was £1,889. Reductions of rent were also granted amounting to £127 a year. Awards of £461 and £652 were made to crofters on North Uist and Benbecula. As the details are somewhat lengthy I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these awards of compensation are regarded as about the most miserable and conservative ever awarded by the Scottish Land Court in respect of loss of land and part-loss of livelihood? Will the Air Ministry itself, in the interests of good public relations and justice, consider making some supplementary award to the crofters affected, who are affected for the rest of their lives by this intrusion?
    Mr. Ward: No, Sir. It has all along been understood and agreed by all concerned that claims arising from the resumption of land would be referred to the Scottish Land Court. This has been done and the Court has issued its award.
    Following are the details:

    South Uist

    £

    Award for 565 acres of common grazing shared by 75 crofters

    750

    Award for 524 acres of common grazing shared by 20 crofters

    660

    Award for 8½ acres of arable land from five crofts

    261

    Disturbance allowances

    218

    Reduction of rent

    127 p.a.

    North Uist

    Disturbance allowances

    461

    Benbecula

    Award for 7 acres of arable land from one croft (including disturbance allowance)

    530

    Other disturbance allowances

    122

    Air Ministry Messengers (Top Secret Documents)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air what grade of civilian Air Ministry employees are employed as couriers to carry top secret documents by train.
    Mr. Ward: Top secret documents are not normally sent by train, but where this is unavoidable they are carried by Air Ministry messengers.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is not it a fact that Air Ministry messengers are men of the industrial grade, who have to travel second class? Would not it be a good idea for the Ministry to follow the example of the War Office and upgrade these men and allow them to travel in better conditions?
    Mr. Ward: These men belong to a non-industrial grade, and no cases are on record in the past ten years of top secret documents being lost by the messenger service.
    Mr. de Freitas: That is not the point. Is it not a fact that in the ordinary course of duty messengers who are paid and graded as industrial have to carry top secret documents when, in the other Services, similar men are given the status, pay and conditions of non-industrial grades?
    Mr. Ward: I shall look into that point, but we have had no difficulty about this matter.
    Captain Pilkington: Is second class less respectable than first class?
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the Secretary of State aware that that is a most nonsensical remark? This has nothing to do with whether first class is more respectable or not; it is merely the fact that first class carriages are usually less crowded than second class carriages, and if men are dealing with top secret documents it is right that they should have that status.

  RAILWAYS

    Land (Disposal)
    Mr. Pageasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, in view of the British Transport Commission's inquiry into the possibility of the sale of such of its land as is not at present used for purposes of its undertaking, what further consideration he has given to proposals for the disposal of the whole of the Commission's railway undertaking, other than the permanent way itself, thus assimilating rail transport with trunk-road road transport.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): It has always been the Commission's policy to dispose of land not likely to be required for the
    1250
    purposes of its undertaking, and it has therefore made no special inquiry.
    No proposals on the other point raised by the hon. Member have been put to us.
    Mr. Page: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing public dissatisfaction with the operation of the railways as a nationalised undertaking? Is he also aware that there can scarcely be more dissatisfaction among the employees, who are threatening to strike because they are convinced that they are 20 per cent. underpaid? Is my hon. Friend further aware that if rail transport were relieved of the upkeep of the permanent way, in the same way as road transport is relieved of the upkeep of the roads, it could be run as an efficient service under public enterprise?
    Mr. Nugent: I do not think that shifting the cost of maintaining the permanent way would be a solution. There are bound to be complaints until the modernisation process has been completed, but the upward trend of passenger traffics over recent months seems to give some indication contrary to what my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Would the Minister point out to his hon. Friend that the difficulties with which the railways are confronted are due entirely to Government policy? Secondly, is not it regrettable that his hon. Friend has only now come round to the point of view that the integration of road and rail transport is necessary? Will the Minister ask his hon. Friend whether he voted against the denationalisation of the road haulage industry, which is responsible for the limitation of integration?
    Mr. Nugent: As the Government are responsible for financing the modernisation of OUT railways, I think that the hon. Members' supplementary question is out of place.

  TRANSPORT

    Bridge Street, Andover (Traffic)
    Mr. Freethasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give the average number of cars passing through Bridge Street, Andover, A.303, per hour, during daylight last August, or such other figures as any traffic census during the summer may have yielded.
    Mr. Nugent: No census of traffic has been taken in Bridge Street, Andover. A census was, however, taken as part of the 1958 census at a point some 5½ miles east of the centre of Andover. An average number of 2,506 cars per day of sixteen hours was recorded.
    Mr. Freeth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of cars passing through this very busy thoroughfare on their way to the West, particularly at weekends, is causing increasing dislocation and congestion in the main street of Andover, especially as, following the introduction of diesel trains on the Andover-Romsey line, the level crossing gates are now closed for far longer periods than ever before?
    Mr. Nugent: Naturally, as more traffic passes through Andover there is greater congestion there. I am well aware of the difficulty at the level crossing, but I do not understand why diesel trains should cause greater difficulty.
    Mr. Freeth: The service is more frequent.

    Vehicle Tests
    Mr. Pageasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation his intentions, in connection with compulsory testing of vehicles, with regard to the authorisation of brake-testing on public roads; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nugent: An applicant for appointment as authorised examiner has to state what public roads, if any, he intends to use for vehicle testing. No appointments will be made unless our technical officers are satisfied that the roads proposed, or others nearby, can be used for testing without danger or undue inconvenience to the public and to other traffic.
    Mr. Page: Does not it involve grave danger and inconvenience to traffic if brake testing takes place on public roads? Is there any shortage of brake-testing instruments within the testing garages?
    Mr. Nugent: Brake testing is already carried out as a normal practice on many roads. Provided the road is carefully selected the danger will not be serious.
    Mr. Strauss: In view of the delay of nearly three years in the introduction of the general testing of vehicles under the 1956 Act, which is likely to be further
    1252
    postponed, will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to write up in large letters, in his room, a notice to the effect that for every week that this road testing is postponed ten additional lives are unnecessarily lost on our roads?
    Mr. Nugent: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we do not accept that there has been any unreasonable delay. We have gone ahead with this scheme with all speed. It is a most complicated scheme. We have already inspected over 10,000 garages, and we are well ahead with the programme. We are hoping to have this scheme started in the summer.

    Road Safety Campaign
    Mr. Hunterasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in view of the increase in road accidents in 1958, if he will give details of road safety campaigns arranged for 1959 to promote safety on the roads.
    Mr. Nugent: Yes, Sir. Our Ministry and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, in collaboration, are making arrangements for a major road safety campaign on the theme "Be a Better Driver". The campaign will be launched by the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor of London, for whose valuable help we are most grateful, at a meeting in the Guildhall on 20th April, and it will be directed initially to the development and encouragement of the techniques of safer driving. During the summer months special emphasis will be given to the safety of children on the roads. I am glad to say that we are receiving substantial help and co-operation from a number of national organisations in this campaign, and we will welcome and make use of any offers of help which come to us from whatever quarter.
    Mr. Hunter: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether local authorities will be invited to take part in this campaign?
    Mr. Nugent: Very much so. The Lord Mayor's meeting is primarily to invite the lord mayors and mayors of boroughs throughout the country, and the chairmen of county councils as well. My right hon. Friend will be writing to the chairmen of other local authorities. We certainly shall count upon the thousands of road safety committees in the country to take a very active part in this campaign.

  ROADS

    Severn Bridge
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will advance the date for the authorisation of the Severn Bridge project, including the approach roads.
    Mr. Corfieldasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is now in a position to authorise the building of the Severn Bridge; and on what date he expects work thereon, and on the approach roads thereto, to commence.
    Mr. Nugent: For technical reasons the building of the bridges across the Forth and the Severn is planned as a single co-ordinated operation. The date for beginning work on the Severn Bridge is linked, therefore, with progress of work on the Forth Bridge. Construction of the approach roads cannot be begun until an Order under Section 3 of the Special Roads Act, 1949, dealing with roads and accesses affected by the approach roads has been made and the land needed has been acquired. We hope to publish the draft Order this year.
    Mr. Gower: May I say that I hope my hon. Friend is not suggesting that because the two bridge building operations are related, nothing can be done to speed the construction of the approach roads and that I hope he will give an assurance that this will be done much more quickly than has yet been envisaged?
    Mr. Nugent: It cannot be done more quickly than I have indicated. We have the plans of the consulting engineers for these roads almost ready, as my right hon. Friend told the House on 12th February. As soon as the Order is published the statutory procedure has to be gone through which might involve objections from property owners, local author ties and other interests concerned. Naturally, we must deal with these in a proper democratic way.
    Mr. Corfield: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the employment situation in the Bristol area, and also that this is one of the types of work which could relieve that situation without in any way affecting parts of the country where the actual figures for unemployment happen to be higher?
    Mr. Nugent: We certainly have that consideration very much in mind with regard to our road programmes and, indeed, in relation to this area. Nevertheless, the statutory procedure for laying down the line of this road and acquiring the necessary property must be gone through in the ordinary way.

    Markings (White Lines)
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that on a stretch of the Al road there are single, double and triple dotted lines, single, double and triple continuous lines, a dotted line between two continuous lines, a continuous line between two dotted lines, a continuous line alongside a dotted line, and a dot-dash line; whether he will explain their significance and their respective contributions to road safety; and what consideration he has given to the need to standardise road markings.
    Mr. Nugent: Some local authorities have laid down double white line markings which are not standard practice. We have given instructions for putting right these markings. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend hope to lay before Parliament in the near future regulations which will standardise markings on the new system, and full publicity will be given to the meaning of each part of the system.
    Mr. Jeger: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to maintain ten different variations of markings on this five-mile stretch of road? Have any of these markings been explained in the Highway Code?
    Mr. Nugent: They will be, in the new issue of the Highway Code which we shall be bringing before Parliament shortly. In the meantime, they will be fully explained when we bring the regulations before the House. What has happened in the case to which the hon. Member refers is that there has been confusion, because old markings were not obliterated before new ones were put down.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: When the regulations have been laid before the House, may we take it that it will be mandatory to abide by the markings on the roads?
    Mr. Nugent: Most certainly.

    BERLIN
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister to what extent he consulted the Governments of the United States of America and France before reaching agreement with Mr. Khrushchev that the Berlin situation should be settled by negotiation.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): As is made clear by the Notes sent by the three Governments to the Soviet Union on 31st December, all the Allies agree that the Berlin situation should be settled by negotiation.
    Mr. Warbey: In view of the hostile reactions in some Western capitals to the proposals outlined in the Anglo-Soviet communiqué, will the Prime Minister make clear that he stands firmly by the principle that the problems of Germany and Berlin and European security can, and must, be settled by negotiations based on mutual concessions?
    The Prime Minister: I know of no hostile reaction, and I am better placed to analyse it than the hon. Gentleman.

    UNITED KINGDOM AND U.S.S.R. (JOINT DECLARATION)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister why he proposed to the Soviet leaders a joint declaration of peaceful intentions in preference to the proposal for a solemn pact of non-aggression between the West and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which he put forward on 4th January, 1958.
    The Prime Minister: I put this forward because I thought a short and simple declaration was something we might do together without delay. A more general and comprehensive pact would require a longer period to arrange.
    Mr. Swingler: Did not the Prime Minister put forward a proposal, in January, 1958, for a non-aggression pact between the N.A.T.O. Powers in Western Europe and the Soviet Union, whereas the present proposal is merely for an Anglo-Soviet declaration of peaceful intentions? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that his original proposal for an agreement involving all the Western Powers in some security guarantee with the Soviet Union is the better proposal?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but that may well come at the end of the successful negotiations which I hope will result. Meanwhile, I thought it would be quite a good thing to do something between the Soviet Union and ourselves.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: is the Prime Minister aware that I heard him deliver nine speeches in the Soviet Union and that they got better as they went on, and I was afraid that when he returned be would be expelled by the Conservative Party? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the policy of Her Majesty's Government will be as good as the speeches which he made in Russia?
    The Prime Minister: I observed the hon. Gentleman at these various meetings. I did not quite know whether he was present as a Member of Parliament or as a journalist. I think he had what one might call temporary rank as a journalist. But I am glad he liked my speeches, and I am glad that we are back again to interchange our Questions and Answers.

    SUMMIT MEETING
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister if, in his discussions in Paris, Bonn, and Washington, he will make a proposal for a date and place for a summit meeting, to be put forward to the Soviet leaders.
    The Prime Minister: I do not propose to anticipate or reveal the course of these private discussions.
    Mr. Swingler: Is it a fact that the majority of the Western Powers and the Soviet Union have now declared in principle in favour of a summit meeting? Therefore, whether there is a meeting of the Foreign Ministers or not, what stands in the way of proposing the date and place for a summit meeting?
    The Prime Minister: I have heard some talk of a summit meeting, and I am glad to have the support of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Gaitskell: While appreciating that the Prime Minister is not in a position, in the middle of these discussions, to tell us much about them, may I ask whether he can give us any idea of what procedure he envisages when he has finished

    1257
    his consultations in Bonn and Washington? Are there then to be diplomatic exchanges between the Western Powers and the Soviet Union regarding the date of the Foreign Ministers' conference, or what exactly may we expect after that?
    The Prime Minister: I would hope that we might make an agreed reply to the last Soviet Note, either before then or at the end of my visits.

    BRITISH INDUSTRY (UNITED STATES CONTRACTS)
    Wing Commander Bullusasked the Prime Minister if, during his visit to the United States of America, he will discuss with President Eisenhower the question of the discriminatory trade practices of United States firms against British industry.
    The Prime Minister: My discussions with the President will be private and I should prefer not to anticipate their course. But if my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind the controversy about imports of heavy electrical plant, I can assure him that Her Majesty's Government have already made their views abundantly clear and will not hesitate to press them upon the United States Government.
    Wing Commander Bullus: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all thinking people in this country desire the closest partnership for defensive purposes with the Americans, but that there is increasing concern, and even bitterness, regarding the unscrupulous and unprincipled business tactics of the Americans, sometimes connived at by Washington, at a time when Britain has liberalised her trade at the behest of the Americans?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of strong feeling in this country. I have not failed, and shall not fail, to press our point of view strongly upon the United States.
    Mr. Jay: Would not it be a good idea if, instead of making unilateral concessions to the United States, as they have over machine tools and legacy property, the Government were first to get concessions in return on such matters as these contracts and oil?
    The Prime Minister: We buy machine tools because we need them for our business.

BRITISH FORCES, CYPRUS (SENTENCES)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. SHINWELL: To ask the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the amnesty granted to Cypriots convicted of offences, he will instruct all the Service Departments to grant similar treatment to officers and other ranks who, because of offences committed during service in Cyprus, have been sentenced to imprisonment or demoted.
The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys): With permission, I will answer Question No. 71.
I must admit that I have a great deal of sympathy with the feelings which have prompted this Question. But after most careful consideration, I am convinced that the course proposed would be neither desirable nor practicable.
During the three and a half years' emergency in Cyprus, our forces have shown remarkable restraint and steadiness in the face of considerable provocation, for which they have been rightly praised in this House.
Troops engaged on security duties overseas have a difficult and delicate task which demands the most exacting standards of personal behaviour, and the Services are rightly jealous of the high reputation they have established.
Almost without exception those now serving sentences of detention or imprisonment for offences committed in Cyprus are men found guilty of ordinary breaches of discipline or honesty which might just as well have been committed anywhere else. When I say that they are almost without exception I must safeguard myself. In fact, I have not so far been able to trace any man who is at present serving a sentence for an offence directly attributable to the emergency. Therefore, apart from the issue of principle, the question of an amnesty does not, in practice, arise.
Mr. Shinwell: While expressing my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for

1259
his consideration of this matter, and my agreement with what he has said about the demeanour and general behaviour of our troops in Cyprus during the emergency, and, at the same time, appreciating the difficulties about an amnesty for those who have been demoted, cashiered or dismissed the Service, as the case may be, may I ask, having regard to the general amnesty which has been granted for the Cypriots who have committed very grave crimes, whether, in logic, something ought not to be done to mitigate the sentences imposed on our men?
Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree, at any rate, to review the sentences that have been imposed on our troops in Cyprus for offences committed or any breach of military discipline? Will not that be conceded? Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree to that?
Mr. Sandys: I understand, naturally, the generous impulse of the right hon. Gentleman, but if he were still in my job he would, having thought the matter over, come to the same conclusion. As I have explained, I have not been able to trace any case where men are now serving sentences for offences committed in Cyprus and connected with the emergency.
Mr. Bellenger: Is the House to take it, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that the ordinary procedure of reviewing court-martial sentences, which takes place from time to time, will not be prejudiced? If possible, will the individual circumstances of the men concerned be taken into account by those who carry out the review?
Mr. Sandys: Of course, Sir.
Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there is something to be said in these circumstances for expediting the review of sentences which have been imposed? We are well aware that the review takes place in ordinary conditions, but are not these conditions abnormal? Would not the right hon. Gentleman hurry on with some of the reviews of the sentences that have been imposed? Will he not accept that?
Mr. Sandys: The ordinary procedure will be maintained. If there are any delays which the right hon. Gentleman has
1260
to complain of, perhaps he will address his complaints to the Service Departments concerned?

TELEPHONE SERVICE
The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to announce a further step towards a better telephone service.
In this age of mechanisation we must never forget the importance of the human personal service. We have studied how other countries are tackling this problem. A Report has been made to me by a joint team of Post Office officials and trade union representatives after a visit to the United States. They were unanimous in their conclusions and they made important and far-reaching recommendations. Some will require further study; others are being acted on from today. All are set out in a foreword to the Report. I have placed a copy of the Report in the Library. In addition, I have written every Member explaining our proposals and enclosing a copy of the Report.
For the first time the aim and purpose of the telephone service has been defined in writing. The essence of it is that we are determined to please as well as serve the customer. We are tackling three things immediately: First, to find out what the customer really wishes, we have set in train a series of methodical and regular surveys of public opinion. Then we shall try to meet those wishes. Secondly, our rules for the telephonist have been rigid and the words we have told them to use have been stilted. The rules will be altered and among the alterations will be one that gives the telephonist greater freedom to help the customer and to be more friendly. Thirdly, we are going to make special efforts to develop facilities desired by the customer and an organisation will be set up for that purpose.
This is only the first instalment. Other action will follow later. All this constitutes a radical change in the attitude of the Post Office to the telephone service. I hope that when Members have studied my letter and the unanimous Report they will approve of what we are doing.
Mr. Ness Edwards: May I express the hope that the letter to which the right

1261
hon. Gentleman has referred will tell us much more than the right hon. Gentleman's statement? We are very pleased to see that the Joint Productivity Council, set up by my immediate predecessor, has been used for the purpose of seeing what has happened in other countries, and we are very gratified that the right hon. Gentleman has decided to put its Report in the Library.
We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's idea of having regular surveys, but I hope that he will have more respect for the result of those surveys than he has had for the one recently referred to at Question Time. I cannot quite see how operators are to be more helpful in an automatised system, because they will not be there. The system will be completely automatic.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to improve relations between telephone subscribers and the Post Office, the easiest and quickest way of doing so, if it is possible, is to reduce the size of the bill they get at the end of each six months.
Sir T. Moore: Sour grapes.
Mr. Ness Edwards: It is not sour grapes. I was sorry to see that this statement is supposed to represent a radical change in the Post Office. I thought that the general intention in the statement had been the general intention of the right hon. Gentleman and all his predecessors. May I ask that when we get the next statement the right hon. Gentleman will give us something much more substantial than is contained in this one?
Mr. Marples: Time will show whether it will be substantial. I am quite certain that with the co-operation and enthusiasm that the unions have shown in co-operation with the management on this occasion this will be a really radical change; and that is the view of the unions in this respect. The Joint Productivity Council was not used on this occasion. It was a special four-man team that I appointed.
The operators will always be there in the telephone service because as automation increases they will be important not for dealing with the ordinary calls, b it with difficult and frustrated callers, the people who want assistance, and to that we are giving attention. I think that the right hon. Member and the public will be surprised by what will happen in the next few months.
Mr. W. R. Williams: Is the Postmaster-General aware that I and some of my hon. Friends are very pleased to know that there has been this joint effort on the part of the official and staff sides, that the Post Office has encouraged one or two prominent members of the trade union concerned to join the team which went to the United States of America, and that we on this side of the House will always welcome a joint effort to improve the services of the Post Office, as we would any other service?
Secondly, may I ask whether the Postmaster-General is aware that telephonists, as well as members of all other Post Office grades, will be glad to be released from the bondage of those stilted operational phrases? I am quite sure they will enthusiastically respond to this new approach. If they used some of the language which is used towards them by members of the public, there would be many complaints made in this House.
Mr. Marples: I am grateful to the hon. Member, who is very knowledgeable in these matters. We have had three trial exchanges. I can assure him that the telephonists are delighted at the new freedom and are co-operating wholeheartedly. This has really been a model of combined operations, because the management and unions have combined together, first, to make the policy and, secondly, to carry it out. We are doing this as a combined operation and I believe that it will be very successful because of that. I am extremely grateful to the unions which not only have co-operated, but have shown very great enthusiasm.
Mr. Mawby: Will my right hon. Friend say whether this new approach will be applied to all Post Office staff in time?
Mr. Marples: This, quite frankly, is just a start. Afterwards, we shall turn our attention to other matters in the Post Office, because it is a vast organisation with a great team spirit. I have already discussed the question of Post Office counters with the trade unions concerned and I have no reason to think that they will not be just as co-operative and helpful on that as an this matter.
Mr. John Edwards: While welcoming the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman as an example of that joint co-operation to which I, in my time, devoted a great deal of attention, may I

1263
ask whether, as about 60,000 people are deprived of the service because cable or equipment is not available and I believe that over 1 million subscribers are sharing lines, the greatest step forward would not be to have a very much bigger capital programme so as to speed up the service to those people?
Mr. Marples: That is a very important question, but it is not relevant to this exercise because what we are doing here is to make improvements for those who have got telephones. I agree that it would be very nice to have unlimited capital investment, but during the past year the waiting list has been reduced from ¼ million to 68,000.

GHANA (GIFT OF SPEAKER'S CHAIR)
Mr. A. G. Bottomley: Mr. Speaker, a Motion was proposed by the Leader of the House on 4th February that leave of absence be given to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson), the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and myself to present, on behalf of this House, a Speaker's Chair to the National Assembly of Ghana.
We were accompanied by Mr. T. G. B. Cocks, Second Clerk-Assistant of the House, and we should like to place on record our best thanks to him for his valuable services. Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton was taken ill in Ghana and is still absent from the House. I am sure that we send him our sympathy and regret that he is not able to do this pleasant duty of reporting back this afternoon.
After speeches by the right hon. Member and myself, the Prime Minister of
1264
Ghana replied. We then presented the Chair to the National Assembly of Ghana. The programme was carried out in conformity with the arrangements previously made, except for one incident. Towards the end of the ceremony, the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues left the Government benches and placed the Speaker's Chair in position. They then gently hoisted the Speaker into the Chair.
During our visit we were shown every courtesy and kindness and we take this opportunity of expressing our thanks to all in Ghana who showed that kindness to us. It was most pleasing to see Africans and Europeans working together in amity and complete trust. There was no sign at all of racialism. I hope that this is a happy augury for the future of the whole of Africa.
The Ghana National Assembly, upon the Motion of the Prime Minister, seconded by an Independent Member, carried unanimously the following Resolution:
"We, the Speaker and Members of the National Assembly of Ghana in Parliament assembled, express our most sincere thanks to the Commons House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the Speaker's Chair which it has presented to this House."
I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with precedent, will give the necessary instructions for this Resolution to appear in the Journals of the House.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: I will give those instructions.

GHANA (GIFT OF SPEAKER'S CHAIR)
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSE PURCHASE AND HOUSING (recommitted) BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 4th March].
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  Clause 5.—(APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR STANDARD GRANT.)
  Amendment proposed: In page 5, line 12, at the beginning to insert:
  "Subject to the provisions of section Applications for standard grant at instance of tenants (England and Wales)) of this Act"—[Mr. Mitchison.]
  Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted.
  3.48 p.m.
  Mr. B. T. Parkin: I was encouraged by the time taken by the Parliamentary Secretary, in his speech on this Amendment on 4th March, to hope to lay before him and the Minister one or two more considerations which he might bear in mind when trying to find, as we were led to hope he would, a formula which could be incorporated in the Bill, perhaps, in another place. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister have not been too much deterred by the onslaught upon them by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and what he called an essential principle of this Amendment.
  The hon. Member for Crosby spoke of the difficulties of small landlords, but he spoke in such a way as to provoke the indignation of some of my hon. Friends, who pointed out that in many of these cases it is not a small landlord at all but a large financial organisation which is responsible for the ownership and maintenance of houses which may be the subject of these grants. None the less, I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that the problem of the small landlord is a serious problem. Indeed, it is one of the most intractable problems in houses let under private ownership.
  Most people must be aware of isolated instances in which two or three houses are owned by one elderly person who has no other resources. This is a phenomenon which crops up more frequently in some parts of the country than in others. It crops up where the ownership of houses
  1266
  has been part of the pattern of working-class savings and perhaps part of the pattern of saving for retirement by small traders and small professional people. The problem becomes acute when, perhaps late in the life of the legatee for whom these savings were intended to make provision, it no longer becomes possible—or apparently so—for the legatee to find the necessary resources to keep these houses in repair. This is a commonly understood problem.
  I should like to say a word in support of another character—the honest estate agent. I refer here, in particular, to the estate agent who is often left to manage these pitifully small estates, who is constantly being asked by the tenants to carry out some highly desirable repairs but who always has to say that he will have a "word with the old lady" when he knows perfectly well that there is no money available for the work and that the amount which he can allow for maintenance when he makes his quarterly settlement is pitifully small.
  We must all be aware that we need some machinery to inject the necessary extra capital in order to carry out these repairs, but I think that the Minister has that in his hands already. The Parliamentary Secretary said that there might be some difficulty in recovering the money, but I observe that the Minister has been most careful in drawing up Clause 12, which makes provision for the rent of a dwelling to be increased after such an improvement, and that he has paid attention to the fact that there is a new situation following the coming into operation of the Rent Act. It is laid down in Clause 12 that
  "if it appears to the local authority reasonable so to do, having regard to all the circumstances and, in particular, to the rents payable for similar dwellings in their area with respect to which no limit or condition is imposed by the Rent Act, 1957, or the Act of 1958, they may, on approving the application, fix such higher rent for those purposes as they think reasonable."
  That assumes that there will be a stabilised fair rent in the new circumstances which will be easily assessed by the local authority. I have always supposed that the provisions for increasing the rents were calculated on an arithmetical basis which allowed for the repayment over a period of years of the money invested in the improvement. I

  1267
  am sure that, in general, that is the principle and that it could be applied in this case.
  I should like the Minister to realise that although this may be small it is, nevertheless, an important aspect of the problem, that it is a long-standing problem with which we are all well acquainted but that there is a new situation as a result of the decontrolled rents which gives him an opportunity to look at the matter again and to consider whether the local authority, in putting up the money, would be able to recover it through the machinery of the increased rent in the same way as it already recovers it where it carries out repairs under orders made after an inspection by a sanitary inspector.
  That would be an immense help for the managing agent whom I have mentioned. At present, he can only ask the landlord whether he would mind carrying out the improvements, whereas if the Amendment were carried there would be a legal obligation, if it were so framed, and the agent could explain to the landlord that the improvements would be carried out through the medium of the increased rent.
  The hon. Member for Crosby said that these were not necessities, but only amenities, but what is an amenity in one case is often a necessity in another case. What is an amenity in one case may be the kind of improvement which would make the difference in an overcrowded tenement between life being tolerable and life being not tolerable. May I give an example which came to my notice in Paddington? It concerned an old lady living in two rooms at the top of a tenement house. As she grew older she found it more and more onerous to go downstairs—true it was only nine stairs—to fetch water. She did not know how much longer she would be able to do this without help, and she applied to the landlord to extend the water supply up the nine steps so that she could continue to live in those two rooms. She had no desire to leave and to occupy another flat. Her furniture was not abundant, but it was large and was best left where it was.
  I passed that case to a Conservative alderman of Paddington Borough Council who I knew took a very close interest in
  1268
  the problem of rehousing old people. I offered it to him as the kind of riddle which ought to be capable of a solution. I know that he took it very seriously. He saw the old lady, the landlord and the local authority, but apparently there was no way of carrying out that simple addition to the amenities by carrying a water pipe up nine steps. Under the provisions suggested in the Amendment that kind of thing could easily be done.
  I suggest to the Minister that if the provisions of the Amendment extend the machinery through which the local authority can assist in improving the amenities of old houses they will fill what is at present a very serious gap concerning a type of house to which I hope the Minister will be able to pay attention. I refer to the house which has been scheduled under town planning schemes or included in a slum clearance plan which is not to be carried out immediately but which is dated for five, ten or fifteen years' time.
  There are cases in which the fundamental reconstruction of a house or the extensive repair to walls and roofs or chimneys, or the inclusion of new damp courses, would be out of the question without demolition or would be inordinately expensive. In any case, the local authorities might run themselves into the legal difficulty that if a house is made habitable up to proper standards, when the time comes to acquire it the owner has to be paid compensation at market value instead of site value. This is beginning to be a very serious problem in some parts of London.
  4.0 p.m.
  I glanced at an evening paper before coming into the debate, and I saw a headline which says that, as part of the search for a missing person, the police are making a search of 500 empty houses in Paddington. There ought not to be 500 empty houses in Paddington, of course. There is something wrong with the process by which this designation and clearance system works.
  I have another example which I intended to ask the Minister to investigate. It arose from a fire which took place in my constituency about a fortnight ago, at No. 1, Amberley Road, Paddington. This is a classic example of the sort of house which many people consider ought to have been pulled down many

  1269
  years ago. It is part of a plan, and it is said that the property is to be demolished and the houses rebuilt in four or five years' time.
  In the meantime, things are happening which ought not to happen, and I think that if the provisions of this Amendment were carried into effect there might be a means by which the local authority could still help in making life at least tolerable in these houses in the slum clearance areas, and without committing the local authority to reconstructing them completely and putting itself into a position in which it would have to pay high compensation.
  As a result of the fire at No. 1, Amberley Road, a fortnight ago, one life was lost on the top floor. A young woman was asphyxiated. The fire was caused by a child turning over an oil stove on the ground floor. In all probability, there is no other way of heating that house, because the chimneys—and I have had examples of this in other houses in the same street—are in such a bad state that smoke comes out into the living rooms of the houses next door. I am submitting that some improvements, even the inclusion of gas or electric fires which could be paid for out of the rent fund during these few remaining years of the lease, would be well worth considering in order to make life tolerable, and would also be safer, because nobody comes very well out of this matter.
  At the inquest, the coroner asked the fire brigade officer whether he had anything to say to the public, and, reading between the lines, one could sense the embarrassment of the fire brigade officer, who did not know what to say. I know that he knows that smoke comes from that house into the house next door, and I also know that following the fire there was an investigation to find out the cause of a second alarm which the fire brigade received. It was thought that the first fire was still burning. Some of the tenants in No. 2 called the fire brigade again, and the brigade found that the smoke was not coming from the house where the fire had occurred, but was coming through from No. 3, the house on the other side, where a coal fire had been lighted in the fireplace, and from which smoke came through the cracked walls into No. 2.
  1270
  These are the sort of houses which a few years ago were held on leases by small owners, to whom the hon. Member for Crosby referred. They are characters like "old Annie", who was quite well known in the road for her habit of hoarding waste paper and rubbish and the way in which she managed her house in her own way. She has now disappeared, and someone has been selling the freeholds of these houses at some astonishing prices. When there were about ten years to go on the lease, the leases were being sold for £100 or £200, but I now find that these houses are selling at £700, £800 or £900 each.
  I am not quite certain what is being sold, but the Grand Junction Canal Company is selling them through a firm of estate agents, Messrs. Hooper & Jackson. No. 1 was sold to a West Indian for £700, but what was sold I am not sure. Whether they sold the freeholds with a sort of "go ahead" on the understanding that the leaseholder was not to be found, and that the head lessee had disappeared, and, therefore, they had a very good case to make whatever use of the house they could during the period between the sale and the demolition under the slum clearance order, I do not know, but I take it that it is something like that.
  The lessee has disappeared and also the head lessee. The Grand Junction Canal Company is now selling the freeholds, and somebody is getting far too much money for them. They are now emerging in the ownership of people who are not always without substance. One of the houses is owned by a perfectly respectable hotel keeper, who has done his best by redecoration and improvements of the installations to make the houses habitable, for the very sensible reason that, although he takes rather high rents from his tenants, he does want them to stay. He does not want them to disappear in a few weeks, which is increasingly the kind of thing which happens in these ruined and condemned areas.
  It is clear that where people buy these houses for occupation themselves, or where they buy Them to rent, they often try very sincerely to improve the decorations and make it possible for people to live decently in the houses, but there is a big gap in legislation in the powers of the local authorities, and this gap ought to be filled. I hope that the Minister

  1271
  will take this opportunity to look at this problem between now and the time when he will decide what he can do about the principle of the Amendments.
  I am sure that this problem is likely to get rather worse during the period between now and the time when these slum clearances are completed in the London area. This is a situation out of which nobody comes with any particular credit, either the freeholders, the local authorities or the planners. It seems to be a situation in which a decision has been made that slum clearance will take place at some date in the future which is not very precisely specified, and everybody walks by on the other side, saying that this is a matter about which they can do nothing. Yet it is a problem which could be solved. It has reached a state where people's lives have been in danger. I would not appeal too emotionally, but I would press on the Minister soberly the fact that this is one aspect of a complicated problem which I think he will be able to look at again and perhaps find a solution on the lines suggested in the Amendment.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The object of this Amendment is to enable tenants to get standard amenities, as they are called, into their houses, and to recover the cost from the immediate landlord or from the owners of the houses.
  The Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to say that we must not conclude that his right hon. Friend the Minister had any objection whatever to it in principle, and he then proceeded to raise other objections, which led him to the conclusion that it was unworkable. I am glad to say that the Clause was, apparently, clear enough. The first objection was the impecunious landlord, whose appearance I had expected.
  What we have to consider first is the relation between these two parts of the Bill, and when this was put to the Parliamentary Secretary his answer was to suggest that the building societies would not make advances. He said:
  "I do not think that the building societies would make advances for these old houses—the two-up and two-down—in the class of case that we are discussing, that is to say, the small tenanted houses let mainly at a controlled rent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1959; Vol. 601, c. 506.]
  1272
  One would assume from that that the building society provisions under the earlier part of the Bill were not intended to apply to that type of case—the small, older house let at a controlled rent, but, when the right hon. Gentleman was introducing the Bill on Second Reading he seems to me to have said the opposite. After referring to the £1,800 house, he said:
  "He need not spend nearly as much as this, because outside London, at any rate, there are good sound houses, built before 1919, available at £1,000 or under, which will be within the reach of almost anyone who really wants to own his house. If it is one of the older houses, by the Bill the Government are seeing to it that the building societies will no longer say, as they constantly have to say now, 'Sorry, we have not got enough money to meet all demands'."
  The right hon. Gentleman also said:
  "The Government are rendering their new Measures to encourage house ownership still more attractive by linking them with facilities for improving the houses and by putting in requirements which everybody nowadays accepts should be part of any house."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December. 1958: Vol. 597, c. 796–7.]
  It is, apparently, intended that the building society advances should be towards the purchase of small, old houses. Presumably, if a building society will advance for the purchase of such a house it will also advance for its improvement. Indeed, to call it an improvement is rather an exaggeration.
  I adopt what the Minister said, that these are things that
  "… everyone now accepts … should be part of any house."
  Today we are considering what is the right course if the landlord says that he cannot afford to put in the improvements. My first answer is that I do not accept the proposition that one cannot get an advance from a building society, but, if one does get it, what is the conclusion? Does one leave the house indefinitely in a condition in which it should not be—and which the Bill is intended to remedy—simply because the landlord cannot pay for the improvements?
  Nothing could illustrate better the difference of attitude towards landlords adopted by the two sides of the Committee. Our view is that to be a landlord nowadays entails responsibility; that those responsibilities go beyond receiving rent, and that if a landlord cannot keep his house in decent condition and put

  1273
  in those things that everybody admits should be part of a house, he had better sell it and, the tenant remaining there, pass it on to someone who can afford to do it.
  Right hon. and hon. Members opposite know very well that I do not regard that as a final solution. If the houses are owned by landlords who cannot afford to put them in decent condition the sooner those properties go to the municipality the better. That is why we advocate the municipalising of these rent-controlled houses. For the purposes of the Bill, however, we could not go so far as that, because t can see no reason why the building societies should not advance the money.
  Let us look at the tenant's position. If the tenant puts up the money, as he would have to in the first place, he has to get it out of the landlord. He will not take the chance of not getting it out of the landlord if he knows that the landlord cannot, in fact, afford it. There is another aspect of the tenant's position. He will not ask for these improvements unless he really wants them, because he knows quite well that these improvements will result in an increase in rent. We must regard the tenant as being a sensible person.
  We all know that there are tenants all over the country who do work on houses that they are under no contract obligation to do. They maintain them when the landlord should be doing so. They effect improvements—those necessary things of which we are talking today—that the landlord should effect. It is absurd to provide that the landlord should be able to act in that way, and not to give the tenant any right to get it done. We can trust the tenant not to spend his own money on it if he cannot afford it, and if he knows—or even suspects—that the landlord cannot pay.
  4.15 p.m.
  The second objection was that as the tenant's consent has to be obtained for a standard improvement put in by the landlord we should get the landlord's consent before the tenant is allowed to ask for it. That is a monstrous proposition. The tenant is the man who is living there. It is he who has to use the bath, the hot water supply and the rest. Why should he get those things that form part of every
  1274
  house—to refer to what the right hon. Gentleman said—only when the landlord allows him?
  Where are we getting in the relations that concern people's homes? By every social right, at any rate, the tenant is entitled to get this done. It is quite reasonable to leave it to the tenant to omit to claim in cases where he knows that the landlord cannot pay, and will not sell—if there are many such cases, and I doubt it—and, in all other cases to get the money back from the owner of the property who is to benefit by an increased rent and, if he chooses to sell later, by an increased purchase price.
  For that reason, we on this side think that the new Clause not only has the good intention which the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to attribute to it; is not only—as I understand from the passage I have quoted—unobjectionable in principle, but is also perfectly workable in practice, and that the result will be to get done a number of improvements that landlords, at present, simply do not choose to do.
  Not all landlords are models of virtue. I have never said that they were all models of vice, but they are not all models of virtue, and many of them prefer to treat the investment that, from their point of view, the house represents, as something into which they will not put more money. In those cases, the result is that the house does not get modernised even to this very limited extent, and the tenant suffers. Social justice entitles us to say that our proposition should be accepted. There is nothing substantially wrong with it, and every ground of moral justice, good sense or the improvement of the stock of houses supports it.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I am sorry that the debate on this group of Amendments and new Clauses was interrupted a week ago, because, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said then, this is an interesting proposal, and one that deserves serious consideration by the Committee. On that occasion I listened to the speeches with interest, and I have done so again today.
  The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) clearly supports these proposals strongly, though I thought that

  1275
  his speech went considerably beyond them, as he appeared to have in mind houses that were under threat of demolition within five or ten years on either slum clearance or planning grounds; whereas he will recollect that Clause 5 lays down that the standard grant will be given only where the local authority is satisfied that the house is not unfit for human habitation, and is likely to remain in that condition, and available for use as a dwelling, for a period of not less than fifteen years.
  Further, it is the standard grant to which these new Clauses apply, and the standard grant system does not extend to such things as putting in electric or gas fires, and other items to which he referred—
  Mr. Parkin: What I had in mind in suggesting to the Minister that there was a gap in the Bill was that these rules about the house having so many years of life remaining, and the rest, should be based upon a reasonable length of time over which the money invested would be recovered. What I suggest now is that, in view of the provisions the right hon. Gentleman himself has made in the Bill for consideration of market values of houses at present decontrolled, it is possible to consider a certain amount of amenity expenditure that would be recovered, with the consent and good will of the tenant, over a very short period of years.
  Mr. Brooke: That may well be, but it does not appear to me to arise on the Amendment or on the new Clause. The standard grant scheme is based on the principle that the house will have fifteen years' life in it. I must address myself to that issue.
  The approach of the Government in the drafting and preparation of the Bill was that we should seek to provide for speeding up the provision of standard amenities, by way of the new standard grant, on a basis of agreement. The Government accepted that that should be done where it was agreed between the landlord and the tenant that it was needed. The Government accepted an Amendment from the other side of the Committee to ensure that the tenant was in agreement, though we had argued that it would not be possible for the work to
  1276
  be done unless the tenant agreed, because the landlord would be unlikely to obtain entry.
  Nevertheless, we accepted that Amendment and it appeared to us that the whole of the Committee was at one in wishing to put on record that this scheme was to proceed by way of agreement and not otherwise. Now we have to address ourselves to the Opposition's new Clause, which was included in the recommittal Motion on 4th March and which presumes disagreement and seeks to provide a system of compulsion: not compulsion on the tenant—that has been ruled out by hon. Members on the other side of the Committee through their Amendment—but compulsion on the landlord if he and the tenant do not agree.
  The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said that the landlord had every incentive to agree. He has an incentive. In the great majority of cases, if the tenant wants such an improvement made and indicates that to the landlord, then if it is practicable, the landlord will, when the Bill is on the Statute Book, apply for and obtain the standard grant and put the work in hand.
  That is our approach. We have been seeking in the Bill to secure that, where there is that agreement and where the house can be improved by means of a standard grant, the carrying out of the work will be facilitated. As I have said repeatedly, our main object is to have the houses improved.
  It seems to the Government to be important, and I suggest that it is important to the Committee also, to distinguish between the object which the new Clause seeks to secure and the method by which the object is to be achieved. The object is quite simple and, to my mind, wholly acceptable. It is to secure that as many rented houses as possible will be improved with the benefit of these grants for standard improvements. There cannot be any quarrel whatever about the desirability of that. I am quite sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee wish to see that work going forward on the fullest scale.
  When we come to examine the method which is proposed in the new Clause, in the Government's view we get on to much less sure ground. In a somewhat complicated fashion, though I do not

  1277
  complain of that, the Clause seeks to introduce an element of compulsion on landlords in order to force the carrying out of improvements. That is what the Opposition are asking the Committee to accept, and that is a view which the Government feel that they must resist.
  We need to ask ourselves two questions. First, we need to ask whether it is right to introduce this element of compulsion. Secondly, we need to ask ourselves whether it is necessary. As to whether it is right, it is not a question of arguing whether it is desirable that as many houses as possible should be provided with bathrooms. We have to decide how we regard these improvements. We have to decide whether we look at them as facilities and amenities which it is highly desirable to see provided in every house, or whether they are to be regarded as essential requirements which every house must have.
  It is important to be clear in our minds about what the second view would imply, because it would mean in effect setting a new standard of housing fitness. If Parliament accepted the new Clause it would be saying that all houses must be equipped with standard improvements if they are to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation.
  Mr. Mitchison: Why not? Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten his own words which I quoted, that these are
  "… requirements which everybody nowadays accepts should be part of any house."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1958; Vol. 597, c. 797.]
  Mr. Brooke: That is what I am saying. These improvements are desirable. This is the ideal which the country should strive to achieve. I am certain that all lion. Members on both sides of the Committee will welcome the day when these facilities and amenities are provided in every house. It would be a major change if we were now to accept this as a kind of minimum statutory standard. After all, if it is to apply, why should it apply to rented houses only? Why is not Par-lament saying that every house must have these facilities?
  Mr. Mitchison: Why not?
  Mr. Brooke: Why is not Parliament saying that every house which does not include these facilities must be considered
  1278
  unfit for human habitation? That, however, is not what the Clause says. The Clause is designed to bring pressure to bear on the landlord of rented property, and on the landlord of rented property only. I am arguing that, if we are to accept that principle, Parliament should go further and exert the same kind of compulsion on all owners of houses, instead of singling out some.
  Mr. Albert Evans: Surely there is a distinction between a house with a life of fifteen years or more and other houses? We are not saying that this should apply to all houses. We are saying that it should apply to a sound house with a life of fifteen years.
  Mr. Brooke: I think that the hon. Member for Paddington, North was applying it to houses which had a life of less than fifteen years. I was drawing the distinction between rented houses and the others. If Parliament is to set up what would be a totally new standard of acceptable accommodation, it must give much more fundamental consideration to it and not introduce it by the side wind of a new Clause on the House Purchase and Housing Bill.
  Mr. Mitchison: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, he is drawing a distinction between owner-occupied and tenanted houses. What the Clause is about is the tenant obliging the landlord to have improvements put in when the tenant wants them. If an owner-occupier wants improvements, he will not find much difficulty in persuading himself as the owner to make them.
  Mr. Brooke: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering does not appear to realise that the only principle upon which one could make the change would be the acceptance by Parliament that all houses must have these facilities and amenities. If one does not accept that, there is no case for imposing compulsion on one group of owners. The question of what should be the overall standard of housing accommodation cannot be considered and settled on a limited Bill of this kind, which is dealing simply with standard improvements.
  So far, I have been speaking on grounds of principle. Now I will speak in terms of practical difficulty. As has been pointed out by other hon. Members, quite clearly the Clause would not

  1279
  work unless provision were made for some form of appeal. There would need to be a provision whereby a landlord who thought he had good reason for not doing the work, even though the house would last for fifteen years, should be able to go before some kind of tribunal and state his case. He might be able to improve some houses which he owned, but not others. There is no provision for that in the Clause.
  The proposition on which the Clause is based is that a tenant can come along at any time and force a landlord to put standard improvements into his house, or that all the tenants can come at the same time. Regardless of the fact that the landlord might be willing to make a start but could not do all the work simultaneously, under the Clause he would have no protection whatever against the demand that it should be done simultaneously in all his properties.
  4.30 p.m.
  Further, as has also been said, and as I think the hon. and learned Gentleman himself recognises, some means would have to be found for ensuring that the landlord who had to do the work could have access to the money, because there must be, and undoubtedly there are, many landlords who could not afford to pay their share of the work—certainly not for all the houses that are suggested.
  Mr. Mitchison: They ought not to be landlords.
  Mr. Brooke: it is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that they ought not to be landlords. Many people are in this position because of the totally unjust Rent Restrictions Acts which have operated for so long.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that it would be quite easy to solve this problem of finding the money because the landlords could go to the building societies which would provide the money. I think that he has made a genuine mistake here. He may be quite genuinely unaware that in the agreement of which we spoke in connection with the earlier Clauses building societies are agreeing to advance that part of the cost of the improvement which the owner will have to meet in the case where an owner-occupier has himself started to
  1280
  buy the house through an advance from a building society.
  Indeed, if I may refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the White Paper, the last paragraph reads:
  "If a mortagor who is purchasing his house under this scheme improves it with the aid of a `standard improvement' grant within two years of the completion of the purchase, the Building Society will lend him the money to pay his share of the cost of the improvements …"
  subject to various provisions which are set out.
  I am bound to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is nothing either in this Bill or in the agreement which has been reached with the building societies that will compel a building society to advance the owner's share of the cost of the standard improvement regardless of whether or not the owner is engaged in buying the house with mortgage advances from that society. These are complex matters which would have to be thought out with much greater care than is intended in this Amendment if, at some time, Parliament were disposed to make a change of this kind. They cannot be dealt with on a side wind in the present Bill.
  Earlier in the discussion on this Amendment, a week ago, the Parliamentary Secretary used words to indicate that I was not necessarily hostile to the principle underlying this new Clause. What he said was entirely correct. It does not mean, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) seems to have inferred, that I necessarily accept the whole principle of the Clause. That would take me much further than I would be prepared to go, at all events at this stage.
  The Government do not take the view that this is the occasion for introducing, through a new Clause in this Bill, major changes in the conception previously held of what is a habitable dwelling. It is upon that that the case for compulsion must basically rest. What we have to do is to work towards a general improvement in standards wherever we can, but we ought not to force a step like that universally without taking account of all its implications. Certainly, the Government would not be well disposed to making that change in the present Bill, which rests on the conception of encouragement and not of compulsion.

  1281
  The second question which was asked a few minutes ago was whether this introduction of compulsion is necessary. That, obviously, rests with the future. I am quite sure that at present there is so much that can be done by agreement that there is no need here and now to introduce the principle of compulsion. I do not share the view of those who assume, without evidence, that the standard improvements will not be carried out by landlords unless they are under a threat of compulsion.
  Under this Bill, in fact, owners of houses are given new opportunities of improving their houses. They can now look forward to receiving standard grants as of right, which they never could before. They can make their plans with a much greater degree of certainty. They also have a larger incentive to take advantage of these new standard grants, now that the conditions to be observed are, in the Bill, being made less onerous and restrictive than they were before.
  The fact is that owners of house property are being offered by the Bill a new deal, and we ought to give that new deal a fair trial so that we can find out
  what results it will achieve. My own belief is that its results will be far-reaching. I have always believed—and I should have thought that this was the general opinion of Parliament—that one should proceed as far as possible on a basis of incentive and agreement and not on a basis of compulsion. Not unless and until it can be shown that proceeding by way of incentive and agreement will not solve this problem could the Government advise Parliament to introduce, as we think unnecessarily, the element of compulsion which the new Clause contains.
  Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman has three or four times referred to the element of compulsion. Compulsion in cases of this kind rests equally on the tenants who have to live in these old, out-moded houses because under the policy of the present Government they cannot find anywhere better to live.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: A shocking answer from the Minister.
  Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 197, Noes 236.

  Division No. 56.]

  AYES

  [4.38 p.m.

  Ainsley, J. W.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Albu, A. H.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Diamond, John

  Hunter, A. E.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Dodds, N. N.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Ede, lit. Hon. J. C.

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Balfour, A.

  Edelman, M.

  Janner, B.

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

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Benson, Sir George

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

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

  Beswick, Frank

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Blackburn, F.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

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

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Boardman, H.

  Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

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

  Fletcher, Eric

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Form an, J. C.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Boyd, T. C.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Brockway, A. F.

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

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Gibson, C. W.

  McAlister, Mrs. Mary

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  MacDermot, Niall

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Grey, C. F.

  Mclnnes, J.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  McLeavy Frank

  Castle Mrs. B. A.

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Champion, A. J.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Chapman, W. D.

  Hannan, W.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Sterling)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Mahon, Simon

  Clunie, J.

  Hastings, S.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Coldrick, W.

  Hayman, F. H.

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

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Healey, Denis

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

  Mason, Roy

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Cronin, J. D.

  Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Holman, P.

  Messer, Sir F.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Hoy, J. H.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Deer, G.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Monslow, W.

  Moody, A. S.

  Rankin, John

  Thornton, E.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Reeves, J.

  Timmons, J.

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

  Reid, William

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Mort, D. L.

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Viant, S. P.

  Moss, R.

  Rhodes, H.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Moyle, A.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Mulley, F. W.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Weitzman, D.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Ross, William

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

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

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Short, E. W.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Oram, A. E.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Owen, W. J.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Paget, R. T.

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

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Willey, Frederick

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Snow, J. W.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Parker, J.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

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

  Parkin, B. T.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Paton, John

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

  Pearson, A.

  Steele, T.

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Peart, T. F.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Pentland, N.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Woof, R. E.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

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

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Popplewell, E.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Swingler, S. T.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Probert, A. R.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Randall, H. E.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Aitken, W. T.

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Howard, John (Test)

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

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

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

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

  Doughty, C. J. A.

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

  Arbuthnot, John

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

  Armstrong, C. W.

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Ashton, H.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T.(Richmond)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Baldwin, Sir Archer

  Duncan, Sir James

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Balniel, Lord

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Barber, Anthony

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

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Barter, John

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Kimball, M.

  Batsford, Brian

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Kirk, P. M.

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

  Freeth, Denzil

  Leavey, J. A.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Leburn, W. G.

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Gammans, Lady

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

  Bingham, R. M.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Glover, D.

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Glyn, Col. Richard H.

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Body, R. F.

  Godber, J. B.

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

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Goodhart, Philip

  Longden, Gilbert

  Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

  Gough, C. F. H.

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

  Gower, H. R.

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Braine, B. R.

  Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

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

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

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

  Green, A.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Grimond, J.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Bryan, P.

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Gurden, Harold

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Hail, John (Wycombe)

  Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)

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

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Campbell, Sir David

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hay, John

  Manningham Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

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

  Markham, Major sir Frank

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Cole, Norman

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Mathew, R.

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Cooke, Robert

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Mawby, R. L.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

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

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Hobson,john(Warwlck & Leam'gt'n)

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Corfield, F. V.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Holt, A. F.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Croathwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hornby, R. P.

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Horobin, Sir Ian

  Neave, Airey

  Crowder, Petre (Ruisllp—Northwood)

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon, Dame Florence

  Nicholls, Harmar

  1284

  1285

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

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

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

  Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

  Robertson, Sir David

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Noble, Michael (Argyll)

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Tweedsmulr, Lady

  O'Neil, Hn. Phelim (Co.Antrim, N.)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Vane, W. M. F.

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

  Russell, R. S.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Osborne, C.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

  Page, R. G.

  Sharples, R. C.

  Wade, D. W.

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Smithers, peter (Winchester)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Partridge, E.

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)

  Peel, W. J.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Wall, Patrick

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Speir, R. M.

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

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Webster, David

  Pott, H. P.

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Prioe, David (Eastleigh)

  Storey, S.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. I.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Woollam, John Victor

  Profumo, J. D.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Teeling, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Redmayne, M.

  Temple, John M.

  Colonel J. H. Harrison and

  Mr. Whitelaw.

  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 6.—(AMOUNT OF STANDARD GRANT.)
  Amendments made: In page 5, line 41, leave out "fifty" and insert "fifty-five".
  In page 6, line 4, at end insert:
  (b) by five pounds for that mentioned in paragraph (b).—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 13.—(CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF STANDARD AMENITIES PROVIDED BY THEM.)
  Amendment made: In page 10, line 12, at end add:
  "unless the dwelling was provided by the conversion before the end of the year nineteen hundred and fifty-eight of a building erected before the end of the year nineteen hundred and forty-four".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 14.—(AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION UNDER S. 13.)
  Amendments made: In page 10, line 22, after "hundred", insert "and ten".
  In page 10, line 29, at end insert:
  (b) by ten pounds for that mentioned in paragraph (b).—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 19.—(DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO MAKE GRANTS TOWARDS CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS.)
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): I beg to move, in page 13, line 28, at the end to add:
  "unless the dwelling was provided by the conversion before the end of the year nineteen hundred and fifty-eight of a building erected before the end of the year nineteen hundred and forty-four".
  May I say that I regret as much as anyone the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is ill.
  This Amendment is parallel with that in Clause 4, page 5, line 11, and I accordingly move it formally.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 20.—(APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR STANDARD GRANT.)
  Amendment proposed: In page 13, line 29, at beginning insert:
  "Subject to the provisions of section (Applications for standard grant at instance of tenants (Scotland)) of this Act."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]
  Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 200, Noes 236.

  Division No. 57.]

  AYES

  [4.50 p.m.

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Benson, Sir George

  Albu, A. H.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Beswick, Frank

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Balfour, A.

  Blackburn, F.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

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

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Boardman, H.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Probert, A. R.

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

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Hunter, A. E.

  Randall, H. E.

  Boyd, T. C.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Rankin, John

  Brockway, A. F.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Reeves, J.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Reid, William

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Janner, B.

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Rhodes, H.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

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

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Ross, William

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Champion, A. J.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Short, E. W.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Kenyon, C.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Clunie, J.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Coldrick, W.

  King, Dr. H. M.

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

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Snow, J. W.

  Cronin, J. D.

  McAlister, Mrs. Mary

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Sparks, J. A.

  Davles, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Mclnnes, J.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Deer, G.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Steele, T

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  McLeavy, Frank

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Delargy, H. J.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Strauss,Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Diamond, John

  Mahon, Simon

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

  Dodds, N. N.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Donnelly, D. L.

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

  Swingler, S. T.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Edelman, M.

  Mason, Roy

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Thornton, E.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Messer, Sir F.

  Timmons, J.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Viant, S. P.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Monslow, W.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

  Moody, A. S.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, w.,

  Weitzman, D.

  Fletcher, Eric

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

  Forman, J. C.

  Mort, D. L.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Moss, R.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

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

  Moyle, A.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Mulley, F. W.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

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

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Grey, C. F.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Griffiths. Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Oram, A. E.

  Willey, Frederick

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Owen, W. J.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Paget, R. T.

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

  Hamilton, W. w.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Hannan, W.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Hastings, S.

  Parker, J.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Woof, R. E.

  Healey, Denis

  Paton, John

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

  Pearson, A.

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K,

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Peart, T. F.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Hobson, C. R. (Kelghley)

  Pentland, N.

  Holman, P.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Popplewell, E,

  Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Aitken, W. T.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Campbell, Sir David

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

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Bingham, R. M.

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

  Bishop, F, P.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Cole, Norman

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Body, R. F.

  Conant, Major Sir Roger

  Ashton, H.

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Cooke, Robert

  Baldwin, Sir Archer

  Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Balniel, Lord

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

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Barber, Anthony

  Braine, B. R.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Barter, John

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

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Batsford, Brian

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Bryan, P.

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  1288

  1289

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pitt, Miss E. M

  do Ferranti, Basil

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pott, H. P.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kimball, M.

  Profumo, J. D.

  du Cann, E, D. L.

  Kirk, P. M.

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Duncan, Sir James

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Redmayne, M.

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Eillott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

  Leavey, J. A.

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Leburn, W. G.

  Robertson, Sir David

  Errington, Sir Eric

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

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Freeth, Denzil

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

  Russell, R. S.

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Gammans, Lady

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Sharples, R. C.

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Glover, D.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)

  Glyn, Col. Richard H.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Godber, J. B.

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Speir, R. M.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Stanley, Capt, Hon. Richard

  Gough, C. F. H.

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Cower, H. R.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Hallfax)

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

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

  Maitland, Cdr.J. F. W.(Horncastle)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Green, A

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Grimond, J.

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Teeling, W.

  Garden, Harold

  Mathew, R.

  Temple, John M.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Mawby, R. L.

  Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

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

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Hay, John

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

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

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Neave, Alrey

  Viokers, Miss Joan

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

  Wade, D. W.

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

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

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

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

  Noble, Michael (Argyll)

  Wall, Patrick

  Holland-Martin, C. J,

  Nugent, G. R. H.

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

  Holt, A. F.

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Hornby, R. P.

  O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Horobin, Sir Ian

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

  Webster, David

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Osborne, C.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Howard, John (Test)

  Page, R. G.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Woollam, John Victor

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Partridge, E.

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

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

  Peel, W. J.

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

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Colonel J. H. Harrison and

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Pitman, I. J.

  Mr. Whitelaw.

  Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in Committee and on recommittal), considered.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The first new Clause selected is that in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and his hon. Friends. I think it would be convenient also to discuss the new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North
  1290
  (Miss Herbison) and certain of her hon. Friends.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: On a point of order. The first new Clause standing in the name of my two hon. Friends and myself was put down during the Committee stage but was not then selected. You have just ruled, Sir Gordon, that you are selecting the second new Clause on this page. The first new Clause merely seeks to repeat in Scotland a protection which is given to tenants of improved houses by Clause 12 as it applies to England.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The new Clauses have been selected by Mr. Speaker and I cannot alter that decision. The first new Clause has not been selected.
  Mr. Fraser: I should like your guidance, Sir Gordon. People in Scotland will be put in a very awkward position. By Mr. Speaker's failure to select the Clause and the failure of the Chairman of Ways and Means when the Bill was before the Committee, Scottish Members on both sides of the House are denied the opportunity of claiming the protection for tenants in Scotland which the Bill affords to tenants in England. Is there nothing that we can do about it?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot discuss the merits of the matter. The first new Clause has not been selected.
  Mr. Fraser: Is there no way by which Members of Parliament can claim the right to speak up for Scottish tenants?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman could have made representations to Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Fraser: I understand that very strong representations were made to Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that Mr. Speaker has come to a decision on the matter. I have no power to alter that decision.
  Mr. William Ross: Scottish hon. Members are placed in an invidious position. What can we do to have the matter rectified?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is dissatisfied he can put down a Motion, but he cannot debate the matter now.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: In view of the fact that no Scottish Minister is present to take note of the complaint so that it might be remedied—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

  New Clause.—{OBLIGATION OF LESSORS RECEIVING STANDARD GRANTS AND APPLICATION TO TIED DWELLINGS (ENGLAND AND WALES).)
  (1) During a period of fifteen years after the making of a standard grant under this Part of this Act to a person in respect of a dwelling, section six of the Housing Act, 1957
  1292
  (which prescribes conditions to be implied on the letting of small houses), shall apply to any contract for letting that dwelling or any part thereof, being a letting by that person, his successor in title or a person deriving title from the first-named person or his successor, as that section applies to the contracts mentioned in its subsection (1).
  (2) Where under a contract of employment of a workman employed in agriculture the provision of a dwelling for his occupation forms part of his remuneration, and the provisions of the last foregoing subsection are inapplicable by reason only of the dwelling not being let to him, section seven of the Housing Act, 1957 (which applies section six of the said Act to houses occupied by agricultural workers otherwise than as tenants), shall have effect in relation to that dwelling and to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection as it has effect in relation to such a house as is mentioned in that section and to the provisions of the said section six of that Act.—[Mr. Lindgren.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. G. Lindgren: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  We had a very short discussion on a similar Clause in Committee on 18th February. That discussion was all too short, mainly because of the lateness of the hour and the fact that the weather was very bad. The object of the new Clause is to give any house which receives a standard grant the same conditions as regards repair that apply to houses which are commonly called small houses. In other words, it places an obligation on a landlord to carry out elementary repairs and to maintain what is not, after all, a very high standard of fitness for the house.
  Under the Rent Act, for which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible, a landlord is now able to evict a tenant where a house is not subject to rent control. He can re-let it and impose almost what conditions he likes. This is a common occurrence in large towns. It is common in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool, and I admit that it is much more preferable that there should be these onerous requirements in large towns than in the same type of house in smaller urban towns in the Provinces.
  The works which attract the standard grant increase the value of a house, and we suggest that the landlord should be required to maintain the house. After all, these grants go to an owner-occupier or to a landlord of a tenanted house.

