Sitting of 8 November 1960

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

    Litter
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of his anti-litter campaign.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): My right hon. Friend believes that the work being done by public-spirited organisations and individuals up and down the country is having an effect and that more and more people are being brought to realise that leaving litter is a deplorable habit. But we have a long way to go before we can be at all satisfied.
    Captain Pilkington: Can my hon. Friend say whether the schools are co-operating in this work and whether he has any action to suggest for getting rid of the bus tickets and sweet papers which are scattered so much over the countryside?
    Sir K. Joseph: Some schools are taking an interest in this matter. I should like to have notice of the other question. I will look into it.

    The Chilterns
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what proposals he has for designating the Chilterns as an area of outstanding national beauty, and so preventing a unique part of England from being over-developed.
    Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend understands that the National Parks Commission is consulting the local authorities concerned on a proposal to designate an area in the Chilterns as one of outstanding natural beauty. The proposal will not come before him unless and until the Commission submits an order to him for confirmation.
    Captain Pilkington: Whilst I agree that this is a very praiseworthy idea, may I ask my hon. Friend he will continue to do what he can to preserve the beautiful parts of this country which have managed to survive?
    Sir K. Joseph: That is my right hon. Friend's aim.

    Water Conservation
    Mr. Priorasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what research is being undertaken into the economic feasibility of the artificial underground recharging of aquifiers, in order to conserve excess winter rainfall to supplement available winter resources during the drier summer months; and whether he is satisfied that the existing administrative structure of statutory water authorities makes it possible thoroughly to exploit this method of water storage.
    Sir K. Joseph: Work has been done in the Nottingham area on the chemical problems involved in returning raw water from the River Trent into the Bunter Sandstone; the object is to determine how far artificial recharge is feasible. If the results are favourable the next step will be to examine the economics of recharge.
    A Sub-Committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee is at present considering water conservation generally, and I understand that its report will cover administrative as well as technical questions.
    Mr. Prior: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern at the apparent absence of any very positive measures on a national or regional basis to deal with this problem, particularly bearing in mind that, in the Eastern Counties at any rate, there is a fear that legislation may be introduced soon to prevent farmers from taking water from streams and rivers during the summer for irrigation

    801
    purposes? Will my hon. Friend also pay attention to the fact that by storing water underground we shall save considerable areas of agricultural land which would otherwise have to be used for storage by reservoirs? Will he do his best to spread research in this connection?
    Sir K. Joseph: This is a most important, but also very difficult, technical question with legal, financial and administrative implications. I think we should await the result of the research, which is more widespread than I have had time to mention, and the comments of the expert committee.

    Greater London Area (Commercial Development)
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will consult with the President of the Board of Trade with a view to taking powers to control the spread of commercial development in the Greater London area.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): The spread of commercial development is already controlled under planning powers. I am always prepared to consider proposals improving their effectiveness.
    Mrs. Butler: As office approvals have averaged 4½ million square feet per year in central London over the last ten years and current office building approvals amount to 5 million square feet, with the consequent pressure on the already acute transport and housing situation, is it not time the two Ministries got together to help the planning authorities with their peculiarly difficult problem of moving office accommodation to outer areas by some system of commercial development certificates or in some other way?
    Mr. Brooke: This is an extremely important problem. If the hon. Lady looks into it, she will find that the number of planning permissions given in recent years since my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations asked the London County Council to tighten up is considerably lower than the figure which she has mentioned. The difficulty about applying any kind of development
    802
    certificate is that, whereas an industrial development certificate is given to a particular firm, with offices it is not usually known what firms will occupy them until they have been built.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present powers, whatever they are, are clearly not sufficient to prevent London being turned into a magnet in a way that makes its housing and transport problems increasingly difficult to solve? Ought he not to find some answer to the problem?
    Mr. Brooke: It is a very difficult question. I quite agree that we have not got the complete answer yet. As I have said, I am always prepared to consider fresh proposals, but, meanwhile, the planning authority and I are co-operating to try to prevent unnecessary permissions being given for office building.

    High Buildings
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is satisfied that sufficient weight is given to the particular character of a town, to local opinion, and to the views of the local planning committee when he approves, on appeal, plans for skyscraper flats and offices; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir, these matters are always given full weight when any scheme for high buildings is decided by my right hon. Friend. He also takes into consideration the fact that high-density building in appropriate places will help us to meet the need for development with the least sacrifice of open land.
    Mrs. Butler: Does the Minister realise the acute public concern that there is over recent cases, particularly at Henley-on-Thames, where the Minister himself has approved a 15-storey block against his inspector's recommendation of not more than seven storeys? As these decisions can change the whole face of Britain, could not the Minister arrange for some independent expert panel to look at these cases before a final decision is made?
    Sir K. Joseph: The points mentioned by the hon. Lady were all taken into

    803
    account by my right hon. Friend. The fact is that these matters arouse strong feeling, but so also does the general desire to keep the green belt and agricultural land. We have to accept a higher density in appropriate places. My right hon. Friend takes all these matters into account. Somebody has to take the decision in these cases, and it does not seem to us to be preferable that it should be taken elsewhere.
    Captain Pilkington: Will my hon. friend ensure that the greatest care is taken that these high buildings go only in appropriate areas and not elsewhere?
    Sir K. Joseph: The very greatest care is taken not to harm the environment in such places.

    Floods
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will make a statement on the measures he proposes to take at national level to deal with the serious position caused by floods.
    Sir J. Maitlandasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what assistance Her Majesty's Government propose to give to local authorities and to individuals who have been seriously affected by the recent disastrous floods; and what action it is proposed to take to prevent a recurrence.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the magnitude of the distress caused by recent floods and the need for quick and adequate assistance for those who have suffered, what provision is to be made from Government sources; whether he is aware of the widespread desire that the prevention of flooding and assistance to those who suffer from floods should be on a national basis; what official consideration has been given to the matter; and what is to be the future policy of Her Majesty's Government on such matters.
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will take steps to organise a national
    804
    fund, comprising both a contribution by the State and voluntary gifts, from which help may be given to those who suffer loss or injury from floods and other similar disasters.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I made a general statement to the House on 2nd November to which at present I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Janner: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable feeling about this matter throughout the country in view of the expensive nature of the damage that has been done, and that people are not at all satisfied with the Bill that he has introduced; and is he prepared to do anything on a national scale instead of advising only local authorities and private individuals to compensate or do something for the people who, through his own negligence in not introducing legislation earlier, have suffered this serious damage?
    Mr. Brooke: The Land Drainage Bill is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In the statement which I made a week ago I made it clear that the Exchequer and the Government would stand behind both the local authorities and the local appeal funds if the financial needs exceeded that which could be regarded as reasonable.
    Sir J. Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this "standing behind the local authorities" is not very noticeable at the present moment? Does he realise that only yesterday I had a letter from the river board responsible for one river which caused damage, in which the board stated that the river had five breaches in it and when the board applied for help to repair the breaches it was turned down flat? Does my right hon. Friend further realise that the repair expenses will be borne by the very people who have sustained damage? Does he think that this is in the spirit of what he said the other day, about which we were all so pleased?
    Mr. Brooke: I am extremely anxious to maintain in both the spirit and the letter what I said the other day, but Questions about work by river boards in this matter should be put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
    Mr. Dodds: Would the right hon. Gentleman be interested to know that last weekend I was among many victims of the floods in Kent and they think that his statement is deplorable in regard to his "standing behind" but a long way back? He says that people like to give money, but does he really think that people will give money if they know that ultimately the Government will provide it? Has he himself not created a situation in which people who want help quickly will have to wait a long time for it, if they get it at all? Why is he not a little more forward in helping people when they badly need assistance? They need assistance now.
    Mr. Brooke: The answer is that everybody's immediate needs are being met and nobody is being called upon to wait. What the hon. Gentleman says about people being unwilling to subscribe if they think the Government are going to provide all the money is, of course, a powerful argument against forming a national disasters fund.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Would the objection which the right hon. Gentleman has raised apply if, for instance, the Government proposed to contribute on a pound for pound basis? I do not think it would. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had nothing to add at present to his statement. Will he give an assurance that he is considering the suggestions made in these Questions, that he has not closed his mind on them, and that he will make a further statement quite soon?
    Mr. Brooke: I will certainly give an assurance that the matter is under consideration by the Government as a whole and that a statement will be made in due course.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is some little confusion on the part of local authorities about the procedure that they should adopt in order to ensure that they get from the Government the financial assistance which my right hon. Friend promised? Will he consider whether a circular could be sent as early as possible to local authorities so that they may know what lines they should follow to get help?
    Mr. Brooke: Perhaps I may say something even more speedy than a circular.
    806
    If a local authority is doubtful whether it has statutory powers to carry out some work which it thinks is needed, it should communicate with my Department immediately—a telephone will suffice—and the matter can be pursued. As to who will eventually foot the bill, one cannot really tell that for certain until one sees what the bill will amount to, but, as I have said previously, if any local authority is forced to incur expenditure which would put an unreasonable burden on the local rates, the Exchequer is prepared to help.
    Mr. C. Hughes: In his statement last week the Minister said that he thought that the Land Drainage Bill would solve the long-term problem. Is it not the case that the new Bill will not make a great deal of additional money available towards the solution of the long-term problem? Will not he now consider instituting an investigation with the River Boards Association and other bodies concerned so that a long-term solution may be found?
    Mr. Brooke: I am not aware of ever having said that the Land Drainage Bill would necessarily solve the whole problem. The extent to which it will solve the problem is a question which should be debated on Second Reading.
    Mr. Janner: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Central Areas (Redevelopment)
    Mr. Deedesasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he has made any estimate of the toal cost involved in current plans for the comprehensive redevelopment of central areas in cities and towns; and whether he will consider setting up some official agency which could assist by loans the financing of these long-term projects.
    Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend has not made such an estimate. He is always ready to consider suggestions for facilitating comprehensive redevelopment, but it is Government policy that both private developers and local authorities should borrow in the market on their own account.
    Mr. Deedes: Has the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend considered the Report produced as a result of the one-day school at the Civic Trust, which my right hon. Friend opened, which put forward the suggestion that, in order to bring some of these arrangements together, something like a land finance corporation is very desirable? In view of the importance to some of us of avoiding haphazard arrangements in this matter, cannot fresh consideration be given to the conclusions reached by that course?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes. My right hon. Friend is certainly considering the report of the one-day conference to which my hon. Friend refers, but, inasmuch as the conference appeared to want some special lower rate of interest for central area redevelopment, it would go against Government policy about providing hidden subsidies. My right hon. Friend is considering the suggestion of the conference that there might be a deferment of interest charges for a period at the beginning of some developments.
    Mr. Molson: Does my hon. Friend realise that, in the case of the redevelopment of the centres of many towns, there is often a conflict between the short-term and the long-term policy? It is important that local authorities should be enabled to adopt a long-term policy. They should receive some kind of financial assistance in order to do so.
    Sir K. Joseph: It does not seem to my right hon. Friend that financial assistance should be necessary in what are, by hypothesis, the most valuable areas of cities. My right hon. Friend is considering the possibility that the machinery for deferring interest charges may need extension.

    Private Street Works
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, to what extent, in his consultations with local authority associations about the treatment of hardship cases arising from the making up of private streets, he has discussed the question of Government financial assistance.
    Sir K. Joseph: Not at all.
    Mr. Swingler: Will the Parliamentary Secretary kindly consider it now? Now that the Minister has admitted the existence of hardship and said to local authority associations that the hardship should be alleviated by a public authority, why should the whole burden be put on the rates? Is not this now recognised to be a national problem? Will he not, therefore, consider sharing the financial responsibility with local authorities?
    Sir K. Joseph: No. This is very much a local problem and the few cases of hardship can certainly be alleviated by local authorities, always bearing in mind that poorer local authorities receive help already from the Exchequer.
    Mr. Swingler: Will the hon. Gentleman consider publishing the Report of the survey, which his Department has received, so that others interested in the problem may be able to judge the extent to which it is purely a local problem?
    Sir K. Joseph: I should like notice of that question. I will take that into consideration.

    Birmingham (Overspill)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a statement on the consultations between his Department and local authorities in the west Midlands about the development of new towns and estates to take Birmingham overspill; and, in particular, to what extent the site of the former Royal Ordnance factory at Swynnerton has been considered.
    Mr. H. Brooke: In the light of these consultations, I am pursuing inquiries to see what possible sites there may be for a new town, particularly in the neighbourhood of Dawley in Shropshire, as well as possible sites for schemes of town expansion, but I am not yet in a position to make any further statement.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware of the widespread rumours in Staffordshire about the use of Swynnerton, which seem to have the effect of sterilising the site at present? Many of us want to see it developed for the purposes of industry and employment for workers in north Staffordshire. Can he say whether

    809
    Swynnerton is under consideration at the moment in this respect, or can he deny the rumours and allegations being made?
    Mr. Brooke: I cannot be held responsible for rumours in Staffordshire. It is much better to investigate first the areas of less good agricultural land.
    Mr. Swingler: Is Swynnerton being considered?

    Special Review Areas, North-West
    Mr. Leaveyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether the recent speech by Dame Evelyn Sharp to the Annual Conference of the Association of Municipal Corporations, to the effect that local amalgamations and bigger authorities were necessary to tackle the wider range of functions in the future was made with his authority; and to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to bring about such changes in local authority powers and boundaries in the special review areas of the North-West.
    Mr. H. Brooke: With respect to my hon. Friend, my Permanent Secretary did not say this. She said that in considering the right structure for local government one must bear in mind the job that needs to be done, and the changing nature and range of local government responsibilities in the modern world. This is something which I have repeatedly said myself, but not so well. The Government's policy, which applies to the special review areas of the North-West as it does elsewhere, is to secure effective and convenient local government, and to await the reviews and recommendations by the Local Government Commissions for England and Wales before deciding what changes in organisation, if any, may be needed for this purpose.
    Mr. Leavey: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. Notwithstanding what he has said, he will surely agree that it is undesirable that at this time his senior permanent adviser should give the impression, at any rate, that size will be the main, if not the only, criterion. Further, is not my right hon. Friend aware that, in seeming to condone this approach, he is subscribing not only to the view that the gentlemen in Whitehall
    810
    know best, but perhaps that the ladies in Whitehall know best, which is surely the last straw?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not think that Dame Evelyn ever said what my hon. Friend thinks that she said. What she said was reported verbatim in the November issue of the Municipal Review and can there be read by any hon. Member. She discussed with me beforehand what she was going to say. Everything she proposed to say was completely in line with declared Government policy. The only thing she did not tell me she was going to reveal was that her earliest recollection was going round shouting for a candidate at a local election at the age of 4.

    Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Appeals)
    Mr. Talbotasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what is the average time taken to determine an appeal against a planning decision or compulsory purchase order, such time being computed from date of the receipt of the appeal or order at his Department; and, in view of the increasing number of such appeals, what proposals he has for their expedition.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The average time in the case of both planning appeals and compulsory purchase orders is about six months. I regard this as too long, and I am doing my utmost to reduce it, in particular by recruiting more inspectors to hold inquiries. But my task is the harder in that the number of planning appeals this year is running 25 per cent. above 1959.

    Local Government Act, 1933 (Section 76)
    Mr. Talbotasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware of the state of uncertainty about the operation of Section 76 of the Local Government Act, 1933, which is causing concern to many engaged in local government; whether he intends to propose any amendment of the law; and whether he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend has not yet completed his consultations

    811
    with the local authority associations about the operation of this Section, but he will make a statement as soon as he can.

    Special Procedure Orders (Parliamentary Control)
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he expects to announce his proposals for Parliamentary control of unopposed Special Procedure Orders.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I hope that a statement on this subject can be made within the next three months or so.
    Mr. Blackburn: Could not the Minister reduce that period of three months? Is he aware that we have already been waiting eighteen months for this statement?
    Mr. Brooke: I am anxious to make the statement as soon as I can.

    Land
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware of the growing concern of many local authorities at the scarcity and price of land; and what new steps he is contemplating to deal with this problem.
    Mr. H. Brooke: A circular, No. 37/60, was sent to all local authorities on 25th August advising them of the practical action they can take. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Mr. Boyden: Is not the Minister aware that after that date the executive committee of the Association of Municipal Corporations wanted to discuss this particular question with him? Has he no conscience about the "twilight" inner-ring areas that are being neglected whereas other development on a commercial basis is taking place in a piecemeal manner to the neglect of the best interests of the community?
    Mr. Brooke: I think that the hon. Gentleman is criticising the planning authorities, but this is also a subject mentioned in the Amendment to the Motion that we are to debate today, so all these matters can be ventilated.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what is the acreage of derelict land within the boundaries of urban districts, municipal and county boroughs in England and Wales; how this acreage compares with the situation in 1938; and how much of this waste land was reclaimed for building or amenities in 1957, 1958, and 1959.
    Sir K. Joseph: Up-to-date figures are not available, but information obtained during 1954 and 1955 showed that there were then about 69,000 acres of derelict land in the areas mentioned. My right hon. Friend has no figures for 1938—nor for the total amount of land reclaimed during the last three years. Local planning authorities have, however, been asked to carry out surveys of derelict land in their areas and to show the results, including their proposals for reclamation, in the reviews of their development plans.
    Mr. Boyden: May I send the Parliamentary Secretary a note of the meeting in September of the forestry section of the British Association, which shows that a county council has the information that should be known by the Government, and which should be the basis of Government action?

    Flooded Areas (Relief)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress has now been made in the relief of flooded areas; and to what extent Government assistance has so far been necessary.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The floods have been widespread and in some areas repeated; and progress with the work of rehabilitation is necessary at various stages. Assistance by Government agencies, civil and military, has been given from the outset. The extent to which special financial assistance may eventually prove necessary cannot yet be determined; none has been required so far, in getting on with the immediate tasks.
    Mr. Driberg: Since that Answer is clearly and necessarily inconclusive, can we take it that the Minister has not closed his mind to the possibility that it may be necessary to treat this on a

    813
    national basis? Does he recall that, after the East Coast floods of 1953, the then Prime Minister said that this catastrophe would have to be
    "… treated upon a national basis and, broadly, as a national responsibility …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1481.]
    even though the Government subsequently ran away from that pledge? Will he try to do better this time?
    Mr. Brooke: The Government certainly never ran away from that pledge but, as I said in reply to a previous Question, I have nothing at present to add to my previous statement. My present concern is to make sure that anyone who has suffered or who is suffering from the floods receives immediate assistance, if required, and that duty the Government are fulfilling.
    Mr. Lipton: Having repeated the words "at present" once again today, will the Minister now clearly confirm that there is still a possibility of Government financial action being taken?
    Mr. Brooke: Extremely effective Government action has already been taken, and everybody throughout the country where floods have occurred knows that the Government are ready to help with money.
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what applications he has had from local authorities in the west country for financial help, arising out of the recent serious floods.
    Mr. H. Brooke: Before my statement in the House on Wednesday last, two local authorities in the west country had informed me that they thought they would need help, although it is not yet possible to assess the amount that may be needed.
    Mr. Hayman: Is the Minister aware that several times today he has said that the Government have made arrangements for the immediate needs of the thousands of flood victims to be dealt with? Is he not also aware that there are literally thousands of people with few financial resources who are wondering about the long-term effects, and many of them have suffered severely? Will not he make some speedy statement about a national fund or a gift, even if, as with farm subsidies, there is no upper limit to
    814
    the amount which can be given in a financial year?
    Mr. Brooke: The Question that I was asked related to local authorities, and my Department is already in touch with some local authorities about the financial position as it affects them. The hon. Member is now asking about individuals and, as I said, I have nothing at present to add to the statements I made, which in my view should have reassured everybody that the Government were prepared to stand behind local funds which proved insufficient for their purpose.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that help will be forthcoming to local authorities and local river boards, if necessary, to repair damage which has been done to upper water courses in order to prevent further serious flooding if more rain comes?
    Mr. Brooke: Questions about the river boards should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. So far as the local authorities are concerned, I can certainly say that we will take their excess expenditure into account.

    Durham Town Plan Inquiry, Easington
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he has received the report of his representative who presided over the Durham Town Plan inquiry at Easington; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend has not yet received his inspector's report, and he cannot make a statement at present.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the President of the Board of Trade has now designated part of the area, in particular, Haswell and district, as a development area? Does this mean that industry may be encouraged to go there, and will he now say that the Easington Rural District Council should be permitted to build there?
    Sir K. Joseph: This is a very difficult problem, and I think that time must be given for my right hon. Friend to consider the results of the inquiry, with the objections made and the implications to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

    Whickham Urban District Council (Surveyor)
    Mr. Woofasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what communication he has sent to Whickham Urban District Council, County Durham, regarding their failure to appoint a surveyor; and what reply he has received.
    Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend's only communication to Whickham Urban District Council on this matter has been the letter of 10th July, a copy of which was sent to the hon. Member on the same day. This letter did not require a reply, and none has been received, but I note that the council has now advertised the vacancy.
    Mr. Woof: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that up to 20th September no such information was ever revealed to the council? Is he also aware that when the clerk of the council was challenged with withholding such important advice, he advanced the lamentable excuse that it arose through submission to the Boundary Commission? Will he make it clear to the council that this was not the case, and will he further consider what action he can take to impress upon the elected members of the council the need for it not to act as a one-man-band council, conducted by the clerk?
    Sir K. Joseph: In my letter to the hon. Gentleman I said that the answer to the sort of complaints being made rested primarily in the electors' hands, but I very much hope that the vacancy advertised by the council will soon be filled.

    Greater London (Royal Commission's Report)
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London was made available to the Press before it was made available to local authorities.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The Report of a Royal Commission is published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office on behalf of the Royal Commission and not of any Minister of the Crown. I understand that, in accordance with the normal practice for a document of this kind, the Report
    816
    in question was published at the same time that it was made available in Parliament.
    Mr. Skeffington: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that apparently the Press did get this Report some hours before the local authorities? Will he take some steps to use what influence he can to see that local authorities in future have such reports at the same time as the Press? It seems to be a matter of commonsense and courtesy. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that it is rather embarrassing for a local authority to be rung up by someone on a local paper and to be asked, "What do you think about being abolished?" when the local authority has not even had the Report?
    Mr. Brooke: This is the responsibility of the Royal Commission, and not mine, but I can assure the House that the rules were observed about the Report being made available first to Members of Parliament. It really would have been improper, in my submission, for copies to have been sent to local authorities before they were available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.

    Twickenham (Church Street Redevelopment Area)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many houses in the Church Street redevelopment area of Twickenham are in the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest, and how many in the supplementary list if he is satisfied that the existing machinery enables him to safeguard the character of this area as a whole; and what point has now been reached in the discussion of this redevelopment between his Department, the local authority, and the Royal Fine Art Commission.
    Sir K. Joseph: At present two houses appear in the statutory list and ten in the supplementary list, but my right hon. Friend has recently given notice of his intention to transfer three houses from the supplementary to the statutory list and to add two unlisted buildings to that list. Responsibility for safeguarding the character of the area rests primarily on the local planning authority and my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the

    817
    existing machinery is adequate. He has not been concerned in the discussions between the local authority and the Royal Fine Art Commission.
    Mr. Driberg: Does what the Minister has just said mean that the local authority can no longer acquire houses and then pull them down on the pretext that they cannot be restored or modernised? Will he realise—I am sure he does—that this is the last really un-spoilt Thames-side village near London? Will he do his utmost to make sure that its character is preserved?
    Sir K. Joseph: No listed building can be demolished without reference to my right hon. Friend.

    Moorland (Afforestation)
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement, following the talks between his Department and the various interests concerned, regarding the control of large-scale afforestation of open moorland, especially in the National Parks.
    Sir K. Joseph: Consultations with representatives of the timber growers are in progress and my right hon. Friend is not yet ready to make a statement.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the Parliamentary Secretary take into account that some form of effective control over afforestation, particularly private afforestation, is essential and that there are constant encroachments on the National Parks, particularly Dartmoor?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, but my right hon. Friend hopes that this control can be achieved by voluntary means.

  HOUSING

    Improvement Grants
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, since only 7,705 private landlords have obtained grants for installing baths, hot water and inside toilets in the last nine months, if he will now introduce amending legislation to permit applications for such improvements to be made by tenants and, where these are approved, to continue the present landlords' grant and contribution.
    Mr. Owenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps are being taken to induce landlords to improve their property; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Slaterasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what proposals he has to encourage landlords to improve their property by taking advantage of the improvement grants.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The new measures contained in the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959, to encourage the improvement of older houses have already produced a marked response from both landlords and owner-occupiers. Between January and September, 1960, private landlords obtained improvement grants for nearly 18,000 houses. With more and more publicity, including practical demonstrations and exhibitions and showing of the film we have made, I believe that improvement work by both landlords and owner-occupiers will continue to expand. I do not propose to amend the law in the way suggested.
    Mr. Allaun: Since landlords are compelled under the Public Health Acts to keep their houses in a fit condition, should not these amenities at present lacking in nearly 5 million homes be similarly considered to be minimum conditions, particularly as the landlords are being paid to introduce these amenities?
    Mr. Brooke: I know the hon. Member's views, but all these matters were discussed while the House Purchase and Housing Bill was going through, and I am quite sure that we should rest on that Measure because we are getting better and better response to the offers from all concerned.
    Mr. Owen: I am afraid that the Minister's optimism as far as landlords are concerned does not apply to Northumberland. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the County of Northumberland there are some 36,000 houses without a bath and 9,000 without water closets, and that the county council has applied the maximum degree of enterprise to induce landlords to do the reasonable thing without any result? Does not the

    819
    right hon. Gentleman think that legislation is now long overdue for the purpose of exercising more pressure upon these people?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not think that legislation of that kind would be right, but I will certainly look into the position in Northumberland. Meanwhile, I hope that the hon. Member will use his great influence there to encourage both landlords and owner-occupiers to apply.
    Mrs. Slater: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the Stoke-on-Trent local authority had a demonstration scheme which had a great amount of publicity but that the response which it obtained from landlords was negligible? If the right hon. Gentleman likes to compare the figures, he will find that the response continues to be negligible. What hope has he that the further demonstration that he is planning in Stoke-on-Trent will have any better results than the last one had?
    Mr. Brooke: I agree with the hon. Member that the experience in Stoke-on-Trent has been disappointing, but I am hoping to come myself and open the new demonstration, and no doubt that will make a big difference.
    Mr. Allaun: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Rents
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that the rents of many houses without a bath, hot water or inside toilet, which were approximately doubled under the Rent Act, have been doubled again and in some cases trebled, following a change of tenant; and if he will take steps to prevent the continuation of this practice.
    Mr. Mellishasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that, as a consequence of the decontrol of property, rents are now being charged which deter many families from moving into more suitable accommodation; and if he will introduce legislation to stabilise rents at their existing levels.
    Mr. H. Brooke: For the reasons I gave in the debate on 26th October, I am not prepared to reintroduce rent control.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that I can take him to a row of identical slum houses, each with a controlled rent of 14s. 11d., except for one, for which the family, owing to a change of tenancy, pays 48s. a week? Where is the £9 a week labourer and his family to go? This creeping decontrol is affecting several hundred thousand houses each year owing to death or removal of tenants.
    Mr. Brooke: If these are slum houses, the most desirable thing is that the local authority should take action and pull them down.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is not the Minister by now aware that this creeping decontrol is having a most serious effect on the ability of many families in London and elsewhere to find any accommodation within their means? There are families wandering about, not merely deterred from getting other accommodation, but literally unable to afford it. Will not he reconsider his decision about creeping decontrol?
    Mr. Brooke: No. With respect to the hon. Member, he is exaggerating. All these things will be open to debate later in the day.
    Mr. Gower: If some measure of decontrol is desirable, as most experts agree, is not the creeping decontrol as described by the hon. Member by far the most desirable form of decontrol, in that it inflicts little or no hardship on anyone?
    Mr. Brooke: The Government certainly have no intention of going back on it.

    Liability for Repairs
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in amending the law relating to liability for repairs, he will also fix a multiple of the gross value as the maximum rent for dwellings in the London area.
    Mr. H. Brooke: No, Sir.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware that many tenants are too scared to complain

    821
    of the intimidation and extortion arising from the rent racket in London at present, because they know that the Minister is on the side of the landlords all the time and that they themselves cannot expect any justice from him? Is he quite incapable of suggesting what a reasonable rent should be, using the gross value as a factor, rather than letting this whole problem be settled by jungle warfare?
    Mr. Brooke: The Minister is not on the side of either the landlords or the tenants. He is on the side of the houses. These gross values were fixed in relation to 1939, and the fact is that some areas have become more popular and other areas have become less popular since 1939, so that there is no single multiplier that would be applicable everywhere.

    Compulsory Purchase Orders
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what decisions he has reached on the four outstanding submissions of compulsory purchase orders arising from his Circular 45/60; which borough councils made the submissions; when they were made; and what is the reason for the delay in reaching a decision.
    Mr. H. Brooke: With permission, I will circulate particulars of the four cases in tabular form in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In one case I shall be giving my decision very shortly. In the other three cases objections have been submitted, and under the statutory procedure it would therefore not be proper for me to comment at this stage.
    Mr. Robinson: What the right hon. Gentleman is, in fact, saying is that not a single compulsory purchase order has been confirmed in the three months since the circular was issued. Does not that make nonsense of the claims he has made for the circular? How does he expect a threat to be effective if he is so obviously reluctant to carry out the threat?
    Mr. Brooke: I cannot accept a word of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have to abide by the statutory procedure, which requires time to be left for objections to be lodged, and if objections are lodged then, in all probability a public
    822
    inquiry has to be held. I cannot ignore the law, and Parliament would not wish me to do so.
    Following are the particulars:

    TABLE

    Compulsory Purchase Orders submitted under Circular 45/60

    Local Authority

    Date of Order

    Hackney M. B. C. (Pembury Grove)

    15th September

    Feltham U. D. C.

    26th September

    Hackney M. B. C. (Cedra Court)

    3rd October

    Edmonton B. C.

    6th October

    Four-Bedroomed Houses, Welwyn Garden City
    Lord Balnielasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what price is being asked by the Welwyn Garden City Development Corporation for the sale of Type 14, four-bedroomed houses.
    Sir K. Joseph: The price provisionally fixed for the nine Type 14 houses which are under construction is £4,700.
    Lord Balniel: Is my hon. Friend aware that the cost of these and other houses being offered for sale by the development corporation has risen by over 20 per cent in the last two years, during a time when building costs have risen by only 5 per cent.? Can he say whether this is part of the policy to control profit margins, part of the policy to stabilise the cost of living, or part of the policy to encourage home ownership?
    Sir K. Joseph: No. It is part of my right hon. Friend's policy of giving autonomy to new town corporations.

    Unfurnished Accommodation
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what increase in the amount of unfurnished accommodation to let has occurred since the passing the Rent Act, 1957.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The Rent Act has certainly increased the amount of unfurnished accommodation to let coming on to the market, but I cannot say by how much.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the Minister aware that he has no evidence for the statement that he repeatedly makes on this matter?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member says that I have no evidence. As a matter of fact, I had an examination made of the London evening papers for four weeks in 1956 just before the Rent Bill was published. During that period only 40 flats were advertised to let unfurnished. An examination of the London evening newspapers in the corresponding four weeks in 1960 disclosed not 40 but 760.
    Mr. Stewart: Will the Minister tell us at what rents this accommodation was available, and will he explain to his hon. Friends behind him that accommodation of that kind is of no use to the great majority of people who are afflicted by the Rent Act?
    Mr. Brooke: I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that a large number of the 760 were at quite reasonable rents.

  WALES

    Water Resources (Committee's Report)
    Mr. T. W. Jonesasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when the Report of the Technical Committee on Water Resources in Wales will be published.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I hope to receive the Report of the Welsh Water Advisory Committee in time for it to be published next spring.

  KENYA

    Jomo Kenyatta
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been given to the request by leaders of the African parties in Kenya that Jomo Kenyatta should be released.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): I have made it clear that the position of Jomo Kenyatta remains as indicated by the Governor in his statement of 10th May.
    Mr. Brockway: In view of the general consensus of opinion in Kenya that Mr. Jomo Kenyatta must be released at an early date, is it not desirable that this should be done as a gesture of racial good will while Europeans still control the Government, rather than to leave it till the Africans obtain a majority next year?
    Mr. Macleod: Of course, this is a difficult problem. In Kenya many people of all races feel very keenly indeed on both sides of this question. It is quite wrong to assume that there is anything like a unanimous point of view—
    Mr. Brockway: I did not say that.
    Mr. Macleod: —well, even an overwhelming majority point of view in favour of what the hon. Member puts forward. In this matter I am content to leave it in the hands of the Governor, whom many Members of this House know and in whom I have complete confidence. It is his affair and I am sure he takes into account the well-being of Kenya when he makes a decision.
    Mr. Brockway: It is our affair, too.

  UGANDA

    Legislative Council (Elections)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of the Uganda Government to hold elections on a national basis for a new Legislative Council early in 1961.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Wall: While welcoming that brief reply from my right hon. Friend, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is a body of opinion in Uganda which feels, because of the small number of registrations in Buganda and the opposition of the Kabaka's Government, that the central Government will not have the courage to go ahead with the elections?
    Mr. Macleod: If there is that feeling I should have thought that my reply, which although certainly brief is at least clear, would dispel that illusion.
    Sir P. Agnew: Has my right hon. Friend taken full account of the fact that the Commission which is to be set up to study how best to link the Government of the four kingdoms, whose integrity is secured by treaty with this country, with a central Government in territorial Uganda, may not have reported by that date, and would it not be better to see how we are going to discharge our treaty obligations to those kingdoms first before conferring fresh

    825
    powers on an expanded all-Uganda Legislature?
    Mr. Macleod: I think this is an extraordinarily difficult problem of judgment. For myself, I have alway felt that if the Relationships Commission—I hope to announce its membership within a few days—were to report before the election, we would immediately have pressures for the Report to be implemented before the election and we would never get to the point of having Protectorate-wide elections. Although I recognise the difficulty of the situation, I believe the right policy is to have early next year Protectorate-wide elections, to have shortly after that the Report of the Relationships Commission, and then at one conference to take together the constitutional future of the Protectorate and the Report of the Relationships Commission. I believe that is the best answer.

  SOVIET NOTE (REPLY)
  Mr. Rankinasked the Prime Minister to what extent his talks with Mr. Khrushchev on the Berlin issue have led to delay in replying to the Note sent to him by the Soviet Government on 26th September.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Her Majesty's Government's reply to the Soviet Note on 26th September was delivered on 26th October. My talks with Mr. Khrushchev had no effect upon its timing.
  Mr. Rankin: Can the Prime Minister tell us why the reply written three weeks after the receipt of the Soviet Note was not sent? What alteration was made in the reply of 26th October to which he has just referred? Was it due to the fact that there was some fundamental discord between Britain, France and Germany on the terms of the reply? Will he publish both replies?
  The Prime Minister: The British reply was published on 27th October. As to the delay, of course it takes some time to make all the necessary consultations with allied Governments and to bring us all into complete harmony on every point. That is the purpose of these consultations. It is, of course, quite true that, if one has allies, one does not
  826
  answer quite so quickly as one might if one were in single control and took not very much notice of the States which depended upon one.

  GERMANY (NUCLEAR AND ROCKET WEAPONS)
  Mr. Rankinasked the Prime Minister to what extent, in his recent discussions with Mr. Khrushchev, he discussed the effect upon Anglo-Soviet relations of the arming of West Germany with nuclear and rocket weapons.
  The Prime Minister: My discussions with Mr. Khrushchev were confidential. I am not prepared to say whether a particular subject was or was not discussed, beyond the general indications which have already been made public.
  Mr. Rankin: In view of the Prime Minister's widely expressed hope for a Summit Conference in the new year and his view that world tension should be reduced, will he agree that the arming of Western Germany with nuclear and rocket weapons certainly would not be a contribution towards the peaceful atmosphere in which he wants to hold a Summit Conference?
  The Prime Minister: There is some confusion in the expression "arming Germany with nuclear weapons". The German troops and German armies stand in the field with their allies and comrades. They are armed with similar weapons, but, of course, all of these are under the control, so far as the warheads are concerned, of the United States.

  EGYPT (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS)
  Mr. A. Lewisasked the Prime Minister to what extent, during his recent discussions with President Nasser, he discussed the question of the resumption of normal diplomatic relations between the two countries; when such resumption is likely to take place; and on what basis of acknowledgement of past divergencies this agreement has been arrived at between the two countries.
  The Prime Minister: As was announced after my meeting with the President of the United Arab Republic on 28th September at the United Nations, there was agreement between us on the need to make further progress in improving relations. The question of an exchange of Ambassadors is now under discussion between the two Governments.
  Mr. Lewis: Can the Prime Minister give us any idea when he will be able to make a further announcement?
  The Prime Minister: I hope that this will not be very long delayed.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Can the Prime Minister say what is the difficulty in the resumption of normal diplomatic relations? Is it on our side or on their side?
  The Prime Minister: We are, of course, in diplomatic relations. At present, we have only the chargés d'affaires. As a result of our discussions, it was agreed that the Foreign Secretary should discuss with the Foreign Minister of the U.A.R. the raising of them to ambassadorial status. I hope that we shall soon be able to reach a satisfactory conclusion to that negotiation.

  HONG KONG
  Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Prime Minister if he will instruct Government Departments not to address letters to Hong Kong, China, as this causes resentment in that Colony.
  The Prime Minister: The Post Office Guide refers simply to "Hong Kong", which is the correct address. I am satisfied that this is already well known in Government Departments.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people in Hong Kong will be pleased that he has been able to give his attention to this little problem, because it raises a great deal of resentment in that patriotic British Colony when letters arrive there indicating that Hong Kong is a member of the Chinese People's Republic?
  The Prime Minister: I quite understand the point and, if there are any errors, I shall see that we try to put them right.