  1293
  There is every reason to believe that the owner-occupier, because his own comfort and standard of life are involved, will maintain that house at a proper standard of fitness. We are seeking to impose that condition upon the landlord who has received the improvement grant to his property.
  The Minister, in the very brief opportunity which he had to reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in the debate in Committee to which I have referred, said that the new Clause was unnecessary and he quoted Clause 5 (2), which reads:
  "The local authority must be satisfied that after the execution of the works specified in the application the dwelling will be in such condition as not to be unfit for human habitation, and that it is likely to remain in that condition and available for use as a dwelling for a period of not less than fifteen years."
  The important words are
  "… likely to remain in that condition and available for use as a dwelling …"
  The question is: who is to pay for it? We say that the obligation should be on the landlord and not on the tenant. We are trying to protect the tenant. In all their activities the Government have not been concerned about the tenant but about the landlord. Having made their hand-out to the landlord to improve his property, then we say that they should at least show some regard for the tenant and give him the protection which the new Clause will provide.
  I know that the Minister will say in his airy-fairy way, as he often does, that the new Clause is not necessary because the tenant can agree or disagree with the conditions which the landlord might like to put in the tenancy agreement when the tenant takes over the house. That is just bunkum. There is no such thing as a free market in houses, and the conditions which some tenants have to accept through sheer desperation sometimes have to be seen to be believed. There is a scramble for any accommodation which becomes available because of the actions which the Government have taken over the past few years, and it is likely to continue for some time to come.
  That being so, we suggest that the Government, in addition to showing their friendliness towards landlords, should on this occasion, for the first time during the passage of the Bill through the House, show some consideration for the tenant
  1294
  who is living in the house which has been improved at the expense of both the local ratepayer and the national Exchequer.
  Mr. James MacColl: I beg to second the Motion.
  Mr. Willis: I hope that the Government will be favourably disposed towards the new Clause. The demand made in it is quite moderate and I should have thought was necessary in the light of our experience over the past thirty or forty years with regard to rented houses. It has been shown in the past, and it was shown during the inter-war period, that quite a number of landlords, who were authorised to make increases in rent in order to meet increasing charges, particularly with regard to repairs, did not do this. I think that this was pointed out by the Ridley Committee.
  We cannot easily accept the proposition put forward by the Minister on a previous Amendment that landlords are always bursting with desire to maintain and improve their property. In a very large number of cases, of course, history proves that precisely the opposite is true, and that even when given increases of rent in order to enable them to effect repairs landlords do not do the job. Now, of course, we are going to spend public money on improving the houses and we ought to have some guarantee that they will be kept in a state of good repair by the owners. After all, the landlord is going to receive extra rent to enable him to meet the extra cost in which he is involved. I have no doubt that when the Government calculated how much the landlord should receive they had this job in mind.
  During the debate on the two new Clauses which were earlier turned down by the Government, I asked for some information from the Scottish Minister—which, incidentally, we did not get—concerning the extent to which the owners of property had used the bribes given to them by the Government during the past two or three years, first by the 1954 Act and then by the Rent Act, with which to improve their properties.
  So far as I have been able to ascertain, and I think that the Government's experience supports this in respect of the 1954 Act, even though the landlords were bribed by being given an increase in rent they did not set about the job

  1295
  of repairing the houses. The great "Operation Rescue" was not a rescue operation at all. It was a gigantic flop, and everyone knows that. As far as we have been able to ascertain up to the present, no great deal of extra work is being done on houses as a result of the Rent Act. A great deal has been done, of course, in pushing up the rents and also in clearing out people in order to enable properties to be sold, but the great work of repair is not being done.
  I suggest to the Government that the lesson learned from this is a lesson which has been obvious to anyone associated with this problem for any length of time. It is that a great number of owners do not keep their properties in a state of repair. They are content to sit back, draw the rent and say, "Well, this will last my time. Why should I spend good money so that someone else can reap the benefit?" That is an attitude of mind quite common among landlords.
  By this proposed new Clause we seek to ensure that where public money is spent on improving houses and on enabling various amenities to be provided that, in fact, the houses shall be kept in a proper state of repair. As public money is being spent in this way I should have thought that there ought to be an obligation on the Government to see that this happens and to give the House of Commons an assurance that the money which we are virtually voting under the Bill is not simply going to be used for the purpose of increasing the income of a certain group of people who, by and large, do not accept their responsibilities.
  I have no vendetta against landlords particularly, although I see that one of the constituents of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had a great vendetta against one landlord. I believe that he smashed him across the head with an iron bar or something because he came to collect the rent. That, of course, is rather typical of the outlook of some people in Scotland on the question of rent and landlords. We on this side of the House do not necessarily share that view.
  5.15 p.m.
  I have tried to indicate some of the things that happen and which have happened for a long time, things with which the Government are familiar.
  1296
  Perhaps the Lord Advocate is now able to tell us that all the property owners in Scotland are bursting to maintain their houses in good repair. I do not think that he will be able to tell us that, but we shall be glad to hear his comments on the matter. We ask him seriously to consider the point, and we think it a reasonable demand to make when substantial sums of public money are being spent in this direction.
  Mr. A. Evans: I wish to support the Clause and to confine my remarks to the first part of it. The second part deals with the agricultural worker, and, being an urban Member, I do not feel competent to deal with that subject.
  It seems to me that the Minister will be almost obliged to accept the Clause, at any rate the first part of it, because all it does is to underline that Section 6 of the Housing Act, 1957, shall apply to these houses. That Act was passed during the term of office of the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Housing and Local Government, and presumably, therefore, it has his approval.
  Briefly, we are saying that Section 6 of the 1957 Act shall apply to houses which have had the benefit of grants and of public money being spent on them. That, quite simply, is the position. We ask the Minister to accept the proposed new Clause and to say, in effect, that his own Act will apply to those houses improved at public expense for a period of fifteen years.
  The standard that we seek to apply is quite a reasonable one. We say that the owner of the house must observe the terms of the Housing Act, 1957, and that he must keep the house fit for human habitation for a period of fifteen years. That seems to me to be an eminently reasonable thing to ask and to which no one could possibly take objection.
  The definition laid down in the 1957 Act is not too difficult to carry out. The local authority will determine whether the house is fit or unfit for human habitation by having regard to certain items. It will have to insist, as, indeed, the Minister's own Act insists, that the house shall be in good repair. The local authority will look at the state of the house. That, obviously, is a reasonable thing to do when public money is being spent on a house—to see that it is in a state of

  1297
  sufficient repair to warrant the expenditure of that money. Secondly, the house must remain in that state of repair for fifteen years. It is simply an ordinary, commonsense requirement that a house which is to be improved by public money should remain stable for a period of fifteen years.
  The next item is freedom from damp. This is often a difficult matter, but it is not asking too much of any landlord to keep his house generally free from clamp. The next item is natural lighting. All these items are in the Minister's own Act. We are only reminding him and the landlords that they have a legal obligation to observe these standards.
  The next is ventilation. Again, it is a reasonable and obvious requirement for the community to require any landlord to ensure that there is proper ventilation in his property. Water supply is dealt with under the standard grant, so this requirement, presumably, is already being met. It is not going too far to insist that the house must pass the standards of the local authority in respect of drains and sanitary conveniences. The final item relates to facilities for the storage and cooking of food. This, too, was laid clown in the Act and is reasonable. All of these conditions have been accepted by the House of Commons in an Act of Parliament. That was a Measure framed by the Minister and piloted by him through Parliament. It is his Act.
  This is a simple proposal. We ask the Minister in the Bill to say to the recipients of public money for the improvement of their property, "You must observe the standards which Parliament has laid down in the Housing Act, 1957."
  Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I support the new Clause for two main reasons. First, I would hark back to some remarks I made in Committee and refer to the fact that I have supported the idea of the local authorities being compelled to make improvement grants. On one occasion, in fact, I said that I and hon. Friends of mine had been supporting that proposal at least a couple of years before the Minister himself introduced it.
  At the same time, I pointed out on an earlier occasion that the safeguards to a local authority, now that it was being compelled to make these grants, were
  1298
  inadequate. One or two changes have already been made, but, on the whole, the local authority still has far too few safeguards. It has to make the grant when the landlord applies, except in one or two instances. Once a local authority has made the grant and satisfied itself that the property has been improved by virtue of the standard grant and is in a fit state for human habitation—or, to put it the other way round, is not in a state unfit for human habitation—once the work has been carried out, for the sake of the local authority there is a strong case for stipulating in the Bill that for the next fifteen years the local authority, having provided a quite substantial sum of public money, should know exactly who is responsible for ensuring that the property remains in a state fit for human habitation. From the point of view, that this is merely a safeguard for the local authority, it is essential that this provision should be incorporated in the Bill.
  All of us who have had any experience of local authorities—and the Minister himself has had quite considerable experience—know how difficult it often is to enforce statutory notices under either the Housing or Public Health Acts to make landlords carry out repairs that are necessary to put the property in a state fit for human habitation. The Minister, I am certain, also knows how so many landlords are able to twist the provisions of these notices and evade the court action which might follow by carrying out one or two of the repairs which they are asked to do, and then the local authority has to start all over again.
  To a certain extent, that sort of thing could be avoided by including in the Bill a Clause of this nature, specifically laying the responsibility upon the landlord of the property to keep it in a state fit for human habitation over the next fifteen years. In this way, the local authority would know to whom it is to look for the responsibility for doing this work on the property. I assume that it would have some sanctions upon the owner if he did not carry out his obligations and might in certain circumstances, I would hope, be able to put pressure upon the owner, having received money from public sources, to keep the property in a state fit for human habitation, not only at the time the work is carried out, but for the next fifteen years thereafter.

  1299
  Unless this provision is included in the Bill, in some cases it may well be difficult for the local authority to find out who is responsible for doing certain repairs of one kind and another—for example, broken sashcords, leaking roofs, gutters and drainpipes, damp and other things that my hon. Friend for Islington South-West (Mr. A. Evans) mentioned. From time to time, the local authority might find it difficult to discover who was responsible for doing the work. If public money is to be spent on these properties, the local authorities have the right to be able to say "Once you have got this public money, you, the landlord, are responsible for this work for at least the next fifteen years." I sincerely hope that the Minister will see his way clear either to accept the Clause or to assure us that something like it may be included in the Bill at a later stage.
  Mr. Ross: I sincerely hope that the Minister will accept the new Clauses. In fact, I am surprised that he did not rise right away to give us that assurance. Acceptance of the new Clauses—I speak in the plural, because the same principle applies to Scotland as to England and Wales—follows logically from what the Government already have stipulated in relation to the granting to local authorities of the facility to authorise the work and to pay for their proportion of it in Clause 5, subsections (1) and (2).
  If we examine those two subsections, we find that before a local authority approves an application for standard grant it must be satisfied that after the execution of the works the dwelling will be
  "in such condition as not to be unfit for human habitation, and that it is likely to remain in that condition arid available for use as a dwelling for a period of not less than fifteen years."
  The principle, therefore, is already accepted by the Government. All we are suggesting is that the Government should go a little further and try to ensure that what they think should be the basis of the original grant should be kept as part of the contract of the granting of the money and the execution of the work. It should not be merely a case of likelihood that the house is kept fit for habitation but that it actually remains in
  1300
  the proper state and that a responsibility is laid squarely upon the landlord for ensuring this.
  I cannot see how any Government who believe in what they have said in Clause 5, with particular relation to the conditions laid down in subsection (2), can dismiss a new Clause of this nature. My first reason, therefore, is that the Clause follows logically from what the Government have already provided.
  The other reason is that it follows from our historic experience of what has happened in the past in relation to these houses. So far, we have been concentrating on the first part of the new Clause in relation to houses which are let in the ordinary way. I would, however, remind the House that we are dealing also in the new Clause with houses which are let to agricultural workers, in which the provision of the dwelling forms part of a worker's remuneration for his work. In other words, it is a tied house.
  5.30 p.m.
  I would ask hon. Members to remember that in the past we have spent a great deal of public money on the housing of rural workers and that if there are any Acts in respect of which the spending of money in pursuit of those desirable ends gives room for thought they are the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts. The Committee that investigated their working in Scotland said that much of the money was just wasted because the houses were not kept up to the proper standard despite the fact that Government money had been used on them.
  I sincerely hope, therefore, that the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who well knows what has been said in relation to this and the desirability to safeguard the public purse, will see the force of the new Clause. It will ensure that where not only rented houses in town and country bat also tied houses are improved by the application of the standard grant an obligation will be laid on the landlord in each case to keep the house up to the proper standard. That is all that the Clause requires. We have dealt with this matter in a fairly objective way. I do not think that there has been or that there could be any exaggeration in the matter of the neglect of obligations by landlords in the past.
  If we feel it necessary under Clause 5 (2) to lay upon the local authority the

  1301
  obligation to ensure, first of all, that the house is not unfit for human habitation and is likely to remain so for fifteen years, we should equally require the landlord, having received this grant, to keep those conditions for fifteen years. I should be very disappointed if the Solicitor-General for Scotland, in his new-found glory of looking after Scottish housing in the unavoidable absence of the Secretary of State, does not agree. I do not know the reason for the absence of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: Perhaps I should let my hon. Friend know that they are ill.
  Mr. Ross: It must have been the prospect of coming here to face this new Clause that brought this spate of illness into the Scottish Office. I hope that these hon. Gentlemen will be back before long, but here is a chance for the Solicitor-General for Scotland to free himself from the shackles of St. Andrew's House and to accept the Clause for the good of Scottish housing.
  Mr. H. Brooke: This Clause was moved by an English Member and, therefore, I think I should speak at this stage. The hon. Member for Welling-borough (Mr. Lindgren), who moved its Second Reading, said that we had had a number of discussions on a similar Clause in Committee. I have refreshed my memory on that. We discussed it for a full half hour. Although I agree that it was a foggy evening, the hon. Member should not imagine that I cut my remarks short on that occasion. I gave a full, comprehensive and convincing answer—so convincing that the Committee negatived the new Clause without a division. Nevertheless, I will address myself to the matter again.
  First of all, I want to remove any misconception there may be on either side of the House that unless we accept the new Clause the house may become unfit for human habitation. It has already been pointed out that under Clause 5, before the standard grant is made at all, the local authority must be satisfied that
  "after the execution of the works … the dwelling will be in such condition as not to be unfit for human habitation, and that it is
  1302
  likely to remain in that condition … for a period of not less than fifteen years".
  There is no dubiety or uncertainty there.
  During the whole of the fifteen years, the local authority has powers under Section 9 of the 1957 Act in England and Wales to serve notice if it has reason to think that the house is unfit for human habitation. Therefore, the question which the Clause raises is not one of seeing whether the house is unfit and making it fit. The question is who shall pay for the work. The hon. Member for Wellingborough and his hon. Friends ask that in the particular case where a standard grant has been made for doing certain work on a house, the obligation to keep the house fit for human habitation should be put on the landlord, even though the tenancy agreement may provide otherwise.
  As recently as the Rent Act passed two years ago, the whole question was reviewed of whether in certain circumstances the obligation should rest exclusively on the landlord to keep a house in repair. It was decided at that time by Parliament to revise the limits, and they have applied, since July 1957, to houses let at annual rents of less than £80 in London and £52 elsewhere in England and Wales. I know of no new reason emerging in the last eighteen months or so why these limits should now he amended by Parliament.
  The new Clause would extend the provisions in Section 6 of the 1957 Act and the subsidiary provisions in Section 7, which deal with certain types of house or cottage, to any house improved by the aid of a standard grant regardless of the rent at which it is let. That seems illogical. If Parliament has held for many years, as it has, that we shall have a provision on a basis similar to that of Sections 6 and 7 of the 1957 Act, then clearly those obligations should apply to all houses up to certain rent limits. It may be open to argument what those limits should be, but there is no reason inherent in the Clause or in the general principle that could support an argument that one should pick out certain other houses above those rent limits and shift all obligation to repair on to the landlords in those cases.
  Hon. Members have argued that this should be done where a standard grant has been given. They saw no reason to

  1303
  do this when they introduced the improvement grant system in 1949. There was their opportunity, but they ignored it. Either they did not think of it—I am being charitable—or they thought of it and realised how inconsistent and baseless a change of that kind would be.
  Mr. Reynolds: The right hon. Gentleman would agree—in fact it was one of his own criticisms of the 1949 procedure—that the conditions with which the landlord had to comply in 1949 as to the standard of property after improvements had been carried out were very high indeed. Here, the right hon. Gentleman must agree, we are dealing with a much lower standard of property. The case we put is that this provision is urgently needed. It might have been needed in 1949, but these are two different types of property, two different types of grant, with different standards.
  Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member is now saying that it is wise to get this work done and that one should relax the conditions, but he is urging in another direction that we should tighten the conditions. There might be a case if the local authority had no powers and had to form a judgment in the light of Clause 5(2) as to whether a house was likely to remain fit for human habitation for fifteen years or more; and then, having reached a favourable judgment could find itself powerless for the remainder of the fifteen years. That cannot happen, however, as long as section 9 of the 1957 Act is on the Statute Book, because there the local authority has power to serve notice to compel the carrying out of the work.
  The suggestion I put to the House is that we should keep Section 9 in operation to provide the local authority with that sanction to ensure that the house is kept properly and does not become unfit I submit that there is no basis for altering the terms of the tenancy agreement between the landlord and the tenant as to the responsibility for repair if the house has received a standard grant but not—I notice in this proposed Clause—if it has received an improvement grant. So there again we should be committing another anomaly if we accepted this Clause.
  I am sorry if I have disappointed hon. Gentlemen opposite, but before speaking
  1304
  this afternoon I read my speech during the Committee stage of the Bill, and they are even more unwise than I had supposed them to be if they seriously imagine that I should have changed my view from the very powerful and compelling position which I took up a few days ago.
  Mr. Lindgren: There might be two points of view as to what is powerful and what is compelling. I am not unknown in this House for my lack of sympathy with landlords. Unfortunately many of us have had to live under them for far too long to have any sympathy with them.
  The remarks made by the Minister are not good enough. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the limits of the small house, or what is commonly known as the small house, were revised in the 1957 Act. That is true. It is also true that these houses would come outside those revised limits of £52 for the provinces and £80 in London. We are trying to bring them in. It should be remembered that the houses in question were sub-standard prior to receiving the grant. If a landlord has kept them sub-standard all that time, it being agreed that they are reasonably large houses because otherwise they would not be over those limits, what guarantee have we got that he will maintain his property?
  Ever since—I was going to say time but certainly since the Torrance Act of 1860—successive Governments have had to pass Acts of Parliament to oblige landlords to carry out their obligations. Indeed this has been the job of Parliament almost annually in various Public Health Acts, and wherever there has been a possibility of avoiding their obligations the majority of large landlords have done so. The properties in this country, which the Minister called a national asset, deteriorate into slums because the landlords do not carry out their obligations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) referred to Scottish rural housing, which covers tied cottages. In England we have made grants to agricultural cottages, and I am willing to admit that in this connection practically the only landlords who have applied these to tenanted properties have been those associated with large estates and agricultural properties. In the majority of cases,

  1305
  I agree, they have maintained the properties in a fit condition, although some have not done so.
  5.45 p.m.
  Our job in Parliament is not to legislate for the fellow who normally does the right thing. We have to legislate to protect citizens against the person who, in one way or another, does not do the right thing. A classic example is provided by the Factories Bill, on which a Committee of this House has been sitting morning after morning. The average decent employer in this country is far ahead of factory legislation. The average decent landlord is well ahead of the requirements of the Public Health Acts. We are asking here that where a landlord has secured the grant, his property has been improved by it and he draws a bigger rent as a result, he should be required to maintain the property.
  The Minister has made great play with Clause 5 (2) which I mentioned in my opening statement. It is true that under that subsection the local authority must be satisfied, after the work has been executed, that the property is likely to remain in a condition fit for human habitation for fifteen years. Unlike the majority of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Minister has had local government experience. What will any clerk, surveyor or other officer of a local authority assume when he sees Clause 5 (2)? Surely it is a fair assumption to be made by a local authority that the landlord of a property which has been improved by the works arising as a result of the standard grant will maintain normal, elementary running repairs to it. Certainly if the house is neglected for fifteen years, it will not remain fit for human habitation. So that subsection will make the local authority believe that the normal repairs will be carried out.
  The dispute between us is about who will pay for those running repairs for the fifteen years following receipt of the standard grant. We say that the landlord should pay them. He has received the benefit of public money from the local ratepayer and from the national Exchequer. The value of his property has been improved. The rent has been improved if it is a rented property, and if it is a tied cottage it will be a greater attraction for a prospective employee.
  1306
  Therefore, we say that he is the person who should maintain the property.
  The Minister says that he is not concerned about this. If the property is large enough and a person enters into an agreement, it is all right not only for the landlord to get the standard grant and the increased rent but also to fleece the tenant, and the Minister will help him to do so by placing upon the tenant the obligation which should really be placed on the landlord. This is a further instance of what has been obtaining throughout the tenure of office of the right hon. Gentleman. If ever the landlords of this country subscribe for a permanent memorial to anyone, it should be for the right hon. Gentleman. I know of no other Minister, even in this present Government—and that is saying something—who has gone more out of his way to make it better for the landlord and worse for the tenant.
  Miss Herbison: There are two proposed new Clauses, one applying to England and Wales and the other to Scotland and I am glad that my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies have shown how important it is that the one which applies to Scotland should be accepted.
  For the last few weeks, on my way to the House of Commons from my home in London, I have seen a bright new Conservative Party poster saying, "Freedom with Conservatives". The experience of the people of Scotland and of Britain as a whole is that there is freedom under the Conservatives for some people and strict compulsion for others. The Minister's attitude towards these Clauses has again clearly demonstrated the freedom on the one hand and the compulsion on the other.
  We are trying to rectify the provision giving landlords this freedom to get a subsidy, the standard grant. There is no talk of a means test for this subsidy. There is no talk of a differential rate. With previous housing legislation, when we have imposed far heavier burdens on the people, we have been told that local authorities could introduce differential rent schemes. The Government are always very tender in their dealings with landlords.
  Some landlords are careful to keep their property in good repair, but there are not strong enough words to condemn what

  1307
  landlords in Glasgow, Edinburgh, the mining villages of my constituency, and other parts of Scotland have done. It is because of our experience of that type of landlord that we have put forward these new Clauses.
  The Minister claimed that his answer in Committee was so convincing that we did not take the matter to a Division. He knows very well that it was because of the inclement weather on that occasion that we did our best to help the progress of the Bill. He said that under Clause 5 (5) a house will have to be fit for human habitation and likely to remain in that condition before a local authority makes a grant. However, the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Scotland know that even if the local authority examines the property and finds it likely to remain in good condition, that condition will remain only if there is a good landlord willing to undertake repairs. We are talking about houses without sinks, without bathrooms, without food storage space. Those are old houses, and old houses almost always need some repairs some time during the year.
  The Minister's answer showed that the Government are willing to give the money of the ratepayers and taxpayers to landlords, relieving them of any obligation to ensure that the money is wisely and carefully spent. It is of the utmost importance that close attention should be paid to our case, because if we press it strongly enough, the Minister may change his mind and in another place the Government may agree to what we want.
  We are gravely short of houses in Scotland and we want to keep our pool of houses in the best possible state of repair. As we know from experience, that can be done only if landlords are obliged to keep houses in good repair. I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter before finally deciding that he has an overwhelming case. It is an overwhelming case for the landlord, but not for the Minister, who should be taking great care of the money of ratepayers and taxpayers.
  Mr. Willis: Surely we are to have an answer from the Solicitor-General for Scotland, the only Scottish Minister present.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I had not understood the hon. Lady the
  1308
  Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) to raise any particular point which had not already been covered. The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) agree with me that we want to keep our houses in good repair. The Bill is designed to that end, so that landlords can and will put in improvements. The "can" is the financial side, and the "will" is not a compulsion, but an opportunity and inducement to landlords to do so.
  The view underlying the new Clauses, a view which I think fallacious, is that the greater the obligations on a landlord, the more likely he will be to operate the provisions of the Bill. However, I believe that the greater the obligations on the landlord, the less likely he will be to take advantage of the Bill and the less likely the tenant will be to benefit. That is one of the fundamental reasons why the Clause should be rejected.
  Miss Herbison: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a very grave statement. He suggested that if we put this obligation on a landlord, he would not apply for the standard grant; in other words, a landlord would apply for the standard grant if the obligation were not imposed, which means that such a landlord would have no intention of keeping a house in good repair.
  Mr. Ross: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean that it is far too onerous an obligation that a landlord should keep a house fit for human habitation?
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No. I say that if the landlord has entered into a contract of tenancy under which the tenant is under an obligation to keep the house in good repair, these provisions would discourage the landlord from applying for a grant. As hon. Members from Scottish constituencies know, the ordinary case in Scotland is that the landlord has responsibility for structure and so on. However, the matter must be decided in every case according to the lease. If a lease has been signed and the landlord does not have this obligation, he is unlikely—I put it no higher than that—to take advantage of this method of improving houses—if the new Clauses are adopted.
  Mr. Willis: Has the Scottish Office any evidence of an increasing desire by landlords to keep their property in repair because of the legislation to enable them to do so?
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There are far more houses in Scotland to which repairs have been made and which have been brought up to proper standards than there were before 1954. I do not say that that applies to all houses, but the Bill is another stage in the steps which we are taking towards the objective which we all have in view.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. James McInnes: Surely the Solicitor-General for Scotland will concede that, despite the financial provisions of the Government's
  Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, less than 4 per cent. of the houses that came within its scope were repaired. Surely he will also concede, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that very few owner-occupied houses were repaired to any great extent.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I do not think that the hon. Member's figure is entirely accurate. It is well below what I understand the real figure to be. Further, I would say that, on the whole, owner-occupiers have taken advantage of the improvement grant system, for which I readily concede we have to thank hon. Members opposite.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 237.

  Division No. 58.]

  AYES

  [6.2 p.m.

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Forman, J. C.

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

  Albu, A. H.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Mason, Roy

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Grey, C. F.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Balfour, A.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Mitchison, G. R.

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

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Monslow, w.

  Benson, Sir George

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Moody, A. S.

  Beswick, Frank

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Blackburn, F.

  Hannan, W.

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

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Mort, D. L.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Hastings, S.

  Moss, R.

  Boardman, H.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Moyle, A.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

  Mulley, F. W.

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

  Herbison, Miss M.

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

  Bowles, F. G.

  Hobson, C. R. (Keignley)

  Oliver, C. H.

  Boyd, T. C.

  Holman, P,

  Oram, A. E.

  Brockway, A. F.

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Owen, W. J.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Padley, W. E.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Parker, J.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Paton, John

  Champion, A. J.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Pearson, A,

  Chapman, W. D.

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Peart, T. F.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Janner, B.

  Pentland, N.

  Clunie, J.

  Jeger, George (Coole)

  Popplewell, E.

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

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

  Prentice, R. E.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Cronin, J. D.

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Probert, A. R.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Jones, Elwyn (w. Ham, S.)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Randall, H. E.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Kenyon, C.

  Rankin, John

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. w.

  Reeves, J.

  Deer, G.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Reid, William

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Rhodes, H.

  Diamond, John

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dodds, N. N.

  McAlister, Mrs. Mary

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Donnelly, D. L.

  McCann, J.

  Ross, William

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Edelman, M.

  MacDermot, Niall

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  McInnes, J.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

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

  Fernyhough, E.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Slater, J, (Sedgefield)

  Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

  Mahon, Simon

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Finch, A. E. (Wigan)

  Mallalieu, E. L. Brigg

  Snow, J. W.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Tomney, F.

  Willey, Frederick

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Viant, S. P.

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

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Warbey, W. N.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Steele, T.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Weitzman, D.

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Wells, Peroy (Faversham)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Woof, R. E.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Vates, V. (Ladywood)

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Thornton, E.

  Wigg, George

  Timmons, J.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Short

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Aitken, W. T.

  Fell, A.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

  Freeth, Denzil

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Arbuthnot, John

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Gammans, Lady

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Ashton, H.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  McLean, Nell (Inverness)

  Baldock. Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Glover, D.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Baldwin, Sir Archer

  Glyn, Col. Richard H.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Balniel, Lord

  Godber, J. B.

  Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Barber, Anthony

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Barter, John

  Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Batsford, Brian

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

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  Green, A.

  Marshall, Douglas

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Grimond, J.

  Mathew, R.

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Mawby, R. L.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Gurden, Harold

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

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Bingham, R. M.

  Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Bishop, F. P.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Neave, Airey

  Body, R. F.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

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

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

  Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

  Hay, John

  Noble, Michael (Argyll)

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

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Braine, B. R.

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

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

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

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Osborne, C.

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Page, R. G.

  Bryan, P.

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Peel, W. J.

  Burden, F. F. A.

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

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Campbell, Sir David

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hornby, R. P.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Horobin, Sir Ian

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

  Pott, H. P.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Cole, Norman

  Howard, John (Test)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Cooke, Robert

  Kurd, Sir Anthony

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

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

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

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

  Redmayne, M.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Kimball, M.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Russell, R. S.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Leburn, W. G.

  Sharples, R. C.

  Drayson, G. B.

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

  Shepherd, William

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

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

  Speir, R. M.

  Elliott, Ft. W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Longden, Gilbert

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  1312

  1313

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Storey, S.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Webster, David

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Whitelaw, w. S. I.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D, F.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Teeling, W.

  Wade, D. W.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Temple, John M.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Woollam, John Victor

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

  Wall, Patrick

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Legh and Mr. Hughes-Young.

  New Clause.—(OBLIGATIONS OF LESSORS RECEIVING STANDARD GRANTS AND APPLICATION TO TIED DWELLINGS (SCOTLAND).)
  (1) During a period of fifteen years after the making of a standard grant under this part of this Act to a person in respect of a dwelling, section three of the Act of 1950 (which prescribes conditions to be implied on certain lettings of houses) shall apply to any contract for letting that dwelling or any Dart thereof, being a letting by that person, his successor in title or a person deriving title from the first-named person or his successor, as that section applies to the contracts mentioned in its subsection (1).
  (2) Where under a contract of employment of a workman employed in agriculture the provision of a dwelling for his occupation forms part of his remuneration, and the provisions of the last foregoing subsection are inapplicable by reason only of the dwelling
  not being let to him, section four of the Act of 1950 (which applies section three of the said Act to houses occupied by workmen engaged in agriculture) shall have effect in relation to that dwelling and to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection as it has effect in relation to such a house as is mentioned in that section and to the provisions of the said section three of that Act.—[Miss Herbison.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Miss Herbison: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Willis: I beg to second the Motion.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 238.

  Division No. 59.]

  AYES

  [6.11 p.m.

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Albu, A. H.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Edelman, M.

  Kenyon, C.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Edwards, Robert (Bllston)

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Edwards, W.J. (Stepney)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Balfour, A.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, s. W.)

  Lindgren, G. S.

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

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Benson, Sir George

  Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

  McAlister, Mrs. Mary

  Beswick, Frank

  Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)

  McCann, J.

  Blackburn, F.

  Forman, J. C.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Blyton, W, R.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Mclnnes, J.

  Boardman, H.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  McLeavy, Frank

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

  Grey, C. F.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Bowles, F. G.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon, James (Llanelly)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Boyd, T. C.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Mahon, Simon

  Brockway, A. F.

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersf'd, E.)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Hannan, W.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Brown, Thomas (Inoe)

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Mason, Roy

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Hasting, S.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, G.)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Champion, A. J.

  Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

  Monslow, W.

  Chapman, w. D.

  Holman, P.

  Moody, A, S.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Clunie, J.

  Hoy, J. H.

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

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mort, D. L.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Moss, R.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Moyle, A.

  Cronin, J. D.

  Hunter, A. E.

  Mulley, F. W.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

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

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Oram, A. E.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Janner, B.

  Owen, W. J.

  Deer, G.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Padley, W. E.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

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

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Diamond, John

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Parker, J.

  Paton, John

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Pearson, A.

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

  Weitzman, D.

  Peart, T. F.

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Pentland, N.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Popplewell, E.

  Snow, J. W.

  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, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Wigg, George

  Probert, A. R.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Steele, T.

  Willey, Frederick

  Randall, H. E.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Rankin, John

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

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

  Reeves, J.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Reid, William

  Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Rhodes, H.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Thornton, E.

  Woof, R. E.

  Ross, William

  Timmons, J.

  Yates, V, (Ladywood)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Tomney, F.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Viant, S. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Warbey, W. N.

  Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Short.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Drayson, G. B.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Aitken, w. T.

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Johnson, Dr, Donald (Carlisle)

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

  Duncan, Sir James

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Arbuthnot John

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Kimball, M.

  Armstrong, C, W,

  Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Ashton, H.

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Leavey, J. A.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Leburn, W. G.

  Baldwin, Sir Archer

  Fell, A.

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

  Balniel, Lord

  Finlay, Graeme

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Barber, Anthony

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Freeth, Denzil

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

  Barter, John

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Batsford, Brian

  Gammans, Lady

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

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Glover, D.

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Glyn, Col. Richard H.

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

  Godber, J. B.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Bingham, R. M.

  Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

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

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Bishop, F. P.

  Green, A.

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Grimond, J.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Body, R, F.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

  Gurden, Harold

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

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

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maddan, Martin

  Braine, B. R.

  Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

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

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Marshall, Douglas

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Hay, John

  Mathew, R,

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Llonel

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Campbell, Sir David

  Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. C.

  Mawby, R. L.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

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

  Channon, H. p. G.

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Cole, Norman

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Neave, Airey

  Cooke, Robert

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

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

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Hornby, R. P.

  Noble, Michael (Argyll)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Horobin, Sir Ian

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Howard, John (Test)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

  Osborne, C.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Page, R. G.

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

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

  Peel, W. J.

  de Ferranti, Basil

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

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Pike, Mist Mervyn

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pitman, I. J.

  1316

  1317

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Shepherd, William

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Pott, H. P.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Speir, R. M.

  Wade, D. W.

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Redmayne, M.

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Wall, Patrick

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

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

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Storey, S.

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Webster, David

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Teeling, W.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Temple, John M.

  Woollam, John Victor

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Russell, R. S.

  Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Mr. Bryan and Mr. Whitelaw.

  Sharples, R. C.

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Clause 1.—(APPROVAL OF BUILDING SOCIETIES FOR INVESTMENT BY TRUSTEES AND GOVERNMENT LOANS.)
  Sir Herbert Butcher: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, at the end to insert:
  (5) The Treasury may by order vary the amount specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section.
  The purpose of the Amendment is to allow the figure £5,000, the maximum amount of deposit which a trustee may make, to be varied without the need for additional legislation.
  I move this Amendment because all figures tend to become out of date, but more, perhaps, because £5,000 is also the maximum investment to which the composite rate of Income Tax payable on building society deposits applies. This last figure can be altered at any time by agreement between the Inland Revenue and the Building Societies Association. It is desirable that there should be machinery for altering the figure in the Bill so that that figure can fall within any alteration in the Income Tax arrangements. If my right hon. Friend cares to examine Clause 2 (3) he will find a very good precedent.
  Sir Cyril W. Black: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The Amendment will bring a desirable flexibility into these arrangements. I do not think I need add anything more to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher).
  Mr. Mitchison: On this side of the House we see no objection to the Amendment.
  Mr. H. Brooke: I am glad to hear that, because on the Government side also we see no objection. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for having drawn attention to this possibility of improving the Bill. It may be necessary for the £5,000 limit to be changed, and it would be awkward if we needed fresh legislation to change the £5,000 now in the Bill. On behalf of the Government I am happy to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Reynolds: Before we agree to this Amendment, I would draw attention to the fact that it is apparently easy to persuade the Government—I am not objecting—to give concessions in the Bill to the building societies, compared with the difficulty there is of getting concessions for the local authorities.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 5.—(APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR STANDARD GRANT.)
  Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 5, line 17, at the end to insert:
  "not be overcrowded (within the meaning of section seventy-seven of the Housing Act. 1957, which defines overcrowding) and will".
  Mr. Speaker: This Amendment might be taken with the corresponding one in Clause 20, page 13, line 34, at the end to insert:
  "not be overcrowded (within the meaning of section forty-nine of the Act of 1950, which defines overcrowding) and will".
  There can be two Divisions, if they are required.
  Miss Herbison: We feel very strongly in Scotland about overcrowding. The Solicitor-General for Scotland will know, as does everyone in Scotland, how serious overcrowding is in our country. We have a very much worse record than any

  1319
  other place in the United Kingdom and almost the worst record of any place in Western Europe. In Committee, two similar Amendments to this were moved, and both were rejected. The Minister of Housing and Local Government said, when rejecting one of those Amendments:
  "But it would be quite wrong to make it a condition of a standard grant that the house shall not be overcrowded when the work is done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1959; Vol. 599. c. 710.]
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State, speaking to the Scottish Amendment on 18th February, said:
  "We feel that we can do no more than leave it to those concerned, the local authorities, to judge each case on its merit in relation to what can or cannot be done by standard grant, deciding whether an application for a grant is a valid one or not. As a housing authority, the authority must do its best to find new homes for those who are in the greatest need."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1939, Vol. 600, c. 448.]
  That statement by the Joint Under-Secretary of State might have been made by someone outside Scotland. It is very difficult to reconcile it with representing a constituency in Glasgow.
  I want to take up one point, because it contains an argument that we shall be hearing again. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was left to those who were concerned, the local authorities, to judge each case. Under the provisions of the Bill the local authority cannot take into consideration questions of overcrowding. If a house satisfies the conditions that it is fit for human habitation and will be so for at least fifteen years, it is obligatory for the local authority to give the standard grant. The reason given by the Joint Under-Secretary of State does not, therefore, hold according to the provisions of the Government's own Bill.
  I turn to the other reason given by the Joint Under-Secretary of State and by the Minister. Both suggested that local authorities had power to deal with overcrowding. The obligation is put on local authorities to give the standard grant. When it is found that by giving the amenities a house becomes overcrowded, the local authority can say, "This house is overcrowded", and it must insist upon the tenants being evicted. The Minister and the Joint Under-Secretary of State
  1320
  say, "That is all right. The local authority will find accommodation for the tenants," but that is just not possible. In almost every area that I know in Scotland it is not possible to do so. I am sure that many English hon. Members will confirm that from their constituencies.
  There has been much unemployment in Scotland. Redundancies have been caused. In one part of my constituency men have been made redundant who have been living in tied cottages on service tenancies, and they have been told to get out. They have no protection under the law, and they must get out. The local authority tells them and me that the housing position in that village—it is not a city—is such that the local authority can make no promise to find alternative accommodation for the evicted families. It is, therefore, just nonsense for either Minister to suggest that if overcrowding is brought about by the Bill the local authorities can easily find alternative accommodation for the families.
  If families are evicted by the powers which local authorities have for dealing with overcrowding, landlords may like that, and they may apply for the standard amenities in the hope that overcrowding will take place. This will ensure that the tenants are evicted, whether or not there is accommodation for them. Landlords, particularly of controlled tenancies, will then be able to sell the houses, getting a much larger sum of money than otherwise. In another part of the Bill the Government, again tender to the landlord, say that landlords will not be forced to pay any part of the standard grant back to the local authority. Under a previous Act by this Government, houses are decontrolled immediately any of the controlled tenancies become vacant. If by overcrowding they become vacant, the very fact that they have these standard amenities will help the owner to get a much higher rent than he might otherwise get.
  6.30 p.m.
  I come back to the question of overcrowding. We are seriously perturbed about it. The Joint Under-Secretary of State has spoken of the housing record of the Conservative Government. What has that record been? In Scotland, where we have been cursed with the

  1321
  social evil of too small houses—oneroom and two-room houses—this Government, by their form of subsidies, have made it almost impossible for local authorities to build the bigger houses we desperately need. All their actions have been leading to greater overcrowding in Scotland. I beg the Minister and the Solicitor-General for Scotland to have second thoughts on this matter. It is a matter of great importance to many thousands of decent people in Scotland.
  Mr. McInnes: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I need not reiterate the very strong case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison). The Solicitor-General for Scotland is aware, as my hon. Friend indicated, that the curse of Scotland is undoubtedly small houses. That applies no only to the older type of property, but to the type of houses being built under this Government. It is a shocking state of affairs that this Government should concentrate on building, to the extent of almost 70 per cent. of the new houses, those of three apartments. In Scotland we have the worst overcrowding problem of any part of Great Britain.
  For example, the Solicitor-General knows that in housing standards and size of houses in Glasgow alone 70 per cent. are one-, two- or three-apartment houses, whereas in Birmingham there are only 14 per cent. of that type of houses, in Manchester 10 per cent., and in Liverpool 11 per cent. The percentage of overcrowding in Great Britain, with people living more than two persons to a room, is 3·56 per cent. In perhaps the worst English town, Liverpool, the percentage is 3·56 per cent., but in Glasgow it is 26 per cent. The local authority should satisfy itself before making necessary provision for grant that there will be no overcrowding in a house which qualifies for improvement grant.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As the hon. Members for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) are aware, I know something from personal experience of the housing situation in Glasgow. I agree that overcrowding is a problem which has been with us for a long time and may continue to be with us for some time to come, but I doubt whether that is really relevant to this Amendment.
  1322
  I shall deal with it perhaps from a slightly legal point of view. It seems that, however well-intentioned the Amendment is, it would drive a carriage and four through the whole provisions of the Bill. Under Clause 20 (2), before any grant is approved:
  "The local authority must be satisfied that …"
  and then, in the terms of the Amendment, that the house concerned will "not be overcrowded". [Interruption.] I am sorry, I was dealing with the Scottish Amendment put down to Clause 20, page 13, line 34. I believe we are discussing both Amendments together and I should like to deal with the Scottish one because I am rather more familiar with that part of the Bill. By that Amendment:
  "The local authority must be satisfied that after the execution of the works specified in the application the dwelling will not be overcrowded".
  Miss Herbison: No, "unfit for human habitation".
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am sorry, I am dealing with the later Amendment, by which the words would be "will not be overcrowded". If we put that in,
  "The local authority must he satisfied that … the dwelling will not be overcrowded",
  and that puts a tremendous burden and onus on the applicant. How can any local authority be satisfied that when the application is granted there may not be another child, or a grandmother, coming into the house? Any local authority which was in doubt would have to reject the application. One cannot put an onus like that on the applicant if one hopes that the Bill will succeed.
  Mr. McInnes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is abundantly aware that the provision ensures that the local authority must satisfy itself at the time of application that such and such conditions do not exist. That is at the time of application and, therefore, must not presuppose that the authority has to anticipate what the additional family might be in the years ahead.
  Mr. A. Evans: On the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman about another child coming into the house, if he turns to the definition of overcrowding he will see that, if such a

  1323
  child arrives later, that is allowed for and would not itself cause the house to be overcrowded.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I entirely agree, but I put it rather differently, a child may attain a certain birthday, but equally, a grandmother may come into the house. It puts a tremendous onus on the applicant to have to satisfy the local authority that the house will not be overcrowded, will be in such and such a condition, and so on.
  Surely the protection we have written into the Bill—I think wisely—in Committee is that the occupier has to consent in writing to the application. If the occupier or the landlord wants to improve the house, should they not be entitled to do it even if overcrowding might possibly result? After all, we are in a free State. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North has been talking about Conservative freedom, which I understand she saw mentioned on a non-glossy poster the other day. If the occupier and the landlord both want to improve property, why should not they be allowed to have that done, even though overcrowding may result.
  Mr. MacColl: I do not mind the right hon. and learned Member going backwards, but he is going backwards rather a long way because he proposes virtually to repeal the Housing Act, 1935, in England—I do not know what is the corresponding Act in Scotland—which made overcrowding an offence. Parliament made it an offence whatever the landlord and the tenant might think about it, because they thought that it was a public scandal to permit overcrowding. The right hon. and learned Member now tells us, "If the landlord and tenant agree, why should we worry about it?" It is good to know where the Government stand.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The Government are standing and will continue to stand. I do not know the situation in England. In Scotland there are provisions making overcrowding an offence after an appointed day, but apart from certain burghs in which the appointed day has been named, overcrowding is not at the moment an offence in Scotland. Once overcrowding becomes an offence or a crime, that will stop overcrowding and we shall not need the
  1324
  overcrowding provision in the Amendment. Overcrowding would be stopped by issuing a summons on the person concerned.
  Miss Herbison: If the hon. and learned Member looks at Sections 48 and 49 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, he need read only the rubric. Section 48 reads,
  "Duty of local authority to inspect and to make reports and proposals as to overcrowding."
  Section 49 contains a definition of overcrowding. From the Solicitor-General's statement one would think that we had been very foolish in passing that Act and that we were taking away liberties in not allowing people to be overcrowded. I advise him to reconsider these matters. Is he also aware that local authorities are very careful, when rehousing their people, to ensure that they are not overcrowded? They stick rigidly to what is laid down in the 1950 Act.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am fully aware of the problem. Had the hon. Lady turned over the page she would have seen that I was dealing not with Sections 48 and 49 but with Section 50 and was pointing out that the offences in relation to overcrowding take effect only from the appointed day. Except in certain minor respects, broadly speaking there has been no appointed day. If overcrowding were a possible result of the execution of works under the Clause, the remedy in due course would be to deal with it under Section 50 when overcrowding was a crime. The law being as it is and conditions being as they are, if both the tenant and the landlord want an improvement, why should they not have it? The Amendment may well prevent them from having it because of the great burden of proof which would be placed on the applicant.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: I have heard the Solicitor-General for Scotland reply to debates on many occasions, but I am bound to say that I have rarely heard him as poor as he was today. I think that when he reads the report of what he said he will realise just how poor was the reply which he made to the cogent arguments of my hon. Friends.
  I have no desire to repeat those arguments, but, to sum them up, they were that we aimed to prevent an aggravation

  1325
  of the overcrowding problem. That is the object of the Amendment. The Solicitor-General's reply was astonishing. It was that the Government are no longer following the policy of seeking to stop the growth of overcrowding.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: That, I hope, was not what I said and it was certainly not what I intended to convey. I said that we were faced with an overcrowding problem. Even with the houses built in Scotland under this Government, that will probably continue for some time. Heaven knows what will happen if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are returned to power.
  Mr. Willis: We are not discussing what will happen when my right hon. Friends are returned to power. We are discussing what the Solicitor-General told us was the Government's policy in relation to these Amendments. He said that if an owner and an occupier want this improvement, even though it means overcrowding, why should they not have it?
  Mr. MacColl: They are paid to make the improvement.
  Mr. Willis: The Government hope that they will do it. They are distributing considerable largesse to people who do not need it in order that the improvement may be done. I am surprised that the Solicitor-General, particularly as he represents a Glasgow constituency, should say at the Box, "We are willing to pay people to aggravate the overcrowding situation in Glasgow."
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: That is not what I said. I said that if the tenant wishes to have the amenities he should be entitled to have them under the Bill and should not be hindered by the Amendment, which would deprive him of the amenities which he wants.
  Mr. MacColl: Even if he is overcrowded.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Even if he is overcrowded. Let him have the amenities he wants. The Amendment would take away freedom from the unfortunate tenant, as the Socialists always want to take away freedom. They say that he should be prevented from having what he desires. That is Socialist policy.
  Mr. Willis: The Solicitor-General is trying to modify his answer in the light of al examination of it. While I appreciate
  1326
  the political reasons for which he wants to do that, particularly as he represents a Glasgow constituency, if he reads HANSARD tomorrow he will find that he said that the Government were prepared to condone this and to finance it. The Government are financing these improvements to property, and they are anxious to finance them even though they lead to overcrowding. Even though the figure of overcrowding in Glasgow is already 30 per cent., the Government are prepared to see it go higher.
  The Solicitor-General's argument was, "Let the people be free. Set them free. Why should we interfere between what the landlord and the tenant desire to do?" There is a very good reason, and it is that we are spending public money. I thought that it was the duty of the House when spending public money to see that it was properly accounted for and, where necessary, to lay down certain provisions to ensure that it was spent in the interests of the community and the welfare of the country. Apparently the Government Front Bench deny that.
  So much for the Minister's reply to the first point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) that without these Amendments we should run a serious risk of aggravating overcrowding. The second point raised by my hon. Friend was that unless we accepted the Amendment we ran a considerable risk that the overcrowding could be used for the purpose of getting rid of the tenant by bringing the house within the decontrol provisions of the Rent Act, which would enable landlords to profiteer at the expense of public money. That is what the charge was, and I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North who moved the Amendment, made it very clearly. The sum and substance of it was that unless the Government accepted the Amendment, we should be making it possible for landlords to profiteer at the public expense and out of the expenditure of public money.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave no reply to that at all. The reply which he gave us tonight failed to deal with the first point, while, of course, no reply at all was given to the second point made in support of the Amendment. In those circumstances, I sincerely hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will divide the House.
  Mr. MacColl: I do not think that this is a case where Scotland leads England. If I could help the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I would remind him that in the Housing Act, 1936—the English Act—overcrowding was made an offence, subject to an appointed day, just as it is in the 1950 Act, but owing to overcrowding not being such a serious problem in England, it has now been made an offence universally. In Scotland, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), overcrowding is so serious that only in 1950 was it possible to pass an Act, and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman told us, the appointed day has not yet been made universal.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman prays in aid the fact that overcrowding is so serious in Scotland that it is not possible to have an appointed day for the whole country, as it is in England, as a very good reason for saying that we should encourage and subsidise increasing overcrowding. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says it is nonsense and just like the Labour Party, which does not believe in freedom, to want to prevent the increase of overcrowding in Scotland because, after all, there is no appointed day to make it universal.
  If that is what he said, and if he speaks for the Scottish Office when he says that, I feel more sympathy for my hon. Friends now than I felt for them during the long and weary weeks I have listened to them wrestling with the Scottish Office upstairs, because that cannot be what the Secretary of State intends to do. Is it?
  If I may come back to the English position, which is a good deal clearer, my worry, as it is the worry of my hon. Friends who are English Members, is that if a local authority gives one of these improvement grants and creates overcrowding by taking a room out of occupation, the effect will be that it is aiding and abetting the creation of that kind of occupation which is an offence. The present occupation is not an offence, but it would be an offence as a result of the improvement grant. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates that point, because it is important.
  What the Minister said in Committee was that it did not matter, because the local authorities could easily rehouse the
  1328
  people who were displaced from the house. In other words, if the landlord wanted to get rid of a tenant he did not like, say, a Labour Party voter, or something of that sort, all he had to do was to take his grant from the local authority, put a bath in a bedroom, create overcrowding in the house, and go back to the town hall and say "Look, an offence has been created; rehouse these people immediately." Then, whatever the state of the waiting list, according to the Minister's suggestion, the housing committee will have to rehouse these people because they are overcrowded. That is what will happen unless the Amendments are accepted.
  For the Minister to suggest that the local authority can rehouse people overcrowded as a result of his own subsidy policy is absolute nonsense. Some local authorities have stopped any building for general need. Certainly, a great many of those I know have stopped it, and the only rehousing that there is available for people displaced as a result of overcrowding are houses which happen to fall vacant casually, and they are not very many.
  A good many local authorities which already have a waiting list have put a stop on their waiting lists, and unless people have been on the list for two or three years, they cannot even be considered for rehousing. I know of a case in my own constituency—and I am sure that similar examples could be quoted by all hon. Members who represent industrial constituencies—of a man, his wife and three or four children encamped in one room in a small house. The local authority has admitted that they are shockingly overcrowded, but has said that it saw no hope of rehousing them for a matter of four or five years.
  Against that background, we are told by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Conservative Party is setting people free. We are told about the right of the landlord and tenant, if they want, to have a bathroom put in the house. They can compel the local authority to make a grant and to have it put in, regardless of the effect on the overcrowding situation in the house. That is putting the clock back to about 1936, because as long ago as 1936 we began to tackle overcrowding as one of the biggest menaces in housing. Now, we are

  1329
  apparently told that it is no longer the policy of the Government, because it is not a question of a local authority exercising its discretion in favour of it, but of its being compelled to do it, whether it wants to do so or not. If we are compelling the local authority to reverse housing policy, as expressed in legislation for over twenty years in England, surely we ought at least to put in a saving Clause and say that it need not do it unless it thinks it is in the general interests that it should be done.
  The Minister will not agree to that. He says the local authorities will not have any let out at all. The local authorities are to be compelled to make these grants in order to have a room converted into a bathroom, regardless of its effect on the overcrowded situation in the douse, and regardless of the likelihood of the family being rehoused in other property by the housing committee. The situation is bad enough in all conscience, but the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman attempts to defend it simply takes one's breath away. It is about time we had some clearer explanation of whether he is interpreting the policy of the Secretary of State for Scotland correctly.
  Mr. A. Evans: I think the Parliamentary Secretary should, in due course, reply to the important points we have made on these Amendments, because this is a very serious matter. Unless this Amendment is put into the Bill, or at some later stage some words to the same effect are included, local authorities will be faced with a very serious position.
  They are to be obliged by the Bill, when it becomes an Act, to condone overcrowding, and they will be forced by the Act to become parties to the overcrowding of dwelling-houses. They are to be obliged by the Bill to flout the enactments about overcrowding already on the Statute Book. The Government Front Bench must deal with this matter. We cannot allow this to go through without the Minister giving us a very carefully considered reply, because we see that the Bill will in due course oblige local authorities to countenance and be parties to the flouting of the provisions of the 1957 Act relating to overcrowding. We must insist that the Government face this possibility and either accept the Amendment or promise that some similar words
  1330
  will be inserted at a later stage—perhaps in another place—to meet the point.
  7.0 p.m.
  It is quite clear that the local authority will have no discretion. The Bill clearly lays down that local authorities must make the grant so long as two conditions are fulfilled. The first is that the house will not be unfit for human habitation, and the second is that the owner has a I5-year interest in it. These conditions having been satisfied, the local authority will be obliged to make the grant even though the house is already overcrowded, or may become so as a result of the improvements.
  It is incredible that the Government have not become earlier aware of the false position into which local authorities will be driven, and have not attempted to put the matter right. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not adopt the argument used by the Solicitor-General for Scotland and tell us that if a house is overcrowded the remedy is simple—the local authority just enforces the overcrowding provisions of the 1957 Act. That will not meet the situation, because he knows, as does his right hon. Friend, that it is impossible for many local authorities in urban areas to enforce those overcrowding provisions. I trust that he will help us to find a way out of the local authorities' dilemma.
  Mr. Reynolds: I never thought that in this House I would hear a member of the Government arguing, in effect, in favour of public financial help in the creation of overcrowding. I can imagine past generations of sanitary inspectors virtually spinning in their graves at the thought of such a statement being uttered in this enlightened day and age.
  One of the main reasons given by the Solicitor-General for Scotland for finding difficulty in accepting the Amendment was that it would place an unreasonable obligation on the owner or occupier of the property. I do not accept that. Section 78 of the 1957 Act lays down the penalties that can be imposed on persons causing overcrowding. There is already a penalty of £5 for the first offence, and a further fine not exceeding £2 per day for the period during which the overcrowding lasts.
  Let us look at the obligations placed on the landlord. Subsection (5) of Section

  1331
  78 of the 1957 Act says that the landlord of an overcrowded house
  "… shall be deemed to cause or permit it to be overcrowded … if, when letting the house the landlord, or any person effecting the letting on the landlord's behalf, had reasonable cause to believe that it would become overcrowded … or failed to make inquiries of the proposed occupier as to the number, age, and sex of persons who would be allowed to sleep in the house …"
  Therefore, the 1957 Act—and that was a consolidation Measure, some of the provisions of which had been in operation for many years—states that a landlord may be deemed to have committed an offence if he forgets or omits to inquire from incoming tenants how many persons there are in the family, whether or not they are married, and the age and sex of those who are to occupy the property. If we accept that a landlord has committed an offence by his forgetfulness or omission, I do not think it can be said that, when an application is being made for a standard grant, we are putting on the owner of a property an excessive obligation by stipulating that he shall tell the local authority—at the time of the application—just who actually occupies the property, and their age and sex. We cannot, of course, look into the future and decide whether or not the property will be overcrowded in two, three or even ten years' time. This is something that has to be dealt with at the time of the application.
  The Parliamentary Secretary represents in this House a part of England and Wales that suffers most from overcrowding. I believe that he has had a certain amount of experience on the council of one of the great cities there. He must realise, although his right hon. Friend the Minister did not appear to realise it in Committee, that for most of the urban authorities it is virtually impossible to take effective action on overcrowding under Sections 77 and 78 of the Housing Act, 1957.
  It is not good enough to say that the local authorities already have adequate powers to deal with this problem. My own council of the Metropolitan Borough of Islington has not sufficient housing accommodation at the moment to deal with people living in properties that are the subject of closing or demolition orders, let alone those affected by overcrowding notices. It has to deal with the closing and demolition cases first—they
  1332
  are the worst—but it has not sufficient property vacant to accommodate the people taken out of houses that ought to be demolished or closed. The people have to stay in them until the local authority can scrape together one or two flats to rehouse some of those affected by demolition orders. The Islington Borough Council just cannot look at overcrowded cases at all.
  My council is extremely concerned about the situation that will be created. An applicant will be able to demand from the local authority the standard grant for the improvement of property that is either already overcrowded, or—and this is very much more important—will become statutorily overcrowded as the result of the improvement work. Local authorities should not be placed in that position.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland asked why, if the owner of the property and the occupier agree, they should not be allowed to go ahead and have the desired amenities. That could create a profitable racket. A tenant may be half way up the housing list, with not much chance of rehousing at present. The owner will seek his consent to the improvement work. The tenant knows that if one room is taken from him to be converted into a bathrom his points on the waiting list will shoot up and he will stand a very good chance of being quickly rehoused because of his statutory overcrowding.
  In those circumstances, he would welcome the improvement, not because it would improve the property but because it would enable him to get further up the housing list and, as it were, jump the queue. At the same time, the landlord would be willing to do the work because he would get vacant possession of that part of the house. That could happen, especially in the congested Metropolitan boroughs of London, and I hope that we shall get at least some concession from the Minister.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I should like to give the House a very short justification for the Clause as it stands, but before doing so I think it right to try to dispel one or two of the misunderstandings and misstatements that have cropped up in this debate. It is quite true that I have had some little experience of local

  1333
  government, and my right hon. Friend has had a great deal more. It is equally true, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) has said, that certain tricks—some reputable, some less reputable—are practised by people when trying to get houses from local authorities.
  Having listened to all the speeches with the greatest sense of objectivity that I can muster, I must say that some of the statements made by hon. Members opposite have almost given me the impression that they are opposed to the execution of any improvement works at all. I am trying to be perfectly fair. That is the impression which several statements from hon. Members opposite have given to my hon. Friends on this side of the House.
  The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) referred to a statement which was supposed to have been made by my right hon. Friend at an earlier stage of the Bill. He suggested that my right hon. Friend had said: "In certain circumstances local authorities can always use their overcrowding powers. They can enforce those powers and they can always re-house the overcrowded families". My right hon. Friend said nothing of the sort. My right hon. Friend said:
  "The hon. Member"—
  that was the hon. Member for Islington, North—
  "will, of course, grant that many local authorities are able to use these powers now that two million houses have been built in the last seven years. It must not be thought that there is any diminution here in the powers of the local authorities to deal with overcrowding."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 710.]
  That was what my right hon. Friend said. That is a very different proposition from the words which were attributed to him by the hon. Member for Widnes.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) said that in many areas it is not possible for local authorities to enforce the overcrowding provisions of the Housing Acts. I concede at once that in certain areas of the country—certain parts of London and certain Farts of the large provincial cities—that is the case, and that overcrowding undoubtedly exists. Today there is far less overcrowding in these areas than there was seven years ago. Two million additional new houses have been built in the last seven years, all of which have
  1334
  made their contribution to the relief of overcrowding throughout the country.
  Mr. A. Evans: With respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, I do not think that on this matter we should enter into a political argument as between the two parties. I asked the hon. Gentleman in my short speech to face the dilemma of the local authorities. The Bill will force them to condone overcrowding. What are they to do?
  Mr. Bevins: I am coming to that. I am not trying to escape from any of the arguments that have been advanced during the course of the debate.
  The hon. Member for Widnes also asked a rather more serious question as to the position of a local authority which might entertain an application for a standard grant, approve the application and subsequently find that overcrowding exists. His question was whether in those circumstances the local authority might not be held to be abetting the offence of overcrowding in accordance with Section 78 of the Housing Act, 1957. I should like to tell the hon. Member and his hon. Friends that I have studied that question. I confess that when I first looked at it I could see no possibility at all that a local authority in those circumstances would find itself in difficulty. The legal advice which I have received is that there is no real possibility of a local authority in such circumstances committing an offence under the Housing Act. 1957.
  May I now turn to the substance of what we have been debating this evening. The Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and some of his hon. Friends says quite simply that a local authority must be satisfied that, after the improvements have been carried out, not only shall the dwelling not be unfit for human habitation—I apologise for the double negative—but also that it shall not be statutorily overcrowded. I should like to remind the House that Clause 5 as it stands is so drafted as to ensure that public money is not spent on a house which is not worth improving because it might be pulled down within a period of fifteen years.
  The submission that my right hon. Friend made, and I think rightly made, when the point was under discussion at an earlier stage was that overcrowding