  FLOODS, SOUTH-WEST ENGLAND
  Mr. Mathewasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the loss of life and extensive damage caused by flooding in the south-west of England, he will see that substantial and early financial aid is forthcoming to assist the areas affected and, in particular, that no differences of Departmental responsibility, or other similar factors, prevent an early start on construction work to prevent a recurrence of the flooding.
  The Prime Minister: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government on 2nd November. No differences of Departmental responsibilities will be allowed to hinder temporary preventive works or preparations for permanent works.
  Mr. de Freitas: Is the Prime Minister aware that we have had evidence this week and last week that the Departmental responsibility of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in grave danger of doing just what the Question seeks to avoid, in that there is no connection of the twin problems of water conservation and flood prevention and, unless some co-ordination is achieved, the problem of flood prevention will be solved only by the wasteful method of just sending the water more rapidly down into the sea?
  The Prime Minister: I shall study that proposition in detail with my two right hon. Friends. Knowing them, I feel sure that they are working together in very close harmony.
  Mr. Mathew: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the assurance given in his answer to the second part of my Question, but is he aware that while the statement of 2nd November by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government was both welcome and reassuring in the long run, the damage and distress is now very widespread? Will he bear in mind that there are several places in my constituency which have been flooded no less than three times? Does he not think that the need now is for a far more

  829
  generous and forthcoming undertaking by the Government to ensure immediate grants in the worst cases?
  The Prime Minister: I understand that there are really two sets of problems. There is the relationship between the Government and the local authorities and any assistance which may be needed to help local authorities in work they are undertaking. That is one problem. It is a matter of adjustment between central and local funds. There is the second, human and immediate problem of individual distress. I understand that there have been local funds raised, and the Government undertook, in relation to the position we took in the last great flood, that we would be willing to assist with grants those locally raised funds.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Does the Prime Minister realise that the financial arrangements mentioned by the Government are far from clear and far from satisfactory? Is he saying that the central Government will undertake the full cost of the burden of these floods and take it off the local authorities? If not, how much are the local authorities expected to carry themselves? Secondly, as regards the other point to which he himself referred, the need of private individuals, through what machinery precisely is help to be brought to them? Should it not be done very urgently?
  The Prime Minister: As regards the first, I think that, though urgent, it has not the same human importance as the second. It is a matter of the relations between local authorities and the support which my right hon. Friend's Department, with the support of the Treasury, will give to their expenditure. I understand that the position is quite clear on that. If there are other points, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put them to my right hon. Friend.
  With regard to the second, I remember very well the circumstances some years ago. A large private fund was raised, in that case a national fund inaugurated by the Lord Mayor. Now, there are local private funds. What we have said is that we will give Government money to help those local private funds, it being the responsibility of the managers of the funds to deal with individual cases.

  POLARIS SUBMARINE BASE
  Mr. Dugdaleasked the Prime Minister whether, before agreeing to give the United States Government a base for the Polaris submarine in this country, he asked the United States Government what other countries had been approached for the lease of bases; and whether he asked what replies they had given.
  Mr. Donnellyasked the Prime Minister whether he will issue a White Paper setting out the specific details of the Anglo-American Agreement over Polaris bases in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Manuelasked the Prime Minister if he will publish the precise terms of the agreement arrived at with the United States Government regarding the provision of facilities for a Polaris submarine base in the Firth of Clyde.
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister if he will publish a White Paper setting out the nature of the agreement with the United States of America on the control to be exercised on the storage and possible use of the underwater Polaris; and whether, when making the agreement, he was informed of the United States intentions about siting, control and use of the land-based Polaris missile.
  Mr. Grimondasked the Prime Minister under whose control the warheads, stored on the depot ship for the Polaris submarine, will be; and if he will make a further statement on the agreement reached with the United States of America on the control of the Polaris bases in Great Britain.
  Mrs. Hartasked the Prime Minister what further discussions he has had with the United States Government about the basing of Polaris-carrying submarines in Scotland; and, in view of these discussions, if he will now make a further statement about the extent of consultations with the Government of the United States of America that will ocur before the use of missiles from these submarines based in the Holy Loch.
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister if he will issue a White Paper setting out, in precise terms for each type of base, the circumstances in which Her Majesty's Government are able to exercise a veto over the use of United States land, air, or sea bases in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will publish a White Paper on the agreement about the base for Polaris.
  The Prime Minister: As I told the House on 1st November, and as my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary repeated in another place on 2nd November, and as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence explained again in the debate in the House on Friday, 4th November, the position as regards control over Polaris submarines in this country is as follows.
  As regards all facilities in the territory including the territorial waters of the United Kingdom, we have exactly the same control in an emergency as exists over United States bomber or missile bases in this country. That is to say, there will then be joint consultation regarding the use of these facilities.
  But the submarines cannot be treated in exactly the same way as the bombers, still less the missiles, because they are only in United Kingdom waters for comparatively short periods and much of their time will be spent many hundreds of miles away. Consequently, as regards general control, we shall continue to rely on the close co-operation and understanding which exists between us and the United States in all these defence matters and which President Eisenhower has recently reaffirmed.
  In my speech on 1st November I went on to give my understanding of the position reached. This is that we can be satisfied that the United States Government will not use these missiles anywhere in the world without the fullest possible previous consultation with us and our allies. I use the words "fullest possible" consultation because consultation might obviously be impossible in circumstances of a sudden surprise attack upon the West. We would, indeed, not wish to insist on prior consultation in such circumstances, because it is the absolute certainty of retaliation which deters aggression.
  Mr. Dugdale: Is the Prime Minister aware that he has not answered my Question? I asked him specifically whether any other country had been approached to give these facilities. Does he propose to answer that now?
  The Prime Minister: The Americans asked us to provide this facility. We
  832
  gladly agreed in the interests of both countries and of the whole Atlantic alliance. The question whether other countries may have been asked to do the same thing does not appear to be relevant.
  Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the control of these submarines is quite a different matter, whether it is in peace time or in an emergency? To put it bluntly, what we are concerned about is what is to happen to the submarines in peace time. May we have an assurance that they will not be used for what may be, apparently, dangerous patrols close to Soviet quarters in a way similar to that of the RB47 incident?
  The Prime Minister: I did not understand that that was the point of control in this sense, but I do not think that we can press the analogy between the aircraft and the submarines. There is really no similarity between an unarmed reconnaissance aircraft and a mobile under-water rocket base—for that is what Polaris it—costing £50 to £60 million to build. The routing of a submarine may be such as will keep it at sea for months at a time. Anyway, it would not have its home base in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I think that there is no real analogy between this and the flight from our base and back of a reconnaissance plane.
  Mr. Manuel: The Prime Minister has not answered my Question, in which I asked him
  "if he will publish the precise terms of the agreement arrived at with the United States Government …"
  It is very necessary that relationships should not be strained further than they are at present. In peace time, when these Polaris submarines are moving out, not on patrol, but to lie on the ocean bed at a place predetermined by the United States, it is necessary that we should have some knowledge in order that aggravations which can be avoided are not aroused.
  The Prime Minister: I am not prepared to publish a paper giving details of this agreement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] There are two kinds of detail. Some are ordinary routine working arrangements which are between the two

  833
  navies and which it would not be suitable to publish in a White Paper, and there is the general agreement which I have explained fully in answer to Questions and in debate. It is, therefore, all in HANSARD.
  With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, which appeared to be the same point as that raised by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), I think that one has only to think for a moment whether the form of the reconnaissance is anything in the least parallel to these aeroplanes that we have in mind. I should not have thought that to set about with a machine which costs £50 million, sitting under the sea, was an extremely good method of obtaining information.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I should like to put three questions to the Prime Minister. First, is this a written agreement, or is it simply an oral understanding? Is it really so difficult for the Prime Minister to publish at any rate all those parts of it which would not be contrary to public security?
  Secondly, despite his answer to the previous question, may I ask him whether he is aware that many of us are anxious that in normal peacetime conditions none of the submarines using this depot ship should take action which could conceivably lead to a war, conflagration or dispute?
  Thirdly, under emergency conditions—we all understand the difficulties which obviously arise—is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what we are most concerned about is that the fateful decision to use nuclear weapons of any kind for the first time should not be taken by a single Government alone but only by a collective agreement?
  Although I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point that there might be circumstances where this was extremely difficult, nevertheless, the assurance that in all conceivable cases, and where it is at all possible, the nuclear weapon would never be used for the first time without the agreement of the British Government is of great importance to us on this side.
  The Prime Minister: I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's points. First, there has been an interchange and an agreement made. I am not prepared
  834
  to publish it. I have given a full account of it in my answers and in my statement. There is certainly an agreement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is it a written agreement?"] There is an interchange of an agreement. It is an interchange of a written agreement. I am not prepared to publish it, although I have given a full account of it in my answers.
  On the second point, I repeat that I do not really believe that it is conceivable to use a mechanism of this kind and value for what is called a dangerous reconnaissance purpose.
  The third point is, what is meant by "the first time"? The right hon. Gentleman knows about this as well as I do. We have had this out over and over again, at N.A.T.O. and other places. Does it mean the first time by the allies, or the first time by the enemy?
  Mr. Gaitskell: The first time by the allies.
  The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider what the right hon. Gentleman says, but, at first sight, to say that if the enemy attacks ourselves, America or our allies with an overwhelming attack of nuclear force, we are, 15 of us, to sit down and see whether we can get into touch before we make the reply is nonsense. It is the fact, it is the certainty, that if an aggression of that kind is made the reply will be made by anybody who is in a position to make it as soon as and as overwhelmingly as possible. That is the deterrent.
  If the right hon. Gentleman means an attack by an enemy not using nuclear weapons, then, of course, there is likely to be much more possibility for consultation and delay, because it is not a sudden overwhelming attack. In the case of conventional war there is the movement of troops and things of that kind. Then there is the opportunity for discussion. It is just that consultation which I understand from the President's statement he intends to have with us and with other allies.
  Mr. Gaitskell: To most of us, and to the British people generally, this is not a laughing matter. This is an extremely important, though admittedly difficult, question, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he realises that the vague assurance that he gave in the

  835
  second part of his answer—that he presumed that, somehow or other, there would be consultation—is not really enough and that what we need in this matter is something perfectly precise so far as the agreement of the British Government is concerned before the first use of nuclear weapons by the allies, except, perhaps, in the first case that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  Any sensible person would realise that there might be difficulties of that kind. But surely we can have a precise agreement with our allies, the United States, that, except in that case, nuclear weapons would never be used for the first time without our agreement.
  The Prime Minister: I still ask what "the first time" means—the first time in the world, or the first time by the allies? [HON. MEMBERS: "By us."] If it is for the first time by us in retaliation to a nuclear or non-nuclear war—let us get it clear. If a nuclear attack is made upon us, I hope that anybody who is in a position to make an answer will make it as rapidly as possible. The knowledge of that is what the deterrent means. We are all agreed above the Gangway, anyway, on that.
  If it is something quite different—perhaps the beginning of a movement of troops, an attack on one of the N.A.T.O. countries, or another country, and the beginning of a battle—then there is time for consultation, and it has been agreed with Sir Anthony Eden, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and was reaffirmed by the President to me the other day that that is what he means by "the fullest possible consultation"; and there will be such consultation unless it is of a character such as the right hon. Gentleman has described, which precludes consultation because of the immediacy of the need for retaliation.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. We shall reach a point where it will be evident that we cannot discuss this matter without a Question before the House. For that reason, I wish to
  836
  resume giving opportunities to those who had Questions on the Order Paper to ask supplementary questions. Mr. Shinwell.
  Mr. Shinwell: In all the circumstances, political, social and otherwise, does the Prime Minister not consider that it might be worth while making representations to the American Government that it is unwise to construct a base in the midst of a hostile population?
  Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side have frequently protested against the presence of British troops and the occupation of territory by British forces in the midst of hostile populations? Is not this a similar case? Will not the Prime Minister make representations to the American Government along those lines?
  May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, further, whether, in view of this controversy, it would not be wise now for the Government themselves to give us time for the purpose of debating this matter?
  The Prime Minister: I hope that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will not feel that he is right in his description of the people of Scotland or of Clydeside as a hostile force to the American alliance, on the preservation of which, although we may differ about certain points, I would have said that the great majority of this House and of the country felt that the defence of the free world largely depends.
  I should have thought that to give these facilities makes this submarine fleet more effective during the initial years—no doubt, as the years pass, it may not be so important—because it increases the availability of the submarines if they could have facilities and an advance base instead of always having to go back to the Atlantic base. I should have thought that that was a form of work together which we ought to do as good allies, both for our own safety and for that of the whole Western alliance.
  I should also have thought that many people would feel that if we cannot get agreement, which we all hope to get, if it should so work out as the years pass that the form in which the deterrent was operated took the place of the present forms, there would be great advantages—advantages from a safety point of view over land-based bombers and, perhaps,

  837
  some advantages in the real value of the deterrent because of its not being able to be destroyed at a single blow.
  Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press the point in quite the way that he has stated it, because it would, I am sure, be wrong to say that they would be thought to be enemy troops among a hostile population. That is a terrible thing to say about the help we are getting from the United States.
  Mr. Grimond: May I ask two questions? First, is it clear that, leaving aside a sudden devastating nuclear attack, we are to be consulted if at all possible before this submarine fires nuclear weapons, wherever the submarine may be, whether inside or outside territorial waters, and that we have had some say in the standing orders which, presumably, have been given to submarine commanders?
  Secondly, in view of what the Prime Minister has said, has he a clear understanding with the Americans that when atomic Polaris submarines and weapons are available, the fixed bases in this country will be withdrawn?
  The Prime Minister: In reply to the second part of that question, I can, of course, say nothing. It depends upon whether we wish to have two forms of defence or only one. That is a long way off, anyway.
  With regard to the first part of the question, I make it quite clear that we rely on the general understanding between ourselves and the United States, and—I go further—which the United States has with its allies that wherever possible, wherever there is not one of these sudden decisions which has to be taken if the deterrent is to mean anything, there will, of course, be consultation between us. That has been stated many times and it has recently been reaffirmed by the President of the United States.
  Mrs. Hart: Is the Prime Minister aware that on 17th October, in answer to a question on television, Admiral Arleigh Burke, the American Chief of Naval Operations, said that the Polaris submarine could be used as a military instrument without reference to political considerations and that this was a
  838
  valuable adjunct to the missile? Is this the Prime Minister's interpretation of the agreement which he has reached with the United States Government, or would he wish to disagree with the Admiral's interpretation?
  Further, may I ask the Prime Minister how much importance he attaches to the views of the trade union movement in the west of Scotland, which has firmly committed itself against the idea of basing the Polaris in the Clyde?
  The Prime Minister: I did not see what Admiral Burke said. If the hon. Lady will send me a copy of it, I will have a look at it.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that he has said just enough to justify a full-dress debate in the House in which we can all express the views of our constituents and also oppose the Government by a vote? Is he aware that opinion in the west of Scotland is very strong on this issue and that it is an issue in which he should demand a vote of confidence—and that we are not prepared to give it to him?
  The Prime Minister: I think that in view of that, I should have to get into quite a lot of the usual channels.
  Mr. Dugdale: Is the Prime Minister telling us that he never discussed with the United States of America whether this base might not be in a N.A.T.O. country other than this one? Do we not already have enough American bases here? Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), that if this base is to be here it might well replace one of the static bases?
  The Prime Minister: I would feel much happier that it is in this country. The fact that we have this co-operation helps us to exercise our influence in the alliance and certainly does not hinder us. If this terrible thing were ever to happen to the world, the precise position of this or that base would not save us. Either the deterrent is strong enough to prevent this terrible thing ever being done, or we shall all make the world uninhabitable for human beings.
  We cannot wriggle out of these responsibilities by saying, "Let it be in Holland". "Let it be in France". "Let

  839
  it be in Germany", or "Put it in Italy, and then those countries will suffer". We had far better exercise our influence by playing our full part in the alliance.
  Mr. W. Yates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of the British people are absolutely in favour of and will support the American alliance, whether it is with nuclear weapons or ordinary conventional weapons? I should like to say that on behalf of the majority of people in this House and in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. Is my right hon. Friend aware that anybody trying to let down the American alliance at this juncture can do no service whatever to international relations?
  The Prime Minister: I am gratified at what my hon. Friend has said.
  Mr. G. Brown: Is the Prime Minister aware that if his purpose really were to unite maximum opposition to this project the way in which he answers Questions in the House about it would be the exactly right way to go about it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] The Prime Minister has referred several times to an agreement. He said, under pressure, that it was a written agreement; that is, written, I understand—perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong—between him and the President of the United States. If it is not, would he tell us between whom it is written?
  Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Defence, in the House last Friday, said that the United States grants us—Britain—no special place in relation to this thing, that if there were to be any consultation it would take place among the 14 others? I ask the Prime Minister, is there a written agreement between Great Britain and America covering the provision of facilities by Great Britain to America for servicing these submarine ships? Is the right of consultation given because we provide the facilities? Does that consultation amount to the same degree of joint decision over the operations as we have in the case of the aeroplane bases?
  The Prime Minister: I will try again. There is a written agreement with regard to the facilities, largely technical in character.
  Mr. Healey: What about controls?
  The Prime Minister: Let me make it perfectly clear. So far as the use of the facilities in our own territory, which, of course, includes territorial waters, is concerned, it is operated in the same way as have been past agreements, but outside that, if this submarine, which happens to have touched down here, goes 2,000 or 3,000 miles away we cannot control that particular submarine, or a submarine which started from Maine and never happened to come to Clydeside. There may be no time, and there may, perhaps be 30, 40 or 50 of these, and it would be absurd and not in our interest to say that we could.
  Therefore, on the wider question, on which there is not a written agreement, we rely on the general understanding with the Americans that they will not, unless there are the circumstances which, I think, we are all agreed about, the special circumstances of a sudden attack upon us, start a nuclear war without the fullest consultation with their allies and particularly with ourselves. I think that the fact that we have entered into this puts us in a stronger position than ever before.
  On the bases, we can only exercise a control on these particular machines. But I really think that it puts us in many ways in a stronger position and puts the Americans under a greater moral obligation to work closely with us in the broad policy decisions.
  Mr. G. Brown: Let us just get this clear. Are we now clearly understanding that there is an agreement on the purely technical base operation, but that there is not an agreement about consultation over operation of vessels which use the base? Is it not a fact that in the case of the aeroplanes there could be 50 or there could be 500 up at any one time, of which only one took off from Lakenheath, but in the case of the aeroplanes it was not held to deny us a joint decision, not merely consultation, over the use of this Lakenheath base? What difference is there? Will the Prime Minister particularly confirm that we have no right of consultation over the use of the submarines which use the bases here?
  The Prime Minister: I say again that there is a written agreement in regard to the facilities to be offered and a number of routine questions. In that

  841
  agreement we have a right of general control over any submarines in the base and the use of the base and territorial waters, but we do not claim, under that agreement, that a submarine which may have touched down here for a month and has gone away and is in the Pacific is under our control. For that, we rely upon the general control and general understanding which we have between ourselves and the Americans.
  I am only saying that I regard that as just as strong as anything else. I did say "wherever possible", because I wanted to be accurate. I will look up again what I said. Some people are against the deterrent, and I understand that, but, as has been brought out here today, if the deterrent is to deter and we are in favour of the deterrent, one could not bind onself never to launch a counterattack, however serious an attack were made upon us or one of our allies.
  Mr. Warbey: Would the Prime Minister say, first, in exactly what form the President of the United States has committed the United States not to initiate the use of nuclear weapons except after
  842
  consultation with America's allies, and secondly, whether that undertaking applies to the use of American nuclear weapons in the Pacific?
  The Prime Minister: No. I will simply say that as regards the wider field, and I have repeated it many times, we cannot have the same thing as for the aeroplanes, because of the difference of the base. As I say, it is much more the position of giving certain facilities. A ship goes away for three or four months; perhaps a year passes. Are we to say that we are to have complete, special control over the ship? In this case we rely on the general understanding, which is common sense, because no one is going to start this thing off without consultation with allies so deeply tied together. If it comes to an attack made upon us or upon our allies, then, if there is not time, action will have to be taken.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We really cannot debate this now.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS [SIXTH DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [1st November]:
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
  Question again proposed.

  HOUSING
  3.56 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add:
  "but humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains no proposals to alleviate the hardships caused by excessive rents and insecurity of tenure, to assist local authorities in providing homes, or to deal with the high cost of land and other difficulties which now obstruct a solution of the housing problem."
  The Opposition Amendment begins by drawing attention to the immediate hardship caused by high rents and insecurity of tenure. It proceeds to the larger question of the provision of homes for those in need, particularly by local authorities, and from there to one of the important aspects of the whole matter, the price and use of land, a problem which will be with this country for many years and which will probably increase in severity as those years go by.
  The first question, rents and security of tenure, we did debate not very long ago, at the very end of the last Session, but the Opposition make no apology for raising this matter again, for we were very far from satisfied with the replies which the Minister gave us on that occasion. I ought, perhaps, to begin by taking up a number of the points made in his reply then.
  In the first place, in his reply the right hon. Gentleman tried to suggest to us that this was only a London problem.
  844
  Has he listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) has had to tell him not only at Question Time today, but on many previous occasions? Has he listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) has had to tell him about the operation of the Rent Act in his constituency? Does he remember the really infamous case of oppression under the Rent Act described by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) in February of this year? I think it is worth while reminding him of that case. It illustrates special aspects of this problem.
  The victims in that case in Sheffield were new tenants, many of them old-age pensioners, who, under the pressure of rent increases in their former accommodation, had moved into flats of smaller size. They then found that being new tenants they were victims of that creeping decontrol which the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), in his unflagging devotion to the Government, was telling us at Question Time causes no hardship whatever. Those tenants, victims of creeping decontrol, found themselves required either to pay a rent of four times the rateable value or to get out. It is worth while reminding the House of what the Parliamentary Secretary said on that occasion:
  "May I say, in particular, how sorry I am to hear that some of the tenants in these decontrolled flats are old-age pensioners who have done just what the Government want them to do and have given up surplus space to move into smaller space. It is admirable. It is just what we want, and it is a very sad result that they should now be in this situation …. I hope that they will not despise the help of the National Assistance Board which can be of use to them in this situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1960; Vol. 618, c. 798–9.]
  A very sad result.
  "I weep for them," the Walrus said; "I deeply sympathise".
  That was all they got.
  This is not, as the Minister suggested, only a London problem. He then suggested that it affects only a small minority of cases. There are a quarter of a million decontrolled houses in the Metropolitan region alone, he tells us, but a small minority of a quarter of a million can still be a very large number of human beings and their families. Even if his argument that this is only

  845
  a small minority were true, what he has neglected is that at any one moment of time the number of cases may be limited, but the nature of the Rent Act is such that it can produce a series of problems and tragedies year after year as the agreements run out. Only a small minority of the three-year agreements made after the passing of the Rent Act have yet run out, and as the rest run out, more and more cases will be added to what the Minister calls a small minority.
  Next, the Minister suggested that people could escape the hardships and perils of the Rent Act by moving out of Central London. Moving out to where? To Putney, where they can be charged a rent seven times the gross value? To Ealing, where rents are being asked four or five times the gross value? This is not a problem affecting merely the fashionable districts of Central London. This is not a problem which people can escape by moving out to what used to be considered areas of more moderate rent.
  Next, the Minister suggested that the tenants could protect themselves by means of collective bargaining. I drew his attention to the case in Streatham where the chairman, the secretary and other people active in the Tenants' Association were the very ones who found themselves being given unconditional notices to quit? This is not an isolated example. The United Tenants' Association draws his attention to it. In our last debate he said that he did not regard that association as representative of tenants as a whole, but does he deny that in a very great number of cases landlords have refused to enter into collective bargains, and that they can do so quite easily, because when they are dealing with a number of tenants the degree of urgency of these tenants is not the same in every case. There are always bound to be some whose anxiety not to be turned out is so great that they are forced to come to terms and break up the strength of a collective organisation.
  Next, the Minister told us that the local authorities could help by means of compulsory purchase orders, but he knows very well that the local authorities here are the victims of a vicious spiral. The effect of the Rent Act has been to
  846
  put up the rents which can be charged for property. That puts up the market value of the property, which, in turn, puts up the price which the local authority would have to pay if it uses a compulsory purchase order, and this comes at a time when the Minister, by high interest rates and other means, has already made the financial problems of the local authorities serious enough. He is proposing here a remedy which, at the same time, he has made it impossible in a great many cases for the local authorities to apply.
  Finally, the Minister suggested that the solution would come by private house building to let and it was an interesting admission that there has been virtually no private house building to let since 1939. It was his claim that the Rent Act would bring more accommodation to rent on the market, so I put to him the question which he answered about 40 minutes ago: how much more accommodation has been made available to let as a result of the Rent Act? He made it clear in his Answer that he had not made any systematic examination of the facts, but his conclusion was based on nothing that could properly be called evidence. He offers us the advertisement columns of an evening paper.
  I have the thing here. There is not a piece of unfurnished accommodation in this page of advertisements at a rent of less than £4 a week. "Very reasonable rents", says the Minister. Are we to tell our constituents, even those earning the average wage, let alone the large numbers who are earning less, that they can solve their housing problem by going to live in Ealing, at £350 a year rent, or in places where they might possibly be able to get accommodation for £660 a year if they can find £200 for the furniture and fittings?
  In the whole of this page, there are only eight pieces of accommodation of any kind with rents of less than 70s. a week, and of those eight all are furnished and five are merely bed-sitting rooms. Are we to tell the family looking for somewhere reasonable to live that they can go into a bed-sitting room in Dulwich at £3 a week? It was a piece of impertinence for the Minister to produce that kind of evidence in answer to a serious problem.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Would my hon. Friend tell us whether that is the same newspaper as that from which the Minister quoted?
  Mr. Stewart: It is called the Evening Standard "Daily Home Finder". I daresay that it does find homes for some people, such as the friends of the Minister who cheered him when he gave that answer. The trouble is that it does not find homes for the great many who need them at very different rents from these. I note that the Annual Report of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, in an endeavour to say something kind about the Rent Act, is singularly silent on the question of how much unfurnished accommodation to let has come on the market at reasonable rents as a result of that Act.
  Meanwhile, the picture is not all gloom. There are some people who are doing tolerably well out of this. Look at the prices of shares in certain companies owning house property in London and elsewhere. In the case of Land Securities, the price of shares is three times what it was in 1958; in the case of Alliance, three and two-thirds times the 1958 price; and in the case of City Centre, four times the 1958 price. These increased prices of shares represent increased actual profits of the companies, and these actual profits are extracted from people like these tenants of decontrolled property in Sheffield with whom the Parliamentary Secretary was so sympathetic. That is how these companies get their income, and the Minister acts as their bailiff to secure it for them.
  Most of us will remember in our youth a game called "Happy Families", in which cards depicted such characters as Mr. Bun, the baker, and Mrs. Trim, the tailor's wife. In the game of "Unhappy Families", now played under the rules of the Rent Act in London and many other places, there is a new card which depicts the forbidding features of Mr. B, the bailiff's man.
  What is wanted immediately to deal with this problem? Inescapably, it is some form of reinstatement of control. The Minister is tormented with inner agony at the idea of reinstating even any kind of control in any form, but let us remind him that he has departed from his inflexible attitude before. The defeat of the Government candidate at North
  848
  Lewisham during the last Parliament resulted in the lengthening of the transition period for decontrolled houses while the Rent Act was still under discussion. The depressing result for the Government of municipal elections in the spring of 1958 resulted in the Landlord and Tenant Act, which took off in some instances the very sharpest edge of decontrol.
  Is it the position that the Minister is prepared to move in this matter only when he thinks that there might be some electoral advantage to his own party and that he is not prepared to be moved by the undoubted record of profiteering and hardship that we have laid before him very many times? We need a measure and the Minister can please himself about how moderate a measure he makes it. He might extend the 1958 Act to holders of three-year agreements. He might fix a multiple of the gross value as a new higher limit of control, and he can fix a fairly high multiple and still cut out many of the exorbitant rents that are being charged.
  We need, also, a greater measure of security of tenure for tenants entering into agreements for the first time. They will have imposed upon them—and I suspect that this will be true despite the pending legislation—increasing obligations for repairs. They ought to be given longer periods of security of tenure than the usual three years at most that they get in agreements at present.
  If there is any doubt about how serious is this matter we notice the testimony of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins), reported in the Press in the summer of this year, when he said that
  "Some landlords are already beginning to ask up to six and a half times the 1939 rent.…They are squeezing people and threatening them and we are not going to stand for it."
  I wonder who "we" means in that context. Does it mean some of the hon. Member's hon. Friends? Some of them wil stand for it quite cheerfully. This is the immediate problem, but we should recognise—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can my hon. Friend say from what newspaper he was quoting the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins)?
  Mr. Stewart: Not offhand, but I shall be glad to let my hon. Friend know.

  849
  More fundamental than this problem, serious as it is, is the general question of getting houses provided where they are needed and to meet the need of the people whose need is greatest. It is to that problem that I now want to turn.
  May I, on this point, save the Minister a little time? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has in his brief a passage about the number of houses built between 1945 and 1951 and the numbers built since then. We have that in every speech that he delivers on this subject and I am sometimes tempted to think that we might borrow a piece of American procedure and allow him to read it into the record without actually reciting it in the House all over again.
  If, however, the right hon. Gentleman feels that he must recite it, will he add that during the years 1945 to 1951 there was an immense amount of war damage to be cleared away, that the building industry had to be built up again from scratch, that the local authorities had to recruit all their administrative and technical staffs necessary for the purposes of building, in many cases also from scratch, and that the whole business of deciding where to build and clearing sites, and so on, had to be done from the very beginning? All this had to be done at a time when the country was faced with a desperate need to revive its industry and to make itself capable of living at all in the peacetime world. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to add that piece to his usual paragraphs, they are not worth the paper they are written on.
  Let us look at the need at present. Despite what we do not dispute is the very considerable total of building since the war, there is still a very desperate need for getting up to a higher rate than we now have and maintaining that rate over a considerable number of years, particularly because of the needs of the ill-housed. I shall not labour that point. There will be a great many of my hon. Friends from many parts of the country who can tell the House how many people there are, of all sorts and condtions, for whom life is "cabin'd, cribb'd, confin'd" by the simple fact that they have not enough room to live decently, let alone graciously.
  850
  Then there is the formidable problem of our growing population year after year adding to the demand for houses. There is the fact that a very considerable proportion of our houses, even despite the new building, are old, and many of them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East is repeatedly pointing out, lack the kind of amenities that we ought to regard as an essential part of all houses today. These will need to be replaced as far as can be. There is also the fact that as the standard of life rises and if it is accompanied, as it is likely to be under the present Government, with increasing inequality in incomes, the proportion of population who will own, and in a sense occupy, more houses than one will be increasing. If that is to happen, that is a further addition to the number that we need to build if everybody is to be decently housed.
  Last year, the total number of houses built in the United Kingdom was, in round figures, 280,000. I am probably right in saying that by the end of this year it will be about 300,000. It has been climbing up a bit in the last year or two after a drop before that. But, for reasons which I gave in the debate on 17th March, I believe that we need to think in terms of about 320,000 and that that is not a figure to be attained in occasional peaks but to be steadily maintained over a period of years. I believe that that is what the total reckoning of our housing needs for all purposes adds up to. We are not getting it at present, even with the fact that it is now fifteen years since the war ended and the present Government have held responsibility for nine out of those fifteen years.
  I find it impossible to agree with the recent words of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if he is correctly reported in the Observer of 30th October last, when he said that
  "A national housing shortage no longer exists."
  It is, I suppose, as the Americans would put it, merely a rumour put about by those who have nowhere adequate to live. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that what remained were "purely local problems." Let us be charitable to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] My hon. Friends ask why and I take it that it must be my natural good nature. I cannot think of any other reason.

  851
  If one wants to study the housing problem one must accept the fact that it strikes with a different impact in different parts of the country. We have to think in terms of the need to build in particular places and for particular groups of people. It may be just possible that that is what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster meant, but when a problem crops up in so many localities it is a misuse of language to say that it is not a national problem, even if the nature of the problem varies somewhat from one locality to another. If the Minister of Housing and Local Government or anyone else has any doubt about the number of localities where the problem crops up, let him listen to my hon. Friends during the course of this debate.
  I understand that the Home Secretary is to reply to the debate. He will have the advantage, as the Minister will not, of hearing what my hon. Friends say before he speaks. He will, therefore, be in no doubt as to the widespread nature of the housing shortage, and we trust that he will reply to what is said in the debate. Last night's debate was wound up by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and we all went home with his impassioned phrases ringing in our ears. It is an extraordinary way of treating the House for a Cabinet Minister, which is what the Secretary of State for Scotland is, to affect to reply to a debate by reading passages of continuous prose from a typescript which must have been prepared before the debate began. May I implore the Home Secretary not to use that technique, but to reply to what is said.
  I spoke of the fact that this problem varies in its impact and nature from one part of the country to another. There are two aspects which one could particularly pick out. First, the need to provide housing accommodation in the big cities is not being adequately met and, in so far as it is being met, that is overwhelmingly due to council building and not to private enterprise building. In those areas where often the need is most acute, local authority building has concentrated in recent years one-fifth of its whole housing effort, whereas private enterprise has put only about one-sixteenth of its whole effort into providing houses to meet the needs of the great overcrowded cities.
  852
  That is why we mention, in our Amendment, the need
  "to assist local authorities in providing homes."
  As the newspaper advertisements which I quoted show, it is not enough merely to say that more houses are being provided without inquiring where and for whom; and when we ask those questions the answer is that we need more council building to meet the overcrowding of some of our great cities and to provide houses for people of average income or average wage, or a little under that. I do not think that that is in dispute between the two sides of the House.
  Sir Eric Errington: What does the hon. Member mean by an average wage?
  Mr. Stewart: I believe that the average wage at present is said to be about £14 a week.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: This is a fundamental point. It is the average earnings which are £14 a week, and those who are earning as much as that are working at a great tempo of piece rate and overtime. The average wage is much less than the average earnings.
  Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. He is quite right; I should have said "average earnings".
  I do not want to overstate the case, but even if we take somebody into whose home is going £14 a week, private enterprise is not doing very much to provide him with the kind of accommodation which he ought to have at a rent which he can afford to pay. When we allow for the fact—and here I am grateful to my hon. Friend—that a great many people are not bringing home as much as that or, if they are, doing so only by working longer hours than is sociably desirable, and if we consider those who have incomes of £10 to £12, it is clear that private enterprise provides no answer to their housing problems. That was illustrated by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Lindsay) in the debate in March, when he spoke of the man bringing up a family on £12 a week. He said:
  "For people in such a position, nothing but a high rate of council house building can suffice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1960; Vol 619, c. 1551.]

  853
  That is a large part of the housing problem. What has happened? Council house building in the United Kingdom has fallen by one-third since 1955. In England and Wales it has fallen by 50 per cent. in the last seven years, at a time when our total need is still unsatisfied and when some of the need has to be solved by council house building. That is the record of the results of the Minister's policy.
  Why is there this low rate of council house building? We all know one answer. It is the fearful financial burden imposed on councils by high interest rates. We keep telling the Minister this, and I make no apology for telling him again.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: He knows it.
  Mr. Stewart: Let us put the figures in yet a different way. In 1951, the tender price for an average three-room council dwelling was £1,400. That was what one had to pay for the actual labour and materials which brought the dwelling into existence. By the time the money had been borrowed and repaid with interest over sixty years, one would have spent £3,000 in order to create that dwelling. That was the position in 1951—£1,400 as the tender price of the house and £3,000 the complete cost, with interest.
  In 1959, eight years later, the tender price had risen from £1,400 to £1,550, an increase of one-ninth, or about 11 per cent. But what the council had to pay by the time it had finished with the burden of interest was not the £3,000 which it had had to pay in 1951, but £6,400. The cost of the house in labour and materials had risen by about 11 per cent., and what the council had to pay to bring the house into existence had risen by more than twice. The Minister need not look further than that for an explanation of why council house building has declined.
  It is not only the person living in a council house, or the person who wishes to live there, who is hit by interest rates. It is also the person who is trying to become an owner-occupier. Let us take the person who borrows £2,000 for house purchase and proposes to repay it by equal monthly payments over a period of twenty-five years. If he embarked on
  854
  that in 1951 and was able to complete it for what he expected to have to pay when he first entered into an arrangement with a building society in 1951, the total amount of money which he would have paid for that £2,000 loan would be £3,225 over the years. A person entering into such business today will have to pay £3,825, or £600 more. If he negotiated his loan through a local authority, which could treat him a little more kindly in 1951 but not so kindly in 1959, the effect of the interest rate policy has been to increase the cost of the loan to him by £675.
  All round, then, the Government's policy hits almost everyone who is concerned with the housing problem. It hits the man who lives in a council house, because his local council, afflicted with rising interest rates and shrinking subsidies, is obliged to put up his rent. It hits the person who is waiting for a council house, because the ceaseless cutting down of council house building means that he must wait longer and longer before his need is satisfied.
  If, in despair, he decides to be the tenant of a private landlord, he is in the hands of the Rent Act, and I need not labour the position he is in then. If he decides to avoid tenancy and to become an owner-occupier he will find that the process of buying a house will take him longer and will cost more than he had reason to suppose would be the case when he first entered into the transaction. The Government have created a situation in which it is difficult to buy, and dangerous to rent.
  What do we need in this situation? I believe that part of the answer to that question was provided for us by a phrase once used by the late Aneurin Bevan, when he said:
  "I should like to see everyone owning his own house and nobody owning anybody else's."
  I think that Mr. Bevan would have agreed that that is not something which can literally be achieved for everybody. Many people either cannot, or for good reason do not wish to, buy a house of their own. It is none the less a good starting point of the argument that the power which somebody who owns somebody else's house can nowadays exercise over the tenant is not socially a good thing and that we ought, therefore, to

  855
  look first for the solution to increased help to owner-occupiers.
  That suggestion ought to appeal to the Government because of their continual references to a property-owning democracy, but the person trying to buy his own house does not receive much help from the Government. It has become a little easier for him to get a somewhat larger proportion of the cost of the house by way of a loan from the local authority, but he has received no help from the Government against the ceaseless effect of higher interest rates. That is one thing which needs to be done. The interest policy as it affects house purchase and council building ought to be reconsidered.
  The next thing to do is to reverse the policy which has cut down council building in the last eight years and see that more houses are provided of the kind, not perhaps that will be advertised in the evening papers, but which will be of some use to the people whose need for houses is the greatest.
  Thirdly, in our housing policy we need a recognition of the fact that if one owns somebody else's house one is under a considerable obligation to one's tenant and to society. That, to my mind, is one of the great evils of the Rent Act, apart from higher rents. Unless this is recognised, it will encourage the idea that one can treat the ownership of a house in the same way as one can treat the ownership of one's shoes, that it confers no social obligations, and that one can use the power of ownership exclusively to one's own advantage.
  Why we on this side of the House have advocated, and do advocate, a steady increase in municipal ownership is because we believe that if a man is not to own his house, if he is to be a tenant, it is a good thing for his landlord to be somebody whom he helps to choose, and whom he can change every so often at elections. I wonder how many private landlords would stand up to that test?
  I know that the Government will say that they have devoted special attention to slum clearance and flats for the elderly. It is true that they have special favour to the provision of housing for elderly people, and no one would regret that, but it is not satisfactory to hold
  856
  up these special achievements as an answer to the steady decline in council house building as a whole. It is as if the Minister tries to praise one achievement which has become more remarkable simply because what has been done in other spheres has become less and less.
  Now as to slum clearance. In Scotland, at the end of three years, only 60 per cent. of the slums which it had been resolved should be cleared in that period were cleared. In England, a target was set to be achieved in five years. At the end of five and a half years only 60 per cent. of that target had been achieved. We are not making the progress that we might make.
  Beyond these problems of the present and the near future, there lies the larger problem referred to in the last part of the Amendment, the high cost of land. Indeed, not only the cost of land, but the use of land.
  We know the position there. Under the 1947 Act, passed by the Labour Government, local authorities had powers which would have enabled them to deal with the proper planning and use of land. There was also provision in that Act to see that the rising value of land, which occurs wherever there is a growing population and a rising standard of life, flowed not into the pockets of private persons, but to the community as a whole.
  That was the position under that legislation. By a series of acts beginning in 1953 and ending in 1959 the Government have torn down that protection for the public, and have created a position in which the owner of land which is urgently needed for some public purpose can get what are in some cases fabulous and fantastic prices. I shall mention only a few examples because other hon. Members will have examples, and it is a story which we hear often.
  In each example that I shall give the land had to be bought by a public authority for an essential public purpose. Middlesex County Council wanted to buy some land in 1953. If it had been allowed to buy it then, it would have paid £2,000. It now has to pay £24,000, and nothing has been done in the interval to improve the land. No productive effort has been made to account for the twelve-fold increase which the

  857
  landlord will get. On a lesser scale, another piece of land wanted by that council for essential purposes has risen three times in value in the last two years. A piece of land in Camberley has risen eight limes in value since 1958. In Walsall, a piece of land increased its value ten-fold in the last three years. One finds examples like that in one region after another.
  It is not the unearned profiteering income which is the only, or perhaps the main, evil. It is the increasing difficulty which this is creating for local authorities in planning the proper use of our land, and here we come up against a problem not of this year, or even of this decade, but one which lies ahead of us for the rest of the century.
  It is estimated that during the next ten years, if our population and standard of life go on as we have reasonable grounds to suppose they will, about 50,000 square miles of land now not built on and undeveloped will have to be brought into urban use. That is not an intolerably large figure if one compares it with the total area of the country. It could be done. It could be turned to urban use for building houses, factories, garages, and the like. But, in the present absence of any policy over the price and use of land, what will happen? That development will take place mainly round what are already the great conurbations. It will not be evenly spread. That demand for 50,000 square miles of land will press in on limited parts of the country and enormously inflate the value of land in those areas.
  It is against that evil that the Minister has issued his Circular No. 37, but he must admit that it is a rather feeble thing. In essence it suggests that local authorities should consider making available a bit more land on their borders, and if they have a Green Belt round them they should jump over the Green Belt and make it, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition once said, a ditch between subtopias.
  Further than that, the Minister suggests that the local authorities should try to encourage industry to move, as well as people. That is quite an admirable sentiment, but does he realise what he is doing? He is really asking local authorities to take on a job that he ought to be doing by bringing more new
  858
  towns into existence. The only way of dealing properly with this growing urbanisation is to see that it does not all occur in the immediate vicinity of London, Birmingham, Hull, Manchester, Bristol, and so on, but to create new centres, new magnets of attraction, in order to spread the population more evenly. Local authorities have not the resources to do that. It means a vigorous new towns policy.
  When we last debated this matter I reproached the Minister with the fact that the Government then had only one new town to their credit. There are now projects for two more, or so we understand, but that is rather a small contribution in comparison with the dozen or so that the Labour Government brought into being. It shows a complete lack of awareness of how essential this is if land is to be properly used, if profiteering is to be avoided, and if we are not to have what one expert on the matter has described as a gradual concentration across the middle of the country until we have one huge city of "Lonbirm" joining the Midlands and the Metropolis together
  Therefore, what we want from the Minister in this sphere is, first, a recognition that profiteering by private owners of land should stop, and that the method of stopping it is increased public ownership of land. If he cannot swallow that, there should at least be some financial device to secure that the gains from the increasing value of land shall flow into the public purse. That could be done either by a tax on land sales, or by giving power to local authorities to rate site values.
  I know what the Minister will do. He will examine, in turn, every expedient to that end that is proposed to him, point out that each has its difficulties and, therefore, decide not to adopt any of them. At Question Time today we on this side were impressed with the number of things that the Minister was watching and considering. Has he ever realised that he ought to have a creative function as well as a critical one; that it is not sufficient for him merely to suggest reasons why remedies for social evils will not work? It is his job to try to provide the remedies, and the misuse of and profiteering in land is one of those evils.

  859
  What is also wanted is a more energetic new towns policy and the co-ordination of Government policy on three things—transport, the location of industry, and housing. We shall never get the thing right until those three are brought together. At present, they are handled by separate Government Departments with, so far as one can judge, only the most casual consultation between them. Our chage against the Government, starting from the immediate question of rents and going on to the larger problems connected with the use of our land, is that they show neither compassion for the difficulties of the present nor wisdom and forethought for the needs of the future.
  4.43 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): What we are discussing on this Amendment are the living conditions of 50 million people in this island of ours. A point which the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) omitted to make is that between 8 million and 9 million of those people are living in new houses and flats built since the Conservative Government came into power. One in every six of the whole population is enjoying a modern, up-to-date home built in the nine years of Conservative government.
  In addition to those 8 million or 9 million who have been provided with new homes in nine years, there are another 3 million or so living in houses and flats built during the six years of Socialist government between 1945 and 1951. The hon. Gentleman seemed not to wish quite to mention that, but it is relevant. Altogether, therefore, there are between 11 million and 12 million of our people living in homes built since the war, and by the end of next year—provided, of course, that Conservatives remain in charge of housing policy—we should be able to say that one in every four people throughout Britain has a post-war house.
  That is a colossal achievement, and a devastating answer to this churlish Amendment. I am not calling the hon. Member churlish—I know that he as sincerely concerned as I am about the housing needs of London, for we are both
  860
  London Members. I realise as well as he what a thankless task he is saddled with the moment anybody compares his party's housing record with ours. He is the person to be tormented with what he called the "inner agony".
  But he and I can, however, agree on the starting point. There is no longer a national housing shortage. Over a great part of the country housing needs have been largely met, thanks to the tremendous advance in the last nine years. Housing shortage is now a local or regional matter, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in an admirable speech the other day. My right hon. Friend was confirming what the hon. Member for Fulham said in our debate on 2nd May last. He then said:
  "It seemed to me, looking over the record of the debates, that these points in particular emerged. First, that although housing is a serious problem in many parts of the kingdom, it is becoming increasingly a regional problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1960; Vol. 622, c. 702.]
  Today's Amendment shows scant recognition of that fundamental fact and, in that respect, it is certainly out of touch with the realities of the situation—
  Mr. George Brown: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if it is a regional problem in all regions there is not much difference between a regional problem and a national problem?
  Mr. Brooke: It is not a regional problem in all regions. There is no doubt whatever that London is the chief problem area in England and Wales. We debated the London situation a fortnight ago.
  The terms of the Amendment call, as I read them, for a reimposition of rent control on the houses and flats that have been decontrolled. I must say that they contain no suggestion of how that is to be done without bringing back all the evils that every housing expert agrees rent control has inflicted on landlords and tenants and on the nation at large.
  Hon. Members: Nonsense.
  Mr. Brooke: What is the Opposition's suggestion in this Amendment? Is it security of tenure? The best way in which people can make certain of security of tenure is by buying a house of their own. Under Conservative

  861
  policies, I am proud to say that 160,000 houses a year are now being built for owner-occupation—
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt: The Minister is no doubt aware that one cannot get a loan from a building society unless one's income is above a certain amount. That puts out of court a large number of people who cannot possibly buy their own houses. How do we deal with that?
  Mr. Brooke: We can deal with that because, thanks to Conservative Government, people are getting steadily richer.
  The fact that 160,000 houses a year are now being built for owner-occupation means that half a million more people every year are gaining security of tenure. They are gaining it by their own efforts. They are gaining it by the Government encouraging them to do so, and not discouraging them as the Labour Party did by its dog-in-the-manger attitude to home ownership up to 1951.
  I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Fulham turning from a dog-in-the-manger attitude to a crocodile attitude; weeping crocodile tears for the owner-occupiers, and saying how hard it is for them and how much they need increased help from the Government. The fact is that owner-occupiers are increasing in number all the time, and the amounts advanced last year by building societies and local authorities on house purchases was an all-time record.
  What the Opposition now want, as I understand it—and certainly as I gathered from what the hon. Gentleman has said—is that people who are renting, and not buying their houses should, nevertheless, have all the advantages of home ownership in terms of security of tenure without its efforts and without its obligations. I must say that I can never follow the Socialist claim that a certain group of people—just that group who happen to be in occupation of rented accommodation in property belonging to someone else—should be deemed to enjoy a kind of moral right to live on in it as long as they like at a rent lower than the house or flat would command in the open market.
  Do not the people who want a flat and who have not been lucky enough up to
  862
  now to enjoy a rent-controlled one all these years deserve some consideration, too? Should there not be some equality of opportunity? Is it wholly right that retired people should all be enabled to live on near the centre of London at a cut rent, forcing the people who work in the centre of London and who would like to live nearer to their work, to travel a long distance to and from London each day?
  The other phrase in the Opposition Amendment refers to excessive rents. The Amendment calls for proposals to alleviate the hardships caused by excessive rents. There, the Amendment is three months too late. I sent out a circular in August in which I told local authorities that if they came across cases where people were liable to be made homeless through landlords demanding extortionate rents I would be prepared to entertain a compulsory purchase order. That has been known to the local authorities for three months. In that time, only six compulsory purchase orders have been submitted to me and, of those six, two have been withdrawn because landlords and tenants have come to terms.
  One of the boroughs where it is well known that rents have risen considerably is in my own constituency, Hampstead. Hampstead has a population of close on 100,000 people. It is often mentioned in the Press as one of the chief problem areas from the Rent Act point of view. In Hampstead, following the receipt of that circular of mine in August, the borough council made it its policy to investigate every complaint that an extortionate rent was being asked.
  The council, at its last meeting ten days ago, had before it a report from the appropriate committee saying that 55 complaints had been received from this borough of 100,000 population. The report went on to say that some of these complaints had turned out to be unsubstantiated, that others were still under investigation, and that only two cases so far, in the committee's view, merited consideration for compulsory purchase. The council proceeded to make a compulsory purchase order on one of those, a single house converted into flats. On the other, they took no action because, in the interval between the committee meeting and the council meeting, the landlord

  863
  had come forward with a new offer that seemed to everyone concerned to be reasonable.
  In the long run, of course, far the best way to get rid of these difficulties is by supply catching up with demand; by getting more houses built to let. That was one of the main objects of the Rent Act. It was blocked at the start by the Opposition threatening to municipalise all rented houses. Who would build simply to be municipalised? However, as time goes on and the danger of another Labour Government is obviously receding, I must say that I cherish the hope that, gradually and then increasingly, private builders and developers will once again start building to let.
  At last, then, we should get the total supply of houses to let enlarged, which is what we all want—or, at any rate, what we all should want. But if the Government were to follow the Opposition's advice and clap rent control back on the houses and flats that have been decontrolled, that would spell doom to all hopes of a resumption of private building to let. Far from dealing, as the Amendment says, with the
  "difficulties which now obstruct a solution of the housing problem,"
  it would simply create a new obstruction.
  The hon. Member for Fulham suggested at Question Time that the Rent Act has made no change for the better in the amount of accommodation coming on to the market to let unfurnished and he pursued that again, I think a little unwisely, in view of what he said in his speech just now. In reply, I gave certain figures. I am not taking those figures to prove that unfurnished flats in London are easy to get nowadays; they are not.
  What I am saying is that they are not impossible to get, that a great many more come into the market now than before the Rent Act was passed, and that there is good hope of there being more still, if only the House of Commons and the country make crystal clear that they are not going to stand for reimposition of rent control. That is not the right way to help people who are in difficulties: it is a quack remedy, more harmful than the disease.
  The people that we all ought to feel a deep concern to help are those who
  864
  genuinely cannot afford what is now a reasonable present-day rent for the house or flat they have been living in, and yet cannot easily move elsewhere. There are not a very great number of these cases, but there are some.
  They are quite different from the commoner case where a person says that the new rent is unreasonable simply because it has gone up to, let us say, three times what it was under rent control based on the 1939 rent, forgetting that yearly earnings in the London area generally are more than three times what they were before the war. I am not so concerned about that type of case, where the person can afford to pay today's market rent, though he dislikes the idea of having to because he has enjoyed the shelter of rent control for so long. I understand his feelings; we all do. But that is not the kind of case that enjoys the same degree of sympathy as that of the person who really cannot afford to pay.
  In some of these cases it is possible for the person to move elsewhere. I read in a newspaper the other day about a lady living alone in London in a largish flat, who had decided to join up with her sister in the country. The paper described her as "a victim of the Rent Act", as though the Rent Act caused nothing but suffering. I could not help thinking of the home that her vacant flat would provide for a family that really needed a home in London.
  In the circular that I issued in August I suggested some ways in which local authorities might be able to help those people who could not afford the new rent and who could not easily move. I am very grateful to local authorities, to voluntary bodies, like the citizens' advice bureaux, and to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the trouble that I know they have taken to find a solution in the really hard cases. One case after another has, in fact, been solved by this sort of individual attention and care.
  My concern is to make sure that these people get the advice and help they need, without going back on the purposes of the Rent Act and freezing the situation by restoring control. I know that there are some who say, "Could we not do something to smooth the transition to market rents or lessen the impact of

  865
  them, when the three-year agreements run out?" People who speak like that are not facing the fact that this would be to reimpose a control on flats and houses that have been decontrolled for the past three years.
  The Gracious Speech contains an important proposal, which I notice is not even mentioned in the Amendment, but which is designed to protect tenants and to further the objects of the Rent Act. It has come to knowledge that some landlords have been seeking to get tenants to sign a form of agreement which would put on to the tenant the whole responsibility not only for minor repairs but for major repairs to the roof, or the drains, or even the whole structure. An arrangement like that is quite reasonable in the case of a lease for a long term of years—it is common there, and it is taken account of in the rent—but it is totally unreasonable to try to shift on to a tenant, who has not the assurance of a long tenancy, the cost of doing major repairs or putting right serious defects which have perhaps accumulated through the long years of artificially low rents.
  In the ordinary case a tenant who is holding on a short-term tenancy ought not to be asked to take on that sort of responsibility. No responsible landlord who took an interest in his property would ever ask that. Not only would it be quite unfair for him to do so, but he would know that the repairs would not get done. If major repairs are not done, one of the purposes of the Rent Act is liable to be frustrated. One of its main aims was to stop the neglect and decay of property that resulted from rent control, which, to refer to the terms of the Amendment again, was one of the "difficulties" which obstructed a solution of the housing problem.
  Mr. Albert Evans: We welcome the Minister's new proposal to deal with the excessive demands of landlords to impose repairs conditions on their tenants. I think that the Minister will agree that his action will mean some reimposition of control in respect of the conditions under which property can be rented to tenants. Can he tell us how soon the tenants can expect this Measure to come on to the Statute Book?
  Mr. Brooke: I cannot say for certain when the Bill will be presented, but I can certainly say that there is nothing whatever in it which bears any relation to the reimposition of controls. What the Government intend to do is to legislate to make the landlord liable by statute for major repairs if the tenancy he grants is for less than a certain term. In a case like that any covenant that purports to bind the tenant to carry out major repairs would be void. We shall provide in the Bill for special situations that may arise, but its main purpose will be, as I have stated. This will be permanent and not temporary legislation. It will be by way of amendment of landlord and tenant law. It will be for the benefit of the property, and I believe that its general principle will have the support of all responsible property owners.
  Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: The Minister will be aware that since decontrol many tenants have had to pay very heavy expenses in respect of repairs which they have already done. Does the right hon. Gentleman propose that this relief will be retrospective since the period of decontrol?
  Mr. Brooke: I would ask the hon. Member to await the terms of the Bill, which, I hope, will be published before long.
  The Amendment goes on to refer to the high cost of land. In a debate on 18th July I indicated how the Government are handling that problem. The Government policies which I outlined in the course of my speech in that debate were embodied in Circular 37/60, which went to all local authorities on 25th August. That circular asked planning authorities to consider, if they were not doing so—as many were—whether more land needed to be allocated in their areas for housing and other development, and to submit their proposals to me in advance of the five-year review of their development plans if they thought fit to do so.
  The green belts must be held, and I sense that hon. Members on both sides of the House are firmly behind the Government in that. But I pointed out in the Circular that the restriction imposed by a green belt must be matched by

  867
  making sure that enough land is available for development elsewhere: by seeing that there is no waste of land in the built-up area that is, so to speak, contained by the green belts, and that if necessary more land is allocated for building beyond the green belt—but allocated in the right places, and not as a sprawl, and in such a way as to avoid good agricultural land wherever possible.
  The hon. Member for Fulham referred to an unfortunate and—I thought—ill-informed reference in a speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in this connection. He seemed so unfamiliar with planning policies and practice as to imagine that if we permitted land on the other side of the green belts to be developed it would be bound to involve building anywhere. He appeared to be quite unaware that any planning permissions will be given so as to make sure that the development is compact. But if we have green belts round certain cities it is necessary, in some cases, to make provision for some additional building land on the other sides of the green belts, in certain places.
  In the circular I also asked the urban authorities to do certain things—to encourage the conversion of large properties into flats; to encourage the redevelopment of the older, low-density areas at higher densities; to review their general standards of density in reviewing their development plans, and also to do all they can to prevent waste of land. A problem arises here in the high price of land. The whole nation is better off than it was a few years ago, thanks to Conservative Government. One obvious result is that more and more people want to buy and can afford to buy a house of their own—usually a house with a garage and a little more space round it than they had before. That increases the demand for land.
  So do the new roads, and the new factories and power stations, all of which are a sign of the growing wealth of the nation. Then there is the rise of 200,000 a year in the population, a fact to which the hon. Member for Fulham referred. Still more rapidly rising is the number of separate households, for which I reckon we need between 80,000 and
  868
  100,000 new houses every year. We live on an island which we cannot enlarge except by reclaiming waste land. The Government are determined to preserve the beauty of the countryside and not to allow building everywhere, so the price of land is inevitably rising in those places where it is most sought after.
  My responsibility, and the responsibility of the planning authorities, is to see that no unnecessary rise in price takes place through an artificial shortage of land being created anywhere by unnecessary restrictions. Discussions are going on between my Ministry and the planning authorities to make sure that problems like that are everywhere properly tackled. We are also holding conferences with the authorities on a regional basis, so that policy is properly worked out and fitted together over a larger area wherever that is necessary.
  One of the matters that has to be thoroughly studied and considered at discussions and conferences with all concerned is the need for land for what is called overspill. At present, as the hon. Member said, 12 new towns are being built in England and Wales, and there will be room to accommodate well over 100,000 more people in them before their development is completed. Over and above that, town development schemes are in operation or quite clearly in prospect which will provide homes for a further 160,000 people in expanding towns outside the big cities. That figure of 160,000 does not include the three town development schemes in Hampshire, which, I understand, are coming before the London County Council this very afternoon and which are estimated to provide for another 50,000 people.
  Then, since our debate on the subject in July, I have told the Northumberland County Council of my intention to approve a large area for housing at North Killingworth, which could house 17,000 Tynesiders. Tyneside is another area which has an overspill problem. I have also announced plans for a Government new town, primarily for Liverpool, at Skelmersdale, in Lancashire, for which we have in mind a population of about 80,000. I am consulting the local authorities about this at the present time.
  Mr. Tom Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Skelmersdale

  869
  happens to be in my constituency? Does he know that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction among the farming fraternity at the prospect of this new town taking away valuable agricultural land? Will he be ultra-cautious about taking away agricultural land when other land nearby can be used for the purposes of extending the town?
  Mr. Brooke: I am glad to see the hon. Member in his place, because I realise that my reference to Skelmersdale closely affects his constituency. The present stage is that I am consulting the local authorities. Before any land is acquired there will have to be public notices made in due course, and people will have the opportunity to submit their representations and objections. Without doubt, a public inquiry is likely to be necessary. That will be the time for all these representations to be made. I can assure the hon. Member that I will most carefully take into account everything that is said by all sides at that public inquiry when it takes place.
  What the hon. Member has said illustrates most vividly the difficulty by which any Government is faced in settling this question of meeting the housing needs of the population in a small island. Some people say, "Why not solve all overspill needs of the big towns by putting up numbers of new towns?" The hon. Gentleman has, however, quite rightly perceived that it is not so easy to find a site for a new town to which no objections at all can be levelled.
  I believe that in principle, Skelmersdale, which has been under designation for some time, has its merits as a site. I hope that it will be possible to go ahead with it, but we shall have to consider very carefully the perimeter of the designated area in order to be sure that we interfere as little as possible with legitimate other interests.
  Mr. T. Brown: In view of the fact that the town of Skelmersdale—a very ancient town—is surrounded by one or two green belts, if the right hon. Gentleman agrees to revise the green belt system it may help in extending the town.
  Mr. Brooke: All these matters had better be gone into in great detail at the inquiry and when decisions are made. The hon. Gentleman is right to ventilate
  870
  them here, but I am sure that he would wish me to listen to what everybody has to say on this.
  I am also making enquiries to see whether a suitable site can be found for another Government new town for the benefit of Birmingham and the West Midlands. We are looking at Dawley, in Shropshire. It would be a great thing if we could plan a new, modern, twentieth century town on a site scarred by legacies of derelict ugliness from the nineteenth century, and, indeed, the Industrial Revolution. With this rising demand for land, more people ought to be thinking about practical ways of reclaiming derelict land everywhere.
  Mr. Wiliam Yates: In the Wrekin division we would welcome my right hon. Friend's new town and consider it to be a good use of this land by his Ministry for a proper purpose.
  Mr. Brooke: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Every other investigation should be made before any further announcement, but I appreciate the provisional welcome which he has given to a new town at Dawley.
  All these schemes which I have described—completion of the 12 existing new towns, fresh new towns and town development schemes—will provide new houses for close on half a million people from the big cities. So, the terms of the Amendment, insinuating that not enough is being done to provide homes, seem strangely fanciful and false. In the first nine months of 1960, the number of houses completed in England and Wales was 19,000 more than in the same period of 1959; council houses were 5,000 up, and private enterprise houses 14,000 up.
  Taking Britain as a whole, we have built in the first three-quarters of 1960 more houses than the Labour Government of 1945–1951 ever built in a whole year. No, I am wrong. There was one exception, the year 1948. We did not quite equal in nine months of 1960 what the Labour Government did in twelve months in 1948. It took us nine and a half months. If we do not pass the 300,000 figure again by the end of December, it will be due to the weather and the rain, but I think that we shall
  Of course, we are all out for a high figure again next year, for there were

  871
  287,000 houses under construction at the end of September, which was 17,000 more than at the same time a year ago. What nonsense that makes of the Amendment. This is an odd moment for the Opposition to seek to criticise the Government on housing. One is inclined to look for ulterior reasons why they passed over other contentious issues and decided on housing—and one has no need to look far. They move to censure us for building 50 per cent. more houses than they did.
  The hon. Member for Fulham stressed, rightly, the need for building up stocks in local authorities and for dealing with urgent war damage repairs, but he failed to explain why the Government of which he was a member built 30,000 fewer houses in 1951 than they were able to do in 1948. If the Opposition argue that not so many of our houses are council houses, are they really pretending that the rest do not count? If they feel like that, let them go and ask the people who live in them—the tens of thousands who have gained the chance to fulfil their ambition and buy a house of their own, thanks to the Conservative Government.
  As people get better off, and as the percentage who need a subsidy on their rent gets smaller and smaller, obviously the need for council building should gradually shrink. When the day comes when the whole country is really well housed, there may be little need for council building. But that time is a long way ahead. Meanwhile, every new house counts towards creating better housing conditions, just as every slum house that comes down is a matter for joy.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said on Tuesday that his party would want to criticise slow progress on slum clearance in the debate on the Address. Since then someone has evidently told him the facts, for slum clearance is not mentioned in the Amendment. No wonder, for we are steadily closing or pulling down more than 1,000 slum houses every week—about 60,000 a year—and in two or three years' time over a large part of this country there should not be one slum house left.
  There is, however, a huge task of slum clearance still ahead for the big cities
  872
  like Birmingham and Liverpool and Manchester—anyone can see that from the train as he goes into Manchester—and for the older towns of the Industrial Revolution in south Lancashire, the West Riding, and on Tyneside and elsewhere. As slum clearance elsewhere gets finished, in towns like these I want to see it speeded up.
  Slum clearance, building for old people, and improvement of conditions in houses occupied by more than one family or let in lodgings—these should be the first priorities for council action now, along with overspill action. We may need a strengthening of the law to deal with houses in multi-occupation, and I told a deputation from the Kensington Borough Council the other day that I was thinking about that. I have also been getting the views of my Central Housing Advisory Committee on it. Actual living conditions in these large multi-occupied houses can be worse than in some of the small slum houses which we are pulling down.
  The hon. Member for Fulham spoke generously of Government building generally for old people—
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves this matter of multi-occupied houses, will he say whether there is a possibility of legislation going through this Session?
  Mr. Brooke: I could not say that. I think that what I have said to the House will have indicated to the hon. Gentleman that I am anxious to find a strong instrument for dealing with this problem. It is not easy, and those who have listened to conferences on the subject will recognise that there are differences of opinion. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not going to go asleep on it.
  I deliberately disclosed to the House today my concern about it. I was grateful for the way in which the House received my statement, for often the living conditions in these multi-occupied houses are worse than in some of the small slum houses which are technically unfit, but in which there may be a family living who are thoroughly house-proud and work wonderfully to keep their inadequate house looked after.
  As to building for old people, it is going on better and better, but I want to see it always better still. I want the

  873
  new town development corporations and also the expanding towns to see whether they can make more provision for old people in their plans. The proportion of total council housebuilding of the kind suitable for old people has quadrupled—it has gone up from 7 to 28 per cent.—but I would like to see it over 30 per cent.
  I have asked all local authorities to study our latest suggestions in a booklet called More Flatlets for Old People which we published from the Ministry a few weeks ago. I shall be delighted to send a copy of that booklet to any hon. Member who is interested and will let me know. The ideas in it are specially suited for small towns and villages and for restricted sites. We published an earlier booklet a couple of years ago designed for the larger towns.
  Do not let us ever forget that out of our 50 million population about 7 million are over pension age, and the number is going up all the time. If I have done nothing else as Housing Minister, I have ceaselessly sought to keep before housing authorities the importance of meeting the needs of the old.
  There is one other section of our people of whom I would speak—the 9 or 10 million who are living in older houses which will last for years, but which so badly need modernising. I am not speaking of the slums which need to come down, but of the soundly built houses that were put up before the time when a hot water system and a fixed bath was normal in every house built.
  The 1949 Act which was designed to get these houses modernised by means of improvement grants was a failure. It only got 10,000 houses modernised in five years. The 1954 Act, which amended the 1949 scheme, was a success. It brought the number of improved houses up from a mere handful to some 35,000 a year. But that was still not enough. So, exercising the creative function which the hon. Member for Fulham alleged that we lack, we devised the new idea of standard grants and put through the House Purchase and Housing Act of 1959. Immediately, the number of applications for grants shot ahead.
  The number of houses approved for grant in 1959 was up from 35,000 to
  874
  80,000, and in 1960 it looks like reaching 135,000. So the new Act has quadrupled the rate of progress already. I am pleased with 135,000 houses a year to be modernised, but I am not satisfied; I want to see it reach 200,000, and then 250,000.
  We are doing all we can with publicity for the standard grants and improvement grants and conversion grants, but if hon. Members can stimulate more applications from their constituencies, or can suggest how we can publicise the scheme still more, I shall be grateful to them. One can appreciate what those numbers mean in terms of human happiness when one has seen a mother who, at last, has got a proper bath with hot water from the tap in which to bath the children instead of a tin bath on the floor with water from a kettle.
  Never in history has so much been going forward on every front to improve housing conditions and to solve the housing problem. And yet this is the moment which the Opposition choose to censure us. There is still so much to be done. Would not the Opposition be better employed in joining with us to make these successful policies even more successful than in challenging a record of achievement that with their strange theories they could never touch?
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I have listened with surprise to the greater part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He has said that there is now no national housing shortage. In my own experience, as I go about the country, I find no social evil today so serious as the continued over-crowding of our people. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has taken the view that this is largely a problem of London. Does he really say that it does not exist in all the large centres of our population—Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow and behind the beauties of Princes Street in the closes of Edinburgh?
  Mr. H. Brooke: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I was saying that the rent situation which we discussed a fortnight ago was very largely a question of London. I entirely agree with him that there are serious housing problems in all the big cities.
  Mr. Brockway: But I took down the words of the right hon. Gentleman. It was a part of his speech where he had dealt with rents and had gone on to the wider problems, and the phrase which he used—I am a shorthand writer—was that there was no national housing shortage. It is that statement which I am challenging today. Anybody who lives in any great centre of population would just be amazed by the complacency of that statement.
  In all our great centres the need for accommodation is causing more unhappiness, a greater strain upon nerves, and more family conflicts than any other issue at this time. If there had not been a case for the Amendment which the Opposition have put down, the complacency of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman would have justified every sentence of it.
  I want particularly to approach the question of the effects of the Rent Act. When we discussed the Greater London situation a few days ago, the right hon. Gentleman indicated—no, I think it was in reply to a Question which I put to him—that he had only communicated with the authorities in the Greater London area suggesting that they might make the threat of compulsory purchase because there had not been complaints from other parts of the country and he, apparently, was unaware of the situation elsewhere.
  I wish to pay my tribute to the London Members of Parliament who have so vigorously raised this question, but I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he thinks that the effects of the Rent Act have not seriously affected other parts of the country then the information which his Department is receiving is very inadequate indeed.
  May I illustrate this from my own constituency, Slough? That town—and one expresses it with gratification—is, I suppose, one of the most prosperous areas in the whole of the United Kingdom at the present time. Yesterday the figures at our employment exchange showed that there were over 1,000 vacancies. There are five vacant jobs for every person needing a job. That is in great contrast with other Parts of the country and with the conditions as I found them in Scotland last weekend. The geographically unbalanced economy of our country
  876
  is a problem to which the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends ought to be devoting their attention.
  The effect of prosperity in Slough has been that workers have wished to pour into the town from a great area around it, but we have no houses in which we can possibly accommodate them. When my friend Aneurin Bevan was Minister of Housing, he described Slough as the third most serious town for housing in the whole country. It is much worse now. Because there is this pressure upon the town, due to prosperity, the rents of the available houses are rocketing sky-high.
  I have had information of between 400 and 500 cases in Slough where, as a result of the Rent Act and the termination of the three-year agreements, there have been steep increases in rent. I have an envelope full of letters from those who have complained. I propose to read one only to the House. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not an exceptional letter. My correspondent says:
  "I am writing to say my rent was increased 100 per cent. on August 1st when my three-years agreement ended. I have lived in this flat twenty-one years and in 1939 my rent, including rates, was 22s. 6d. a week.
  I am an old-age pensioner, aged 73 years, and I have worked hard to save for my old age. Now my savings have to go pay this terrible increase in rent. The landlord has told me to go to National Assistance to get the extra rent paid by them, but because I saved instead of wasting my money I have a little over £600, so cannot draw Assistance. Why should I put my hard earned saving in this landlord's pocket because he wants 100 per cent. more from me?"
  I doubt whether there is one hon. Member who has not been receiving such letters from constituents during recent weeks.
  There is an aspect of the question which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention. There was, perhaps, a relationship between the individual landlord and his tenant in the old days. That could become a human relationship. It could develop into a relationship where a particular hardship of the tenant would appeal to the sympathy of the landlord. But the letter I have read illustrates what we are now experiencing in Slough. Individual landlordism is becoming a thing of the past. The majority of privately owned and rented houses in Slough are probably not owned

  877
  by individual landlords today, but by large companies. They are owned by absentee house-owning companies who have their headquarters outside Slough. The relationship between landlord and tenant, which used to be a personal one, has now disappeared. These companies have just become profit and dividend-seeking companies, as one finds through the whole sphere of industry today.
  When the right hon. Gentleman was speaking I gained the impression that in his view this was a narrow and local problem. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying that all that a tenant experiencing particular hardship had to do was to go to his landlord and beg him to meet his needs. That can be done sometimes, but when housing becomes—I was going to say "industrialised", when it is no longer a human relationship between landlord and tenant—
  Mr. E. Shinwell: Commercialised.
  Mr. Brockway: When, as my right hon. Friend says, it becomes commercialised, great companies being involved, it is impossible to deal with the problem on the personal basis about which the Minister spoke.
  I turn now to the wider issue. The right hon. Gentleman has made the task of local authorities in housing almost impossible—first, by withdrawing subsidies, secondly, by making it so costly, through high Bank Rate and interest charges, to obtain loans, and, thirdly, by the effect of the increased cost of land, which the higher rents for houses has so much influenced. It is now almost impossible for local authorities to deal with the problem of housing.
  In one sense, the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded. The difficulties and failures of local authorities are due to his policy. Very often, however, the people who suffer from the effects of his policy turn their indignation against local councillors. The right hon. Gentleman's failure has been cushioned and pillowed by members of local authorities who are fighting against terrible difficulties to meet the needs of local inhabitants. They have had to suffer from the indignation which should have been directed against the right hon. Gentleman.
  878
  The main point I desired to make was that this is not only a Greater London problem.
  Perhaps I may illustrate from my own experience—this is a confession which may surprise the House a little—the effects of the Rent Act in increasing the value of property in London. The Rent Act must have put millions of pounds into the packets of property owners.
  A year before the Rent Act was passed I became a landlord. I occupied one of two maisonettes in a large house. The landlord offered the house to his tenants for £1,500. The other tenants did not wish to buy the house. It seemed to us to be a reasonable sum, so we bought it. We had to spend £1,000 on putting it into repair, making a total of £2,500.
  The Rent Act was introduced. During the passage of the Bill I voted against every Clause of it and opposed and denounced it. I did not feel, therefore, that I could take advantage of it just because I had become a landlord and had a tenant in the maisonette above. I suggested to him that we should follow the policy which the Labour Party had proposed in the case of decontrolled houses, of asking a rent tribunal what was a fair rent.
  We wrote to the chairman of the rent tribunal and he said, "Of course I have no authority"—as I realised—"but, as you have opposed the Rent Act, perhaps you will be satisfied with the increase which is allowed to controlled houses". And so we were. Then I found that the owners of the similar maisonettes in the street were able to obtain rents from their tenants of twice the amount we got in that way. Yet with that lower rent, we were able to meet all the costs of the establishment. It was an adequate rent to do the repairs and maintenance and everything else. The other landlords in the street, who under the Rent Act had so highly increased their rents, must have been making vast profits as a result of the Rent Act.
  That is not the end of the story. The point came when we wanted to live in smaller accommodation and wanted to sell the house. We communicated with estate agents and we were just amazed. The house which had cost us £1,500 and £1,000 to put into a good condition five years ago, the estate agents said could