  1335
  is essentially a different matter from unfitness, in the sense that overcrowding does not involve the purely physical unworthiness of the house. As was said in the course of earlier debates, the powers of local authorities to deal with overcrowding are completely unimpaired by anything which is given effect to in the Bill.
  7.15 p.m.
  I have refreshed my memory about what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering and other hon. Members in our earlier discussions, which I thought were a little clearer than the discussions which we have had this evening—though there was complete clarity on this side of the House. The anxiety expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite was that the works of improvement might produce overcrowding and might, therefore, in certain circumstances, lead to a tenant being evicted. That is a serious argument, to which my right hon. Friend has addressed his attention in recent times. I hope I shall be forgiven if I read to the House a short extract from the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering when this was last discussed. The hon. And learned Member said:
  "I look at this piece of Tory legislation having regard to one thing and one thing only—who will benefit in the long run. The answer in this respect is as clear as daylight. The landlord is equipped with the means of promoting overcrowding if he so wishes. Because the tenant's consent is not required, the landlord is enabled to use the provisions of the Bill to procure overcrowding and get the tenant evicted by the local authority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 711 and 712.]
  In fairness to the Government, the House will agree that in view of the Amendments which have been written into the Bill since that date there can be no serious foundation for the fears that were expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. As my right hon. and learned Friend said earlier, we have written into the Bill, both as regards England and Wales and as regards Scotland, a specific provision that an application for a grant must contain the statement that the tenant has given his consent in writing to the application to carry out the standard works.
  I submit in all seriousness that no tenant is likely to agree to changes which are likely to lead to overcrowding in his
  1336
  home. Let us take the case of a married couple with two young boys. They may be living in a house with two main bedrooms and a small bedroom, commonly known as a boxroom. They might in those circumstances very well agree to the conversion of the small bedroom or boxroom into a separate bathroom which the house lacked. That would be perfectly reasonable. It would not involve any element of overcrowding. Quite clearly, if in the same family circumstances the house contained only two small bedrooms, the tenant would be most unlikely to agree to the conversion of one of the bedrooms into a bathroom.
  I feel that we have to look at this from a common sense and realistic point of view. If I were the tenant of one of these houses, and the landlord came along with proposals to improve the property by the provision of standard amenities, quite clearly I should look at that proposal not only from the point of view of improved amenities in my home, but also from the point of view of requiring for myself, my wife and family, the necessary space and sleeping accommodation. With the best will in the world, I do not think that the Amendment, even if my right hon. Friend were able to accept it, would achieve anything worth while.
  I reiterate what my right hon. Friend said when the point was before the House at an earlier stage. It would be quite wrong to make it a condition of giving a grant that there would not be overcrowding when the work is completed. In the overwhelming majority of cases this provision would be unnecessary, but in any case overcrowding, unlike unfitness, can be remedied by the ordinary processes of law and changing circumstances.
  For those reasons, which I hope that the House will find acceptable, I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.
  Mr. Mitchison: On the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I began by saying that his right hon. Friend was putting forward the most monstrous suggestions and by pointing out that overcrowding is a public ill. So it is, whether in Scotland or in England. In 1935 legislation was introduced in Scotland to deal with the housing problems, and it is characteristic of the Scottish position that the Act began by

  1337
  trying to deal with overcrowding. In that Act overcrowding was made a punishable offence, as it is in England.
  There was another provision in that Act whereby a stock of houses had to be provided to deal with overcrowding. The reason why the 1950 Act was qualified by provisions about an appointed day was that a day cannot be appointed until half of that stock of houses has been provided. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Scotland will look at the end of his own Act, he will find that that is so. It is the most striking testimony to the prevalence of overcrowding in Scotland and to the failure of successive British Governments of all complexions to deal with it, that there are still places in Scotland where, because the houses cannot be provided, overcrowding is not an offence, no appointed day having been made.
  On paper we are a little better off in England, but it does not need anyone to tell any hon. Member, and particularly those concerned with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, that in many parts of England overcrowding is a very serious matter indeed. Broadly speaking, in every large town in the country there is quite serious overcrowding, and English legislation provides that it is the duty of local authorities to ascertain what there is, to report upon it, to take steps to abate it, and further to enforce the penalties which English law puts on those who commit it or abet it.
  We are told by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is all right if the landlord and the tenant both want to be overcrowded; why, therefore, should the Government fail to give public money for the purpose? That, we are told, is Tory freedom. A strange light is thrown upon it from Scotland. We are dealing here with public money. The present position is that a landlord, having his tenant's consent—that has been introduced by Amendment—can go to the local authority and say, "My house fulfils the conditions for a standard grant. There are the conditions laid down in this Act of Parliament. I want a grant." The local authority replies, "But the effect of that. will be that your house will be overcrowded." The applicant says, "Yes, I know that. I know it will be an offence,
  1338
  but let us wait till we come to it. Let us do nothing meanwhile. You have got to provide the public money with which I may commit an offence."
  An offence is going to be committed by both the landlord and the consenting tenant. What the Government are proposing to do is not merely to promote the commission of such an offence but to promote it by the expenditure of substantial sums of public money. That, we are told, is Tory freedom. In fact, it is Tory freedom to break the law and to do it at the expense of public money. Those who desire to get overcrowding abated and dealt with, as we on this side of the House do, and who certainly do not wish that public money shall be used for the purpose of promoting overcrowding, are told that we are tyrants and oppressors.
  If that is to be the argument, where are we getting to? Overcrowding may be promoted at public expense. What about all the other evils from which our cities have suffered for generations, which the Public Health Acts and the like have been brought in to prevent? Are they, too, to be aided and abetted at public expense? Are Tory Governments going to refuse the granting of public money on the ground that public health is going to be injured, or are they not? It is a precisely parallel state.
  Overcrowding has been an offence for public health reasons. It is bad for people to live in overcrowded houses, just as it is bad for people to live in unfit houses. The Government are unable to separate the harm and damage that is done by an unfit house from the equally great harm and damage that may be done by allowing people to live in an overcrowded state in a perfectly good house. If that were treated merely as a matter of speculation, no one would object. We have seen stranger doctrines and thoughts come from the Tory Party. But when they allow public money to be used and refuse to protect the use of public money for what is a criminal purpose, we say that, indeed, Tory freedom leads to some remarkable consequences.
  I say "criminal purpose", for look what is going to happen. Take the case which was put recently. A bathroom is put into a house that is full. Any more people added to it or any rooms removed will make it overcrowded. The result of putting in a bathroom is, as everybody

  1339
  knew beforehand, that the house is overcrowded. An offence is being committed by the landlord and the tenant. It is the local authorities' duty to enforce the provisions relating to overcrowding. They will prosecute. Those who finance the commission of the offence are put by the Tory Party in the position of having to prosecute that which they themselves have permitted.
  Mr. Bevins: In the case which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just cited, both the owner of the property and the tenant were perfectly well aware that by virtue of the improvement the house would become statutorily overcrowded. In those circumstances—most hypothetical circumstances—the tenant would know that he was running the risk of being evicted from his property.
  Mr. Mitchison: We all know that. But the point is that it is said the conditions of the Bill are fulfilled and the local authority, protesting, is not allowed to refuse a standard grant because the Government will not accept the Amendment. Everyone knows that this will lead to overcrowding. We get the absurd result that at the end of the day the local authority is compelled to prosecute for an offence which it had to finance out of public money. Was there ever a more monstrous suggestion put into a Bill?—and that, by the refusal of this Amendment, is exactly what the Government are promoting. Do they really like overcrowding?
  We are told that it can easily be remedied. How is it going to be remedied?—by moving people out of the house. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) said in an earlier debate, where are they to go? I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would consider the
  answer to that question? Are there no people at present in London who find it somewhat difficult to get houses, who find that they are driven into unconscionable covenants because of their difficulty in getting houses, who are made to pay too much rent or who have to buy a house simply because there is a great shortage of houses in the Metropolis? Is not the position the same in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and all the large towns? Where are the people to go if, as a result of this Bill, they have to leave their houses in order to avoid committing a criminal offence?
  No doubt, the money under this Bill may be well spent, but this is the same Government which has produced this shortage of houses, by decontrolling houses in London and by removing the housing subsidies. The Government must take full responsibility. As for the man driven out because he is a law-abiding person and cannot continue living in a private house, where is he to go?
  7.30 p.m.
  The Government know perfectly well that they must take full responsibility both for what they are doing now in financing crime out of public money and for the consequences that will happen to the people who have to move out of these houses, because, after all, it still remains crime, is this the sort of expedient that the Government have been driven to? What extraordinary folly—and to do it in the name of freedom. Freedom to commit crime is, of course, a kind of freedom, and we now know what kind of freedom Tory freedom is in this connection.
  Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 218.

  Division No. 60.]

  AYES

  [7.32 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Bowles, F. G.

  Cronin, J. D.

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Boyd, T. C.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Albu, A. H.

  Brockway, A. F.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Deer, C.

  Balfour, A.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

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

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Benson, Sir George

  Champion, A. J.

  Diamond, John

  Beswick, Frank

  Chapman, W. D.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Blackburn, F.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Cliffe, Michael

  Edelman, M.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Clunie, J.

  Edwards,Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  Boardman, H.

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Edwards, W.J. (Stepney)

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

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Short, E. W.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mclnnes, J.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Fletcher, Eric

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Forman, J. C.

  Mahon, Simon

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

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

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

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Gordon Walker, nt. Hon. P. C.

  Mason, Roy

  Snow, J. W.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Grey, C. F.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly

  Mikardo, Ian

  Sparks, J. A.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Monslow, W.

  Steele, T.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Moody, A. S.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Hannan, W.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

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

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Hastings, S.

  Mort, D. L.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Moss, R.

  Timmons, J.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

  Moyle, A.

  Tomney, F.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Mulley, F. W.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

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

  Viant, S. P.

  Holman, P.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Oram, A. E.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Owen, W. J.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Padley, W. E.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Hunter, A. E.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Paton, John

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Pearson, A.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Peart, T. F.

  Willey, Frederick

  Janner, B.

  Pentland, N.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Popplewell, E.

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

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn & St. Pries, S

  Pursey, cmdr. H

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Randall, H. E.

  Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Rankin, John

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Reid, William

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Kenyon, C.

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Rhodes, H.

  Woof, R. E.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Ross, William

  McAlister, Mrs. Mary

  Royle, C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  McCann, J.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Mr. John Taylor and

  Mr. J. T. Price

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Aitken, W. T.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

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

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Cole, Norman

  Green, A.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

  Cooke, Robert

  Grimond, J.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Armstrong, C. W,

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Ashton, H.

  Corfield F. V.

  Gurden, Harold

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Baldwin, Sir Archer

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Balniel, Lord

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Barber, Anthony

  Crowder, Petre (Ruisiip—Northwood)

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Batsford, Brian

  Davies, Rt.Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  Deedes, W. F.

  Hay, John

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

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

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Bingham, R. M.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Bishop, F. P.

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Body, R. F.

  Duncan, Sir James

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Holt, A. F.

  Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

  Eillott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne.N.)

  Hornby, R. P.

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

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Braine, B. R.

  Errlngton, Sir Erie

  Horobin, Sir Ian

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

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

  Fell, A.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Finlay, Graeme

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Howard, John (Test)

  Bryan, P.

  Galbraith, Hon. T. C. D.

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Gammans, Lady

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

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

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Glover, D.

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

  Campbell, Sir David

  Glyn, Col. Richard H.

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Godber, J. B,

  Iremonger, T. L.

  1342

  1343

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Shepherd, William

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Neave, Airey

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Johnson, Erie (Blackley)

  Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Noble, Michael (Argyll)

  Speir, R. M.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

  Kimball, M.

  O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Leavey, J. A.

  Osborne, C.

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Leburn, w. G.

  Page, R. G.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

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

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Storey, S.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Peel, w. J.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Teeling, W.

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Temple, John M.

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

  Pitman, I. J.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Pott, H. P.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Profumo, J. D.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Wade, D. W.

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Redmayne, M.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Maddan, Martin

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Wall, Patrick

  Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Ridsdale, J. E.

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

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Webster, David

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Marshall, Douglas

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Mathew, R.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Russell, R. S.

  Woollam, John Victor

  Mawby, R. L.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

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

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Sharples, R. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. Whitelaw.

  Clause 20.—(APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR STANDARD GRANT.)
  Amendment proposed: In page 13, line 34, at end insert:
  "not be overcrowded (within the meaning of section forty-nine of the Act of 1950, which
  defines overcrowding) and will".—[Miss Herbison.]
  Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 218.

  Division No. 61.]

  AYES

  [7.40 p.m.

  Abac Leo

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Holman, P.

  Ainsley, d. W.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Albu, A. H.

  Deer, G.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  de Freltas, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Diamond, John

  Hunter, A. E.

  Balfour, A.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

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

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Benson, Sir George

  Edelman, M.

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Beswick, Frank

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  Janner, B.

  Blackburn, F.

  Edwards, Robert (Bllston)

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

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Blyton, w. R.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

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

  Boardman, H.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

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

  Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Bowles, F. G.

  Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)

  Kenyon, C.

  Boyd, T. C.

  Fletcher, Eric

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Brockway, A. F.

  Forman, J. C.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Broughton, Or. A. D. D.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Lindgren, C. S.

  Burton, Miss F, E.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  McAlister, Mrs. Mary

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Grenfell. Rt. Hon. D. R.

  McCann, J.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Grey, C. F.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Champion, A. 0.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Mclnnes, J.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Cliffe, Michael

  Hamilton, W. W.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Clunle, J,

  Hannan, W.

  Mahon, Simon

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

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

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hastings, S.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Mason, Boy

  Cronin, J. D.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Grossman, R. H. S.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Cullen. Mrs. A.

  Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Tomney, F.

  Monslow, w.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Moody, A. S.

  Ross, William

  Vlant, S. P.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Royle, C.

  Warbey, W. N.

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

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Mort, D. L.

  Short, E. W.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Moss, R.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Moyle, A.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Mulley, F. W.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

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

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

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Oram, A. E.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Willey, Frederick

  Padley, W. E.

  Snow, J. W.

  Williams David (Neath)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Williams Rt Hon T (Don Valley)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Paton, John

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Pearson, A.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

  Peart, T. F.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Pentland, N.

  Steele, T.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Popplewell, E.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Woof, R. E.

  Randall, H. E.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Rankin, John

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Reid, William

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Thornton, E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Rhodes, H.

  Timmons, J.

  Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Simmons.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Drayson, G. B.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Aitken, W. T.

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Kimball, M.

  Arbuthnot, John

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

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Leavey, J. A.

  Ashton, H.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Leburn, W. G.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

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

  Baldwin, Sir Archer

  Fell, A.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Balniel, Lord

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Barber, Anthony

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Batsford, Brian

  Gammans, Lady

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

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Glover, D.

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Glyn, Col. Richard H.

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

  Godber, J. B.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Bingham, R. M.

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

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Green, A.

  McLean, Nell (Inverness)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Grimond, J.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Body, R. F.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Maddan, Martin

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

  Gurden, Harold

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

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

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Bralne, B. R.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert(Harrow, W.)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Marshall, Douglas

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

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Mathew, R.

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Mawby, R. L.

  Bryan, P.

  Hay, John

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

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Burden, F. F. A.

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

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Campbell, Sir David

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Neave, Airey

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Noble, Michael (Argyll)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Cole, Norman

  Holt, A. F.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Cooke, Robert

  Hornby, R. P.

  Osborne, C.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Page, R. G.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Horobin, Sir Ian

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Corfieid, F. V.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

  Peel, W. J.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Howard, John (Test)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Currie, C. B. H.

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement(Montgomery)

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

  Pott, H. P.

  Deedes, W. F.

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

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Rawlinson, Peter

  1346

  1347

  Redmayne, M.

  Speir, R. M.

  Wade, D. W.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Remnant, Hon, P.

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Wall, Patrick

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Ward, Dt. Hon. C. R. (Worcester)

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Storey, S.

  Webster, David

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Teeling, W.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Russell, R. S.

  Temple, John M.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

  Woollam, John Victor

  Sharpies, R. C.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Shepherd, William

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Mr. Gibson-Watt and

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

  Mr. Whitelaw.

  Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 13, line 35, to leave out from the first "be" to "for" and insert "fit".
  In Committee, I asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland to look at this matter. I expected the Secretary of State to put his name above mine on the Notice Paper to indicate that the Government were willing to accept it, but as the Secretary of State has not done that I assume that the Government do not intend to accept the Amendment. I hope that I am wrong, but that is how it appears to me at the moment.
  The reason for the Amendment is that in previous housing legislation we refer to houses as being "fit for human habitation", and I should have thought that when one said that a house was "unfit for human habitation" it meant just the opposite. Apparently it does not mean that, because it appears that the Government will not accept the Amendment. The words that the Government use are
  "… such condition as not to he unfit for human habitation".
  Why should we have this double negative? It seems to me to be perfectly logical that the words "not unfit for human habitation" mean the same as the words "fit for human habitation", so why should we clutter up our legislation with a lot of double negatives that make it more difficult to understand?
  It seems to me that the Government are trying to pull a fast one on us. During our debates the Government have usually used the term "fit for human habitation", so why not use the words in this case? Is it because the Government have in mind a lower standard than is usually implied by the words "fit for human habitation"? Are we to give public money for the improvement of houses that are of a lower standard than the standard usually implied in housing
  1348
  legislation when the term "fit for human habitation" is used? Perhaps the Solicitor-General will tell us whether that is the Government's intention. If it is not, then the Government should accept the Amendment. If they do not intend to accept it, perhaps they will say how much lower in standard dwellings that receive public money can be than the standard denoted by the words "fit for human habitation".
  What standard have the Government in mind when they use the words
  "not to be unfit for human habitation"?
  How low is that standard? The Government must have a different standard in mind, otherwise the words would not be used. The existing standard in Scotland is pretty low, as the Solicitor-General himself knows. As I understand it, the term in Scotland merely means windproof and watertight, and nothing else. What does the new term mean? I think I am correct in saying that it has not appeared in previous legislation. The Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, uses the term "fit for human habitation", as do the Rent Act and the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act. Are the Government so anxious to bribe people to vote for them at the forthcoming election that they are prepared to grant Government largesse to every slum racketeer in the country? That is what the Bill will do.
  Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: No.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) would have known that had he been listening to the debates, but he has not.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Yes, I have.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is precisely what the Bill will do. I am trying to discover how rotten

  1349
  a property can be and still qualify for assistance under the Bill.
  I hope that the Solicitor-General will give a much more satisfactory reply on this Amendment than he did on the former Amendment, and that he will address himself to some of the arguments. Having done so, I hope that he will say that he is prepared to accept the Amendment and will give us a phrase which is more simple to understand and which fits into our normal housing legislation.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I share the dislike of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) of double negatives, but there is a reason for our choice in this case. The phrases "fit for human habitation" and "not unfit for human habitation" are not precisely the same. If the hon. Member asked me to a party, which is perhaps unlikely, and if I were asked afterwards how I had enjoyed it, if I said that it had been enjoyable I would mean one thing, but if I said that it was not unenjoyable the hon. Gentleman may feel that I was damning him with faint praise.
  The point is that there are borderline cases, as I think I said on a previous occasion. The definition of "fitness" or "unfitness" is not a definition at all. It merely means that one must have regard to certain matters. If one used the phrase "not unfit", borderline cases may qualify which would not qualify if one used the word "fit", but they must come within the standard laid down in Clause 20, namely, that the local authority must be satisfied that a dwelling will remain in a not unfit state for not less than fifteen years.
  Mr. Willis: This is the point that I was making. We have had unfit property in use for longer than fifteen years. By the use of this term, the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that we should aggravate the position.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No. The hon. Member must keep in mind that the property must remain not unfit for fifteen years. In deciding that, one has to go back to the 1950 Act, to the old definition, under which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, one must have regard to disrepair, sanitary defects, and whether the house falls short of the provisions of any building regulations in operation in the district.
  1350
  That is the reason for this slightly elastic phrase, whether one takes it in the positive or double negative form. It is to indicate to local authorities that they should give the benefit of the doubt to borderline cases. It is not a question of lowering standards.
  Let us look at the matter in this way. If a tenant is in a borderline house with a life of fifteen years, if he wants a wash hand basin or a hot water system installed and the landlord can do it only if a grant is given, let us give the benefit of the doubt in a doubtful case to the tenant. I am not talking about helping the landlord; I am talking about helping the tenant. It is for that reason that we have used this phrase, which is also used in Clause 5 (2).
  Mr. Willis: But not in previous housing legislation.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Not in previous housing legislation, but this is to give the benefit of the doubt to houses on the borderline. For that reason, I recommend the House not to accept the Amendment.
  8.0 p.m.
  Miss Herbison: The answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman has clearly shown that the doubts of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) were well founded. They are no longer doubts but certainties. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950. That Act talks about a house being fit for human habitation. The definition is so important that I shall quote it. It says:
  "In determining for the purposes of this Act whether a house is fit for human habitation, regard shall be had to the extent, if any, to which by reason of disrepair or sanitary defects the house falls short of the provisions of any building regulations in operation in the district."
  That is a clear definition. It may be a very poor house and yet still be described as "fit for human habitation".
  Now the Government say that we are to use public money from rates and taxes in order that a landlord may provide standard amenities in a house, thus increasing its value, even though it falls short of the definition of the 1950 Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of doubtful cases. Local authorities are to be forced to give the grants,

  1351
  SO who will decide whether a house is fit or unfit for human habitation?
  This is one of the most atrocious provisions of the Bill and was clearly shown to be atrocious by the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. People in Scotland will not miss this. They have realised for long how hard the Government have been on the finances of local authorities and on the tenants of council houses. I wish that the Government had shown to landlords the attitude which they have shown to publicly-elected bodies which have done their best to provide decent housing in Scotland.
  The Government's attitude is shocking. I do not know whether we can persuade the right hon. and learned Gentleman to change that attitude, but it is shocking that the Government should give grants for houses which are not what we would call fit for human habitation—and that is what this provision means. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that "not unfit for human habitation" meant something less than "fit for human habitation". We have had many instances of the Government's lack of regard for the housing needs of Scotland, and this is just another example and one of the most atrocious instances of their lack of consideration for the Scottish people.
  Mr. H. Hynd: With all respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), the best speech in support of the Amendment was that made by the Solicitor-General for Scotland. The House will remember that he used as an illustration an invitation to a party. He said that to say that such a party was not unenjoyable would have been to damn it with faint praise. That is surely intended to show that to say a house is not unfit for human habitation is to damn the house with faint praise.
  What he said, in effect, was that the house would not be fit for human habitation. That is the only lesson to be drawn from his illustration. He said that "not unfit" was the same as "fit". It is a long time since I was at school, but I was taught that a double negative meant a positive. If that is not the case, we are entitled to a further explanation, not only for the sake of clarity, but for the
  1352
  sake of having the Bill in a reasonable form. I hope that the Government will change the phrase to "fit for human habitation" instead of the present ambiguous phrase which, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself pointed out, would damn a house with faint praise.
  Mr. Ede: I have never heard an explanation, even from a lawyer, which filled me with more dismay. I have been engaged in housing work for many years and I have always understood that houses were fit or unfit. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that on one side of fitness there was a borderline and that if a house was on that borderline, it was to be regarded as not unfit. How wide is that borderline? My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) read the definition from the 1950 Act which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had paraphrased. How many of those things can be wanting in a house for the house still to be regarded as not unfit? That is a problem which will face local authorities and the Ministry when they deal with this matter.
  I should have thought that as late in the Christian era as 1959 we would not have wanted Scotland to get to the position where "not unfit" is said to mean something less than "fit". This is a departure from standards which all reasonable local sanitary authorities have been trying to establish for years.
  There is no English Law Officer present, but I do not think that the phrase "not unfit" occurs in English public health legislation.
  Mr. Willis: It is in the Bill.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The phrase is the same in the corresponding English Clause. I have noted that no hon. or right hon. Gentleman representing an English constituency thought fit to raise the matter until it was raised on a Scottish Amendment.
  Mr. Ede: So much the better for the Scots for once. I do not like English law being made to approximate to Scottish law, but if we are both going wrong together, let us save at any rate one group from going over the precipice. This is an exceedingly retrograde step and I hope that even now

  1353
  the Government will see fit to withdraw from the position which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has tried to defend.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 159.

  Division No. 62.]

  AYES

  [8.10 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Grimond, J.

  Oakshott, H, D.

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Orr- Capt. L. P. S.

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Gurden, Harold

  Osborne, C.

  Ashton, H.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Page, R. G.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. w.)

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Baldwin, Sir Archer

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Partridge, E.

  Balniel, Lord

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Peel, W. J.

  Barber, Anthony

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Bataford, Brian

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

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Pitman, I. J.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. w.

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Pott, H. P.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bingham, R. M.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Hornby, R. P.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Body, R. F.

  Horobin, Sir Ian

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Redmayne, M.

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

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Braine, B. R.

  Howard, John (Test)

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Ridsdale, J. E.

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

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Brooman-White, R. C.

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

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Bryan, P.

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Russell, R. S.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Sharpies, R. C.

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Shepherd, William

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Cole, Norman

  Kimball, M.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Cooke, Robert

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Speir, R. M.

  Corfield, F.V.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Leburn, W. G.

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col, O. E.

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

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

  Teeling, W.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Temple, John M.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement(Montgomery)

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

  Deedes, W. F.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  de Ferrantl, Basil

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Donaldson. Cmdr. c. E. McA.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Drayson, G. B.

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Wade, D. w.

  Duncan, Sir James

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

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

  Maddan, Martin

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Wall, Patrick

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

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

  Fell, A.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Marshall, Douglas

  Webster, David

  Fisher, Nigel

  Mathew, R.

  Whitelaw, W. S. I.

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Gammans, Lady

  Mawby, R. L.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

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

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Glover, D.

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Glyn, Col. Richard H.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Woollam, John Victor

  Godber, J. B.

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Neave, Airey

  Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

  Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

  Mr. J. E. B. Hill and

  Green, A.

  Noble, Michael (Argyll)

  Mr. Gibson-Watt.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Balfour, A.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Ainsley, J. W.

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

  Boardman, H.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Benson, Sir George

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Blackburn, F.

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

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Boyd, T. C.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Rhodes, H.

  Brockway, A. F.

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Janner, B.

  Ross, William

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Jeger, George (Goote)

  Royle, C.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

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

  Short, E. W.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Champion, A. J.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Kenyon, C.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Cliffe, Michael

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

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

  Clunie, J.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Snow, J. W.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  McAlister, Mrs. Mary

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Cronin, J. D.

  McCann, J.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Mclnnes, J.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Deer, G.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Steele, T.

  Delargy, H. J.

  McLeavy, Frank

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Diamond, John

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Mahon, Simon

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

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

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Thornton, E.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mason, Roy

  Timmons, J.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Tomney, F.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Viant, S. P.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Moody, A. S.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)

  Mort, D. L.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Moss, R.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Moyle, A.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Mulley, F. W.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Grey, C. F.

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

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Oram, A. E.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Padley, W. E.

  Witley, Frederick

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Paget, R. T.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Palmer, A.M. F.

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

  Hannan, W.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Paton, John

  Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

  Hastings, S.

  Pearson, A.

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Peart, T. F.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

  Pentland, N.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Popplewell, E.

  Woof, R. E.

  Holman, P.

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Yates, V, (Ladywood)

  Hoy, J. H.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Randall, H. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Rankin, John

  Mr. John Taylor and Mr. J. T. Price.

  Hunter, A. E.

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 13, line 35, after "habitation", to insert:
  "and free from any sanitary defects".
  After what we heard when we were discussing the previous Amendment, it seems to me that it is of the greatest importance that we should add these words:
  "and free from any sanitary defects."
  Perhaps the Solicitor-General for Scotland will enable us to shorten this discussion by saying that the Government are ready to accept this Amendment, and I shall be glad to give way to enable him to do so.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland indicated dissent.
  Miss Herbison: From the movement of his head I gather that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is indicating that the Government will not accept this Amendment. Therefore, we shall have
  1356
  grants given for houses which are not quite fit for habitation. houses which have sanitary defects.
  In Section 184 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, there is a definition of "sanitary defects". It states that sanitary defects "includes lack of air space". If there is not sufficient air space for a family in a house, will the Government force a local authority to give the landlord money to improve that house with standard amenities? Because that is what the Solicitor-General for Scotland means by shaking his head.
  The next definition is, "or of ventilation". I know some houses in Glasgow which, with the best will in the world, could not be described as properly ventilated. Is that the kind of house for which a landlord is to receive a grant? The next definition refers to "darkness". We know of houses in which the tenants have lived all their lives and rarely seen the sun streaming through their windows.

  1357
  That is a sanitary defect. Do the Government propose to give money to the landlords of such houses in order that standard amenities may be provided in them?
  The next reference is to "dampness". When I go to some villages in my constituency I am invited into houses to see the dampness in the bottom of the house and the dampness crawling up the walls. A large amount of money is spent by Scottish housewives on redoration. That is one of the sanitary defects listed in the 1950 Act. Are the Government ready to give a grant to the landlords of these houses in order that amenities may be introduced into buildings of that kind?
  Another definition is the
  "absence of adequate and readily accessible water supply".
  If the standard amenities are provided, that also must be provided. The definition refers to
  "sanitary arrangements or of other conveniences."
  The term "other conveniences" can cover many things. The last part of the definition refers to
  "adequate paving or draining of courts, yards or passages."
  When we discussed sanitary defects during the debates on the 1950 Act we considered not only what was to be found inside a house but also the surroundings. Are the Government ready to provide landlords with grants in respect of houses where the outside is in a miserable state?
  I do not know whether the Solicitor-General for Scotland has seen some of these places, but he could find them in any of the back courts in Glasgow. He could see some in the villages in my constituency. I could take him to many villages in North Lanarkshire and show him houses where the surroundings are dreadful. These things are listed in the 1950 Act as sanitary defects. Is the Solicitor-General for Scotland or the Government prepared to say that, even if houses have one or more of these sanitary defects, local authorities will still be forced to give grants to the landlords?
  During the whole of our discussions on this Bill the Government have shown a disregard of the needs of the tenants and the need to conserve the money of the ratepayers and taxpayers. The only people for whom the Government have
  1358
  shown any regard are the landlords, and particularly the poorer landlords. I ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland to think again about this matter and to accept what is a small but a very important Amendment.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I sympathise with the motives which have prompted the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and her hon. Friends to put down this Amendment. Despite her researches into the 1950 Act, which she knows so well, I do not think the hon. Lady has sufficiently taken into account the fact that under the provisions of this Bill, in deciding whether a house is not unfit for human habitation, a local authority must look at the sanitary defects. Under Section 184 (2) of the 1950 Act, which is, so to speak, incorporated in this Bill, regard must be had to sanitary defects, which are as the hon. Lady quoted.
  Accordingly, when deciding whether to give a grant and whether the first part of that Section has been complied with, the local authority will look at these matters. If the defects are not grave, although it is a case where a house does not comply in all respects with modern standards, the tenants living under those conditions will be able to have the amenities provided by the landlord and thereby will benefit.
  The hon. Lady talked about her visits to villages in her constituency and of hearing complaints about darkness, dampness and the like. Has she ever asked any of her constituents whether they would prefer to have a washbasin installed in the house, if they have not already got one, or whether they would prefer to have an indoor water closet, if they do not already have one? The effect of her Amendment would be that, by reason of sanitary defects, perhaps not grave ones, tenants would be precluded from having these amenities which they might want.
  Miss Herbison: The Solicitor-General for Scotland keeps reiterating, "not grave defects." I invite him to look at the definition of sanitary defects in the 1950 Act, and if he can give one which would not be a grave defect I should like to know about it, because I have not been able to find one.
  8.30 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: One simple example is where the ventilation is slightly defective.
  Mr. John Paton: The Act does not say "slightly".
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: "Sanitary defects" includes—[Interruption.] Perhaps I may be allowed to continue my speech. The definition in the Act is that "sanitary defects" includes
  "lack of air space or of ventilation".
  That means that a slight defect in ventilation comes under that definition. There are cases where the sanitary defect may be small, but by the Amendment a slight defect in ventilation, by the window being just too small by normal standards or the air space slightly below modern standards, would exclude any possibility of the tenant's benefiting by the amenities which can be put in under the Bill.
  If the defects are serious, the local authority can and will say that the house is unfit for human habitation and accordingly will not give a grant. If there are serious sanitary defects, the local authority will and must refuse to give grants under the Bill. If there are very slight ones, the local authority can say, "The house is not unfit, and provided we are satisfied that it will remain so for another 15 years we can give a grant".
  Let it be kept in mind, when we hear so much about landlords—we always do hear about them on these occasions—
  Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: The Bill is about landlords.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. and learned Gentleman rather gives the whole thing away because this is not a Bill about landlords entirely. It will benefit tenants as well. [Interruption.] Certainly, it will. I am not unsympathetic to the point of view expressed by the hon. Lady, but the effect of her Amendment, even if it prevented the landlord from getting a grant, would equally prevent the tenant from doing so. We must look at it from the tenant's point of view. The Amendment would be to the detriment of the tenant.
  Mr. Ede: The Solicitor-General for Scotland instanced a slight defect here and there. If every one of the sanitary conditions in a house is slightly defective,
  1360
  is the house still eligible? How many slight defects have there to be before the house becomes ineligible?
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is for the local authority to say, in the light of the particular case, as it does now. In deciding whether a house is fit or unfit it has to look at all the sanitary defects, in the house as a whole.
  Mr. Ede: The local authority may have to take counsel's opinion in every case.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If that is so, local authorities should have been taking counsel's opinion under every Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends.
  Amendment negatived.

  Clause 24.—(AMENDMENT OF PROVISIONS OF ACT OF 1950 RELATING TO IMPROVEMENT GRANTS.)
  Mr. McInnes: I beg to move, in page 15, line 43, to leave out "ten" and to insert "fifteen".
  The Bill amends existing Scottish housing legislation, including Section 114 (1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950. That Section lays down certain conditions which have to be observed in respect of financial assistance by way of improvement grant. I do not propose to enumerate the conditions laid down in that Section. The main alteration is that Section 114 provides for a period of twenty years whereas the Bill reduces that period to ten years.
  The conditions provide that a dwelling-house
  "shall not be used for purposes other than those of a private dwelling-house"
  and that
  "the dwelling shall not be occupied except by the owner thereof or a tenant."
  Other conditions laid down relate to the rent and the proper maintenance of the dwelling-house. The important point is that these conditions have to be observed for twenty years, while the Bill seeks to reduce the period to ten years.
  During the Committee stage we endeavoured to have the period put back to twenty years, but the Joint Under-Secretary of State met the arguments which we advanced by indicating what I will quote

  1361
  from the proceedings in Committee on 18th February. He said:
  "One of the conditions of the standard grant is that after the work has been done a dwelling shall last for no less than fifteen years."
  In other words, after improvements have been given effect to, it is a condition that the dwelling shall last for a period of not less than fifteen years. The Joint Under-Secretary of State proceeded to argue hat it was illogical on our part
  "to attach conditions to the grant which continue for twenty years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1959: Vol. 600, c. 477.]
  In the Amendment we suggest that the period should be fifteen instead of ten years. We suggest fifteen years for the simple reason that not only do we now meet the arguments adduced by the Joint Under-Secretary, but we bring the matter into line in relation to the conditions of the standard grant itself. In other words, the standard grant is for a period of fifteen years and the conditions we seek to impose after approval has been given to the standard grant will also be fifteen years.
  I assume that, as we have conceded the point to the Joint Under-Secretary of State, the Solicitor-General for Scotland will now be disposed to accept our Amendment. Or will he? After witnessing his performance during our proceedings today, I have come to the conclusion that he came here, not to give consideration to the merits of the Amendments we have proposed, but with a blank mind and a definite intention to turn them down without rhyme, reason or logic. On many Amendments this afternoon he has had absolutely no case. He is himself fully conscious of that. Now I am proposing one which meets the desire of his hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary and fulfils the requirements he thought necessary.
  I should remind the Solicitor-General that public money is involved in this matter and where public money is involved we are justified in laying down certain conditions which have to be observed to put the matter on a proper and sensible basis. I move the Amendment in the very faint hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now see his way to accept it.
  Mr. MacColl: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), but I do not think that that will be entirely unexpected. I do not think his deductions from what my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary said, as reported in column 477 of the OFFICIAL REPORT Of 18th February, are entirely accurate, because my hon. Friend also said:
  "… we have suggested a period of ten years for exactly the same reasons as those which led to the use of ten years in the English legislation. We want as much improvement as we can get, and we think that ten years is the right period and that twenty years acts as a deterrent, since such a period is too long."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 477.]
  Then the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) brought in the question of fifteen years. It is clear that my right hon. Friend stated that he regarded ten years as the appropriate period. We do not like necessarily to follow England and we are not doing so, but it would be unfair if an applicant for a grant in Scotland were in a worse position than an applicant south of the Border.
  Mr. 'McInnes: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not intend at this late hour to attempt to induce us along the line that Scottish people will be worse off than English or vice versa. He knows that Scottish housing legislation has always been entirely different from that south of the Border, in respect of subsidies and indeed in respect of all aspects of housing legislation. There is no reason that we should slavishly follow England's bad example on this occasion.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am not following England's example, good or bad. I appreciate that Scottish housing legislation has been very different from that in England. I appreciate that we do very much better out of subsidies than do people south of the Border. Why should we not do just as well out of this provision? Why should the applicant and the tenant in Scotland be in a worse position than the applicant and the tenant in England?
  The period is a matter of judgment. We could argue until the cows come home about it. For obvious reasons we

  1363
  have to fix a certain period and the question is, how long? Ten years seems to us to be a fair period. As far as I know, it has worked in England, and I believe that it will help in Scotland if we stick to ten years and do not accept the compromise of fifteen years.
  Mr. Willis: That was a very disappointing reply, although I am bound to say that it was a little better than the two previous replies from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He forgets that in Scotland we also have a reputation for being careful with public money and for looking at the public money we spend much more carefully than is done in England. My experience on the Estimates Committees over the ten years is that we are far more careful administrators than are the English. I think that that is to our credit. I am not blaming anyone. It is a different national attitude.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Can my hon. Friend show some evidence of this?
  Mr. Willis: I should be out of order if I began to deal with the reports of the various Estimates Committees. I am dealing with the Amendment and in doing so am pointing out that we have a reputation for handling public money with care.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: When my hon. Friend says that they are more careful than we are, does he include himself?
  Mr. Willis: In these circumstances, yes. On the other hand, on Saturday I shall be supporting Norwich City.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will recollect, when we originally discussed this issue we increased the period from ten years. That was done when it was introduced in 1949, as a result of a fairly long discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee. At that time, we thought that ten years was a very short life for a house. If we were spending large sums of public money upon it, we felt that we ought to have a longer period and that we ought to have some guarantee that the public money that was being spent would provide good accommodation for longer than ten years.
  1364
  8.45 p.m.
  After all, these works are, by and large, fairly expensive works. They are large improvement works, not simply the putting in a kitchen sink or something of that character. The type of improvement that we visualised in Scotland, for instance, in Glasgow or Edinburgh, was the taking over of blocks of tenement property, wiping out a certain number of houses and the rebuilding of them in order to provide fewer houses. This is fairly expensive work, and we felt at that time—and the Conservative Party was also of the same opinion at that time—that if we were to do all this, we ought to have some guarantee that it would last for a reasonable period.
  The suggestion was made and adopted at that time that the period should be twenty years. I am quite prepared to accept that at this time of day it might seem to be rather too long, but I am not altogether certain about that. After all, fifteen years is not a very long time in the life of a house, but, even if that were so, why the sudden drop to ten years?
  Mr. Ross: It has taken ten years to catch up with them.
  Mr. Willis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that they do this in England, but that is no reason why we should do the same as is done in England. We want to legislate in accordance with our own conditions, not in accordance with conditions south of the Border. I should have thought that ten years was a very short period of time when we are embarking upon the fairly large expenditure of public money, and that we ought to look to a rather longer return for that money than ten years.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not provide us with any examples of how this provision for twenty years was holding up work in Scotland. It would have been far more effective if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could have said, "We have a large number of cases, from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen, where work is being held up because of this provision," but that is just not true. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any case in mind in which the work has been held up because the period has been too long? I will sit down in order that he may tell us.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I cannot give the hon. Member precise examples, because this is not my Departmental side. I can only say that twenty years has been a deterrent, and obviously it is. People are unwilling to embark on something which ties them up under rather stringent conditions for a period of twenty years.
  Mr. Willis: The right hon and learned Gentleman may not have the information, but he has two Joint Under-Secretaries behind him who could come to the Box and give the information, instead of which he says, "I have no information; I have no cases to give the hon. Member, but I understand—"and so on. We can understand whatever we like, and I am rather inclined to think that he simply understands this because the English have done it. There has surely been no demand for it from Scotland, and I cannot say—I do not know about my hon. Friends—that I remember any local authority association asking for the period to be shortened. Has the County Councils Association asked, and what did it ask for? I do not know, but I certainly have received no representations. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman received any representations?
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman is most unhelpful at the Box. He rarely has any information to give us, and rarely answers arguments which we put forward. He expects us to accept what he puts forward as a sort of opinion. That is not good enough for a Minister, and I am quite sure that he would not treat the Court of Session in Edinburgh in that fashion. I am sure that he would not appear before judges in Edinburgh in the same slapdash manner that he adopts here. He could give us a much better answer than we have had up to now and which we do not accept.
  Miss Herbison: It is evident that the Solicitor-General for Scotland does not
  intend to say anything more on this Amendment. I understand his difficulty resulting from the illness of his colleagues in the Scottish Office, but it would have been very simple for him to have found out the basic reasons for the Government not wishing to accept the Amendment. He has told us that it was thought that ten years was the appropriate period, but we have been given no reason for that.
  At another time, he described the ten years as a fair period, but, again, no reasons were adduced for that statement. He told us that he did not want Scotland to be worse off than South of the Border. Who was it in Scotland that he did not want to be worse off?
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I was thinking of the tenant as well as the landlord.
  Miss Herbison: We do not accept it. On a previous Amendment the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about sanitary defects, and so on. We feel that when public money is being given, the most careful safeguards should be put on it. It was only after very serious consideration during the passage of the 1950 Act that it was decided that the period should be twenty years. That was not inserted just by Government spokesmen saying that this or that was appropriate. It was well argued, and reasons were adduced for making it a period of twenty years.
  The Joint Under-Secretary said that we were better off on subsidies in Scotland than was the case south of the Border. That is a strange claim to be made by any Scottish Minister, because we are very much worse off in that respect than we were in 1951. We have had no satisfaction at all on this Amendment, and we must put it to the vote.
  Question put, That "ten" stand part of the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 155.

  Division No. 63.]

  AYES

  [8.55 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Batsford, Brian

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Bryan, P.

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Bingham, R. M.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Ashton, H.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Baldwin, Sir Archer

  Body, R. F.

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Balniel, Lord

  Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Barber, Anthony

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

  Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Braine, B. R.

  Cole, Norman

  Cooke, Robert

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

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

  Pott, H. P.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

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

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Hylton-Foster. Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Crowder, Petre (Ruisllp—Northwood)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Deedes, W. F.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Redmayne, M.

  Digby, simon wingfield

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Kimball, M.

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Leather, E. H. c.

  Robson, Brown, Sir William

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Leavey, J A.

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Leburn, W. G.

  Roper, Sir Harold

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

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

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Russell, R. S.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Lindsay, Hon, James (Devon, N.)

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Fell, A.

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

  Scott-Miller, Comdr. R.

  Finlay Graeme

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Sharples, R. C.

  Fisher, Nigal

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

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Gammans, Lady

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Speir, R. M.

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

  Glover, D.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Glyn, Col. Richard H.

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Godber J. B

  McLean, Nell (Inverness)

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Storey, S.

  Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

  Maddan, Martin

  Summers, Sir Spencer

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

  Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Teeling, W.

  Green, A.

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Temple, John M.

  Grimond, J.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Marshall, Douglas

  Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Mathew, R.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Gurden, Harold

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mawby, R. L.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

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

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Wade, D. W.

  Harrison Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Neave, Airey

  Wall, Patrick

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

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

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

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

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

  Webster, David

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Noble, Michael (Argyll)

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Hornby, R. P.

  Osborne, C,

  Woollam, John Victor

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Page, R. G.

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Horobin, Sir Ian

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Peel, W. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Mr. J. k. B. Hill and

  Howard, John (Test)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Mr. Whitelaw.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hastings, S.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Cronin, J. D.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Grossman, R. H. S.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Davies Stephen (Merthyr)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Balfour, A.

  Deer, G.

  Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

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

  Delargy, H. J,

  Holman, P.

  Benson, Sir George

  Diamond, John

  Hoy, J. H.

  Blackburn, F.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Boardman, H.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Janner, B.

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

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Bowles, F. G.

  Fernyhough, E.

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

  Boyd, T. C.

  Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Brockway, A, F.

  Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Fletcher, Eric

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Kenyon, C.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, c.)

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Grey, C. F.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Champion, A. J.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  McAlister, Mrs. Mary

  Cliffs, Michael

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Coine valley)

  McCann, J.

  Clunie, J.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Collick, p. H. (Birkenhead)

  Hannan, W.

  Mclnnes, J.

  1368

  1369

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Popplewell, E.

  Thornton, E.

  McLeavy, Frank

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Timmons, J.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Mahon, Simon

  Randall, H. E.

  Viant, S. P.

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

  Rankin, John

  Warbey, W. N.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Mason, Roy

  Rhodes, H.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Mayhew, C. P,

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Ross, William

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Royle, C.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Moody, A. S.

  Short, E. W.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Mort, D. L.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Moss, R.

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

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Moyle, A.

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Willey, Frederick

  Mulley, F. W.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Williams, David (Neath)

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

  Sorensen, R. W.

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

  Oram, A. E.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Padley, W. E.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

  Paget, R. T.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Steele, T,

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Woof, R. E.

  Parker, J.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Paton, John

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Peart, T. F.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Pentland, N.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

  Plummer, sir Leslie

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  9.2 p.m.
  Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The House has made good progress with this Bill, which had its Second Reading on 15th December. Since then my right hon. Friend has accepted a number of improvements at the suggestion of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and for those suggestions my right hon. Friend is grateful.
  Our debates, on the whole—in fact, almost without exception—have been useful and good humoured. If they have riot been exciting, at any rate they have been enlivened by many contributions from the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) who has shown considerable tenacity in her pursuit of non-discrimination by the building societies on grounds of sex; by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) whose fund of knowledge we now know extends to sanitary engineering or, as he prefers to call it, plumbing; and by the express speech of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) whose velocity must be as great a trial to the Official Reporters as are the speeches of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). Finally, I ought to say that the speeches contributed by hon. Members who sit for Scottish constituencies have been neither prolix nor obscure. In saying that, I am perhaps making amends.
  I think we all regret the absence from the debate this evening of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and of my hon. Friend the Joint
  1370
  Under-Secretary of State because they have both taken a very keen and close interest in this legislation.
  It has long been the view of the Government, including my right hon. Friend, and of my party as a whole—and I believe of the party opposite as well—that home ownership ought to be encouraged. This Bill follows a number of steps which have been taken by post-war Governments with this end in view. Some years ago the licensing system which controls the building of private houses for sale was abolished. In 1952 the development charge was done away with—we think rightly so. On three separate occasions Stamp Duty on the conveyance of house property has been reduced, and the purchaser of a house valued at £3,500 or less is not now liable for Stamp Duty.
  Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I thought that a debate on Third Reading was related entirely to things that are in the Bill. So far, none of the things mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary is in the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was getting very concerned about the hon. Member's references to other Measures. I hope they are only passing references.
  Mr. Bevins: I was just coming to the Bill. I was about to say that the House might like to know as part of the background of this Bill—
  Mr. Ross: That is Second Reading stuff, not Third Reading.
  Mr. Bevies: I shall be very brief about this and do not require instructions from the hon. Gentleman.

  1371
  Between 1952 and 1958 the value of local authority advances under the Housing Acts was doubled and the value of building society's advances raised by about 30 per cent. Moreover, since the end of the war nearly 900,000 private enterprise houses have been built for sale and of these over 700,000 have been built since 1951. We have now reached a position in which about 4 million people own their own homes. The Government are anxious to see these figures increased. This Bill is probably—
  Mr. Ross: Remember the time.
  Mr. Bevins: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so impatient; it is quite unnecessary.
  This Bill is probably the greatest single Measure to help home ownership that has ever been introduced by a British Government, and it is, I think, a great tribute both to the motives and the industry of my right hon. Friend. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to laugh. I am trying to make a non-contentious speech. If hon. Members opposite want a contentious speech, I am quite prepared to engage them. All I am saying is that this Measure faces up squarely to the difficulty that at the present time it just is not possible for all the people in this country who are anxious to buy a house to obtain a mortgage because not enough money is available for that purpose.
  We on this side of the House believe that once this Bill is law it ought to be possible for any creditworthy borrower to get an adequate mortgage, and my right hon. Friend believes that the Bill will help to promote a big expansion in home ownership. One condition which will govern Exchequer advances to building societies is that the house must have been built before 1919 and its value must not be more than £2,500 or, in London, £3,000.
  One of the side effects of this scheme will be to free more of the building societies' own funds for advances on other houses, either more modern houses or more expensive ones. The Government's object in Parts II and III of the Bill is to simplify the existing scheme of grants in the hope and belief that this will lead to a big expansion in works of improvement,
  1372
  and I believe that that is the desire of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The main change, of course, is the introduction of the new standard grant for specified standard amenities as a matter of right to the applicant. The Bill also goes on to simplify the grant arrangements for improvement work carried out by local authorities. We are not making parallel changes for local authorities in Scotland, for reasons which were very adequately explained on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  There is no doubt at all that, in the past, the conditions tied to grants have deterred many people from seeking grants. For that reason, my right hon. Friend has modified the conditions, reducing to ten years the period during which conditions must be observed and enabling the owner of an improved house to sell it after three years without giving rise to the liability to repay grant. It is the Government's hope that the system of standard grants will be extensively used not only by owner occupiers but also by the owners of tenanted properties. Indeed, the importance of this was very clearly underlined by my right hon. Friend in a speech he made earlier in our proceedings today.
  I think I can fairly say that the objectives of the Bill have been, broadly speaking, welcomed by both sides of the House, and certainly by the public at large outside. If, as we believe, the Bill succeeds both in promoting home ownership and in improving the living conditions of many of our people, it will be a well worthwhile Measure.
  9.11 p.m.
  Mr. Mitchison: It is not without amusement that I rise to reply on the Third Reading of the greatest single Measure to promote home ownership ever introduced by any British Government. My own colloquial name for the Bill has always been the "Building Societies and Baths Bill". There have been other Measures.
  Mr. Lindgren: The Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts.
  Mr. Mitchison: As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) reminds me, there have been the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts.
  Mr. Lindgren: Back to 1899.
  Mr. Mitchison: There have been various Housing Acts also which contained provisions to promote home ownership. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary for his kind and proper attribution to my party of the Measures it took in that direction, including, for instance, improvement grants legislation which it was the first to think of and put into law.
  I sympathise with the Parliamentary Secretary. This, of course, is an electioneering Bill, and one has to say all one can about it. Blow the trumpet, and blow it loud—if it rings a bit hollow at times, that will all pass. Election fever has descended upon the hon. Gentleman, and there we are. We hear some extravagant phrases. I will reassure him at once. We do not propose to vote against the Bill. Everything is perfectly all right; he will get his Bill, and get it without any opposition. But I wonder what the results will be. That is really what interests me.
  Let us look for a moment at the building societies. Of course, the building societies have their price. They will receive trustee status for their deposits. That is the quid pro quo. In return, they are to lend money on oldish houses. They are to receive Government funds, to a very considerable extent, for the purpose. There is no particular objection to all this, but how much difference will it make? The Government have been very coy about figures. We have not been told what the societies are doing already. We happen to know about the Halifax because the Halifax figures have been provided. The Halifax Building Society is already lending a little under a third, or a little over a quarter—whichever way one puts it—of its funds on this type of house. We know that other building societies are making considerable advances in that direction. There it is. There will, no doubt, be some addition, but how much one cannot say.
  The next provision in the Bill is the one which is to assist the local authorities. This is the provision allowing them to make additional advances. But they are not to have public money under this Bill. There are no provisions for them about the rate of interest which is to be charged to them. They are to be left, for their
  1374
  money, to chase round in the jungle of mortgages and what not, which seems to be their main source for funds nowadays, to see what they can manage under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts and the Housing Acts.
  I am not complaining unduly. I merely point out to the Government what an opportunity they have missed. All that they have done is to lend a lot of public money to building societies, and any contribution or help to local authorities is not very considerable. Indeed, we were told by the Minister on Second Reading that the Government had deliberately chosen the building societies as their instrument. I am not altogether surprised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) once described the local authorities as the Government's whipping boy. They are not quite the right people for a Tory Government to choose in a desire to help the business of lending money to people who want to buy or improve their houses.
  I now come to the next part of the Bill, the baths section. I must thank the right hon. Gentleman. He has given us a hand basin. He has overcome the almost insuperable difficulty of defining the kitchen sink and providing that the hot water supply should be connected to it as well as to the bath or shower. Those, of course, are considerable concessions. It is something that a Tory Government recognise the importance of clean hands. We say, "Thank you", and we are very grateful.
  There are, however, some things in the Bill that are still a little odd. For the first time, local authorities are obliged to make improvement grants under certain very limited conditions. It may be impossible for the work to be carried out, but they still have to make the grant. It may be that overcrowding will result, but they still have to make the grant. It may be that there will be a breach of the law, but they still have to make the grant. The compulsory element has been introduced in the name of Tory freedom by the party opposite.
  Improvement grants are of old standing and any single one of the things provided in the Bill could have been provided previously at the discretion of local authorities. But the whipping boy cannot be trusted to exercise his discretion properly, and therefore it is now made obligatory.

  1375
  No one objects. We know that there are some very backward councils, including most of those controlled by the Tories, and it will no doubt be a good thing that they should be obliged to make grants for these standard amenities. We are certainly very grateful for any Measure that will promote the modernisation of houses which are hopelessly out of date and quite inadequate as a result of the industrial revolution and the subsequent activities and deficiencies of private landlords.
  For all that, we are very grateful, but we are bound to say that that is not the whole of the story. The right hon. Gentleman has met us in one other respect. He has at last provided in the Bill—and we thank him for it—that improvements cannot be carried out if the tenant does not want them. That is a step in advance. But there is one hitch in the machinery. A landlord could have applied for these grants at any time and I would say, perhaps having more respect for local authorities than the Government appear to have, that in most cases a landlord who so applied would have received the grant.
  The landlord has never applied in the past, so that there are still many houses which lack standard amenities. Why did not the landlord apply? Was it because he was frightened of the local council? I do not think so. The main reason why he did not apply was because he had to pay half the cost.
  The interesting question will be whether the Bill will prove to be the greatest single Measure to promote hand-basins which has ever been introduced by any Government. We shall have to see whether it works that way, or whether, as I suspect, the reluctance or inability of landlords to cough up the remaining half—and I trust that "cough up" is not too grossly unparliamentary—of the cost will continue to hinder the somewhat miraculous results which the Government are prone to expect to result from the Bill.
  My own belief is that landlords are much as they were before. Some are good and some are bad, like the rest of us. Some are wealthy and some are poor, some are companies and some are individuals. The number of landlords who failed to make necessary improvements in the past because they did not
  1376
  feel like putting up half the cost, or because they were unable to do so, are likely to remain in much the same position, even though entitled to a grant from a local authority.
  Having some confidence in local authorities, I do not believe that the Bill will make that amount of difference. In most cases the authorities would have provided the grants already and if they would not have provided the grants, the only reason would have been that they were very restricted in their finances by reason of a matter which is not in the Bill and which I must therefore not discuss, the credit squeeze in the broadest sense of the term.
  It is up to the Government to tell us that the Bill will be a great success. What Government could resist the temptation? They put one or two other little things in the Bill. They have whittled down the provisions which were intended to ensure that owners of property do not get public money with which to improve their houses and then, having got that public money, dispose of the houses. It is completely wrong that after so short a period as three years, someone should be enabled to get a higher price for his property because the Government and local authorities between them have paid a substantial part of the cost of necessary improvements.
  I cannot believe that that is right. I cannot think that the conditions which have brought about amendments to what was originally planned have anything to do with the housing situation or with the landlord-tenant position, or anything else but the tender regard which the Tory Party always has for the owners as distinct from the tenants of house property.
  Summing up at the end of the day, the Bill may not amount to much, but I hope that the Government will tell us what they expect from it. This is said to be the greatest single Measure to promote home ownership, or hand-basins, which has ever been introduced by any British Government. Perhaps the Government will tell us what they expect to happen. How many houses will be provided with hand-basins, baths, hot water supplies and what not as a result of the Bill? Can we be given any figures, or have the Government simply done a little guessing? Is there any estimate

  1377
  which the Government have considered of the results likely to follow, financial results, for instance? Can they give any figures of the amount by which advances made by building societies on the type of properties we are considering will be increased?
  Confidentially, I should like to make a small wager with the House. I do not think that we shall get those figures from the Government. I think that the odds against getting them are roughly 100 to 1. The Bill will make a small contribution and no doubt lead to further advances where advances should be made. It will undoubtedly lead to some improvement which will make the houses concerned better places to live in.
  If we feel somewhat critical of the balance of advantage, if we feel that in relation to those improvements the landlord is getting far more out of it in the long run than the man who has to live in the house, and if we feel, too, that the continued existence of some of these houses is due largely to deficiencies of the Government's own housing policy, none the less we must welcome the Bill—but not too much; not exaggerating, and not playing this electoral trumpet, but supposing that, at the end of the day, it is a move in the right direction, although it is made with the right hon. Gentleman casting one eye over his shoulder at the agglomerated landlords of England and anxious that they, at any rate, shall get their whack out of the Bill.
  9.25 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I am sure that in welcoming the Bill as a whole we all congratulate the Minister on what he has done to help people to buy their own houses and to improve their homes up to the minimum standard. Perhaps it is as well that I should be out of order if I told my right hon. Friend that I thought that he could have improved his method of achieving the first of those objects. Alas, the house purchase part of the Bill is still the same. If it had weaknesses before, they are still there, despite the suggestions made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am sure that we all agree with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in his reference to the improvements made to the Bill during its previous stages, but again, alas, improvements were not made to the first part of the Bill.
  1378
  We still have the same percentage of free reserves which is too low. There is still the same objection to starting at 1½ per cent. The percentage is fixed and is in no way related to other factors. We still have a lower limit of £500,000 in respect of building societies involved. That sum is fixed without any regard to other factors, such as reserves and liquidity, and many smaller societies which have made a valuable contribution to the movement as a whole are still excluded.
  The interest rates are still tied to the Association's recommended rate, and the Bill still excludes some building societies from taking part in the Government's scheme. I wish that I could say that we were still excluding only one building society, but since the Bill was introduced that figure has risen to three. The Leicester and Queen Anne Building Societies have reduced their rates of interest to 5½ per cent., thereby helping the people who want to borrow money to buy their homes, but at the same time they have excluded themselves from the Government's scheme.
  I have not been altogether convinced by the Minister's arguments, except in one respect. I agree that it is right to tie the question of trustee status for deposits to the scheme for Government grants. As far as I can see, the ½ per cent. ratio which the building societies get is not enough to enable them to finance this work out of the grant itself, but the difference can be made up by the extra funds which will accrue to them through trustee status.
  It is also possible that we have exaggerated the effect of what has been called putting some societies in a second division. It is the smaller societies which are affected, and to some extent the fact that they cannot have trustee status for their deposits is not so important, in that they rely very much upon local resources, and their local reputation will not be affected by not being given trustee status.
  The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has underestimated the effect that trustee status will have for building societies lending money on this type of house. A lot of Amendments have been proposed to Parts II and III of the Bill and many to Part I, and I must congratulate my hon. Friend

  1379
  the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) on being the only hon. Members on either side of the House who have had Amendments accepted.
  I sympathise with my right hon. Friend in his difficulty. The conditions for trustee status and the agreement which the Building Societies Association made to keep to the conditions to qualify for loan were worked out before the Bill was drafted, and this is a demonstration of the difficulty of introducing legislation which depends upon agreement with outside bodies. Obviously, such legislation cannot be altered during the Committee stage: there is no time to consult those bodies. However, the Minister has done the next best thing. He has made the position as flexible as possible, and the conditions can be altered without further legislation.
  I welcome the Bill and congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has done. I beg him to keep an eye on these matters and to keep the rate of interest, the size of the societies qualifying and the percentage of free reserves under constant review.
  9.32 p.m.
  Miss Elaine Burton: I am hoping that the Minister will be able to clear up two points for me before we give a Third Reading to the Bill. In Part I of the Bill, relating to "Loans for Purchase of Houses," it states:
  "Where the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies … is satisfied that a permanent building society fulfils such requirements as to its assets and liabilities, liquid funds, reserves, and other matters, as the Treasury may by regulations prescribe, he may designate the society for the purposes of this section …"
  I wish to refer to the term "other matters" because, in reply to a Question from me on 24th February, the right hon. Gentleman made a statement which obviously comes under this heading. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Representatives of the Building Societies Association have suggested—and I welcome this—that the agreement to be signed by building societies before they may receive Government money should provide that mortgages will be granted under the scheme without distinction of sex. All societies participating in the scheme will be required to sign the same agreement, whether or not they are members
  1380
  of the Building Societies Association."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 942.]
  Obviously that is an "other matter" as mentioned in this Bill.
  I am not clear about the attitude of the Building Societies Association in this matter, and I find it very difficult to follow them. The House will remember that on 10th December the Building Societies Association stated:
  "… the policy of most of its members is to treat a woman applicant for a loan in exactly the same way as a man if she is in regular employment and earning a sufficient income. In such cases there is no discrimination on grounds of sex and no male guarantor is normally required."
  On 15th December, in replying to a debate in this House, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
  "It may well be … that notwithstanding instructions that are issued from the head offices of building societies the administrative action taken in the provinces may be at variance with it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1958; Vol. 597, c. 886.]
  With that I entirely accede. But on 13th February, following an inquiry which had been made by the Building Societies Association, in turn following detailed evidence which had been given by me in this House, the Association issued a statement. It was made known on the radio and in the Press. I have here the Evening Standard, which had a headline:
  "How should women rank for home loans?
  Equally with men, say building societies."
  It goes on to say:
  "Are women treated less favourably than men by building societies when they want a loan for home buying? The Building Societies Association answers this question today. 'In a normal case, a woman applicant for a loan is treated in exactly the same way as a man,' it declares. Recently doubts have been raised on this."
  I think the last statement was remarkably succinct.
  I take the Evening News headline of the same day. It says:
  "News … views … prices … dividends"
  Then it says, underneath:
  "No reason to bar women borrowers"
  It goes on:
  "'Any general allegation that the building societies discriminate against women borrowers should be viewed with a great deal of scepticism,' declares the Building Societies Association."

  1381
  The last sentence I want to quote is this:
  "This declaration",—
  by the Building Societies Association—
  "will set at rest the doubts of many of my woman readers who have been feeling that they are getting a hard deal."
  I find that very difficult. The statement made by the Building Societies Association has a familiar ring. I am sure the Minister will agree that we are right back where we started before the first debate and to the statement that there was no discrimination at all.
  I am raising the matter tonight because I am sure that the Minister finds it rather hard to believe I am not grateful for what has been done. It is not that, but I am rather sceptical. I cannot make -lead or tail of what the Building Societies Association really means. After publicity had been given to its statement on 13th February, many more letters began to come in to me. I am glad to know that a lot of them also went to the Building Societies Association. I am very polite if I say that the letters do not agree with the statement made by the Building Societies Association. They regarded that statement with a considerable amount of cynicism while I regarded it with complete disbelief.
  I want to ask the House to take note of two of the letters which people have sent to me. They are particularly important, because both of them start with the phrase, "Although I am not a member of your political party". They were both written after the statement made by the Building Societies Association. The first one says, after saying that she is not a member of my political party—I must hide any possible identification for her—that she wanted a mortgage and an independent survey had found the property perfectly satisfactory. She was the director of a company and had been with the firm for twenty-five years of which she had been a director for fourteen years, getting a four-figure salary.
  Does the Minister feel that any member of the Building Societies Association would deny that the qualifications of this woman conform to the statement put out by the Association several days previously, that she had to be credit-worthy and had to be in a sound job? This woman tells me that there are a great
  1382
  many men in her company earning considerably less than she, who were able to get any mortgages they wanted. She was told that she would have to get a male guarantor. I am glad to say that she has written to the Building Societies Association. I have not had a copy of the reply they sent to her, but I am sure that this is a very bona fide case.
  The other woman who wrote to me after the announcement said that she was not a member of this political party. She was wanting to increase the size of a school for which a large property had become available. She tells me that through the mediation of a parent
  "… we were brought into touch with a building society and fresh negotiations were started. These were again almost complete when the society, seeing my signature, realised that it was dealing with women, and immediately demanded that we submit the names of four guarantors of whom they would choose three. For fear of losing the property altogether, we agreed, under protest.
  Had the Building Society said that their business was to finance house purchase, not to extend activities of schools, I should have understood fully, but this was not the case. In fact the Society seemed not only willing but even eager to make the loan, as it was abundantly secured on our other properties. The only objection to the loan's going through in the normal way was that of our sex."
  These two cases are indicative of the many substantial complaints I have received. In view of the cases which have been raised and those which have been to the Minister, I think he will understand that I cannot accept the statement of the Building Societies Association. Hon. Members on both sides of this House know that there has been discrimination over many years and there has been this demand for male guarantors. That is accepted, and the best way of treating it is to say is that it is quite out-of-date.
  The reason I am raising this tonight is that I think it quite obvious that something of this public displeasure has begun to seep through to the Building Societies Association. Obviously, if it had not, we should not have got anywhere because they say this discrimination has not happened. It seems remarkably odd to have decided to stop doing something which they say has never been started. We had the statement made by the Minister, which I have quoted. On page 2 of the Bill the Clause goes on to say:
  "and where a society has been so designated and the designation has not been revoked"—

  1383
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman what will happen if a society does not keep to this agreement which he mentioned to the House as reported in column 942 of the OFFICIAL REPORT? If a society signs this agreement which the Minister has referred to and then carries on as before, we are not going to be any better off. As the Minister told us that under this agreement there would be no sex discrimination, I want to know whether that means no sex discrimination according to the Minister's ideas or according to the ideas of the Building Societies Association. I flatter the Minister by saying that I hope there is a very wide difference between the two.
  These are the only two points I want to raise with the right hon. Gentleman, because other hon. Members wish to speak in this debate. I ask him whether the phrase "without distinction of sex" as used by him means that male guarantors will not be demanded where woman applicants for loans meet the creditworthiness terms of the Building Societies Association. The second point is, what will happen to a society which signs the agreement the Minister has mentioned and does not keep it? Will it continue to be designated as a society receiving loans from the Government, or will that be withdrawn? As this is public money, I hope the Minister will clear up those two points before the Bill leaves this House.
  9.43 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Wade: I should like to make just a few observations before the Bill receives its Third Reading. I do not propose to discuss building societies tonight. I have spoken on the subject of building societies from time to time in this House and have already expressed my views on Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill.
  I wish to refer for a few moments to 95 per cent. and 100 per cent. mortgages and the possible implications of lending up to 100 per cent. The Bill will facilitate the granting of mortgages by building societies up to 95 per cent. and by local authorities up to 100 per cent. This may help some home buyers to purchase houses who might otherwise have been prevented from doing so because of their inability to raise sufficient deposit.
  1384
  I am in agreement with the general principle of assisting home buyers in that way, because I have always advocated the extension of home ownership. I am all in favour of any Measure which will help to bring about a wider ownership of property and I have always regretted the obstacles which have been in the way of those who wish to buy their houses, for example the high interest rates in recent years.
  While I want to make the path of the home buyer easier, however, I am anxious that those who set out to buy a house, particularly young people who are not very well off, should not be led into buying a house at an inflated price or taking on a burden of mortgage which is more than they can bear. If there were any great extension of 100 per cent. mortgages I think that it would have the effect of inflating prices. There would, at any rate, be that danger.
  Much depends, of course, upon the valuation, and it would be helpful if before the Bill reaches the Statute Book the Minister made it clear to the public that a 95 per cent. or 100 per cent. mortgage does not necessarily mean the advance of that percentage of the price asked by the vendor or even of the price agreed before valuation between the vendor and the purchaser. It means 95 per cent. or 100 per cent. of the valuation. It is most important that that should be made clear, because whether this be the greatest single Measure ever put on the Statute Book or not, I am sure that the Minister does not want house purchasers to be led astray into thinking that whatever price is agreed, they will get 100 per cent. of it from a local authority or 95 per cent. of it from a building society.
  It is very imporant that there should be a valuation before the contract is signed, and it is also important that the valuation should be made with care. There is no doubt that building society valuations are made and will be made with care, and those who go to a building society and postpone the signing of a contract until a valuation has been made will probably not fall into trouble.
  I should like to raise one or two queries on that Part of the Bill which deals with local authorities. In the case of sales to a tenant, I am not sure whether it is the normal custom for a tenant who buys from the local authority to have a

  1385
  valuation. I think that it is a good idea in any case to have a valuation. I am, however, more concerned with those cases where the purchaser is not already a tenant of the local authority but is asking for a loan from the local authority. In that case there should he as much uniformity as possible in the valuations made prior to the granting of the loan.
  One of my correspondents on this subject has written to me as follows:
  "Having discussed the Bill with councillors and officials of various local authorities, I gather that many councils, because they personally disapprove of 100 per cent. mortgages, will give special orders to their valuers to 'value down' the property concerned, so that in effect the mortgage to be granted will be only 90 per cent. of the value, as at present."
  While I have my doubts about the advisability of lending up to 100 per cent., certainly on a large scale, it is desirable that there should be as much uniformity as possible throughout the country in valuing prior to sale where there is to be a substantial amount lent on mortgage. I should like to know whether the Minister has made any recommendations to the local authorities on the subject of valuations.
  Finally, I think that both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have somewhat overrated the value and importance of the Bill, but I hope that it will do some good. I think that it will be of help both to buyers of homes and to tenants whose houses are in need of improvement. I certainly support the Third Reading.
  9.50 p.m.
  Mr. John M. Temple: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and I shall, in a moment or two, comment on one or two of the observations which he has made. Before I do that, I should like to congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) on the great persistence with which she has supported the cause of women. I would say that her case—that is, a fair deal for women in the purchase of homes—would have the general support of all sections of the House.
  The main principle of the Bill is that more money will be made available for those persons wishing to purchase homes of their own, and the second principle is the encouragement to make improvements
  1386
  to these houses, and indeed to other houses as well. The underlying scheme is to encourage the purchase of older houses, and here I support the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, who, I think, was perfectly right to draw the attention of people who intend to buy these older houses to the fact that they must beware of defects which may well be glossed over. The old adage of caveat emptor holds good. Buyers must beware and be guided, not particularly by the price which is asked for the house but by the value which that house holds in the market. That is the important factor—the value of the house.
  When during the Committee stage I recommended a universal upper limit of £3,000, it was not because I wanted these houses to be inflated in value to £3,000, but only because I wanted to have uniformity for the whole country in that lending could be made up to £3,000, irrespective of the district in which the house was situated.
  I believe that these older houses, if they are bought at the right price—and here I think the valuers of the building societies and the local authorities will have a considerable responsibility—will have money lent on them as recommended by the valuers to these societies. I hope that these valuers will take a realistic view of the valuation of these older properties, so that people will not be misled into paying inflated prices for them. If that is the case, I think that the Bill will perform a very useful purpose, as I believe there are a considerable number of these older properties which will be available at sensible prices.
  May I now comment on the improvement grants? As we know, hitherto these grants have been used mainly by owner occupiers, but I hope very much that this scheme will bring about a vast extension of their use. I would draw attention to what my right hon. Friend the Minister said on 18th February during the Committee stage:
  "The Government desire that the improvement grant system should operate much more extensively than hitherto for the benefit of rented houses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 390.]
  This is the alteration which has been brought in with this Measure. These grants will be available in respect of rented houses on a very wide scale, and this is a tremendous challenge to the landlords.

  1387
  I hope they will accept the challenge. They are being given—and hon. and right hon. Members opposite made considerable play with this—very generous terms. I endorse that, but if they are generous terms, they are to encourage extensive improvements in these properties, and it will be the tenants who will benefit from the improvements. The tenants will be the people who will be using the wash-basins to which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred, the baths, the hot water systems, the flush lavatories and the rest. They will be used by the tenants. Therefore, I support wholeheartedly this widespread encouragement which is being given to all sections of the property-owning community to make full use of these grants.
  I wonder if my right hon. Friend, either from his own Department or in conjunction with the local authorities and the building societies, could issue an explanatory booklet. The provisions of the Bill would be very much better appreciated were they set out in relatively simple terms, and a booklet would greatly help Members of Parliament to advise constituents and building society clients to make use of the Bill's provisions to the fullest possible extent.
  This Measure will cost the taxpayers and ratepayers a considerable amount of money, but I am sure that it will be useful, and that the money spent will prove a worth-while investment in family happiness.
  9.57 p.m.
  Mr. A. Evans: In moving the Third Reading, the Parliamentary Secretary made the very extravagant claim that this was the greatest single Measure to promote home ownership that any British Government had introduced. He was repeating, almost word for word, his right hon. Friend's claim when moving the Second Reading. On that occasion, however, the right hon. Gentleman left out the word "British", and thus seemed to claim that it was the greatest single Measure to promote home ownership that had ever been introduced by any Government. In that, of course, he was quite wrong. Since the end of the war the West German authorities have taken the obvious course of helping home ownership by reducing interest rates considerably.
  1388
  The first part of the Bill is designed to pump into the building societies the capital they need to meet requests for loans by purchasers. It undoubtedly fulfils a need. Because money from investors has not been flowing in building societies have been obliged to turn away many applications, especially those for loans on older houses.
  In that respect, the Bill is good—it provides public money to assist the building societies—but its application is rather late. Had the Government made this money available three years ago, a considerable fillip would have been given to home ownership. Present signs are that funds are flowing into the building societies at an increasing rate, so that they have less need of State money.
  I turn now to the rates of interest charged by the Government to the building societies and by the building societies to prospective house purchasers. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan). He has evidently studied this part of the Bill with great care, and made a valuable contribution to our debate. I regret that the Minister cannot in some way implement the ideals of the hon. Member for Halifax.
  At present only those approved societies Which will charge the rate recommended by the Building Societies Association will be able to avail themselves of the scheme. Any building society which with public spiritedness and initiative decides that it can charge its borrowers less than the rate recommended by the Building Societies Association will not be able to take advantage of the scheme. At present the recommended rate is 6 per cent. Building societies charging 6 per cent. will be able to take Government money at 5½ per cent., use the scheme and develop their businesses.
  The effect will be that the Government scheme will encourage the higher interest rate and will not encourage the lower interest rate. In effect, the Government are saying to those societies who maintain their rates at 6 per cent., "Here is State money for you to lose". It is conversely saying to those societies which have reduced the rates to their borrowers, "This scheme is no use to you, because you will not be able to work it".
  It is a serious matter that the community should encourage building societies to keep their rates high. That

  1389
  is what it will mean. Two of the largest building societies in the country, the Halifax and the Leicester societies, have reduced their rates to borrowers to 5½ per cent. Those societies are to be congratulated on their business acumen and concern for the borrower, who is heavily burdened by present rates of interest. The burden of interest is the main thing that hampers home ownership. We all know that at 6 per cent. a house costing £2,000 requires £4,000 in round figures. Two thousand pounds is the purchase price and £2,000 is the interest. The shocking thing about the scheme that the Government have worked out for building societies is that it will encourage the maintenance of high interest rates and will discourage the societies leading the way in the downward trend in interest rates in their public spirited policy.
  That is a matter to which the Government have not paid adequate attention. It is extremely serious that the Treasury, through a scheme worked out with building societies, is fathering a policy which tends to keep up interest charges to borrowers. The borrower in every case is a man who had to work and strive to buy his own home and has to calculate his shillings and pounds in order to find his payment to the building society each month. When he realises that the scheme will encourage higher rates and discourage lower rates, he will perhaps think that this is not the greatest measure to promote home ownership that any Government has ever passed.
  I should like to say a word or two on the second part of the Bill. I leave the Scottish part for those hon. Members who sit for Scottish constituencies. The second part of the Bill provides that Exchequer money shall go to those house owners who will agree to put certain standard amenities into their houses. It is an extremely generous scheme, as the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) mentioned. As much as £150 in public money will be handed to the owner of a house who undertakes to put in these standard amenities.
  We approve of the purpose behind that part of the Bill, but all through the debates we have complained that the point of view of the community has not been properly considered by the Government. In the Bill there is a scheme to give very large money payments to landlords who improve their property, but insufficient attention has been paid to the
  1390
  local authority and community interests in this respect. The community point of view as to fitness and overcrowding has been brushed aside, and we have had no response from the Minister to our attempts to safeguard the community interest.
  The local authorities have been dealt with rather harshly by the Minister in his improvement grant scheme. As a result of his lack of adequate consultation with the local authorities, as we have seen in our debates, the details of the improvement arrangements have not been properly worked out. The Minister would have done well to have given the same amount of care and attention to consultation with the local authorities as he gave to consultation with the building societies. He would then have gained the approval and thanks of the local authorities, and the Bill would have been much more workmanlike.
  10.7 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I am very glad that the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) repeated the speech which I made in Committee on the question of interest, because I think the point is very important. I gather that, apart from that, his only objection to the Bill is that it ought to have been brought in earlier. Indeed, I have been looking for any real objection to the Bill from the Opposition during this debate and I have found none. The heavy sarcasm of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) convinced me that he had no case whatever against the Bill.
  Indeed, the whole of our debates on the Bill have spotlighted the difference in the way in which each side of the House looks on the relationship between a man and the bricks and mortar in which he lives. I would not quarrel with any hon. Member opposite who tells me that private landlordism is unsatisfactory in many cases, but where private landlordism is unsatisfactory I understand that hon. Members opposite wish to work towards their maxim that an Englishman's home is his council's, whereas we on this side of the House want to work towards home ownership and owner-occupation.
  Mr. G. W. Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman says that we on this side of the House do not believe in owner-

  1391
  occupation. We do believe in owner-occupation. I should like to know whether he will be prepared to support us in achieving real owner-occupation and not this twisted system of leases.
  Mr. Page: How the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) can rise to his feet and say that his party believes in owner-occupation, with his party's record against home ownership during their term of office, I do not know. I have great admiration for the hon. Gentleman's courage in saying that.
  I was saying that we want to move towards owner-occupation, and it is absolutely necessary to give some assistance in that movement. The Bill will give that assistance. In recent years it has become evidence that without substantial resources and unless one was prepared to buy a modern house it was difficult to become a home owner.
  Had that position been allowed to go on we might have reduced the country into three categories of house owners only—council tenants, tenants of rented old property and owner-occupiers of modern houses. That might have been the position if we had not introduced this Bill and provided assistance for those who wish to be owner-occupiers of the older type of house. By using the building societies with their immense organisation and experience, Part I of the Bill will have the effect of spreading owner-occupation and Part II of improving old houses.
  I certainly admired the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering when he talked about his party favouring home ownership. But really when the party opposite were in office they did nothing whatever to favour it; they discouraged it all the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, by the controls on private building. Even in 1951, only 22,000 houses were built for sale and now the annual figure is six times as many. Because of the availability of houses at the present time, this Bill was necessary in order to assist the purchase of houses.
  Mr. Denis Howell: It is eight years since 1951.
  Mr. Page: Indeed, even one year after 1951 the number was doubled and so it has gone on throughout the eight years. There are houses available for the would-be home owner now which were never
  1392
  available even during the latter part of the term of office of the Labour Government.
  Mr. Howell: The Government were always slow thinking, but eight years is a very long time.
  Mr. Page: Eight years—and now annually there are six times as many houses available as when the Labour Government went out of office. This cannot be just brushed aside by the party opposite. There are these modern houses now available and newly-built houses for purchase. That means that there is a movement from the older houses. The purpose of Part I of the Bill is to enable those older houses to be improved and to enable purchasers to buy them.
  Another good reason for the Bill, and a good purpose which will be served, was that the Rent Act removed the incentive to a tenant of higher-rated premises at an artificially low rent to remain in them at that rent. There have been movements of those tenants into houses of their own or the sitting tenants have purchased. There again the Bill will be of great assistance to them in purchasing their own houses.
  One could mention a third reason and that is the drive by the Government for slum clearance. Many of those moving from slum clearance areas wish to buy their own houses and may not have the resources to put down the sort of deposit which was previously required. I see that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, South-West is looking puzzled. I imagined that he would be looking puzzled. The Labour Government never thought of slum clearance and never even started it.
  Mr. A. Evans: The hon. Member keeps saying that people in slum houses will be thinking of buying their own houses. There are a good number of slums in my constituency. I am worried and puzzled because of what the hon. Member is saying. More and more people in those slums are going on short time every week and more and more are becoming unemployed. Therefore, their chances of buying their own houses are diminishing.
  Mr. Page: The hon. Member for Islington, South-West knows that I know his constituency fairly well, just as I know the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North. There are many people there moving from the

  1393
  very much older houses in the slum clearance areas who wish to buy their own properties. I could name many in my own constituency who are in exactly the same position, people who wish to buy as they are moving from slum clearance areas. Such people will be assisted by the Bill in being able to borrow up to 95 per cent., or up to 100 per cent. if borrowing from the local authority.
  Mr. W. A. Wilkins: What is the hon. Gentleman's opinion of this? He and his hon. Friends are constantly reminding us that the Government, through the Minister of Housing and Local Government, are encouraging the clearance of slum dwellings. In my constituency of Bristol, South there has for many months been a campaign organised by a leading Tory alderman, supported by a Tory ex-councillor, through the creation of an organisation called, I think, the Tenants' Defence Organisation, opposing the local Labour-controlled council and designed to prevent it carrying through the instructions of the Minister. What is the hon. Gentleman's answer to that? He and his hon.Friends say one thing here, but they do another thing in the constituencies.
  Mr. Page: The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr Wilkins) has made a very good Adjournment debate speech by means of an intervention. He will not expect me to reply on detailed matters in his constituency. I have no information about those details. All I can say is that he need only look at the figures of slum clearance during the last few years to realise that this Government are carrying out a slum clearance drive which was never contemplated by the Labour Government during their term of office and never even suggested by them. The drive is going ahead now and it will go ahead. This Bill is an extremely good preparation for the continuation of that drive when the next Conservative Government are in office after the coming General Election. The Bill will be of great assistance to those who wish to buy their own houses when they are moved from these areas.
  Mr. Wilkins: That is no answer to the challenge.
  Mr. Page: In regard to Part II also there is a sharp contrast between the failure of the Labour Government and the success of the Conservative Government,
  1394
  I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman for Kettering is not still here. During the course of our debates he has patted himself on the back for the 1949 Housing Act and has told us that his Government started the improvements grants. Started them? There were 10,000 in five yars. That is all.
  Mr. D. Howell: We had a little war.
  Mr. Page: This was in 1949. The war had been finished for three or four years. During the five years after the 1949 Housing Act, only 10,000 improvement grants were made. I admit that two of those years were under a Conservative Government. We did not have time to amend the Act. Undoubtedly, it was faulty in its provisions to encourage improvement grants, because when it was altered in 1954 by the Act of that year, there was a relaxation of the conditions, and there were then twenty times as many granted. Forty thousand grants a year are now being made. I forecast that, under this Bill, we shall have five times as many again.
  What is needed is about 200,000 grants a year, and I believe that that number can he achieved under the terms of the Bill. There will be an automatic application by purchasers of older houses which have not the standard amenities. Automatically, as they purchase a house, they will apply to the local authority for grant. This is the connection between Part I of the Bill and Part II.
  Mr. A. Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman confusing standard grants with improvement grants?
  Mr. Page: I am not confusing them at all. The standard grant is now, as it were, added to the improvement grant. This is not an excessive burden on local authorities, as has been suggested by hon. Members opposite. The grants are now costing approximately £7 million a year. If there were five times as many grants, that would mean a cost of £35 million. of which the Exchequer pays three-quarters and local authorities only one quarter. In addition, many local authorities will receive an increase in rate deficiency grant as a result.
  I believe that the Bill will succeed in giving the family man what he wants—the ability to buy his own home and, if he proposes to buy an older type of house, to improve it and make it a decent home for himself and his family.
  10.21 p.m.
  Mr. Reynolds: We must congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) on intervening in the debate, especially as the Whips on the Government Front Bench were doing their best to cut down contributions from the other side. I only hope that we shall have one or two more contributions from hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member at least attempted to liven up the debate. I do not say that I agree with all that he said, but it was at least lively and interesting, which is more than can be said for some of the other contributions which we have had from hon. Members opposite.
  Despite what the hon. Member said, I look back only a few years to 1951, the days when one could borrow money from the local authority at 3¼ per cent. to buy a house and when building societies were lending at 4¼ per cent. and 4¼ per cent. and when on the Tube one saw notices which read, "Why pay rent? Why not buy your own house?" Building societies at that time were willing to lend money and a very large number of people became owner-occupiers, a large number of them being sitting tenants who took advantage of facilities which were available through the building societies and local authorities to become owner-occupiers.
  I hope that one day we shall return to the situation in which one can obtain money for house purchase at the reasonable rates of interest which were operating prior to the General Election of 1951. The biggest help that can be given to anyone who wants to become an owner-occupier, which is more important than a 90 per cent., 95 per cent., or even a 100 per cent. mortgage, is a reasonable rate of interest. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the Bill which attempts to bring down the rate of interest to a more reasonable level.
  On Part I, I am rather doubtful—and I will explain why—whether building societies will make a great deal of use of the facility of Government money which is offered to them under the Bill, Paragraph 2 of the outline of the scheme agreed with the Building Societies Association reads:
  "The Treasury will prescribe conditions with which Building Societies must comply as a pre-requisite of approval by the Chief
  1396
  Registrar of Friendly Societies for the conferment of Trustee Status on their deposits".
  As I see it, there is nothing to stop a building society which can comply with the regulations laid down by the Treasury applying for trustee status. Let us be honest about it. That is all building societies want, and that is what they are after in this piece of legislation. There does not appear to be any obligation on them, once they have obtained trustee status, to take part in the scheme for using Government money to give 95 per cent. mortgages.
  The paragraph continues:
  "Societies so approved will be eligible to participate in the scheme."
  It does not say that societies so approved will or must participate. They will be eligible if they want to participate. I am of the view that several societies will not want to participate. There is not a great deal of profit in this for them. A ½ per cent. difference in interest will cover their administrative charges with a little bit left over, and I doubt whether it will be worth their while carrying out the scheme.
  I have a vague idea that the Minister probably feels the same, because there is provision for only £100 million, which represents about 75,000 houses. He might say that when that sum is used up further legislation could be introduced to provide another sum, but if he had thought that a great deal of money would be involved there was no reason why he should not have so provided in the first place. In his heart of hearts he probably believes that not much use will be made of these provisions. Once the building societies have achieved trustee status they will have a vast new area from which to borrow money and they will be satisfied with the money which they will then be able to obtain and which they will be able to lend on what they consider reasonable properties.
  They will also be in direct competition with local authorities who, over the last few years, have largely depended on money obtained on mortgage from trustee savings banks, pension funds, and similar sources for their own building operations and for their operations under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts and the Housing Act, 1949. Those sources have provided money for their capital requirements, but the building societies

  1397
  will now be competing with them for that money. I believe that once the building societies have that money not many of them will want to rush in to volunteer to assist the Minister in this great march forward which the Parliamentary Secretary described to us.
  I described the Bill earlier as being a bribe to building societies by providing them with trustee status in return for their operating a scheme. However, on a more careful reading of the second paragraph of the agreed scheme, which I have just quoted, I have revised that opinion, since the building societies are to be given trustee status without an obligation to assist the Government with the scheme. Once they have trustee status money, they will have got what they want from this legislation and will not be very interested in its other aspects.
  In dealing with Part II of the Bill, I want again to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Crosby. I was extremely interested to hear him say that only 10,000 improvement grants were made between 1949 and 1951 and that the figure had risen to between 30,000 and 40,000 a year since that date under the provisions of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, the "Operation Rescue" about which we heard so much but which was admittedly a flop because the Rent Act had to be brought in in 1957 because of the failure of the 1954 Act. The 1954 Act seems to have been a flop, because in addition to improvement grants there are now to be standard grants to put right the mistake made in 1954.
  Mr. Page: The hon. Member can hardly call a Measure a flop when it creates twenty times as many improvement grants per year as did the 1949 legislation.
  Mr. Reynolds: But even the hon. Member was far from satisfied with the figures of the 1949–54 period. One has to make a comparison with the claims put forward at the time for "Operation Rescue." It was said that it would abolish slums, improve property, and everything else. The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. If the position between 1949–54 was an absolute failure, something twenty times as much a failure could not be a success.
  1398
  The hon. Gentleman went on to give a very relevant figure, about which I should like more information. He said that he expected and hoped that there would be about 200,000 improvement grants a year. I presume that he was speaking about the total number of grants, standard grants as well as the ordinary grants. That is an interesting figure. If there are 200,000 grants a year, over a period of five years there will be one million grants of one kind or another. If we assume that 30,000 to 40,000 are grants under the ordinary improvement grant procedure and that 170,000 to 160,000 are improvements under the standard grants which we are now approving, and assuming that the average improvement grant will cost £150 of public money—and it will probably be higher than that—then tonight we are discussing handing over during the next five years a total of £150 million of public money, three-quarters of it taxpayers' money and one-quarter of it ratepayers' money. In other words, that is £150 million of public money which is to be used as a subsidy to the owners of property, tenant-occupied and owner-occupied houses.
  Mr. Page: I was working on a figure of 40,000 grants in each year, and that gives a total of £7 million. I multiplied the 40,000 by 5 in order to get the 200,000 grants, and I arrived at a figure of £35 million and not £150 million as the hon. Member suggests.
  Mr. Reynolds: Yes—E35 million a year. If my arithmetic is correct, £35 million multiplied by 5 gives more than £150 million, which I am taking for the five-year period. I think that I am being fairly conservative in saying it will be £150 million in five years. It will probably be rather more than that. This subsidy of £150 million of public money is being paid in respect of privately-owned property. I have no objection to subsidising the occupation of residential property. On the other hand, we must realise that if we are to pour as much public money as this into subsidising what the Minister hopes will be privately-owned tenanted property it strengthens the case for looking again at the ownership of that property. If we are to put public money into it why should we not get some public benefit from it?

  1399
  This strengthens the case for municipalisation, which will be the best way of dealing with the problem. We have only had this 200,000 figure mentioned by the hon. Member for Crosby. I wonder how many dwellings would rank for one of these standard improvement grants. If the Minister feels that my figure is incorrect I should be pleased if he would correct me now, or later. I would assume that about 6 million dwellings would be eligible for a standard improvement grant; in other words there are about 6 million dwellings which lack most of the amenities which are listed here and which can be provided by way of the standard amenity grant.
  There are probably 7 million families entirely without, or having to share a bath, and a further 2 million entirely without, or sharing, a water closet. It would not therefore surprise me if 6 million were entirely without, or sharing, most of the amenities mentioned in the Bill, which can be provided by means of the standard improvement grant. Hon. Members opposite seem to disagree. If they have another figure to put forward I should be glad to hear it.
  Mr. Page: I would guess that the figure would be 4½ million.
  Mr. Reynolds: I am prepared to take that figure of 4½ million. If the Minister will confirm that figure I shall be prepared to accept it. Let us assume that it is 4½ million. How many of those 4½ million does the Minister hope will be given these modern facilities as a result of the Bill? I believe that the occupiers of these 4½ million houses have a right to the minimum amenities listed in the Bill, and it is up to the Minister to tell us how many he hopes will be provided with them. The Bill has been described as a magnificent effort tonight. On the day the Bill was considered in Committee the Manchester Guardian referred to it as the last chance of the landlords. It said that if the landlords did not take this opportunity the case for municipalisation would be proved. There is a great deal to be said for that remark.
  The Minister thinks the Bill will be a success, but can he give us any idea of the number of grants there would have to be in five or ten years in order to prove that the Measure was a success? I do not think it will be physically possible
  1400
  to make these improvements in all of these houses? But does he hope that landlords may take advantage of the provisions of the Bill to the extent of half—say, 2¼ million houses? Perhaps he thinks the figure will be 1 million. The Minister does not want to commit himself. Does he think that 250,000 will be improved? That would be about one-fifteenth of the total number of dwellings without these amenities. If he thinks that not even that number will be provided with improvements, Part II of the Bill will be a complete and utter flop.
  I think that it will be. I do not think that many private landlords will be prepared to put their own private money into improving their properties. There might be an increase in the number of owner-occupiers who will take advantage of these facilities, but the Manchester Guardian was right when it suggested that this would be the last chance for the private landlords. I do not think that they will take that chance and then the case for municipal ownership of privately-owned rented dwellings will be proved conclusively.
  10.35 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Cole: I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) say that if landlords did not take advantage of Part II of the Bill the case for the municipalisation of houses would then be proved. I have been under the impression for the last two years that the party opposite were determined to bring about the municipalisation of houses whether the need, justification or benefit of it were proved or not.
  Mr. Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman is not being quite fair. I said that the Manchester Guardian had stated that if landlords did not take advantage of Part II of the Bill that would disclose that they were not interested in improving their properties. I think that has been proved already.
  Mr. Cole: Earlier the hon. Gentleman said he thought that the case for municipalisation might well have been proved. However, whether that be so or not, the hon. Gentleman made another remark about how much use the building societies would make of the facilities provided in Part I for lending

  1401
  on and improving pre-1919 properties. I should like to offer one point for the hon. Gentleman's consideration. If he is right—and I must categorically deny that he is—why have building societies, without this financial assistance from the Government, been lending to a certain extent on this type of property up to now? Some of them have lent not inconsiderable sums. If they have been prepared to do that up to now, why are they not going to do it when funds are made available to them in addition to their own funds and funds which they get from trustee status? Why should they not do it now when additional funds are available?
  Miss Herbison: The Minister gave the answer to that during the Second Reading debate on the Bill. He mentioned the Halifax Permanent Building Society and one or two other societies which were willing to lend on these older houses, but it was because others were unable to do so that the Government decided to do something about it.
  Mr. Cole: That does not alter what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that he did not think that the societies would take it up. My right hon. Friend said during the Second Reading debate that, to a large extent, the building societies did not have the funds. Most hon. Members know of one society, if not more, which has had the funds and lent on this type of property.
  I think we shall find that societies will he glad to make use of these funds, to the extent of £100 million, for the purpose of lending on these older houses. These older pre-1919 houses—I live in a house very much older than that—are part of our stock of houses in the country. We are a limited country in size and have a limited number of units of accommodation—I think that is the term used today—and it is not easily possible, whichever party is in power, to find all the land we want on which to build houses and flats and also to keep our agriculture going. Therefore, we must jealously guard those houses which we have today.
  I believe that this quite clear and very fine effort to encourage building societies to lend money on pre-1919 houses is going to he of great help. We in this country cannot afford, if it could be
  1402
  afforded anywhere, to cast aside our large stock of pre-1919 houses and only concentrate on those built subsequently. We must keep in mind those people who may have been living in such houses since they were built or later and find themselves with a "frozen asset", as it were. They cannot sell the house because would-be purchasers cannot raise a mortgage to buy, and so the owners have to remain in houses which may not now be adequate for their needs, or else let them he sold at some lesser figure. In many ways, which will demonstrate themselves over the years, my right hon. Friend has made a great contribution by means of this Bill to the creation of a property-owning democracy, something in which hon. Members on this side of the House passionately believe.
  During the Committee stage discussions I referred to the inclusion of societies for trustee status and the size of the assets necessary for them to qualify. I wish to refer again to that subject and to recall that when a group of Amendments were being discussed during the Committee stage my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, in reply to remarks from my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), that
  "as the conditions will be laid down by regulation"—
  that is conditions from the Treasury—
  "it will be possible to make amendments from time to time when we see how the Act works out."
  These are the conditions for trustee status referred to in Clause 1 of the Bill. The Economic Secretary also said:
  "One of the conditions which could be amended if it became obviously right to do so would be the size qualification."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 4th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 454–5.]
  I wish to remind my right hon. Friend of that and to express the hope that he will be able to keep this matter continually under review. It is something which has caused concern to many of the smaller societies.
  In Clause I of the Bill it states:
  "Where the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies … is satisfied that a permanent building society fulfils such requirements as to its assets and liabilities, liquid funds, reserves, and other matters, as the Treasury may by regulations prescribe …"

  1403
  In other words, the size qualification is only one of the various criteria for consideration for trustee status. I am anxious about this matter. We may well find from experience that many societies are justified in every way for acquiring trustee status although they may not at present have assets amounting to £500,000.
  My right hon. Friend has had to endure a certain amount of good humoured derision from the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). But I do not think that my right hon. Friend has any cause to be ashamed of a Measure which will enable many people to be provided with a kitchen sink and a supply of hot water. I consider it a cause for adulation that, with all his other responsibilities, my right hon. Friend has found time to put that into effect.
  Mr. Reynolds: We were told during earlier discussions on this Bill that it was impossible to insist on a hot water supply being provided for the kitchen sink because the kitchen sink could not be defined legally, and the provision is in the Bill only because of pressure from hon. Members on this side of the House.
  Mr. Cole: The hon. Gentleman does me too much credit. I was not referring to that matter but to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering who referred to putting the kitchen sink into a Statute.
  The amenities which will be provided by this Bill will mean a lot to human welfare and to the happiness of the people who will benefit from them. I thank my right hon. Friend for his efforts and I wish the Bill a speedy passage in another place.
  10.45 p.m.
  Dame Irene Ward: We are all grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) for the efforts she has made to safeguard the position of women under the provisions of this Bill. Women everywhere will be grateful to her for the work she has done.
  I want also to put on record how much I appreciate the stand which has been taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in the statement he has made of his own views in relation to the position of women.
  1404
  He has stated quite categorically that he believes in equality for women under the Bill. Women will be very grateful for that statement. The only difficulty which has arisen is that it does not appear to have been possible to include in the Bill the necessary safeguards in words so that in future there shall be no misunderstanding about the intentions regarding participation of women in these matters.
  I want to put on record two ideas of my own about how, if there are difficulties with building societies, we might be able to protect the interests of women. If I remember correctly, my right hon. Friend said at one point that the Building Societies Association had signed an agreement on this matter. It should be possible to have on the record in HANSARD the names of those societies. If in future any woman is unfairly treated by a building society it should be possible for any hon. Member—on either side of the House—to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minute Rule eliminating such a society from a grant made by my right hon. Friend. It would be quite a good thing to have that on the record so that building societies, which I am sure will read this debate with very great interest and care, will be aware of the view of the Government and my right hon. Friend and that in future they can look for trouble if they do not implement the provisions the Minister quite honourably and honestly expects them to carry out.
  I am not quite so tolerant as my right hon. Friend. I do not always believe that everyone will behave perfectly in this rather imperfect world. I prefer to have safeguards inserted in the Bill. It seems that we could look for a safeguard in this direction. I only trust that we shall not have to resort to such methods to ensure that women are treated equally with men under the provisions of the Bill.
  The other day my right hon. Friend announced that he was going to write to local authorities giving them a directive or guidance—I am not certain which—that there should be no sex discrimination. In future there might be a time when we could ask whether there has been any discrimination on the part of local authorities. In relation to the treatment of women by local authorities—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not in the Bill. It all seems to be a matter of administration.
  Dame Irene Ward: With very great respect, Mr. Speaker, you were not in the Chair when the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South made a speech covering the position of women under the Bill. It seems a little unfortunate that I, too, am not allowed to comment on it.
  Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), but I am hearing the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). That is all that concerns me. I think that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth has made the point quite well. She must not discuss matters of administration, which have nothing to do with the Bill on Third Reading.
  Dame Irene Ward: I can only say that I consider it a little unfortunate. I heard the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South make a full statement of the position of women under the Bill. I thought that it was very odd, because there is no safeguard in the Bill for women. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having drawn my attention to the matter.
  I hope that I shall not have to ask my right hon. Friend to take disciplinary action against local authorities for not carrying out the undertaking which has been required by my right hon. Friend. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has given certain undertakings and has made his own position clear, because it is only fair that women should participate as well as men in the provisions of the Bill, which the Government have introduced with a view to assisting home ownership in this country.
  10.52 p.m.
  Miss Herbison: My hon. Friends and I regret the illness of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Joint Under-Secretary of State and we hope that they will very soon be fully recovered. I am sure that the Minister will convey that message.
  The Parliamentary Secretary claimed that this was the greatest single Measure to promote home ownership, and both the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) claimed that it was a great Bill which encouraged home ownership. Which houses does the Bill help people to buy? They must be at least forty
  1406
  years old—pre-1919. When these houses are bought they will be bought from their present owners. How many more people in Britain will become home owners, then, as a result of the Bill? I hope that after the great claims which he made on Second Reading, and what I regard as the extravagant claim made by the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister will be able to tell us how many more people he expects to become home owners as a result of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Crosby said that he could find no objection which my hon. Friends had to the Bill. Our greatest objection to it is that it will do very little to improve the houses in Britain. The hon. Member for Crosby tried to compare what had been done under a Labour Government from 1945 to 1951 with what had been done under a Conservative Government from 1951 to 1958. I am sorry that he is not in his place to hear my comments. I remind him of a fact which he has perhaps forgotten—that there was a war from 1939 to 1945 in which we suffered a great deal of bomb damage.
  Even if we forget all that, the true comparison is not what happened between 1945 and 1951 and what happened between 1951 and 1958, but what happened between 1945 and 1951 in Britain and what happened in any other country in Western Europe. Looking at that comparison, one finds that in housing we did better than any country in Western Europe that our building resources were employed to the full during that period; and indeed, we were top of the league in house and factory building and keeping down the cost of living. The hon. Member for Crosby would have something to crow about if he could say that his Government, during those years, had remained at the top of the league rather than dropped our country to the miserable position of almost bottom of the league in almost all these fields.
  Mr. Temple: The hon. Lady has been giving some interesting figures about Europe. Could she give us the improvement in house-building in Europe between 1951 and 1953? She will recollect that there was a considerable improvement at that time in England. Was the same improvement maintained in Europe during those two years?
  Miss Herbison: I am not considering two years. This Government have been in power from 1951 and this is 1959. One has to compare the whole of their record with our record, and one finds that their record is not a great deal to crow about.
  Dame Irene Ward: The electors decided otherwise in 1955.
  Miss Herbison: We are waiting until the next election, when I imagine the hon. Lady will find that the electors have changed considerably since that time.
  I am glad that throughout this Bill my hon. Friend, the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Elaine Burton) has fought for equality for women. She said that she would have liked safeguards in the Bill. An opportunity was given on the Committee stage for these to be put in, but I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth voted against those safeguards going in. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to give my hon. Friend the guarantees for which she asked in her excellent speech.
  I want to turn to Parts II and III of the Bill. I wonder whether the Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, or the Solicitor-General, really feel that Parts II and III will lead to a great improvement in housing in the United Kingdom? This Government have tried by various measures to get landlords to improve our existing pool of houses. Almost bribe after bribe has been offered to the landlords, and to date these bribes have failed. Do the Government feel that this further generous bribe will lead to the improvement that we all feel is desperately needed for our houses?
  The Government have decided that local authorities must give grants, with certain safeguards. We tried to move Amendments today, but we discovered that this Bill insists on local authorities giving grants to owners of houses which may have sanitary defects and that, by using the grant, may bring about overcrowding. It even allows for grants for owners' houses which are something less than fit for human habitation. The Government talk about freedom. They have made great play about the freedom which Conservatism brings, but where the local authorities are concerned the Government seem to think that Whitehall knows best.
  1408
  In Clause 12 in Part II of the Bill, a Clause affecting England and Wales, there is the provision that the local authority shall decide what the rent should be if an improvement grant is given to the owner of the house the rent of which is decontrolled. We welcome that provision. We think it is an important provision, if public money, whether from the ratepayer or from the taxpayer, is to go to a landlord to improve the house, that the landlord should not, when the house is decontrolled, be able to ask an exorbitant rent from the tenant.
  We tried in Committee and on Report to get a similar provision for Scotland. We do not know what were the reasons why our Amendments at both stages were not called. I say to the Solicitor-General for Scotland that I hope he will tell the Secretary of State that, although we have not been able to express what we feel on this matter, we do welcome the provision in Clause 12, that we think it is a very great safeguard to the tenant of a decontrolled house, and that, knowing the landlords in Scotland, we feel that it is of just as great importance, perhaps of greater importance, that we should have that provision in Part III of the Bill, too. We ask that the Secretary of State, when the Bill goes to another place, will make certain that such a provision is put into Part III.
  On Second Reading I said that we would not vote against the Bill. Anything which helps even in the slightest to improve our housing we on this side welcome. We have tried to improve this Bill. Very few of our Amendments have been accepted. All through, whenever the Government have rejected our Amendments, they have done so because of their tenderness for the landlords. The Amendments which we proposed were Amendments to improve the position of the tenants, and time after time those Amendments have been rejected.
  What one of my hon. Friends said I also want to say, that we have an alternative policy. We believe in owner-occupation. Our 1949 Act was the very first in the history of this country to help those who did own a little house to get the improvements for it. When we were the Government interest rates were much lower for those who wanted to own their own houses. We have said very clearly in our policy statement that we

  1409
  shall revert to special rates of interest for home ownership.
  I say finally to the Minister that this Bill may do a little, but it seems to us on this side of the House that it will not overcome the many evils which still exist in our housing in Britain. The Manchester Guardian was absolutely right. If the measures proposed in this Bill fail, the only alternative is the alternative proposed by the Labour Party. From all our previous experience we are convinced that the measures that are proposed in the Bill will fail. To the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth, I would say that I am certain that before it has had much chance to operate there will be a Labour Government ready to bring in a Bill that will ensure for our people in Scotland, England and Wales really good conditions to provide the kind of home that is so important for Family life.
  11.7 p.m.
  Mr. H. Brooke: I am obliged to the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) for the kind words she said about the illness of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I can assure her that it is through no fault of mine that two English Ministers are speaking on the Third Reading of this Bill. Had it not been that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary were prevented by illness from being here, I can assure the House there would have been at least one Front Bench speech from a Scottish Minister.
  Three months have passed since the Bill was debated on Second Reading and I am certainly not going to delay for more than a few minutes its progress to another place, because, whatever the Opposition may say, I have no doubt that the provisions in the Bill are being waited for eagerly by tens of thousands of people. That applies to each of the three Parts of the Bill.
  Before the House gives the Bill a Third Reading I should like to reply to points that have been raised in debate, have sat through this two-hour debate and have endeavoured to follow it. I was not quite sure whether I followed the argument of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) who, in a series of diminishing figures, reminded me of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
  1410
  On another point, I realise that I have got to be very careful, with ladies in front of me and ladies behind me, not to put a foot wrong in the matter of sex discrimination.
  I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) for his suggestion that the Government might publish an explanatory booklet. Nothing of that kind could be done until the Bill becomes law, but I think that practice has been followed by Governments of different political colours in the past because it is to the common interest of all of us when new facilities have been enacted that we should take steps to make them as widely known as possible. Without doubt, I shall be sending a circular to local authorities when the Bill becomes law, drawing their attention to its provisions, and no doubt making certain suggestions for their guidance so far as they may need it.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield. West (Mr. Wade) spoke of the danger of people buying at inflated prices. He asked whether I would take cognizance of the stories he had heard that local authorities would give orders to valuers to value down properties where there was a question of making a 100 per cent. advance. I must point out that there is no obligation on any local authority under this Bill to make a 100 per cent. advance, so there is no need for a local authority to be as subtle as that. All it need say is that it is not going to make an advance of more than X per cent. of the valuation. I have never made any secret of the fact that I do not expect there will be a great many cases in which local authorities will make 100 per cent. advances.
  It certainly seemed to the Government—and I am glad that it has generally commended itself to the House—that local authorities should have that power, because there was no reason in logic why they should continue to be restricted to 90 per cent. when building societies were free, by law, to go to 100 per cent., and were certainly willing to go to 95 per cent.
  The hon. Gentleman was fearful lest people should be induced to buy houses at inflated prices by the offer of 95 per cent. from a building society. He may like to be reminded of the terms of the

  1411
  agreement which was reached with the Building Societies Association, as set out in the White Paper published in cannection with the Bill. That stated that the advance, if the borrower so wishes, is to be 95 per cent. of the purchase price or valuation, whichever is the less, which means that the building societies themselves are well aware of the risks that might be run if we took the purchase price without imposing any check on it. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that a building society is under a statutory obligation to have a valuation made before making any advance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) spoke, quite rightly, of the value which building societies set on the grant of trustee status, and asked me to keep all the detail of these provisions under review. That assurance I can certainly give him. The House itself is safeguarded, because my hon. Friend will recollect that in Clause 2 (4) a limit of £100 million is set to the advances that can be made to the building societies under the Bill. That sum will be guaranteed, and when it is exhausted it will be necessary for the Government, if it is desired that the scheme should be carried on, to come back to Parliament and submit to further debate in this House.
  I come now to the two hon. Ladies who have taken such a keen interest in the matter of sex discrimination. The hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) referred to the phrase "other matters," which appears at the foot of page 1 of the Bill. The Bill there deals primarily with the conditions for trustee status. At some moments, the hon. Lady seemed to regard me as being virtually responsible for the Building Societies Association. I am no more responsible to the House for the Association than she is for, let us say, the Coventry City Council. Indeed, she may be more responsible for that Council's doings than I am for the Association's. As I informed the House, the Association has itself suggested that the agreement which building societies wishing to enter into the scheme will have to sign should include an undertaking that they will make loans without distinction of sex.
  Both hon. Members have asked how this provision would operate and be enforced.
  1412
  I can answer quite simply. Each society will be required to sign an agreement and, as at present proposed, such agreement will be terminable at three months' notice by either the Minister or the society concerned. In England, the Minister will be myself, and, in Scotland, he will be the Secretary of State. If, therefore, in the opinion of the responsible Minister, a society were to break the agreement, whether by discriminating against women or in any other way, the Minister would give notice to terminate the agreement for the future. I hope that that is a complete answer to that point.
  In passing, I should say that if an agreement is terminated, that does not mean that existing mortgagors under the scheme in connection with the agreement would be sacrificed. Their position would be safeguarded by the continuance of the agreement in respect of the existing mortgages.
  Miss Burton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that assurance. Can he make it clear whether he included in those terms of sex discrimination this aggravating nuisance of the male guarantor, which is what irritates the women?
  Mr. Brooke: I think that that is so. I do not think that I can use any fresh words on the spur of the moment. I have already told the House that there will be a provision that the society will make loans without distinction of sex. That means that while every society must naturally consider the credit worthiness of every borrower, whether man or woman, in no case can there be any question of some discriminating provision, whether the seeking of a male guarantor or anything else, simply because the applicant is a woman.
  Miss Burton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much.
  Mr. Brooke: That is the point at issue. Naturally, there may be certain applicants, whether men or women, who, because of their position, have not the same credit worthiness of normal applicants, and in such cases it is perfectly natural that the society should seek some further guarantee that the obligations will be met.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North, seeking at that moment to minimise the importance of the Bill and

  1413
  its value to would-be house purchasers, said that it would assist only those purchasers of houses which were forty years old or more. That is not the case, as has been repeatedly explained by the Government. The building societies participating in the scheme are accepting obligations not only in respect of houses built before 1919, but in respect of houses built between the wars, that, so far as their funds allow, they will make advances on similar terms up to 95 per cent.
  There is no doubt whatever that the provisions of the Bill will directly or indirectly loosen the facilities for the purchase of almost every type of house. Of course, it will be the people who wish to buy houses below certain limits of value and more than forty years old who will be sure henceforth that, if they are credit worthy and the house is sound, they will be able to get an advance, whereas for a number of years it has been the experience of many people seeking loans from building societies and being thoroughly credit worthy that they have met with a refusal, a most maddening refusal to them, but a refusal which the building society has had to give simply and solely because it did not have the funds to meet all the demands made upon it.
  Miss Herbison: I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could tell us how many extra people will become house owners as a result of the Bill. Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea?
  Mr. Brooke: Any figure would simply be a guess and no sounder than the answer which the hon. Lady might make if I were to ask her how many Labour Members were likely to lose their seats at the next election.
  Miss Herbison: That is as I suspected. Since the right hon. Gentleman has no information and cannot make even a guess, why does he make all his wonderful claims for the Bill?
  Mr. Brooke: I could make any number of guesses, but when I am speaking on the Third Reading I do not think it is for me to indicate any figure unless I am sure that I can stand by it. So much depends on the conditions in the country, and whether we have a Government who creates conditions of confidence. There is no doubt whatever from indications
  1414
  which have reached me and many other hon. Members by now that there are many people who, as I said before, are waiting for the Bill to reach the Statute Book, because they realise its attractions and the new opportunities it will give them.
  But no one can prophesy and say exactly what number that will be, and that is exactly the same with standard grants and improvement grants. I have no doubt that when the Labour Government put the 1949 Act on the Statute Book and first made provision for improvement grants, high hopes were held in the minds of the sponsors. Those hopes were frustrated and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said, in five years fewer than 10,000 improvement and conversion grants were made. The scheme failed because it was too restrictive, and I have borne that fact in mind when the Opposition have asked the Government to accept Amendments which would have imposed new restrictions in addition to the other conditions for the making of these grants.
  In 1954 we introduced new legislation. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was responsible at that time. At once the number of improvement and conversion grants leapt up, and then levelled out at about 35,000 a year. This was far better than the 1949–54 figure, but it was still not good enough, and the Government feel confident, because of all these things, that the new provisions of the Bill will lead to a rapid expansion of that number of 35,000.
  Mr. Mitchison: Was not the 1954 Act the one which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) called a mouldy old turnip for the landlords? Is this a better turnip?
  Mr. Brooke: If the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to argue that the 1949 Act was as successful as the 1954 Act in getting houses improved he will argue almost anything. What I am quite prepared to say is that this Measure will have a greater effect than either of those Measures in further stimulating the improvement of houses for the benefit not only of their landlords but their tenants. Whether it will do enough and go far enough, who can say, at this stage? It was the experience between 1945 and 1951 that all the housing efforts of the

  1415
  present Opposition failed. Since 1951 a successful housing policy has been continuously unfolded by the Government. We have now reached a point, with house building and slum clearance, at which we can take a further stride forward towards both house improvement and home ownership. Both of those desires are eagerly held by many of our fellow citizens in England, Scotland and Wales, and it is to satisfy those desires that we ask the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  COUNTY COURTS BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations as to the payment of improvement grants under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts, 1946 to 1956, and as to the payment of grants and contributions under certain other enactments, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided in payment of improvement grants under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts, 1946 to 1956, and of grants or contributions under any of the following
  1416
  enactments as amended by any subsequent enactment, that is to say—

  (a) section sixteen of the Agriculture Act, Act, 1937;

  (b) section fifteen of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940;

  (c) section three of the Pests Act, 1954.—[Mr. Godber.]

  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  INDUSTRY AND EMPLOYMENT, NORTH-EAST SCOTLAND
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
  11.27 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Her Majesty's Government have great powers under the Distribution of Industry Act and otherwise for the distribution of industry in Britain. I am concerned with the share that Scotland gets of it. The Government are responsible for the unfair distribution of industry and employment throughout Britain. They are, therefore, responsible for the unfair concentration of industry and employment in the South and Midlands of this island to the prejudice of North-East Scotland where trade, industry and employment are very badly needed.
  In North-East Scotland the rate of unemployment is more than three times that in London and South-East England. In North-East Scotland it is 5·4 per cent. as against 1·7 per cent in London and the South-East. In my submission, Her Majesty's Government are not fully using the statutory powers which they have, and, as a consequence, the nation and the workers are suffering.
  I want to present a reasoned case showing why Her Majesty's Government should alter this very injurious policy under which Scotland has suffered ever since they came to power. The high rate of unemployment which afflicts Scotland today is an offence to the individual. It is an avoidable loss to the nation and a mark of the grievous failure of the Government to govern properly.
  Every able citizen has, in my submission, a right to do productive work, to eat, live, raise a family and feed them and to make his contribution to his own

  1417
  wealth and that of the nation in a free society. For him to be forcibly deprived of these rights without fault of his own by being dismissed from the work in which he has invested his life is an obvious and elementary injustice. That is the position in Scotland today.
  I am not alone in holding this opinion as is evidenced by the expressions of distinguished thinkers and distinguished newspapers. That independent newspaper, the Observer, only last Sunday pointed out that this is a social and industrial problem of a broad nature. I will quote one sentence from its article. It said:
  "Whether the firms in the industry do not lave a collective responsibility to compensate the older people, at any rate, who have invested a large part of their lives in a particular form of work is a major consideration."
  In my submission, it goes further and extends to all workers, apprenticed or trained, in any technique who, at a loss to themselves and the nation by enforced unemployment, are denied the opportunity of using their skills.
  The Aberdeen Press and Journal, a distinguished newspaper in my constituency, stated in a leading article on 5th March, on the subject of the injury inflicted on school-leavers who find themslves unable to get work:
  "There has recently been a considerable amount of uneasiness about the prospects of youngsters leaving school … There can be no relaxing of the special efforts being made in certain regions in Scotland. The work of the conference (on unemployment) to be called in Aberdeen is as important as ever."
  In my submission, it is the duty of any Government to rectify these disparities between the various citizens, but this Government have not done so. The total number of persons registered as unemployed on 12th January of this year was, for Britain as a whole. 620,786; in Scotland as a whole, 116,510 and in Aberdeen, 4,939. That is the largest figure reached in Aberdeen for many years.
  These figures contrast with the figures under the Labour Government of 1945–50 when Britain had full employment for the first time in history, full productivity, and records in exports and in the import of foreign currency wherewith to buy foreign commodities. Today Scotland is at a terrible disadvantage compared with the rest of Britain. The percentage of unemployment is higher in Scotland than anywhere else in Britain
  1418
  as is shown by the figures which I have already quoted.
  Why is this? The answer lies in bad administration in relation to Scotland by the relevant Ministers since this Government came to power. The Ministers I particularise are those at the Scottish Office, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour and National Service which have neglected Scottish interests.
  In 1945–50 the administration of the Scottish Office was optimistic, constructive and practical, and it developed Scottish industry and employment with success and prosperity. Since 1951 until now the administration of the Scottish Office, as I shall show, has been pessimistic, non possumus and impracticable. Industry has been allowed to slacken and unemployment grows. Only the other day the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart), a former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland, indicted the Tory Government and made clear the argument I am adducing. In a speech in Glasgow he said:
  "The talk of enticing manufacturers to the Highlands"—
  and we are always trying to get manufacturers and industry to the Highlands and increase employment there—
  "so far as consumer goods are concerned, is just eyewash … Great play has been made of the benefits which would accrue from the application of the Distribution of Industry Act, but to put it brutally, very little had happened and the Act had never really been put into force."
  In my submission, this is the fault of the present Government. That right hon. Member went on pessimistically to point out other difficulties confronting Scottish trade, industry and employment such as Scotland's geographical position far to the north, away from the large consuming centres of the South and with the lack of a flat rate for transport.
  This House knows that for years I have tried to induce the Scottish Office to take steps to introduce a flat rate of transport charges for commodities from Northern Scotland. I have put it to successive Secretaries of State and other Ministers of 'this Government, but always they have put difficulties in the way and the difficulties frighten them. Industries have not been fostered sufficiently, trade has languished, no flat rate has been granted, and today we see, as yesterday

  1419
  and the day before, unemployment increasing in North-East Scotland. It is the same today and always has been under this Government who discriminate against Scotland because their hearts and their investments are in the South instead of in Scotland.
  Contrast this with Northern Ireland where success is being achieved though the geographical position there is worse than in Scotland. Distances from the large consuming centres in England are longer, freight charges as a consequence are expensive and unemployment is greater, yet Northern Ireland is successful in attracting British, American and Canadian industries by the positive policy of its local Parliament, which is to make grants to build factories, to let them cheaply at a mere fraction of London rents, to buy machinery and assist research, to buy fuel and to build special roads, power stations and workers' houses. Is not this a striking example to the three Ministries I have indicated to do something of the same for Scotland, if they really mean it?
  I shall crystallise the questions I ask the Ministers to deal with. First, have Her Majesty's Government any plans on the Northern Ireland lines for North-East Scotland in general and Aberdeen in particular? Second, what are the plans of Her Majesty's Government for Aberdeen (a) to build advance factories and (b) to extend existing factories? Third, do Her Majesty's Government intend to reduce unemployment in North-East Scotland in general and Aberdeen in particular? If so, how are they attracting new industries there, and will they offer lower factory rents in order to attract them?
  Fourth, how do Her Majesty's Government intend to use their great powers for industrial development? Is it by preventing the building of additional factories in congested areas like London and the Midlands? Is it by encouraging industries to go to Aberdeen and North-East Scotland? Does the Minister realise that no factory or extension exceeding 5,000 square feet can be built without an Industrial Development Certificate from the Board of Trade? Does the Minister realise that Aberdeen offers great advantages of water power, electric power, clean air, plenty of open space and available labour?
  1420
  Fifth, what steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to provide a flat rate for the transport of goods? Sixth, what steps do Her Majesty's Government propose in order to give the workers security of tenure in work and compensation for dismissal without fault on their part?
  It is right that I should mention that before I rose to make this speech, I gave that set of questions to the Minister so that he could consider them and give a satisfactory reply. I hope that the Minister will give constructive answers to these questions to prevent the creeping mould of unemployment tarnishing the glittering glory of Aberdeen, the silver city by the sea.
  11.39 p.m.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I listened to every word spoken by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen. North (Mr. Hector Hughes) and I did not hear any suggestion of a constructive nature to tackle the problems of Aberdeen today. Indeed, when one looks at the record of the Labour Government and remembers the 2 million unemployed in 1947 and recalls that the Labour Government said over and over again that had it not been for America there would have been millions on the dole, one is not encouraged by the prospect of a future Labour Government. I am convinced that there would be a flight of capital from this country just because of the vague ideas on the ownership of industry held by the Labour Party.
  We know perfectly well that the cause of our trouble can perhaps be summarised in two ways. First, our troubles are a result of the ending of a post-war boom and a demand for goods at any price and of any quality. This affects countries all over the Western world. Secondly, they are in part a result of the Government's policies of credit squeeze which were adopted for a deliberate purpose in order to tackle the problem of inflation which we all knew perfectly well had to be tackled if we were not to price ourselves out of world markets.
  We talk, naturally, with anxiety of how we are to bring industry to areas far away from London, but we do not ask what are the markets for those industries. A great deal has been done in Scotland by the Scottish Council for the Development of Industry, by local chambers of commerce and by the Board of Trade,

  1421
  but the fact remains that in a country which at present does not adopt either direction of labour or direction of industry, it is a question of partnership between Government, management and those who work within industry.
  I therefore ask the Government whether they will say tonight that they will consider whether it is feasible or practicable to adopt for a short period a subsidy on the lines of that granted by the Northern Ireland Parliament for a specific period of unemployment. I ask not that the economy should be distorted to the detriment of existing industry but that we should consider granting a subsidy for short periods to the extent adopted in Northern Ireland, which has a sea passage and has 10 per cent. unemployment.
  Secondly, I ask what has been done to stimulate the work already being undertaken by local authorities in the clearance of sites and construction on sites for future house building. I am certain that the March unemployment figures in Scotland will show that the seasonal problem, particularly in the building industry, has greatly improved. I remember making speeches long ago, back in the early days of the 1945 Parliament, saying that a time of difficulty was the time to stimulate public works and similar building and a time of boom was the time to take a rein on the economy in order to hold inflation.
  In the present period of difficulty it is of the utmost importance that we should not distort the economy of Scotland to such an extent that it is not able in steadier times to continue the steady growth which we all desire. I am certain that in the April Budget we shall see the relaxation of those credit restrictions which have been unpopular with all of us but which were necessary at the time. I am certain that with that stimulation of the economy we shall see a steady growth of employment in Scotland throughout the summer.
  11 44 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): I am sure that we all regret the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland who has influenza and who otherwise. I am sure, would have been here tonight, possibly answering the debate.
  1422
  I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) for the eloquent way in which he has advanced the claims of the silver city. At Question Time week after week he assiduously probes for more and more information on this important subject and he is therefore in possession of most of the facts about the industrial situation in the Aberdeen and Buckie-Peterhead areas. I have very little new to say, because all these things have been revealed to him week after week on Tuesdays and Thursdays, in answer to his Questions.
  I was interested to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman's analysis of the situation overall in Scotland, and in particular in North-East Scotland. The figures undoubtedly show that this is one of the areas where, throughout the period since the war, the level of unemployment has remained too high. I assure him that we are by no means complacent about these figures. It is true that even in recent times they have worsened, and, as he said, in Aberdeen the latest figure is 5 per cent., while in other parts of North-East Scotland it is much more serious.
  This is obviously a situation which no one likes, and which any Government would do their best to try to solve. But it is a travesty for the hon. and learned Gentleman to try to hold this or any other Government responsible for the vast growth of the London conurbation, as opposed to the movement of population in Scotland. This has been going on for a long time, and has baffled successive Governments. It is true that we have had our power over the granting of industrial development certificates, and we are applying this power wherever possible in as tough a way as possible, to try to winkle out firms from the congested areas such as London and the Midlands, and persuade them to go to these areas of high and persistent unemployment, such as his constituency.
  However, we must bear in mind, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) said, that production is not the only answer. Markets are equally important, and it is no good producing goods which cannot be sold. Therefore, we must pay some notice to the efficient operating of a firm, and this policy of the granting or non-granting of an I.D.C. must be flexible.