  879
  be sold for £5,750. Just like that. And in three days we got it. Just like that.
  Again my conscience was troubled as to whether I had benefited by the Rent Act, which I had so vigorously opposed, but, when I went to seek a smaller house, I found that the cost had gone up just as much. A smaller house which we bought, smaller than the one maisonette of the two-maisonette building, cost £4,500, and by the time we have put it right it will cost £5,000. We have just been able to pay off our mortgage.
  The point I want to make is that this story illustrates that as a result of the Rent Act, for which the right hon. Gentleman and the Government are responsible, the landowning and property classes of this country must have had millions of pounds put into their pockets through the increased value of property. [An HON. MEMBER: "A racket."] It is a racket. The right hon. Gentleman talked about how pleased he is because a house is modernised and a woman now has a bath instead of having a bowl. We are all pleased when that happens, but that is nothing compared with the struggle and suffering which hundreds of thousands have had to undergo as a result of the introduction of the Rent Act. Most of those people have suffered so that the property owners may have greater riches than they ever possessed before. This is typical of a Conservative Government and it justifies this Amendment.
  5.44 p.m.
  Mr. W. F. Deedes: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) may have greater problems arising from the Rent Act than some of us. I therefore quite understand his wish to make the bulk of his speech on that subject, but I think it perhaps a good thing that most of the speeches we have had in this debate so far have gone a little beyond that particular issue.
  I only wish I felt that establishing justice between landlord and tenant would in itself solve the tremendous other problems which lie ahead in the housing field. I do not belittle the landlord issue, but, just as I have disagreed with some of my hon. and right hon. Friends who think that rent control is
  880
  the Gordian knot of housing policy, so I must disagree with some hon. Members opposite who see nothing bigger in housing than the Rent Act. I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his persistent attempts to keep this particular difficulty in perspective in relation to the rest of the housing problem.
  What we are increasingly up against here, surely is the problem of demography, where people want to be, where they have to be and why. That is a point which the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who opened the debate for the Opposition, touched upon. I confess that it rarely happens in this House, but I was disappointed that his speech was not longer than it was because I thought he was getting on to an interesting point and was going to develop this particular theme. Perhaps I may be allowed to develop some of the unspoken passages for him. I am quite sure that getting this right goes to the heart of the housing problem and will have a fundamental bearing on the problem of for sale or to let for the next ten years or so.
  One talks loosely of "housing policy", but I must say, without any disrespect to my right hon. Friend, that I find it very difficult as things are to say that we have a housing policy. Housing seems less governed by policy than by the product of gigantic pressures far less within the control of Her Majesty's Government than some of us like to think. There are pressures between the cities and conurbations, which are desperate for space, and country areas which are defending their land like tigers. There is the pressure of industry, which in reality holds the whip hand more than most people recognise. It is not so much directed as persuaded by the Board of Trade to go to certain areas and against this are those who must work out the social consequences in the provision of housing there.
  There are pressures within the Ministry to give local authorities the autonomy which is their statutory right and wider national considerations. There is pressure between what needs doing and the resources available. I noted what the Parliamentary Secretary had to say, I think yesterday, on the subject of the resources available and the progress of the improvements scheme. There are

  881
  pressures between commercial demands and domestic needs. A point which the hon. Member for Fulham only touched upon is the pressure exerted by perhaps the most rapidly expanding social influence of our time, the motor car. That emphatically enters into this field.
  There is also the pressure between the aspiring home owner and forces which sometimes contrive to make that an arduous and expensive adventure. In parenthesis, although some of my hon. Friends may not agree with me, I hope that we shall consider very carefully the next step in home ownership. Statistically, there can be no doubt that in the past it has been successful and has still great potential success. It has many virtues and I think most of us have extolled them. I do not accept entirely that it is a case of "the more the merrier". I think there remains, and always will remain, a proportion for whom public arrangements are the better alternative. What gives me some reservations on this subject is the large proportion of home owners, new and aspiring, whose wives must become wage earners.
  Such reservations are held in some minds to represent "a fuddy-duddy doctrine", but I remain uneasy. I think that this will lead to some problems. In particular there is the problem of the young wife who goes to work at the same time as she may be having children. The results on family life might shift certain problems from the Ministry of Housing one door down Whitehall to the Home Office, which is next door. This policy needs watching to see that we do not reach a stage when home ownership exercises a social compulsion which tempts certain families to overreach themselves.
  However, this remains one of the pressures. It is one of the factors which govern where our homes are to be built. Weighing up these conflicting pressures, I think the most remarkable thing is that we have done so well as we have.
  What alarms me is the clear signs that some of these pressures, and in particular the newest of them, are becoming very much stronger, and unless we are careful they may threaten to overwhelm us. I have no doubt, for example, which is winning in Central London between
  882
  commercial demand and domestic needs. I am one of those who regret the fact that fewer and fewer people live as residents anywhere near the centre of London, because I think that the problem of cities with decaying hearts, or without hearts at all, may be partially attributed to the fact that nobody lives but everybody wants to work there. Indeed, I understand that we have reached a point in Central London at which it is virtually impossible to build any form of domestic blocks at an economic rent. The price is such that it cannot be done. This is one of the troubles with which my right hon. Friend is confronted.
  This problem of cities without hearts, which means cities without people in them except during the working day, is a problem which we must not allow to slide, without seeing whether there is something else we can do about it. I think, too, that we need a more realistic appraisal than we have yet had of the probable course of our housing needs over the next ten years. Given that, I think that it would be easier to do what, with respect to my right hon. Friend, we have never done—to lay down the course which we should like to see him follow on the broadest lines.
  For some years, some of us—and I include myself—have been handicapped by the belief that the end of the housing problem, if it is not in sight, ought to be in sight. But this is a chimera, a complete illusion. According to the best information which I have been able to lay my hands on, we are likely to want housing at an average rate of 200,000 a year for 20 years. That includes slum clearance, but it represents, in sum, between now and 1980, about 25 per cent. of our present stock.
  What kind of a pattern are we aiming at? I find it very difficult to envisage, and I am bound to say that I think that many other people do, too. I do not think that any Government, short of dictatorial powers, which would be intolerable, can decree that pattern; and no one, least of all myself, is suggesting that they should. But I think that a Government can, and perhaps should, give a much clearer indication of the broad lines which they would like to see it follow. We tend to be governed here—and this is partly due to the statutory relationship between my right hon.

  883
  Friend and the local authorities, which we all appreciate—by a series of somewhat negative and occasionaly conflicting edicts which together do not provide a very coherent or creative picture.
  "We must hold the Green Belt; we shall clear the slums"—as indeed, we are doing most successfully; "we shall encourage overspill; we shall build up but we must also build out; we shall push new industry into areas where low employment can absorb it"—which is another department; "we shall avoid sprawl; we shall encourage home ownership; we must build homes for the old—and I emphatically agree that that is one of the major problems ahead of us. All these form a quite unexceptionable doctrine, but I question whether it forms an adequate picture to guide, still less to inspire, those who will have the responsibility during the next decade or so of building the 4 million houses which we must have.
  Of course, this is no longer a self-contained housing problem. Perhaps one of our worst errors is to imagine that it is. This is a point on which I hoped that the hon. Member for Fulham, who is no longer here, would develop his remarks. It is profoundly affected, as we all know, by industry. It will be increasingly and mercilessly affected by the motor car.
  I do not want to digress here on the ordeal which I think lies ahead of the Minister of Transport, save to say, which is not irrelevant to this theme, that I believe that we are approaching a real crisis in which we either resolve to discipline the motor car in a manner which is unthinkable at present to the motorist or resign ourselves to chaos This will be a major political decision.
  I will not develop that theme at the moment, but in this context it has another significance. The motor car is producing an entirely new race of commuters. The pattern of life which London and the Home Counties and certain other big cities have known since the end of the First World War is now being reproduced in countless towns and villages throughout England. People are living in the village and going to the nearest town to work—an admirable thing, if one can manage it.
  884
  It is clear to me that a surprisingly high proportion of the new houses which are to be built will be built in rural England, in what its protectors call "virgin countryside". I do not think that much longer all of our so-called affluent society will be content to live in urban compression, as so many of them have since the first Industrial Revolution. Many will have to be so content, but some will not, and I think that we may be on the threshold of a tremendous social explosion—and it is a social force which will not be contained by the Town and Country Planning Acts.
  I calculate that possibly the rural district councils will have to build about 75,000 to 100,000 houses a year. That will surprise a good many of them. Some of these will belong to the new race of commuters but some will be the second houses of those who occupy the central urban areas—the country cottage, which may not be within the reach of every man but which will shortly be within the reach of many more. In my view the caravan is a social progression which thinly disguises that fact.
  Mr. A. Evans: The hon. Member said that in his opinion the rural district councils would have to build 100,000 houses a year. Does he mean that these councils will have to build them or that they will be built in the rural districts?
  Mr. Deedes: The hon. Member is quite right to take me up on that point. What I meant was that the countryside would take an increasing share of those houses, not necessarily built by the councils but built in the areas of the rural district councils. I am grateful to the hon. Member.
  The point which I want to stress is that it is very difficult to provide and prepare for this task through the agency of the Ministry of Housing alone, because so many factors affect it which lie outside the Ministry's orbit. I have no idea how these things are done, and no one will tell me, but it seems most desirable that something in the nature of a Cabinet sub-committee, comprising housing, transport, labour and the Board of Trade, which are the four principal agencies involved here, should be in existence to keep this under constant surveillance. To expect my right hon. Friend from now on to be able to hold these various reins

  885
  in his hands is to expect too much. There is no time for commissions or inquiries: we have had enough of them. This is now upon us, and I think that such a sub-committee—for all I know it may exist—and that type of machinery of government would be a help.
  I do not say that it should be either directed or totally planned; that is impossible and undesirable. But I think that those who are to be responsible for this building over the next ten years ought to have clearer and more intelligent principles laid before them, and a consortium of Ministers, which is how the building industry sets about the biggest projects, is one way of bringing that about.
  I think that these physical developments, which include not only housing, which we are rehearsing today, but power, transport and industry, are increasingly difficult to separate and will bear very much, and increasingly, upon the standard of living in real terms. More and more, where a man lives, the kind of journey which he has to make between his work and home and back again, his environment and surroundings, will add to or subtract from his pleasure in life. It will be given a rising value.
  Environment and neighbourhood, of which this is only part of the problem, will become a big social factor, and I do not think that at the moment we are giving here the lead which we should. It is my experience—and I warn my hon. Friends that I think it will soon become theirs—that a new mood is arising in this country in relation to environment, surroundings, amenities and so on. I think that we have to go a little way to meet it.
  I most warmly welcome the Minister's reintroduction of a competition for housing design and siting—the reintroduction of the housing medals which I think some hon. Members will recall. That is a small step but it is a step in the right direction.
  In that sense I think perhaps it was unfortunate that the sole reference to amenities in the Gracious Speech was to the proposal—no doubt excellent in itself—to build a whopping underground car park in Hyde Park. The stricken appearance of our parks in London already demonstrates the price of pro-
  886
  gress, and aparently that agony is to be prolonged. But elsewhere, and more generally, there are clear signs—thank heaven for it—that people are showing signs of being more selective.
  A few weeks ago I attended a meeting for the formation of a Weald of Kent Society. When I got to the meeting, which was in a small village hall, I found that there were 250 people inside and 100 trying to get in. There was no film star present or election for office of any sort going on. It was purely the magnetic appeal of a society which was going to look after amenities. This was outside any of my electoral experience and I mention it because I believe that it is quite likely to happen in the constituencies of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and probably in those of hon. Members opposite.
  I am not myself an ardent preservationist. I am simply a strong believer in trying to get this development, building and housing development, afoot and ahead on terms with our surroundings both in the towns and in the country. That really is an integral part of our standard of life. The standard of life of a city typist is not doubled if she takes twice as long to travel between her home in Essex and Liverpool Street Station every day, and in the company of twice as many people in the train compartment. Her standard of life has been halved. What surrounds a man, what he sees from his upstairs window, is as much a part of his wealth as his wages, but it is a currency which is being sadly depreciated, as many hon. Members are aware.
  Today the prevailing threat to the affluent society is a new kind of poverty, poverty of outlook, and I for one am quite ready to start a revolution against it. I shall not abuse the Town and Country Planning Acts and I am quite ready to admit that without them we should be worse off than we are now. But they were designed for a situation which has changed a great deal in the last fifty years. Although we have altered some of the economic Sections in the Acts, we have done a great deal less about their relationship to planning, and it is futile to regard them as the ultimate safeguard against poverty of outlook.

  887
  Something more positive is needed, and I hope it is possible that all the Ministers concerned—not only housing, transport, trade and power but health as well, and education and the Services—will give more weight to this and allow the countless decisions they make to be weighed by it. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary who I understand, is to wind up this debate, talked once of doubling our standard of life in twenty-five years, and that is a hope which I am sure we all share. But it is no use talking about doubling our standard of life in terms of pension, output, productivity and the rest, if the means to that end destroy something which a great many people care about. We have been through all that once and we are still repairing it.
  It seems to me, particularly in terms of housing, that what we build, the shape of the communities and the shape that the houses take on can be either a symbol of mediocrity or part of that inspiration for which so many people are now groping. If as a result of our stewardship it appears that for most people life has grown noisier, uglier, more exhausting and less comfortable it will go hard with us. More people are coming round to thinking on those lines. But that is not the only test. What shape we make of this will be, as always, one of the tests of a civilised people.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. Albert Evans: Everyone will agree that we have just listened to a very thoughtful and valuable speech by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), although, possibly, there are one or two hon. Members opposite who will not agree with everything that he has said. But in his speech on these collated problems the hon. Gentleman has given us a vision of how we should be thinking of the future. I regret that such vision and farsightedness was not apparent in the speech of the Minister responsible for housing. We need something of the passion, fervour and desire to re-create our amenities displayed by the hon. Member for Ashford to be displayed by the Minister for Housing and Local Government, but, in my opinion, we shall not get that while the present Minister remains in office.
  888
  I wish to refer to a matter not mentioned in the Gracious Speech, the appalling overcrowding which exists in certain districts in London and in most of our great cities and towns. These pockets of overcrowding are a blot on our society. The problem is known to the Home Secretary and the lack of a solution helps to fill the prisons. It is certainly known to priests and social workers. To some extent it may be known to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, although I shall have something to say in a moment about his lack of information on the subject.
  I wish to quote an extreme example of the kind of sore or breeding ground of disease and degradation, lawlessness and crime which I have in mind. Not far from this Palace—I represent a London constituency and so I shall deal mainly with the situation in London, although the same kind of thing may be found in most of the great cities—there is a terrace of 16 houses in which there are 140 separate lettings. The population of those houses in estimated at over 300. That is probably an under-estimate of the number of people in those 16 houses. As with the normal run, there are no baths and anything from ten to twenty people use the one toilet.
  That is an extreme case, but dotted about the older parts of the Metropolis and the older parts of most of our great cities are to be found these pockets of overcrowding which cause considerable problems for the authorities, for the police, for social workers and for all the other people who have to go near them or pass through them. Pockets of overcrowding pepper our urban centres and their conditions are appalling. They are often centres of crime, prostitutes, strong arm men, dope pedlars, layabouts, criminals—all those are the kinds of people to be found in these centres of overcrowding, mainly as the result of inadequate housing or force of circumstances bringing them together.
  Such places are breeding grounds for the increasing prison population. Incidentally, I suppose that they attract certain weak types and they gather together all the undesirables in an area. It seems that they are beyond the police and that the police cannot grapple with the crimes and nuisances which arise in these areas, although I think that the

  889
  police could do more than they now do to mitigate some of the conditions.
  What I want to know from the Minister is the position of overcrowding in London and the great towns. Is overcrowding growing? Is it being dealt with? Is it diminishing? It is not possible to get any figures, or make any close estimate, because the Ministry has no information about overcrowding. I gather that the Minister has not taken the trouble to gather any estimate of the amount of overcrowding in, say, the Metropolitan area, Glasgow, or Manchester. However, from my own observations I would say that it was tending to increase in the older Metropolitan areas.
  Today, for the first time in my hearing—and I generally listen to what he says—the Minister touched on the problem of the older houses occupied by several families, the tenement houses. I raised this problem three years ago, in November, 1957, when the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government told me:
  "There can be no doubt whatever that in these localities there is an enormous amount of overcrowding … but the difficulty of local authorities and the reason they are not overzealous in … enforcing these provisions"—
  that is, the provisions of housing legislation dealing with overcrowding—
  "is that they know full well that if they do so a certain result will follow and they are not in a position to provide alternative accommodation for the people liable to be displaced."
  He also said:
  "… I would straight away assure hon. Members that everything that has been said in the discussion will be most carefully studied by my right hon. Friend."
  That was the present Minister of Housing and Local Government. He went on:
  "It certainly is our intention to look in a very thorough way at the whole problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1957; Vol. 578, c. 771–4.]
  Three years ago we were told that the Minister would carefully study the problem of overcrowding and the social sores which it creates.
  However, time went on and nothing was done and we heard nothing from the right hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that he gave another thought to the
  890
  problem. In June, 1959, the right hon. Gentleman himself, speaking about this matter, said:
  "The main housing problem in London, as I conceive it—and I have been a London Member for a good many years—is overcrowding."
  That was his policy in June, 1959. He went on:
  "Here we are up against the grave difficulty of enforcing the measures that are on the Statute Book against overcrowding. The reason is, of course, that if there is not enough room for everybody, and one tries to eliminate overcrowding in one house, one may only be creating it in another …. We must all give very serious thought to how we can tackle, as soon as we can, the problem of overcrowding in London, because it is this, I believe, which is at the root of the housing problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1954; Vol. 607, c. 1521–3.]
  Then, as far as my information goes, no attempt was made to deal with centres of overcrowding. Nothing was done to tackle this problem vigorously. We waited for the Government to act after their promises in 1957 and 1959, but no action was taken.
  In April this year the present Parliamentary Secretary told the House:
  "Whilst I agree overcrowding is a very serious, and, in individual cases, even a tragic situation, I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that my right hon. Friend has the solution of this very much in his mind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1960; Vol. 622, c. 180.]
  Time after time in the last three years the Minister has assured the House and the country that he would tackle this admittedly difficult and sore problem of pockets of overcrowding, and the degradation and crime which go with them, but nothing has been done.
  A week ago, I put down a Question to the right hon. Gentleman asking him what estimate his Ministry had made of overcrowding in London. He replied:
  "I have not asked local authorities in London to make an up-to-date report to me on overcrowding since the war, because their most urgent task in recent years has been to get on with slum clearance and redevelopment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October. 1960; Vol. 627, c. 240.]
  Therefore, despite all the Ministerial assurances that the matter was to be tackled, the Minister has not even taken the first elementary step of getting information So that he could see the size of the problem. He does not and cannot know the extent of the problem.

  891
  He cannot know whether the position is getting worse or better, and yet we have had an assurance that he intends to tackle it.
  I ask the Minister to see what he can do to make a vigorous onslaught on localities where there is excessive and dangerous overcrowding. I am sure that the Home Secretary, with his problems of over-full prisons, will give the right hon. Gentleman all the help he can, if the right hon. Gentleman will vigorously try to tackle these localities
  I suggest that he first gets the information from local authorities of the estimated extent of overcrowding, certainly in the Metropolitan area and possibly in other big towns. This need not be such a big job after all. We can use all kinds of measures when we really want to do a job and perhaps we could get some of the publicity firms to comb these areas so that as soon as possible we could see the extent of overcrowding in some of the worst districts of London and the other great towns. I suggest that when that is done the right hon. Gentleman will have the necessary basic information to enable a drive to be made in these localities, to break them up and to sweep them away. If he does that, he will be fulfilling the promises that he has given to the House over the years. He will be ridding us of the worst core of our housing problem and will save the country a lot of money.
  6.21 p.m.
  Sir Eric Errington: With much of what the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) said about these overcrowded pockets one is bound to agree, particularly because one realises that very often those pockets of accommodation are in what I call the decaying rings of our big cities, and, some time or another, it is obvious that it will be essential for those decaying rings to become available for modern housing. I believe the two things might well go together.
  The importance of this debate is the hope that as a result of it more and better accommodation will be made available. The programmes of slum clearance, of providing old people's flats and building new towns, are going ahead well, but I
  892
  am not satisfied that that in itself is sufficient. I believe that in some way we must get private enterprise to come into this activity of building houses to let. I believe that it can be done and that we are nearly in a position to get it done.
  It is, of course, essential to provide economic rents so that an adequate return can be obtained by those investing in house building. I recollect that in Liverpool before the war the speculative builder did a considerable job, and one wonders where the people in Liverpool would have been but for the activities of the much miscalled speculative builder. He provided accommodation at reasonable prices for those who required it. It is important to give the private enterprise builder every opportunity when he is in the position to take it.
  In many cases, of course, the price of land operates against the private builder, but, as I have said, we have nearly reached the position when the rental charged would be economic and proper. I know of some property in Liverpool which has to come down and which could be replaced by houses which, in total, would cost about £1,200 each. That would enable the developer to charge a rent of between two guineas and £2 5s. per week for those houses. The property happens to be owned by a private company with which I am connected. The local authority, however, has made a compulsory purchase order and it has proved impossible for the local authority to allow the private developer—that is our small company—to develop the property and make it available to tenants at the sort of rent that I have indicated.
  Some encouragement must be given to those who are prepared to come into this admittedly difficult market. I do not think the encouragement need always necessarily be financial. Local authorities could help by providing facilities to rehouse those who are dispossessed by the knocking down of outdated houses, as a sort of bridging operation.
  Another matter to which consideration aught to be given is that in this day and age when a house has ceased to be regarded merely as four walls and a roof but is fully fitted and expensive from a maintenance point of view, it ought to be possible to grant some allowance by way of investment or depreciation such

  893
  as is permitted in the cases of industrial plant, shipping and so on. The up-to-date house has many of the elements of a wasting asset.
  I should like to make a few remarks on the provision of better accommodation. I am glad to say that the use of improvement grants has increased considerably, but it is largely confined to owner-occupiers. It will, of course, be appreciated that owner-occupiers may be prepared to spend money on improving their own houses without requiring a return on an investment basis, and the problem that faces my right hon. Friend in the case of rented property and improvement grants is considerable. Many things mitigate against the rented property owner taking advantage of improvement grants, and it is important that some effort should be made to see whether these problems can be overcome. It would be valuable if a larger number of owners of rented property took advantage of the principle of the improvement grant with which I think everybody in this House must agree. One of the difficulties is the possible excess assessment on the improved house when the improvement grant has been used, and the effect of that may be to increase substantially the tax paid. That is something which the investor, the property owner, must consider carefully.
  Secondly, he must consider the cost of additional capital. Much has been said about the cost of money today. It is, of course, high. Fortunately, the Bank Rate is now down, but when I made some inquiries the other day I was surprised to find that even for the purchase of owner-occupied houses the building societies had closed their books for something like a month ahead. Money is not easily available. Some local authorities are prepared to find it, but others are not.
  The third factor I wish to mention is the amount of time taken by the owner in preparing plans and obtaining authority from the local council. To anyone who has not had to do it, this may seem quite a small matter. But the preparation of plans is quite expensive. There is the difficulty of having adequate staff to do what is not normally the job of the property owner, and in many cases—in this I speak with knowledge from my own experience—there is substantial
  894
  delay due to inquiries, some of which are necessary but some of which are not, by the local authority.
  While on the subject of local authorities, I must say that it is a great pity, if the improvement grants system is to be made to work, that local authorities, generally speaking, will not do two things. First, they will not supply a list of unfit houses which are, therefore, right out of question in the matter of improvement grants. Secondly, they will not guarantee non-inclusion in clearance areas within fifteen years, which, as the House knows, is the minimum period in this context.
  Mr. A. Evans: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the local authority refuses to give to the owners lists of unfit houses. Do I deduce from that that the owners do not know when their houses are unfit?
  Sir E. Errington: In many towns that is the fact. In one big city I have in mind there is a general programme put forward covering, say, 50,000 houses, but no one can find out which are the 50,000 houses which are unfit. The difficulty is that no one really knows whether or not a house he wants to improve will come into a particular programme, and he does not know, if he does improve the house, whether he will be allowed to have it for fifteen years.
  Another factor which creates difficulty for the person who would seek to use the grant is that in many cases tenants will not agree to have improvements done. I think that it is very rare that this is simply naughtiness, as it were; it comes from a genuine wish not to be disturbed There is the problem of not having enough accommodation if, for instance, a back bedroom is turned into a bathroom, as everyone would wish to do except the people who happen to have a family there with one or more members of it occupying the back room. Nobody is to blame for this, but it is a factor militating against the improvement grant system.
  I come now to a factor of considerable importance, that is to say, the 8 per cent. which is allowed on that portion of the improvement which is not within the grant. This is really inadequate for the purpose which the owner of the house would have in mind. He has to face

  895
  the payment of tax. He must face increased maintenance at a cost which is increased by reason of the improvement. He wants some form of repayment and amortisation of capital by way of redeeming it within the fifteen years or such longer life as there may be. In some cases—the House may be surprised to know this—even voids have to be provided against. All this really rules out any question of profit to the owner.
  I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should consider the possibility of increasing the amount payable in respect of the owner's expenditure from 8 per cent. to about 12 per cent. Then, I believe, there would be little difficulty in finding owners who, in spite of the problems I have indicated, would wish to improve their properties and take advantage of the grants. I am interested to discover that there is some indication that two large corporations feel that some-think more than 8 per cent. would be appropriate. The housing committee of Leeds Corporation on 20th October indicated that it thought that some further remuneration should be given in these cases in order that the work should proceed. As long ago as 1956, representatives of the health committee of Birmingham Corporation met together and discussed the matter. They agreed, subject to confirmation, that something on these lines should be pressed upon the Minister.
  It seems to me that, if we really wish to solve this difficult problem, the only way to do it is to use every available house in the best way we can. I am an out-and-out supporter of the improvement grants, but I think that the Minister now has one arm tied behind his back because he is unable to give a remuneration which will reasonably, and only reasonably, encourage those who are the owners of very large numbers of houses to make those houses more satisfactory and better to live in.
  6.39 p.m.
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) began by expressing the hope, which, I am sure, is shared by hon. Members on both sides, that there should be more units of accommodation, but I could not follow him when he suggested that the only way of
  896
  doing this was to pin our faith to private enterprise to secure those additional units of accommodation. He left out of consideration the fact that the building industry is an entity which concerns itself with more than just houses. The building industry builds blocks of offices, schools, hotels and cinemas. It even takes over theatres, pulls them down and then puts up another building with the theatre in the basement and a block of offices above. Therefore, it seemed to me that, if he was pinning his faith on a greater financial incentive by making the rents more economic, he was ignoring these other considerations.
  I share with the hon. Gentleman the desire that there should be a greater extension of people taking advantage of improvements, especially in areas like my own constituency. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman said that incentives other than financial incentives should be given, but when he came to his final remarks the main incentive which he gave was a rise from 8 per cent. to about 12 per cent. I should be most interested to explore these other incentives a little more, because I share the desire that these problems should be solved.
  I was interested in the thoughtful contribution of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). To me, this was a ray of hope for hon. and right hon. Members opposite. It showed a breadth of vision and some understanding and a grasp of the subject which I was very pleased to hear at that stage, because I was still boiling a little at the very complacent address of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister. I should like to reply to the hon. Gentleman's question whether the present policy inspires. I would say that the present policy does not inspire, and I agree with him that it results a good deal from conflicting pressures rather than from any conscious attempt to plan effectively. I very much welcomed the hon. Gentleman's support for the idea that one should try to get an overall picture of the problem and then plan intelligently rather than leave it to these various pressures.
  The Minister gave us very much the mixture as before. Over a period of months, I have come to the conclusion that it is not only buildings which are made of reinforced concrete. The right hon. Gentleman also is absolutely inflexible and rigid, and it does not matter how

  897
  much information we give to him about the problem we get the same dusty answers time and time again. Today, he pointed out the number of houses which had been built. By all means, I think that he has a right to be proud of the number which have been built, but I suggest that the number in the Greater London area would have been vastly greater if those huge blocks of offices had not been built. They only create a further problem for the Minister of Transport and people coming into the centre of London who have to commute. I charge the Minister with absolute callousness to this problem of pockets of acute housing distress, which he has recognised.
  The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear in the last two debates we have had on this subject that he is aware of the human problems which exist in the black spots. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) that these black spots are not confined to London but cover a wider area. The argument Which the right hon. Gentleman continually brings forward—I think that this is the third time that I have heard it in the House—is that, in view of the overall position and the overall record, he cannot do anything for these black spots other than what is contained in Circular 45/60, with which I hope to deal in a moment. It is like saying in matters of health that, because 99 per cent. of the people are sighted, what can one do about the 1 per cent. who are blind? Or because most children are not spastics, enormous percentages and figures are produced to show that the majority of children are healthier than they have ever been. That does not alter the responsibility of the Minister to deal with the pockets where there is real hardship and real unhappiness because of his housing policy.
  The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary know that we have been conducting a fruitless correspondence for several months. I suppose that it is now said of me in the Ministry, "Here comes the second, or third, letter of the hon. Member for Willesden, West this week. They come pouring in." However, I have received very courteous replies, and in one case—I am extremely grateful for this—I was even able to get some help from the advice which the Minister gave
  898
  me. After we had had quite a long correspondence, he advised me to go to the Association of Land and Property Owners. A little pressure was brought to bear and in this one case, and one only, out of the many which I have referred to the right hon. Gentleman some understanding was arrived at between landlord and tenant.
  One of the themes constantly running through the right hon. Gentleman's letters to me is, "Have you tried to get landlord and tenant together?" I informed the right hon. Gentleman that I had. Only last week I went to see a landlord and received the reply, "Will you please address your remarks to my solicitor?" It is a case of vacant possession or nothing. I have referred some of these cases to the Minister. In one case recently a house was taken over and the new landlord was interested in only one thing. The house is decontrolled and he wants a vacant possession because he wants to sell it again and with vacant possession it gives an enhanced profit.
  The reason why my right hon. and hon. Friends have tabled this Amendment is, I suggest, that the right hon. Gentleman seems entirely to ignore the fact that we are not only talking of central London. We are not talking of the amenities of Park Lane or Mayfair. I hope that the House will forgive me if I constantly refer to my own constituency, but it is a typical case. We do not enjoy Shaftesbury Avenue in Willesden. We are an industrial area with a large factory population who wish to live close to where they work. London Transport has two large garages in the area. The Kariba Dam equipment is built in my constituency. We have a proud record of enormous and successful industrial activity. Even the Guinness concern had the good sense to be situated in my constituency, and some of the 5 million glasses of Guinness which, apparently, are drunk daily emerge from my constituency.
  These people inevitably either have to make long journeys or to live in Willesden, which creates intolerable pressure on the housing situation. I should not need to reiterate this because I have invited the Minister often enough to cross the Edgware Road away from the heights of Hampstead and the problems of his Hampstead constituents and to take one Friday night—that is all

  899
  I ask—just one of my constituency advice bureaux. I do not want him to address a meeting but merely to hear the heartbreaks for himself, and, if he would be kind enough to do so, to advise me what I can do to help these people.
  I should like to turn to the problem of land, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). I have taken the trouble to look at some of the figures paid by my local authority. I have examples of prices of £2,375 and £3,588 per acre ten years ago. This year, there are figures of £11,611, £9,167 and £22,647 per acre, but I must qualify the last figure because it includes a very large sum for compensation for leasehold interest over a period of years. But this is a vast increase which, in any building, whether it be done by private enterprise or local authorities, places an excessive burden on the person who ultimately pays it, whether it is a council tenant, the tenant of a private landlord or an owner-occupier.
  I suggest that it is ime that the Minister stopped watching the position and tried to take some action. One of the things for which we were hoping in the Gracious Speech was that the right hon. Gentleman would put forward some positive proposals to deal with what has become a speculative racket. In spite of my urgent criticism of him as being absolutely adament, inflexible and ungetatable in this problem, I must say how much it was appreciated that in the middle of his holiday he came back to listen to us but how disappointed we were that we got absolutely nothing from him and remained precisely where we were before he came back from his holiday.
  At that meeting, the Minister said that he was concerned about the problem of intimidation. Since that time, I have referred three such cases to him. They are the classic kind of case in a constituency like mine, where 55 per cent. of the accommodation is shared. I was pleased that in his speech this afternoon the Minister referred to the number of people who live under one roof and indicated that he was watching the misery taking place in large multi-occupied houses, presumably with a view to action.
  900
  In that kind of situation, I could quote case after case where, because of the extreme housing shortage, a person has had to buy a house. He cannot get any other accommodation and he may be one of the 10,000 applicants on our waiting list. All other sources have failed and people are forced by hook or by crook to buy a house. They go to an estate agent, who explains that he has no completely vacant houses but can offer a house in which there is a controlled tenant, either downstairs or upstairs, the remainder being vacant. The cost of the house might be £2,600, but a controlled tenant is in part-occupation. The economic pressure on the new purchaser to get the tenant out is terrific, because he knows very well that if he can get rid of his tenant, with the large coloured population who cannot find housing to let in the area he can probably let each separate room for the price he is getting now for the complete apartment.
  Fortunately, we have a marvellous organisation, the Willesden International Friendship Committee, which deals with this problem as it affects the coloured population. I have quoted cases to the Minister, and I suggest to him that during a time of acute shortage it is impossible to deal with them unless he takes specific action concerning intimidation. To take a case to the courts, as frequently happens, for both sides to be bound over to keep the peace, does not solve the economic pressure which causes this problem. The result is that when we send a team of two, a Jamaican and, perhaps, somebody from Willesden, to try to bring the two parties together, perhaps there has already been a summons for assualt and the case has been before the court and we have to try to heal the breach. The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) serves on the committee with me. We have both done our time at this kind of thing in going round to people and trying to clear up these problems. Our problem is always that we are too late. If only we could have got in before the friction started, we might have been able to restore harmony.
  I cannot absolve the Ministry from responsibility. It surely must be able to do something to meet not just the odd case, not simply the three cases which I have referred to the Minister, but case after case. I could give the Minister

  901
  details of as many cases as he cares to suggest—twenty-five or fifty, for example. I am quite prepared to give him chapter and verse, but I selected three typical cases as being sufficient. To meet these problems, action from the Ministry is necessary; it cannot be permanently solved at local level.
  During his speech this afternoon, the Minister deployed the argument that, in the face of the terrific housing shortage and the building up of pressure, he had taken effective action with Circular 45/60. That circular contains eight paragraphs. Seven are buckets of whitewash, whilst its last paragraph gives the local authorities information which they already possess. The sting of the circular is in the tail, but it is a very little sting for a huge problem.
  I should like to quote from "Civic Review", published by my council, the view of a local authority concerning the circular. It states:
  "It gives the council no powers which it has not already got and is not already using to the capacity of its resources to deal with housing needs. Commitments in the building and purchase of properties in the existing housing and redevelopment programme and reaccommodating 70 of the worst cases already produced by the Rent Act have stretched financial and physical resources to such a degree that it is not possible for them to embark upon large-scale purchase of properties whose values are being grossly inflated by the very Rent Act which gives rise to the circular."
  I apologise for the long quotation, but it puts the case in fewer words than I could do.
  We have the urgent slum clearance programme, but, in addition, in Willesden we have already spent something like £120,000 to purchase forty-nine units of accommodation to deal with Rent Act evictions. Thirty-one families are under court orders. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the statement made by Judge Leon in open court last week, when he asked people who were coming with eviction orders to see their Member of Parliament because he was inundated with the problem of eviction and he wanted advice about what to do. I sent to Judge Leon copies of HANSARD for the last two housing debates in which it was made clear that Members on both sides had brought the problem of evictions to the Minister's notice. I hope, however, that as a result of that
  902
  appeal in open court, the Ministry can find time to give Judge Leon some further advice on what he should do as a judge in trying to perform his duties in extremely difficult circumstances.
  I should like the Minister's advice on the question of using the compulsory purchase order procedure. When I wrote to the Minister, he pointed out that he could not advise on specific cases because, in the ultimate, when the matter came to appeal he would be the person who had to decide between the two parties. I have details of the case of a block of forty-eight flats in which all the tenancies expire within the next twelve months. Three have already expired and the owners have been able to secure tenants for them at rents of five or six times the gross value which, in my view, is exorbitant. Does this mean that if the compulsory purchase order procedure is used the district valuer must accept the exorbitant level of rent which can be obtained for the three units of accommodation and must base the figure for the whole building on those three flats? If so, the fact that three have been let at an exorbitant rent will govern the price of the remaining forty-five. If so, the weapon of Circular 45/60 means absolutely nothing to the landlord, because he will get his money. Whether it is from the local authority or from another speculator is not important, because he will still get a highly inflated price.
  What I should have liked to have seen in the Gracious Speech, in addition to the one crumb of comfort that the Minister has given us concerning repairs, was constructive proposals that would enable the right hon. Gentleman to take special and drastic action for these black spots and black areas and which would suggest measures to ensure that the problem was being tackled as effectively as various Acts of Parliament have tried to tackle the problem of pockets of persistent unemployment in a period when there is usually full employment. I should have liked to have seen the inspiration mentioned by the hon. Member for Ashford showing its form in direct and positive encouragement for housing associations, in which people might jointly get together to act mutually and to control their own destinies rather more than they do now.