  1423
  Wherever we can, if it is a new project, we refuse a certificate in London, but we are bound to grant applications for certain projects in these congested areas—for instance, for the service industries to be found there, or sometimes because these are merely extensions of existing plant. It would be harmful to the efficiency of a partciular firm if we tried to truncate a part of it which depends on the whole firm—just as if we were to cut off a man's arm from the rest of his body. But if we can steer rather than direct a firm to one of these areas, particularly to the hon. and learned Gentleman's area, we try to do so.
  On this side of the House, whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman said in his eloquence, we all regard unemployment as a great human tragedy, and we all wish to see people being enabled to use their talents in the service of their fellow men. I was brought up in the North of England, and well remember the mass unemployment of the 19291930 period. No one wants to see a return to that, and no one really believes that that is likely to be the case, but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman should give us some credit for the measures we have taken to try to deal with the situation. Successive Conservative Governments have shown their concern in this matter. It is on record that we are the only Government who have passed any Acts of Parliament dealing with the location of industry—in the 'thirties, in 1945, and again in 1958. These are all Conservative Measures.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: Nonsense.
  Mr. Rodgers: This is a matter of historical fact, and although this is not the place for me to go into historical facts, I would say that there will doubtless be an occasion not far distant when we can debate whether these Measures were introduced by Conservative Administrations or not. They certainly were, but I will leave that for the moment.
  I will give figures. A White Paper was produced in 1944 by the National Government.
  Mr. Fraser: The National Government. yes.
  Mr. Rodgers: But the Act was passed by the Caretaker Government in 1945
  1424
  before the Labour Government came into office. We passed in 1958 the Distribution of Industry Act which was specially designed to give help to areas such as those not covered by the 1945 Act and places where there was urgent need for new industry. Under this new Act projects which can bring employment to places where the level of unemployment is high and persistent are eligible, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, for assistance by the Treasury. The Treasury has a committee of independent business men and one trade unionist, I think, and an accountant to advise whether a project is likely to provide employment and will be viable after the assistance has been withdrawn.
  All the areas of which we have been talking tonight are among those considered in this context which are in need of new employment. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman—I am sure he knows this—that it is the constant effort of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of my colleagues and myself at the Board of Trade to attract new industries to these areas.
  So far we have been disappointed at the number of applications received by the Committee for assistance under the Act, but there are indications that the new expansionist climate in the country is encouraging more firms to revise their plans at the moment and to consider setting up manufacturing in places such as the North-East of Scotland and other parts of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which are in need of diversified industry.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned Northern Ireland and referred to the success they have already had there. Nevertheless, their unemployment rate is far higher than Scotland's—between 9 per cent. and 10 per cent. I was over there the other day. I am full of admiration for what they have done, particularly in view of the great difficulties of transport, but they have by no means solved their unemployment problem despite the steps which they have taken to overcome their difficulties.
  I hope that the one firm in the area for which a loan has already been recommended by D.A.T.A.C. will be followed by many more, to bring the new employment which is needed in the area. Four

  1425
  more applications for D.A.F.A.C. assistance are under consideration at this very moment.
  As well as the 1958 Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, the Development Commission has powers to build factories in rural areas in certain parts of Scotland and Wales, and they are being used to help the Buckie and Peterhead area where unemployment is particularly serious. Since 1947 finance has been provided through the Development Fund for three new projects two of which have already had extensions and the third is now also being extended to provide employment for 694 people and to cover 133,000 sq. ft. Industrial Development Certificates have been granted for 14 projects in this area and 28 in the Aberdeen area which alone should provide employment for 1,236 and 400 people respectively. These figures are for the last five years. I was going to catalogue the various new industries which have been introduced into these two areas of Aberdeen and Buckie-Peterhead but I shall not do that now.
  There is no easy solution to the unemployment problem of the area. It is perfectly true that many firms consider that this area is remote and that they feel they would benefit more by being nearer to their markets. We do our best to correct this attitude. I appreciate very much what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the water power and hydro-electric power, the clean air, and the availability of open spaces, which are an attraction. I am immensely encouraged myself that in a town as far north as Fraserburgh an engineering firm is established which maintains a labour force of over 1,000. Equally, in Peterhead there are two American firms which are prospering and expanding at this
  1426
  moment. All these firms are used as evidence by the regional controller and by the rest of us to persuade other firms to follow their good example.
  To answer some of the questions would be wide of my responsibilities and not possible on this Adjournment debate. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman realises that the whole question of transport rates, and whether they should be flat throughout the country, is a vast subject which could not be dealt with on a debate about the unemployment situation in North-East Scotland. It is a much wider subject than that. I am sure, however, that it is a subject which my right hon. Friend has considered and is considering.
  We intend to do all we can to provide new employment in this area. We intend to use our powers to stop development of the congested areas and to steer firms to Development Areas without damage to British industry wherever possible. We shall encourage firms to go to Scotland. We have had considerable success in Scotland, though, I agree, not enough. One only has to see the fine new factories going up, many of them taken over by American firms. As soon as Ravenscraig is in operation new industries will be attracted to Scotland, and in this context I would point out that nothing succeeds like success. The more firms that go to these areas the more we shall persuade other firms to go there. But we must not minimise the difficulties.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at three minutes to Twelve o'clock.

WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Reception, West Berkshire
  Reception, West Berkshire
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Aberdeen
  Aberdeen
  Emergency Calls, Dagenham
  Emergency Calls, Dagenham
POST OFFICE
  Scottish Spun Flax
  Scottish Spun Flax
ROADS
  Traffic Flow, Wembley (Traders' Campaign)
  Traffic Flow, Wembley (Traders' Campaign)
  Relief Road, Newbury
  Relief Road, Newbury
  London-Yorkshire Motorway (Leicestershire)
  London-Yorkshire Motorway (Leicestershire)
  Basingstoke-Exeter Traffic (Routing)
  Basingstoke-Exeter Traffic (Routing)
TRANSPORT
  Driving Test Scheme (Cost)
  Driving Test Scheme (Cost)
  Convention on Road Traffic
  Convention on Road Traffic
SHIPPING
  Nuclear Propulsion (Safety)
  Nuclear Propulsion (Safety)
CIVIL AVIATION
  Princess Flying Boats
  Princess Flying Boats
  London Airport (Unidentified Object)
  London Airport (Unidentified Object)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Building Installations, Germany
  Building Installations, Germany
  Thermo-nuclear Missiles
  Thermo-nuclear Missiles
  GERMANY (WEAPONS SITE)
  GERMANY (WEAPONS SITE)
  IRAN (TREATY OF COMMERCE, ESTABLISHMENT AND NAVIGATION)
  IRAN (TREATY OF COMMERCE, ESTABLISHMENT AND NAVIGATION)
EMPLOYMENT
  Factory Inspectorate
  Factory Inspectorate
  Eastwood
  Eastwood
  Engineering Construction (Safety Regulations)
  Engineering Construction (Safety Regulations)
  Kenfig Hill
  Kenfig Hill
  Unofficial Strikes (Shop Stewards)
  Unofficial Strikes (Shop Stewards)
  Biddulph and Cheadle
  Biddulph and Cheadle
SHIPBUILDING
  Orders
  Orders
ROYAL NAVY
  Chatham Barracks and Hospital
  Chatham Barracks and Hospital
  Malta Dockyard (Disorders)
  Malta Dockyard (Disorders)
  Small Craft (Sale)
  Small Craft (Sale)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Spain (Loan)
  Spain (Loan)
  Commodity Prices and Stocking
  Commodity Prices and Stocking
  Distribution of Industry (Assistance)
  Distribution of Industry (Assistance)
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Africans, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland (Detention)
  Africans, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland (Detention)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Television Tubes
  Television Tubes
EDUCATION
  Grammar School Facilities, Basildon
  Grammar School Facilities, Basildon
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Poliomyelitis Vaccination (Expenditure)
  Poliomyelitis Vaccination (Expenditure)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Gas Industry (Liquid Methane)
  Gas Industry (Liquid Methane)
SCOTLAND
  School, Lanarkshire
  School, Lanarkshire

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

QUARANTINE REGULATIONS FOR DOGS
2.35 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the period of quarantine for dogs entering this country from abroad could be done away with, provided that they are inoculated against rabies.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, while my right honourable friend and I sympathise with all those who have to place their dogs in quarantine when they bring them to this country, we are absolutely convinced that this precaution must be retained. Strong support for this view was given by a Committee appointed by the World Health Organisation in 1951, which recommended that countries which are free from rabies should continue either to prohibit the import of dogs and cats or to subject them on importation to a long period of quarantine, preferably six months. Unfortunately, inoculation does not confer complete immunity, and I need hardly remind your Lordships that rabies is a terrible and fatal disease, for human beings as well as for animals.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl very much for his reply, I was wondering whether the period of quarantine could not be reduced for dogs which are temporarily taken out of this country, and which have been inoculated before they left.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I do not think we could contemplate reducing the period of quarantine. I would
966
add that inoculation does not give a complete immunity. In the United States, where inoculation is practised, there are some 4,000 to 5,000 cases of rabies a year.

MUSHROOM IMPORTS FROM HOLLAND
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: 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 by what amount they are expecting the imports of mushrooms from Holland to rise this year, and, in view of the protection given by the Republics of Ireland and Germany to their home markets, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to protect the interests of mushroom producers in this country.]
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, in the last three years there have been only a few pounds—pounds, not tons—of mushrooms imported into the United Kingdom from Holland. I am unable to forecast what imports may come in this year or in the future. Mushroom producers in this country are protected by an import duty of 20 per cent. during the months of October to April, and of 10 per cent. from May to September.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask him whether he appreciates that that protection is very much less than the protection afforded to the import of mushrooms into Ireland and Western Germany, and whether he realises that Holland will have an exportable surplus of mushrooms of some 7½ million tons this year?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I do not think I can express an opinion on the tariff policy of the Irish Republic. I am aware that it is suggested that Holland may be going to have a surplus. I have seen forecasts that they may try to sell mushrooms in this country. The Dutch have established no trade in mushrooms here, however, and how much trade they may be able to get in any new export market is really anybody's guess.

THE DECCA NAVIGATOR CHAIN
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that Atlantic liners, although equipped with receivers, are unable to use the Decca Navigator system, owing to the ban by the American Coast Guard Service on the use of the chain, and what action they are taking in the matter.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord's Question refers to the Decca Navigator Chain in the New York area. This is the only Decca Navigator Chain, of which there are many throughout the world, which is subject to such a limitation.
The New York Chain was, I understand, installed at the instance of the United States Airways Modernisation Board, in order that the value of hyperbolic systems as an aid to helicopter operations in that area might be assessed. The chain was sited to meet that particular purpose, and its use is still on a purely experimental and temprary basis. Under the terms of the licence governing its operation, the system may not be advertised as available for use by shipping without the prior approval of the United States Coast Guard. That approval has not yet been forthcoming.
As the noble Lord is aware, Her Majesty's Government hold the highest opinion of the importance of the Decca Navigator system as an aid to both air and marine navigation, and will continue to take every opportunity of proving the merits of the system and of advocating its adoption.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I was referring to the New York Chain, which I believe is the only one under Federal jurisdiction. With regard to the noble Earl's further Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that, in addition to the liners of major European countries, the s.s. "United States" and the s.s. "America" are both fitted with this device and that they can use it everywhere in the world except in their home waters. Will not Her Majesty's Government, therefore, press the United States Government to
968
remove this restriction which appears somewhat absurd and, perhaps, unfriendly?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I have no doubt the noble Lord will remember the replies given to his Question yesterday. Her Majesty's Government are at present engaged in fairly difficult negotiations on this whole subject of Decca, and I am sure the noble Lord will not press me too far to give an answer at the moment.

UNFAIR SHIPPING PRACTICES
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper:
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking in respect of the resolution addressed to them by the British Chamber of Shipping, referring to the growing competition from fleets supported by discriminatory practices and excessive subsidies which are increasingly damaging to British shipping and harmful to international trade.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has discussed the matters mentioned in this resolution with the General Council of British Shipping. There can be no single or easy solution, but in consultation with the General Council Her Majesty's Government are taking such steps as are open to them.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. Does he think it possible, however, to suggest to the Prime Minister that when he visits President Eisenhower shortly he might urge him to agree that the United States should participate in a review of international shipping policy, with the object of establishing fair competitive conditions throughout the world?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I will certainly bring the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend. I might mention that we hope that representatives of several European countries, including ourselves, will be discussing these matters with the United States Administration in the near future.

THE PROBLEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT
2.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH rose to call attention to the present problem of unemployment; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper with reference to the problem of unemployment. It is the view of ray Party in this House, and has been for some time, that the position with regard to the unemployed in this country is such that we ought to draw the attention of your Lordships' House to the matter; to explain what we believe to be the facts, and to show, if we can, where Government policy has been responsible; where it has been mistaken, and to make suggestions for the urgent and immediate action which would seem to be required in order to try to improve the situation. It is quite fortuitous that when we made that decision in our own meeting here three weeks ago we had no idea that the survey which has been made by our colleague in another place would be published yesterday. It is a short but, I think, extremely valuable survey, and therefore noble Lords will not be surprised if, in view of that fortuitous aid to my arguments published yesterday, I use it quite freely.
I think mere was a possibility in 1944, in the last year but one of the rule of the war-time Coalition Government, that the general problem of unemployment and the national and social treatment of it would become a non-Party matter. But a lot of water has run under the bridge since then, and the situation is such today that I have no doubt at all that once more there will be strong differences of opinion between the main Parties in the country about this matter, and that probably from time to time—in fact it is already taking place—strong things will be said on either side of the wall dividing the two national points of view. Your Lordships must not blame me, therefore, if at times I say things that you will regard as being forthright and which, indeed, might almost be regarded by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, as he regarded a Cross-Bencher yesterday, as being even tendentious.
The best thing that I can do, I think, at the start is to give my Party's view of the facts as they exist to-day. My colleagues and I have been working on them in this House, and we are very much reinforced by the figures given in the Douglas Jay pamphlet. I must apologise to the House if at times I am not perhaps as free in utterance and more tied to notes than usual; you will understand that the reason is that I want to get statistical emplacement and expression absolutely correct. In January, 1959, the unemployment figure in Great Britain rose to 621,000, and I would just point out, inter alia, that that is the highest figure of unemployment for over ten years. It showed an increase over January, 1958, and of course we all take into account the proper weight to be given to seasons and times, and we know that the peak of unemployment in almost any year, however the average may be, high or low, is in the two central winter months. But that figure in January was 226,000 over that of the year before, 1958, and was, in fact, a 288,000 increase over the same period in 1951.
But in certain areas the percentages of unemployment were much higher. If you take the overall percentage, which has been given by the Government as 2·8, you have to contrast that overall figure with the area figures; and they are as follows: North West Region, 3·6 per cent.; Northern Region, 3·9 per cent.; Wales, 4·6 per cent.; Scotland, 5·4 per cent. In North West Scotland, by the way, the Jay Report points out that figures of over 15 per cent. in certain areas have been common. In Anglesey, not a very large population, but an important one, during the winter the figure went to well over 12 per cent.—about 12½ per cent. In Caernarvon, it was 9·5 per cent.; in North Lanarkshire, 9·3 per cent.; and in Llanelly, in the area as a whole, 8·6 per cent. Certain parts of Lanarkshire, places like Coatbridge, Bellshill and elsewhere, have had a figure of over 10 per cent.; Greenock and Port Glasgow have touched 9 per cent.; Cornwall, 7·1 per cent.; parts of Ayrshire and also the the Rhondda Valley, the same figure, 7·4 per cent. Other figures are: Jarrow and South Shields, 6·6 per cent.; Dumbarton, 6·4 per cent.; Sunderland, 6·1 per cent.; Hartlepool, 5·8 per cent.; Colne, 5·3 per cent.
It is also very significant to observe, do you not think, that in dealing with local percentages like that and thinking of the problems of the men and women there unemployed, you have got to relate their sort of experience to a much higher postulated national unemployment figure than in fact we have at the present time. Everything depends in those areas on what is the figure of vacancies to be pursued by those poor unemployed people in relation to their numbers. It has been estimated, for example—I will give one example—that for every seven places offering themselves for filling in Scotland there are 100 unemployed to apply. It means of course that you have as a condition for these people in their anxiety in seeking employment and in obtaining employment, the thing that we in our Party long ago established in our minds and fought for as being the right of the people of the country, the right to work. It means that they are under as difficult local conditions in seeking employment as would be the case if there were an overall figure of unemployment in the country of 2½ million—such figures as we had, for example, in between the wars. Therefore, the problem of the people in these areas is to be treated very urgently indeed.
Of course, it looks from some of the figures that I have quoted as if we have thrown a net wide over certain areas and not thought of what is the situation particularly in concentrated areas of population. But the Jay Report gives illustrations of that. Take large, or reasonably large, areas of population—I take only the few that have been mentioned as being over 5 per cent. There is West South Wales, 5·6 per cent.—and I hasten to add that of course that area includes Swansea, where the percentage is 6·2 per cent.; Dundee, 5·2 per cent.; Birkenhead, 5·3 per cent.; Glasgow, 5·2 per cent.; Liverpool, 5·1 per cent., and Burnley 5·7 per cent. Governments have a very grave responsibility for dealing with situations like that. The Government were themselves obviously feeling that way when they arranged for it to be said in the gracious Speech from the Throne that they were concerned to deal with the matter. I have looked the passage up and I will get one of my colleagues perhaps to quote that short statement which will be in the minds of Ministers.
If you look at the position in 1944, when, for example, Conservatives like Lord Woolton and others, alongside Ernest Bevin and the late Lord Jowitt, were dealing with the problems of reconstruction after the war, you will see that there was a full commitment of all Parties to reassure the people who had suffered so much during the war and given their all for their country, that they should never be worried again with this kind of social problem if anything that Governments could do would avoid it. We have quite honestly to put it to the Government that they have a great measure of responsibility for the situation, and they must take responsibility for it.
In common, I am sure, with all Parties when they go to the polls, the Government take credit for everything that they possibly can. But of course if you take credit for things when you go to the polls, you must be able to stand the criticism if the hopes that you have expressed go in the other direction. Because we on this side of the House do not forget the famous poster of 1955: "It's full employment. Vote Conservative". They took full credit for it then, and if it is not full employment now, and if there is not a great possibility of its being full employment in the very near future, the responsibility for the failure to keep full employment rests as much on the Government now as they took credit for the full employment of 1955.
On that point it is interesting—one remembers reports of speeches by Ministers—to look for some authority as to how serious a view responsible journals take in the financial and economic sphere. For example, the Financial Times of to-day, in an article which commends, partly in appreciation though damning with faint praise here and there, the Jay Report, says:
"It now seems very likely that Britain will survive the current recession without unemployment going above Mr. Macleod's forecast of a 2·8 per cent. peak. It would be reasonable to expect some fall in numbers out of work this month, followed by bigger seasonal falls in April and May. But there is no sign of any easing in the problem of local areas of depression, and indeed the incidence of unemployment seems to be becoming more rather than less uneven. Many observers believe that the expected recovery of the next few months will leave a 'hard core' of unemployment of between 400,000 and 500,000."

973
It is to be left at that figure in the summer months. It was not far short of that figure—I am speaking from memory now—as the summer went onwards last year.
Do, please, let us all remember that when one speaks of a figure of unemployment of 400,000 or 500,000 it does not make it any the less a great social problem for all those who live in the homes affected by the individual or individuals unemployed—not for a moment. With a family of no more than four in a household to be provided for, parents and children, 400,000 unemployed would affect the lives and the daily standard of life of something like 1,600,000; and if the unemployed number 500,000, the population affected will be about 2 million. This is not a small problem, and it is not made any easier to deal with because it happens to be in the areas to which I have drawn attention this afternoon. Certainly, if you look at the position of Scotland, you will see that some percentages in the North-North West rose to as much as 15 per cent. of the population. It may not be a heavy population, but every household under that percentage suffers in the way I have mentioned, and you have to do something pretty drastic to help the people in the area out of that difficulty.
Take such cases as the one we took up with the First Lord of the Admiralty twelve months ago—a case I have not mentioned yet in the figures I have given—of the Island of Sheppey, which is especially affected by the closing of the Sheerness dockyard, which is I think now about to begin. There will be block discharges of workers from that closing dockyard, and the percentage of unemployed already is more than 5 per cent. and it is going to be added to considerably. I noticed with interest and pleasure the view of Her Majesty's Government that when it is a question of very largely closing down the dockyard at Malta the Government will do almost anything by way of expenditure in order to see that the workers are employed. I cannot see anything of quite the same effort being made to employ the Sheerness dockyard workers who are just about on the point of final discharge within the next two or three weeks. There is a grave responsibility resting upon Her Majesty's Government in these matters; and that
974
responsibility becomes all the graver when the source from which certainly a good proportion of this unemployment has arisen is known.
We know that attempts have been made to suggest that this country is exceedingly fortunate in relation to what is reported as being a world recession in trade, and that our figures are not very high. But the world recession in trade was going on some time ago, and I should like to say a word upon some aspects of that before I sit down this afternoon. I must say that no one can look at recent history—and I am quite sure we shall have to come back to this question again and again; I have raised it before, and undoubtedly it will come up again—without realising that it is the financial and economic policy of Her Majesty's Government which has to bear a considerable share of the responsibility for the situation which has arisen. We are hearing from the views of some economists, as well as of quite ordinary people like ourselves, that, just as we used to have after the First World War books like The Economic Consequences of the Peace—The Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill—apparently now we are beginning to gather up all the elements for writing The Economic Consequences of our Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1957. It does not need a very great deal of gathering to size up the position then.
Do let your Lordships remember that before 1957 we had a smaller financial crisis in 1955. Do let your Lordships remember that between 1955 and 1957 there was a widespread campaign against the working class—not addressed as such but always hinting, hinting, hinting of the grave danger of over-full employment. There will be no difficulty in producing, in due course, masses of detailed information on that point; and if there is any dubiety about it let their Lordships (if they have not already bought and read it) read Looking at Industrial Relations issued by the Engineering and Allied Employers' National Federation. I do not want to bother your Lordships with long quotations, but I will do at any time that I am challenged upon this point.
Clearly, the Engineering Federation published that they were under the impression that they, the British Federation

975
of Employers and Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that it was no longer good for the industry or for the workers to continue to have demands for wages granted. I am sure that those in all Parties will remember the speeches in which Ministers said over and over again that wages ought to be stabilised; and to make quite sure that I am right I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Prime Minister himself made an appeal to both the employers and the workers to refrain from anything which would increase wages. "Stabilisation" was the word to be regarded with great care concerning wages—but there was not very much concern about profits.
If your Lordships will read this book you will find how disappointed the Federation were, after the threatened strike in 1957 on an engineering wage claim, that in their view they had been let down. Earlier in the book they speak of the risks they were prepared to take for a show-down with the workers which they had been prepared to have on more than one occasion in the previous four years. This is what they say:
"The Government and the employers' organization—notably the British Employers' Confederation, in a document Britain's Industrial Future, published late in 1955—were in complete agreement in 1956 that further pay rises were not in the best interests of workers in a period of rising prices, when bigger pay packets would buy less and further aggravate the inflationary spiral.
When all appeared set for a struggle to which the Federation and the Confederation were irretrievably committed, the Government, shaken by the economic and political repercussions of intervention in Suez, decided that the country was not strong enough to withstand the probable effects of transport, engineering and shipbuilding strikes."
There was not the slightest doubt about the association of the Government with the employers, nor about the disappointment of the Engineering Federation at being, as they felt they had been, let down because the Government were not prepared to risk it, in the new emerging industrial and financial circumstances which had arisen as a result of policy in Suez, and the loss of prestige, and (if I may use a word used by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in a previous debate) the loss of confidence in this country by the world, which led to the run against the pound in 1957.
Nor can there be any doubt at all about the effect upon the general policy
976
of Her Majesty's Government at that time: that all the way through that period there was a general tendency to clamp down upon certain classes of investment in industry. When it came to the actual fact of what we had to deal with, in order to try to rehabilitate the pound, we came to the increase in the bank rate. Now what really happened? It is a curious thing but there is not the slightest doubt that Her Majesty's Government did their duty, and did it well, in setting up the Parker Tribunal to inquire into the rumours which were about at that time concerning the alleged "leak". If the Tribunal did nothing else, it did reveal very closely, from the actual personnel of the witnesses called before it, those from whom the Government were really getting their advice during the financial crisis.
The first step taken by the Government was to raise the bank rate from 5 to 7 per cent.; and let it be observed that when it was raised in 1957 it had not been at 7 per cent. for forty years. We were just at the end of, almost in, the full enjoyment of prosperous industry and what was called over-full employment; and we had the bank rate raised to a height that had not been known for forty years, to 7 per cent. There is not the slightest doubt—and I read my financial papers from time to time; not perhaps quite so often as those who have had more freedom from political responsibilities—that the aim was to retract investment and slow down the expansionist nature of industry, which had been going on since the war, though by 1955 it had already shown signs of slackening down, and which led to what is now an ascertained period of almost complete stagnation in industry from the end of 1955 until this year. That was a very serious step to take.
The Government may claim that it was necessary in order to rehabilitate the pound in the eyes of the exchanges of the world. But it is also clear, I think, from what has been said from time to time, that there is always another objective in mind; and that is, that, in order to ease the situation from the money point of view, you would do well to have your eye upon having rather more in the pool of unemployment for industry to draw upon, which will also assist in checking some of the evils of which the

977
Government and capitalist leaders had complained.
I am very glad to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cohen, in his place. I have a note here of the first Report of his Council, that of February, 1958. The noble Lord, Lord Cohen, will remember that in recording their view as to what was possible and what might happen they showed that there would be a tendency in the deflationary policy to reduce the number of people registered for employment; that it would have la particular effect, probably, upon married women and older people, who in the pressure for production in this country in the post-war period had been working beyond the normal age of employment. The Council did not say it as fully as that, but that is what they meant; and no doubt the other measures would also result in a general increase of some registered unemployed.
If anybody wants any support of the correctness of the theory, he had better have a look at the Macmillan Report on Finance after the First War, from Which you will find that the late Lord Norman (whom I have mentioned before in this House when I have been recounting our experiences of 1931) said, in answer to a question, "Of course, unemployment could be one of the objectives of a high bank rate"—very nicely phrased and stated on something with we in our Party, long before that, established as being proved by industrial and economic history. So the Government must take responsibility, in so far as this general policy of stagnation, of stabilisation and of lower production, has meant building up the figure of unemployment. If one locks at the general information that appears in the Press from time to time, there is no doubt of the general effect which we claim the policy of the Government in the last year or two has had. It has probably resulted in the loss of about £1,700 million worth of goods and services which could have been added to the wealth of the nation. One economist, I think from the Manchester school, said it would be a loss equal to what would be the total output for the country in three months of absolutely full employment.
If we look at the steel industry, we find that there have been statements over and over again in the last few months that the
978
steel industry has been working from about 73 to 76 per cent. of its capacity. If you look at your engineering journals and at that very important and valuable part of our industry, machine tools, you will find that the order books of the machine tool industry have been steadily falling—they just wobbled one year and have been steadily falling in the last five years from nearly £100 million until this year when the figure is down to £53 million. There has been too much encouragement of stagnation in the expansionist side of industrial policy by the Government. If you look at the leading article in the Financial Times of March 5, you will see that the Editor of the Financial Times, who probably has among his resources as good an industrial expert and probably as good a research service as any financial and economic journal in the world, does not hesitate to say that this, in spite of what some members of the Government are saying, must mean a serious political impact.
In view of the reply of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, to a question at the Harrow East By-election meeting last Monday, I think it might be as well to draw his attention to these words. This is what the Financial Times leader said on March 5:
"Politically this issue could determine the result of the next election."
That is, unemployment. It continues:
"No-one who has been outside London can appreciate fully the change in the political atmosphere in the North. The Government's marginal seats in Yorkshire, Lancashire and the North East Coast must all be regarded as in some jeopardy. There is a contrast between this and the atmosphere in the South where unemployment has not yet become an issue about which the electorate seem to be sharply concerned. Lord Hailsham's visit to Lancashire, and the Prime Minister's recent visit to the North East Coast, can be regarded as an indication of the Conservative Party's concern about the political impact of unemployment and of the fear of unemployment in those parts of the North where there has not, as yet, been any substantial rise."
There cannot be much doubt, really, about the responsibility of the Government and the fact that they have to accept the political impact of the situation which I have described as fairly as possible as being the facts of the situation.
There are to be a lot of speakers in this debate. I wanted to say a great deal more because one is usually charged

979
when one makes a speech on the attacking side with failing to be constructive. But at any rate I will say this in general. The Government, in my view, have come to the decision to adopt (as it is described by the Financial Times in another leader, which this time I do not like) a reinflationary policy—that is to say, they have stopped the stagnation of investment policy. However, they have stopped it too late, and it is going to be exceedingly difficult for them to be able to do anything effective unless they can put their house in order, especially in the areas in which unemployment is worst. In the pamphlet to which I have referred Mr. Jay sets out very fully the reasons why we say this. In the distressed unemployment areas, there is no doubt at all that confusion has arisen between the administration of what they call the D.A.T.A.C.—the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee is, I think, the proper title represented by those initials—and the administration of the development Acts (finance, and so on) of 1958.
I shall ask some of my colleagues who follow to develop that side of it, and to show where the mistakes have been; and, in order to save time, I think also that they might, on my behalf, say something about what we want to be done—immediately, not for the next Election. Do it now! Do it in the interests of the unemployed! Do it now, and get the matters cleared up! Put back the restraint upon unduly large building in the congested areas, such as London. Make it possible more quickly to provide new industries in the development and the D.A.T.A.C. areas. I have not seen the paper yet, but I understand the Government are beginning to move a little in this direction. In an announcement yesterday, though I have not seen it yet, I understand that they are suggesting some extra work for the D.A.T.A.C. areas. But it is something which must be done now—not from either Party wanting to wait to get an advantage in an Election. You want to do it now if you are going to arrest this continued stagnation.
I think everybody who knows about the organisation of industries knows that you do not get irresponsible statements from the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, and the Chairman of that Council puts the figure not as low as
980
the 73 to 76 per cent. of capacity in the steel industry, but, over productive industry as a whole the production is about 20 per cent. short of capacity. I do hope that the Government will get right on with that job at once, and that we in the Party that I respect and love as much as Conservatives respect and love their own Party shall not be charged, as we have been charged, with having raised the bogy of unemployment. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the noble Viscount for having raised this subject at a particularly appropriate time, when the spectre of unemployment is certainly not entirely absent, though fortunately, it is not present in any particularly alarming size at the moment. I had hoped that any remarks that came from these Benches would be uttered through the silver tongue of my noble friend—perhaps I might say our noble friend—Lord Beveridge, who, your Lordships may remember, celebrated his eightieth birthday last week. Unfortunately, he is not able to be in his place to-day—though I hasten to add that there is no connection between his absence and the celebrations which took place in the monastic precincts of an Oxford College. Speaking, therefore, at very short notice, I ask your Lordships' indulgence if I do not range over the whole Liberal programme for unemployment—which, if your Lordships have any time left after reading your own Party literature, can be obtained at Liberal headquarters.
My Lords, the question of unemployment is, and of course, unfortunately, always will be, with us. It is a chronic thing; and, of all our domestic problems, as distinct from foreign affairs, I think it is probably the most important because it impinges not only upon our reason and our sense of justice, but very much upon our hearts and consciences. Unemployment is a symptom of something a bit wrong with the national economy somewhere—wrong production, wrong distribution, wrong ideas in some way. Ideally, the unemployment figure should be 0 per cent., but there are always a certain number who, for reasons of some mental or physical defect, are unemployable, and there are a very small number—I think a considerably less number—who in

981
fact do not want to be employed. Your Lordships will forgive my reference to a very old Punch joke of a man who went to his doctor and said: "I eat well and sleep well, but when I see a bit of work I come all over a-tremble "—and there is that element still with us.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That does not help matters.
LORD REA: The noble Viscount says that that does not help matters. I was merely mentioning that in passing, as a fractional element, and one not worth consideration. If my noble friend disagrees with me, I take it he thinks that it is worth consideration; I do not.
I think we can agree, then, that the optimum of 0 per cent. is not realisable, and we have to face the fact that we must have art acceptable—reluctantly acceptable—unemployment figure which may be put at a half of 1 per cent., 1½ per cent., or (as I think most responsible economists would put it), say, not more than 3 per cent. All political Parties naturally want the minimum, and for the best reasons as well as, perhaps, for not such good reasons at times. It is sometimes held against the Conservative Party (I do riot know whether as a whole, or whether it is applied only to certain members of it) that they rather appreciate a floating margin of unemployment to use as a political weapon. That, if it were true—which I do not think it is—would not be a very good principle on which to work. Nor, equally, do I think the contrasting argument about the Labour Party a good principle: that perhaps they would like a certain margin of unemployment because, without the basis on which they have built their Party during the last 100 years, which after all was on ill-health, under-employment, ill-payment, and so on—I hope the noble Viscount will kindly give me his attention—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD REA: I suggest that it could be held against the Labour Party that they desire a certain amount of unemployment, in order that they can keep together those people who are bound together by a class feeling which is much regretted in many parts of the country.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Quite preposterous!
LORD REA: My Lords, there are, I suggest, three types of unemployment: seasonal unemployment, which occurs in such places as hotels, the catering industry, and so on; secondly, the occupations where there is a world decline in trade, as happened in the 'thirties; and, thirdly, of course, the localised unemployment, where one industry is suffering either from obsolescence or from unusual competition. As to the seasonal unemployment, I think we can do little. We can hope that it will pass, and perhaps try to arrange some interchange of employment within those industries. On the second and third headings, of world decline and localised unemployment, I think there are some possible remedies, and I should like to suggest one or two.
It has been said before that the duty of an Opposition is to oppose, but, at the risk of boring your Lordships, may I repeat that, in our view, the duty of the Opposition is to support, so far as it can. That is to say, speaking as a Liberal, if I see a Socialist Government promoting Liberal measures, or a Conservative Government doing the same, I do not consider it my duty to ridicule them because they are not of my Party but rather to support them.
The sort of thing I think the Government could do is get on with a new programme of building roadways; that is, motorways—large motorways—in particular, to depressed, declining or undeveloped areas. This is not an end in itself: it is not the object to employ large numbers of men or skilled teams building these roads. It is to open up to manufacturers these areas which are at present unattractive, by reason, largely, of poor road access and because they cannot be reached either speedily or cheaply. I have specifically in mind several areas—Wales (particularly North and Central Wales), Cornwall, East Lancashire, Devon and West Cumberland. North and Central Wales are poorly supplied with good roads to link them with the Midlands and London, and a big trunk road would bring potential trade to that unexploited area.
Then East Lancashire and West Yorkshire district is very concentrated industrially but the road system is more or less chaotic. That could be improved by a fast motorway running through Liverpool to Hull and linking up these very

983
busy areas. I think there might also be a main road developed in Scotland from Stranraer to Edinburgh and Glasgow and, ultimately, down South. Perhaps the Government will bear that suggestion in mind. In the West, on the Cornish road, your Lordships well know that there is little in the way of a good road from here to Land's End. There are stretches of good road but not enough. The great city of Bristol might be brought into that.
The last part of the country I would mention is West Cumberland Coast, the area from Barrow up to Whitehaven and Carlisle. Here I must declare an interest, because I have served on the Development Board there. This Board have done an extraordinary amount of good in reducing unemployment in that distressed area from about 90 per cent. to approximately 2 per cent. Then perhaps I should pay tribute to the moving spirit there, a Member of your Lordships' House whom we do not often see here, the noble Lord, Lord Adams, who sits on my left. The Development Council there have established important businesses—chemical, tanneries, et cetera, and they have been pressing the Ministry for years to develop a good road up the coast, without any tangible results whatever.
Leaving roadways, I turn to the training and re-training schemes sponsored by the Government. I feel these are good ideas and facilities not used. The schemes themselves are a little inflexible. In the recent recession in the motor trade in Coventry I am given to understand that at the Birmingham centre not one single man reported from Coventry to help himself with these facilities. In Hull, through lack of initiative or some reason, the centre was closed down, and when there were, last November, 7,000 unemployed in Hull there was no centre for them to apply to. I suggest there should be less rigidity in these matters. They could be movable or even mobile, and the Minister might co-operate with the trade unions in seeing they are made more attractive and put to better use.
I suggest there could be from the Government an incentive to companies to train the large number of children who are known as the bulge. They are still at school but it is a very short time before they are coming on to the market as employable. Special provisions should be made for them. I therefore also ask
984
the Government to take direct action in the remote areas, and areas depending on the export trade, by making roads and road transport much more efficient. Of course, that is normally done through fiscal arrangements but there are things which could be looked into in these special areas.
Noble Lords will remember in South-East Lancashire the great recession in the cotton trade which caused some anxiety. I noticed that my noble friend Lord Rochdale—whose capability and integrity I admire—went to Hong Kong and by some magic induced the manufacturers there not to export as much as they previously had to this country. I am still waiting to see whether there was a quid pro quo or whether the appeal was, possibly rightly, one of patriotism to consider poor Lancashire, although we know part of the trouble has been obsolescence of machinery, and perhaps not a dying but a declining cotton trade where the operatives concerned ought to be trained in other trades.
I suggest that the Government's inducement policy, inducing industrialists to go to other areas, has not really succeeded. I gather that under the Government scheme only forty-six applications have been made. That is indeed disappointing. Private firms will not go in the present poor conditions. I suggest that the State itself should institute something like a development corporation. We know that the Colonial Development Corporation has had, in many ways, great success and I suggest that consideration might be given to setting up a development corporation in this country. It could build factories, finance machinery, giving as much freedom as possible to management, and when on a sound footing, in about ten years, hand them over at the proper valuation to private enterprise. This corporation should aim at forestalling a decline and not acting after the decline has started. That has been the trouble in many cases up to now. What is needed is imagination and determination to surmount tradition. The difficulties are not insurmountable. We need first-class roads, clean air and an imaginative housing programme where not only utility but beauty and amenity would have far more place than they do at the moment. Those will help as much as anything to banish squalor, grime and

985
mental lassitude which is the bugbear of unemployment.
Finally, it is damaging to our country if any person, body or political Party should—on such a grave matter—deliberately spread dissatisfaction and distrust. I would suggest that this is an example of what I mean of the duty of an Opposition, to support when it can, although I know that that theory is not supported on my left. In industrial matters confidence surely is of vital importance, and I ask Her Majesty's Government to consider with an open mind such points as I and others in to-day's debate are seeking to put constructively before them.
3 39 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the Government and, I think, all your Lordships are grateful to the noble Viscount opposite for enabling us to have this debate on the subject of unemployment. It may perhaps be in the nature of an interim debate, since your Lordships may possibly wish to discuss the subject again in the light of our annual Economic Survey which I understand will be published early next month and also, of course, of the Budget which is now recognised as perhaps the chief instrument in our employment policy—but on whose possible contents it is sometimes unwise to speculate in advance. I would assure the noble Viscount that I am certainly not going to accuse him of raising any bogeys, which he said, at the end of his speech, he was afraid of. I thought that his speech, if he will allow me to say so, was more moderate and restrained than the Jay Report, from which he derived so many of his figures, and also than many of the speeches on this subject which have recently been made elsewhere.
I think that the number of your Lordships who have indicated your intention to speak in this debate shows the deep interest taken and the concern felt by your Lordships' House in the subject of unemployment. There must be many of us who do not belong to the younger generation in politics, in all political Parties. Whose political background is strongly coloured by the pre-war unemployment problem which was so baffling and heartbreaking to all of us. The constituency of West Renfrew, which I represented
986
in the other place, contains one large industrial town where the unemployment percentage at one time was as high as 46 per cent.; in my native town of Dundee it was seldom below 20 per cent.; and in the country as a whole, if we leave out the peak years of 1931 and 1932, when the figure was, I think, over 20 per cent., it was usually somewhere between 11 and 14 per cent. The Ministry of Labour at that time (I am speaking of more than twenty years ago, and do not think they would take the same view now) estimated that if unemployment were entirely cured, if we had a condition of full employment, so that the only people on the register at the peak period of the year as unemployed were those normally in seasonal work, or in the interval between one job and another, or temporarily stopped or unemployable, the figure would then certainly be more than the figure of 3 per cent. which has been indicated to us since the war by various authoritative economists. Speaking from memory, I think the figure was 4 or 4½ per cent., which we should now regard as a very serious amount of unemployment.
It was not only in this country that unemployment gave so much trouble and unhappiness to all classes of the community. In the United States of America the terrible wave of unemployment which followed the 1931 slump led to that great revolution in the economy of America which began with the New Deal. It has always been recognised, I think, that any great industrial country which does a lot of foreign trade cannot unilaterally deal with the whole of its unemployment problem, assuming, of course, that it is a free country and that forced labour is not permissible. If the industrial countries which trade with each other are all to deal successfully with the problem of unemployment there must be some measure of international collaboration. The terrible tragedy of Germany, where the despair of 7 million unemployed men drove the country into the arms of Hitler, helped to show the nations of the world that unemployment in one country may be greatly to the injury of all the others, both commercially and politically.
Therefore, before the end of the war the Allied countries, who afterwards formed the nucleus of the United Nations, agreed at the various economic conferences which they held that after the war

987
it would be right that they should all collaborate in trying to maintain stable economies, including high levels of employment. Lord Keynes, who was not a member of the British Government but who was the British Government's representative at the International Monetary Conference, was, I believe, largely responsible for the Government's White Paper of 1944 (Command 6527) which lays down the principles for our post-war employment policy in Great Britain, and which was accepted by all political Parties. Of course there is room for the strong differences of opinion which the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition mentioned; and there is room for strong differences of interpretation on some points, and of emphasis on others. But I take it that all our political Parties in this country are still basically agreed on the principles of this 1944 White Paper, which has formed the basis of our employment policy for the last fifteen or sixteen years.
There is one sentence which, in present circumstances, may particularly lend itself to differences of interpretation or emphasis that I might quote. Paragraph 49 says:
"Action by the Government to maintain expenditure will be fruitless unless wages and prices are kept reasonably stable. This is of vital importance to any employment policy and must be clearly understood by all sections of the public."
But it has been stated repeatedly by Chancellors of the Exchequer, both Conservative and Labour—and so far as I know, the main Parties would still all adhere to it—that our purpose is to maintain the highest level of employment which is consistent with the avoidance of inflation, with stable prices; and since we adopted this common policy in 1944 and 1945, I think we have been equally successful in our first objective and unsuccessful in our second, until, at least, last year. Unemployment, except for the temporary increase at the time of the snowstorm in 1947, which was wholly exceptional, has been more or less at about 330,000 from 1945 until last year; that is, about 1½ per cent. That is to say, the level of employment was higher than the total we were given to understand by the economists was likely to be practicable, and certainly, I think, it exceeded the figure on which our economic estimates after the war were all based.
988
At the same time, while we have until last year maintained this full employment, we have by no means succeeded in preventing inflation. From 1946 to 1951 prices rose by 32 per cent. and from 1951 to 1958 by another 25 per cent. So that if you add these two figures together, you get a total increase which represents a very heavy dose of inflation in a period of fourteen or fifteen years. This inflation has saddled us with a continual unplanned progress—I emphasise the word "unplanned"—from one financial or economic crisis to another. I did not expect the noble Viscount to deal with more than the crisis of September, 1957. He did not mention the numerous previous crises in both Governments, particularly that in which Sir Stafford Cripps was obliged so heavily to devalue the pound. All these unexpected crises have had to be met by some such expedient as devaluation or by heavy cuts, either in one kind of expenditure or another, and very often in Government expenditure on objects which in themselves are good and desirable, such as building Government factories in development areas. The reason why that was cut down in 1956 was not that we did not regard it as a desirable permanent policy, but that it was necessary, in order to preserve our balance of payments, that we should reduce Government expenditure in Great Britain.
In spite of these disadvantages, we have maintained full employment, and I am sure that many of your Lordships must often have asked yourselves, as I have certainly often asked myself, whether if this inflation is the price for full employment, it would not be a good thing to make up our minds to pay that price. As for those classes of the community who are most immediately and unjustly injured by inflation—widows, clergymen, retired officers and civil servants, who have not any political lobby, and the old-age pensioners who have a political lobby but who, nevertheless, lag a long way behind wages: and, in short, everybody who lives on fixed incomes—would it not be possible to arrange for their incomes to be increased at the same time as wages? That, of course, would greatly accelerate and intensify the pace of inflation. But if we are going to go in for inflation, why not go in for it properly?

989
I shall not attempt to give the international answer to that question, but from the point of view of our own small, thickly populated island, which lives by foreign trade, I think the answer is well known to your Lordships: that if our price level here gets too high, we shall be priced out of our foreign markets; we shall not be able to earn enough foreign exchange to buy the raw materials and the food which we require to keep our economy going. If nothing is done to prevent that from happening, we shall then have in this country unemployment on a scale far greater than we had in the 'thirties, when we could at least claim that we were successfully employing 87 or 88 per cent, of the population.
May I remind your Lordships that this danger of inflation to employment—not just to full employment, but to almost all employment in Great Britain—becomes greater the further away we get from the post-war sellers' market. When, after the war, nearly everybody was scrambling for almost any kind of goods from almost anywhere, in order to make up what they had not been able to do in the war or to repair war damage or loss, it was then very easy to sell without bothering about efficiency; and it was possible to pursue an inflationary policy without disastrous effects on full employment. But as that sellers' market disappears, as competition becomes keener, as people are no longer anxious to buy any kind of goods from anywhere, but wish to exercise their choice of getting the best goods from the best places, the more important to our economy does it become that we in Great Britain should keep our price level stable. That is more important to employment than to anything else in this country.
Two years ago, the great dollar countries of North America, the United States and Canada, who perhaps may not be so greatly injured by inflation as we are, but who had for a long time been very worried about the inflation that was going on there, began taking deflationary measures to stop it. What happens in the United States has a great effect—perhaps it is the greatest single factor of all—in influencing the course of world trade. This deflationary action in America contributed, of course, towards the recession which began about two years ago—nothing at all to be compared
990
with the enormous slumps in world trade which used to take place in the early part of this century and in the last century, but, nevertheless, a distinct and recognisable recession which had the effect of diminishing the total volume of world trade.
We have been criticised, I should not say immoderately by the noble Viscount, but more immoderately elsewhere, for the protective action which we took in September, 1957, in raising the bank rate to a figure at which it had not been for forty years, in placing more restrictions on hire purchase and in discouraging expenditure in other ways. I would most sincerely suggest to your Lordships that if, at that particular time, when world trade was declining, when prices were becoming keener and more competitive, we had then tried to pursue an expansionist policy with rising costs and prices at home, we should have had, perhaps in a few months, a disaster which would have led to worse unemployment than we have ever known in this or in any other century. Although as a result of that action we have become so much stronger, if we were now to run the machine flat out, in the hope of taking up the slack and using our unused industrial capacity, without regard for the consequences on the price level, it might not be in a few months, but in twelve months, or a little more, we should have run into equally great trouble again.
As the noble Viscount has said, unemployment between last January and January this year increased from 380,000 to 621,000, and I entirely accept the observations in the pamphlet from which he quoted that that does not give the whole picture, because there is also an increase in short-time working, a reduction in overtime and so on. I should like to say to your Lordships that the Government are not at all complacent about that situation. We are not satisfied with the fact that there is so much slack to be taken up, so much under-capacity in industry; nor are we satisfied with the percentage of unemployment at the present time. Of this total increase in unemployment since last year, we estimate that about 100,000 is due to loss of foreign trade, and we believe that the admittedly deflationary measures which we took in September, 1957, by strengthening our foreign exchange position will eventually put us in a much

991
better position to recover our share in the foreign markets of the world. Meanwhile, I think it is a not discouraging feature of the situation that although our export trade has fallen by about 3 per cent. in 1958 it has not fallen—indeed, it has rather increased—in the dollar countries of the United States and Canada.
My Lords, there are indications that this world recession has turned the corner. Although we do not expect a quick recovery in export trade, I think there are reasons for expecting a slow recovery, and I think we are entitled to claim that the measures which have strengthened sterling will put us in a very much better position than we should otherwise have been in to secure our share, and more than our share, of world trade when that recovery comes.
The noble Viscount and many others have charged the Government with having created what is called "stagnation" by these emergency measures which were taken eighteen months ago. And it is said that by doing so we have caused our industries to be working under capacity and unemployment to increase. As for the word "stagnation," I do not quarrel about that, although production has increased since 1951 by 17 per cent., and I would not call our present economy a stagnant thing in present circumstances at all. Nevertheless, it is the case that in the last two years production has either not increased at all or decreased slightly, and the word "stagnation" may be justified in that extremely limited sense.
If it is suggested that we, by our action, have deliberately tried to cause stagnation or unemployment I think all your Lordships, or most of your Lordships, will agree that such a suggestion is untrue. If it is only suggested that by those measures which we took in order to save our foreign exchange position in September, 1957, we may have indirectly contributed to the rise in unemployment, I would reply that I think that is a truism. The whole problem which we are all engaged in trying to solve is surely how to reconcile stable prices with full employment, and if everything done to prevent inflation had no adverse effect at all on the employment situation, then there would be no problem at all; everything would be too easy.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question? I am following him with great interest. Would he say whether the Government foresaw that the measures they were taking would lead to unemployment? I would not allege that they deliberately took those measures in order to create unemployment, but did they foresee that that would be the probable result?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, what they did foresee in the following year was that, with the continuance of the world depression and the successful results of our policy in keeping our price level at home stable, our economy would by the end of 1958 and the beginning of 1959 need some reflationary measures; and the Government began to take those measures last year.
First, in regard to the public sector of investment they decided that it could safely be increased by £150 million without incurring a renewed danger of inflation. It may be argued by some noble Lords that that was not enough. That, I think, is a very difficult question of judgment, exactly how much you should spend. The Government foresaw that there would be some decline in the private sector of investment, and one reason why they decided to embark on an increased expenditure above the line of £150 million was to counteract, so far as they could, this fall in private investment. At the same time the Government tried to encourage private investment by lowering the rates of interest, by abolishing the control of the Capital Issues Committee and, in last year's Budget, by increasing the initial allowance by 50 per cent. It may be argued that those measures are not enough; that interest rates should be lowered still further; that more should be done to stimulate expansion of our economy. That, again, is a question of judgment. But in the light of the circumstances as they are at this moment, it is our view that what we are trying to do is about right, though if it should appear, in the light of circumstances at any time, that more requires to be done in the way of encouraging investment or expanding the economy in any other way, we shall certainly not hesitate to do it
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl what is the target of Her Majesty's Government, in considering

993
that policy, as to what the figure of hard core unemployment, as it is called, should be? I have indicated that a financial paper indicates it is likely to be between 400,000 and 500,000. The assurance the noble Earl has very kindly given us is not much use unless we know what the target is.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the target of Her Majesty's Government is that which I think was stated very well in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not long ago: to maintain the highest level of employment that is consistent with the avoidance of inflation. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in what he said about all Parties wanting a much lower percentage than 3, or even 1½, if that should be found to be practicable.
The noble Viscount mentioned that there would be strong differences of opinion which would no doubt become stronger as the Election approached, which I have no doubt is true. But when I spoke as a private Member to your Lordships on this subject last year I ventured to suggest that there need be no fundamental difference on this matter of employment between the Parties, and, indeed, that sometimes the difference on unemployment policy within Parties had been greater than the difference between them. Only a year ago the differences very sincerely and honourably held within the present Government, which seemed to those outside it to be concerned with a very small amount of expenditure, were nevertheless great enough to cause the resignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and two other Ministers. There have been comparable differences within all Parties, not on matters of principle but on fine points of judgment, or how exactly we are to fix the happy mean between expansion and avoiding inflation; and I would most earnestly suggest to your Lordships that this is a question on which no one should be anxious to dogmatise and on which everyone should be willing to learn. I hope that the Government are willing to learn; I hope that the Opposition are willing to learn too.
If I may respectfully make a suggestion to noble Lords opposite, I hope they will consider the possibility of learning that their policy of nationalising more industries and of increasing taxation is not
994
really likely to remove that industrial stagnation, as they call it, which we are all anxious to get rid of. What we do want to do is to advance on a sounder basis, to increase our production, to take up the slack without incurring the dangers of another round of inflation. What a pity it would be, now that we have at last succeeded in stopping it after so many years, if, by too much impatience, we should allow it to start all over again!
The noble Viscount, quite rightly I think, referred not only to the unemployment position in general but to the structure of unemployment—that is to say, those areas where unemployment is exceptionally high. We have endeavoured to do what can be done. It is not the easiest thing to do it in a slack period of trade. We are endeavouring to do what can be done, both to persuade and to induce more industries to go to these four areas, South Wales, North-West England, North-East England and Scotland, in relation to which in the last twelve months, 277 industrial development certificates have been given. These, of course, are refused to industries who want to go where we think there is already too much conurbation or too much industry, as the noble Viscount suggested is the case in greater London. The amount of employment given by those 277 factories is estimated at about 13,000.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked about the new D.A.T.A.C. provision, which is, of course, a slightly different question. To some extent, D.A.T.A.C. areas overlap the development areas. The number of approved schemes so far is not very large: it is only twenty-two. There are another forty under consideration, but there are a very much larger number of inquiries which have not yet reached the stage of final consideration. It is our hope that a great deal more will be done by means of these inducements to get more industries to go to those areas of high unemployment.
I think the noble Viscount referred to an extension which was announced yesterday that involves the inclusion in the D.A.T.A.C. area of Rochdale and Oldham, in Lancashire, of Sunderland, in the North-East, and of Carnoustie, Arbroath and Sanquhar, in Scotland. It will be our continual endeavour, both by advertisement and by inducement, to persuade and help as many light industries and heavy industries as we can to

995
go into these areas. If your Lordships are thinking of a longer-term policy, I would also mention the strip mill which my noble friend Lord Forbes will no doubt deal with in regard to Scotland, and the Pressed Steel Company's factory at Swansea, in South Wales. It is not our intention to pursue this policy as a stop-gap device to mitigate a temporary rise in unemployment, but as a long-term policy, to achieve a better distribution of industry throughout the country and a greater diversity of industries in those areas which are too much dependent on one or two forms of employment.
My Lords, I began by indicating that did not think it was impossible that the Parties should agree in principle on their employment policy. I should like just to make one brief reference to the letter written by the present Leader of the Labour Party in 1951, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. The reason I refer to it is not only that I agree with it myself, but that it seems to afford so much general ground for agreement. He says:
"It is the firm policy of His Majesty's Government to keep unemployment at the lowest level compatible with the avoidance of inflation "—
exactly what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said a month or two ago. I hope that the qualification "compatible with the avoidance of inflation" is still borne in mind by the Party opposite. He goes on to say that measures outside the control of the United Kingdom
"might make it impossible … to keep unemployment at the low levels of recent years ".
Then he continues:
"The Government has, therefore, decided … to express the full employment standard of the United Kingdom as a level of unemployment of 3 per cent. at the seasonal peak "—
that is, because it may be affected by forces outside their control. He adds that this
"does not mean that the Government would allow unemployment to reach 3 per cent. before taking vigorous counter-action ".
That is what we claim this Government have done: we have last year taken vigorous counter-action to stimulate the economy, so far as is possible, without taking the risk of a renewal of that inflation which at last, after so many years, has been brought into check.
996
I would assure your Lordships that the Government are certainly not complacent or satisfied about the present under-capacity production of our industry, or with the state of the unemployment figures; nor are we unwilling to listen to advice from any quarter. But we are confident that if we can pursue our present policy, and if we are not diverted from it by the temporary fear of unpopularity, it will be possible for us to resume, on a sounder basis, steady expansion in our annual industrial output, combined with full employment, but without the continual inflation and the perpetual fear of a new financial crisis such as those which have so disfigured our economic history for the last fourteen years.
4.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I think I can say on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House that we have little complaint of the speech of the noble Earl who has just spoken. There are just one or two questions which I might put to him and which probably will be answered later on in the debate. He referred to the fact that 277 schemes of new works have been approved.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I said that 277 industrial development certificates have been given in those areas.
VISCOUNT HALL: Yes. Is it possible to know into which areas those schemes are likely to settle down? I think that notice should be given in advance in connection with this matter; it may give a good deal of satisfaction to the people living in those areas to know that there is some possibility of works being brought there.
I am not going to deal any further with the noble Earl's speech because my noble friend and Leader has ably covered the ground in dealing with the general difficulties of unemployment in the country as a whole. I am going to confine myself to the one part of the country which I know best of all. Before I proceed with that, I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that he gave us a description of some of the unemployed which I have never heard given in public before. I should like to ask him whether he can give any idea of the percentage of the unemployed to whom he ascribed that

997
attitude to employment which he put forward this afternoon.
Whatever can be said about the policy of Her Majesty's Government, it is a fact that we have in this country at the present time a higher number of unemployed than we have had during almost the last two decades. It was in 1940 that we had about one million unemployed; but not since 1940 have we had a total of 609,000. Of that total some 55 per cent. have been employed for a period longer than eight weeks; and as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has rightly said, it is not only a problem of those who are totally unemployed, because for the week ended January 26 last there were 168,000 workpeople in this country who were working short time.
Figures such as these are always accompanied by an increasing fear that it may be the turn of a considerable number of other workpeople next. I do not want to refer unduly to the period from 1920 to 1939, but that fear still remains in the minds of millions of people in this country. That was something they could not forget and they had to hand it down to those who followed them. We may be assured that that fear itself affects the psychology of those men who are in employment, so we cannot really measure the effect of unemployment solely by the number who are unemployed. My noble friend gave the figures of unemployment in certain areas—Anglesey (I believe) 13 per cent., a part of Scotland, 15 per cent., South Wales nearly 5 per cent. The number in South Wales in the last return which we had two weeks ago is 45,200 persons unemployed, making nearly 5 per cent. there as compared with 2·8 per cent. for the rest of the country: and the percentage of unemployment in Wales continued at about twice the average rate for Great Britain. It has exactly doubled between June, 1957, and the present time. For nearly two-thirds of those who are unemployed it is long-term unemployment. Those figures relate to adults. One quarter of the young persons who are unemployed have been unemployed for a period of more than eight weeks, and short-time working is increasing while overtime is decreasing.
It is a rather strange fact, which perhaps noble Lords have not realised, that these redundancies are largely in areas where we have the older industries, such as coal,
998
tinplate and slates, in South Wales. In addition, the manufacturing industries are slow, and there is a reduction in production of something like 5 per cent. As to the coalmining industry, the average number of wage-earners on the colliery books of the coalfields of this country at the present time is about 680,000—the lowest number of persons employed in the coalmining industry for, I should say, about seventy or eighty years. There has been a reduction in the average numbers employed during the whole of the 1920s. right up to about 1932, as compared with the level at the present time, of no fewer than 400,000 persons. From 1938 until the present time there has been a reduction of about 93,000. Of that number, strange to say, the major portion is in South Wales. There are at present 46,000 fewer people employed in the mines in South Wales than there were in 1938.
The same thing can be applied to some of the other industries. There is the tinplate industry. My right honourable friend Mr. Griffiths represents the area where tinplate has been produced for almost a hundred years. At one time there were no fewer than 20,000 work-people in quite a large number of tinplate works. Recently two new tinplate strip mills have been erected and are in full production, and it is said that with 4,000 to 5,000 workpeople they are producing more and better tinplate than was produced with 24,000 persons under the old method of tinplate production. That applies, too, though on a smaller scale, to some of the industries in North Wales, and particularly to the slate industry. Before the war there were 9,000 work-people employed in that industry; at the present time the number is 3,000. It can be said even of some of the modern industries, such as the steel industry, that as a result of a reduction in production capacity they have had to put quite a number of their workers on short time.
That is the picture, and that, I believe, is where there is a demand for some consideration to be given to providing work, particularly where we have older industries. We cannot prevent modern methods of production from coming into existence, but we ought to have sufficient fore- sight to see when these changes are likely to be brought about and to prepare to meet this difficulty when it arises. I want to be quite fair in connection with this matter, and I should say that a good

999
deal has been done in South Wales to meet the position. It has not fully met it, but there has been a substantial increase in the manufacturing industry. In a recent statement made on industrial progress in Wales by the regional controller of the Board of Trade—this was said quite recently, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, was present when the statement was made—he said that in the 'twenties the manufacturing industry in Wales employed only about 150,000 persons; to-day the figure was 320,000 persons, half as many again as the steel works and the coal mines employ. But my Lords, even that has not been enough. We still have 45,000 persons unemployed.
Whilst it is true that the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, and those who are associated with him say that there are prospects that work will be provided for another 10,000 persons, I think, in South Wales, I should like to know when and where the works are likely to be situated. But if work is provided for another 10,000 persons there will still be 35,000 persons unemployed. Further new factories will be required in North and South Wales. In moving around London one is surprised to see the number of new factories that are being built in the already over-industrialised areas, instead of their being scattered round about in the country in these centres, where there are these very heavy pockets of unemployment.
My Lords, my home is in a valley, the Aberdare Valley in South Wales. It was a completely mining valley until about twelve or fourteen years ago. Something like 17,000 miners were employed there. At the present time just 8,000 miners are employed. Fortunately, during the war we had a works put up, which has been converted into a trading estate, and instead of only 4,000 persons being employed in industry other than coalmining, we have about 11,000 persons so employed. The interesting part about it is that every employer who has come down and established a new industry has given great credit to the workpeople for their adaptability, for their efficiency and for their co-operation; indeed, they say it is an area where one scarcely hears of an official or an unofficial strike. These people are quite adaptable for almost any industry which is put into
1000
areas of that kind; and I beg of the Government to make further use of the powers which they have in connection with that matter. I think it is infinitely better to keep the people in their own areas, in their own communities which have been built up around the work. It is very much better for them and for the country.
There is one other point to which I want to refer, and that is the very important matter of the plight of the thousands of school-leavers and the young people to whom the Ministry of Labour have to say, "There is no work for you." There are nearly 30,000 of these young people in this country at the present time. There are 4,500 of these young people in South Wales. This is a serious situation for them. Many of them are anxious to combine their studies at technical schools and night school courses with some practical work. I am afraid that the problem of placing these young people and apprentices will soon add up and be much aggravated, because of the fact that industry must now be preparing schemes to absorb the 200,000 young men who will not now be liable for National Service over the next two or three years. Some employers have already been saying that they will not take on any apprentices whom they are not able later to fit into men's jobs. For industries with apprenticeship schemes the problem will be to absorb trained men rather than newcomers, since apprentices have always been able to defer their military service, and employers must by law re-employ them after they finish that service. I should like to know what action the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade are taking in connection with this matter.
A meeting of the local district employment committee recently made a statement which dealt with the recommendations of the Carr Committee, and what they say they felt in connection with this matter is that, in spite of the publicity given to this problem and the employment of youths, there have been no tangible results, and the responsibility for the training of these youths should rest firmly with the industrialists, who should make preparations for them. I should like to ask the Government whether they are going to do anything as a result of the recommendations of the Carr Committee. The Committee reported some

1001
twelve months ago and recommended that more training schemes, an expansion of the apprenticeship system and the setting up of a national apprenticeship council should be brought about. Perhaps the noble Viscount will say whether these recommendations are going to be put into operation, for we cannot allow these young people to be held up and, indeed, frustrated because no action is being taken by the Government to deal with this problem.
LORD REA: My Lords, might I ask leave to answer a direct question which I believe the noble Viscount put to me when I was not in the Chamber, for which I apologise to him? I believe the question was: what percentage of unemployed do I think would not take work if it were available to them. Frankly, I do not know; but in my opinion, if it is of any interest, I should say it is a very small fraction of 1 per cent. I was rather surprised at the assumption of the noble Viscount and his colleagues that such people who tremble at the sight of work are exclusively members of the Labour Party. That is not my experience; but they may be right.
VISCOUNT HALL: It was not a question of Party at all. If it is a very small section of 1 per cent. of the unemployed, I am surprised that the noble Lord deemed it necessary to refer to them. Why should he? From the way in which he put the point one would regard it as a very large proportion—that he was referring to a very large proportion of the unemployed. He does not know the unemployed as I do.
LORD REA: My Lords, perhaps when the noble Viscount reads Hansard he will see that did not say that. I was putting it forward as a completely minute fraction of the unemployed and as not worth paying much attention to.
4.40 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I must confess that I had expected that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, in his opening speech, would be bound to hark back a good many times to the bad old clays of unemployment in the 'thirties: but, owing to Mr. Douglas Jay and the Engineering and Allied Employers' Confederation, he resisted that temptation. The reason for that, presumably, is that, in his opinion, the situation
1002
today is in no way comparable with that of say, 1931—and of course, in that he is quite right. Last week I listened on the radio to an octogenarian being interviewed on his eightieth birthday. Actually, it was a distinguished Member of your Lordships' House, Lord Beveridge, and he was in his usual sprightly form. He was asked, if he were a young man to-day, to what causes he would devote his energies. He replied that in his youth it was the problem of poverty which worried him most, but today that had ceased to exist. What worried him today, he said, was inflation, the continuing fall in the real value of money, and also what he described as "that horrible word 'conurbation'"—the fact that people were spending hours and hours of their working lives travelling to and from work.
If we admit that Lord Beveridge's assumption is a valid one, I think we can get the problem in a better perspective. Nobody likes the February figure of 2·8 per cent. unemployed, but, in proper perspective, I suggest that it is nothing very terrible. After all, the proportion of unemployed in the United States and Canada is far higher: far higher even now, and they are supposed to have emerged from their recession. One thing we have learned from America, I think, is that, although there has been an up-swing there in production, that has not meant a corresponding increase in the numbers of those employed; and I think the same thing is going to happen here. I think that, first of all, one will get unused capacity coming into production, but that will not mean more people being employed immediately: that will follow next.
I contend that, to-day, no Government can honestly claim to guarantee full and perpetual employment. How can they in this country, where we have to import 40 per cent. of our food, most of our raw materials, and, in order to pay for them, have to sell about 30 per cent. of our production? Anybody who is in industry or business knows that it is getting harder all the time to sell the exports. The traditional manufacturing countries have now recovered from any ill-effects of the war; new countries are becoming industrialised, they have cheap labour, new plant, and are becoming severe competitors. Yet I have seen it seriously suggested quite recently by

1003
some unions that short-time working is a cure for unemployment. My Lords, how can that be? All it would do would be to put up costs and make the selling of exports even harder than it is at the moment.
Of course, there are special cases, and Lancashire and the cotton textile industry is obviously a special case. During the last few years the number of people employed in this industry has continued to decline; but is it surprising? Does it make economic sense to ship cotton from, say, India to Lancashire, there to be made up into cheap cloth, and then to ship it back again, to be sold to the local population? Of course that is not going to happen any more. However, it is worse than that, because cloth is coming in from these countries to the detriment of home sales. The problem of diversification in the textile towns is a real and urgent one, as many of these towns are entirely geared to cotton. Actually, the labour force has dropped from 370,000 in 1951 to 245,000 at the end of 1958, which is a loss of 125,000 workers in that industry in the short space of seven years. Today, therefore, we have an unemployment percentage in cotton spinning and dubbing of 10 per cent., and in weaving of 7 per cent. But it is really much worse than that, because there is a great deal of short-time work, and married women do not as a rule register as unemployed, so there is no check on them.
We are also faced with a great human problem. The young workers have left the industry, and it is the older, married people who remain. They have developed specialised skills, and cannot readily be absorbed in other industries. I know that the cotton industry to-day realises that there are too many spindles installed for the amount of trade which is likely to be available, but I do not think it is unreasonable to think that the present level of production can be maintained. We all know that stocks are low, and there must be a time when they will have to be replenished. Further, as my noble friend the Leader of the Liberal Party said, an agreement has been reached with Hong Kong—and I am glad to see present to-day Lord Rochdale, who has been carrying out arduous negotiations all over the world during the last few months—which limits not what is coming into this country at the moment, but the
1004
future target which they can send here. I am hopeful that similar agreements will be made with India and Pakistan.
Then there is the Cotton Development Board Committee, which is pressing forward with plans for reorganisation and re-equipment which it is hoped to submit to the Government within the next few weeks. It is up to the Government to help this industry to rehabilitate itself so that a newer cotton industry can emerge: smaller, but more competitive, and able, as in the past, to lead the world in quality, originality, and design. Here I should like to say that I was pleased to read in the papers this morning that some of these cotton towns—such as Oldham, Littleborough, and Castleton—have now qualified for financial assistance under the Act. Of course, Lancashire is not the only black spot. Another is Northern Ireland, which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, is going to deal with—and I am sure we are all grateful for that. In spite of the efforts of the Government of Northern Ireland, unemployment there is still about 9·4 per cent. of insured workers. But I know from my own experience that, although this is the figure, it is still extremely difficult to get agricultural labourers and impossible to get domestic assistance.
There is another form of unemployment which is always an embarrassing one to touch on; and it has not been mentioned. There is unemployment as a result of unofficial strikes. At the moment it seems to be the issue of the closed shop which is the one exploited by Communist elements among shop stewards to stage strikes. I should like to know what is the official policy of the Labour Party on the closed shop. Presumably, it is in favour of it, as it made it compulsory in all the nationalised industries which it created. On the other hand, there are some unions, some big unions, which are tolerant of individualism; and I think that is the attitude that appeals to the mass of people in this country. There is an excellent letter, I thought, in The Times by Mr. Cyril Osborne, a Member of another place, which, to me, puts the situation very clearly. He said that the chief task of all politicians is to make the British people realise how lucky they are, how precarious is their hold on their present standard of living, how flexible

1005
they must be to retain it and how stupid they are to think that by restrictive action they can retain it.
4.53 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, it is sometimes objected to by noble Lords that we do not always answer each other's speeches. I feel that I should incur that criticism if I concentrated on what the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, who made a very thoughtful speech, was kind enough to mention and he will forgive me if I do not follow his points with the care they deserve.
If I concentrate on unemployment in Northern Ireland, it means I shall be trying to stick to economics, rather than politics, although one or two Members of the House will not be surprised to hear that there is plenty I could say on the latter. I shall be talking about economics. That means I shall say as little as possible about the Prime Minister's speech last week at the Unionist lunch at Belfast. He is, as we all know, a good and statesmanlike speaker, but even his greatest admirers would hardly call that particular effort a good or statesmanlike speech. He announced to his wildly enthusiastic audience that if the Labour Party won the Election the country could be changed from a free country into a Socialist and more or less bankrupt State. Then he got into his stride and said:
"Socialism starts with the incitement to break the Tenth Commandment."
I need not remind your Lordships what the Tenth Commandment is, but you will probably recall that it ends by instructing us not to covet our neighbour's ox or ass "or anything that is his." To drop into the Prime Minister's vein, or attempting to imitate it, I can assure noble Lords opposite that we covet nothing in their record, particularly their record in Northern Ireland. So far as their oxen and asses, politically speaking, are concerned, they can keep them to themselves. So we do not fall under this charge in any wrong sense.
I am not talking politics to-day, but I am bound to notice that the Prime Minister at the same time made some hectoring remarks in regard to Mr. De Valera. Mr. De Valera dealt with the matter gently but firmly, and I hope that that lapse on the Prime Minister's part will soon be forgotten or, if remembered,
1006
will be attributed to an understandable fatigue after his gallant journey.
To return to economics and the subject of unemployment in Northern Ireland, Mr. Macmillan said:
"I am very conscious of the unemployment situation in Ulster. But one thing is certain. It would have been much worse if it had not been for vigorous measures to draw in new industries and to encourage the expansion of existing industry."
I shall be speaking fairly sharply about some aspects of the economic position, but I hope the House will realise that I am trying to be unbiased if I quote the Irish Independent, of Dublin, which said:
"Even the most bitter opponents of the Unionist regime cannot deny that things might be very much worse if the Government's efforts since the war had been less strenuous."
I am not sure to which Government that refers—perhaps the Labour Government receives part of the bouquet. The view of the Irish Independent, which would not be biased in favour of the Six Counties, points out that farmers now employ 20,000 fewer workers than ten years ago and the linen industry 10,000 fewer. In the same period, 36,000 new jobs have been created in industry with Government assistance. Admittedly, this has cost between 24 and 25 million in loans and grants and factory buildings. Indeed. I am informed that the total number employed in Northern Ireland is now 68.000 more than in pre-war days. We must certainly bear that in mind in talking about unemployment. So in anything I say, I hope it will not be thought there is any desire not to pay a tribute to the tough and courageous people in the Six Counties. They have been faced with big economic difficulties since, as before the war, and they have done a great job in many vital respects.
A remarkable article in the Financial Times on Monday makes the point in another way, and I commend it to your Lordships. In answer to the question, "What is the Northern Ireland Government doing about the unemployment problem?" they answer under three heads. The first is an extensive programme of public works and housing. Public works cost the Government about £4 million a year, and the figure is likely to be increased. The second is that substantial expenditure is being undertaken on improving transport facilities to and from England, particularly at the ports

1007
of Belfast and Larne. Thirdly, the article deals with what it calls the main effort of the Government, which is to attract private industry to Northern Ireland. Here the Financial Times concludes—and I have no reason to dispute it—that the range of inducements offered is unparalleled elsewhere in the United Kingdom. These are opinions, but they come close to being facts, and should be part of our general background.
They mention, in particular, £15 million spent on building factories either for sale or which can be let at very low sub-sidised rents; grants to industry of up to £10 million, which include an annual grant towards net capital spending on plant, machinery and new buildings, which has just been raised from 25 per cent. to 33 per cent. Last, but by no means least, we certainly should not fail to bear in mind the assistance given to the Ministry of Commerce in Northern Ireland since 1955 by the Northern Ireland Development Council, under the chairmanship of a respected Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos. No one who knows the noble Viscount will suppose that a better choice could have been made, or is likely to underestimate his exertions. As many of us are aware, a wide range of industries has been brought to Northern Ireland.
My Lords, those efforts have been made, but whatever the credit, and whatever may be thought to be the blame, what in fact is the unemployment situation in Northern Ireland at the present time? This is stated in the starkest possible terms at the beginning of the same article in the Financial Times—and again I do not think this will be disputed by any dispassionate judge:
"To visit Northern Ireland to-day is in some ways like returning to the Britain of the 1930's. The problem of unemployment dominates all others as the recovery in the fortunes of the Northern Ireland Labour Party shows."
That is an interesting comment from a newspaper that will hardly be tarred with our Labour Party brush. Here, in one sentence, is the pith of the matter:
"… at present one in ten Ulstermen is out of a job, and despite strenuous Government efforts there is little doubt that the proportion will rise still further in the next few months."
That is an expert appreciation, quite remote from Party consideration and
1008
from any bias in favour of anything that I can particularly commend politically.
The United Kingdom Government, under the existing constitutional set-up, have decided to carry, and indeed cannot avoid carrying, a heavy responsibility for the level of economic activity and employment in Northern Ireland. That is surely beyond dispute. I have my own views, as I said earlier, which may be known to one or two Members of your Lordships' House, about the wisdom and justice of this constitutional set-up in Northern Ireland. However, I am not arguing that question to-day, because if anything would he out of order in this Motion, I should think that would be. I am taking the set-up as given; and while it endures I say that any Government in this country which acquiesces in a 10 per cent. level of unemployment—and a level that seems likely to rise—in Northern Ireland is failing signally to perform its duty. I have in mind (though this was not said on his recent visit by the Prime Minister) that Ministers of the Party opposite are rather fond of saying, when they find themselves in Belfast, that they will never betray the people of the North. There is more than one form of betrayal, and after all we have been through and learnt since the 'thirties a Government which allows the situation of the 'thirties to return—and, in the opinion, of the Financial Times, at least, it has returned—with every sign of it getting worse, is betraying the people of Northern Ireland in a sense that all of us who lived through the 'thirties will understand.
Am I being unfair in suggesting that Her Majesty's Government, with whom we are debating to-day, are acquiescing in the present plight of Northern Ireland? If the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, proves me so in his reply, I shall have a further chance, always welcome, of apologising to him. But it is difficult to to believe that if anything striking is intended the Prime Minister would not have referred to it during his recent visit ten days ago. I cannot deduce from anything I have discovered in his lunchtime oration that there is to be any new or helpful departure. It can hardly be said that I or anybody else (perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, would have spoken of this if I had not intended to do so) is over-hasty in calling the attention of this House to the troubles of

1009
Northern Ireland. Ever since the war the unemployment level in Northern Ireland has been much higher than in Great Britain, only once falling below 6 per cent., at a time when the British average was under 2 per cent. In 1951, unemployment in the Six Counties was 28,500.
LORD JESSEL: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord, in order to have the picture made clear. I do not know the answer to this, but if he does, I should be grateful if he would tell us. What is the unemployment figure now, and what has it been since the war, in Eire? Is it comparable with that in the North?
LORD PAKENHAM: The figure in the Irish Republic, to bring the noble Lord up to date, is 78,000. It was 82,000 a year ago, and 91,000 two years ago. If one takes a slightly complicated comparison (though I do not feel that it is particularly relevant), that is, the proportion of the insured population in the South, which excludes agricultural labour, the proportion is just over 10 per cent.; it would be slightly higher in the North. But if you take the proportion of the unemployed to the total population, it would be distinctly lower in the South. To put it in quite a simple way, the proportion of the population of the Irish Republic is more than twice the population of Northern Ireland, and from the figures I have given, 78,000 against 44,000, the noble Lord will see that the number of unemployed in the South is less than twice the number of unemployed in the North. I hope the noble Lord will realise that, since we are being completely candid in these matters, it did flash through my mind that this question might be put to me, and I am particularly glad to have bad the opportunity of answering it. I feel that I should express my gratitude to him for having given me such an excellent cue.
The total figure of unemployment in Northern Ireland in February was just over 44,000—higher than in any comparable area in the United Kingdom. I think we have heard one or two higher percentages mentioned to-day, but they would be in much smaller areas, and this is the highest in any substantial area in the United Kingdom. In 1957, the average percentage was 7·3 and in 1958 it was 9·1. In January, 1959, it was 9·7, and
1010
in February, admittedly, the latest figure for Northern Ireland shows a slight drop from 9·7 to 9·4. But the Financial Times concludes that the figure will go upwards, and that seems to be the expert opinion that I have checked elsewhere. So I think we must take it that the figure is very high; that it appears to be rising, and is likely to rise still further.
It is not enough, in my opinion, for our distinguished and much-admired Prime Minister to say that he is very conscious of the unemployment situation in the Six Counties. It is not enough to indicate that apparently he proposes to do nothing about it and to secure a stormy ovation by schoolboy jibes at the British Labour Party and provocative criticisms of Mr. De Valera. It is his attitude and approach, if I may say so, which appear to be all wrong; and that, I venture to suggest, is something which will be changed, as the Prime Minister has shown himself frequently to be capable of new thoughts. But when we come to practical steps, undoubtedly we are under some difficulty. It becomes a question of working out the precise steps to secure general agreement.
The Six Counties (I am trying to be factual, with occasional rejoinders to those who have criticised my colleagues) labour, as things are, under a permanent handicap which it is not within the power of any beneficent or maleficent Government to alter. Their markets in raw materials lie to so large an extent across the Irish Sea that transport costs are inevitably high. There is also, by general agreement, a psychological obstacle which holds back United Kingdom and foreign industrialists who think of starting up a business there. There is a drift from the land which could be argued about at greater length. There is the birth rate, which is the highest in the United Kingdom, and there is also the contraction of the linen industry, again a subject which could be pursued. But none of those is, on the face of it, the fault initially of any Government. But they represent admittedly a grave and far-reaching problem.
The Northern Ireland Labour Party have recently issued a programme which has aroused a good deal of interest and consideration among sympathisers and non-sympathisers alike. I cannot summarise the whole of that policy for noble Lords this afternoon, but if anyone is

1011
interested I would tell them how they can procure it. I would touch upon one or two of the leading points. A development corporation to survey the country's resources, to plan necessary development, and to supervise the carrying out of such a plan, is perhaps the most striking proposal. It should be made responsible, we are told in the programme (and it is to act, of course, on behalf of the Government) for establishing new industries and providing capital, some of it at special rates; for investigating freight rates, and for encouraging efficient marketing and co-operative enterprises. I must not detain the House with a list of all the other proposals, but I must at least refer to the call for a textile development council, working with the development corporation, and the emphasis on the farmers' need for capital assistance and a greater measure of security. They also urge that special encouragement should be given to industries which should be co-ordinated with the farming programme, such as chilled beef, canneries arid fertilisers. They urge also that a large new dry dock should be built at Belfast, where a suitable site is available.
I am not asking the House or the Government, unless they have studied this programme with great care and have had the time to do so, to endorse without further reflection or clarification these or other proposals from the same source this afternoon. But I do think that these proposals can fairly be described as serious, economic and social suggestions which contain, so far as I can see, little, if any, Party implication, and which deserve a serious and full attention. If the Government here or in the North of Ireland have more constructive ideas than these, then, for heaven's sake! let us hear of them, and let them be pushed on with. Unless there is a very different approach we are not likely to see any improvement, and in face of a deteriorating situation any Government who fold their hands, beat their drum and talk about loyalty as a substitute for jobs deserve the most severe censure.
I would end on a slightly different note. I certainly do not want any words of mine to convey the impression that the situation is all black in Northern Ireland. I mentioned earlier some of the inducements which are being held out
1012
and some of the efforts which the Government there, with support from here, have made to attract industrialists. Perhaps I may be allowed to offer my own opinion. I have had some contact with Northern Ireland apart from politics. My opinion is that there are magnificent opportunities in Northern Ireland for industrialists, whether from this country or from abroad. In particular, I hope and believe that American industrialists, who have begun to show great interest, will be further attracted to Northern Ireland, knowing well that the potentialities, the inducements and the opportunities there are absolutely first-class. Whatever the long-term future holds for Northern Ireland, it can hardly be doubted that her fortunes will be considerably affected for the better by world recovery. Northern Ireland is very much affected by what goes on outside, and also is affected for good by any policy of greater expansion in this country.
The Prime Minister admitted candidly on his recent visit that the restrictions (of which we have heard a good deal to-day) imposed in the United Kingdom in 1957—thoroughly justifiable restrictions, as he naturally called them—had adversely affected Northern Ireland, in spite of attempts to exempt her from, for example, the credit squeeze. But whatever the economic impact of events in Britain and the outer world, the best friends of Northern Ireland and her wisest sons and daughters are aware that her real contribution on all planes, including the economic plane, is to-day seriously impaired by the political and religious tensions which have no parallel, thank heaven! in this country.
Recently, the Northern Committee of the Irish Association, an all-denominational body, set up a sub-committee to consider the usefulness and the possibility of a sociological and economic survey of the causes of tension between the Protestant and the Roman Catholic communities in Northern Ireland. It has now been decided that this survey is to proceed under a direction committee of five—a mixed committee as between the denominations, the first two names being those of Sir Graham Larmor, last year's President of the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, and Professor Carter, of Queen's University, an outstanding economist who will be editorial director. The people running this inquiry believe—and some of them are leading people

1013
of both main denominations—that this inquiry should serve a useful purpose in, reducing political and religious misunderstandings and in lessening emotional tensions based on one-sided or distorted propaganda. They believe that in this way artificial and unnecessary barriers will be removed.
In this way, they believe, and I believe, that it might he somewhat easier for members of the community to work together in mutual confidence for peace and prosperity. They lay special stress, I notice., on this. It may become easier to solve such chronic problems as unemployment and emigration. May that great hope be realized! I regard this inquiry, under all denominational and completely objective auspices, as the most hopeful thing that has happened in Northern Ireland for many years. It points the way, as nothing else can, towards that balance of mind in which her people can deploy their immense gifts of mind and character and work out in freedom their ultimate destiny.
5.18 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to this debate and to all the speeches, which have been instructive and full of knowledge, in particular in regard to the figures of percentages given. They are rather difficult to follow and, as we know, figures and percentages of that sort are so easily twisted that there may be other opinions with regard to them. I think the most outstanding speech to-day was the speech of my noble friend Lord Dundee. He gave us Ian exhaustive and comprehensive speech on the general situation, and I feel that all of us will read it with greater understanding than we have merely by listening to it. It was extraordinarily goad.
I am one of those who always try to bring some constructive ideas into any speeches that they make. I was glad to note that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, was very quiet and not at all abusive to this side of the House. I thought he was very kind to us. I should like to point out something which, perhaps naturally, he did not mention. Looking back over the years of unemployment, I believe I am quite justified in saying, that the highest unemployment in this country was at the time when the Socialist Party were in office.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I believe that that is wrong. I have not got the date, but I should not mind laying a small bet that that is wrong.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, the facts are that it was in January, 1933, that the total of unemployed reached nearly 3 millions, and that was eighteen months after the cessation of the Labour Government.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, that does not alter my opinion, because I know that it was higher than that when the Labour Government were in, and from the moment that the Conservative, or Coalition, Government came in it gradually began to decrease.
There is a subject which I wish noble Lords would consider—it is very material to our future and the welfare of this country—and it is the fear that we have of the policy (which I believe has not been departed from) of increased nationalisation of industry in this country. We all know the results of nationalisation in the past. It has not been a success, and I feel that it has a great effect on the minds of industrialists and importers in other countries when looking into the future. We are told we are going to have an Election quite soon. Suppose we have it in October; that is not very long to look forward. If the customers of this country are a little apprehensive with regard to the possible nationalisation policy as enunciated by the Socialist Party, it is quite understandable that they should hold off a great many of Their business transactions with this country, to see first what is going to happen. I will make this prophecy: if, as I hope and believe, this side of the House comes back with a thumping majority, then you will see a great improvement in our exports, and our foreign customers will immediately then begin to buy.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked whether the Government foresaw the unemployment danger. I think the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, answered that question. It is quite evident that they did foresee it, in that, as has already been mentioned, they have built a number of factories and have done everything they can to help in the dangerous unemployment areas. There is one thing which I

1015
have had in mind for some years: that is, the desperate condition of the cotton industry here. It is not as bad as it was. I have always had the feeling that if we could make up some business that could be adapted to Lancashire and involving the use of Australian wool, then we should find that it would increase employment there. As we know, the Japanese would be competitors, but I can see no reason why we should not tackle that and see whether something cannot be done in that direction.
I do not suppose for a moment I shall get an answer, but I think the time has come when this point should be established—I do not know whether it has been established already. Could I have a "Yes" or "No" answer to this question: is the policy of the nationalisation of industry going to be pursued should the present Opposition get in at the next Election? Is there any sort of an idea about it there? Would anybody like to say "No" or "Yes"? It is very important that we should know something about it. I do not suppose I shall get an answer; still, it might come later on. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, I see is to speak just after me. He is a very old friend of mine and I am sure that if he can answer it he will. I see that he is smiling.
My Lords, I go a great deal to Scotland, which is my country. I find that lately there has been an increase in employment in the domestic world, and I feel that if we could get some of these young people who do not quite know what to do to find themselves domestic employment, it would be a great benefit to a great many people. I cannot see why we should be very despondent about the situation. If one thinks back to the two world wars one realises that it would be most astounding if there were not some recession in various countries which were heavily engaged in them and spent a colossal amount of money on them. In view of that, I do not see that we could possibly get away without suffering or being worried about our future. There is no doubt—and noble Lords opposite know it perfectly well—that there is a recession in world trade. Perhaps my noble friend, Lord Lawson, may be able to tell me, but I have been trying to think out whether any Act was ever introduced by the Socialist Party
1016
which really did anything to increase developments in areas where there is unemployment. I believe that all that has been done by a Coalition Government or by a Government of the Party on this side of the House. I do not think there is a doubt about it. I see the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, smiling. If he can get up and tell us just one thing that was ever done by them by their own initiative, I shall be grateful.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, since the noble Lord invites me—I would not otherwise interrupt—may I say that we did introduce in 1945 the Industrial Development Act, which I think has been responsible for most of the development of that kind.
LORD TEVIOT: I was not aware of that, and I am sure that what the noble Lord says must be true. Naturally, I accept exactly what he says. There is no doubt that this recession in trade is certainly not due to anything this Government have done. I do not believe that that charge can be substantiated at all.
LORD BURDEN: It is what they have left undone.
LORD TEVIOT: After all, compared to other nations and the unemployment and the suffering they have, due to want of employment, owing to world recession in trade generally, our numbers compare very favourably. I do not know whether it was said here or whether I read about it, but the Government are accused of not building for letting to an extent they ought to, and of not building in development areas when requested to do so by local authorities. I believe that the Government have done everything they can to encourage local authorities to take advantage of all the facilities available to help those areas that are, as we all know, in a most depressing condition. It is all very well to be clever and wise after the events. I shall look forward to the day when, in the event of a national trouble facing all of us, the Opposition will join with the Government in trying to overcome the difficulties. I always look back on the days when I was in another place, when I think Mr. Ramsay Macdonald was Prime Minister. He was in a difficult situation such as this, and he remarked, "If only at moments like this we could have a

1017
National Council to settle this question, eliminating Party politics altogether and seeing whether, with the special knowledge on both sides of the House, we cannot overcome the difficulties we are suffering from!"
5.32 p.m.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, the noble Lord told us at one point in his speech of the evils of nationalisation, and said that the British public wanted no more nationalisation. We shall have an opportunity of testing that as soon as the Government are ready for an Election. But may I remind noble Lords that one of the most evil times industrially through which this country has passed was the time of the depressed areas, in the mining areas particularly, where the mines were privately owned. If the noble Lord wants a sample of what took place in what were called the depressed areas—because this country appears all too conveniently to have forgotten what did take place—Welsh miners, instead of being in the pits, were on the streets here singing hymns. I used to leave Parliament and go home to find at my back and front doors a great queue of men who once thought they were indispensable—first-class craftsmen, proud of their craft, for whom the day had come when they were no longer needed. How grateful they were to get an old suit, or some clothing for their wives and children, which was sent by kindly disposed people from all parts of the country!
I would remind the noble Lord, and your Lordships, too, and the country, through this House, that the worst time most of the people of this country endured in regard to unemployment, and the highest rate of unemployment they had, was when at least the mines were privately owned. I heard the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who spoke for the Government say, I think, that they had given 277 approvals or directions in some form or another for industries in other parts of this country.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I think he said "industrial development certificates to development areas."
LORD LAWSON: I was pleased to hear him say that. But I have never been able to understand why Governments
1018
are not more decided upon this matter of approvals and directions for industrial development. As I understand it there is hardly a single instance in Which a factory or factories that have been serif to the extreme ends or to other parts of the country outside this great City have not proved to be a success.
There was one particular instance referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. Was there ever a worse example in this country, or perhaps in any other country, of woebegone people lacking any industry at all than existed in West Cumberland? I know that part of the world—as a matter of fact, I was born there. It was always a difficult area, from the point of view of employment. I have seen it since the developments have taken place, and I agree that great credit is due to one particular man, Lord Adams, who has done splendid work in West Cumberland. He has lent his influence and his talents and all his industrial experience. It is wonderful to see what has been done in that part of the country which, so they said, was apparently a hopeless proposition. I think it was Lord Davidson who went there and saw it, and wrote a moving description of what the country was like. It seemed to me in regard to what I have always thought was a proved fact—that the particular contour of the country was against it and made it altogether hopeless—that when one points to what has been done in that part of the world, the raised standard of life and the enlarged hopes of the people, it gives a sample of what can be done.
I have seen it in my own county, in places far remote from the main roads. I cannot understand why Governments are not more decisive upon this matter of spreading industry throughout the country. Recently, whilst going South, I drove through the southern part of London, and I was amazed to find how industry had developed, in spite of the warning that was given during the war. Sir Malcolm Stewart was one of the representatives of the Government in Durham and Northumberland. Time and again in his reports did he warn Governments about what would take place in this city. He pointed out that most of the aeroplane parts and other necessary things produced for war were produced round about here at that time and would lay open for sure and certain attack in

1019
times of war. And those of us who know what London was like at that particular time can only confirm how terribly the warnings of Sir Malcolm Stewart were justified by the actual events.
I say, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government should be more decisive upon this matter of spreading industry. Here is a country which seems to be packed with people, and yet even in industrial areas like my own there are wide stretches of land, so that if one gets a mile or two away from where I live, going to the Consett Steel Works, one will go twenty or thirty miles and never see anything but sheep and farms. That is the case all through this country. The impression is given that this is an overcrowded country, but it is nothing of the kind. I am glad, of course, that we have set aside some part of it for parks and rural enjoyment, as necessary, but apart from those great areas that have been set aside there is plenty of room in this country for the direction of industry.
I do not want to speak for too long, but I want to say just a word or two about unemployment in the mining areas. Only a few small collieries have been closed recently, but these people live in small communities where sometimes there is no other work within scores of miles. I hope I am wrong, but I must say that in recent months I have felt as though there was a calamity hanging over the whole of the mining world of this country. I have tried to resist saying that in the past, but I must tell your Lordships and the country, through this House, that things are in a very bad state. I see in my own community men going to and from meetings, and I see notices in the Press; and it is quite clear that the mining industry itself is perturbed about its future.
I saw the noble Lord the Minister of Power here. I am sorry that I did not give him notice of this point, but I must say that, while I hope I am wrong, I feel that the time has arrived to consider the rapid advance of oil. It is difficult to get any figures of actual increases in imports, but I looked at one set of figures to-day and it seems to me that oil imports have increased by about sixteen times since 1938. The story is that oil is to be applied to the railways. If Her
1020
Majesty's Government believe that that is right, it is up to them; but they must take note of the fact that in case of war, as in the last two wars, the coal industry has been the salvation of this country. Had it not been for the coal industry we should have been sunk, both in the last war and in the previous war. The situation was realised, and miners were stopped from going into the Forces six months after the first war started; and they were stopped from entering the Forces immediately the last war started.
If we want oil to dominate this country let us say so. But I tell your Lordships, quite frankly, that I believe that finance is playing a considerable part in this, and I am not quite so sure that, in the long run, it will not indirectly affect policy. But if we want oil let us decide. I believe that the mining industry has arrived at the stage when it is time for the Government themselves—and not merely a Department—to judge this question and to make up their mind whether or not they want the mining industry to survive. If it does not survive, or if a calamity suddenly comes upon us, through neglect or drift, we shall find a repetition of the old depressed areas, with all the woe and the tragedy.
I will end on this note: one of the best things that has come to this country, and to the mining industry, too, is the nationalisation of the mines. It has given us self-respect in the mining villages. It has built up men and women with an outlook on life such as they have never had before. I could tell stories of what I had to do when I was a youngster, when one had to work for nearly a week to get a simple book costing a few coppers. Now, of course, the situation is all altered. Miners, with their families, have been brought up into strong, self-respecting people. They are a great asset to this country, and the Government of this country ought not to let this question drift until tragedy conies upon them.
5.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I was extremely interested to listen to the very good speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, on the North of Ireland, as I have myself just returned from there. I believe that the noble Lord quoted the figure of unemployment in the North of Ireland as 10 per cent., but I was of the

1021
opinion that it was not quite so large. I should have thought that at the moment it was about 9·6 per cent.
LORD PAKENHAM: Does the noble Lord want me to correct that?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: No; the point I am going to make is that if the figure of 10 per cent. given by the noble Lord is correct, it has arisen only in the last four or five months. I should like to point out to the noble Lord that during the six years of Labour Government the figure of unemployment in the North of Ireland was, up to September of last year, higher than the figure under the Conservative Government. The North of Ireland is in a very peculiar position in regard to unemployment. In the war it had 4·4 per cent. of unemployment, which was highly unusual as no other part if the United Kingdom had any unemployment at all at that time.
The North of Ireland has, of course, a great many disadvantages, and the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, very fairly pointed out certain of them, such as her geographical position, which adds 2 per cent. to the costs of all companies there exporting goods. He also explained how she has no raw materials such as fuel. But I should like to point out other disadvantages. In the whole territory, the whole country, there is only one large town, Belfast, and so only a comparatively few people are employed in insurance and shops and similar city occupations. Again, also in farming, owing to mechanisation a great labour force has left the land; and her shipping and ship repair yards are extremely sensitive to world trade.
Every year we have had to find extra jobs for 5,000 new population. That takes some doing. The noble Lord, I think, said that 68,000 more people were employed in the North of Ireland nowadays compared to the pre-war number. I am told that the actual figure is 70,000. Of course, if we consider the subsidies for factory building, I would say that one can rent factories in the North of Ireland for 9d. a square foot. The economic cost is 4s. 6d. That is a great thing. It has attracted certain industries to the North of Ireland, and I hope will continue to do so, because the labour in the North of Ireland is excellent and is not so prone
1022
to strikes as perhaps is labour in other parts of the country.
We have also had the capital allowance raised to one-third for the equipping of industry, which will also be a great help. But we have that sea, which is a great stumbling block and, I am afraid, will always remain so. There is one point that has not been brought out: that the North of Ireland, per head of the population, exports, for instance, four times more than the whole of America per head and twice as much as New Zealand, Canada and Australia.
I should like to say a few words about the North of Ireland's oldest industry, apart from agriculture, and that is the linen trade. There is no denying that the linen trade is in a bad way. The trade employs 14·2 per cent. of the population of the whole of the North of Ireland and I think that 7·5 of the population are employed in the clothing trade. There is little flax now grown in the North of Ireland. They are growing only 1,000 acres this year, which will produce about 200 tons. In the war years they were growing about 20,000 acres—but then, of course, they had a subsidy. The North of Ireland has to import nearly all her flax, £5 million worth, from Western Europe.
The danger is that flax-growing in the rest of Europe is dwindling fast. It has dwindled by over 50 per cent. in about six to seven years, and if the position of the linen trade goes any lower the flax-growers in Europe will stop growing flax. Russia is growing 8 million acres of flax and is constructing eighty-seven new mills this year. The danger is, as I foresee it, that they are going to flood Europe, and of course the North of Ireland, with extremely cheap flax and destroy all the flax-growing trade; and after they have cornered the market they will put the price up and will charge what they like.
Where the linen trade could be helped is in publicity. It spends only £200,000 on publicity. If we consider a firm like Unilever's, I understand that they spend £80 million on publicity. In comparison, £200,000 is an absolute fleabite. But what I am hoping is this. If Her Majesty's Government, through the North of Ireland Government, could use for publicity for the linen trade the money which was previously used for subsidising

1023
flax-growing in the North of Ireland it would double the funds for publicity in that trade and, I am sure, would be a great help. If every housewife in the United Kingdom would only buy eight yards of linen per year, the industry would be fully employed. If only teenagers would buy their jeans in linen it would keep the trade going. But the whole trouble is that the trade has hardly any publicity at all.
I should like just to say something about unemployment as a whole in the United Kingdom. The whole trouble appears to me to be that we are losing our slice of the cake—and by "cake" I mean the foreign-trade cake. The cake grows larger, yet our slice of it grows ever thinner. Why is this? Because we have spent vast capital on new machinery to raise our production. The disquieting fact is that our production is lagging behind that of the rest of Europe. Certainly one of the reasons for this, so far as I see it, is restrictive practices and unofficial strikes. We read nearly every day that some great industry has been brought to a halt due to a walk-out of 10,000 or 20,000 workers over some absurdly childish and quite irrelevant happening—perhaps because the foreman has sworn at somebody on the bench, or trodden on his toe, or upset the tea over him, or something like that. When the men go back they are always told that they have won a great victory. But the truth is, of course, that they have succeeded in making the threat of unemployment even more likely, because, as all your Lordships know, every time we cripple an industry our competitors overseas have an advantage, and we cannot afford that.
Japan has just constructed the largest tanker in the world. She is of 106,000 tons, I think, and they have constructed her in just under six months. I am told that it would take our yards about two years to do that. We cannot afford these strikes the whole time: it is complete national suicide. I have a slight interest in shipping, and I know that if you want to have a ship repaired you can send her to Germany and have her repaired in one-third of the time it would take to do it here. The position is extremely serious: but I do not know how one can cure that in a democracy. I suppose that
1024
in time it will be cured by education. I can only hope so—though I hope the time does not come too late.
I have spoken quite long enough, I think, my Lords. Of course, the Government cannot work miracles. I personally think that, in view of the recession in world trade we have had, they have done extremely well to keep the overall figure of unemployment down to 3 per cent. I rather feel that, if your Lordships opposite—and I refer to the Socialist Party—had been in power, we might have had a higher figure. Anyone, of course, can cure unemployment temporarily if he is prepared to raise production irrespective of the balance of payments. It is easy to spend £1,000 million on unproductive work, but if it does not bear any relation to world trade and the balance of payments, it is obvious that, in the end, it will only create far worse unemployment. I personally think the Government have done an extremely fine job.
6.6 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, owing to the fact that I was in Committee upstairs, I was unable to hear the whole of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee; but I was in time to hear his reference to my right honourable friend Mr. Gaitskell, and to the speech which my right honourable friend made in 1951. I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Earl for quoting it, not only with complete accuracy, as I am certain he would, but at sufficient length to ensure that there is no distortion. I am sure he will agree with me that that is somewhat rare in the quotations that are made of that particular speech.
The noble Earl quite rightly said that my right honourable friend referred to the effect of world conditions, over which we had no control: but, of course, at the time that speech was made, world conditions were vastly different from what they are now. The prices of our imports were simply cascading upwards—if a cascade can go upwards: at any rate, they were going upwards like a Sputnik—and we had no control over them. But the noble Earl cannot argue that there is anything like that situation now. For several years now, world prices have been going down; prices in this country have been going up; and the unemployment

1025
figures, unhappily, have also been going up. In that speech my right honourable friend said that we would not allow unemployment to reach 3 per cent. without taking drastic steps, and the noble Earl said that the Government had in fact taken such steps. My Lords, in my view, the results which we are now considering in this debate show that those steps were badly planned—too little, and too late!
My Lords, I have been surprised to detect (if I am right) a note of diffidence and a defensive attitude on the part, of noble Lords opposite over this question of the unemployment figures. I should rather have expected a quiet air of triumph at having achieved what they set out to do—because the present situation was planned, predicted, and achieved. When the Government decided on a 7 per cent. bank rate, the credit squeeze, cuts in industrial investment, and cuts in the expenditure by the nationalised industries and local authorities, they decided at one and the same time to put hundreds or thousands of people out of work. There can be no denial of that whatsoever. In fact, I have in my hand the Report of the debate in your Lordships' House in June of last year on unemployment in Scotland. I am sorry that for the moment the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, has left the Chamber, because I had hoped he would be here when I quoted him from column 1064.
The noble Lord, whose kindliness and sincerity is, I am personally aware, beyond any question, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 209, col. 1064]:
"….we must face up to the fact that it is known by everyone, though admitted by only a few, that the country as a whole benefits by a small percentage of unemployment…"
A little lower down he went on to say:
"The vast majority of workers, I am convinced, prefer that there should be a small percentage of unemployment, at least among the almost unemployable, …"
I am quite sure the noble Lord is wrong; and I believe that the majority of people in this country will agree that he is wrong. But that view is sincerely held by the noble Lord, and I believe that it is sincerely held by the Government. They have acted on that belief, and have achieved their purpose. In fact, for a Party that does not believe in planning it 'has, with conspicuous success, planned some 600,000 unemployed and, in accordance
1026
with some calculations, the equivalent of a million unemployed.
Now, having hit the target, the Government ask: "Where do we go from here"? The best advice I can give them is to abolish the traditional Conservative policy of solving these financial problems by creating unemployment. It is no use saying, "We are doing it to counter inflation" when you do it by methods you know will create unemployment. We on this side of the House say that it can be done by other methods. I advise the Government to substitute for their policy the wise plans we have urged for so long: plans based on the conviction that the unemployment of human beings is the least excusable way of wasting our national capital.
My noble friend has painted the national picture and outlined the way in which the problems of unemployment vary in intensity in different places. I want to examine in some detail one region which I believe shows conclusively a situation approaching tragedy, arising entirely from the Government failure to make vigorous use of the Distribution of Industries Act of 1945. I would direct your Lordships' attention to the unemployment situation in Scotland—the largest and, in many ways, blackest of all the black unemployment spots in the whole of Britain. It is a large spot because it comprises one-third of our land area and only one-tenth of the population.
Last month the total unemployment in Scotland was 116,000, or 5·4 per cent. Of these, one-fifth had been workless for over six months. I started in business in 1922, so I went through two slumps; and I saw so much of the effects of unemployment that it has always been my major endeavour to see that no one connected with me was out of work except for very gross misconduct. I know that these things can be achieved. I would ask your Lordships to imagine what is happening to some people to-day, men of 45 to 50, who, having given most of their adult lives to a particular industry or firm, now, for reasons quite beyond their control, find themselves out. There are those, too, of the younger generation, who have not been tested in the same fires as my noble friend Lord Lawson: they do not know what has hit them. They did not think

1027
it ever could hit them. When a man is out of work for six months it does something to his very soul.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD STONHAM: Another disturbing feature, so far as Scotland is concerned, is that the number of people in civil employment has dropped by 51,000 in one month. And things are not getting any better. Last month, in Britain as a whole, unemployment figures fell by 12,000; in Scotland there was a small increase. I would say that the overall figure in Scotland of 5·4 per cent. concealed some really frightening examples. Thus Ayrshire's average of 5·8 per cent., includes Kilbirnie, 16·6 per cent.—one man in six. In Stornoway the figure is 38·9 per cent.—nearly two out of every five men: men without hope. There are State-assisted road schemes in Lewis and Harris, but out of nearly 1,000 men registered for employment under these schemes, 815 are unemployed.
Coming to the industrial areas, Greenock has every eleventh man out of work, and two-thirds of these have been workless for more than two months. In the county of Lanarkshire, the industrial heart of Scotland, we find again that the eleventh man is on the dole. If that rate prevailed through Britain, we should have 2 million unemployed. That is the nature of the position in Scotland. In the same county of Lanark, 1,275 girls and boys under 18 cannot find work. A large number of them have never had a job since leaving school. To make matters worse, thirty Scottish pits are closing, twenty because they are uneconomic, ten because they are exhausted. These are areas in which the Coal Board cannot find alternative employment.
I submit that it is imperative that the Government take immediate steps to bring industry to the area and provide work there. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, will be able to tell us something about it. Can there not be something comparable to the Labour Party scheme, under which, when mines in Lanark were worked out, we moved families to Fife and provided small townships of council houses to which they could move? If there is no hope of work the Government must do something in the way the noble
1028
Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hills-borough, mentioned in the same debate of June last year.
When we look at vacancies in Scotland the position is even more gloomy. In Scotland fourteen workers are chasing every vacancy: fourteen men for one job. The real position is worse than the figures, because the vacancies are, in the main, for the scarce skilled men. In practice there are virtually no vacancies. Recently the Sunday Pictorial, stirred to its very depths by this situation, offered a service to the Ministry of Labour in putting its readers in Scotland in touch with vacancies. The Minister thanked them for the offer but could not make use of it because, in the words of the manager of the Exchange in Edinburgh, "There are no vacancies." It is the same story all over Scotland. Glasgow has 35,000 unemployed—the worst-hit major city in Britain. Dundee has 6 per cent.; Mother-well, Clydebank, Paisley, Coatbridge—another 1 in 10 town. It is a very sad roll-call of towns which are known throughout the country—throughout the world almost—for their products and skill and the courage of the people.
The saddest part is that such a large number of young people cannot get jobs—and that is happening even before we feel the effects of the known population bulge which is coming and which will soon be on us. In December, 1958 (to give one example), there were 597 young Scots between 18 and 20 who had been unemployed for over six months. But if you get down to the Midland area with a larger population there are only 93. In London and the South East the number is only 137. So, if we take into account the relative populations in the areas, there are ten times as many young men out of work for more than six months in Scotland as in either of the other two regions.
What could be more soul-destroying than to fall on the scrapheap before the age of 20? We urge them to train and equip themselves at schools, provide youth employment officers to advise on jobs. But there are no jobs. It is the same for boys under 18. In December there were 3,261 boys under 18 wholly unemployed, and only 747 vacancies. That means four boys for every job. By contrast, in the Midlands on the same day there were 2,658 vacancies for 500

1029
workless boys, who each thus had a twenty-times better chance of employment than a Scottish boy. It is small wonder that on the average 25,000 Scots take a one-way ticket for England every year; and, in fact, in 1957 the number was 32,500, the highest figure for thirty years. Despite this exodus from one of the least populous parts of the country to the most populous areas, an exodus virtually enforced by the economic conditions created by the Government, we still have these high levels of unemployment. And it is endemic. It is always twice as bad in Scotland as the national average; and I think it will remain so until we have a Government that is steadfastly and resolutely determined to do justice to the North.
I would remind your Lordships that we had such a Government in 1945, when Sir Stafford Cripps, despite all the abuse and criticism levelled at him, applied the Distribution of Industry Act to such effect (and I hope the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, will note this point, which is absolutely fundamental) that two square feet of factory space was provided in Scotland for every one square foot in London and the South-East. It is very different today. Last September there were 60 million square feet of industrial buildings under construction or approved in the London region compared with 15 million square feet in Scotland. In other words, it was four to one against, where before it was two to one on, and the Labour Government was looking after Scotland eight times better than the present Administration.
What possible justification can there be for allowing this rate of construction in the over-congested London region and denying it to Scotland? I urge noble Lords opposite to press the Government to instruct the purchasing departments, whenever possible, to allocate contracts to areas of heavy unemployment, and to press on with the many schemes at present held up for no apparent reason. We have the extraordinary situation to-day that Scotland's steel industry is running at only 56 per cent. of capacity. Thousands of steel workers are unemployed, and all the rest are on short time. That, again, is mainly because the shipbuilding industry is not calling for steel and many berths are empty. Yet, to give one example, after many frustrating
1030
months a start has not yet been made on the construction of the proposed Clyde Graving Dock at Greenock, because the Government have not yet decided to give the necessary financial assistance. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, will be able to tell us something about that project which will put men at work. There are many similar cases of inexcusable delay. Scotland will benefit from any general improvement in employment arising from changes in Government policy. But general improvement will not cure the deep evils to which I have referred; they require special measures.
I urge the Government to build factories in advance of need, and to let them at rents which will attract firms who can provide work. Also—and I hope that we may hear something about this tonight—I would urge them to abandon for the present the huge increases in rents they are demanding for factories on the industrial estates. I know that originally these rents were low; they had to be to attract the firms. But at a time when we say we need work, to double the rents and drive firms out is surely madness. I hope that the Government will try to provide manufacturing industries alongside some of the new enterprises which are producing basic products. I think this is important, and it is a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, made some reference in his speech last June. We must have these things, as it were, in colonies. For example, chemicals are being produced on a large scale at Grangemouth, but no manufacturing industries have been set up to turn those materials into consumer goods and other products.
Then, again, the development areas must be extended to include many more areas in Scotland. By extra grants and lower interest rates local authorities in badly affected areas should be encouraged to press on with the provision of badly-needed services, such as road improvements, water supply, docks and bridges. For example, the Tay Road Bridge was mentioned in your Lordships' debate last year, but this is still the subject of conversation and not of action. Could we not have some decision and action on things of that kind? I hope that this year there will be taxation relief for the shale oil industry. I sat in the other place for a good many years, and every year there

1031
were Motions about remitting taxation from the shale oil industry, which was declining all the time. The hope was recently expressed that no more works would have to close down. Surely we should help this sort of industry in that way if there is going to be a Budget surplus.
I have no doubt that noble Lords opposite are saying to themselves that everything for which I have asked is Government-aided. But if that is what noble Lords feel, I would again ask them to recall the debate on unemployment in your Lordships' House last June. On that occasion the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made it clear that it was only the Labour Government's plan which had made possible the continued employment of 20,000 workers in the jute industry; and the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, confirmed that he had been obliged to continue State trading in jute in order to keep them at work. I was very struck (as I often am) by a passage in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, on that occasion. He said that people who west to the Board of Trade were met with the sort of reply [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 209, col. 1044]:
" 'We haven't any idea upon the subject ourselves; we haven't really thought about it. But we should be delighted to hear what you have to say'."
The noble Earl referred to something which the right honourable gentleman Sir Winston Churchill said in relation to the attitude of his own Departmental officials, once described as [col. 1044]:
" ' the padded cells of indubitable fact and the solid masonry of unanswerable objection ' ".
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, whether the Government now, eight months later, have any idea of what the position is in Dundee; and whether it is still the case, as I believe it to be, that prosperity in Dundee depends mainly on the arrangements for State buying which were made by the Labour Government.
Would any noble Lord like to contemplate what conditions would be like in the Highlands without the employment provided by the Hydro-Electric Board and the extended work of the Forestry Commission? They are all State schemes or State-aided schemes. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said last June that expansion in Scotland was in the best interests of the British economy and that we should
1032
envisage the employment situation in 1960–61. I entirely agree with him, and I hope that he and other noble Lords opposite will join us in pressing the Government to abandon doctrinaire prejudice against State enterprise, and to press on with all soundly-conceived schemes which, in both the short and the long term, will provide for the people of Scotland the fulfilment of their inalienable right—the right to work in their native land.
6.30 p.m.
LORD BILSLAND: My Lords, I wish to pursue the question of the situation in Scotland, regarding which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has given comprehensive and disturbing facts. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hills-borough, in introducing the discussion, said that the figures of unemployment in the country as a whole to-day are the worst they have been for ten years. In Scotland they are the worst they have been for twenty years. It is unnecessary, after the speech of the noble Lord, for me to quote some figures I wished to quote, but I would say that it is a very disturbing fact that for a number of years prior to the recession the average number of unemployed in Scotland has consistently and doggedly been double the average for the United Kingdom. I submit that the distribution of industry policy in the Act of 1945, for all its success, has failed to achieve its full purpose, in Scotland at any rate.
During recent months, the whole problem of unemployment and its incidence in Scotland in comparison with other parts of the country has been the subject of careful inquiry by the Scottish Council, an independent body composed of representatives of management, labour, the banks, all local authorities and many other interests in Scotland. The purpose of the inquiry has been to analyse the reason for the Scottish position and to suggest the remedies. The plain fact emerges from the inquiry that the diversification of industry, the need for which has for so long been obvious, has not gone nearly far enough in Scotland. In consequence the recession in trade and on investment which has affected the country as a whole has borne more severely on Scotland, because the production of capital goods is relatively so much larger and the representation of consumer goods so much smaller than it

1033
should be in order to achieve a proper and satisfactory balance.
The lack in Scotland, in terms of total size, of certain types of manufacturing industry, which elsewhere is showing considerable capacity for expansion, such as electrical engineering, vehicle building and certain sections of the chemical industry, to give three examples, has resulted in a lower rate of expansion of employment, opportunity and industrial activity. Various Government measures, such as the reduction of the price support in the jute industry, and the closure or contraction of Service and Ordnance establishments, have led to a reduction in employment. Circumstances have caused the obsolescence of a large part of the shale oil industry, and in the coalmining industry the effect of recent decisions on employment has been considerable and is likely to have further consequences.
In proportion to total employment, Scottish manufacturing employment is relatively one-eighth smaller than in the United Kingdom as a whole. Over the past ten years it has grown at less than half the United Kingdom rate—that is to say, by 4·2 per cent. compared with 11·3 per cent. The smaller proportion and slower growth of Scottish manufacturing industry has been much the most important reason, in my judgment, for the slower growth of total Scottish employment. From 1949 to 1957, total employment increased by 4 per cent. in Scotland against 7 per cent. for the United Kingdom as a whole.
There is, fortunately, a brighter side to this picture, in that since the Distribution of Industry Act became operative in 1945, 66,000 new jobs have been created in Scottish industrial estates, and various sections of native industry have considerably exceeded these figures in the fresh employment they have provided. New sectors of industry have arisen, partly through Scottish enterprise and partly by importation from America and elsewhere. But the stark fact remains that, over the period from 1949 to 1957, there were, on the average, 30,000 more unemployed in Scotland than there would have been if the unemployment rate had been reduced to that prevailing in the United Kingdom as a whole.
There is a more sinister fact. Net emigration from Scotland to other parts of the United Kingdom—apart altogether from
1034
emigration overseas—averaged 11,400 people per annum over the period 1949 to 1957, a net loss to Scotland of approximately 4,500 workers per year. It is plain that the maldistribution of industrial population, to which the Barlow Commission pointed with such force nearly twenty years ago, has been and is being still further intensified, and that the figures of unemployment are not a true reflection of the position on account of a continuing migration of labour, mainly from North to South, to an extent which is neither healthy nor desirable.
I must add the footnote that 12½ per cent. of the working population of Scotland earn their livelihood in shipbuilding or ship-repairing, and it is clear that the prospects of maintaining these activities in the medium-sized and smaller yards at the present level are somewhat doubtful. In order to counter and redress the unfavourable factors which I have detailed, it is clear that a more vigorous and active policy is necessary, directed towards the expansion of manufacturing industry. The object should be, I suggest, to create conditions favourable to an expansion of employment in Scottish manufacturing industry comparable with the expansion occurring in the United Kingdom as a whole. From 10,000 to 12,000 new jobs would be required annually in Scotland to maintain such a rate in place of the existing rate of 4,100.
I have referred to the fact that the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, and subsequent legislation have failed to achieve their full purpose. It is proper, of course, to point out that the application of this legislation has been repeatedly retarded by the economies imposed by our recurring national financial difficulties. For example, in 1947, 1948, 1951 and 1952, work was held up or slowed down very much indeed by postponing the provision of new factories in industrial estates. I am not clear that the announcement of June, 1956, which was made in another place, that Government assistance for the provision of factories in the industrial estates in the development areas would be forthcoming for only a very few projects of special urgency and importance, has ever been rescinded. It is, however, an encouraging fact that quite recently approval has been given to the provision of considerable additions