  903
  I was grateful for the slight encouragement given by the Minister in reply to my Question on 25th October, when he pointed out that facilities for housing associations could be given, but this is not enough.
  My area is fortunate in having two experimental places of that kind. One of them is Addy's Lawn, which has received national coverage in the Press, although one of the papers which gave it a good write-up is no longer in existence. I cannot put the blame for that on to Addy's Lawn—other events took care of the News Chronicle. We have two of these experimental places, Addy's Lawn and Rutland Park, whereby the tenants join together to own and control their own co-operative society, which is their own apartments where they live. The local authority advances up to 95 per cent. of the mortgage under the arrangement put forward by the housing association.
  Why is it not possible for the Minister of Housing to issue a circular to local authorities drawing attention to Sections 119, 120, 121 and 124 of the 1957 Housing Act and urging them to expand this field of help, which is a little bit off the beaten track, between the three categories which we usually get and which could give to a community a large sense of purpose if it felt that it had a series of these organic developments of housing of the people, owning and participating in the management and control of their own accommodation? Why cannot the Minister look at the possibility of making building societies act as promoters of co-operatives? He has given the building societies carte blanche to go ahead with the lending programme over the past few years, so why does he not say that as a quid pro quo he expects them to go in for promotional activity to show how people can do this kind of thing, in the same way as the housing associations in Stockholm and elsewhere in Scandinavia have done such a marvellous job for their communities? It is interesting to note that in Norway and Sweden 20 per cent. of the housing is co-operatively owned and controlled. They have expanded this system of mutually-owned accommodation.
  If the exhortations of the Minister to the local authorities do not produce the goods, if his exhortations to the building
  904
  societies do not in this instance bring them on to the side of the angels, perhaps he will have a little more inspiration to find other ways to assist this development. I am saying this in a constructive sense, because I believe there is no great difference of principle between two sides of the House on this matter. It is a question of the amount of emphasis and the amount of strength each side gives to it.
  I return to the question of security of tenure, which was brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham. I would ask the Minister once more to look, in addition to those arguments which have been deployed, at where there is a real social need for the type of exchange I have mentioned, the moving from upstairs to downstairs, the personal conflicts which may develop, and all the human problems of the kind in which citizens advice bureaux can do so much. For instance, there may be a person with coronary thrombosis or angina living upstairs and it is necessary for his health that he should move downstairs but cannot do so because the moment he does so his rent will be trebled, the rent in his upstairs home being that of a controlled tenancy.
  I referred one or two cases of this kind to the Minister and he pointed out that there was a possibility that this could be done, but he was careful in the last paragraph to say that before this was undertaken he would strongly advise the persons concerned to take legal advice. I want the Minister to have a real understanding of the position of these people I am talking about tonight. They are not the kind of people who have a solicitor, and it scares them stiff to think that they must get legal advice. Let us have it made explicitly clear by the Minister so that there can be no misunderstanding by any person, that if for health or social reasons it becomes vitally important for a tenant to change his home, he can do so without having in consequence the gross imposition of increased rent.
  I appeal once more to the Minister that he should have a special look at the negotiations which have gone on for a new town for Middlesex. It seems as though in this matter the buck is passed between the Ministry and the county council and from the county council back to the Ministry. Something further

  905
  needs to be done to cut through the knot and to get some action taken. I will not go over the case, because the right hon. Gentleman knows it only too well. He mentioned the London County Council. I can assure him that in Middlesex we are just as hard pushed, and we, too, require urgent action to be taken.
  The point has been made, and I will only just emphasise it, that special consideration should be given to young couples trying to buy their own homes. Both sides of the House share, I think, in appreciating the need to do something special in this respect. I wrote a long letter of two pages to the Minister and he replied to me in one of similar length, saying he could not interference with the financial position of the country to give cheap money to young couples trying to buy houses, young couples just starting out on their married life. I suggest that the Minister should bring his influence to bear on his colleagues in the Cabinet to have a look at this problem as a matter of national policy, that the constant fluctuations in interest rates play ducks and drakes with the paying off of mortgages and make it impossible for young people starting out on married life to do so with any feeling of security.
  In my area, if I may refer to it again, in 1955 to 1956 with a comparatively low Bank Rate there were 217 applications for loans by young couples starting to buy their own homes, and that involved £250,000. When we had a 7 per cent. Bank Rate in 1957 and 1958 that became only six loans, with a total of £1,318 only. This has an important bearing on the development of a property-owning democracy. There is not likely to be a great deal of increase in it when a couple have to spend an ultimate £6,500 for what should have been £2,000.
  I have been speaking very much on a constituency basis, and I need not really apologise to the House for that, for a I am pleading for the people I know. These people bring me their troubles on Friday nights, or take to the town hall. Our housing manager has 9,000 interviews a year to deal with in cases of this kind. Ours is a multi-racial community. All that my people ask is that they have enough living space to live in peace with their neighbours, a roof over their heads under which to build the family life they want, and, perhaps, a small garden where
  906
  the children can play safely. Let the Government take drastic steps to provide these elementary rights. If not, let them get out.
  7.6 p.m.
  Mr. Victor Goodhew: I am sure that the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) will not expect me to answer the many points he raised in his speech. He seemed to me to direct questions to my right hon. Friend. Suffice it to say that I have great sympathy with him in some of the rather special social problems he mentioned arising out of shared accommodation in Willesden, having done rather similar work in north Paddington myself. I hope he may think that the rather special point I want to put has a direct bearing on the overall housing position.
  I am, like my right hon. Friend, somewhat surprised at the party opposite moving this Amendment tonight, and I cannot help wondering if this is another manifestation of the masochistic tendencies they seem to have developed of late, because, after all, though they may feel they can speak with a united voice on this subject, they must surely recognise that they are really liable to be shot at for their own abysmal failure on this very subject of housing. When I talk about their abysmal failure I am not just referring to their failure to build houses when they had the chance, though, goodness knows, that was bad enough, nor am I referring to their failure, through want of political courage, to tackle rent control. I am also referring to the failure of their party today to help to improve the overall housing position where indeed they have the power to do so, and I refer, of course, to the local authorities of which they have control up and down the country.
  A fact which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite constantly refuse to face is that the rent policy of the local housing authorities has a very direct bearing on the amount of accommodation which is available to the lower income groups. So long as we have the privileged class of people who are enjoying subsidised accommodation regardless of their means, those people are certainly not going to vacate that accommodation to go into the open market to buy or rent another house. So, whilst the Government have succeeded in restoring a good

  907
  deal of mobility into housing by means of decontrol, we are prevented from further progress by the refusal of certain local authorities to adopt some form of rent rebate or differential rent scheme.
  Mr. W. Yates: Stick-in-the-muds.
  Mr. Michael Cliffe: How exactly is this going to create more property?
  Mr. Goodhew: If the hon. Member will be patient, I hope to come to that point.
  I was about to say that this is a very important factor which hon. Members opposite should not blink from, a very important factor in the provision of housing in London, in particular, today, which they have been deploring. As an example, I think we can look at the position in London to see what is happening.
  There are 28 Metropolitan boroughs, and of those 16 have a rent rebate or differential rent scheme, but the 12 which do not are all Labour-controlled. Let us have a look at the L.C.C., upon which I myself serve. This Labour-controlled, bureaucratic, monolithic giant, whose smug satisfaction with its own effectiveness is not shared by the Royal Commission which has just reported, this body constantly refuses to change from its policy of fixed rents, and what is the effect of this? This is where I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe). There are hundreds, indeed thousands, of people living in flats and houses belonging to the L.C.C, of which there are some 200,000, who are in fact well able to afford to buy a house of their own or to rent one in the open market.
  Mr. M. Stewart: Four of them being Tory Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Goodhew: I am afraid that I would not know about that, because I have not had a look at the list of tenancies lately.
  Mr. Stewart: That information was given in answer to a question in the L.C.C. when, apparently, the hon. Gentleman was not present.
  Mr. Goodhew: I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate the difficulty of
  908
  having one foot on each side of the river Thames on certain afternoons, such as this.
  If these people to whom I have just referred had to pay a true, unsubsidised economic rent, and I mean completely unsubsidised, or even the market rent, we should find that many of them would leave the council's property, would prefer not to live in it, and would find properties in the open market.
  Mr. Cliffe: Where?
  Mr. Goodhew: They could buy houses in St. Albans. There are some very fine ones there. The houses which they would vacate would then be available for the hard core of hardship cases about which hon. Members opposite are so vociferous this afternoon. It seems to me that, bad enough as it is that people should be living in this subsidised accommodation when they could well afford to look after themselves, subsidised by their fellow ratepayers and taxpayers regardless of their means, when many of those who are subsidising them are very often much less well off and living in much less comfortable accommodation, but, worse still—
  Mr. Pavitt: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the amount of the subsidies are insignificant when compared with those which, as indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), have accrued to many property companies, as a result of the Rent Act, in the form of a capital appreciation, and that the exchanges of ownership of property, such as we have seen at Dolphin Square, have given a subsidy of millions of pounds to take-over speculators and companies which exist not to act as landlords but to make profits?
  Mr. Goodhew: That is another point entirely. The point I am making is that this is public money being raised from one section of the community and given to another, and that very often it is coming from those who cannot afford it and being given to those who can.
  I repeat that in addition to this, this is upsetting and frustrating the whole object of local authority housing, and will show why. I draw attention once again to the L.C.C. Because of the increase in building costs since the war, the rents of post-war properties are much higher than the rents of pre-war proper-

  909
  ties. This means that those who are able to take the tenancies of these flats and houses are the better-off people on the waiting list of the L.C.C., and the poorer people who really need help are having to wait for someone in the old property to die before they can get a vacancy. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should drive round some of these L.C.C. houses, as I have done when not sitting in this Chamber, and see the evidence of the wealth of those living there on the subsidy provided by their fellows.
  In other words, we have a state of affairs in which, since the war in the case of authorities like the L.C.C., in the main the people now being housed are the people who need housing least and the people who are low on the waiting list are those who need help most. I say to hon. Members opposite that, if there is still hardship suffered by Londoners over their housing today, it is not my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government who is to blame. It is the friends of hon. Members opposite who sit on the other side of the river and who persist in pursuing their perverse and pig-headed policy of fixed rents. If hon. Members opposite are really concerned, as I am sure they are, about the sufferings of people in London and in other areas of this sort, where there is pressure for housing, let them put some pressure on their own colleagues who sit on local authorities up and down the country and persuade them to introduce these rent rebate or differential rent schemes.
  I would go further and say that I do not think that this House should stand by and watch money raised by the Exchequer being squandered on people who do not really need it. There is a strong feeling in the country that something should be done by the Government—and this applies to all sections of the community—to see that the money raised by taxes and rates is given to those who really need help and not to those who do not; in other words, to restore some justice and reality into the field of local authority housing once more.
  I deplore most strongly the absence of any mention in the Gracious Speech of some such Measure to compel local authorities to adopt a standard form of rent rebate scheme which would bring fairness and justice to all council
  910
  tenants, and also produce greater mobility in council housing estates. While I shall vote against the Amendment on the Order Paper, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will have another look at this matter and see whether he and his colleagues cannot step in and act where the local authorities have failed to restore justice and reality to housing.
  7.17 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I shall hope to pick up some of the points made by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) in the course of my own speech, but I must say first of all that he seems to me, as a new member of the L.C.C., to show a great lack of knowledge of the general housing policy of that authority. I was there for some years, and I know that nobody is housed within the council's area unless they can show a proved housing need. With the slum clearance programme, and the fact that there is so little land left in the council's area, that housing need has to be a very urgent one indeed.
  Mr. Goodhew rose—
  Mr. Skeffington: I will give way presently, but I have hardly started my speech yet. [Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but if I get a lot of barracking, I will not give way at all. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have got some way with my speech.
  If the hon. Gentleman had been there a bit longer, he would have known that because of the great variety of different types of houses built in several periods, it is generally possible to fit a tenant into a home in accordance with his income. With so many houses, the L.C.C. has been able to offer a range of rents, and a very considerable number of tenants now, including the four Conservative Members of Parliament, are, in fact, paying pretty nearly or entirely the economic rents. A good deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said is not borne out by the facts.
  Mr. Goodhew: The hon. Member is misrepresenting me. The point I was making was that the people who needed housing most were not being housed. Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree

  911
  that the people who most need the help of the local authorities with subsidised housing are the people of the lower income brackets who cannot afford to go into the private market. It is useless for him to say that because the L.C.C. is housing people who may be short of accommodation, that is the same as housing those who cannot afford to go into the open market, as others could.
  Mr. Skeffington: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has controverted anything I have said. The fact is that no one is accepted on the list, let alone housed, without a very convincing housing need. There are the slum clearance cases and very often cases of illness, like tuberculosis, which have to be helped. Many of these people are paying an economic rent, as indeed are the four Conservative Members of Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman wants to prune L.C.C. expenditure, he might start by talking to some of his colleagues who occupy council houses at present.
  I think that the speech of the hon. Gentleman and that of the Minister, following the speech of his Parliamentary Secretary last March, reveal once again not only the massive complacency of the Government about this problem, but an almost complete disregard of those, of whom there are hundreds of thousands, whose only hope of a better home is, in fact, the local authority.
  The Minister has confirmed in his speech his reputation of being one of the most doctrinaire of all Ministers. The two points that he makes always are "Away with controls" and "On the commercial freedom of the market". This means, and must mean in housing, where accommodation is limited because of lack of land, freedom for the property-owner and the landlord but not for the tenant.
  The right hon. Gentleman—and I think that this is also true of the Parliamentary Secretary—seem always to ignore all the evidence day after day in the local and national Press, and especially the evidence that recently appeared in the lamented and now deceased Star of the miseries which the Minister's own doctrinaire 1957 Act has conferred on hundreds of thousands of people. If it is thought that the Star was too radical and emotional a newspaper perhaps I
  912
  may quote the Estates Gazette which cannot be accused of that affront in relation to tenants. On 13th August this year this paper, which is the property-owners' journal, said:
  "We say it is necessary for people to realise that there is no free market in London; the dice are heavily loaded in the owner's favour. Put the screw on a tenant and what can he do but migrate? He has no hope of getting anywhere to live … In such a case there is no use talking about the free market rent as there would be could the owner point to some empty property in the district."
  This situation was very well put in the memorandum sent by the tenants of Dolphin Square to the Minister and to most Members of Parliament.
  The memorandum shows the basic difference between the sort of speech just made by the hon. Member for St. Albans and the views of my hon. Friends and myself. The memorandum said:
  "The homes of British families were surely never intended to become commodities from which speculators could make inordinate profits … The 1957 Rent Act was allegedly passed on the idea that in a free market the supply of accommodation would prove equal to the demand. This has proved a complete failure so far as London and the other big cities are concerned."
  That again is the sort of evidence and point of view, quite apart from the evidence of every one of us, that we think the Minister and certainly the Home Secretary, in replying to the debate, ought to take into account.
  We are entitled to state our attitude to the problem. All history proves that it is impossible for private profit to provide decent homes at reasonable rents for large numbers of people. It is not physically possible. As far as we can go back with certainty into history the lot of the average tenant in our country has been a very poor one indeed. Long before there were any Rent Acts millions of people lived in inconvenient, ill-designed, sometimes damp and often insanitary accommodation. I know that among Conservatives the great alibi has always been that the private landlord could never improve the property because his rent was limited by rent control. But for years before there was any rent control this system never provided decent housing for a great number of people.
  I ask hon. Members who are really interested that, instead of making an

  913
  entirely doctrinaire speech like that of the hon. Member for St. Albans, they should examine the history of this matter. They should read the Report of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes in 1884 which is quite relevant to our problem today, as I shall show. The Commission, which spent a long time in investigating housing conditions in London and other great cities said:
  "The old houses are rotten from neglect. The new houses are rotten from the beginning."
  The Report, which had as its signatories not only the then Prince of Wales but also Cardinal Manning, went on to make very acid comments about jerrybuilding and said:
  "Houses for the working class were built from the shoddiest of materials and with the poorest workmanship."
  It is impossible to blame rent control for the condition of those houses in 1884. From this classical evidence and many other instances I form the view that large numbers of people, if they are to pay a rent which is not extortionate, cannot be housed decently under a private enterprise housing system. The evidence of most European countries is the same.
  As the Minister has said, we now have 4½ million old houses. Over 4 million of them are over 65 years old, nearly 2 million are over 100 years old and, for all the property built before rent control, we have a condition today in which 6 million families have no separate bathroom, 3 million have no separate W.C., and 2 million have no separate kitchen. These are figures obtained in the 1951 census. This is an example of the glories of private enterprise in housing before the rent control.
  If hon. Members want to take their studies a little further they should read the Ridley Report on Rent Control. They will find that even when a 25 per cent. increase was given to landlords after the First World War for improving their property, quite apart from 15 per cent. given to them to improve their incomes, the Ridley Committee said that there was very considerale evidence that many landlords regarded the 25 per cent. as an addition to their income not to be spent for the purpose of repairs.
  On that evidence and on that basis, our attitude must be fundamentally
  914
  different from that expressed today by hon. Members opposite in the debate. It cannot be based on doctrinaire theories of setting the market free; it must be based on history. Since 1951 we have seen the conception of freeing the market carried to such an extreme that the possibilities now of providing decent homes for numbers of small-income people are almost nil unless the Government change their policies.
  A great deal of the mischief in Government policy stems from the statement which I quoted on a previous occasion and which I shall quote very briefly now. It was made when the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the present Minister of Health, was introducing the Rent Act on 21st November, 1956. He said:
  "… we are now within sight of, and should in 12 months' time or so be level with, an equation of the overall supply and demand for homes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1956; Vol. 560, c. 1760.]
  If there ever was a more ridiculous forecast I have yet to hear of it. Today the Minister, in talking about the need for new houses of one type or another, could no longer stand on that estimate, but that prognostication, that the number of houses was almost equal to the demand for them, was at that time the justification for the 1957 Rent Act.
  Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I was interested to hear the hon. Member quoting some Minister. I did not catch whether he was quoting the Parliamentary Secretary or the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan, who made a similar statement, I believe, round about 1951.
  Mr. Skeffington: That was very clever of the hon. Member, but if he is going to make that kind of remark I shall not give way again. I was quoting a statement made in 1956 by the present Minister of Health, who at that time was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, when he introduced the Second Reading of what is now the Rent Act. The forecast that the supply of houses would within twelve months equal the demand was used as a justification for the Rent Act. It has been one of the most grotesque forecasts ever made.

  915
  Let us look at the position. There are 4½ million houses more than 65 years old, to which I have referred. There are 6 million families without a bathroom. There are those still on the waiting lists. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government never knows how many there are on the waiting lists. For some reason, that figure is quite beyond the Ministry. However, the National Housing and Town Planning Institute, as a result of a questionnaire which it circulated last year to more than 500 authorities, was led to believe that there were on the local authority waiting lists about 1½ million people. It classed at least 500,000 of those cases as urgent. I think we ought at least to be considering the 500,000 if not the other million. There is the estimated expansion in the population of England and Wales, which was touched upon by the Minister today. By 1975 the population is likely to have increased by 3 million.
  In those categories we have a potential demand for decent housing which will mean that we shall want millions of new homes. There are also the 850,000 houses which were statutorily declared as slums in 1955. Incidentally, the Minister took great credit this afternoon for the 1955 housing drive. We are all glad to see the slums disappearing, but the fact is that at the end of the year we shall be about one-third short of the total which he forecast would be cleared. Whatever may be the cause, it is clear that, with the increasing population, with the old houses and with those in desperate need on the waiting lists, to say in 1956 as a justification for setting the market free and holding the tenants up to ransom that we had enough houses has been proved to be utterly untrue.
  What has been the Government's policy? They have hit the local authorities as hard as they can. Reference was made this afternoon to interest rates and the withdrawal of general subsidies. I shall give two examples of what this has meant. The average contract price for building a three-bedroomed council house has increased since the time the Labour Government left office by about £100, not a very significant increase, but the Government's high interest rates—in August this year the rate was as high as 6⅛ per cent.—mean that for precisely the
  916
  same type of house the local authority and the ratepayer now have to pay £2,000 more. Not a single tile, floorboard or brick has been added, but there is £2,000 extra on account of the increased interest payments alone. This is a crazy way to try to get, houses. If the whole of this increase is passed on to the tenant, it means that he must pay 15s. a week more over the 60 years just to cover the additional £2,000 in interest charges.
  There is another point which is forgotten by hon. Members like the hon. Member for St. Albans, that in paying, as many tenants are doing, very near the economic rent, they are doing it in respect of a property which will never be their own. Whatever the owner-occupier is paying he will at least eventually own the house, or his children will. But this is never so in the case of the local authority tenant, and, therefore, he is surely entitled to some consideration on this ground.
  It is no wonder that 500 local authorities have stopped council house building. This is not because there is no demand. There are very few places where one ought not to provide very much better housing and housing standards. Owing to the Government's financial policy we have now reached the astonishing point where local authorities are paying back to the Public Works Loan Board £170 million a year more than it is borrowing. This was the organisation which was created to help local authorities to finance housing and for other purposes.
  I now turn to owner-occupation. I understand that this is the Tory Party's great sovereign remedy for all our housing evils. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that it is at any rate one of their remedies. The difference in the interest rates between 1951 and 1959 on £2,000 borrowed for twenty-five years for a mortgage has added about 10s. a week to what the owner-occupier has to pay at an interest rate of 5¾ per cent.—increased from 4 per cent. Some have to pay more. Why it should be felt that owner-occupiers ought to thank the Conservative Government I certainly do not know.
  I do not believe that the owner-occupation solution applies to the problem about which the hon. Member for St. Albans was talking. There are in

  917
  this country about 10 million incomes of less than £500 a year. When one has an income down at that level it is almost impossible to obtain a mortgage—impossible to find the deposit or impossible to make the payments. There was a letter in the Daily Herald on 13th July which said:
  "When we get married, my fiance and I will have saved nearly £375, and have a joint income of about £20 a week. I thought that we should take out a mortgage on a house, even after spending £175 on furniture. But we find that building societies will not take a wife's earnings into account. And a borrower must be able to pay a month's mortgage instalment out of a week's earnings."
  That is the sort of figure which many, though perhaps not all, building societies require. Thus, it is useless to say to large numbers of people who come to see me, "Go and buy a house", because they have not the deposit to put down, and if their income is within the category to which I have referred they just will not be considered for a mortgage. In fact, there are fewer and fewer people in that income group who will be considered for a mortgage because of the greatly increasing price of land itself. This is becoming a bigger and bigger factor in buying a house. It has been deliberately created by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959. Consequently, many desperate cases of people needing houses cannot be solved by buying a house.
  Mr. Goodhew rose—
  Mr. Skeffington: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was about to refer to what I am going to say. I should like to continue with this point because it forms part of my speech.
  Equally, it is sometimes said that one can go to a local authority and obtain a 100 per cent. mortgage. But one only gets 100 per cent. if one is lucky. There are not many local authorities which will give one 100 per cent. anyway, and if one does get 100 per cent., it is on the value of the house to the authority and not on the market value, and that has been deliberately and grossly inflated by the 1959 Act. So there is no solution there.
  Mr. Goodhew: The hon. Gentleman is making the exact point that I was making. The people earning £500 or less a year about whom he is talking are the
  918
  very people I want to see housed by the local authorities. There are others, he will find—on the London County Council the estimate has been given of one in ten—who are earning £20 a week or more—£1,000 a year. It is those people whom I want to see paying the full rent so that the subsidy can go to the benefit of the people earning £500 a year or less.
  Mr. Skeffington: If the hon. Gentleman wants, as I do, to see these people having an opportunity of being housed by local authorities, I hope he will vote for the Amendment and against his Government who have made it so difficult for the local authorities to build and have caused 500 of them to stop doing it.
  In the light of the high interest rates, the lack of housing subsidies and the difficulties that ordinary people encounter in being housed, what is one to do with the sort of letter that I have here, which I quote as a concrete example:
  "Dear Mr. Skeffington, I am writing to you as my last hope."
  This is how letters from desperate cases always start. They have already been to the local authorities and to the house agents and have put up postcard advertisements in local shops. [Interruption.] Apparently, an hon. Gentleman opposite thinks it is frightfully funny for a family to be in such desperate need. Perhaps he will not laugh so much when I have finished the letter. This letter shows that this poor woman has been driven almost mad in trying to find somewhere to live. She has been pestering everybody she can, including the local authority, and advertising.
  The letter goes on:
  "Can you help me? For the second time in four months I again find myself homeless … I am a happily married woman with two lovely children, one aged eighteen months and the other five months …. I will not bore you by going into details, but Sunday found us out in the street. We went to Hayes Police Station, where we were taken to a hostel …. That was myself and two babies; my husband slept rough …. The welfare there could not find a place for us all together, so this is how we are situated. Myself and my eldest son are in this hotel, and my baby"—
  remember the baby is five months old—
  "is in a baby's home at Twickenham, and my husband is fending for himself. My heart is breaking. I want my baby with me—he is so young—and also I love my husband very

  919
  much and want to be with him always, not just for weeks in rooms until we are told to go again. I cannot even see him here often because it costs nearly 10s. a time to visit me …. My husband is going to pieces as well as me. We do not ask for much, just that we can all be together."
  What answer can I give after hearing the Minister's speech? It was a clever debating speech giving an account of what the Labour Government did immediately after the dislocations of war. What sort of message can I pass on to the writer of the letter?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to send the case to me in case there is anything that can be done.
  Mr. Skeffington: I will take advantage of that offer. I have already raised the matter with the local authority. The difficulty in this case is that the woman has not been long enough in the district, but I will be glad to take up the Minister's offer.
  I quoted that letter as being typical of the situation in which are hundreds of thousands of people with small incomes, some of whom had to move to find work and whose only hope is help from the local authority. That is why the Government's policy of freeing the market and slowing down local authority building is so disastrous.
  I want now to refer to the general rent policy. When we had our interesting debate on 17th March the Parliamentary Secretary said:
  "For those people with a steady, above-average income, there are plenty of alternatives. I do not think that hon. Members opposite would deny that. These people can buy a new or old house, if not at home then nearby. They can rent the less cheap houses that are to let."
  Some hon. Members then asked where. The Parliamentary Secretary continued:
  "I could have brought for the benefit of the hon. Lady newspapers filled with advertisements for houses to let."
  Hon. Members asked where? The Parliamentary Secretary replied:
  "I am speaking of people with above-average incomes, and of houses that are not the cheapest. These people can also join in self-help housing associations …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Thursday, 17th March, 1960; Vol. 619, c. 1503.]
  920
  That is about all they can do. But the prognostication, like the one made by his predecessor, not after three years, but after six months, seems to have been completely falsified.
  The Parliamentary Secretary will have seen the preliminary survey made by the Clare and Downing Court Tenants' Association. The report gives instances where rents have increased by 190 per cent. in Bloomsbury since the passing of the Rent Act; in Earls Court, by 250 per cent.; in Chelsea by 100 per cent.; in Fulham by 120 per cent.; in Sutton by 120 per cent., and in Hackney by 220 per cent.
  There was also the series of examples to which I have already referred and which appeared in various editions of the Star. On 12th August it was reported that four-roomed flats on which the rent was £200 prior to the Rent Act were now to be let at £600. The rent on a five-roomed flat which before the Rent Act was £265 is now £730, with repairs. The rent on a four-roomed flat which was £275 before the Rent Act is now between £600 and £700, with rates. Indeed, the category to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, the better off tenant, seems to have faired even worse than the hon. Gentleman forecast.
  On 24th October the Evening Standard in an article entitled "London Rents" asked:
  "Can the crazy spiral go higher?"
  The writer mentioned a couple with £400 a year to spend on rent. That is a good deal more than most of my constituents have available for rent. The writer said to an estate agent "What will happen?" He was told: "If you had £400 a year to spend you would get nothing but black looks, or perhaps faintly embarrassed apologies from agents today, unless you also had enough money to pay a formidable premium. The agent continued: "It is hopeless at that price. We could not even offer a onebedroomed flat under £500 a year without a steep premium."
  I quote that because if the Minister comes to the House and tells us that there is no difficulty in finding accommodation for that category of person, and we find in a few months that that very sort of person is having the greatest diffi-

  921
  culty, it shows how wrong the Minister was when he made his forecast.
  There was an article in that same paper the next day which talked about a house in the less fashionable end of Portobello Road being sold for £8,000. What sort of information can the country have on which to form a judgment when the hon. Gentleman has been so grotesquely out in his forecast.
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman has attacked my forecast. It would be only fair to say that that article referred to Chelsea.
  Mr. Skeffington: Yes.
  Sir K. Joseph: Chelsea is one of the most popular and expensive areas in London.
  Mr. Skeffington: That may be so, but the hon. Gentleman, when he spoke on 17th March, was referring to tenants who were better off.
  The article said:
  "This is the sort of case where before the war a young married couple of the professional type could hope to find accommodation."
  The fact is that they cannot do so nowadays. As the Estate Gazette says in its editorial, the only thing to do is to emigrate. That is a poor sort of social policy, even for professional people who, I would have thought, were as deserving of a home as much as anybody else.
  People are beginning to find it difficult to understand the theory about freeing the market and allowing rents to rise. We know what has happened. The better off tenants and the less well off tenants have difficulty; it is only the property owners who always come off so well.
  I mentioned a case the other day where property owners of working-class dwellings in Battersea increased their profits from £1,200 before the Rent Act to £63,000 after the Act was passed. That was for so-called working class dwellings. One can find examples of these increased profits in the property papers.
  Let me give one or two examples to show that these are not mere words but are backed by facts. If one considers the Raglan Property Trust, its profit before the Rent Act was £58,000. It is now £103,000. The chairman reports:
  "Following the enactment of the Rent Act there has been a substantial increase in the company's rent income."
  922
  Another example is London County Freehold and Leasehold. Profits before the Rent Act amounted to £271,000. After the Rent Act the profits rose to £582,000. The chairman, Mr. Thomas Cullen, said:
  "Under the terms of new agreements the income from our existing properties will be substantially increased for the current year and still further increased for the year to March 1962."
  Next consider the Property Holding and Investment Trust. Profits before the Rent Act were £298,000. They are now £453,000. The chairman, Mr. Bullock, said:
  "Your directors look forward with confidence to the future."
  I think that he was there speaking with justifiable confidence.
  The chairman of the Regis Property Company said:
  "The increases in income from rents have by no means come to an end and it is expected that there will be further expansion over the next few years."
  Next there is the Alliance Property Company whose profits before the Rent Act were £171,000. They have now risen to £758,000. This is the biggest increase that I have discovered. Its chairman, Major Webb, was dissatisfied. He said that he did not like the Government pledge not to further decontrol properties in the lifetime of Parliament. He continued:
  "This in my view was a very serious error of judgment."
  I suppose that if one is in that position it is an error of judgment.
  I think that when ordinary people come to understand these facts they will begin to wonder why it is that very rich tenants can be found accommodation while other tenants in London and other big cities have the greatest difficulty in finding somewhere to live. They cannot have a general housing subsidy. They have to pay high interest rates. The only people who seem to be getting a substantial subsidy today are those who are able, through the National Assistance Board, to get a rent allowance which goes to subsidise the landlords. There are no subsidies for local authorities, but nearly £1 million is paid to private landlords by the National Assistance Board by way of rent payments. That is a travesty of social policy, and I hope that the people of this country will wake up to it.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) usually makes some valuable and interesting points in his speeches, but tonight I think that he has been a little off key and has exaggerated the whole housing problem. I shall devote my speech to the very narrow question of rents. I am affected by the problem in my constituency, but I have found that on the whole, although it is admittedly a problem—and everyone will subscribe to that view—it has been exaggerated by hon. Members opposite for political purposes. I make it clear that sympathy and concern with people who have cases of hardship is not a monopoly of those on the Labour Party benches. Considerable concern is also felt on this side of the House by many hon. Members who have done a great deal to try to help those people affected.
  I venture to speak briefly in this debate because I feel that I know as much about this problem as any hon. Member opposite who lives in the London or Greater London area. There is more rented property in my constituency of Brentford and Chiswick, mostly of the flat variety, than any other part of London, with the possible exception of Hampstead, which, of course, is represented by my right hon. Friend. I have been closely in touch with developments over this problem as they have arisen with the ending of three-year agreements over the past few months. I subscribe to the view that it is peculiarly a problem relevant to London. There may be patches in different parts of the country, but the main trouble is here in the middle of London and its environs, and it is that which has to be put into perspective.
  When we debated this question towards the end of the last Session, the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish)—and I am sorry that he is not in his place, as I had imagined he would be—said that he had a file of 10,000 cases of complaints of hardship resulting from the Rent Act. I know that the hon. Member has campaigned assiduously for his party throughout the whole of the Summer Recess, that he has advertised extensively in the area newspapers of London and Middlesex and has issued daily communications to the Press during
  924
  that time over what he has called his "war" on the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
  It is obvious that advertising pays, because the hon. Member has had a very good response. I do not doubt for a moment that he is genuine with his figure of 10,000. I imagine that there probably are 10,000 letters of complaint, but I submit that many of them are obviously not cases of hardship in the accepted sense of that word. I say that because I am well acquainted with this rent problem and I have had many comparable complaints to deal with among the cases which I have encountered. Many of them on close investigation have proved not to be cases of real hardship. There have admittedly been unpleasant increases, but they have not been cases of hardship when one has got down to brass tacks.
  I have kept a meticulous check over the last few months and I have a history of very case, on each of which I have written to my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. To date, the total number of hardship cases is 64, which is not so many in a population of more than 40,000 for a Greater London borough. I am quite prepared to admit that there may well be more and that there may be people who have not contacted me, but I have made it known throughout the area that I am prepared to help people who are affected and I have asked everyone concerned to come forward.
  I have found the incidence of this problem decidedly patchy, even within my own area, and that is obviously the situation throughout the rest of the London area. There is a small minority of people with fixed and restricted incomes who have obviously found themselves in a difficulty, and I have had one or two cases of real hardship which present genuine difficulties.
  There is one small suggestion which I want to make on that score. It is that it should be more widely known to those exceptional cases, often elderly people, that they can have rent subsidies—subsidies paid by the National Assistance authorities to help them to meet rent increases. I hope that I shall not be taken up on that point, by hon. Members opposite, because it has been argued many times

  925
  that to do that is to subsidise landlords. But it must be remembered that the Government are getting much more money from landlords as a result of rent rises because the landlords have to pay more under Schedule A and in Profits Tax, so the Exchequer is benefiting.
  One instance where I found a good deal of trouble concerned a block of 20 or 30 flats where the landlords were, I thought, acting unfairly. I wrote to the local council suggesting that it should consider imposing a compulsory purchase order. The council is now considering that, and I have not yet had a decision, but I believe they have been in touch with the landlords and have extracted certain promises from them. I am sure that other threats of compulsory purchase orders have had a salutory effect in bringing a minority of unscrupulous landlords to heel.
  The Minister has been often accused of being the landlords' friend, and the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) reiterated that claim this afternoon. However, it is worth pointing out that bad landlords do not take kindly to his idea of a compulsory purchase order, and when councils start to threaten to impose such orders the threat certainly has its effect. It is also the case that landlords are not always entirely in favour of my right hon. Friend, as revealed by a circular issued by the National Federation of Property Owners. I must make it clear that I do not link bad landlords and the National Federation of Property Owners, but the Federation recently sent a circular to most hon. Members criticising my right hon. Friend for considering using compulsory purchase orders. I quote a passage from the circular:
  "It is difficult to see what benefit will be derived from the further municipalisation of rented property, which the Minister in a recent circular encouraged local authorities to undertake by compulsorily purchasing those properties in respect of which they think that 'exorbitant' rents are being demanded …. It is scarcely a satisfactory solution to reintroduce control limits for the private landlord fixed, not by Statute, but by a local authority supervised by the Minister; and, if the limits are not observed, to municipalise the building in question and thus remove the control again."
  I do not subscribe to that, but I suppose that one could make out a case for their view. It shows that the National Federation of Property Owners, which is a very big organisation and representative of a
  926
  large number of landlords, does not entirely agree with my right hon. Friend.
  In the long run, it is no solution to go back on the Rent Act in any way and to reintroduce controls. Even the Daily Mirror, which is never an advocate of the Conservative cause, made that point in a leading article on the "Rent Threat" a few weeks ago. Admittedly it was attacking my right hon. Friend, but it said:
  "It is a waste of time to talk about repealing the Tory Rent Act, which decontrolled hundreds of thousands of houses. Some reform of the rents structure was plainly essential."
  I must, in fairness, say that the article goes on to state that the Minister is acting too harshly.
  It would be a retrograde step to go back on the Rent Act at this stage. Many of the people who have approached me did so quite understandably after hearing rumours of steep rent rises. In most cases there were rises in their rents, but on investigation many of the rumours proved to be exaggerated. In some instances, where the demand was more than expected, I myself, like many other hon. Members, have been able to negotiate slightly better terms for the tenants. In other cases, the tenants themselves have negotiated their own new terms.
  I am convinced that before any action is taken it is incumbent upon any tenant to try to establish a meeting point with the landlord. There will obviously be landlords who will turn down anything out of hand, and we have heard today of deplorable cases where the idea has been purely to evict people and re-let the property. But there are also many landlords—and I would say the majority—who favour negotiating with tenants and who will sit down with the tenant across a desk and even revise the original estimate of their claim.
  Despite what the Opposition has said today and what they have said before, it is a fact that many landlords pay heed to good tenants and long-term tenants. I can give an example of that concerning two of the biggest blocks of flats in Chiswick, where the rents are increasing with the ending of the three-year agreements by £1 a week, making an average rent for the block of £5 10s. a week. That may sound a lot of money to some

  927
  people, but included in that £5 10s. are rates, other than excess rates, porterage and constant hot water. These would be classed as luxury flats, and anyone would be happy to live in them if they wanted to be in that area. Judged by today's earnings and values, they are a fair proposition when it is remembered they are only seven miles from the centre of London. Those, as I say, are two of the biggest blocks of flats in my constituency. Of course, there have been people in those flats who cannot afford that economic rent and there are people still there, which is why we have to have fresh thinking all the way round on the whole question of housing and rents.
  My view comes very much into line with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Good-hew), and I entirely support him on this matter of the importance of rents becoming economic—and in that I include the whole range, frum luxury flats down to ordinary council houses. It is quite scandalous that large sections of the community earning good money should be subsidised by councils which are not prepared to act in this matter. It is also worth putting this matter into perspective by quoting Professor D. R. Denham of Cambridge University, who has recently undertaken a survey into the rent decontrol problem and has estimated that the total amount paid in rent for privately-owned rented houses rose between 1938 and 1958 by only about 48 per cent. as against a rise of nearly 350 per cent. in total wages and salaries.
  I know that this problem presents difficulties, but I think that people should gradually try to find the type of accommodation which most suits their pockets. They will be happier in the long run and they will relieve a great deal of the pressure which is coming down on the centre of London. Many people have been unfairly subsidised in the past. One cannot blame them for taking advantage of the chance, but that is why having to pay an economic rent now hurts them so much.
  I am quite willing to admit that there are bad landlords and that there is a minority of landlords who have put rents up steeply and excluded rates and services and insisted on personal repairs and decorations, which, of course, is a
  928
  hidden form of rent. I strongly deprecate the actions of that type of landlord. My personal view is that where landlords demand more than 4½ times the gross annual value of the house the council should be consulted, either by the local councillor who has been approached, or by the local Member of Parliament. However, much depends on the type of property involved and the services provided. Nevertheless, I am sure that one or two compulsory purchase orders carried through to their ultimate conclusion would do a power of good to curb the small but significant number of troublesome rent racketeers who operate in the London area.
  The Rent Act has been a courageous and necessary piece of legislation. I was not in the House at the time it was introduced, but it was unpopular when it came in and it is obviously still unpopular in some quarters today. But unpopular Acts are not necessarily bad Acts, and, with respect, I think that the Minister has been fully justified in sticking to his guns. I think that when the housing history of this country comes to be compiled in the years ahead, his policy will be fully vindicated.
  8.3 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Mapp: I hope that the hon. Member for Brent-ford and Chiswick (Mr. Dudley Smith) will not expect me to follow him on the details of events in London, because I am not familiar with them. Coming from one of the older towns in the North of England, I am still wondering, after hearing the whole of the debate today, including the Minister's contribution, what housing hopes there are for the man whose income is something less than £12 a week. With all the good will in the world, and after hearing all the contributions from the other side of the House, I cannot see one iota of hope for the average man whose income is about £12 a week, or who is earning £14 of which £2 cannot be relied upon as regular income.
  I want to confine my attention to the question of slum clearance. There is a general feeling that the programme of slum clearance in the country is going ahead fairly rapidly, but in some of our older towns the problem is not easy, nor soluble during the next few years. I refer to Oldham in particular, because I shall

  929
  ask the Minister to say whether there are not some special steps that can be taken to deal with towns which have difficulties similar to those of Oldham, which I now propose to mention. Oldham is seventh in the list of towns which have the worst slum clearance problems facing them.
  The brief facts are these. There are about 43,000 permanent houses in Oldham of which just over 11,000 were declared unfit in 1955 and coming within the general programme of slum clearance for the future. In other words, 26 per cent. of the permanent houses in Oldham are due for demolition as soon as possible. The Minister, I think, is contemplating this as the kind of problem that can be overcome within the term of office of this Government. As a matter of fact, the maximum number of houses cleared and built has been about 1,150 in the last four or five years. At the present rate of progress in Oldham—I want to be quite fair about this, because the local authority is, broadly speaking, united on a pattern of development of slum clearance—it will be approximately a seventeen-year operation before the local authority is in a position effectively to deal with the slum clearance problem.
  Mr. H. Brooke: I never dreamed of including Oldham in those areas where I thought slum clearance could be finished within three years. I regard Oldham as one of the difficult problems of slum clearance. While I may not agree with the hon. Gentleman about seventeen years, I thoroughly agree with him on what he is saying in general about the extent of the problem there.
  Mr. Mapp: What I am trying to say is that any feeling that the slum clearance problem in the older towns will be overcome in the next three or four years is manifestly wrong. Both sides of the local authority consider that this problem will be with them for the next fifteen or seventeen years. I shall shortly make some postulations to the Minister as to what might be done to deal with special circumstances. We have to appreciate that the older towns are constantly losing population, although perhaps not so severely as Oldham, where the fall has been about 30,000 in the last thirty or forty years. There is a strong case for ensuring that that population should not
  930
  fall still further. We should provide the social help that is necessary in order to bring the old towns up to modern standards.
  The Housing Committee's minutes of July this year state that:
  "The Committee discussed the adoption of a programme for the next five years, and it was pointed out that the number of unfit houses which could be dealt with was limited by this authority's difficulty in providing alternative accommodation for the occupants because of the shortage of suitable building land and the limitation of the building programme because of the shortage of engineering and architectural staff. The inadequacies of brick supplies was also a limiting factor at the present time."
  That was in July. I have taken up the question of the supply of bricks with the Ministry, but I must inform the Minister that difficulties are still being experienced.
  If I say that the technical staff in Oldham Corporation is one-third short of its complement the Minister will realise the extent of the problem facing the authority. I gather that Oldham shares with Liverpool, Bacup, Batley, Manchester and Kidsgrove—all mixed old towns—the problem of a terrific backlog of slum clearance work. I suggest that the Minister, perhaps in consultation with the authority in Oldham and similar authorities, should see what steps he can take to develop a greater intake of technical staff by these local authorities. I can assure him that the shortage does not arise from any backwardness on the part of the authority in trying to get the necessary staff.
  The number of virgin sites left in Oldham provides sufficient space for only about 490 new homes. The local authority has faced this fact and has decided to build on slum cleared land. It now faces the problem of phasing this work in such a way as to ensure that it is carried out as quickly as possible, but the largest programme it can undertake at the moment is the building of 450 houses per annum, thereby relieving the existing council house accommodation of 50 per cent. of the demand for vacancies that normally arises. In this case the authority is not wholly relying on the building of new houses; it is cramping the other housing demands by earmarking 50 per cent. of the existing houses that become available.

  931
  I have estimated that Oldham is faced with about fifteen or seventeen years' work. The Minister was in Oldham about two or three years ago and was impressed by the size of the problem there. I do not intend to draw on any graphic details, which could easily be done. The figures that I have given already are sufficient to show the extent of the problem. In Oldham and in the rest of Lancashire we have an old industry. Rightly or wrongly, it has had an infusion of public money to reorganise itself, apart from ordinary fiscal measures being taken. Rightly or wrongly, the House will shortly be asked to consider some special social insurance for the "Queen Mary". The public purse is asked to provide the money.
  I should like to refer to the Local Employment Act. That embodied the acceptance of the principle that, apart from normal fiscal measures covering industry as a whole, in areas where unemployment was heavy the Government would be prepared to do something exceptional to meet local circumstances. I suggest that, now that we are in a position to assess the extent of slum clearance remaining to be done, the Minister can estimate the degree of difficulty that rests almost wholly upon the shoulders of the older towns. I hope that he will agree that they are bearing an undue burden, and also that they must be modernised. If he does he will see that it is logical for him to conclude that some sort of criterion or datum line requires to be fixed, within which the slum clearance programme can be disposed of—either in a certain number of years or by way of special financial arrangements.
  Before the Minister attempts to lay down such a criterion he should have consultations with the authorities concerned in order to arrive at ways and means of achieving the desired result—whether it be by ensuring a better supply of technical staff or by financial means. I hope that the Minister will consider my suggestion, so that the people of Oldham can feel that they are entitled to as much sunshine and modern housing as any other part of the country.
  8.17 p.m.
  Mr. William Yates: Hon. Members on both sides of the
  932
  House will have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp). Many towns, and the centres of some cities, warrant special attention—in particular, places like Oldham and my constituency, The Wrekin, which saw the foundation of the Industrial Revolution. Although many hon. Members opposite have complained about the work of the Minister and his Department in their constituencies, his work in The Wrekin has been regarded by both Socialist-controlled councils and Conservative-controlled councils as satisfactory, and even exemplary in certain cases. I do not wish to be uncharitable to the party opposite, but if we take, as an example, the Socialist-controlled council of Oakengates, we find that it has realised that many people in the lower income brackets would like to buy houses for themselves and has started a "£1 down" scheme. Houses are now being taken by people with low incomes.
  One hon. Member said that it was a pity that people could not get the mortgages they needed to buy their new houses. I would point out that one and a quarter miles from my house about six new bungalows have been built by Messrs. Wimpeys in the last three months, and they are already filled.
  I cannot enter into the argument about the London County Council and London housing problems. I cannot join the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) in talking on this subject, because I do not know the facts. But I know who will—the people of London when they vote in the Council elections.
  Mr. Aneurin Bevan, speaking in Blackpool in 1950, told the party conference that it was high time it thought of decontrolling some rents, but the party opposite did not have sufficient courage to carry out this legislation. We did. We do not mind whether we are popular or unpopular so long as we are certain that we are working in the national interest.
  Another great difference between the party opposite and ours is that we believe that council houses should be built for those who need them and not just for those who want them. Everybody wants one—I should like to live in one if I could. Some of my hon. Friends live in London County Council houses. I have been told by Members opposite that two of my hon. Friends—
  An Hon. Member: Four.
  Mr. Yates: —it may be four—I do not dispute that—live in London County Council houses. These houses are not for us, however, but for those who need them.
  I come now to my own constituency problems. The most tragic problem is that of a man who comes to one's office and says that he lived in a farm cottage but was injured last week and went to hospital and the farmer has now told him that he must leave the house as he cannot keep him on. He asks, "Where am Ito get a house?"
  Mr. G. Brown: What does the hon. Member tell him?
  Mr. Yates: In this case I first persuaded the farmer not to evict the man, and then I persuaded the local council to call a meeting to consider the case. But I cannot force the housing manager to give more consideration to one case more than to others.
  I find it objectionable to suggest, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has done, that the Socialist Party has more pity or worry for these distressing cases than we have. The case I have mentioned was an urgent one. This man had a family of thirteen children and accommodation must be found for them immediately. The greatest help for a Private Member is for such people to consult the housing manager and their Member of Parliament earlier, for it gives us a much better chance to do something about it. It is hopeless when they quote an eviction order which is already operating against them.
  My right hon. Friend has been very forthcoming for the Oakengates area. He allowed an extra 100 houses to be built on the Greyhound housing estate above what was originally allowed, and, following a further intervention on my part, allowed a loan of £2,000 to be made available for a park and recreation ground. When I look back over the past five years and on the scars left by the Industrial Revolution in my constituency and consider the help which it has received from the Government, I am particularly grateful.
  Mr. G. Brown: Who made the scars?
  Mr. A. V. Hilton: The hon Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) was more successful with the Minister than I and some of my union colleagues were when we asked him to give assistance to farm workers living in tied cottages. I hope the hon. Member will take up the question with his right hon. Friend, for perhaps he will have more success than we had in our deputation to the Minister two months ago.
  Mr. Yates: I do not know the particular problem which the hon. Member is referring to—
  Mr. Hilton: I will let the hon. Member know.
  Mr. Yates: Perhaps the hon. Member can send me a postcard. If he is talking about tied cottages, it is all very well to attack farmers for having them, but what do I do about people who come to me about C.W.S. tied cottages in my constituency? Is it right for the C.W.S. and wrong for the farmer? What about the railway and mining cottages in my constituency? Is it wrong to have a cottage tied to a mine?
  Mr. Hilton: Two wrongs do not make a right.
  Mr. Yates: That is a tedious answer.
  Another problem is the supply of finance for water and sewerage. One of the essential needs in a large agricultural area is a proper supply of water. I have a note from the East Shropshire Water Board which says that in the last eleven years it has spent £266,000 and in the last four years the Board has laid sixty-five miles of new mains, seventeen in urban and forty-eight in rural areas. The progress in the supply of water to the farming communities in the areas of Great Bolas and Waters Upton has been of great assistance to agriculture. It has been, in part, due to that that Shropshire is clear of T.B.
  Mr. G. Brown: T.V.?
  Mr. Yates: T.B.—bovine. Do you understand now?
  Mr. G. Brown: I thought you said T.V.
  Mr. Yates: I said T.B. We have plenty of T.V.

  935
  I want to say something about the new city or town which my right hon. Friend is considering building in the area of Dawley. Here is an area which consists mostly of pit mounds and disused land and is about 3,500 acres. If the Minister is to build this town it must be built under the 1946 Act.
  Not only will south Shropshire welcome this project but—having had discussions with members of the county council—I believe the whole county will welcome it. We believe it to be a social duty to receive into our area people who are not so fortunate and have been living in difficult conditions in Birmingham. I do not think that there is worry on the political aspect towards it, though the local council at Dawley, which is Socialist-controlled, said that I did not want the new town in case it turned against me. As I will live almost in the area I can look after them well.
  My right hon. Friend will face serious problems about sewage, roads and water. We would like to know a great deal more about some of these matters before we give this project our complete blessing. I do not think that it is fair to keep the local authorities waiting much longer before he states his full and final position. In any case, we do not want people coming there and buying up any of the land in the area in which the new town to be built.
  I had hoped to address myself to some of the other problems of my constituency, because it is the historical tradition of this House that we act as private Members in the debate on the Address. This time is not to be used for the discharge of agreed business put down by the two Front Benches. In view of the fact that the Opposition have moved an Amendment on housing, I am automatically precluded from discussing many urgent matters concerning my constituency which I had hoped to bring to the notice of the House. In view of this fact and also because other hon. Members on this side of the House are anxious to speak, I shall content myself with saying that the Minister should know that so far as The Wrekin area of Shropshire is concerned we are satisfied with the progress which has been made and the help received for housing. But, of course,
  936
  we shall be making more demands for money from the Exchequer and from other sources in the near future.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. J. B. Symonds: I have listened patiently to the debate and I would say that from the speech of the Minister one would think that the housing problem in this country had been solved. The Minister appears to believe that a Tory Government are responsible for building more houses than did a Labour Government from 1948 to 1951. Do you claim, because private enterprise has built more than 150,000 houses in the last year, that you are solving the problem and that you are building in this country—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. In the last few minutes of this debate the word "you" has been used over-frequently. I hope that the House will remember that speeches should be addressed to the Chair.
  Mr. Symonds: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I have transgressed the rules of debate in any way.
  I feel that the Government are claiming something which they are not entitled to claim. An hon. Member opposite said that Labour-controlled councils should get on with the job. If the Minister would confirm orders more quickly, Labour-controlled councils would certainly get on with doing a grand job of work.
  I wish to touch upon a matter that I am tired of hearing hon. Members opposite refer to. It relates to men and women who live in subsidised houses. From statements made by hon. Members opposite I have gained the impression that they lack knowledge of local government housing practice. When a man is removed from a slum clearance area he may leave a house where the rateable value amounts to £10. He may be moved into a council house where the figure on which he pays is £21 and where the gross value is £28. He will have to pay twenty-one times the rate in the £ instead of ten times as previously, so that he is paying an amount representing an increase of eleven times the rate in the £ per year. The local authority contri-

  937
  butes only £7 7s. a year. I cannot see how such a man is subsidised by the local authority.
  Hon. Members opposite have said that such a person is subsidised by the taxpayers, but does not he pay taxes despite the fact that he lives in a council house? Of course he does. I have heard hon. Members opposite say that they do not pay Schedule A tax because the amount they spend on house repairs is sufficient to enable them to avoid it. A person in a council house has to pay anything from £8 to £15 a year for the repairs that the council carry out to the property. I do not consider, therefore, that the argument that a council house tenant is subsidised by the local ratepayer or taxpayer will hold water.
  It has also been said that these people should pay an economic rent. If every council house tenant were to pay an economic rent, not one new council house would be built. If we did what hon. Members opposite say should be done, and made those residing in council houses who can afford to pay an economic rent do so, that would be balanced by those who cannot afford to do so. It has been said that people can go to building societies and get a grant for the purpose of having a home built. No one can get a loan from a building society unless he has between £12 and £14 a week as his basic rate. Neither bonus nor overtime payment is taken into consideration when such a man applies to a building society for a mortgage. A man who receives that wage or less is not in a position to buy a house of his own but is forced to remain on the council's housing list.
  Up to date the Government have refused to give assistance to local authorities to enable them to build houses. The Government have said, "Equalise your rents, have differential rent schemes, and the additional cost will mean that you will have to put into operation a form of means test." Some people ask, "Why not?" Local authorities would have to employ men to keep records of the amount of money going into each individual house and to readjust the rents week by week or month by month. What a lot of chaos there would be in the administrative machine of a local authority.
  938
  Local authorities have been hit very hard because of the high rate of interest they have to pay. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was very generous in reducing the Bank Rate by ½ per cent. Local authorities thought, "Here is a chance to have a reduction in the interest rates which we have been paying", but what happened? The Government then said, "We are sorry, but we cannot reduce the interest on local loans from 6⅛ per cent. to 5⅝ per cent. They have to remain at 6⅛ per cent.
  Information was given by the Minister himself that £54 million has been loaned to the building societies under the 1959 Act at 5 per cent. If it is fair and right to lend to building societies at 5 per cent. and they can make a profit, surely it is right and proper that local authorities should be able to borrow from the Government at the same rate of interest. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) said, the Public Works Loan Board has received £170 million more than it has lent to local authorities. Surely the Government should not be in a position to make a profit out of house building. House building should be a social service and rendered by the Government as such.
  There are three-quarters of a million people living in overcrowded conditions whose need is urgent. What do the Government intend to do? Local authorities have waiting lists of 1,000 or 2,000 and in some of the larger authorities the figure is even as high as 15,000 or 20,000. All the answer the local authorities or we as Members of Parliament ever receive is that local councils should put into operation differential rent schemes. At the same time, building societies are given the privilege to borrow money cheaply. The local authorities, on the other hand, cannot even have the chance of a reduction in the interest rate for the purpose of helping the very people that even hon. Members opposite say are in need.
  I have heard hon. Members opposite say that housing subsidies should be for the benefit of those in need, but not one of them has today appealed to the Minister to reduce the interest rate so that the people in need can have houses at rents they can afford. It is unfair that such a rosy picture should be painted by the Minister. Let us look behind

  939
  the picture and get at the facts. Hon. Members opposite should be as much up in arms as we are about the rotten conditions in which so many people have to live in this country today.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. William Clark: It is a little unfair of the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) and other hon. Members opposite to say that the Miniser has been complacent about the housing problem. In view of the record that my right hon. Friend gave in his opening speech today, no one on the benches opposite or in the country can accuse him of complacency.
  One factor which has bedevilled the housing problem in the past has been the artificial level of rents which has prevailed for so long. To make the point clear, I will give the figures. There are about 5½ million owner-occupied houses today and they, of course, do not come into the total of rented property. There are now 1½ million decontrolled houses. There are 5 million controlled houses owned by private landlords. There are 4 million rented houses owned by local authorities. The overall total is 16 million.
  Houses let by private landlords have come under the Rent Act so that, generally speaking, the rents the tenants pay are twice the gross value. Thus, partially, the artificial level of rents paid by private tenants has been rectified. There does not seem to be any coherent policy with regard to the rents charged for local authority housing. Hon. Members opposite say that many boroughs and local councils charge economic rents. If one takes the national figures, one finds that the total rents received by local authorities throughout the country were £146 million in a recent year, whereas the gross value of the houses themselves was £85 million. Twice the gross value under the Rent Act formula for private tenants would make £170 million. Thus, it can be said that council tenans are enjoying an advantage over private tenants to the tune of about £24 million. That is another reason for the controversy about rents as between the different types of tenant.
  It was quite understandable before the war that one should subsidise council
  940
  houses. Even today, there is a need to subsidise council houses, but I submit—and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) raised this point—that it is wrong to subsidise all council tenants. Let us be a little discriminatory. In the days of higher wages—higher wages are being enjoyed, and I am jolly glad, like other hon. Members, that that is so—we must have some realism in rents.
  I think that no hon. Member opposite has yet mentioned the amount of subsidy which the Government are giving to council house tenants. In the housing report for the year 31st March, 1959, which came out in June, the Exchequer subsidy for council houses was given as £49 million and the rate contribution was £17 million, a total of £66 million, plus, in the case of some local authorities, a great loss on the housing account which is not included in this total. If this £66 million is divided among the 4 million council houses, it gives an average annual subsidy of £16 or £17 a year.
  To my mind, subsidies are a form of State assistance to tenants. No one would suggest that National Assistance should be operated on a local scale in as much as local authorities should determine the scale under which a man or woman receives National Assistance. [Interruption.] It may be administered locally, but the working out of one's benefits is dealt with on a national basis. I do not think that it is fair to give all tenants the same rebate, and I think that no one in this House, irrespective of which side he is on, would disagree that the person who has should help the person who has not. I think that that is a principle with which no one can disagree.
  Mr. Pavitt: Is the hon. Member suggesting that £66 million to cater for the social service need of a roof over the heads of the population is excessive? Does he consider that excessive in view of the £120 million thrown away on Blue Streak?
  Mr. Clark: I am not suggesting anything of the sort. I am merely giving a statement of fact. This is not a statement of opinion. These are factual figures. The £66 million about which I am speaking, the Exchequer and rates subsidy, is in addition to the £24 million which council tenants throughout the country

  941
  enjoy because of this formula of twice times the gross value.
  Mr. John McCann rose—
  Mr. Clark: I will give way in a moment.
  As I have said, I think that assistance through these subsidies is a national responsibility, and I do not think that we as a Government can abdicate our responsibility. What we must do is to have a national rent rebate scheme. I do not like the term "differential rent scheme." I should like there to be a national rent rebate scheme, and the standard rate of the council house computed at twice the gross value and put on the same level as other private tenants. Then, depending on the personal circumstances of the tenant, there would be a rent rebate.
  I know that in May, 1956, the Minister of Housing and Local Government sent out a circular setting out various rent rebate schemes. But, if the local authority did not want to act on it, it did not do so, and I think that the time has come when the Government should say that, although there are different rent rebate schemes throughout the country, the best one, whichever it is, should be superimposed on the local authority. To my mind, it makes no difference whether a man with two or three children, or whatever the size of his family, whose income is the same lives in Nottingham or Norfolk. If his circumstances are the same and he is entitled to a rebate, he should get it irrespective of the geographical situation of the town in which he lives.
  One thing which should be remembered is that the rent rebate scheme does not mean an increase for everybody. People who need assistance and who are entitled to it will pay less rent. I might mention in parenthesis that this subsidy which is being enjoyed by council tenants throughout the country is, in fact, notional income, but it is not dealt with in the same way as notional income under Schedule A and subject to tax.
  Mr. McCann: The hon. Member has talked about a subsidy of £66 million and equated it to £17 per house. He forgets, however, that the corporation tenant is subsidising the Government by virtue of the increased interest which is paid If the hon. Member would be
  942
  honest about it, he would probably find that the corporation tenant pays more to the Government than the Government pay to the corporation tenant.
  Mr. Clark: I cannot see how that comes into my argument. It does not alter the £66 million.
  Another point which I should like to raise is what I consider to be one way in which we might increase the housing accommodation. I believe that there is a tremendous amount of under-occupation in houses throughout the country. In 1938, there were 13½ million houses and flats and in 1959 there were 16 million, an increase of 2½ million. From 1938 to 1959, the population increased from 46 million to 50 million, an increase of 4 million. When, however, we calculate the number of persons per house, we find that in 1938, when we did not have the long waiting lists—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, yes, we did."]—not to the same extent—there were 3·5 persons per house; and today the figure is 3·15. This is something which the Government might investigate to see whether there is any under-occupation.
  All of us, in each of our constituencies, know that a man with a wife and family probably has a three or four-bedroomed house. When the family grows up, the man and wife are left in the house on their own. Whether they are in a council house or a privately-controlled house as tenants, they have a vested interest in the place and they will not move out. How much better it would be if the landlord were to convert the house into two units.
  I know that that would cause hardship. It is, however, worth investigating from the Government's viewpoint because, for a very small expense, it would provide an additional unit of occupation. More use should be made of conversion grants, which at the moment are discretionary to local authorities. Whereas standard grants are obligatory, improvement grants are discretionary and the Nottingham local authority, for example, does not operate the improvement grant scheme, because it is discretionary.
  If those under-occupied houses could be cut into two units, obviously there would be hardship to the tenant, but the Government could work out a scheme, the details of which would need to be

  943
  carefully watched, with the broad principle that the existing tenant of the house, which is now too large for him, should have the right to any one of the flats that remains after the conversion at either the old rent or twice the gross value of the new accommodation, or whichever figure is the lower.
  We should then find, I think, that tenants would be extremely grateful to forswear their accommodation. [Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members opposite laughing at this scheme. Hon. Members opposite know, as I do, that at our weekend surgeries we have many queries from tenants who come to us. For instance, a tenant will say, "I have a house at 25s. a week which is too big for me. Can you possibly get the local authority or somebody to give me smaller accommodation?"
  I think that if the Government were to press on with improvement grants, although I know it would mean legislation and it would certainly mean interfering with the rights of tenants, a system could be worked out whereby tenants would eventually obtain smaller units of accommodation, modernised—
  Mr. Julius Silverman: At twice the rent.
  Mr. Clark: It would not be twice the rent. I said they would have the option to take one of the places, whichever the tenant might want, at the old rent, or twice the gross value of the new property, whichever were the lower.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: I am glad that the hon. Member has given way on this important point. Does he realise that during his speech he has been talking about human beings, with their ambitions, their aspirations, and their troubles, and all the problems of adjustment, and not about sheep—as to how many could be confined to an acre or confined to a barn on a stormy night? Will he answer that?
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Answer that now.
  Mr. Clark: I think that that is a little unfair, particularly to an inexperienced Member like myself. I hope I did not give the impression that I was talking about tenants as though they were sheep.
  What we have to do is to look at this thing realistically. We have property in
  944
  this country which has a long life in front of it. Whether because of the various Rent Acts, whether Private Acts or not, some accommodation is being wasted. Where we see that it is being wasted it is essential that the Government should give the lead. Let us make these improvement grants, where there is conversion, compulsory upon the local authority—
  Mr. S. O. Davies: They are.
  Mr. Clark: They are not compulsory.
  A national drive to convert old houses cannot be on a piecemeal basis, by asking local authorities, "This is what you can do, will you get on with it?" I think that the Government must give a lead, to see that these improvement grants are compulsory, and I am sure that through improvement grants we shall get the extra accommodation.
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. George Brown: I think that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark) did his best to show an awareness of the problem. I can only say that from beginning to end it never seemed to me that he was really concerned with what to us is the kernel of the problem—the people who need decent housing accommodation. He was more concerned about costs. I was interested to hear him at one stage use the phrase "rate loss". It puzzles me that people on the other side of the House never seem to think of housing otherwise than as an entry on the debit side of a balance sheet. Contrariwise, I should have thought that every house we provided was on the other side. How on earth they can call it a loss, I do not know.
  Mr. W. Clark rose—
  Mr. Brown: It is too soon yet to give way. There will be many opportunities yet.
  This is the end not only of this debate on this topic but also of the debate for a whole week or so upon the Address. Some have claimed in other places, heady places, Scarborough among other heady places, that the Labour Party, being occupied, as it sometimes seems to be, with arguments of its own, is not an effective Opposition. Anybody who has ever thought that—and the Leader of the House went very near it himself

  945
  the other day at Scarborough when he committed himself to the view that it looked as if we were committed to committing suicide, and the Foreign Secretary, who is always rather more indiscreet, went a little bit further—those who have said that, I should have thought, had their answer not only today but in this last week. In fact, at the end of this debate on the Address, the number of issues which the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House has to answer is tremendously long, and it will test his ingenuity to do it in the half-hour which he has requested he should have.
  There is one real problem which we have to face in this House of Commons, and it is a problem in three parts. In the first place, Ministers never now answer anything, and the Minister today was a perfect example, if perfect be the right word, of this technique. They ignore everything that is asked, every issue that is raised, gallop off at a tremendous pace and with a whole lot of things which they have said four or five times before, and they stick to it. It is very difficult not only for an Opposition to be effective but for Parliament to be effective. If Ministers never answer anything, Tory Members never dare to press anything. Occasionally, they rise to the point. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) made a very notable speech today which impressed me very much, as I think it impressed everybody who was here at the time to hear him, but it was very delicately done. Obviously it is not going to be pressed, and, although the hon. Gentleman has not come back into the Chamber, he will get back before we vote and will vote with the Government.
  We have Ministers who do not answer, Tory Members who do not press anything and a tremendous monolithic vote on the Government side of the House and all this adds up to Parliamentary ineffectiveness. There is no Parliamentary democracy or Parliamentary force on the benches opposite.
  The problem of democracy today is exactly the problem of democracy in the 'thirties, and I shall have other occasions to refer to this, but the parallel is absolutely exact. The issue is not that we are so alive and alert with ideas that we sometimes flatten ourselves, but the problem of the deathly stillness on the
  946
  Government side of the House, where responsibility and power lie. I should have thought that today and in the past week that is just exactly what we have had. I must not go too far outside the terms of the Amendment or I shall incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but perhaps I may give two or three examples, because they are all bound up with the Amendment on housing and the sort of way in which on this closing day of the debate on the Address we have had this problem. We have had no answer—maybe the Home Secretary is going to provide it tonight—on the great issue raised in the Commonwealth affairs debate. We have had no answer to the great issue of the breach of faith of which the Prime Minister is accused not only by Sir Roy Welensky, but by many others—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is putting me in a difficult position. If he puts these questions, they are entitled to be answered, and if they were debated and answered the debate would be quite out of order.
  Mr. Brown: I am wholly in your hands, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I had an idea that there was a wish to answer them, but if they are not to be answered, I have no desire to ask them. There has been for years a tradition according to which the Leader of the House answered on issues that went wider than the last day's debate. It did not seem to me that he could answer them tonight if nobody else had raised them. I am very willing not to ask them if it is ruled that the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer, and I am quite willing to spend my time on housing.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. As the House is aware, there is a degree of give-and-take in these matters, but there is before us now a definite Amendment which must be replied to, though other things can be raised in passing.
  Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. Although there is in fact a definite Amendment before us to the Motion for an Address, my right hon. Friend would surely be in order in arguing the whole subject of the debate on the last day. This has always been the custom in the

  947
  House, and I have never heard it objected to before.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that what the hon. Gentleman has said and what I said just before mean very much the same thing.
  Mr. Brown: On that basis I am saying that we have had today—and this is what the Home Secretary is answering—and we have had on other days of debate, the titles of which I was introducing to show what I meant, the same pattern. When we have had questions asked Minister answering them on that day have given no ettention at all to them. As examples of what I meant I raised the question of the breach of faith which the Prime Minister has not yet answered and which I should have thought the Home Secretary would have wanted to answer tonight.
  We have not cleared up the defence debate to which we devoted a day, nor the details of the Polaris agreement. Nor have we cleared up—which is very relevant to today's debate—the problem of the new stagnation which has entered into our economy, and the external payments situation which seems to have entered into our overseas trade problem. All these will have a great bearing on the ability to house our people and on all the social services that we wish to carry out. We have had no answer from all the Ministers who have spoken so far to questions on which I would have expected the Home Secretary to want to address himself tonight.
  Our main problem in today's debate is housing. It seems to me that we have three major issues before us, none of which did the Minister of Housing and Local Government dealt with when he followed in the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). I have not hitherto spoken in the House in a debate on housing and I am not sure that I have ever before heard the Minister of Housing and Local Government all the way through a speech. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it from me when I say that I have seldom heard on a great burning social issue a more insensitive or complacent approach than he showed today.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about one in four of our people living in a post-war house, but the war is now
  948
  fifteen years behind us. He called it churlish of us to criticise, and at no stage did he even have a word for the three out of four who are living not only in pre-war houses but many of them in very miserable houses indeed. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the one in four was much greater and much more important than the three in four. He even said, and I took his words down, "There is no national housing shortage. It is a regional problem." I asked him what was the difference between a regional and a national problem if the problem existed in all the regions. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to see the point of this and he then reeled off a list of great cities which if one added them up not only accounted for the bulk of our population but identified every region. I could see no point in the remark except that it was an attempt to excuse himself for considerable complacency.
  "Let them buy a house of their own" was one of the right hon. Gentleman's great contributions to the debate, as though it was just about the easiest thing in the world and as though he had not inflated prices by the encouragement of inflationary land speculation and by the high interest rates which he and his colleagues have imposed. The right hon. Gentleman said that we had to see that supply caught up with demand—the nearest that he came to a piece of dogma this afternoon—and he cherished the hope that private builders would again build to let. The right hon. Gentleman said everything except anything to encourage people to believe that things would change and that those who are without houses would get them and those who are in fear of losing their present houses would have that fear removed from them. I repeat that it was a very insensitive and rather frightening and chilling exhibition that the right hon. Gentleman gave today.
  There are three main issues here, to none of which the right hon. Gentleman addressed himself. In the first place, there is the fantastic rise in rents, and "fantastic" is the word used especially in London, but not only in London. A tremendous amount of insecurity is being felt by tenants who are faced with the possibility of eviction unless they spend more than they can spend comfortably

  949
  and properly in rent. That is the first problem.
  The second problem is the inadequacy of the house building programme and the inflated costs of providing houses. This, in turn, leads to the inflated costs of second-hand houses. It is no use pretending that this is not a problem; it is a very great problem where I live and in my constituency.
  The third problem to which the Minister did not address himself is the failure to plan the proper use of our land—the Minister smiles, but he did not deal with this—and to retain for the community the betterment in land values which the community provides. It is leading to an unholy scramble for land, to vast speculative profits and to much hurt for individual citizens, and it is a great cheat on the whole community.
  What I hope to do in the time left to me is to look at each of these problems in turn very briefly, but, I hope, sufficiently to remind the Minister of what he missed and sufficiently, again I hope, to stimulate the Home Secretary into doing what the Minister did not do and into trying to deal with them.
  First, there is the rent rise. My hon. Friends and I have files of thousands of letters, and the Minister must have them, too. Surely nobody can deny what has happened in London. The letters are heart-breaking. They cover dreadful miseries. There are not only the dramatic cases in London—the most dramatic are, of course, in London, as has repeatedly been said—for this is a general rise all over the country.
  I sit for one of the constituencies which the Minister seemed to think was not involved in this, a constituency in the country with two urban and two rural districts, with much of our property, especially in the rural districts, in a deplorable condition—if one is using any decent standard of measurement. They lack all the civilised facilities and amenities. Recently, under the Minister's policy, they have all been the subject of very subsantial rent increases with no services performed in return. It should be remembered that here we are thinking of old cottages which have been paid for in rent very many times over.
  One has to be very callous, blind or insensitive to continue ignoring that this
  950
  is the position and that it is not only a London problem—it affects all of us—and ignoring the consequences of the Minister's policy. Every time I hear him, the Minister talks with contempt—there really is contempt in his voice on this point—about the men and women who think they have a moral right to live in the house where they have always lived. The phrase the Minister used—he used it with great contempt—was "How can anybody think he has a moral right of that kind?".
  I could not help feeling as the Minister spoke that what he feels deeply in his heart is the right of property—that if one owns property one has a right. The Minister is very concerned for this right. Indeed, he kept on to us about the wickedness of the landlord who did not get out of the property which he owned what he properly should have done. However, while the Minister feels the right of property, he seems peculiarly—if I may use the word again—insensitive to the rights of men, and one of the fundamental rights of men is freedom from fear, and one of the fears from which one should be free is that of losing one's roof over one's head through not being able to pay for it.
  When landlords move in to evict, is the Minister greatly moved? He knows that I have a personal interest in one London borough. I have been provided with a letter which, on his behalf, a K. A. Smith was induced to write to a householder in the borough in which I live. I honestly think that I have seldom seen such a letter from a Government Department. This was to a person complaining of the risk to him of being evicted as a result of the Act which the Minister introduced.
  What did the Minister command one of his minions to write? First, that he sympathised with the problem although he could not help him. Secondly, that it was a local council problem to rehouse him. Thirdly:
  "… although you are not registered"—
  with the Camberwell Borough Council—
  "for housing accommodation your case will be brought before a housing committee … and there is a possibility that there may be temporary hostel accommodation available for you."
  The letter continues:

  951
  "It is understood however, that if you find yourself homeless, after having been evicted, the London County Council Welfare Department for the Homeless … may be able to help you."
  The letter ends:
  "I am sorry"—
  said Mr., Mrs. or Miss K. A. Smith—
  "not to be able to send a more helpful reply."
  I am sure that K. A. Smith was sorry. After hearing the Minister today I wondered whether he was; whether he really felt what was happening to people like that chap to whom that letter was written.
  I ask the Home Secretary to see and feel the problem here. There are things that ought to be done which his Minister, in a dogmatic and doctrinaire way, will not do. First, to repeal the Act which caused the trouble, and to do it before more three-year agreements fall in, because we are only at the beginning of the problem. We are not at the end of it. Secondly, to replace that Act with something which recognises the moral rights of men in a civilised society to freedom from fear about their homes. Thirdly, to do something which recognises that a free market in housing in this country is absolute nonsense in present circumstances. It cannot exist unless one is going to be absolutely heartless. I ask the Home Secretary to recognise that.
  That leads me to my second point, which is the provision of new houses, because, as the Minister in one of those blinding glimpses of the obvious which he had this afternoon said, if we could get enough houses supply would catch up with demand and there would be no problem.
  Let us look at where we are getting on this. This afternoon the Home Secretary heard as well as I did the comparison between the Labour Governments of 1945 to 1951 and this Administration of all the mediocrities that we have today. I am prepared to concede anything to the Minister that he wants on that. The comparison is fifteen years' old. People who were born then are jolly nearly voting in my constituency. By the time the next General Election comes along they will not care whether the Minister is right or wrong in what he says about what we did or did not do. The question is, what are
  952
  we providing for people to whom 1960, and not 1945, 1946 or 1947, is the significant year?
  There are three things I can put to the Home Secretary which I should have thought could not be denied. First, we are not building houses today where they are needed. I will come later to the point about where we are building them. Secondly, we are not building them for the folk who need them, and I will try to prove that in a moment. Thirdly, we are not building them at prices or letting them at rents which folk can afford to pay today or which are reasonably in accord with the costs of building. One must distinguish between the cost of building and the cost of borrowing money, something which the Minister would not do.
  To try to prove those three points, I will give just two examples. As far as I know, the borough in which I live in London is typical of many, and the constituency which I represent in Derbyshire again is typical of many.
  I live in Camberwell. Let us consider private house building, to which the Minister devoted so much time. It has been said—by builders, not propagandists—that in London today it is impossible to buy a house for less than £2,700. That is certainly true of Camberwell, where in only one small part of the borough is there any building going on and one would be puzzled to find a house at as low a price as £2,700. Most of the prices are £4,000 and upwards.
  Yesterday, I was talking to a director of one of our two or three largest building firms. We were discussing what could be done about providing houses. He said, "If we could do it, we would build twenty houses for less than £3,000 to, four between £3,000 and £5,000, to one of more than £5,000; that is about the proportion of the demand". I guarantee that in the Borough of Camberwell there is hardly one house being build for less than £3,000, the rest being split up in £3,000 to £5,000 and more than £5,000 groups. In Dulwich they are almost all at more than £5,000. In other words, we are building for the wrong people at the wrong price and in the wrong places.
  The consequence of that is that the whole housing need in Camberwell is and has to be left to the local authority. The Minister must know that there are