1035
to existing factories in the Scottish industrial estates. That is a healthy development. It seems unfortunate, however, that the present time has been chosen to raise the rents falling due for renewal in the industrial estates from a figure which, admittedly, was low to one that is almost three times the former rent.
Obviously, the number of inquiries for Government factories in the meantime is negligible. There is a certain amount of interest from American sources, but this interest will not become active inquiry until some favourable solution can be found to the Common Market problems. One cannot expect, therefore, a revival of inquiries for new factories, either from home or from oversea sources, immediately. I hope, however, that that revival will come, and I suggest that the existing policy to cater for such a demand should be reviewed now.
I have spoken of the need for an active and vigorous policy and I should like to submit to your Lordships five practical suggestions. I have long held the view that the limitation of Government assistance to development areas, defined for the most part fifteen years ago, is out of date and that the criteria for giving such assistance should be to arrest heavy unemployment, or the danger of it, where-ever it may occur, or to promote development that is unlikely to occur without such assistance. I shall be told, as I was told when I raised the matter in the debate to which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred, that that would be spreading the provision too widely. I reject that answer as a pusillanimous one. I appeal for flexibility to replace rigidity.
My second submission is that the rents charged for Government-financed factories for new projects should, for a period of, say, ten years, be less than the economic rent, in order to encourage growth. My third point is that the recently-announced Board of Trade decision to authorise the building of one standard advance factory in each of the development areas, one being in Scotland, is altogether too paltry. I well remember that when Scottish Industrial Estates began operations in 1937, the provision of advance factories was one of the principal factors in the success achieved. I speak with some experience as I was chairman of the company for the
1036
first nineteen years. There is another announcement by the Board of Trade this morning, to which reference has been made in the discussion this afternoon, which I regard as similarly inadequate, giving three Scottish towns, with others in the South, the benefit of financial assistance under the 1958 Act because unemployment there is above the national average. There are, however, other places equally deserving, and I repeat my plea that the criteria for assistance should be to arrest serious unemployment wherever it may be or to promote development.
My fourth point concerns communications. The improvement of communications, particularly to and within the central belt of Scotland, and the necessary development of sea and air terminals are essential. I am not satisfied that Scotland is receiving a fair share of Government expenditure on roads. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to that matter this afternoon and I support warmly what he said on the subject. The programme in Scotland for the four years from April, 1958, to March, 1962, provides for the authorisation of schemes involving the expenditure of £40 million, but two projects alone—the Forth Road Bridge and the Clyde Tunnel—will absorb 46½ per cent. of the £40 million, and 25 per cent. of it will be in the form of loan, not grant. This morning's announcement encourages me to feel that the Government will spend another £1 million or so on roads in Scotland. My final suggestion is to make a strong plea for Government support in the provision of a large graving dock in the Clyde, concerning which the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries on the Clyde have taken a very active initiative and which is of great importance to employment in the Greenock area, to which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred, and to the welfare of the industries concerned. These are the principal points which the Scottish Council has in mind in pressing for an active and vigorous policy.
Before I sit down, may I say that I should be giving a totally false impression if it were inferred from what I have said that Scotland is waiting inactively for Government action. It is far otherwise. The great developments which are taking place in the steel industry are well known. Millions of pounds have been

1037
spent by the shipbuilding industry in modernising its facilities in recent years. These are two of several examples which I could develop of enterprise and progress in Scotland to-day. I should like to tell your Lordships that this year, in September, the third major Scottish Industries Exhibition held since the war, financed by a Scottish guarantee fund, will be held in Glasgow. It has been assured of wholehearted support by the whole of Scottish industry. Lord Polwarth, the Chairman of the Scottish Council, which is promoting the Exhibition, and Sir Robert Maclean, the Chairman of the Exhibition, are in the United States visiting various centres on a propaganda mission on behalf of the Exhibition and thereafter they will go across Canada from East to West. They are also taking the opportunity of meeting representatives of American corporations which have expressed interest in operating in Europe. I received a report from them yesterday confirming that action on the part of the Americans, as one would expect, will be dependent upon the outcome of Common Market negotiations.
It is not an accident that 70 per cent. of the American corporations which have set up plants in the United Kingdom since the war are located in Scotland. It is a testimony to the satisfaction with Scottish conditions and especially with Scottish labour. It is the intention of the Scottish Council to send missions similar to that in which Lord Polwarth is at present engaged to various centres in Europe in the course of the next few months. In these and in many other ways, Scotland is endeavouring to pull herself out of her difficulties.
6.49 p.m
LORD WISE: My Lords, the debate has ranged over a wide area. We have touched very much on Scotland, we have gone to Wales, we have also traversed to Northern Ireland and we have dealt generally with the national position. I wish, however, to deal shortly with unemployment in country districts. It might be thought that this is a local matter which is not of very much importance in the national set-up; but it is, and we who live in the country areas are much concerned at the rise in unemployment which has taken place during the last few months. In many ways we who live in the country live under certain difficulties. I can assure you that country
1038
folk do not want unemployment added to those difficulties.
If you look at our menfolk you will realise that the scope of their employment is somewhat limited. In our areas there are no large industrial undertakings, and very few factories, as a rule, which can absorb extra labour and engage new hands. Once unemployed, a countryman may find it very difficult indeed to be absorbed once again into his own industry, particularly if he is aged. In our districts we find many such, and they have become casual labourers, part-time gardeners and generally odd-job men. A man may lose his employment for reasons beyond his personal control. He may have spasmodic or regular periods of unemployment. But once he has experienced the bitterness of being out of work and the soul-destroying process of seeking work at possibly frequent and ever-recurring intervals he must sooner or later be labelled with that terrible stigma of being either unemployable or permanently out of work and work-shy. This is indeed a tragedy for anyone, and I argue, and I think I am right, that it surely must be our job as legislators to do whatever we can to assure to every—and I say "every" emphatically—British man and woman a fair day's work for a fair day's pay, and thus remove from their lives the scourge and degradation of unemployment.
My noble Leader has made a plea for urgent action on the part of the Government, and I want to endorse that plea so far as our countryside is concerned, and generally as well. If we are ourselves decent honest citizens, we cannot sit back and treat with callous indifference the suffering which our present national mode of life inflicts upon those unfortunate men and women who are genuinely seeking work and not finding it. Decency in us does not allow us to refer to unemployment in any frivolous or light manner. It is indeed a very real thing. My noble Leader has suggested, and I think he is right, that when a man is unemployed, that unemployment affects no fewer than four people in his family, and you can see that on present figures this means that possibly between two and three million people, men, women and children, are living in uncertainty, fear of the future, and a growing measure of poverty. This, indeed, is a grave reality of some dimensions. Freedom to

1039
inflict starvation on our fellows is a doctrine that has a place only in an unplanned free-for-all system of society. But such a doctrine—and I am sorry to say that it prevails in some influential quarters and is there lauded as being very desirable—is rotten to the core. It should be blotted out from our conception of the rights of brotherhood and humanity with all possible speed.
I want for a moment or so to deal with the local aspect in regard to unemployment in an area which I naturally know very well, and it is a typical British country district. The county of Norfolk, excluding Norwich, on February 9 had 3,131 men and 745 women unemployed, a total of 4,214 in the county excluding the large centres, excluding Norwich and Lynn and others, with a percentage rate of unemployment of 4·4 as against the national percentage of 2·8. That, in a country district, is a very serious state of affairs, and these figures which I have given do not include 338 boys and girls who also were seeking employment. This is a serious situation for the county. In a small country market town nearest my home there were on February 19, less than a month ago, 160 men and women out of work, and just previous to that 31 or 32 had been declared redundant, and half of them had not at that time found other employment.
These figures are small but they are material to what I have to say. They are significant because in this small country town 600 good, honest folk have been afflicted or are afflicted by unemployment, and if those 160 workers had been employed their weekly spending capacity in that small town would have been approximately £2,000. That is very material among small shopkeepers—comparatively few shopkeepers, the baker and grocer and the rest—and very material indeed to the prosperity of that particular area. This loss, made up, of course, partly by unemployment pay, meant a loss, as I have said, to the small shopkeepers, loss of production in agriculture and other rural industries and in the small factories, loss of morale for the unemployed, and eventually loss to the nation. The figures in another town in my vicinity are these. There are 20,000 in that particular area employed, and this week there are 500 men and 170 women out of work. That is a percentage
1040
average of about 3·5, and it is very significant. It does not take any account of the dockers and others who may be on part time in that particular town.
I want now to say a word or two about the agricultural position. In January of this year 20,793 agricultural workers, men and women, were wholly unemployed or temporarily stopped. I believe that this figure has been relieved to some extent during the last month, but those were the January figures. The corresponding figures for the last three years are as follows: In January, 1958, 15,364; in January, 1957, 12.564, and in January, 1956, 9,934. Noble Lords will see, therefore, that year by year in January, as in other months, these figures of unemployment in agriculture are rising; they have worsened and are continuing to worsen. There has also been a decline year by year in the number of workers remaining permanently in the industry. They are leaving the industry and, if possible, moving off to other employment. Here I want to pay tribute to the Government on the operation of the industrial finance provisions of the 1958 Act. I am concerned and interested in regard to a small new factory in Cornwall which has received some assistance under the new scheme, and for that we are most thankful.
I hope that the Minister will give me some definite information as to the reason for the increase of unemployment in rural areas. Conditions there are so different from the great industrial areas, and there may be some explanation forthcoming from the Government, apart for the explanations which we have heard already, which will show us that there is a reason, and, if the Government say so, a need for unemployment in the rural areas. I know that I may be referred to weather conditions or winter conditions, or to the introduction of machinery. But if it has been a definite part of the policy of the Government to create unemployment, then I hope the Government will be courageous and open and will say so. If, for any reason, they have failed to hold employment steady by reason of sponsored decreased production, then I hope that they will be prepared to admit the stupidity and error of such a policy.
Just one final word with regard to the agricultural aspect—I am glad to see the noble Earl the Parliamentary Secretary

1041
to the Ministry in the House. Month by month we hear from the Government how prosperous is our agriculture. Repeatedly have we been told that the agricultural policies of the Government are perfection in themselves; that there is not a weed or a pest anywhere in those policies—that everything is flourishing. I wonder? They have told us that every farmer is prosperous; that he is creditworthy, except the small farmer—and so on: a really prosperous state of affairs! But a really prosperous agriculture should be able to absorb all the machines, implements and manpower available. There should be no unemployment on the countryside, and the industry should be able to perform all the work necessary, not only for the benefit of the nation but for the benefit of the industry.
About 20,000 agricultural workers and their families are asking the Government for a regular job on the land. What are the Government going to do about it? What have they in mind to do about it. I am pleased to see that there is on the list a possible agreement between ourselves and the United States in regard to wheat. But cannot we get together with the United States and make some arrangement whereby we may stabilise our import prices and the commodities which the farmer and the rest of us have to buy? Cannot we order our society or our affairs in a way whereby we may both benefit from mutual trading, the one with the other?
Redundancy is an iniquity which good honest British workpeople should not have inflicted upon them. It has become a nightmare in many working class homes. We who sit in this House will never experience the Friday evening when a British workman comes home from his work, sits down to tea with his family and has to tell them that next week he will be unemployed because he is redundant. What an appalling state of affairs! What a tragedy these black Fridays are in so many British homes! There should be work for all. I ask the Government to think on these things, and to do so with all seriousness, with a determination to right these wrongs—because they are wrongs which we inflict upon our society. The Government have the power. May the Government also have the will! If not, may they themselves soon be judged as being redundant!
7.8 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, during his recent visit to the North-East coast towns, Mr. Gaitskell was reported to have said that the Labour Party would not tolerate unemployment. I should have thought that that statement would apply equally to every single thinking member of the community, certainly to Her Majesty's present Government. None of us feels any inclination to tolerate unemployment. But it is a different thing to produce a policy that will eliminate it and give the country a complete and conclusive answer to it for all time and in all circumstances.
I have little doubt that many of our fellow-citizens took Mr. Gaitskell's statement to mean that the Labour Party had just such a policy, and I came here this afternoon in the hope that I might hear that policy expounded. I have been sadly disappointed. I have been quite unable to find, in the speeches to which we have hitherto listened from the Benches opposite, any cure for this evil which is the cause of so much human suffering. But I have heard a good deal of denunciation of the efforts which Her Majesty's Government have made to check the rise in unemployment and to reverse the trend; and to my mind that is not very helpful. It is not very helpful to the man who is out of work; it is not very helpful to the country, and it is not very helpful to the Government, who are so obviously anxious to do everything in their power to ensure a high and stable level of employment.
As I understand it, one of the contentions of the Party opposite is that through the exercise of physical controls they can ensure the prosperity of this country and eliminate unemployment. If I am not mistaken, that is one of the things on which the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has spoken to us from time to time, and one which he managed, I thought rather cleverly, to introduce into his speech in the defence debate yesterday. I can only assume that that means that they would control our imports of both food and raw materials and would allocate raw materials to industry in such proportions as they might consider most beneficial to the economy of our country as a whole; and, further, that that means they would have to dictate to industry the kind of goods and

1043
the volume of such goods—both capital and consumer—which should be manufactured; and also, presumably, what proportion should be retained for home consumption and what should be exported.
In other words, my Lords, this claim seems to me to amount to this: that under a Socialist Government there could be assembled a body of experts capable of correcting the whole complex economy of this country. I like to remind myself that we have here a country with a population of some 50 million which cannot feed more than half its population from its own soil; which has no natural resources other than coal and whose livelihood therefore depends on being able to sell abroad manufactured goods in such a manner as to enable it to buy the food and raw materials necessary to maintain not only its standard of life but its very existence. That, again, amounts to being able to forecast the trend of demand, not only in this country but throughout the entire world, and not merely for one class of goods but for every class of goods that we in this country are capable of producing. It requires only a moment's consideration to see how utterly unrealistic such a proposition is.
No Government, by themselves, are capable of providing conditions under which a measure of unemployment will never arise. By easing the terms of credit, by granting loans and by going ahead with public works, Government can help of course. But do let us recognise that it is no answer to the skilled craftsman who is out of work to be offered a job on some new road project or public undertaking: for what he requires is employment in which he can continue to exercise his skill.
May I tell your Lordships what I consider to be the most promising answer to this problem? To my mind it is to be found in co-operation between Government, management and labour of every kind. The Government, for their part, must provide such conditions as lie within their sphere and capacity. Management must seek so to organise its enterprise as to produce the maximum efficiency. It must study the needs and desires of its customers and constantly prepare to meet them; and it must be ever on the look-out
1044
for new markets. In addition, it must work in the closest co-operation with its labour force; and in that labour must reciprocate. Special skills must be rewarded, and I would suggest that that should apply not only to production but also to salesmanship, which in these days is of such immense importance. To put it shortly, if we are to avoid unemployment all must work harmoniously together, seeking to produce goods of the highest quality and at prices that will bear reasonable comparison with those of our competitors; for, after all, it is only by satisfying our customers overseas that we can avoid unemployment.
I repeat, and let us recognise the fact, that Her Majesty's Government by themselves can do little. Let us not play politics with this great human problem, but rather let us seek, both by word and by deed, to inspire that confidence, to achieve that co-operation and that harmony in industry which alone can ensure a high and stable level of employment for our people. At the moment the overall position in the United Kingdom is that something less than 3 per cent, of the insured population are unemployed. That gives no justification whatsoever, particularly in a time of world recession, for either despondency or despair, and still less for extravagant and partially, at least, untrue statements, such as those which we have heard in recent months, of stagnation and of our position being almost akin to that of the early 1930s. For such statements serve only to create apprehension, fear and uneasiness and to undermine that confidence which is essential to any forward drive. Let me say that such talk is really nothing less than sheer defeatism, and in no way helps to solve our difficulties.
Nevertheless, the rise in the unemployment figures to which, let me say, the very severe weather conditions of the earlier weeks of this year undoubtedly have contributed, leaves no room whatsoever for complacency. Those areas where unemployment is above the national average call for vigorous action; and such action, to my mind at least, Her Majesty's Government have taken. As witness to that there are the matters to which I have already referred—the additional credit, public works and other matters of that

1045
kind and also the passing of the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act. That is an Act which I believe will help us greatly in Scotland and I hope other places where unemployment has been persistently high.
At this hour I do not intend to take up the time of the House by giving my views as to why the unemployment figures in Scotland are so much higher than they are in England. The noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, has already given your Lordships his views and I am not going to touch on the great efforts which have been made and which, I know, are continuing to be made to bring these figures down, for these are matters with which I am quite certain my noble friend the Minister of State will deal. But the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made one remark which I feel calls for some reply, perhaps from a Back Bencher, when he spoke of miners being moved, in other days, from the closed pits in Lanarkshire to the new coalfields in Fife. Although I do not want to be at all political, might I remind the noble Lord of houses having to be ready for them? And I want to remind him that it was a Labour Government which limited what was originally intended to be the size of the new town of Glen Rothes. Perhaps there is something there which answers the noble Lord's question.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Lord explain why?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: It was because the then Secretary of State did not consider that the mining operations in Fife were going to develop as he had originally understood had been planned. In fact, these developments are going ahead.
LORD SELKIN: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord whether he would not agree that if that was a mistake—and it may well have been so—the present Government have had seven years in which to put that mistake right and have not done so?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, they have done so, if the noble Lord will look at the matter.
In that connection I want to pay a tribute to the work of the Scottish Council, in which two Members of your Lord-
1046
ships' House, the noble Lords, Lord Bilsland and Lord Polwarth, are playing such a prominent and notable part. I also want to pay tribute, perhaps rather an unusual tribute, to the Scottish Controllers of the Border Trade and the Ministry of Labour, whose help and advice is so much appreciated by Scottish industry, both management and trade union. I have had the good fortune to meet these gentlemen from time to time in the course of recent years, and I have been astonished by their knowledge of the labour and industrial situation throughout the whole of Scotland. But what really astounded me was the information they possess of firms, not only in the United Kingdom but overseas, and particularly in the United States and Canada, who were contemplating expansion. Both the Scottish Council and these two Departments together have made known to such firms in the greatest possible detail the advantages which Scotland had to offer; and we owe to them, I feel, a deep debt of gratitude, for industry from overseas which has settled in Scotland has done so largely because of the initiative and the information which was made available to them by that organisation and by these Departments.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, although I entirely share the view just expressed, would it not be wise for the Government to restore the Board of Trade Office in Dundee to pursue that good work?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, the noble Viscount does not want offices everywhere all over the country. Scotland is not a very large country, I may tell the noble Viscount, and it might be better to concentrate the efforts. One can get from Edinburgh or Glasgow to Dundee in a very short space of time. No one in either Glasgow or Edinburgh need be ignorant about the situation in Dundee.
I want to say a word about our labour force in Scotland. Those American firms that have come to Scotland have one and all expressed their satisfaction with the conditions that they have found there, and particularly with the skills and adaptability of our Scottish people. They have proved that they are equally capable of developing light industry as they have been of developing the great industries of Clydeside and Lanarkshire; and that,

1047
surely, should give cause for satisfaction and should inspire us with hope that our industry in Scotland will be further diversified, both from home sources and from overseas. I see no reason for gloom, but rather for confidence in the future, for while I am not in any way inclined to be complacent, I am confident in my own mind that the steps which the Government have taken and which they continue to follow will see a very great improvement in the employment situation over the coming months.
7.24 p.m.
LORD GEDDES OF EPSOM: My Lords, it is very heartening to this side of the House to know that the noble Lord who preceded me, Lord Strathclyde, gives such wholehearted support to Labour's policy On unemployment as expressed by Mr. Gaitskell. It is heartening, too, to know that he supports the statement of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that the Government are not complacent on this matter. But the salient fact is, of course, that unemployment has risen to be three times as much as it was in the last three years, and it is small comfort to the unemployed man to know that. Unemployment has risen to that extent in three years in which the present Government have had absolute control. They can produce no excuses whatever by referring to what happened in 1868 or 1933, because they have had the matter completely within their own hands; nevertheless, unemployment has risen to this extent. It struck me that the noble Lord who preceded me, having said that he would not tolerate unemployment, proceeded to produce all manner of excuses and all manner of reasons why there must be unemployment, presumably almost at the level it is at at the present moment.
In my view, this problem is one of the most important problems that any Government, this or any other, have to face. It is a problem of loss, of waste of manpower, of waste of machinery, of millions of pounds' worth of productive power lying idle, and of hopelessness and despair. This is the problem. In the defence debate yesterday reference was made to the fact that we should not need the hydrogen bomb if only we could capture men's minds. By that we meant, of course, that if only we could convince men that our way of life, that democracy,
1048
was the best way of life, then the hydrogen bomb would be unnecessary because the cold war would be defeated on the basis of our thinking. My Lords, if this Government or any other Government cannot remove from men's minds the insecurity and the fear of unemployment, Communism will win the cold war, hydrogen bomb or no hydrogen bomb. It is no use our saying in the democracies that our way of life is so much better; we have to prove that it is better, and we do not prove it if we allow unemployment to increase as an act of policy. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, rejected the suggestion that the Government were guilty of a deliberate policy of creating unemployment. But I thought he then admitted that the deliberate policy of the Government had created unemployment. And there can, I suggest, be no doubt whatever about that fact. The deflationary measures of the Government were designed to contract industry and therefore, inevitably, to bring about unemployment.
I want in a few moments to reduce this matter to the human level and refer in this connection to the "black Friday" mentioned by my noble friend Lord Wise. Can one really justify the stabilisation of the pound? Can one really justify building a new and stronger economy at the expense of the few? And if we are going to do it, do we not owe something to the few? Can one imagine a man who has just been dismissed going home to his wife and saying: "My dear, I have lost my job. I have really no idea when I am going to get another one. This, of course, means that it will be very difficult to pay the rent without National Assistance. The children, probably, will not be able to have any new clothes or any new shoes. We shall not be able to go for any holidays, and everything will be on short commons. But, my dear, don't worry. The pound is getting stronger every day and the international financier who was making money by selling the pound is now making money by buying it. That is a great deal of comfort to us in our new misery"?
You cannot expect or hope to convince the man who is a victim of this policy, who is the unemployed man as the result of it, that you have really done the right thing. And are you satisfied that you did the right thing, in any case? It is said

1049
you could not do otherwise. We on this side do not accept that. We do not believe that the only way to strengthen the pound was by contracting industry; nor do we believe for a moment that expanding industry of this country means a flight from the pound. We believe that if you had taken steps to use this unused productive capacity, and if you had demonstrated to the world faith in ourselves and faith in our ability to use this productive capacity, to use the skill of our men and women, you would have accomplished the same thing you have accomplished but in a much better way.
I am not going to detain your Lordships, because much has already been said. I wonder whether the Government are really satisfied that the instruments they already have to deal partially with this problem are properly being used. Are they satisfied that their powers under the 1948 and the 1958 Acts are being used with the intensity that they ought to be in the circumstances in which the Government find themselves: or are they allowing Treasury control to stultify, or to put the cold hand upon, those who otherwise might be willing to allow some freedom of action under those two Acts? Is it true, my Lords—and I address this question to the Government—that many industrialists who might be interested, and who start initially with an interest, find that the delays and the frustrations are such that they lose that interest? I believe that that is true.
But something further has to be done. We have to convince industrialists that not only is it a good thing from the national point of view that they should take advantage of these facilities, but that it is good from their point of view. One has to deal with the development areas on the basis of either compulsion or of persuasion, and it is no use believing that you can persuade them on the basis of suggestion that they should come; then making it difficult for them to come; and then, when you have got them there, making it even more difficult for them to stay. It is the belief on our side of the House that that is precisely what is happening.
My Lords, I am now closing; but I hope my noble Leader will forgive me if I ride one of my own pet hobby horses in this debate. He said that this was a matter which had to be dealt with urgently: it must be dealt with now, he
1050
said—and I entirely agree. But, my Lords, I think that the time has come—in my view it has past—when we ought to think of something a little novel, a little revolutionary. We ought to try to see whether the people who have to decide this issue finally are prepared to consider a solution now. I believe that the time must come when the Government, as the policy-makers and as the representatives of the consumer, must get round the table and discuss this question of a planned, full employment, and of a planned economy, with the two sides of industry, with the employers on the one side, and the workers' representatives on the other. I do not believe that this can be done by meetings of the N.J.I.C. or by meetings of the Economic Planning Board or other bodies. I believe it has to be an imaginative approach. It has to be a desire on the part of the Government to see whether they can solve the problem by a new approach.
I would leave this thought in the minds of the noble Lords opposite: that it might well be that we have arrived at the time when it would be a good thing to see whether a round-table conference should be held, not on the basis of exhortation on the part of the Government, or on the basis of allowing the employers to tell the trade unions how wrong they have been in the past, but on the basis of seeing whether the three parties cannot solve something which, if it is not dealt with and solved, will become a very, very serious problem indeed, not only for this country but for the world at large.
7.35 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD FORBES): My Lords, I want to say something about Scotland, which I hope will answer some of the questions that were put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. As time is getting late, however, I am quite certain that the noble Lord will not expect me to answer all of the many questions that he raised. Let me begin by saying that the comparatively high rate of unemployment in Scotland is of great concern to Her Majesty's. Government, and I want, as briefly as possible, to say something of the background to the situation—what the Government have done, and what we are now doing.

1051
One of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was about the Tay Bridge: why we were not getting on with the Tay Bridge, and providing employment in that respect. I can tell the noble Lord that we are going ahead with preparatory works; test borings are going on, and we are carrying out discussions about the site. The main thing is that, even if this project were authorised to-day, it probably would not be able to start for about three years; so it does not affect the present unemployment situation.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, asked whether we could in any way reduce the rents of Government factories. I can assure the noble Lord that this is a matter which is constantly kept under review by the Government. As I think the noble Lord knows, we have recently announced that any increase in the rent of Government factories will be spread over five years; and that, in the case of factories standing empty, there will be a rebate of 25 per cent.—and, of course, this is on the market value of the factories.
My Lords, while the percentage of unemployment in. Scotland last month was 5·4 per cent.—which is a higher figure than the figure for Great Britain as a whole—this difference is no new thing. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, has pointed out, for a long time the Scottish figure has always been higher than the English one; and even during the period since the war, when unemployment was remarkably low, the Scottish figure, though very small, was higher than that for Great Britain. The reason for this is, I think, well known. The Scottish economy has traditionally depended to a very large extent on the heavy industries—coal, shipbuilding, steel, heavy engineering—and the present recession has once more brought into prominence our lack of a healthy balance of industrial activities.
It is unfortunately only too clear that a country dependent on heavy industry takes longer to recover from any recession, however slight, than a country manufacturing consumer goods. It will therefore not be surprising if, to some extent, Scotland lags behind England in any improvement in giving employment to her citizens. This is indeed a challenge
1052
to all Scots, and all those connected with the administration of Scotland. The Government's policy has been, and will continue to be, directed towards developing our existing industries and to securing a wider diversification of industry in Scotland, which is the only way to guarantee, in the long run, reasonable freedom from unemployment.
The present position, though far from satisfactory, is yet much better than it would have been if we had not succeeded to some extent in this effort. In this respect, let me remind your Lordships of the remarkable growth of industries in Scotland, such as those making typewriters and other office equipment, earth-moving equipment (of which Scotland is now one of the biggest producers in the whole world), watches, chemicals, and domestic appliances. A very recent example is the arrangement by which the Torpedo Experimental Establishment at Greenock is to be taken over by the first firm to make washing machines in Scotland. Washing machines instead of torpedos is, I believe, a change which has very real merits, not only for Greenock, but for Scotland as a whole. We are doing all we can to stimulate developments of this kind, and I feel sure that the new strip mill which is to be built at Ravenscraig, with the help of a Government loan of £50 million, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Dundee, will attract still more of the newer industries which depend on a supply of sheet steel.
I should like here to join with my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in paying tribute to the work of the Scottish Council—so ably begun by the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland—in attracting to Scotland new industries from the rest of Britain and from overseas, especially from North America. Something like thirty American firms have set up business in Scotland since the war, and the Scottish Council deserve a great deal of credit for this.
I turn now to steps currently being taken by the Government to deal with the situation. Apart from what is being done to encourage industry generally, the Government's main weapons for dealing with the lack of employment in the areas most affected are factory building and financial assistance under the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee. The amount of loans to industry recommended to date in Scotland is over £2

1053
Million—that is, £1¾ million under the 1945 Act, and a quarter of a million pounds under the 1958 Act. I have during recent months visited a large number of areas of comparatively high unemployment, including Inverness and Invergordon, Aberdeenshire, Dundee and Angus, North Lanarkshire and North Ayrshire, and shall continue to visit other areas in the immediate future. In fact, next week I shall be visiting the shale oil area about which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had a good deal to say. I can assure the noble Lord that no further contractions of the shale oil area are contemplated. I am doing these tours because I am convinced that personal contact is of great mutual benefit to industrialists and to myself and my colleagues at the Scottish Office.
Turning to D.A.T.A.C., I am sure noble Lords will know that there are two very substantial schemes at present under discussion. They are for the construction of two dry docks on the Clydeside at Greenock. However, since these schemes are still being discussed I cannot go into any detail about them. There is also the Government's encouragement to local authorities in development areas to clear derelict sites and supply basic services of water and sewerage.
LORD STONHAM: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, can he give any details about the graving docks? Can he say whether the difficulties are technical, and whether the projects are viewed favourably by the Government? Can he say when they will come to fruition?
LORD FORBES: These projects have gone before D.A.T.A.C., and D.A.T.A.C. is nothing to do with the Government. Advice will be given to the Government as to whether they will be accepted or not.
Going on with the Government's encouragement to local authorities, I may say that in the course of my tours I have been impressed by the need to improve sites by clearing away old factory buildings or unsightly things, and I hope that these grants will do something to make some of the older industrial districts of Scotland more attractive to modern industry. Having seen for myself the Coatbridge area, I am glad to be able to say that the town council have been authorised by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to acquire
1054
a large derelict area in the heart of Coat-bridge, occupied by an old ironworks, with a view to its clearance under these arrangements. I hope that this site, which is in a very good location, adjoining the main railway line, will prove attractive to new industrial enterprise when the clearance operation is completed.
Then we come to the question of Government-built factories. The amount the Government have done up to the present is measured by the fact that in some areas no less than three-quarters of the new factories have been financed by the Government. I need not remind your Lordships that the Board of Trade are prepared to build factories for firms that wish to set up new production or to expand in Dundee, Greenock and North Lanarkshire, while the Development Commission can give similar help in the Highlands and the Buckie-Peterhead district. Twenty-one new projects have recently been approved by the Board of Trade in Scotland, and it has been estimated that they may provide employment for nearly 4,200 people in the first place. Arguments have been put forward that Her Majesty's Government should be building factories in advance of specific demand. I am doubtful whether this would be so effective to-day as it was immediately after the war, because to-day industrialists so often want their premises made to measure. In addition, we must not overlook the fact that there are, unfortunately, some factories already standing empty in various parts of Scotland.
My noble friend Lord Dundee has mentioned, however, the Government's decision to build three advance factories. Scottish Ministers are discussing the location of the Scottish factory with the President of the Board of Trade and a decision will be announced very shortly.
For dealing with the immediate employment problem Her Majesty's Government are expanding the rate of Government spending on public investment. In this field Scottish Departments have sanctioned the bringing forward into 1959–60 of a considerable number of schemes which would otherwise have had to be deferred until later years. These cover education, housing, roads, hospitals, electricity and other works and total £9½ million.

1055
Now, my Lords, may I turn to the Highlands? The Government are very conscious of the need for further employment in the Highlands, and we have tried to stimulate it in many different ways—especially by assistance to the existing basic industries, farming, fishing and forestry and tourism, and by improvement of the essential services such as water supply and roads; while hydro-electric schemes have both provided employment and made available the power supplies which are essential for further development. In conjunction with the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) we are constantly trying to interest firms in setting up in the Highlands, especially those which make use of the natural resources of the area. D.A.T.A.C. assistance is, of course, available to any project which is going to lead to increased employment, and of the thirteen D.A.T.A.C. schemes for which approval has been given in Scotland nine are in the Highlands and Islands.
I am sure that it is by proper exploitation of the natural resources and attractions of the Highlands that we are most likely to see the unemployment problem in the area brought under control. Thus one of the main ways of improving the prosperity of the Highlands is by encouraging the tourist industry. This is already developing rapidly: over the last six years the number of tourists coming to Scotland has almost doubled. I need not remind your Lordships that D.A.T.A.C. assistance is available for hotel-keepers in the Highlands and others who require to extend their premises to attract more tourists. Whilst I know that the state of the Highland roads is often said to deter tourists from visiting the area, I am certain that any thoughts of motorways would kill the beauty and value of the Highlands. However, I can assure noble Lords that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State realises the need for great improvement in the Highland roads. Even now, about one-fifth of the total estimated provision for roads in Scotland is spent in the Highlands.
My Lords, I know that this is a time of a small recession, when a cautious business man may not be inclined to expand his activities. But the recession
1056
is not going to last for ever, and this is the very time, when labour and materials are in plentiful supply, for forward-looking industrialists in Scotland to be putting themselves in a position to take full advantage of the upswing in trade the moment it occurs. In the past these areas in the industrial belt of high unemployment have often been known as "black spots". What industrialist would wish to tell his staff that he was moving to a "black spot"? These areas, with excellent labour readily available, and often with splendid communications, are surely the areas of opportunity for the far-seeing industrialist. And that is what we must call them—"areas of opportunity".
Here let me compliment my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on his excellent speech, in which he expressed the importance of co-operation between management and workers. The future growth of employment in Scotland can lie only in a combined operation, an operation in which Government, management and workers must all, with a high sense of responsibility and statesmanship, play an essential part. The link between Government, management and workers must be so strong that nothing can burst it asunder. It must be equally strong enough to withstand the full strain of common purpose heaving in one direction, as if we all pull together in this great time of opportunity, all can, and all will, profit from the opportunities that lie ahead in Scotland's great areas of opportunity.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I rise for a moment on a point of Order. It would not ordinarily have been thought by my noble friends and myself desirable for two Ministers to speak one after the other, and I do not think in general it is desirable for four Ministers to speak in a debate. But my noble friend Lord Forbes, who has just spoken so well, wanted to talk about the Scottish position, and we felt that it would be desirable to have the Minister to speak about the Welsh position. What had originally been planned was that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Granville-West should come in between those two. I hope the House will agree that my noble friend Lord Brecon should speak next.
7.51 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR WELSH AFFAIRS (LORD BRECON): My Lords, I did not expect that Scotland and Wales would do a double act in the middle of this debate, but I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Forbes, because so many of his problems are similar to those we have in Wales. I do not intend to repeat them all in my speech but will keep it to a reasonable length. I have not worked all my life in Merthyr and the valleys of South Wales without knowing something of the hardships and heartaches that unemployment brings to men and their families. But when I received my appointment just over fifteen months ago I felt that I could serve Wales best by giving most of my time and energies to this end; that is to say, to the task of helping the unemployed. I found that not only were individual men and women in Wales unemployed, but that we had communities unemployed, too; and that was a serious matter with which I greatly sympathised.
My first duties were to investigate the conditions that existed in West Wales and also in North Wales. In West Wales, the problem was one not so much of recession, but of the changing pattern of industry that was taking place. The old tinplate works and some of the old steel works that gave them their supplies of steel were completely out of date, and with a slight falling off of orders for tinplate, industry found that these works had to close some two or three years earlier than they would otherwise have closed. It will be remembered that about two and a half years ago in Llanelly there was a shortage of workers, and, in point of fact, Italians were being imported to keep up the labour force. It is heartening to know that this part of Wales still leads the world in the production of tinplate and has two of the finest continuous mills in the world. And at Margam we have Europe's finest steelworks at the present moment.
In North Wales there has been little industrial background. The employment has been very seasonal, with the tourist trade, and has caused some concern. The slate industry, which is the main industry of North Wales, has suffered from the competition of alternative roofing materials and has reduced the number employed for many years. At the present
1058
moment, about 93 per cent. of its production is for the maintenance of roofs only. Recently, Wrexham, Rhyl and the Rhondda have come into the list where high and persistent unemployment exists. I have visited Wrexham and Rhyl, and I shall visit Rhondda very shortly.
I think it is fair to say that the Government's action in Wales has been vigorous and successful in bringing new industries into these difficult areas. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, stated that the number of men employed in the coal industry and in many other industries had reduced by considerable numbers. In fact, I think the coal industry had gone down by 46,000, the tinplate industry by 24,000 and the slate industry by 9,000. But it is an interesting fact that from 1951 until 1958 there has been an increase of 45,000 in the insured population of Wales; and that is one expansion which we welcome.
In West South Wales, new industries and expansion of existing ones will provide about 9,000 new jobs in this area, and at present the total unemployed of Llanelly, Swansea and Pontardawe is about 8,000. It does not mean to say that we can produce those 9,000 jobs straight away: they will come during this year, next year and the year after. Tinplate works or any other works can be closed almost by giving a week's notice; but I am afraid we require more than a week's notice to negotiate with a firm, to build them a factory, and to get them into production and provide the jobs.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Can he say with regard to the tinplate works whether the Government have in mind any projects at towns like Pontardawe, where there is great distress? Can he at the same time say why they did not keep the pits that have just been closed—the Mount and others—on for another year until the Aberrant was ready?
LORD BRECON: The prospects for. Pontardawe are that we hope to get new industries to go there, and we shall build them factories if we can find the people prepared to go. The point is that firms wish to be near the main line and the main road, and this is difficult in the valleys. I cannot answer for the Minister of Power, but representations were made on the particular point made by the

1059
noble Lord by many people in Wales. I think the noble Lord can get the answer on this from the Minister of Power.
We are pleased with what the Board of Trade did for us in getting the Pressed Steel Company to come to South Wales—the foundation stone of the works was laid last week by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade. This will mean 4,000 jobs, new work and a new scheme, and will be a great help. The Crawley Engineering Industry at Llanelly will provide 300 to 500 jobs. We are delighted that Teddington Aircraft Controls Company are going to Pontardulais, again a community that has unemployed, having taken over an old tinplate works which will be developed and provide the skills and crafts that are required in the area to diversify the trade. We are also pleased that Richard Thomas and Baldwins Limited are going to open their press-shop at Gorseinon, again with 350 jobs. Other projects are also being initiated and when these are agreed they will provide further jobs. I am sure that in due time we shall be able to bring sufficient industry into West Wales that will give full employment once again to that area, and we shall not have to see the queues of unemployed that we have at the present moment.
We have also spent in that area, on new roads and bridges, something like £2½ million, and that is going to mean more attractive approaches and communications for the firms that are coming there. We are also pleased that we have the new steel works to go to Newport—we share some of it with our friends in Scotland—and I am certain that they, like ourselves, are delighted that this new project, this vast industry, is coming to provide work. In North Wales, a difficult area, we are pleased that the extension of a factory at Llandudno will provide work for 500 and at Penygroes, Austin Hopkinson have taken over a small factory. The Board of Trade are just completing the erection of a new factory which again will provide between 150 and 200 jobs.
We are also pleased that the new power station at Trawsfynydd is going to give much work for many people in the next four or five years, and the small factory making clothing will be—
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Before he leaves that point about Trawsfynydd, which is a very difficult area, as he knows, could he say whether the labour force will, in the main, come from the area, or is it to be imported from other areas?
LORD BRECON: In the main, the labour will come from the local areas. I understand that the numbers they will require in construction are very large, and they may have to bring them from some distance. But in the main it will be local labour for the construction—all those who want to work on it. I am giving particular attention to that point.
LORD OGMORE: I meant not only the constructional staff, but the people who are going to be there permanently, those engaged in the maintenance and other works. I take it that the people in that area will have the first chance of the jobs.
LORD BRECON: I expect a good deal will depend upon qualifications and ability, but I hope that will be so. We have also the hydro-electric scheme going on in that area, and that is providing a number of satisfactory jobs. The thing I am concerned about is that we have not more other industries in that area. It is an interesting fact to note that in the heyday of factory building, which was 1945 to 1951, only one factory was built in this area of North Wales, and since 1951 four factories have been built there. But this is not sufficient, and Anglesey, in particular, is a county to which we must induce industrialists to go and provide work for the 1,500 who are unemployed there at the moment.
Further projects are being discussed, particularly the prospect of a chemical works at Glynlliffon Park. A public inquiry concerning a water supply has just been held, and it is hoped that a decision will be given shortly by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister for Welsh Affairs. In the slate industry, there is the great difficulty of competition. The Minister of Housing and Local Government has agreed that any English local authority who will use slates shall be allowed to raise money on loan to meet the additional cost. That

1061
has previously applied to the Welsh local authorities. I myself have made an appeal to Welsh local authorities to put slate on 5 per cent. of the houses they are building. I am glad to say that a great number of the Welsh local authorities are already agreeing to that. But it is, as I have said, in Anglesey particularly, and Caernarvonshire, that we require new industries, and every effort is being made to do just this.
We in Wales welcome the Development Corporation for Wales which has been set up, and we should like to thank Sir Miles Thomas, the Chairman, and his members for what they are doing at the moment. I saw a Press report that the trade unions are also supporting the Development Corporation. Here we have an organisation which will provide the means, with a full-time and permanent staff, to see that Wales will get her fair share of new industry. It has not been set up to compete with the Scottish Council, but perhaps we can have some of the work as well.
Loans from D.A.T.A.C. are now available to all those areas named where unemployment is persistently high in South and North Wales. The Board of Trade and the Development Commission will also build factories in Anglesey and Caernarvonshire. These two counties of North West Wales have almost the same benefits as the development areas. To help in the interim period, until these factories are built and are in commission, the Government Departments are spending £2½ million in these areas of unemployment, on roads, rural agricultural roads, electrification, housing and services, health and welfare hospitals. The Board of Trade are also spending a good deal of money on the clearance of sites, such as at Wrexham, where they are spending £42,000 on clearing sites there ready for any industry to come. The Board of Trade have also agreed to factory extensions at twenty-four factories, costing about £600,000. These, when they are completed, will provide about 1,250 jobs. There are nine empty factories in South Wales at the present moment. These can be let at the market value, less 25 per cent. So we are not short of factories in South Wales. We have in Wales the labour, the factories, the sites and the services. What we require at the moment is the men with
1062
the initiative and firms to occupy them, and I say that the Government are doing everything they possibly can to bring this about.
8.8 p.m.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, my approach to the problem which has been debated this afternoon is based on two simple premises: first of all, that unemployment in the modern Western World is unnecessary; and secondly, that money was devised by men to serve them and not to master them. The problem in this country at the present time is almost as much one of under-employment as it is one of unemployment: a problem of short working weeks, low level of output from people working a full-time week, of little overtime and no night shifts. All this adds up to the under-employment of our available resources of material and manpower.
On a broader front we are faced with a more challenging problem. The world has now recovered from the Second World War, and we have at last ample raw materials, ample food and no lack of desirable developments to be tackled all over the globe. Governments and people are striving to expand their economies, to improve their way of life, to invest and to develop. But what has happened? The leading industrial countries in the Western World, including, unfortunately, ourselves, are now faced with falling investment, falling order books and a certain amount of unemployment. Steelworks are running below capacity. Modern ships are going down slipways only to be completed and tied up at a buoy without ever going to sea and trading. Surely, no one can be satisfied with such a state of affairs. In these circumstances, it is not unreasonable to question the methods of management of our financial and economic affairs. I hope, therefore, that if what I say is in some respects critical of recent policy, the Government will realise that it is because I believe that these vital issues need further careful examination.
The existing theories and policies are not producing an entirely satisfactory answer, otherwise your Lordships would not be debating unemployment this afternoon in a world of potential plenty. Unless we find better methods of managing our affairs, we have a very real

1063
fear of the competition of the Communist world, particularly from Russia and China, during the next quarter of a century.
Although these problems are not peculiar to this country, we are most concerned with the immediate difficulties which face us here. Leaving aside the international recession, the present position follows, at least partly, from the steps we took during the 1957 balance of payments crisis and the policy which we have pursued since then. The high bank rate and controls on lending which were used for about a year have worked considerably better than their keenest exponents had reason to expect. The pound was saved from threats of further devaluation and currency stability was restored, but the continued application of high bank rate and restriction of credit, of which I complained mildly in the debate in your Lordships' House on the stability of the pound about a year ago, have brought in their train a considerable measure of deflation and have resulted in the under-employment of our industrial resources and manpower.
It seems to me that the trouble about using deflationary policies to fight balance-of-payments crises is that, while they work very well, they also reduce internal spending, and they hit at individual enterprise, particularly small businesses. Order books tend to fall, stocks are reduced and a certain amount of unemployment is almost inevitable.
I am unrepentant about the suggestions I put forward a year ago. I believed then that we were fighting the wrong enemy and using weapons which in time would inflict wounds on our own domestic economy. In fact, during 1958 a mild but quite definite deflation set in. Nobody wants inflation, and I am sure that no reasonable person wants deflation, and least of all the present Government. Surely the object of policy must be full employment, with stable prices and a stable value for money. It is probably impossible to be rid of inflation altogether without getting some measure of deflation. The problem of the Government has been to steer between these two evils.
The important question about the last year is whether we have been so busy trying to get unconditional surrender from the forces of inflation that we have failed
1064
to see the forces of deflation massing on another horizon to attack us in 1959. This is a question of difficult judgment. The Government have told us a great deal this afternoon about various plans, some of which have already been put into effect, to re-energise and revitalise the economy. The difficulty, as I see it, is that one cannot be too certain how well, and particularly how quickly, a satisfactory effect can be expected from these measures. If one looks across the Atlantic, there is not much comfort to be gained. The United States and Canada have found it more difficult than they expected to establish economic recovery, and the facts and figures in North America still do not bear out the optimism which is voiced in many quarters.
I do not want to be over-pessimistic, but I regard it as vital at this stage to realise that conditions to-day are entirely different from those of any other period since the war. The further the 1957 crisis gets into perspective, the more I believe that people are convinced that the Government were mistaken in concentrating for too long all their energies on anti-inflationary measures to protect the pound. There was an emergency, and emergency measures had to be taken to avoid devaluation; but inflation was not the cause of the emergency. Our current account at that time was in a quite healthy state; it was the capital account that was in difficulty. And it was fear of further inflation, and fear that the current account would get into difficulties, which started the speculation against the pound. Above all, the cause of the crisis was that we had insufficient reserves. However much we fight against inflation, we shall never produce adequate reserves in this country by that method alone, because the effects on our economy, if it were carried too far, could be disastrous.
I urge the Government to give a strong lead on one or two simple points. The first is that we should build up adequate reserves. I believe that if we gave the highest priority and set our minds to increasing the reserves, this could be done to a greater extent than has so far been popularly believed and that this is the only possible bastion against further attacks on sterling. It is of equal, or, possibly, even greater, importance to create some means of managing and backing sterling overseas on the lines suggested last year by Sir Oliver Franks.

1065
This in itself would provide a great deal of strength, which we should otherwise have to obtain by the painful process of building up our reserves slowly. Thus it may never again be necessary for high bank rate and internal deflation to be used as a means of protecting the pound.
Secondly—and this is of great importance for noble Lords who sit on the other side of the House—it is a matter of the first importance that, if and when full employment returns, the leaders of the unions should be moderate in their demands and not create the beginning of further wage-cost inflation. Several factors ire necessary to get stability, and this is of the first importance. On the other hand, it would be dangerous to assume that the leaders of the unions have not learnt from recent events and it would be unwise to base policy upon the assumption that they will always react in the same way under all conditions. Then the Government could do more to give a lead to encourage those in charge of industry to be more enlightened in their investment policy, more energetic in improving plant, equipment and efficiency and to make greater use of scientists, proper costing, work study and other modern developments which, in many firms and industries, of all sizes, are still sadly lacking in many parts of the country.
Lastly, my Lords, before I sit down, I should like to make one further suggestion. There seems to be in the international field, which affects, of course, the whole of our export trade, a very serious problem of lack of credit. I mentioned earlier that there were great projects which required to be undertaken all over the world, many of them in territories either associated with this country in the Commonwealth or our direct responsibility in the Colonial Empire. We have steel works and other works in this country not fully used; we have people not working for want of work. The difficulty is shortage of capital. At the time of the Bretton Woods Conference the late Lord Keynes was very anxious to create a World Bank in a form in which, under these conditions, it could work as a credit-giving institution which would alleviate these various problems. This was all foreseen. Might it not now be an opportune moment for the Government to consider whether they could not take the lead in
1066
revising the constitutions of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in order to provide much-needed credit for these very desirable developments all over the world?
8.22 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should not like to create any embarrassment for the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, by saying that this is not the first occasion on which noble Lords on this side of the House would agree 90 per cent. with his views on economic affairs, which he has given in this House on two or three occasions in the last eighteen months. I believe that in many ways this has been quite a remarkable debate. I think it has shown that the Government does view the unemployment position in a very serious light, in that it has given us, or will give us, four Ministers to state the Government's views this evening.
I believe Her Majesty's Government face two very serious charges: that the serious unemployment, in particular its steady growth during 1958, is the direct result of the Government's economic policy since the financial crisis of 1957; and, secondly, that Her Majesty's Government have failed to meet their responsibilities and have failed to keep their General Election pledges in regard to full employment, and that their plans to relieve the stress and hardship of unemployment are completely inadequate. Earlier this afternoon the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, was asked what was the Government target for unemployment. I appreciate the difficulty of giving such an answer. The noble Earl's reply was, "The lowest compatible with no inflation." I think the workers are entitled to a better answer; they are entitled to an assurance that those who are employed stand a reasonable chance of keeping their employment and those who are unemployed will have employment brought to them as quickly as possible.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, on many occasions in your Lordships' House and outside has used the word "freedom". The word "freedom" appears on most of the Conservative Party posters. Freedom of thought, freedom of worship, all the conventional freedoms that we accept to-day as a right in this country, I believe will sound completely hollow, a complete mockery, to the many thousands of men and women who are unemployed and to their families

1067
who are affected by their misfortune. The soldiers who came home from war believed that work would no longer be a question of privilege and a question of luck, but that work would be their right.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, a spokesman in your Lordships' House on economic affairs, has naturally lauded the results of the Government's economic policy. The Government, I believe, are entitled to all the praise that they deserve. We have had a degree of restraint of inflation, but it has not been due entirely to Government policy; there have been other contributing factors: we have had low commodity prices; we have had restrictions on imports through falling production. But we are going through a period of stability, and it is only right that the Government should have their praise. But it was apparent to noble Lords on this side of the House that this economic policy was crude, in the sense that it hit the essential trades, it hit the non-essential trades, it hit the import departments and it hit the export departments of companies in like manner. The story of 1958 is one of falling production, a loss of position in the export market and now a steady increase in unemployment.
As I listened to my noble Leader, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, read out the percentages of unemployment, I could not help but being struck by one fact: that all the names he mentioned are of areas of great industrial production, the areas in which the exports of this country are manufactured. I do not propose spending too long on details of how production has fallen, but there are two industries which we should look at. The first is the shipbuilding industry. I believe that 1958 will go down as the blackest year in the history of shipbuilding. Britain has dropped from second place in shipbuilding to third place; we have had to give way to Western Germany. The situation looks extremely bleak. Mr. Milne, the president of the Shipbuilding Conference, has pointed out that the small yards' orders prospects are extremely bleak. Out of seventy United Kingdom shipyards building seagoing vessels, thirty have already laid down their last keel against their last order, and sixteen more will be doing it this year. It is difficult to see in the shipbuilding industry that the position will
1068
greatly change unless the Government can give a breathing space by bringing forward their naval programme. The serious position in the shipbuilding industry is affecting the steel industry, which we know is operating at approximately 70 per cent. of capacity.
I believe that the Government are aware now of the dangers that face this country in regard to production. The Government have now reverted to the policy of 1955, 1956 and 1957 which may well lead to a boom. There are already certain signs in the consumer industry of better trade; but are we to anticipate that when the boom has reached its peak it will be necessary to bring back the restrictions of 1957? It is essential, if this country is to progress, that we have a definite plan and that we move steadily forward. We cannot go back to the prewar era of booms and slumps.
I have mentioned a fall in production as the fruits of Government policy. When one looks at the statistics one appreciates that the fruits are far from sweet. Stagnation of production has had its effect in unemployment. We have had the figures time and time again this afternoon. In January, 1958, they were 391,000; in December, they were 531,000, and in January last they were 620,000. But I believe that if you look at the monthly figures you will find that the most significant fact is that except for the month of July, 1958, there was a steady and relentless increase. The February figure shows some encouragement; it shows a decline of approximately 12,000. But if the figures in The Times are correct, 6,000 of those came from the building industry and 4,000 came from agriculture—no doubt due to the remarkable weather of that period. But would it not look, from those figures, that the bulk of the increase in January was not due to seasonal trends or climatic conditions, but came from general industry? I believe we must ask ourselves whether the Government's policy, even if it were energetically pursued, will have a great effect on unemployment figures in cases where the large majority have been unemployed for two months or over.
The first Government measure to inflate economy and production was the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act. I believe the Government themselves will acknowledge that the results following that Act of July of last year

1069
have been disappointing. The Minister in another place said that many managing directors and companies were not fully aware of the purposes of the Act or the intentions of the Government, and it was for that reason that he was sending out a fresh circular. May I suggest to the Minister of State for Welsh Affairs that, so far as his area is concerned, writing letters to managing directors would get one nowhere? You must send out your officers to "sell" the Act to the people; you have got to canvass the business. It is no good sending out letters.
The easing of credit restrictions will, I believe, make some difference in investment, although I must admit that investment in the private sector has been fairly good. What we must ask ourselves is, has the investment that has been made been channelled in the right directions? Is too much going to those industries which have little position in the export market? Your Lordships will have seen in the Press the other day of the remarkable result of capital flowing in a certain direction. On that very day I was attending a company meeting, when I heard the chairman of an important company and other companies complaining that during 1958 the company's application or request to the Capital Issues Committee for permission to increase capital had been refused, with the result that the company had lost well over £1 million in exports during that period. If our capital is limited, it is essential that it is channelled where it has most effect.
In regard to exports, the House will have read with great concern that we have lost at least one round with Germany in the export market. It is said that we cannot force a foreigner to buy British goods. But we need not force them to buy from Germany. From my experience of taking samples round the bazaars in the Far East, I know that you sell if your price is right and you can deliver; and it is there that I believe we have lost.
I believe that we have also lost in that, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned, we have not been giving sufficient credit. I belong to a company that has to give credit to Eastern custom, and I know that since the Government restrictions were imposed we have had great difficulty in financing our overseas trade. Now credit has been eased, I hope that
1070
we shall be able to increase our business. But can Her Majesty's Government give any explanation of why, when our import prices have fallen, our manufacturing costs in 1958 have risen? I wonder whether the answer does not lie in falling production. Overheads remain fairly constant, irrespective of whether or not the factory is working full time, and those overheads must be added to the cost. I believe, therefore, that we have to get back into full production those factories that are capable of export business.
The noble Earl, Lord Home, yesterday afternoon spoke of the British Navy showing the Flag in distant waters. I think he was right when he said that the country earns great prestige, but I believe that in some respects that view is rather out of date, and that to-day a country earns itself prestige, at least among the free countries, by trading—by its honesty in trading, and by the display of its manufactured products. We have been told by noble Lords opposite that the degree of unemployment in this country depends on inflation. Is there no alternative to boom and slump in our economic life, with all its effects on the lives and happiness of people? Is it not possible that we in this country can have increased production and full employment and yet maintain our young people and our old people and enjoy a reasonable life of relaxation without fear of inflation? I am perfectly convinced that we can. I am perfectly convinced that we can get it, provided that Her Majesty's Government show the will.
8.41 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, answered his rhetorical questions in the affirmative. Unless I misheard them, I am inclined to answer them in the negative. I should like to associate myself with much that has been said in the monetary field by my noble friend Lord Melchett, as I did in the debate last year in which he spoke. I think that it was the late Lord Keynes who said: "If your savings exceed your investment you will inevitably have unemployment." Well, we have unemployment to-day. The trade cycle, which I am afraid is rather inevitable, is largely caused by changes in sentiment which become reflected in fluctuations in investment, particularly in investment in inventories; and our job is to iron out the bumps and hollows of this trade

1071
cycle, acting, so far as we can, with all the other free countries concerned.
One can easily damp down or stimulate consumer demand by monetary means, and to a degree one can do this in the case of private capital investment; but in the last resort it is not the monetary conditions of the moment which determine the volume of that investment but the conditions which businessmen believe lie ahead. In fact, a looming General Election may be a more potent factor than the bank rate in the determination of the level of private capital investment. In circumstances like these it is really only Government investment that can provide the balancing factor, to step in when private investment is too low, and step out when it is too high.
Now there are very difficult monetary aspects which flow from such a policy, and I certainly have not the time to go into them to-night; although they are difficult, I believe them to be perfectly surmountable. In fact, the main difficulties are diagnosis and implementation. The machinery of Government is devised for collecting statistics, brooding upon them, digesting them and ponderously and slowly taking action upon them. It is not devised to anticipate the trade cycle. Implementation also is extremely difficult. I doubt whether the Government machine, as at present constituted, is capable of stepping quickly enough in and out of investment.
In face of these difficulties some people might say that we had better leave it to chance, because in the long run chance evens things out. But if we were to accept such advice we should be playing straight into the hands of the Marxists, who believe that the capitalist system will destroy itself inevitably by its failure to control the successive booms and slumps of the trade cycle. It is our job to prove them wrong in this, as in everything else, and I do not accept a policy of laissez faire; nor do Her Majesty's Government—indeed, I rather doubt whether noble Lords on the South West benches do so either, nowadays.
Her Majesty's Government are making vigorous efforts to get out of the trough quickly. They have adopted various methods of stimulating consumer expenditure, and these, I believe, are now acting. But the main gap seems to be caused by our savings in recent months overmatch-
1072
ing our investment. These figures are almost impossible for the layman to lay his hands upon—I only hope that they are supplied to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But working backwards, if one assumes that there are 250,000 more men unemployed in this country than there ought to be, it is probable, I believe, that at least £250 million of savings are not being invested.
Her Majesty's Government are planning to fill the gap, and my noble friend Lord Dundee gave the figure of £150 million of Government capital expenditure being planned. I wonder, however, whether the machinery of Government is capable of putting these plans into effect quickly enough. It is spending, not authorisation, that counts; and the machine is extremely slow in actual performance. We are all crying out for roads, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer went to the Minister of Transport and said, "Spend another £50 million" probably the Minister of Transport would have a heart attack; and if the Minister of Transport was told he had to spend that amount by next September he would pass right out, because he would know that he had not an earthly chance of being able to do so, for the machine would not work fast enough. The same applies in the many other departments of Government expenditure and that is why it is so very difficult to get Government investment in in time to fill the gap. If one goes in for a programme of authorisations throughout the whole Government field one stands in grave danger of ending up with a very large capital investment bill coming forward just at the top of the next inflationary boom when we want to shed capital investment.
It is inevitable at this stage of the trade cycle that new export orders should be difficult to get, particularly from the countries which have suffered from the fall in the value of their exports to us; and I greatly welcome the new system of Government-to-Government loans resulting from the Montreal Conference. But the results to-day are not what one would have liked to see. Out of £50 million taken up, £28½ million go to India, £10 million to Pakistan—I strongly suspect to pay for current orders. What we want to see is loans taken up and new orders placed which would not otherwise be placed. Surely there are numerous