  953
  4,600 on the list, after the most scrupulous and ruthless screening. There are 1,700 on what is called the most urgent need list—including T.B. cases and so on which are examined by a medical panel.
  We must realise what misery these statistics mean. If I have any advantage over the Minister it is that living in a tenement in south-east London until I was sixteen, with no water and no lavatory and no other facilities, has given me an awful understanding of what the figures mean in terms of human misery.
  To meet those 1,700 urgent cases and the 4,600 cases on the general list the council is desperately doing its utmost, with little help from the Minister and denied all subsidies, to build same 400 houses a year. Because the council cannot get the land—and it asked the Minister for a C.P.O for land in one area and was refused, the land being privately developed with houses having a £4,000 premium—the Council has had to clear before it could build, so that only about half the houses it builds are for people on the list. If nobody else became an urgent case, it would be eight years before the council could clear the urgent list, and if nobody else ever came on the general list—and of course others will—it will be twenty years before the council can clear the general list. Yet listening to the Minister this afternoon I got the impression that there was no problem and that the difficulties were practically solved.
  Let us now take my country constituency of Belper, in which there are two rural and two urban districts. Repton rural district has 600 people on the list and 50 dwellings under construction. It hopes to complete 50 in the financial year and of those 35 will be for the general list. It will be more than twelve years before that list is cleared if nobody else goes on. Belper urban district, a small, crowded urban district, has 200 on the list and 18 houses under construction. It hopes to complete 18 this year, but all are for slum clearance and none for the general list.
  Belper Rural District Council has nearly 400 on the list and 20 bungalows and 6 houses under construction. None will be completed in the financial year—this is not a Socialist authority—and heaven knows how long it will take to house the 400 on the list. Swadlincote
  954
  urban district, a mining, heavily built-up, heavily industrial but not very large area, none for general need. Of the 81 houses under construction, of which it is hoped to complete 23 in the financial year, none for general need. Of the 81 under construction, 50 are for the N.C.B. special scheme, the rest for slum clearance. Heaven knows when the 400 on the general list will be cleared.
  What is the use of claiming that there is no problem? Of course we have more room in our country constituencies for private building, and a great deal of private building is going on in my constituency. But nearly all of it, or certainly the bulk of it, is concentrated in the suburbs of the nearest developed town. It is no use telling all the people in my vast constituency, 50 miles from end to end, with its two towns, to come to live in Derby. That is where we do not want them. We want them spread across the division.
  What are the Government doing to help in the problem which I have shown by reference to London and the country? First, they stopped the subsidy for general need, so that we could not meet our general problem without rooking the ratepayers enormously; they applied the expenditure brake, raised the interest rates, making it even more expensive, and then encouraged, or allowed, vast inflation in land prices. I shall not develop the arguments about the first two, but I should like to say something about the rise in interest rates.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) in a notable speech at the beginning of the debate, referred to this, I shall repeat two figures. In 1951—and I should like hon. Members opposite to get the full savour of this—the average tender price was about £1,350 to £1,400 for a house. The repayment on that by a local authority, borrowing the money over sixty years, was £2,900. In 1959, as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's administration, the tender became £1,600, not a vast rise but it was for a poorer house—a markedly poorer house which was being put up compared with that when Mr. Aneurin Bevan was Minister of Health. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I will take hon. Members and show them. The £1,600 was the average tender price, but the repayment over sixty years is £6,000,

  955
  so that the repayments are more than doubled, whereas the actual cost of building has gone up very little.
  In the case of private ownership, if one borrowed £2,000 in 1951, one repaid £2,900. If one borrowed it today, one would pay £3,500. That is quite notional, because when I had to borrow in 1951, for every two years I paid I pretty well fell back one. [Laughter.] Perhaps I had better make the point again. The effect of all this is that, as the interest rates have gone up, I have gone on paying what I contracted to pay and the virtual result is that for every two years I pay, one year goes down the drain to pay for the rise in interest rates.
  We are throttling everyone under this Administration—the ratepayer, the tenant and the private owner alike—by making them pay through the nose for a fundamental social necessity. I think that the Home Secretary will miss the whole mood of the House if he does not address himself to this.
  My last point is about the fantastic rise in the price of land. I shall not bother with examples which have been given very many times. The Tories are very apt to go on crying crocodile tears while their accomplices get away with the swag. They got rid of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. Although they tried Amendments to it, they then abolished the whole thing, went full circle and took us right back to the pre-war position. We are now seeing people being mulcted—would-be house occupiers, owners, tenants and local authorities—all because the Government will not do anything about it.
  It is not only we who are complaining. The director of the large private house building firm with whom I talked yesterday was very concerned about this. He said—these are his words not mine—that the Government should be hammered mercilessly for this. He was prepared to give me the latest examples from his experience of what happened. We should go back to the Uthwatt Committee which made recommendations about this. One was that we should stop the indecent and obscene scramble and profiteering at public expense by the acquisition by the community at existing use value of all under-developed
  956
  land when the time comes to develop it, and then, when the community has acquired it, we should release it to the developers. Another recommendation was that site values should be rated every five years, based on the increase during those years. Yet another was that we should tax the betterment value as it accrued, leaving something to the developer but taking the bulk of it—the community-created increment—to ourselves.
  I would remind the House of what the Minister seemed to be trying to deny, namely, that this great, tragic problem affects millions of families. It is no use his saying that they are the last 6 million or the last 4 million; they are still millions of good, decent people, trying to bring up their kids in conditions which give them jolly little encouragement and little help. No Government worthy of their salt can be as willing to ignore this and be as complacent in the face of it as was the Minister today.
  We hope that the Home Secretary will have more to say. We doubt it, and it is because we doubt it that I ask my hon. and right hon. Friends, and hon. Members opposite whose consciences are superior to their party allegiance, to join us in the Lobby tonight.
  9.31 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): It has long been a Parliamentary tradition that the debate on the Address is known as the "Grand Inquest of the Nation", and it has been customary for many years for the Leader of the House to wind up the debate and to range over a broad series of subjects. Today this task is made slightly more difficult, because even if we do not want to interfere—and I do not think that hon. Members opposite can complain about the demeanour of Ministers or hon. Members on this side of the House—we have been witnessing the grand inquest of the party opposite. We have had this forced upon our minds, not because we have attempted to take sides—we have no desire to take any side in this matter—but because business has been rendered rather more difficult by the obvious strains which have taken place.
  I do not intend to occupy the time of the House on this matter for very long

  957
  today, but I should like to congratulate the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) on his own victory in this matter. I understand that it will be called a victory for sanity, which cannot mean a "Victory for Socialism".
  Mr. Skeffington: On a point of order. Some of us have sat here for five hours. Cannot we have an answer to the debate instead of all this cheap stuff?
  Mr. Butler: On these occasions, it is always instructive to examine the Amendments tabled by the Opposition—to consider the subjects they choose and to compare them with the subjects they do not choose. On this occasion, it is worth spending a minute or two in examining the subjects they have not chosen on this occasion as compared with previous years. This year we have had no Amendment dealing with prices—
  Mr. G. Brown: On a point of order. I was stopped by your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, for referring to debates which had occurred during the week. The Home Secretary is now referring to debates which did not occur during the week. May I have your Ruling on this matter?
  Mr. Speaker: I am at a disadvantage in the physical sense, in that I was not in the Chair when the right hon. Gentleman was called to order and I do not know the circumstances. It is within the recollection of the House that the practice in recent years has been that although, I suppose, the strict rules of debate confine us to the Amendment we discuss on the last day, some liberty has been allowed to both right hon. Gentlemen winding up the debate, one way and the other. I am at the mercy of the House about this. I have not had time to acquaint myself with the question to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I hope that with some mutual toleration we can get on.
  Mr. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would not have intervened again had you not used the words "mutual toleration". I was not allowed any toleration. I had to cut out part of what I had intended to say, even though it referred to debates that took place. Could we not have at least some mutual rules? I do not object to the Leader of the House referring to the debates that did take place—I would have forgiven
  958
  the fact that I was not allowed to do so—but he is referring to ones that did not take place.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not doubt a single word that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) says. I was not here and do not know the context. I hope that with tolerance we can now get on.
  Mr. Butler: It has been a traditional right of the Leader of the House and of the right hon. Gentleman winding up for the Opposition to refer matters not within the Amendment in the course of the debate. I will at once—
  Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: If that is the case—and I understand that the right hon. Gentleman who is Leader of the House was here throughout my right hon. Friend's speech—how is it that he did not rise to support my right hon. Friend and ask that he be allowed to traverse the whole subject of the debate on the Address?
  Mr. Butler: The right hon. Member for Belper mentioned the questions of Africa, of defence, of a new stagnation in our economy, of overseas trading, and took about five minutes on these subjects. I was proposing—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Belper need not get so excited. I was proposing to occupy four or five minutes on one or two issues and then to devote the rest of my speech to housing, which is the subject of the Amendment on the Order Paper. That is a reasonable thing to do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and a perfect atmosphere of give and take, I propose to do it.
  There was no Amendment on the vital matter of prices, for the very good reason that we have had the longest period of price stability since the war. In the debate on trade and industry last week, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was able to indicate the remarkable progress—[Laughter.]—in bringing jobs to development districts. This is a matter of the highest importance. In many previous debates on the Address much time has been devoted to unemployment, but just because the figure is now 1·5 per cent. compared with 1·9 per cent. a year ago, the Opposition laugh and do not want me to mention it tonight.

  959
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade reminded us that jobs in sight in the development districts numbered 90,000—50,000 in England, 30,000 in Scotland, and 10,000 in Wales.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is an Amendment relating to this particular question of local unemployment down for debate later this week. Is the right hon. Gentleman not anticipating?
  Mr. Speaker: Everything is strictly out of order which is not tightly limited to the Amendment. I do not know to what extent the right hon. Member for Belper was held tightly to some formula in the Amendment, but on the assumption that the Leader of the House was rightly reciting the topics he had mentioned, I do not for the moment think that we need be as stern as that.
  Mr. Butler: The fact is that the Opposition do not want to hear these home truths.
  Mr. Mitchison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is that a reasonable thing to say when your attention has just been called to the fact that there is an Opposition Amendment on the Order Paper dealing with this subject, which he is now anticipating?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think, with respect, that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering should question the reasonableness of what I am trying to say on this question. I hope that we can now get on.
  Mr. Butler: I would agree to a compromise if I may be permitted to say two words of friendliness to Northern Ireland, whose unemployment level is 5·9 per cent., and I will promise to get on to housing immediately after.
  I should simply like to say to my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster)) and Belfast, South (Sir D. Campbell), who spoke of the position in Northern Ireland, that the unemployment figure of 5·9 is better than it was when it was 7·6 per cent. and that we shall pay attention—I will not presume on the patience of the House and go into details—to what my hon. Friends have said on this matter. They have asked for
  960
  a conference between the Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom Ministers. I am myself seeing Lord Brookeborough at the end of next week, and he is also visiting the Prime Minister.
  My right hon. Friends the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Aviation are to visit Northern Ireland with a view to following up these questions about the difficulties at Short Bros, and Harland and on the question of possible shipping contracts and on the question of the new Britannic contract. I hope that these visits will be valuable. I should like to say to my hon. Friends that the whole House is sympathetic with their feelings about the position in Northern Ireland which, though it has shown signs of considerable improvement, is still a matter not only for the Northern Ireland Government but also for the United Kingdom Government.
  Now, in view of the wishes of the House, and according to my own desire and the timing which I have arranged myself, I should like to come to the Amendment on Housing. I wish, first, to say what a pleasure it is to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper in this new rôle. He is doing a sort of "benefit match". His right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) had his turn, and I think that between them we would rather not give an opinion because it might cause offence. I would only say to the right hon. Gentleman that he did very well today and was looked on with great favour by his right hon. Friend the leader of the Opposition sitting on his right; and it was not quite the same look which I noticed the right hon. Gentleman gave when his other right hon. Friend was speaking.
  Coming to the Amendment on the Order Paper, the right hon. Gentleman spoke with great emphasis both from the point of his own constituency and from the angle of the economy, and if I deal with some of these problems, including the vexed question of interest rates, and answer some of the points in the debate, I hope that the hon. Members will bear with me as best they can. The right hon. Gentleman was indignant at my right hon. Friend's statement that since the war nearly one in four families had moved into a new house—one in six, actually, since 1951. I should have thought that a fairly generous acknow-

  961
  ledgment of the work done by all Governments since the war, including the Labour Government. My right hon. Friend did not stress as much as I should have liked him to, although he mentioned it, the fact that the Opposition are moving a vote of censure on us and our housing policy for building 50 per cent. more houses than they did in their term of office. The right hon. Member for Belper did not mention that.
  The right hon. Gentleman did not mention that the total completions in 1960 will be in the neighbourhood of 300,000 houses, which has been a good balance ever since 1953. Moreover, the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who also spoke with great sincerity on this matter, complained about local authority completions, but he did not acknowledge that in the first nine months of this year nearly 5,000 more local authority houses have been completed than in the first nine months of last year. So, if we look at the statistics, which are quite easy to quote, we see that completions next year will be at a very high level and that this year completions have been 17,000 more than a year ago. So I think there is a cause for certain satisfaction in the general housing programme of the Government—
  Mr. Frank Allaun rose—
  Mr. Butler: No, I cannot give way. Now that I am dealing with housing, I want to have a fair run.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) made a moving speech. He said that he agreed only with certain strands of our housing policy but not with the whole thing. I should have thought that if the strands are tied up together they are pretty convincing. The hon. Member for Fulham complained about the number of buildings for owner-occupiers. The figure is 160,000 per annum built for sale, which I should have thought a fairly good answer to his query about the support being given to the building of housing for owner-occupiers. He referred to going back to the Act of 1947. I should have thought there was universal support, at any rate from this side of the House, for getting rid of the development charge. If we had not, we should never have had the houses and we have no intention of putting it back again.
  962
  If we take one or two other of the strands to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford referred, we find that in slum clearance—to which reference was made by the right hon. Member for Belper, but which does not appear in the Amendment—more than a quarter of a million slums have been demolished or closed and more than three-quarters of a million people have been rehoused. What is interesting, in looking at the figures for housing, is that half the remaining slums to be cleared are in 50 or 60 local authority areas out of 1,500 in the whole country. That gives some indication of the advance we have made in slum clearance. There is still an immense job to be done, but it is confined to certain areas where we intend to concentrate upon it and to continue to have the success we have had.
  As for the elderly, local authorities are now building twice as many one-bedroomed dwellings suitable for elderly people as in 1951. Over a quarter of local authority house building is in this category. The present rate of modernisation is four times that of two years ago. So in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), who spoke of improvement grants, I think it can be said that we are making a considerable advance with the various strands of our housing policy.
  Now I should like to refer to some very sincere speeches made by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) and the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). The hon. Member for Islington, South-West spoke from great experience in his constituency about bad conditions in houses occupied by several families. The hon. Member for Willesden, West dealt with problems of the Rent Act to which I shall come in a moment. The problem of the multi-occupied house has come to my attention as Home Secretary in my general responsibility for law and order. I have had it brought to my attention by several hon. Members. I am glad, therefore, to support my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, to see that this is a point to which he is to give special thought, and to see whether the law needs to be strengthened to deal effectively with this sort of case.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith) referred to the Rent Act, in company

  963
  with several other hon. Members, including the opener, the hon. Member for Fulham, in particular. I do not think it out of place in dealing with the Rent Act for the moment to remind hon. Members what was the general object of the Act. They may not agree with it, but, although some of the effects may have been severe—and I should like to be the first to answer the right hon. Member for Belper in acknowledging that—the object of the Act was a farseeing one and I believe it is going to bring dividends in the end. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
  The object was to encourage landlords to keep their property available for letting instead of selling as soon as they obtained vacant possession, as they usually did. The object was also to encourage private enterprise to provide new accommodation for renting, to convert their properties in larger number and more convenient units and to encourage the better use of the available stock of housing by discouraging people from occupying more space than they need or can afford.
  The objects which informed the introduction of the Bill still remain our long-term objects. One of the purposes of this debate has been to find out whether my right hon. Friend or the Government have any intention of reverting to general control in order to deal with a bad minority of landlords. I would say that it is not our intention to revert to general control. It has been very important to find a selective weapon to deal with the bad landlord without penalising the good ones. The hon. Member for Willesden, West referred to the compulsory purchase order. This was the weapon chosen by the Minister in his Circular 45/60 to local authorities saying that they should consider compulsory purchase orders.
  The hon. Member for Willesden, West was worried about the manner in which the decision would be taken to assess the capital value of a house in relation to a compulsory purchase order. The price on any compulsory purchase order would not be based on the landlord's demand but on the district valuer's or, ultimately, the Lands Tribunal's valuation. That is a very different thing from taking it at the landlord's assessment.
  964
  These compulsory purchase orders have already had a very useful effect. The first two cases were so bad that, when the local authorities made the orders, the landlords swiftly capitulated and reduced the rents demanded by 50 per cent. The publicity raised by this particular circular has been extremely healthy. There have been at least two cases in which local authorities have secured a concession for the tenants by approaching the landlord without having to make an order. I believe that this has been a very useful move by my right hon. Friend, and the fact that there have been so few orders lends some countenance to our belief that, although the matter is extremely serious, its extent may not be quite so bad as some hon. Members imagine.
  My right hon. Friend has not only dealt with that matter but he has given an indication about a new Landlord and Tenant Bill which it is proposed to introduce during this Session. The general intention of the Bill is to make a landlord liable by Statute for major repairs if the tenancy he grants is for a short term. In such a case, any covenant purporting to bind the tenant to carry out such repairs will be void. I believe that this will be a very good reform. The Bill should succeed in preventing onerous obligations being put upon short-term tenants. Also, it should put a stop to the unsatisfactory practice of some landlords who draft their leases in such a way as to leave the responsibility for repairs uncertain. It will ensure that, if a local authority has to serve a statutory notice requiring repairs to be done, the landlord will have to pay even if the local authority has to do the work itself.
  I come now to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Belper in regard to interest rates and the general subject of subsidies provided for council houses and for local authorities at the present time. This may not be a very attractive subject for this late hour tonight, but it was raised by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) as well as by the right horn Member for Belper and the hon. Member for Fulham. The first principle which the Government adhere to—and this was their view in 1955—is that council house building cannot be insulated from general economic conditions. The reason for this was apparent to me, at any rate, in 1955, and is quite

  965
  apparent now. Between 1951 and 1957, housing investment amounted to between one-quarter and one-fifth of all capital investment. If we attempted to insulate or isolate house building from the ordinary rates, we should, I am sure, do great harm not only to house building but to the economy.
  Mr. Gaitskell indicated dissent.
  Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but what happened in the time of his Government before 1951? Twice, in 1947 and in 1949, it was found essential to out down council house building because the economy could not stand the strain. We have once, in our period of government, had exactly the same experience. I can tell the House from my own experience as an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer that we ourselves had great problems in carrying the big housing burden in our time. What we have succeeded in doing since 1955 is not only to carry the economy successfully forward but also to carry the housing programme forward and to handle it in a sensible way.
  In 1955, access to the Public Works Loan Board was restricted to authorities unable to obtain all the capital they required in the market on reasonable terms. It is still possible to have access to the Public Works Loan Board as the lender of last resort. It lends at rates which reflect the cost of borrowing on the market for a comparable period of time by authorities of good standing. I claim, I am sure rightly, that the only way to combine a sound economy and council house building is to ensure that this enormous investment to which I have referred—that is, just one-quarter or one-fifth of fixed capital investment—is handled by the general monetary mechanism on the same level as the rest of the economy. Otherwise, I do not think that we will be able to combine a sound economy and a sound building programme. That might be very hard if we were not paying Exchequer subsidies, but we are already paying Exchequer subsidies to authorities—over £60 million in 1959–60—and I would remind the House that subsidies continue on existing houses, since they are normally payable. On houses built since the war, subsidies will continue for sixty years.
  There are also special subsidies paid on new houses, slum clearance, one-
  966
  bedroomed houses, new towns and town development. In this connection, I should like to say that there is a good deal of feeling, at any rate on this side of the House, for the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), who spoke about the need of subsidies being used for those who needed them most. If it were the case that all authorities used the subsidies as a pool and subsidised only those who needed subsidising, they would be able to let their houses at much more reasonable rates than they are let at present.
  However, for those faced with high rents or an unreasonably heavy rate burden there is available a special discretionary subsidy of up to £30 a house. This is also obtainable for general purposes where there is urgent need to build. So far, 57 authorities have received approval for this subsidy. That, I think, indicates that the only sound way to run a sound economy and sound housing programme is to submit the whole economy to the same monetary disciplines and, at the same time, by special subsidies, to make it possible for people in need in the housing sector to obtain the subsidies which they need. This I hope will indicate that we are not only maintaining the economy as sound but are also maintaining a housing programme. As I have said, my right hon. Friend is watching the situation with great care with a view to seeing whether he can improve it in any way.
  This is the conclusion of the debate on the Address. I have not time to deal with land values. My right hon. Friend the Minister indicated in his speech the number of new towns at present being built. He indicated the new towns in Lancashire and in the Birmingham area in contemplation. He indicated the measures he has taken for the future of the development plans with the local authorities and the steps he has taken with a view to trying to use our land in the way desired by the hon. Member for Fulham, who put it in a very dramatic way, saying that 50,000 square miles of new building land is necessary to meet all our obligations.
  I will conclude with a word used by the right hon. Member for Huyton—that we were wallowing in extravagant complacency. I will only say that we

  967
  have a housing record very much better than that of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and we propose to maintain it until the end of our time.
  Question put, That those words be there added:—
  The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 332.

  Division No. 2.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Owen, will

  Ainsley, William

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Paget, R. T.

  Albu, Austen

  Hannan, William

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Awbery, Stan

  Healey, Denis

  Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Baird, John

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Baxter, william (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Peart, Frederick

  Beaney, Alan

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Pentland, Norman

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Hilton, A. V.

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Holman, Percy

  Prentice, R. E.

  Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist'l, S. E.)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Benson, Sir George

  Howell, Charles A.

  Probert, Arthur

  Blackburn, F.

  Hoy, James H.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Blyton, William

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Boardman, H.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Randall, Harry

  Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Rankin, John

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Redhead, E. C.

  Bowles, Frank

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Reid, William

  Boyden, James

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Rhodes, H.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Janner, Barnett

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Jeger, George

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Ross, William

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Callaghan, James

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

  Short, Edward

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Chapman, Donald

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Chetwynd, George

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Cliffe, Michael

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Collick, Percy

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Kelley, Richard

  Small, William

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Cronin, John

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Snow, Julian

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  King, Dr. Horace

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Lawson, George

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Ledger, Ron

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Steele, Thomas

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Stonehouse, John

  Deer, George

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Stones, William

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lipton, Marcus

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

  Dempsey, James

  Loughlin, Charles

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

  Dodds, Norman

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith

  Donnelly, Desmond

  McCann, John

  Swingler, Stephen

  Driberg, Tom

  MacColl, James

  Sylvester, George

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  McInnes, James

  Symonds, J. B.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Mackie, John

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mahon, Simon

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Evans, Albert

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

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Fernyhough, E.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Timmons, John

  Finch, Harold

  Mapp, Charles

  Tomney, Frank

  Fitch, Alan

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Fletcher, Eric

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Forman, J. C.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Warbey, William

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Weltzman, David

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Millan, Bruce

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd

  Moody, A. S.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Ginsburg, David

  Morris, John

  Whitlock, William

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mort, D. L.

  Wigg, George

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Moyle, Arthur

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Grey, Charles

  Mulley, Frederick

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Neal, Harold

  Willey, Frederick

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Williams, Rev. Li. (Abertillery)

  Grimond, J.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Gunter, Ray

  Oram, A. E.

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Mr. J. Taylor and

  Woof, Robert

  Zilliacus, K.

  Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Aitken, W. T.

  Doughty, Charles

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Allason, James

  du Cann, Edward

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Alport, Rt. Hon. C. J. M.

  Duthie, Sir William

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Arbuthnot, John

  Eden, John

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Elliott, R. W.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Balniel, Lord

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Kimball, Marcus

  Barber, Anthony

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Kirk, Peter

  Barlow, Sir John

  Farr, John

  Kitson, Timothy

  Barter, John

  Fell, Anthony

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Batsford, Brian

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lambton, Viscount

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)

  Forrest, George

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Foster, John

  Leavey, J. A.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

  Freeth, Denzil

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Bidgood, John C.

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gammans, Lady

  Lindsay, Martin

  Bingham, R. M.

  Gardner, Edward

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Bishop, F. P.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon Selwyn (Wirral)

  Bossom, Clive

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Longbottom, Charles

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Box, Donald

  Godber, J. B.

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Braine, Bernard

  Gough, Frederick

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Brewis, John

  Gower, Raymond

  McAdden, Stephen

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

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

  McLaren, Martin

  Brooman-White, R.

  Green, Alan

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Bryan, Paul

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)

  Bullard, Denys

  Gurden, Harold

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  McMaster, Stanley R.

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

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Maddan, Martin

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Maitland, Sir John

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Chataway, Christopher

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Hendry, Forbes

  Marshall, Douglas

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Marten, Neil

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Hiley, Joseph

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Cole, Norman

  Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Cooke, Robert

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

  Mawby, Ray

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Hirst, Geoffrey

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

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Hobson, John

  Mills, Stratton

  Cordle, John

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Corfield, F. V.

  Holland, Philip

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Costain, A. P.

  Hollingworth, John

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Coulson, J. M.

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Morgan, William

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Hopkins, Alan

  Morrison, John

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Hornby, R. P.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Critchley, Julian

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Neave, Airey

  Crowder, F. P.

  Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

  Noble, Michael

  Cunningham, Knox

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Curran, Charles

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Dance, James

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Page, Graham

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Jackson, John

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  970

  971

  Partridge, E.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Peel, John

  Seymour, Leslie

  Turner, Colin

  Percival, Ian

  Sharples, Richard

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Shaw, M.

  van, Straubenzee, W. R.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Shepherd, William

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Pilkington, Capt. Richard

  Simon, Sir Jocelyn

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

  Pitman, I. J.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Pott, Percivall

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Wall, Patrick

  Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Stodart, J. A.

  Watts, James

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Ramsden, James

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Whitelaw, William

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Reel, Hugh

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Talbot, John E.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Renton, David

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Rippon, Geoffrey

  Teeling, William

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Temple, John M.

  Woollam, John

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Worsley, Marcus

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Roots, William

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Mr. E. Wakefield and

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Colonel J. H. Harrison.

  Russell, Ronald

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, Tomorrow.—[Mr. Redmayne.]
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, Tomorrow.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

  FLOOD PREVENTION (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

  TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (NON-PARTICIPATING EMPLOYMENTS)
  10.14 p.m.
  Dame Irene Ward: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Insurance (Non-participation—Assurance of Equivalent Pension Benefits) Regulations, 1960 (S.I., 1960, No. 1103), dated 27th June, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
  I am moving the Motion on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations, an organisation of which I have the honour to be a vice-president. It will be within the recollection of the House that the superannuation schemes of local authorities are all statutory schemes and that by decision of Parliament taken from time to time the positions of employees in the superannuation schemes, as far as I understand, are adequately and satisfactorily protected.
  The Association of Municipal Corporations is very regretful that in these Regulations so much duplication of work will be involved for the local authorities, which in the opinion of the Association are covered by the statutory schemes. Speaking on behalf of the Association, I feel that a great deal of administrative time will be wasted and a great deal of ratepayers' money will be unnecessarily spent. It is because of these factors that I move the Motion.
  I want to be as conciliatory as I can, and I have a very modest request to make to my right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, who, I understand, will reply to the debate, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to couch my request in the Association's terms. I therefore quote. The Association, of course, is referring to the Motion, and it says:
  "It is not anticipated, nor indeed is it the desire of the Association, that the Motion should be accepted and the regulations annulled. What they are anxious to secure, however, is an undertaking from the Minister that this matter will be re-examined with a view to the requirements imposed on local authorities being substantially relaxed. As at
  974
  present drawn, for example, the regulations will impose on local authorities requirements in regard to the sending of notices to the Ministry which will duplicate information already being supplied,"—
  That, of course, is under the present statutory scheme—
  "or which for some other reason is unnecessary; they will, also, require information to be given to staffs on retirement which will be useless to anyone, but which will require detailed calculations. All this represents a waste of time and a waste of money."
  I think that that puts the case in a nutshell.
  I understand the Association put its case, with the support of the London County Council authorities, to the National Advisory Committee to the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. Unfortunately, that Committee did not see fit to accept any of the proposals or recommendations that were put to it. Therefore, when the Committee tendered its advice to my right hon. Friend, none of the proposals genuinely put forward by the Association of Municipal Corporations was embodied in that advice.
  It is very regrettable that when a body with a reputation such as the Association has, and with wide support throughout the country, makes proposals for restricting administrative work and saving ratepayers' money, the proposals should be rather casually treated by the National Advisory Committee. Therefore, I think the proposal which I have outlined for, in the words of the Association, a re-examination of the whole problem should be welcomed and acceded to by my right hon. Friend.
  I want to make one or two rather personal points on this matter. If, as I understand, my right hon. Friend's case rests on the fact that the Regulations will give protection to all employees in private and commercial firms who contract out of the graduated scheme as well as to the employees of local authorities—I understand that that will be the point of view expressed by my right hon. Friend—I should just like to say that I have been in the House of Commons a very long time, I think I can claim to be the sort of person to whom my constituents come when they feel they have a sense of grievance, whoever it may be against, and that during the time I have been in the House I have never had an employee of any local

  975
  authority with whom I have been connected complain of treatment by the local authority in respect of its statutory superannuation schemes. Therefore, whatever my right hon. Friend may feel in this matter, I do not think she need be unduly alarmed that the employees of local authorities will not be properly safeguarded in the new scheme should they decide to contract out. I must ask the House to accept that.
  I would say just one other thing to my right hon. Friend if she is proposing to use this argument. A long time ago when the present Secretary of State for the Colonies was the Minister of Health, the employees of the local authorities asked for some new regulations, which were to be of benefit to them, to be placed on the Statute Book. My right hon. Friend said that a place would be found for them on the Statute Book. A very long time has passed, and the local authority employees who sought certain support from this House have never been able to receive it because the Government have never found time for the necessary regulations to reach the Statute Book.
  Consequently, I think I can claim that Her Majesty's Government are not always to be found in the position of being supporters of the employees of local authorities. I would say at once that this was not in connection with superannuation schemes, but I think it is a very useful illustration. I hope that in discussing the Association's application my right hon. Friend will not take the line that the Government are better able to protect or more desirous of protecting the in-tests of the employees of the constituent bodies of the Association than the Association itself is, because I should have to disagree with her on that point.
  I do not intend to detain the House very long, because I know that many hon. Members would like to take part in this brief discussion. Over a long period, many people, both from the Opposition and from this side of the House, have argued for a reduction in administrative costs. We have asked for a reduction in administrative work. We have asked for a reduction in paper work. Many of my hon. Friends take a great interest in Government expendi-
  976
  ture. It is true, of course, that it is ratepayers' money which is involved, but this is important to many people.
  If I might put it in a not very forceful way, it is annoying, when the Association of Municipal Corporations is carrying out great schemes which are statutorily protected so far as its employees are concerned and it puts forward certain proposals, that they are not accepted. I will not go into the proposals in detail, because they are fairly complicated and I would have to read them out. Most people, like myself, would not understand them, but I hope that the House will accept the view that they were reasonable proposals designed to save work and money.
  The Association of Municipal Corporations feels that the scheme may be brought into ridicule if no way is found of doing away with the duplication of work. Bearing in mind the general demand that we should reduce paper work and that we should not duplicate Government and local government forms, it is annoying to many of us that the National Advisory Committee paid no attention to the point of view expressed to it by the Association of Municipal Corporations.
  When people argue about reducing Government expenditure and about reducing the necessity for filling in forms, I always find that one Government Department hopes that another Government Department will do it. When one Government Department is faced with a particular form which might be discarded, or is faced with a particular administrative action which might be destroyed, one always finds that the Government Department is reluctant to do it.
  That is all I want to say because I am moving this Motion in a conciliatory tone. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the approach made by the Association of Municipal Corporations should find favour, and that at no far-distant date the Minister should seek to meet the Association of Municipal Corporations and get down to discussing the details of the proposals that were made.
  It is all very well for a National Advisory Committee which, taken by and large, has no connections with local government perhaps to be as apprehensive as I am of the details that have been

  977
  put forward by the Association of Municipal Corporations, but it is regrettable—though I understand that the Minister is always co-operative in this matter—that the Minister, knowing what a powerful body the Association of Municipal Corporations is, did not seek an opportunity of meeting it and discussing the detailed proposals which it made.
  I hope that on this occasion I might act as a mediator. If the requirements and the requests from the Association of Municipal Corporations which I have read out find favour in the eyes and brain of my right hon. Friend, I hope that she will be able to say that the Minister will take time to meet those who deal with the statutory superannuation claims on behalf of local authorities, and I hope that some accommodation will be arrived at.
  10.30 p.m.
  Dr. Horace King: I wish to support the Prayer which the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has moved with characteristic ability and not so characteristic gentleness tonight. The hon. Lady has spoken on behalf of and representing the views of the Association of Municipal Corporations. Some of us who take part in the debate will be expressing the similar view of the County Councils Association, and those of us who know and like local government will agree that if the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association are unanimous on any matter, theirs must be the right view.
  The names which are attached to the Prayer show that no party criticisms are involved in the criticisms which we are making of the Regulations under discussion. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary know the views of the Opposition on the parent Act itself, but they have nothing to do with tonight's debate, and I ask the House whether we can start the debate with what we agree about.
  All of us want to give the maximum protection to the non-participant in the Government's new superannuation scheme. The Regulations are devised to give that protection to anyone who is not in the new graded pensions scheme when he leaves one job and goes to another, or when there is a gap
  978
  between one job and another, or even when there is a break, through illness, in otherwise continuous service under one employer. We all want to ensure that unless a person is assured in other pays of pension benefits to which his service entitles him, the employer will make a payment in lieu of contributions to the Government's own National Insurance Fund.
  For that purpose, it is of vital importance that the man's period of service should be determined without peradventure. None of us can dispute that, and none of us prays against the policy which is enshrined in these Regulations.
  However, local authorities are in a position different from that of any other employer. Like many of my hon. Friends, I sit on the County Councils Association, and I know the very patient and detailed work which the Association, in consultation with N.A.L.G.O., put into the very complicated task of working out relations between all its employees, those in statutory pensions scheme already and those not, in their relations with the Government's new Act.
  As the House knows, the bulk of local authority employees fall into four groups, all of whom have their own superannuation schemes. All those superannuation schemes are operated under statutory authority. Without any of these Regulations, the Government already exercise full and complete control of such statutory schemes. In this, local government workers differ from other employees who will have pensions schemes offered by private employers. The latter obviously need to be subject to all the safeguards which the parent Act and these Regulations might provide, but the statutory superannuation schemes are already fully safeguarded.
  The local authorities believe that many of the new provisions in these Regulations are otiose as far as they are concerned and mean unnecessary work for local authorities, work which will cost the ratepayers money, work which will give nothing to the Government which they cannot already get, and work which can give no extra protection whatever to the employee who is already fully covered by statutory provisions.