1073
members of the Commonwealth who want new transport material, harbour material and so on. Is it that they are fearful of committing themselves to loans at interest because they fear for the stability of their budgets in the present state of depression? If that is the case why should we not offer these loans free of interest on the portion which is actually spent in this country on new orders during this calendar year?
The essence of all this, my Lords, is speed. We want additional orders for goods, the manufacture of which can start right now and not in two years' time. We must all welcome the attempts to redistribute industry, but it is an extremely difficult thing to do except when industry is booming. Nevertheless, it is a thing which we must do now, in the hope that when trade picks up the resulting factories will fill up. We have had several years of inflationary boom, and during this time we were not able to carry out all the investment we should have liked. There were simply not enough savings to finance the private investment and the public investment that we required, and the result was that we had inflation. To-day the position is reversed. We have the savings, and therefore the resources are free; and instead of treating the situation as a disaster, let us treat it as a challenge and an opportunity—a challenge to the flexibility and speed of Government action, and an opportunity to do some of the things which we have been longing to do for years but for which we have never been able to provide the resources.
8.54 p.m.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, I am determined to say a few words on the subject of youth employment, a subject which has hardly been mentioned to-day but which, it seems to me, is of the greatest importance in any discussion of employment generally. In the northwest region, from which I come, according to information published by the Ministry of Labour a total of 9,261 boys left school last Christmas; and on February 9, the last date for which figures are available, 960 of those boys, or rather more than one in ten, were still registered as unemployed. I do not want to paint this picture too darkly. I understand that comparable figures of school-leavers are not available for the country
1074
as a whole, and even in the north-west region it is not possible to compare the position this year with that in previous years, but I think that these figures are sufficient to show that there is already a problem in this field; and, as I have already said in your Lordships' House, there is surely no section of the population for whom prolonged unemployment would be more demoralising than for young people.
It is three years since the Carr Committee was set up to consider the arrangements for the training of young workers in industry, and it is more than a year since they reported. Since then an Industrial Training Council has been established and they are now engaged in collecting information about what industry plans to do in this field. In my view it is very important that this information should be collected and that industry should establish more precisely than it has so far done how many craftsmen it really will need to satisfy its long-term requirements. I ought really to be careful what I say about the Industrial Training Council. Their chairman, the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, is an honoured Member of your Lordships' House, and he, I know, is going to speak after me.
I have the greatest respect for those members of the Council whom I know as individuals, but it seems to me that the time has come for a little irreverence, and it may be better that it should come from somebody like me, since I have no particular reputation to lose. I do not speak of the noble Lord himself, but it seems to me that the Industrial Training Council are able to progress only painfully and ponderously through elephantine federations and confederations of employers and trade unions and nationalised industries. They are the mumbo-jumbo of industry—and may they live for ever! But they are not exactly built for speed and they are constitutionally incapable of stripping for action.
Since the Carr Committee reported, things have been made much worse by the trade recession about which your Lordships have been talking to-day; and however much we may deplore it, in the country as a whole, in keeping with these economic conditions, there has been not an increase but a reduction in the number of apprenticeships available. The

1075
trouble is that unless as a nation we are going to lose this priceless opportunity of ensuring that all those boys who are capable of profiting from training for skill—which, after all, is our greatest industrial asset—do in fact get that training, we cannot afford to wait until the recession is over or until the Industrial Training Council have collected their information through the normal channels. The plain facts are that these boys are already beginning to leave school and if they are to receive adequate training a start must be made now to provide the accommodation and the equipment which will be needed for this purpose.
Perhaps my only claim to speak in this debate is that I myself serve on the local employment committee in an area where there are a number of small engineering and shipbuilding firms. I can assure your Lordships that in the place of which I speak it is not merely a question of those firms absorbing an increased number of apprentices; it is just as much a matter of seeing that the apprentices receive training of a standard which such small firms cannot reasonably be expected to provide themselves, but which must be provided if the training is to be adequate for the boys and acceptable to the trade unions.
My Lords, let me say at this point that I sympathise with the dilemma in which the Government find themselves in this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour said in reply to a Question in another place only the other day that unless industry was prepared to train these apprentices they could not be trained, and I believe that the Government are right in not trying to impose a solution on industry from the centre. After all, a wheel is made to move, not by hammering on the hub but by pushing al the perimeter. And here I should like to make the positive suggestion that it is the education authorities who should start to do the pushing.
I take this view for several reasons. First, they exercise control in most places, at least, over the youth employment service, and this is a problem, obviously, of youth employment. Secondly, they are independent of employers and trade unions, and therefore they will not be thought within industry
1076
to have any particular axe to grind. Thirdly, in so far as much of the training which will be required can best be given in technical colleges, these education authorities have themselves a practical contribution to make towards the solution of the problem.
In my own county of Cheshire, I understand that the education committee is proposing to convene meetings of the chief employers and trade union representatives, to pose the problem and see what industry is prepared to do in each locality. Like the Government, this committee recognises that industry must accept responsibility for employing the apprentice—and, indeed, for giving him much of the practical training that is required. But in cases where the smaller firms cannot themselves provide the more formal, full-time training that is desirable, at least at the start of the apprenticeship, it is proposed that the education authorities should themselves offer the necessary facilities at the technical colleges. In other words, what is planned is a partnership between industry and education—and this is surely just what is needed at a time when industrial training and further education should go hand in hand. I think that this particular education committee are being realistic, also, in recognising that, although this is a problem which closely concerns local employment committees, it is the chief employers and trade union officials in each locality whose attitude will be decisive.
There remains, of course, the question of who is to foot the bill. In the example I have just quoted, responsibility will presumably continue to rest on the employer to pay the wages of the apprentice, and largely on the county ratepayers to contribute towards the cost of the training facilities provided in these technical colleges. That, it seems to me, is as it should be. But, given that local firms and education authorities do prove themselves willing to accept their responsibilities in this way, I should like, before I sit down, to ask the Government to consider whether they cannot demonstrate the sympathy and support of the State by offering some form of allowance to the firms and some additional grant to the education authorities which respond to this national challenge.
9.5 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships for more than a very few moments. I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. He gave us a most interesting analysis of the trade cycle, and he made some cogent criticisms, not perhaps of the Government but of the machinery of government. In particular, he stressed the point that the Government machinery is too slow in dealing with the effects of trade recessions. With this I entirely agree. I do not think that this is a Government fault; but it is, as he said, a machinery of government fault. This fault needs to be rectified, and action must be quick—otherwise, instead of coming at a time of slump, the effect comes at the time of the following boom.
I was very glad that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, referred to the White Paper of 1944, and to the late Lord Keynes. I think that we all owe to Lord Keynes our knowledge of the cause and the cure of mass unemployment; and it is only since the publication of the White Paper of 1944 that Governments have realised how to cure mass unemployment. They realise that the causes of depression are under-spending and under-investment—perhaps this is rather an overs-implification—in both the public and the private sectors of industry. The Treasury are perfectly familiar with monetary and fiscal methods of dealing with mass unemployment: the problem is how to achieve industrial expansion, and continued industrial expansion, without the harmful effects of inflation.
Our criticism from this side of the House, is that the Government have, I think, oscillated in their policy between inflation and deflation, without a long-term plan and without planning to cushion the worst effects of deflation when they were produced. In the present phase of our economy the Government have been conducting an experiment in an attempt to control prices in a semi-free, semi-planned, economy, by deliberately producing deflation and some unemployment. Now the attempt has worked inasmuch as it has produced some unemployment; but it has been only partially effective in controlling inflation. Taking the pound at its October, 1951, value, in January, 1957, the pound was worth 16s. Id., and in January, 1959, it was worth 15s. 2d.,
1078
so inflation has continued. Those are Hansard figures, given on February 24.
The bad thing about using deflation and unemployment as a method of price control is that their effects are grossly unfair and uneven. We have heard this afternoon of the plight of Scotland, South Wales, and the other special areas. There is nothing very surprising about this, because the effects of deflation in the shape of unemployment are always greatest in the basic industries, the oldest industries, the heavy industries, and in the places furthest from the capital: they are least in areas of industrial diversity and in the most modern plants.
The immediate problem—the problem of areas of extreme unemployment and of considerable employment—ought to have been foreseen by Her Majesty's Government when they planned their deflationary policy two or three years ago, because it requires time for the remedies to act: and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is quite right when he says that to start re-investing in these areas now means that this reinvestment may well coincide with a period of expansion just when we can do without it, perhaps, from the general economic point of view. The, machinery is there: it consists of the industrial development certificate; the machinery for Government building; Government financing of factories; the building of factories "on spec."; and the appropriate loan machinery to local authorities.
But it has not been used, or it has not been used in time. I think the reason why it has not been used in time is the unwillingness of the Government to accept remedies which involve positive State action. They are only starting to act now; and they are acting too little and, as we think, too late. It is only where these remedies have been applied vigorously that positive effects have been achieved. For example, in Dundee: Mr. John Rodgers. Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, said in the Director:
"In Dundee almost 10 per cent. of all jobs are in Government-financed factories"
Well, we welcome Socialism, even when applied by a Conservative Government. The remedies are bound to involve, and indeed the Government itself is proposing to apply, State action in order to achieve a higher level of employment in these areas. One would like once more to stress the importance of building factories "on spec.", as it is called in real

1079
estate circles, as it is much easier to persuade industrialists to come to a factory already built than try to sell him a site before there is anything there.
There is one other matter I should like to refer to and it also involves long-term planning. Lord Rochester spoke of the importance of training youth. Lord Rea and my noble friend Lord Hall both referred to the problem that is going to arise in the near future as a result of the increase in school-leavers. Fifteen years ago this country was still at war and the birth rate was low. And very fortunate it is for the Government that it was so, for it means that they are not facing the great influx of school-leavers to add to the problem of unemployment. But in two years' time the post-war bulge will begin to take effect and over the next ten years it will become a very formidable problem indeed, not only for the Government but for industry to make its plans to cope with this great influx of young people. It is made more difficult by the cessation of National Service. It can be met only in two ways: first, in the general atmosphere of economic expansion, and secondly, by the allocation of new industry which should be planned in relation to increasing local labour resources.
I would therefore ask the Government whether they could have made in each area a survey of potential labour resources for the next ten years, so that they could communicate the results of such a survey to the industrialists in each area who would then know what labour is going to be available. It should be made clear that the industrial development service would be available for meeting factory expansion wherever they can keep in step with the incoming labour forces. Only thus would it be possible, I think, to solve the problem of the great increase in the number of young people coming into employment.
9.14 p.m.
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, I will start my few remarks with an apology that I could not be here at the beginning of the debate. I had to fulfil a long-standing engagement to present the prizes to the nurses at one of our larger hospitals, which is a most enjoyable function, and I am sure that I shall be forgiven for having missed the
1080
Leader of the Opposition's speech in so doing.
I ventured on the occasion of the debate on the gracious Speech to make a few comments on the problem of unemployment. I should like to follow up those remarks and amplify them a little on this occasion. The present position of unemployment has been put quite clearly before the House. But there are one or two comments I would make. We have 609,000 unemployed in this country, which we all realise is far more than anyone would like or wish for. Experience has shown that every year since the war the peak of unemployment is reached in January or February. If I may quote a speech delivered by my noble friend Lord Lawson in that debate of November 5, he said that on the basis of information given to him by a man who knows this question as well as the Minister of Labour himself there would be 750,000 unemployed by the end of January.
I am sure that we are all, including Lord Lawson, very pleased that that prophecy has not been fulfilled. The fact is, that the numbers of unemployed have not exceeded 600,000 and have shown no increase in the last month but a diminution which should indicate an improvement in the situation as it appeared to the authorities four months ago—
LORD LAWSON: I agree that I did say that: I was thinking about unemployed that are not on the list at all. But I am very glad to find that it is not 750,000 in terms of registered unemployed.
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: We all very much respect Lord Lawson in this House, as we did in the House along the passage, and I know that he does not make this statement inadvisedly. But it seems that a little too much gloom has been used today over the whole position. Over the whole position, as brought out in the debate, the figure is still below the 3 per cent. mentioned in Mr. Gaitskell's controversial statement. However, I am not going to enter into that argument this afternoon.
I would say that the country as a whole has stood up remarkably well to the influence of the severe recession that took place last year in America and Canada—a recession which is only just lifting. I

1081
was in America myself the week before last, and it would appear that since the New Year there has been a very definite improvement over there which will be reflected here in due course.
These overall figures do not, of course, really bring out the position. I think this debate has been extremely valuable, especially for the analyses from Scotland and South Wales. It is Scotland and South Wales—apart from the problem of Northern Ireland, with which I am not competent to deal—and, to a lesser degree, the North West and North, which have higher rates than the average or than we should like to see. Nevertheless, some light is shown even on these areas. Recent developments do show some encouragement, and I do not believe that this has yet been brought out. In the four weeks ended February 4, the average number of vacancies filled each week by unemployment exchanges was 366, an increase of 20 per cent. on the average of the previous two months. But the weekly placings in the North West and West areas, where unemployment is higher than in the rest of England, were 40 per cent. higher than in the average of the previous two months and in Scotland they were over 50 per cent. higher. These figures suggest that even with the relatively high unemployment in those areas jobs are becoming a little easier to find.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not dispute the noble Lord's figures, and he knows a great deal about Ministry of Labour administration. But is it not a corollary fact of the situation that in the last few weeks there has been a decline in the vacancies available overall, so that in relation to the figure of those who remain unemployed the problem is still very serious in those areas?
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: I agree that the problem is still serious, and in Scotland especially; I am not going to minimise that. But these figures do show some hope that the velocity of placings has very much increased since the two months before Christmas. I hope that this means that the measures taken under the Redistribution Act and other measures taken are beginning to make their effect felt. There is one other comment I should like to
1082
make on the figures, and that is on the occupational analysis of the unemployed. The Ministry of Labour Gazette in February, which is the last date we have, does not show the position by regions—I wish that it did—but it does confirm what similar analyses have shown in the past: that over the whole country no less than three-quarters of all the unemployed men are labourers and unskilled workers.
So much for the present situation. What is the immediate future? I should like to take two main themes. The measure of employment in the future, with all the field of automation and electronics opening up before us, will depend, in my opinion, to a large extent on the numbers and the training of our skilled operatives, our technicians and our higher scientific experts. For, as I have said, three-quarters of the unemployed now are the unskilled. I am grateful for the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, about: the special problem for training for what is known as the bulge. As Lord Rochester said, I have the privilege and responsibility of being chairman of the new Industrial Training Council. If I say a word or two about that again, as I did in November, to try to put the position before the House, I hope your Lordships will forgive me. The next meeting of the Council, when we will certainly consider the suggestions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is the week after next; and his speech will be valuable to us. I hope, in spite of my own size, that the Industrial Council will not prove so ponderous as he fears it might; indeed we have on it, I am glad to say, some of the best brains on both sides of industry.
Up to now the boys and girls leaving school have been the products of births during war time and have been in short supply. Therefore, not only has there been a great demand for young entrants, but it has been so great that some industries and some firms who in the past recruited young men and young women have now virtually ceased to do so. One of the problems before us, that of placement, has been the selection of jobs for the young people in the past, rather than the selection of candidates to fill vacancies. This year is rather an exceptional year, because there is

1083
what some authorities call the little bulge. This year will see a substantial increase in the number of boys and girls reaching the age of fifteen. But this number will drop away again next year. Those responsible for the placing of young people will have to pay more attention to their selection this year, and, indeed, they will have the opportunity to do so. So far as we can see from the figures available to us, the supply should not exceed demand up until 1961. But from 1961 the bulge in school-leavers resulting from post-war births will really be on us: a large increase, some 50 per cent. over four years, followed by a levelling off to about 20 per cent. above the last few years. This poses a problem of substantial dimensions and an opportunity which must not be missed by industry in this country.
It is to this problem that my Council are paying urgent attention. One of the steps we are taking at the moment is that we have persuaded the British Employers' Confederation, on the employers' side—because the responsibility of making the best use of these young people rests, in the first place, with the employers—to take serious and energetic steps now. The bulge will need a different attitude towards recruitment from that which has been adopted by many employers during the last twenty years when young people have been so scarce; and it is the Employers' Confederation's object to bring home to the employers the need for them to change their attitude both in their own interests and in that of the young people concerned.
As a first step, the Confederation have agreed to the general principle that employers should during the bulge years—and we are assured of trade union support in this matter—train more young workers than would be required to meet their immediately foreseeable requirements, and are urging their member organisations to bring this recommendation to train more young people even than they think they wish at the moment to the notice of their constituent employers, and to stress the need to take prompt action so as to be ready to meet the challenge when it comes in 1951. As I have said, we are meeting again on March 21. I am quite sure that all the resources of industry are going to be necessary to see that these young people, the first fruits
1084
of young men coming back from the war, should find skilled employment and not be thrown on the unskilled heap which is so largely our unemployment problem today. I hope that any of your Lordships who are engaged or have influence in industry will help us in this task. When the time comes we shall need all the publicity and influence we can get.
There is one other point to which I should like to refer with regard to the future of employment in this country. I believe that, in the long run, the future long-term employment condition in this country will rest largely in the hands of our great trade unions. They have won for themselves tremendous power in the trade and economy of this county. I say, in all seriousness, that with that power their responsibility in the field of employment is overwhelming. If we have (which heaven forbid!) mass unemployment at any time, our trade unions and employers, and especially the trade unions, will have to bear heavy responsibility. If, on the other hand—and this we all hope—industrial prosperity and good employment remain with us, then the trade unions can rightly and largely take credit for that position.
The Government—any Government; and both Parties agree to this and are on record as doing so—must place as first priority the strengthening and maintaining of the value of the pound sterling in this trading country of ours. If inflation increased wages and dividends without increasing productivity, any Government would be obliged in the long run to impose restrictions to protect the pound. Thus, if the trade unions forced up wages so as to price us out of the export markets, unemployment would be bound to ensue. Similarly, if unofficial and wildcat strikes developed seriously—as, indeed, in some cases they would appear to be doing at the moment—in our principal exporting industries, our balance of payments must be affected. I trust that the difficulties in the motor industry at the present time will shortly be resolved, for the motor industry has shown such wonderful export figures during the past few months.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: If this action by the trade unions, such as the noble Lord has mentioned, is essential, what does he propose to do about the employers' side and the

1085
profits distributed out of industry? If you look at the share markets for the last two years and see the enormous leap in the share values on the market at a time of steadily reducing production, and the increases in the distribution to shareholders, I think you have to persuade the workers as to what is going to be done about that.
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: I did say, perhaps not clearly enough—and the noble Viscount will see it in Hansard—"increased wages and dividends."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I missed that.
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: But if we look at the figures, we find wages are up 90 per cent. or more as compared with the dividends, which have little effect compared to wages. I see that one group of unions in one important industry are now making wage demands and demands for shorter hours which in the aggregate would put up the labour bill in that industry by something in the neighbourhood of 20 per cent. Such increases, if granted generally throughout industry, would, as I think everybody realises, stultify the whole of our position and would land this country in heavy unemployment.
I am quite confident that wiser counsels in the trade union movement know of this, and that they fully realise that they can best help their fellow men by restraint, by increased production to balance increased wages, and by internal discipline. If they are told to curb their more reckless and extreme fellows (and every movement has its extreme partisans), and I am confident that they can curb them, if they really set about it, then all will be well. I would say, in all seriousness, that the trade union movement has had many brilliant pages in its history. I believe that future generations will judge it finally on how it faces up to the present responsibility in We new conditions that we have in the field of employment.
9.34 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, this has been one of the most important debates that we have had in recent times, and the level of the debate has been in accordance with its great importance.
1086
We had a good tone set by the speech of my noble Leader and, if I may, for once in a way, praise the other side, by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. Both of them were worthy of the occasion. The importance that the House attaches to this debate is evidenced by the fact that I am number twenty-three in the batting order, and there is still one to come. I would say that practically every speech which has been made on this subject has been a notable contribution to the subject before us. If I may be invidious, I should like to mention three speeches which have impressed me very much. One was the contribution of my noble friend Lord Geddes of Epsom, who made a most impressive speech. To be impartial, I would also mention the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, and, finally, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to whom we have always listened with great attention and pleasure.
There is no great conflict of fact. I believe that we are all agreed that the unemployment position is serious. Figures have been produced by a number of noble Lords and have not been challenged in any way, and that is certainly a good beginning for a debate of this kind. It is true that, while the Government themselves have not challenged the gravity of the present unemployment situation, one or two noble Lords have attempted to minimise its seriousness. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, said that no Government can guarantee full and perpetual employment, and that 2.8 per cent. was nothing very terrible; that it was worse in other countries, and particularly in the United States and Canada. I submit that the whole tone of that speech tended to indicate that the position is not so serious as some of us make out.
Even the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made one remark which I wonder whether he really intended. He said that if we were to run the machine flat out for twelve months in order to take up the slack—and I take it that by that he meant if we were really to deal with the problem of unemployment and bring it back to its previous state—we should once more run into an inflationary condition. However, by and large, I would say that the tenor of the whole debate has been an appreciation of the gravity of the situation, and I do not wish to make any

1087
debating points about particular sentences which have been uttered in the course of the debate: I want to try to deal with the thing in a broad way.
I should like to mention one or two aspects of the matter which I think require emphasis, or even some repetition, though I do not propose to cover the ground which has been so adequately covered in the course of the debate. First of all, I should like to stress the effect on young people—boys and girls leaving school. There are many of them who left school last July who have not yet had employment. Now that is a shocking start in life and completely demoralising. I realise the difficulties and the problems of the bulge, but there it is. I would ask the noble Viscount who is to reply whether this is not some justification for raising the school-leaving age to 16. I do not suggest that it can be done in five minutes, but it would have been far better if these boys and girls could have remained at school for another year, rather than be walking about the streets hopelessly, looking for employment. I think the time will come when it may be worth while seriously considering the question of raising the school-leaving age from the unemployment point of view.
Next, I want to stress the effect on men over the age of 45 losing their jobs. Once a man is unemployed at 45 or over, his chances of getting another job are greatly diminished, unless he happens to be a member of a political Party in this or another House. In the ordinary labour market, however, there is very little hope for a person over 45 who has lost his job.
From the point of view of the economy of the country, it has been brought out by a number of my noble friends, and by noble Lords on the other side, that we are working only to 80 per cent. capacity. Not only is 20 per cent. of our capacity idle and being wasted, but the fact that this is so is undermining the costs and increasing the overheads in respect of the remaining 80 per cent. of our production. Similarly, is it not extremely wasteful to have 600,000 men and women capable of work and willing to work, but to have no occupation for them? I put it on the basis of wastefulness. I do not know whether anybody has mentioned, at least at any length, a problem with which we shall be confronted, the problem of auto-
1088
mation. This will be a serious problem in the future. We ought to be looking ahead and thinking about it now, not waiting for it to overtake us and then be taken by surprise.
The other problem which is already rapidly overtaking us is that of the older people. The population is gradually ageing, and it will not be many years before one-third of the population will be over 65 years of age. Although we are today much younger at 65 than our forefathers were, there comes a time, at 65 or some age of that kind, when one ceases to be capable of work. Noble Lords will appreciate that this means that an increasing proportion of the population will have to be maintained by the remainder. These are problems which should be faced and faced in good time. One of the criticisms which I make of the Government is that they never face these problems in sufficient time.
A number of noble Lords have dealt with the causes of unemployment, and there is very little difference of opinion between the two sides of the House as to what has been the primary cause. I want to put it as non-controversially as I can, to set an example to the noble Viscount who will follow me. I will say, therefore, that the severe unemployment from which we are suffering is the result of the attempts of the Government to deal with inflation and the severe restrictions that were imposed in 1957. We are all familiar with them: the high bank rate, the credit squeeze, the restriction on capital investment, especially in connection with the nationalised undertakings and the local authorities, and the restrictions on hire purchase. I am not prepared to say that in the end they did not have the desired effect—I concede that; but whether that was the best way of doing it, I should not like to say. In my opinion, there were open to the Government other methods of restricting excessive expenditure which would not have had the effect of restricting employment.
For instance, instead of imposing a restriction which affected everybody alike, could not the Government have restricted unnecessary consumption in the form of, say, luxury building, particularly in those areas where such building is undesirable? We have only to look round and see the enormous number of big blocks of offices that are going up which could have

1089
waited until other times. It was quite unnecessary that they should go up. Indeed, it may be that with a certain amount of persuasion, the people for whom these offices were being built would have gone elsewhere if they had not been allowed to go to the South Bank or to places of that kind. Would it not have been likely that they would have moved, if at all, to parts of the country where they would have been welcomed and would have made a contribution to a solution of the unemployment problem? There are quite a number of activities of this kind which, I submit, were not in the public interest but which might have been controlled.
LORD DERWENT: What would the noble Lord do with the workmen who were employed on this work, and who, he suggests, should be employed somewhere else, if there were no accommodation for them elsewhere?
LORD SILKIN: I am speaking of London. In many cases, these men were not even Londoners but came from outside.
LORD DERWENT: But they were employed.
LORD SILKIN: Yes, they were employed. I am not saying that the noble Lord has not drawn attention to a difficulty, but difficulties are not insuperable. We solved this problem during the war. We put up buildings in all sorts of outlandish places and we dealt with the question of accommodation. If it were necessary to do that again, we would do it.
I am not afraid of the use of the word "control." After all, it is just as much a control to restrict hire purchase or credits, or to control the amount of capital expenditure of nationalised undertakings or local authorities, as it is to control the kind of expenditure on luxury building to which I have referred. Building is controlled by planning. If only pluming were made a little more rigorous, if we ensured that, at least at this time, we did not put up buildings which were not in the public interest and which could be diverted to other places, we should make a substantial contribution towards the solution of the unemployment problem.
1 said it was true that the problem of inflation has been dealt with. I said
1090
also that I was not sure whether it was as a result of the particular measures which the Government introduced. It is true they introduced the measures, and I would concede that inflation has been, for the time being, cured. But is it a fact that it is a result of the actions that were taken? May I mention just one or two things that might have had an equal effect on the question of inflation? One is what the Prime Minister some months ago called his "little bit of bloomin' luck", which noble Lords will remember was the fact that we were able to buy cheaply primary products from the Colonies and Dominions and other countries, and thereby get favourable terms of trade. May it not be that this "little bit of bloomin' luck" had a deflationary result, in that the countries which were selling us these goods at low prices have been able to buy less from us than they would have bought if the prices had been more reasonable?
My Lords, it was not my purpose to embark on a financial debate tonight, although a number of noble Lords have done so. In winding op I am concerned merely to deal with a number of aspects which have arisen in the course of the debate, and I should like to confine myself to considering what action the Government are taking now to deal with the question of unemployment. Is this action adequate, and is it right? The Government are mainly banking on the policy of trying to encourage industry to go to the development areas. Even today there was an announcement that this policy was being extended. I submit that, although this policy may be right, and one which we on this side should support, they have done too little of it and they have done it too late, as my noble friend, Lord Taylor said.
I asked the noble Earl, in the course of his speech (I apologise for having interrupted him), whether the Government foresaw, when they adopted the restrictions policy in 1957, that that policy would create unemployment; and, quite understandably, he did not answer. If I may answer for him, I would say, first, that they ought to have understood it; and I hope they did. And if they did understand it, and if it was deliberate, would ask what action did they take then—not now, but then—to deal with the unemployment which they knew would arise? If, on the other hand, they

1091
did not know, I think they were guilty of a lamentable lack of foresight in not realising the probable consequences of the action they were taking. But I think they must have realised; the whole purpose of the restriction policy was to reduce consumption and create a certain amount of unemployment. I would ask the noble Viscount: if they did foresee it, what unemployment did they contemplate would arise as a result of their action? If they realised that, what steps did they then take to deal with the unemployment which they foresaw would result front their action?
I said that the action in connection with development areas was too little and too late, and quite obviously it is not meeting with the success for which we all hoped. I wonder what the reasons are. Is it, as one noble Lord said (I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, but at any rate it was a noble Lord on the other side), that in order to attract industry into the development areas it is not sufficient to appeal to their sense of patriotism? I do not suggest for a moment that industrialists are any less patriotic or more patriotic than anybody else, but when you are running an industry you cannot run it on patriotism alone. The appeal to industrialists must be on the basis that they will not be worse off financially by going to a development area than if they stay in the place where they would prefer to be.
I would submit to the noble Lord that, generally speaking—not always but generally speaking—the terms upon which industrialists are invited to go to development areas are not sufficiently attractive from that point of view. Many of the industries have to go long distances; they will thus incur considerable extra cost of transport. They may have to embark on retraining of their workers. There would be a considerable initial loss in efficiency, but in many cases there would be also a permanent loss; and while the Government do make some kind of a grant—or, rather, I think it is a loan—and in some cases offer to reduce the rent for five years, I would suggest that that itself is not sufficiently attractive. I would invite the noble Viscount and the Government to look into this matter and see whether the terms that are offered really are sufficiently attractive to get industry to move out in the
1092
numbers and on the scale that is desirable. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, who took that view, too. It does look as if it has not been very successful.
I understood from the noble Earl that there were 277 industrial developers getting this grant—not a very large number—who would in due course employ 13,000 workers. But the grant of an industrial development certificate is only the beginning of the story. From that moment, assuming even that the industrialist is serious and intends to go on as quickly as possible, it may take two or three years before he is actually established in his factory. First, he has to get planning permission, and that very often takes a long time, an unnecessarily long time—but that is another story to which I may come in a subsequent debate. But I do find that the mere operation of getting planning permission takes far too long today, and it does affect this whole question of industrial development. Even when he has got that permission, of course, he still has to prepare his plans and build his factory—because the ordinary factory in the development area is not always suitable for a particular industry. In a great many cases, and especially where large-scale industry is required, the industrialist will want to build his own place to suit his own requirements; and so this is a long-term job. I would submit, therefore, that two or three years from the time when the industrialist gets his certificate to the time when he is actually established and carrying on is not too long a period to envisage. So I would submit to the Government that this policy alone, unless it is greatly speeded up and much greater facilities are offered to the industrialists, is inadequate to deal with the question of employment.
A number of noble Lords have said, and I think the noble Earl tended to imply, that it is impossible to have full employment without inflation—at any rate, I think he said something of the kind, because he said that if we went all out in dealing with employment, as I have quoted his remarks, for twelve months, we should be back again in inflation. If he did not mean that, if I misunderstood him, I accept his denial. But it has certainly been suggested by a number of noble Lords that it is impossible to reconcile full employment with

1093
a lack of inflation. I challenge that, because if it is true then we are doomed to large-scale unemployment for all time. It is an admission that neither the present Government nor any other Government can handle unemployment or deal with it without creating inflation, and that would mean, of course, that we were once more back to a constant wave of inflation, restriction, unemployment and so on. I would suggest that that is certainly not true.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde said: "We cannot guarantee full employment". I wonder whether the noble Viscount would not agree with me that a Labour Government would be expected to guarantee full employment; that, if they did not, they would be strongly criticised by noble Lords opposite. As my noble Leader pointed out, Governments today play so great a part in the commercial and industrial life of the country, they exercise so much control over the affairs of the country, that they are, quite rightly, blamed when things go wrong and they take credit when things go right. The present Government took a great deal of credit when unemployment was low, arid I think they must accept responsibility when unemployment is high. I think it would be utterly wrong to suggest that the present scale of unemployment is beyond the capacity of the Government to deal with, and is something for which they have no responsibility. I refuse to accept that position.
I think that one of the reasons for present-day unemployment is the fall in our export trade. A number of noble Lords have touched on that point. I believe that we have lost a good many orders, first of all, because we have not been able to give a satisfactory delivery date, but even more, because we were not able to provide adequate facilities. I wonder whether we cannot do more. There was some question of establishing a credit bank in connection with Commonwealth trade. I have in mind something much wider. We have certainly lost a number of important orders because other countries outbid us, not on the quality of our goods or the price, but simply because they were able to give longer credit terms than our industrialists could give. That is a matter on which the Government could help. They could facilitate these export credits. I believe
1094
that some form of insurance is possible, and that some insurance companies do it, but on terms which, certainly in my limited experience—I have had some experience of it—are almost prohibitive, with the result that many industrialists find themselves unable to take advantage of any specific export credit insurance scheme.
I hope that the noble Viscount will consider that suggestion and put it before Her Majesty's Government as one of the factors which would improve our export trade. As I believe this debate has shown, this is a problem which transcends Party, and I would urge Her Majesty's Government to treat this matter seriously and be prepared to do some fresh and clear thinking. I would say this to my own friends, and I say it to noble Lords opposite: we have all to forgo all fetishes and dogmas; unless we do that unemployment cannot be solved. I believe that it can be solved, but not by the doctrine that Conservative freedom pays.
10.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, more than one of your Lordships, including, I believe, the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Rea, when he spoke second in the debate, have pointed to the very long list of speakers whose contributions we have enjoyed, and have said, I believe with complete justification, that this establishes the interest which the House has taken in the subject matter of this debate; and I can do no more than echo that sentiment.
But I feel that there is more difference of opinion as to whether or not one appreciates the spirit in which it was argued from the Benches opposite. Certainly I have nothing of which to complain in the courtesy or tone which the noble Viscount who introduced it or the noble Lord who has just concluded it from that side of the House have employed, but I shall have something to say of its polemical content and political objective—not that I complain that a debate on this vitally important subject should be presented in a polemical way. I would myself have agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his final remarks that this is a subject which ideally should transcend Party, and certainly I should like it to do so. I should be less inclined to agree that noble Lords

1095
opposite have allowed it to do so, having regard to the contents of their speeches. However it is entirely within the discretion of any political organisation what matters they select as a subject for polemics and I have no reason to complain that it should have been selected in that way.
The only complaint I would utter is that the suggestion should have been made that there were no polemics. Certainly the noble Viscount who opened the debate made no such suggestion, for he said—rather coyly for him, I thought—that he proposed, for once, to be tendentious and hoped that this would not offend me. I am not offended by tendentiousness in debate. I prefer to have it in debate rather than at Question Time. I certainly should not complain of the noble Viscount being tendentious, but I do have criticisms to make of the casus (if I may so put it) for the Opposition and as it was presented this evening. If, for a moment, I concentrate to some extent, perhaps, on two or three of the speakers, I am sure noble Lords whom I have not mentioned by name will not feel that I have overlooked them in intention or by reason of any desire to slight.
I would, however, say in particular of the noble Viscount who opened for the Opposition that he showed an extraordinary unwillingness either to deal with or to admit the true causes of the present recession in trade and of the unemployment which has resulted from it; an extraordinary reluctance to say quite frankly how much of it was due to the decline in the volume of world trade, in which, incidentally, we have retained our relative share in the last twelve months. I think it would have been much more valuable if this fact had been frankly admitted instead of the Party polemics. I think it is a great pity he did not do so.
I also think he showed an extraordinary unwillingness to grapple with the real difficulties of restoring or creating a higher rate of employment in industry in an individual country in an atmosphere in which there is a world recession, and a very great unwillingness to face the real difficulties of pursuing the policy to which the Government are undoubtedly committed, and of which the
1096
only criticism that I have heard is that it was not done with sufficient decisiveness (to use a phrase which I think the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, employed), of steering new industry to areas and parts of the country which are affected by local or structural unemployment.
I got the impression from some of the speeches, particularly from the noble Viscount, that some noble Lords did not fully realise that, although you can stop a firm from building something in London, it does not follow, however much you encourage the entrepreneur, that he will be equally willing to start the same building in Cornwall; in other words, that the various devices which worked in 1946 and 1947, when the world demand and the national demand were overwhelming, do not necessarily operate in the same way in 1959. I think it is a greaty pity that the noble Viscount never recognised that frankly. There was a want of realism about his speech, but I think he was really motivated, unconsciously of course, by his desire, which was re-echoed by speakers opposite, to try to make a Party issue of this matter and to fasten whatever blame there was on to the Government, rather than to ask sincerely what are the causes and how they ought to be dealt with.
Thirdly, I thought there was a great unwillingness on the part of the Opposition to define correctly our true economic objectives. I thought that my noble friend Lord Dundee put that point rather well when he pointed out that, although full employment is of course, and has been since 1944, an economic objective of successive Governments of different political persuasions, it was not the only economic objective which a Government could safely pursue. The stability of prices, confidence in currency and the maintenance of balance of payments had to be considered as well; and the problem of a Government dealing with this question is obviously how and at what times and in what proportions to reconcile these objectives.
I thought that the case for the Opposition was almost entirely vitiated, certainly to the point of intellectual disingenuousness, by their utter unwillingness to define their principal economic objectives in terms which were acceptable. And I am bound to say that I thought they failed to prescribe any effective remedy.

1097
A great number of the things which have been suggested are commonplace practices of the present Government: and although, of course it is possible in any debate, when you are sitting on those Benches, to say in general terms that the Government is doing too little and is doing it too late, the actual number of constructive suggestions which were made could have been numbered on the fingers of one hand—and I think that most of those which were made could have been fairly rapidly shot down, even at this hour of the night, if they could have received individual attention.
But in each case I felt very strongly that the object of noble Lords opposite, from the noble Viscount who led for the Opposition, through the noble Lord. Lord Stonham, to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was less to discuss this matter objectively (although, as I have said, their tone was altogether admirable) than to try to make a political case that, in some way or another the Government must be held responsible for the present employment situation—the main cause of which is quite certainly the diminution of the volume of world trade which has been caused by the so-called recession. This political and polemical attempt was not improved, at any rate in my submission, by the suggestion that the whole thing was really non-controversial. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for instance, said in his speech that the primary cause—and he said he was then going to be non-controversial, as an example to me— of the present state of unemployment was the result of the attempts of the Government to deal with inflation. My Lords, I am going to try to show, and I lave already said, that that is approximately the opposite of the truth—and if that is a non-controversial statement, I do not think that the noble Lord's example to me was a particularly good one.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who appeared to have relied for much of his material on Transport House—and perhaps this is one of the examples—said that the present situated was "planned, predicted and achieved", and obviously it was his intention to create the impression that the Government had planned an unemployment level of 620,000, or 609,000 as it now is. Now I personally regard that as highly offensive and utterly
1098
wrong; and it is idle for the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, as if butter would not melt in his mouth, to try to tell us at the end of the debate that he is going to be non-controversial as an example to me when, all the time, he and his noble friends are putting forward a case which, rightly or wrongly, we on this side of the House deeply resent and are completely convinced to be utterly incorrect.
My Lords, I must say that I deprecate the tactics of noble Lords opposite. I deprecate them not only because, as I shall indicate, the story is pure mythology—it is utterly without foundation of any kind in sober fact—hut I also deprecate them for a far more serious reason. I deprecate them for the reason which I think was given by the noble Viscount. Lord Hall, and the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. We are dealing here not only with the facts of unemployment—not as serious as noble Lords opposite would have us believe, although serious enough, of course, in all conscience, provided they are treated seriously—but also with the psychology of unemployment, as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, and the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, reminded us. That is something quite as serious as the effects of unemployment. The anxiety, the loss of confidence, the fears engendered by wild (and I would seriously ask noble Lords opposite to consider whether I am not also entitled to say, irresponsible) talk at this present time, causing people to worry whether the terrible events of the 1930's are going to be repeated now, in this age—hearing in mind that the figure we are now talking about, the overall figure in the country, is 2·8, whereas the figure then was 22 per cent.—I seriously ask noble Lords opposite what public advantage they think is obtained by awakening the anxieties of the people, who are deeply concerned about the security of their future, upon such a slender and fragile foundation as they have sought to build their case upon?
I am bound to remind them that they even indulged in a standard technique. You select a subject, highly sensitive because of the deep anxieties of the people—their desire for security of tenure in their houses for instance. We were deliberately being told sonic time ago that tens of thousands, and sometimes

1099
hundreds of thousands, were going to be thrown out of their houses by the Rent Act—without a word of justification, as it transpired. Now people are being encouraged to believe that the same kind of thing that happened in the 1930's, with a 22 per cent. rate of unemployment, is likely to repeat itself when, at present, at any rate, there is a 2·8 per cent. rate of unemployment. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, even went so far as to quote from my noble friend Lord Forbes, while he was a private Member of this House, when he made a comment which, in my opinion, had no more effect than to say that zero unemployment was an impossibility, and that no country could carry on its economy with zero unemployment. That is something so obviously true that if we were to criticise my noble friend at all it might be because he was saying something a trifle obvious.
LORD STONHAM: His noble friend said that it was known by everyone that the country as a whole benefits by a small percentage of unemployment and that the vast majority of workers were willing to accept a small percentage. I believe that that is untrue and nonsense.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I still believe that all my noble friend was trying to say, and all I think he was saying, was that zero unemployment is both impossible and undesirable, because nobody wants the pattern of industry to remain permanently frozen. If you did have a situation in which the pattern was permanently frozen you would have a situation in which the pattern of industry was permanently dead.
It really does not do to try to make clever quotations from peoples' speeches which are clearly designed and, I must now add, intended to have the effect of arousing and exploiting the deep anxieties of the people. This will have a double disadvantage: first, the disadvantage of misleading people as to the intentions of the Government, because, although we are no doubt likely to differ about remedies, it is utterly wrong to try to mislead the people as to the intentions of your opponents.
Secondly, it has the disadvantage of misleading people as to the facts of the situation and as to the remedies which
1100
can profitably be applied, and, indeed, as to their limitations, because one of the most important features of democratic government on a matter as sensitive as this is to discuss quite objectively the limitations of what can be done. Of course to discuss the problem at the present time in a rational spirit is a public service; and so far as I am concerned, and so far as the Government are concerned, we welcome all discussion. It is a public service, because the effect of objective discussion can, I think, to a very real extent allay public anxiety. It must allay public anxiety, in my opinion, because from rational and objective discussion it will emerge that this is a problem limited alike in its extent and in its scope, and the evidence is, upon the whole, that it is under control.
LORD SILKIN: Is the discussion objective only if one agrees with the noble Viscount?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No. I should be sorry, on the whole, to think that the discussion is objective when it has the characteristics which I have, rightly or wrongly, attributed to noble Lords opposite who have taken part in this debate. Granted that these matters require to be treated seriously and sympathetically, I can claim that the Government are treating the subject seriously and sympathetically, and that they will soon be seen to be grappling with it effectively.
I turn now to an analysis of the problem, because really we are discussing two allied but separate questions, each of which has its close hearing and repercussion on the other, but which. I think, none the less need to be analysed and discussed separately. We are discussing a general issue bound up with the general level of employment in the country—I will call that the general problem—and we are also discussing a number of separate problems of employment intimately connected with the geography, history and industrial resources of particular localities—and that I will call the structural problem. Because, as has emerged, I should think, half a dozen times at least in this debate, we are discussing things like the future of the tinplate industry in South Wales, where an old and tried industrial method has given place to a modern industrial method which has taken away the employment

1101
of thousands of skilled workmen. We are dealing with a special problem in the shipbuilding industry, where the volume of international trade and the quantity of production in post-war years has led to a laying up of tonnage. We are dealing with problems, such as those I encountered when I visited Lancashire the other day, of the future of a great historic industry like the textile industry, faced with new competition from hitherto unknown sources of competition; and we are faced with problems like those in North Wales and Scotland, which have already been discussed, and, therefore, with the means of dealing with the structural problem; far more acute, of course, in a period of industry recession, when the general level of employment is not as high as we should wish, but none the less fundamentally different in its causes, and, being different in its causes, requiring different remedies to restore the situation.
I would, with respect, deal first of all with the general problem, because, if I may say so, despite all the Party polemics, I profoundly agreed with my noble friend Lord Dundee when he said, in effect, that what has happened now is exactly what Mr. Gaitskell envisaged in 1951, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and issued on behalf of the then Government the letter—it was not a speech—in which he gave to the United Nations the policy which the Government of that day were trying to pursue. He used exactly the same language as my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer used only the other day. He said that it was the firm policy of the then Government to keep employment at the lowest level compatible with the avoidance of inflation. Our policy is exactly the same. He said that it was necessary to consider the possibility that factors arising outside the United Kingdom, such as a widespread fall in demand for United Kingdom exports, or a shortage of raw materials obtained from abroad, might make it impossible for a time to keep unemployment at the low levels of recent years.
In other words, he was clearly envisaging that it may be quite impossible to isolate a trading country like this from general world conditions, completely, if I may say so, destroying the argument of the noble Lord, Lord
1102
Silkin, when he said that when the Labour Government came into power they would be expected to create high employment, and would he criticised if they did not. Mr. Gaitskell did not think so when he had the responsibility of office. He said then that countermeasures would be set in train, but that they might take time to become effective, thereby destroying the argument of, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor (I may be quoting the wrong noble Lord), who was even so bold as to say that what we were doing now, and had done since August, ought to have been done three years ago, when, as everybody who took part ill the debates on inflation only last year will remember, we were discussing the rise of prices, and from all corners of the House the Government were being urged to restrict expenditure.
Mr. Gaitskell said, furthermore—and this is a passage which I should dearly like noble Lords opposite to take to heart—that the danger of provoking inflation in such a situation would be more acute than in the case of unemployment caused by a decline in the internal demand. He would clearly indicate, therefore, that the dangers of inflation are still, even in conditions such as he envisaged, exactly those of the present—serious questions with which a responsible Government ought to grapple. He went on to define full employment as being when there is not more than 3 per cent. unemployment. Of course, noble Lords know perfectly well that that means 3 per cent. all over the country. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, read out a list of, I should think, fully twenty-five places where the figure was greater than 3 per cent., and sometimes quite serious indeed. But I wonder why, if he was going to read out twenty-five names, he did not read twenty-five names where it was less than the average; because, of course, for every name with a figure greater than the average there must be some other name with less than the average. But perhaps he likes worrying people and causing anxiety among the people.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is about time you stopped being insulting. You know very well I was drawing attention to special areas, and saying that we knew the

1103
average over the whole country was no more than 2·8 per cent.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Viscount always supposes that when I answer, as well as I can, a case which is put forward strongly and tendentiously, that it is necessarily insulting.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: You directed a motive to me which was directly insulting.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I certainly did not intend any direct personal insult to the noble Viscount. But I still think it was unfortunate—I will say no more than that—that having got a situation in which the general level of employment is known to be 2·8 per cent. a long list of names, not one of which was under the average but every one of which was over the average, is read out to the House, which can only have the effect of deepening the anxiety which people have at the present time, although, as a matter of statistical certainty, it would have been possible to select the names fairly.
I should have thought it was plain that the account which I have read from Mr. Gaitskell in 1951 much more exactly described the present situation than any which has been given by noble Lords this afternoon. Noble Lords opposite and several others have said that the registered figure for unemployment does not tell the whole story. There are the families of the unemployed. There is the absence of overtime and the presence of positive short time. No doubt there are married women who do not continue to, register and, therefore, do not appear in the figures. A number of other examples could be given. With that, I wholly agree. Those considerations, however, in no way invalidate, and for certain purposes are irrelevant to, the points which are being discussed. The figure of 22 per cent. in 1932 was a strictly comparable figure. The figure of 3 per cent. given by Mr. Gaitskell in 1951 was also a strictly comparable figure. The European and American figures, although, I am advised, not exactly comparable, are none the less sufficiently so to make them adequately comparable for this purpose.
This is a convenient moment at which to consider some of the arguments which have been put forward by noble Lords in
1104
criticism of the Government and try to show the entire consistency between our policy this year and last year and the entire integrity of that policy for the purpose of securing the three economic objectives which I have tried to define. The noble Viscount appeared to be offended because in 1956 and 1957 we had urged a policy of wage restraint. He used the phrase that it was an attack upon the working class. I hesitate to remind your Lordships of earlier debates in which I took part, but I provided the statistics on at least three separate occasions when we were debating inflation in the last eighteen months. On each occasion, I proved statistically—and I was never answered from the Benches opposite; I suppose it was thought too insulting to answer—that the fact was that wages were pushing up prices, because there had been an increase of wages and salaries over eighteen months of approximately £900 million without comparable increases of production, and when the rise in prices was lower than that. Since the noble Viscount again raised the hoary old myth of profits, I went on for the sake of completeness to point out that without taxation, which is deflationary, the profits during the comparable period had run to something like £25 million. I was seeking to prove statistically that wages at that time were one of the principal causes of inflation. I may have been wrong, but I do not think it is particularly insulting to hold that view.
The noble Viscount treats an appeal to wage restraint as an insult to the working class. His attitude is a monument to the irresponsibility of the Labour Party, because the truth of the matter is, and let us face it, that if the Labour Party had used their enormous influence with the trade unions to respond to our invitation to co-operate in wage restraint at that time, there is no doubt whatever that the inflation could have been curbed without the smallest economic pain suffered by anybody; and, as a mere matter of history—the noble Viscount has to face the responsibility for this with his Party—the steps we took in September, 1957, which have been purported to be used by the Benches opposite as an indictment of our policy, were taken because, having had wage restraint refused as the voluntary and painless method, we, as the Government, were driven out of our duties and responsibilities to the

1105
people, to face inflation and to carry out the measures of September, 1957.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I would say this: I prefer to accept the reason I read out from the Engineering Federation's booklet, that the Government apparently ran out on it because they were facing the dreadful economic position arising out of the action of the Government in relation to Suez and the loss of world confidence.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Unfortunately the noble Viscount will not face the facts.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Nor will you.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The inflation of 1956–57 was very largely world wide. In so hr as it originated in this country I was able to show statistically at the time that it had nothing whatever to do with Suez but had precisely to do with the subject of wages with which I have been dealing at some length, and that profits, the mythology of which the noble Viscount, I thought rather unworthily, tried to exploit, formed a statistically insignificant factor in the situation which we were trying to discuss. Since we are on profits, let me say this to the noble Viscount. He said that there was no concern with profits. A factor which noble Lords opposite never think it worth while to discuss is that of all the economic features of our society profits are the most heavily controlled; the control was invented in about 1806 by William Pitt and it is called income tax. When profits are made by a company the income tax is deducted at source at the standard rate, and if, when so diminished the profits fall into the hands of an immoderately rich man who may earn even as much as £2,000 a year, he is then mulcted by the additional control of surtax. So to say that the Government have no concern with profits is to underestimate the abilities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
But, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, fell into the same trap, because, completely oblivious of the causes of inflation of only a year ago, completely unable or unwilling to face the argument with which he had then been presented, he says, "Why do you not deal with luxury building—those vast offices which
1106
are going up in the City of London?" On those occasions we dealt with luxury building ad nauseam, and we were able to show that it was another piece of Socialist mythology, and that the quantity of building which by the greatest stretch of the most inflamed imagination could be described as luxury building was statistically insignificant. Of course, noble Lords opposite never give any figures when they state this kind of thing. I was able to show quite frankly that I am not prepared to accept that decent offices for decent workers is an unnecessary luxury in the public interest. I regard them as ordinary, decent conditions of employment for a praiseworthy section of the population. I must say to noble Lords opposite that there are people in this country who were glad to see the City of London resume its position of economic importance after the war, who consider that a great deal of restraint in the matter of building was shown year after year in restoring the City to its former usefulness, and who think that office buildings, which the noble Lord held in such contempt, are no more than the necessary capital equipment of industry and commerce.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, talks about stagnation. That is another of the myths to which we have been treated this afternoon. This country's economy is more vigorous than I think it has ever been during the period of office of the present Government. Capital investment has been almost consistently at an all-time high, and although production may slightly have declined owing to a world recession in the past eighteen months, it has still remained relatively higher than it has ever been before, and it is at such a level that we have more than retained our share and proportion of world trade. I venture to say to your Lordships that if this is stagnation, Niagara Falls is a millpond; and why we should be treated to this extra-ordinary fairy tale about a stagnant economy, when we are living in one of the most highly industrialised societies of all time, is something which absolutely baffles me.
But noble Lords have another series of ideas which are associated with the false myth of stagnation. I wonder whether it has ever occurred to them that

1107
production has still a relation to world demand? If there is a world recession, you must expect to find a certain gap between your productive capacity and actual production. I wonder why the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, thought it worth while to criticise my noble friend Lord Dundee for his, to my mind, unexceptionable statement that if in a period of world recession you run the machine flat out—I think that was the phrase of my noble friend—you ultimately, and before very long (he took the most modest view that it would take twelve months, but I think that probably it would take much less), will meet with disaster. What my noble friend was seeking to convey to noble Lords opposite was that if, in a period of trade recession, you bolster up production without regard to markets and exports, you will ultimately reach both inflation and unemployment.
That, after all, should not he too hard a lesson for noble Lords opposite, because that is precisely what Mr. Gaitskell said in 1951, in the passage to which I have referred. The truth is that, to hear some people talk, one might suppose that balance of payments difficulties could not possibly take place in an atmosphere of recession, or that inflation could never be a danger at the same time as unemployment, or that currency crises could only supervene on an inflationary spiral. That is not so. Mr. Gaitskell himself referred to the danger of inflation as in some ways more, and not less, acute in such circumstances as the present. We all remember the crisis of 1931, when balance of payments difficulties were associated with deflation and acute unemployment. We all know that a currency crisis would inevitably be associated with a lack of confidence in our economic stability. Our three economic objectives are therefore complementary. We want a stable currency; we want full employment, and we want the ability to compete at reasonable prices in the markets of the world. They are complementary necessities and not alternatives. In the words of my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour,
"Our anti-inflationary measures have been the guardians and not the assassins of full employment."
Nobody can believe that our share of world trade would not have suffered if
1108
at a time when markets were contracting we had allowed our prices to rise, or that we should have suffered anything short of crisis had we permitted ourselves to remain an island of inflation and overproduction in a world of trade depression which bad reduced the demand for our products. The truth is that, so far from accentuating the situation, it was really providential that Her Majesty's Government had completed their anti-inflationary operation in time to embark upon what I trust and believe will be an equally effective campaign to combat the trade recession.
It must be admitted, of course, and in any but a highly charged political atmosphere it would be admitted by rational beings, that in a country as heavily dependent on international trade as our own, the level of employment here is bound to be affected by the state of that trade; and the public man or woman who suggests the contrary is unworthy of credit. When America and Europe suffer from inflation, we are going to suffer to some extent from inflation. When those countries suffer a recession of course we are going to suffer to some extent from a recession. It is not possible, even if it were desirable, to insulate our own trading community from outside influences. What we can do, and what Her Majesty's Government are trying to do, is to counteract those effects. That is what we are doing now, just as last year we were seeking to control and counteract the effects of inflation and, I suggest, doing so successfully.
Bearing in mind the figure of 2·8 per cent. which I have given. I have tried to collect comparable foreign figures. I know that comparisons must be treated with reserve. I know that some definitions are not identical and that some of the methods of ascertainment are not the same; but they are sufficiently close to be comparable. So far as I can ascertain, shortly before Christmas the figure for the United States of America was 6 per cent.—not quoted by the noble Viscount who was so keen on figures. For Canada the figure was 6·2 per cent.——not quoted by the noble Viscount; Belgium, 7·2 per cent., and that not including the temporarily stopped; Germany. 6·7 per cent.; Italy. 8·5 per cent.; and even Holland and Sweden, 3·2 and 3·3 per cent. respectively.

1109
To hear noble Lords discuss this subject in the terms they saw fit to employ this afternoon without mentioning these decisive facts is really to witness an exhibition of political disingenuousness which I consider at least remarkable. It is worth reminding the House that the recession of 1958 was the largest encountered in post-war years. During the term of the Labour Government both the late Sir Stafford Cripps and Mr. Aneurin Bevan admitted that even during the high period of world demand of the late 1940s there would have been 1½ million unemployed in this country under the Labour Government had it not been for Marshall Aid. How can noble Lords opposite have the temerity to complain that we, who have had none of these advantages, are weathering the recession of 1958–59 with a total of a little more than 600,000 unemployed in February? I am sorry to have to refer to these painful facts, and really noble Lords opposite must contain themselves, for the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said that he was going to be tendentious, and so he was.
When the Labour Government were driven into devaluation in 1949 Mr. Harold Wilson said:
"The whole basis of our recovery was knocked away by a slight recession in America."
Yet despite the absolute decline in our exports, after the much more acute recession of the present day, which has been going on much longer, we have actually maintained our share in world trade for the first time since 1950. I wonder that the Party opposite has the face to talk of the pound and unemployment. I remember that the noble Viscount was vastly incensed the other day when I reminded him of the facts; but the fact of the matter is not that Governments of different complexions do not have crises, for crises are going to occur under whatever Government we have in power in this country. The difference is not whether or not Governments have crises but how they deal with them. The fact of the matter is this. Every time there has been a period of Labour Government it has culminated in a ghastly economic disaster. My noble friend was quite wrong in saying the peak of unemployment took place during the Labour Government of 1931; but his case was essentially sound because it was under their period of Government that unemployment
1110
doubled to over 2 million and reached the high level from which it only receded after two years of National Government. It takes this country about two years to recover from the results of a Labour Government. It was about that lime that it took us in 1951.
The same kind of trick question which was put to my noble friend, Lord Teviot, about unemployment figures is being put to Conservative speakers all over the country about figures on the gold reserves. They sank after we came into office because it takes eighteen months to two years to recover from a Labour Government. But I am astonished that a Party with this peculiar record in the realm of employment and currency stabilisation should have the temerity to challenge us on the issues of economics. We are prepared to face the challenge because we think that this debate was brought about for the purpose of deepening anxiety rather than allaying it, and because we think we have shown, however seriously we may take the situation—and we take it very seriously indeed—that the reasons for the anxiety which have been given are insufficient and the criticisms which have been levelled are wholly without foundation.
10.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like, first of all, to thank all the noble Peers who have taken part in this debate on the Motion which we put down, and for the very orderly manner in which the debate has gone up to the present. I should like them to know how thankful I am now, looking back, for my membership at birth of the working class and how I did not have to go to Oxford University to be a bully.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Certainly. I am entitled to sit fairly quiet at the receiving end, and I am entitled to say what I have to say in reply. We have been listening for nearly fifty minutes to the kind of bullying assault that is made upon a general meeting of the public in the big political meetings—I repeat, for the last fifty minutes—and I must say that it just shows fairly clearly that we are getting regularly now from the noble Viscount just briefs

1111
from the Party office. I hope very much that he will continue as Chairman of the Conservative Party, whatever appeal there may be to the country, because he will increasingly become an asset to the other side. The motive that he has attached to myself and my noble colleagues who decided to ask for this Motion more than three weeks ago was absolutely scandalous. We had to state the facts of how we saw the present position; and I asked especially, as a matter of urgency, having no regard to the political issue or when the Election would be, that the Government would get on with the kind of things that we want to get on with, especially in regard to the special development areas and especially in regard to the unemployment areas. There was not the slightest need, except to gratify his own special political objectives at the moment, for him to adopt this tone and the manner and the matter which he has to-night.
However, I said in just one brief word at the end of my speech this afternoon that we did not want to be charged again with raising a bogy. But we have been charged with worse than that, with lack of motive, and therefore I want to say I have now been able to get exactly the circumstances in which we were charged in the Labour Party with raising a bogy, because I have here a transcript from the shorthand note taken by the newspaper staff reporter. Lord Hailsham was at Harrow on Monday night in connection with the Harrow East By-election. Lord Hailsham was constantly heckled during his speech, and in reply to a shout, "What about unemployment?" he said:
"It is extremely foolish to raise that issue. The Labour Party ever since they have been in office have sought to trade upon and exploit the anxiety and fears of the ordinary man and woman about their security. This is the miserable truth about their attitude towards unemployment. The truth is that this situation is well in control. This is just another bogy they have invented."
I should like to know what sort of spirit that is from a Leader of a Party towards the motives of another Party. In my long political experience, I have never heard such a dastardly kind of suggestion made as that. I mean what I say. I am speaking from my own, pretty long political experience, and I am quite sure that, if that is an indication of how
1112
the Chairman of the Conservative Party at its headquarters is intending to conduct the campaign, then it will be just as well to let the people know now what is the spirit, and to go on with it.
I hope, nevertheless, that when the Government as a whole come to their consideration of the points which have been made in this debate today as to the best way to deal with the situation of unemployment, they will pay attention, at least, to the views we have expressed on what might be done. I do not think it is much use quoting the results of a Labour Government in 1929. That was thirty years ago, and they went into office without a majority in the House, and with no attempt to apply—and when it was impossible to apply—the policy of Socialist controls that we were able to apply quite successfully in 1945. I do not think it is much use for the noble Viscount to refer to the period of 1945–51 in the way he did, and the financial troubles that arose; or to sneer about Marshall Aid—because he knows as well as I do that this country, through its Government, was equally supplying other countries that had to be set on their feet, and was trying to set world trade going from what was supplied to us through Marshall Aid. You have no right to make those suggestions.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Viscount must not say that I sneered at Marshall Aid, which is not correct. What I said—and I repeat it—was that the Party opposite was seeking to say that we had created the present unemployment; and it was perfectly legitimate for me to say that, in spite of the fact that we had no Marshall Aid, we have a far better position in this country than that which two of the Leaders of the Labour Party admitted would have been the case under their Government if they had not had Marshall Aid—which was a very good thing, but which was not the result of Labour policy.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: What right on earth has the noble Viscount to compare the situation of 1945—after the second Great War, when our country was in a position of complete bankruptcy, with no export trade left, and with the whole of industry having to be switched over from war-time production to

1113
Peace-time production—with to-day? The noble Viscount has no right to make a comparison of that period with to-day; and he knows that, on the basis of the facts, it is an absolutely unworthy thing to do.
A NOBLE LORD: That is a contradiction.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I do not think it is a con-

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Amulree, L.

Mathers, L.

Silkin, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stonham, L.

Crook, L.

Ogmore, L.

Taylor, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Pakenham, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Henderson, L.

Rea, L.

Wise, L.

Lawson, L.

Shackleton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dundee, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Melchett, L.

Atholl, D.

Falmouth, V.

Merrivale, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mills, L.

Bathurst, E.

Forbes, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Blackford, L.

Furness, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Boothby, L.

Goschen, V.

Radnor, E.

Boston, L.

Gosford, E.

Reading, M.

Brecon, L.

Grenfell, L.

Remnant, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Rochdale, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Clitheroe, L.

Hatherton, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Coleraine, L.

Home, E.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Selkirk, E.

Conesford, L.

Howe, E.

Shaftesbury, E.

Croft, L.

Hylton, L.

Soulbury, V.

Crookshank, V.

Ingleby, V.

Stonehaven, V.

Davidson, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Strathalmond, L.

Derwent, L.

Jessel, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Devonport,. V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Teynham, L.

Dorchester, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Waldegrave, E.

Dovercourt, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Waleran, L.

Dropheda, E.

  THE TELEPHONE SERVICE
  THE TELEPHONE SERVICE