  979
  Let us take a simple case of the sickness of a local government employee. I here take the opportunity of paying tribute to the generous treatment by local authorities of their employees who are sick. I only wish that all private employers had the same ethical standards of conduct in treating their employees. The records of local authorities of absences due to sickness are complete, accurate and permanent, yet every local authority, by the Regulations that we are discussing now, will be compelled to treat any sick employee who has been away for 13 weeks as though he has terminated his employment, at least for the purpose of the record, even though he is still employed by the local authority and even if he is covered by statutory pension provisions. "Surely", say the local authorities, "the Minister can rely on the local authorities for absences due to sickness".
  Again, a person who transfers from one statutory pension scheme to another carries his pension rights with him, and yet, for the purposes of the record, even such a person has to be treated as having terminated his employment, and after 13 weeks has elapsed from the ending of his last payment under his first job the local authority has to set in motion a process to ensure what is already statutorily guaranteed, namely, that the local authority will honour its obligations—even though, as a simple fact, it cannot possibly get out of them. These are just two examples which illustrate the general case which the hon. Lady and those who will take part in this debate are putting, on behalf of the local authorities, to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.
  It is true that the Regulations give the Minister power to interpret them generously in certain aspects. We understand, for example, that he recognises the general position of local authorities in that they do not really terminate the employment of an employee who is absent through sickness for more than 13 weeks if that absence is due to a number of causes, such as absence for maternity. We also know that, when a man transfers, the 26 weeks period which elapses from the time when he ends his payment under the first job to the time when the Minister demands a full account of guaranteed payments due in
  980
  respect of that pensionable period can be extended, in some cases, under Regulation 18 (2), to 65 weeks.
  But we are asking for more than that tonight. The Minister has no more loyal co-operators in this country than the county and borough treasurers. Many of them believe in the Government's block grant system, and I should imagine that most of them—certainly most of my colleagues on the County Councils Association—are misguided enough to support the Minister politically, and even to support the parent Act. These public servants work hard. They are willing to do all the administrative work that is necessary. This is an opportunity that the House might take of paying tribute to those local government administrators who, all through the years since the war, have seen steadily increasing the burdens of administrative work which we are placing on local government as we build the Welfare State.
  But such people object—rightly, as I believe—to work which has no meaning. They object to work for which they can see no purpose; to the filling in of forms for form-filling's sake. I should imagine that the House is with them in that view tonight, and that hon. Members should, therefore, ask the Minister to take back these Regulations and redraft them in a way which, while containing everything necessary to safeguard the position of non-participants, at the same time recognises the adequate protection which already exists for local government workers covered by statutory schemes, and that in so doing the Minister will refrain from putting an unnecessary burden and expense on local authorities.
  10.40 p.m.
  Sir Wavell Wakefield: I have received a letter from the town clerk of St. Marylebone setting out the arguments for reconsideration of these Regulations, which have been so well put from both sides of the House this evening. I do not want to waste the time of the House by going over arguments already made, but what I am deeply concerned about, as must be every other hon. Member who has perhaps received similar information from his local authority, is that it seems to be quite clear that the Regulations as proposed will mean a waste of time and money.

  981
  It is the duty of hon. Members, in particular, to criticise the Executive where there is expenditure of money. Form time to time hon. Members write to Government Departments drawing attention, perhaps, to unnecessary expenditure or to what they believe to be a waste of money. The reply always comes back asking for exact and precise details. Precise and definite details have been and are being given tonight, and it seems quite clear that the Government have here made a mistake.
  No Government is infallible. This Government and their predecessors over the last ten years have a wonderful record of achievement in many things, but it seems that on this occasion there has been a slip up. I hope that my right hon. Friend will candidly admit this and will come clean. It would be a great thing if the Government could accept, acknowledge and realise that under these proposed Regulations there will be a waste of time and money. That really is inexcusable.
  In speeches made up and down the country, members of the Government regret the high rates of taxation, whether local or national. Here we have an example of an unnecessary waste of time and money which can only mean either a raising of rates or of national taxation and not a reduction of them which everybody would like to see take place.
  I therefore beg my right hon. Friend to look again at these Regulations to see what can be done in the light of the very great experience of the local authorities which really know how to run this type of business, and, having looked at them again, to see what can be done to avoid the duplication of paper work and a waste of time and money which the country simply cannot afford to have whether in private or national enterprise. I beg to support the Motion.
  10.43 p.m.
  Mr. G. A. Pargiter: As Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the County Councils Association, I have been concerned with a good deal of work in connection with the actual way in which this machinery will work in local government. I do not think that the Minister will be able to complain that either her Department or any of the other Government Departments concerned have lacked co-operation as
  982
  far as the local authority associations are concerned. These associations have gone out of their way to try to make the scheme work.
  We on this side of the House said that this was not a very workable scheme. The fact is that it is a very bad scheme. I doubt whether anyone has done as much as the local authority associations to make the scheme understandable to the ordinary local government employee. Over 500,000 leaflets have been prepared and published for the benefit of authorities and their employees so that they may fully understand their rights and obligations and their safeguards regarding pensions schemes. I doubt very much whether the Government have done so much to explain their scheme. The co-operation of the local authority associations and their experts have been freely offered and have been made use of by the Departments concerned.
  These objections are not altogether lay objections from people like myself. They come from the very people who have to operate the scheme and do the donkey work. They have said that the Government are bludgeoning a scheme through—I use the word bludgeoning advisedly—against the advice of local authorities simply because it will afford a certain amount of administrative convenience to the Government at the expense of considerable administrative inconvenience and cost to the local authorities.
  If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary cares to say now that the Government are prepared to look at this matter again and discuss it with the local authority association officers to see whether regulations can be made which have regard to the statutory responsibility already resting on local authorities in connection with their own schemes, there will be no need to say any more tonight. But, apparently, the right hon. Lady does not care to do that.
  Mr. Arthur Tiley: Would not the hon. Gentleman admit that it has been put fairly from both sides of the House that almost every Regulation is not for the protection of this or any other Government but for the protection of the employee?
  Mr. Pargiter: I am grateful for the intervention. That is the burden of my

  983
  case. There are cases where the Regulations are vital and necessary for the protection of employees under certain circumstances in private employment. They are totally and absolutely unnecessary in public employment, because statutory responsibility rests on local authorities with regard to their schemes. They are audited by the Ministry auditors, and so on, to ensure that the schemes are satisfactory. From time to time, deficiency payments have to be made by the authorities in order to ensure liquidity and the employee will get what he is entitled to when he is entitled to it. These safeguards exist by statue and no local authority can contract out.
  Mr. Tiley: Then will the hon. Gentleman withdraw what he said in the earlier part of his speech when he said that this is to protect the Government? He has now admitted that it is not.
  Mr. Pargiter: This is really nonsense and a waste of time. The burden of the case we want to make is that they are safeguarded in the statutory schemes which makes a great deal of these Regulations totally unnecessary. It will merely oblige them to engage staff to keep records which are unnecessary. Many of these records will be duplicated in the Minister's Department or other Departments. What is required is a little co-ordination in Government Departments. Is it impossible for these things to be co-ordinated? Is it necessary for local authorities to keep special records of particular cases—they will have to keep records of every one in order to apply to a specific case—in which the present record is quite adequate? By and large, when the certificates are issued, they will be compared with the Government records to make sure they compare and then everything will be all right. If they compare correctly, everything is all right.
  A person who is in and out of employment may be under a non-participating scheme with a particular employer or in a branch of a particular industry. Let us take the engineering industry as an example. Some will be participating and some will be non-participating employees; there will be quite a lot mixed up in both. These people will change their employment in the course of the development of the industry, and it may
  984
  well be that the records required to be kept there will have to be much more meticulous than those in local government service because a person in local government service, by and large, continues in the service.
  The argument about 13 weeks sickness has been used. A man does not lose his employment or his statutory rights at the end of 13 weeks in local government employment. His statutory rights are continued for pension purposes. Why the necessity to notify the Department at the end of 13 weeks? Because of it, one has to keep the records in a form which fits every employee in the authority, not just the odd employee to whom it happens. Those records must be kept, and already they are duplicated by the Ministry of Health because of the requirements in connection with sickness benefits and so forth.
  All we ask is that the Government Departments should look at the degree of co-ordination that they might employ amongst themselves. Let them look at it from that angle, not from the point of view of engaging more people in Government Departments—we do not want that—but from the point of view of seeing how far, in the case of statutory schemes of local authorities, their arrangements might be treated in not precisely the same way as those of every small employer are treated where the turnover of labour is very considerable. That is all we ask.
  We recognise the need for the protection of the employee. We do not quarrel with the basis of the Regulations so far as they are necessary. They are made necessary by the half-baked scheme which the Government have introduced for pensions. Had we had the all-embracing pension scheme we wanted, of course, the amount of Regulations would have been far smaller than is required in the type of scheme which has been introduced. Much of the Regulations is made necessary for that reason; but in local government employment where those factors do not apply, it is surely reasonable that the people concerned in the local authorities should be consulted and that the Regulations should be amended or drafted in such a way as to have regard for their wishes. There is no desire to deprive employees of any of their benefits. At I have said already, they

  985
  are very adequately safeguarded statutorily.
  We think that the Minister has just dug in his toes. He is forcing through the Regulations at this stage, quite improperly, against the best wishes of the people who are just as much concerned for the well-being of their employees as the Government may be. Because that is our view, unless the Minister is prepared to give an assurance, the House will, I hope, give the Minister a very salutory lesson on this occasion and teach him that we do not want to employ a host of people in local government merely for the sake of employing them in order to keep records for the Government. These records are regarded by the local government officers, the experts—not by me—as quite unnecessary and a burden on the whole community in the long run. Part of the burden is borne by the Exchequer. It will involve a quite unnecessary and undesirable use of manpower. We suggest that the Regulations should be amended by the Minister in such a way as to enable us to come to a conclusion acceptable to everyone in the House.
  This is not a political issue. I join issue only on whether this is a good insurance scheme. But that is not this case. The scheme has been accepted by Parliament, and we cannot deal with that now. We want it to work in the best possible way, and we suggest to the Minister that he ought to have some regard for the wishes of the local authorities which, because of the co-operation they have given already to the Departments in this matter, really deserve a little consideration here.
  10.54 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I wish to ask two quite simple questions before my hon. Friend replies. Perhaps I should say that I am not speaking on behalf of any association but on behalf of those of my electors who are serving or thinking of serving in local government. As I understand it, the main case deployed by those who object to the Regulations is that the Government already have sufficient information about how these statutory superannuation schemes work to make further reports unnecessary. If that is so, my right hon. Friend will have no difficulty in answering my first question,
  986
  which is to ask whether in these schemes local authorities apply the principle of abatement in due course. Are they required to do so by law, or is it left to their discretion? If so, do the Government know whether abatement will be applied? This seems to me to go to the hub of the matter. Whether or not abatement is applied is likely to determine whether the employees will wish to contract in or contract out. It is a major consideration.
  My second question is this. We have been told several times that since all these schemes are statutory, they must be fairly satisfactory. That may be so, but, surely, it does not follow that they necessarily fulfil the conditions which would make it lawful for an authority to contract out. As I understand it, the Crown pension schemes in their present form do not fulfil the conditions which permit of contracting out. I understand that the Civil Service and Fighting Services pensions will require modification owing to the fact that at present a person has to serve, I think, twenty years in the Civil Service before he can, as it were, take his pension away with him at all, which conflicts with the requirements for contracting out contained in the National Insurance Act. Does that apply to the local authority schemes? Is any modification of the schemes necessary and, if so, do the Government know what it will be?
  Mr. Pargiter: I can tell the hon. and gallant Member that the precise figures concerning contracting out have already been agreed between the Department and the local authority associations.
  10.57 p.m.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: I want to add one or two words to express the opinion of the Counties of Cities Association in Scotland. When the Regulations were in draft, the Association was consulted. Its opinion having been taken, it asked that certain procedures should be laid down within the Regulations. Unfortunately, however, the Association was not successful in its request and, because of that, felt that the Regulations should be opposed. The Association states clearly that together with its counterparts in England and Wales, it is utterly opposed to the Regulations in their present form because they are time consuming and wasteful of public money.

  987
  I was interested to hear the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who moved the Motion this evening, speaking about Members on her side of the House being interested in whether money was wasted. All I can say for myself is that, with one exception, I have spent more years than any other Member of the House on the Public Accounts Committee trying to look after public expenditure. This, therefore, is one of the things that rather appeals to me.
  The Counties of Cities Association feels that the Regulations will entail a great waste of public money, which we are not entitled to do. Having regard to the existing statutory provisions in relation to local government schemes, the Association considers that the Regulations are quite unnecessary. What I want to put on record is that the Counties of Cities Association, which includes the Corporations of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen, is opposed to these Regulations and hopes that this House—
  Mr. E. G. Willis: And also the County Councils Association in Scotland, too.
  Mr. Hoy: Yes, indeed, the whole of them, as I was about to say. The Counties of Cities Association, including all the large cities, and the County Councils Association of Scotland are opposed to these Regulations. Unless the Minister is more conciliatory than she has been so far, my colleagues and I feel that we must divide against the Regulations tonight.
  10.59 p.m.
  Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I am glad that we are having this debate this evening, but I am rather disappointed so far. The representations that are being made in support of the Prayer are solely on behalf of local authorities and other bodies which are operating schemes under some form of statute. I agree that the Regulations do impose upon them onerous responsibilities, but I think we should realise that at the same time they also impose an onerous responsibility on the private employers. I should have thought that once the scheme had satisfied the Regulations so far as contracting out is affected, it was in very much the same sort of cate-
  988
  gory, so far as the safety of insured benefits and things of that nature are concerned, as the local authority and other statutory schemes which we are talking about; once it satisfied those conditions for contracting out which have already been approved by this House. I think that the Regulations we are discussing tonight impose an unnecessary burden not only on the local authorities but upon other employers who have contracting out arrangements as well.
  Regulation 3 lays it down that when someone leaves an employer—and this applies just as much to a private employer as to a local authority employer—payment in lieu of contribution has to be made to the Ministry of National Insurance. At the Ministry's office there will be a record card for each individual, whether in a local authority contracting out scheme or in a private one, for it applies equally to both, and is equally ridiculous in both, to my mind. At Newcastle there will be a card which the Minister and his servants can look at which tells them that a man was off sick for, say, twelve weeks during the period; and that the amount to be paid out by the employer, whether a local authority or private firm, is x pounds. It is perfectly simple. The record is there. They are all there in Newcastle.
  That is not what is going to happen. In future the employer has to keep special records. At the moment he stamps by machine or by licking the stamp and putting it on. In future the employer will have to keep a record which shows how many weeks' sickness the employee has had during the whole period of contracted out service with him. If and when the employee leaves his service—I say "if and when" because the chap may stay with him throughout his service—the employer has to be able to show how many weeks' sick leave the employee had during the whole period of service while contracted out. The employer has to state it in the records, duplicating those already being maintained by the Ministry for all employees, all insured persons, at Newcastle. This affects not only local authorities but also the private employers.
  What exactly are we looking at? The employer has to have a certificate certifying who the person responsible for

  989
  paying the pension is, who the responsible payees are, where the pension is to be collected, and how much is to be paid to every retired person.
  Hon. Members may not realise that for the next five years not a single one of these employees will have an amount greater than 4s. per week. The cost of issuing the certificate would use up almost six months' benefits in many cases. Does the House realise that for someone earning £12 a week now and due for retirement in five years' time all this procedure, all this information, this special certificate and everything else, has to be furnished and done to tell him that he is entitled as of right to a pension of 2s. a week for the rest of his life? It is a nonsensical arrangement which the Ministry enforces upon employers by their ridiculous superannuation scheme which they are imposing upon unwilling contributors throughout the country at the present time.
  The more I look at the Regulations and the mass of other Regulations, some of which have been prayed against, some of which have not, the more I am forced to the conclusion that this ridiculous type of scheme for ludicrously small benefits which we are talking about, the Government scheme, is a waste of time, and involves an unnecessary administrative burden, and the sooner, in the light of the Government's scheme, they pack up contracting out altogether, the better and cheaper it will be.
  11.4 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) for the very restrained way in which she opened this debate. I think that we have had a very interesting and useful discussion. I hope hon. Members will not think that I am lacking in conciliation when I say to them that there are quite obviously some very genuine misunderstandings on the part of the local authorities, and indeed of hon. Members here tonight, as to what the position is in relation to our records and the schemes of the local authorities.
  I should like to say a few words very generally about the Regulations as a whole and then to deal in detail with
  990
  the points raised on behalf of local authorities by hon. Members. The Regulations contain provisions for determining when a person's period of service ends and for giving proper notice of that fact. They provide for the disregard of temporary interruptions and for the time for making a payment in lieu of contributions. They lay down conditions on which a person is treated as assured of equivalent pension benefits and contain special provisions for concurrent employment and for treating consecutive employments as a single continuous employment. They also make provision for delaying refunds of contributions from occupational superannuation funds in cases where the employer has a right to recover part of his payment from the amount to be refunded The remaining provisions are of a comparatively minor nature.
  I should like to deal specifically with the Regulations which have given rise to the criticism expressed by the local authority associations. First, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, no request has been received by my right hon. Friend to meet the local authority associations. He would have been very ready to do so, and I think that some of their misapprehensions might have been avoided but, as these representations had been made to the National Insurance Advisory Committee and had not been accepted by that Committee, I cannot in any way permit any decision of my right hon. Friend's—
  Mr. Pargiter: The right hon. Lady is saying that no representations at all have been received from the local authority associations on these Regulations.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: No, that is not what I said, with respect to the hon. Member. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth complained that the Minister had not met the associations. I am saying that the associations have at no time requested my right hon. Friend to meet them although he would have been perfectly happy and prepared to do so. That is quite a different thing.
  Mr. Pargiter: Has not the right hon. Lady been made aware of the representations made to the Minister at official level and of the fact that, to say the least, these representations received very short shrift

  991
  from the Department? If that is not within the Minister's knowledge and he has not said, "You cannot treat local authorities like this. Let me have a look at what the complaints are", is it not time that he did?
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member is deliberately misrepresenting what I said. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth suggested that the Minister had not met the local authority associations, and the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) said that my right hon. Friend ought to be prepared to do so. My right hon. Friend has at all times been prepared to do so but has never received a request to receive them on this issue. The hon. Member for Southall then suggested that my right hon. Friend should instruct an independent statutory body, the National Insurance Advisory Committee, about the manner in which it should give its independent view. I am sure that the House would feel that that would be a very unconstitutional practice since the purpose of the Committee is that independent bodies should refer their points to it and that it should be able to form its own independent opinion on any regulations that the Minister has to place before it in relation to this Act.
  Mr. Pargiter: My advice from the associations themselves and their principal officers is that representations have been made to the Minister and that the Ministry is not prepared to make any change in the Regulations. I believe this to be a statement of fact. I do not wish to mislead the House in any respect. I say that the Minister is aware of representations that have been made and that there is no question here that he can avoid responsibility in this respect or hide behind the Advisory Committee.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend has never sought to avoid any of his responsibilities, as I am sure all hon. Members realise. With respect, I think that the hon. Member for Southall is putting his own request and what he would like to see, as a very distinguished member of a local authority. I was answering a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, which I am perfectly justified in replying to on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that at no time have the local authority
  992
  associations asked the Minister to receive a deputation. That was the point that was put to me.
  Dame Irene Ward: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will allow me to intervene, as I seem to be rather involved in this. I knew that my right hon. Friend had not seen the local authorities. What I was asking was whether, now that the whole thing has come out into the open, it would be possible for my right hon. Friend to meet both the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils' Association to discuss the matter. That was the request that I made to my right hon. Friend, and I hope she will be able to say one simple, pleasant little word—yes.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her charm. My right hon. Friend is always prepared and ready to meet the local authorities and the County Councils' Association, but that does not lessen my responsibility to answer in the House tonight the many accusations that have been made against the Regulations and to try to clear up the many misconceptions which are apparently held.
  The net result of the case which the local authorities have put through my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth would be to impose less stringent safeguards on local authority employers than are required of either industrial employers or of those responsible for the Civil Service, both of which have accepted these very carefully thought out Regulations which are now before the House. I do not feel that it is likely to be thought that the Government would impose on themselves regulations and restrictions for the protection of employees which they thought were unnecessary. Surely, if it had been feasible to relax these Regulations because of the soundness of certain statutory schemes, the Government would have exempted themselves in relation to civil servants.
  The local authorities exercised their right to place their objections before the National Insurance Advisory Committee. As hon. Members will know, this is an independent body, including representatives of both the employers and the T.U.C., which the Minister is required by Statute to consult in regard to these Regulations. It cannot, therefore, be said that the local authorities'

  993
  representations have not been fully and independently considered. As hon. Members have fairly said, the Committee found itself unable to accept them, and has approved the draft Regulations with one or two minor amendments which my right hon. Friend has made in the Regulations now before the House.
  In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), the hon. Member for Southall said that the local authority scheme was already approved and agreed by the Government. I am sorry, but it has not reached anything like that stage yet. There have been consultations between the local authorities and the Registrar, but the local government superannuation schemes will have to be subjected to some modification in relation to the employers who participate in the pensions scheme—the schemes have to be modified in certain minor respects—and as yet no application for registration has been made to the Registrar and we have not yet finalised the modifications that have to be made.
  Mr. Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-West): What does that mean? Is the right hon. Lady now saying that in the circumstances she is prepared to meet the Association of Municipal Corporations and the other bodies with a view to coming to a definite conclusion in respect of the matters which have been raised here tonight? If she will say that, perhaps we can come to some kind of agreement.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: That would be a very easy way of avoiding by responsibility to answer some of the erroneous points that have been raised tonight. However, with respect, I propose to answer them.
  It is still open to local authorities to request to see my right hon. Friend when they want to.
  Mr. Janner rose—
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am sorry I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman, because his hon. Friend is anxious to say a few words and I have not much time left.
  The complaint raised by hon. Members is about notifications required to maintain track of an employee's move-
  994
  ments. I ask hon. Members to listen seriously to what I believe are fair answers to the points raised.
  The basis of the complaint by local authorities is the notifications required. Local authorities have assumed, quite erroneously, that we have, or shall have, up-to-date records of all contracted out employees at the commencement of the scheme. We have not got them. We shall not have any kind of comprehensive record until the last of the returns for the first year's working come in in 1962. At present the Registrar is issuing certificates to contracted out employers covering certain groups of employees, but we have no individual record of the employees contracted out.
  The local authorities appear to have missed the main point of the Regulations by their insistence on the soundness of the schemes. No one is disputing the soundness of the statutory local authority superannuation scheme, or of the other statutory schemes applying to local authority employees. What we are protecting are the rights of the employee, whose individual rights may from time to time be in question and dispute with his employer.
  I confess that I find my hon. Friend's confident satisfaction with the statutory schemes in marked contrast to her persistent and passionate attacks on another statutory scheme, but, to make the checks which local authorities and hon. Members allege we can make, we would have to ensure that every employer returned a full list of all his contracted out employees, with appropriate details, before the start of the scheme next April, and thereafter keep us advised of any changes in it. That is the alternative to what we have put in these Regulations.
  To save such a burden of work, and to save returning the names of all 750,000 local government employees, we have instead provided that employers shall be required to inform us only of the much smaller percentage of employees whose service or contracted out payments are interrupted by circumstances outlined in the Regulations.
  I have read with great interest the many phrases quoted by hon. Members tonight from the paper put out by the local authorities. How great then is this "inordinate amount of administrative effort, out of all proportion to the

  995
  objects to be achieved", as the local authorities describe it, likely to be?
  When a man is off work, there is no certain method of calculating how long he will be away. Nor is there absolute certainty that he will return. Therefore a balance had to be struck between recording every absence, however short and temporary, which would be ridiculous, and of giving no notice at all. That balance has been struck at 13 weeks and, generally speaking, if the absence exceeds 13 weeks the employment is deemed to be terminated and the question of preserving the employee's pension rights arises. As hon. Members said, under Regulation 18 (2) this 13-week period can be extended to two and a half years.
  We expect that overall something of the order of 3 million employees are likely to be contracted out. So far as local authorities are concerned, we have not the final number, but, with the teachers, policemen, firemen and their general staffs it is likely to be about 750,000. Whatever the figure may be, local authorities will have been saved that number of initial notifications, because the system of control has been devised in such a way as not to require a special notice for every member in contracted out service.
  It is against that background that the complaint about having to notify sickness absences beyond 13 weeks should be considered. Our general experience with sickness benefit claims suggests that out of 750,000 employees, not more than about 15,000 a year, a much smaller number, would be likely to be away for spells of more than 13 weeks. The complaint, therefore, is based on the prospect of having to make about 15,000 notifications a year out of 750,000 employees—and that would be spread among some 1,800 local authorities, including Scottish authorities. It is likely to be a mere handful in the case of most local authorities although a larger number for the greater and more widespread authorities.
  There are also about 1,500 authorities other than local authorities included in the local authority superannuation schemes. They include authorities such as the Belgrade Theatre Trust (Coventry) Limited, the Croydon Association for
  996
  Moral Welfare, the White Fish Authority, the British Film Institute and the Welsh Tourist and Holidays Board. On the basis of the case put up by the local authorities as to the soundness of their schemes under local authority superannuation legislation, those bodies would be perfectly justified in claiming precisely the same exemptions as those for which the local authorities have asked.
  Can it be seriously suggested that the protection of their employees as outlined in the Regulations amounts to a "considerable and exorbitant burden of work," or that, in order that we can have the records of all the employees, local authorities would prefer to return 750,000 names? Even if they did we should still have to obtain extra returns from the employers. Let us suppose that a man has a 20 weeks' gap on his card in his contracted out stamps; we shall not know whether the gap is in the same employment or not and we shall not know whether he has changed his employment or not. We should have to write to the employee and ask him and he would probably have to check as to payments and dates with his employer before we could obtain the information which we required. There would then have to be three or four communications and not one, whereas the employer terminating employment, or dealing with sickness, has the records to hand for the purpose of stamping the employee's card.
  May I now deal with the question of the termination of employment? We are under an obligation to ensure that persons contracted out have pension rights at least as great as could have been obtained over the same period of employment had contributions been paid to the State on earnings of £15 or more a week. Hon. Members will know of the three methods of dealing with that—transfer to another scheme, freezing of pension or making a payment in lieu.
  Local authorities have suggested that to reduce the number of separate notifications, the returns made to the Income Tax authorities could be used for this purpose. Inspectors of taxes get about 9 million changes of employment notices a year under the P.A.Y.E. scheme. It can hardly be thought that it would be an economical system for the inspectors to have to sift those 9 million notices to

  997
  identify those relating to contracted out local authority or other authority employees in local government superannuation schemes, particularly as the inspector of taxes would not necessarily know, without special inquiry, whether the particular employee was currently contracted out or not. When the inspector had identified the relevant cases, he would have to send a special notice about that to the Ministry, something which could have been done more easily by the employer in the first place at the time the employment terminated and when he had up-to-date information.
  Hon. Members have made a great point about the equality or the parity of the two schemes, but they are not wholly in parity. One suggestion has been that the employees' rights to pension are adequately covered on termination by the auditor's certificate. It is the duty of the auditor to satisfy himself as to the correctness of financial payments, but under the local authority scheme there may be a 10-year waiting period before a man is entitled to any payment, and the auditor's duty will be discharged by ensuring that the terms of the local authority scheme have been met.
  But under the provisions of these Regulations we have to ensure that, if an employee terminates his employment and at that time would not be in a position to receive a frozen pension from the local authority, a payment in lieu is made, in relation to that employee—unless he transfers to other local authority work—to the Government fund. Therefore, the provisions are not exactly in parallel, as I am sure hon. Members appreciate, and it is necessary for us to have this information and for the employee to be aware of it. Within a local authority, if a man leaves contracted out employment he is safeguarded either by transferred rights or a payment in lieu to the Government scheme. To that extent it would be quite beyond the terms of reference of the auditor to give certificates—disregarding the fact that the employee would have to wait possibly until the end of the year before such a certificate was completed.
  With regard to a local authority objecting to having to give the employee a certificate of insurance which will include
  998
  a statement that he has been contracted out of the scheme, and showing details of the pension he should receive, hon. Members would agree that it is an employee's right to know where he stands, and for local authorities to suggest that this would serve no useful purpose and would involve additional calculations of no value is an oversimplification of a very necessary safeguard. The local authorities object to having to obtain employees' agreement under regulation 2 (5). Why not? It is the right of the employer to choose whether he contracts out or not. But it is surely the right of the employee to know the terms on which his pension stands when he leaves his employment.
  I know that I have not dealt with every point raised, but I promised the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) that I would leave a few minutes for him to speak. I know that he will appreciate my difficulty. I have had many interruptions.
  Overall, I would say that local authorities are claiming preferential treatment which would avoid the necessity for their making returns which are in the interests of their employees. My right hon. Friend will closely follow the whole of the working of the Act, and it may well be that in the course of its working amendments may be found necessary. But at the moment he cannot do other than put before the House the Regulations which have been approved by N.I.A.C., which we genuinely and sincerely believe are in the interests of the employees.
  11.28 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: This is very difficult stuff for the House of Commons. I am surprised that such vehemence has been injected into a debate on the details of administration. In the last few minutes of the debate I want to make a suggestion. I suggest that we let these Regulations go through; they cannot come into operation before the beginning of April, and there is time enough for local authorities to approach the Minister and make whatever representations they feel suitable. He can consider them. These Regulations can be amended if the Minister, on reconsideration, feels that they should be.

  999
  My own belief is that the Minister has more on his side than this House realises at the moment. I stress that these Regulations are intended to safeguard the rights of employees. We have heard a good deal about the administrative responsibility of employers, and I must say something in defence of the employees. I am not satisfied that the
  House would be justified in voting in favour of the Prayer.
  Dame Irene Ward: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 26, Noes 136.

  Division No. 3.]

  AYES

  [11.31 p.m.

  Awbery, Stan

  Hilton, A. V.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Beaney, Alan

  Hoy, James H.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Blyton, William

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Whitlock, William

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  King, Dr. Horace

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  MacColl, James

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Dodds, Norman

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gunter, Ray

  Stonehouse, John

  Mr. Loughlin and Mr. T. W. Jones.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Sylvester, George

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Morrison, John

  Allason, James

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Arbuthnot, John

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Neave, Airey

  Barter, John

  Hiley, Joseph

  Noble, Michael

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Bidgood, John C.

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Bingham, R. M.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Hobson, John

  Page, Graham

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Holland, Philip

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Box, Donald

  Hollingworth, John

  Peel, John

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Hornby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Pott, Percivall

  Braine, Bernard

  Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Bryan, Paul

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Rees, Hugh

  Bullard, Denys

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Shaw, M.

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Jackson, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntfrd & Chiswick)

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Stodart, J. A.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Kirk, Peter

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Cole, Norman

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Cooke, Robert

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Coulson, J. M.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Tapsell, Peter

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Cunningham, Knox

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Curran, Charles

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon Selwyn (Wirral)

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Turner, Colin

  Deedes, W. F.

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Elliott, R. W.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Farr, John

  MacArthur, Ian

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Finlay, Graeme

  McLaren, Martin

  Wall, Patrick

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Gammans, Lady

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Watts, James

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maitland, Sir John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Marten, Neil

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mawby, Ray

  Woollam, John

  Gower, Raymond

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

  Worsley, Marcus

  Green, Alan

  Mills, Stratton

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Sharples.

  HOSPITALS, DARTFORD (RONALD MELOY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
  11.40 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Dodds: Today, in the House, we had a debate on housing, and horrifying stories were told of the misery and distress caused to very many of our people as a result of the Rent Act. I wish to speak now not about large numbers of people but about one humble person in particular and a handful of people in general. It is, I think, worthy of comment that in this House, where the Commons concerns itself with not tens of millions but hundreds of millions of people throughout the Commonwealth, it is possible to raise the case of one humble person. That is a remarkable fact, and it is, I believe, something of which this House of Commons may be proud.
  I am raising the case of Ronald Meloy, a boy of 16, who, unfortunately, is almost completely disabled by a form of paralysis. He is an intelligent boy. He is well liked by many people. Because of his present unsatisfactory circumstances, I have been asked to take up his case with all the emphasis I can command in the hope that matters can be improved with all possible speed.
  This boy, despite his affliction, was, until a few months ago, reasonably happy at his home where, in the care of his mother, he could live and, perhaps, watch the television. During the day, he was taken by car or ambulance to a special school at Lewisham. His circumstances changed when he lost the care of his mother. Of course, it was impossible for his father to look after him at home. After a while, he was taken to a hospital in Margate, and he is now at a hospital in Bognor.
  At his home in Belvedere in my constituency, Ronald Meloy had many friends. Now, those who wish to see him must make a journey of 120 miles. Although there are friends who, on occasions, can take his grandmother, father and young brother or other friends to see him, even for these good Samaritans it is asking a lot to do the journey very often. The information I
  1002
  have is that, as a result of this separation from his family and friends. this boy is very lonely and unhappy. No one can doubt that he must miss his relatives and his friends.
  I hoped that the matter could be dealt with without any need to bring it to the Minister or to the House. I made all the inquiries I could in the hope that something would be done quickly, but I gather from what I was told that it is likely to be months, or even a year, before he can be admitted to a hospital at Dartford within a mile or two of his home. Dartford has a conglomeration of hospitals. Only last year, the Southern Hospital was closed down in that area. I was, therefore, surprised to be informed that, although there is a small unit there, it is very rare for a vacancy to be available for a person of this sort. Not only that. There are two other people ahead of Ronald Meloy waiting for vacancies at the Joyce Green Hospital. The situation of this young chap is such that a wait of a few months or a year is like an eternity. I am told that the effect of the loneliness is most marked upon him. That is the testimony of relatives and friends who have seen him.
  After my inquiries into the case of Ronald Meloy, I am very concerned to find that there are others in the same or a worse plight waiting for a vacancy at the hospital in Dartford. Ronald Meloy, I am informed, has had his name down for this hospital, not for months, but for nearly two years. The doctor advises that he should go there. Those concerned with the case begged that something should be done so that he could be in the neighbourhood, and I have letters from friends that should he be in the Dartford area, they would be able to take him out or he could go home for week-ends. For example, a letter from his father states:
  "To get Ronald to Dartford would be a godsend to us all. We could have him home at week-ends."
  I therefore raise this case because the information locally indicates that there is need to extend the vacancies in a hospital of this sort.
  It happened that a few days ago, I had a letter from the Minister on another subject. It related to the fact that 100 young people under the age of 16 who are mentally ill are accommodated in

  1003
  the men's wards in mental hospitals. The Minister rightly pointed out that these youngsters were in areas where there were no children's wards at the hospitals and that if they were to be sent to a children's ward, it would mean that they would have to go a long way from their homes. Time and time again in this House it has been pointed out how essential it is that young people in particular, when they are receiving treatment, should be within easy access, if possible, of friends and relations. In other words, visiting is most important for patients.
  I therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether she considers that it is easy to make a journey of at least 120 miles return. Is it not a fact that Dartford is well equipped with hospitals? Surely, in 1960, it is possible to do better than to face a boy like this with a wait of twelve months or even longer before he can get into a hospital locally.
  If the Parliamentary Secretary tells me something different, if she tells me that it will not be long before the boy gets into hospital locally, the news will be greatly welcomed by many people in the Belvedere district, which I represent. Therefore, I make no apology for raising this matter, for it affects not merely Ronald Meloy, but others who may be afflicted in the same way and who, I hope, as a result of this matter being raised, will not have to undergo the loneliness and misery that is now the lot of Ronald Meloy.
  11.48 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) brought this case to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Minister in a detailed letter, which I have read, dated 26th October. The hon. Member then advised us on 2nd November that he proposed to raise the matter on the Adjournment. I make no complaint of that. The hon. Member has every right to raise the matter in the House and, as he said, to debate in the House of Commons the case of one humble person. It means, however, that I have not been able to make as full an inquiry as possible, because there has not been the time available to give the full answer that I should wish to
  1004
  give and which the hon. Member hopes to receive from me. Nevertheless, I have obtained all the information that is possible up to this stage.
  From the inquiries which we have been able to make of the hospital authority, the Kent County Council and Ronald's family doctor, the history of the case is as follows. Ronald Meloy, now aged 16, suffers from muscular dystrophy. He has the use of his arms and hands but has no power in his back or legs and requires two people to lift him. Until recently, he was living with his parents, as the hon. Member said, and attending a school for physically handicapped children at Hither Green.
  Because of the increase in his disability and difficulties connected with his transport to and from the school, the question was raised in 1958 of his admission to some form of institution, but his parents wanted him to say at home and go to school as long as possible. In July this year because of domestic difficulties which arose because his mother was no longer at home and the fact that he would have to leave school at 16, inquiries were set afoot as to the possibility of some form of residential accommodation, and on 21st July the Kent County Medical Officer of Health wrote to the South-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board asking for assistance in finding a placement. There was a waiting list for the muscular dystrophy unit at Joyce Green Hospital, which was obviously suitable and convenient, and the Board was asked if it could suggest some other suitable place. On 12th August the boy was placed on the waiting list for the muscular dystrophy unit at Joyce Green, and inquiries were made as to the possibility of other accommodation. The boy was well known in the Woolwich group of hospitals as he had attended the orthopaedic clinic at Woolwich.
  It was then learned that the domestic crisis had passed, the mother having returned home, and that the parents did not want Ronald to go away from home. Early in September the domestic difficulty occurred again, and it became urgent to find some place for the boy. On 14th September arrangements were made for him to go to the long-stay orthopaedic unit at the Royal Sea Bathing Hospital, Margate, as a temporary

  1005
  measure till more suitable accommodation could be found. Meanwhile, no vacancy had arisen at Joyce Green and the Almoner at Margate eventually arranged for his admission to Ashley House, the Shaftesbury Society home at Bognor Regis. He went there on 25th October.
  The Kent County Council as welfare authority has accepted financial liability for Ronald's maintenance while he is at Ashley House and is meeting the cost. That is the present position.
  There are a number of points to be made. In the first place it seems that the need for residential accommodation arose because of the difficulties in the home occurring in September. Secondly, it appears that all those concerned, the family doctor, the County Council, the hospital authorities and the voluntary organisations, did all that they could to meet the immediate emergency. I think it fair to point out that there was no lack of attention by all those bodies, and that action was in fact taken straight away.
  In his letters of 26th, 29th and 31st October to my right hon. Friend the hon. Gentleman makes the point first that Ronald has been on the waiting list for the muscular dystrophy unit at Joyce Green Hospital for nearly two years. He repeated it tonight. This is not the case. In 1958 there was some talk of finding institutional accommodation for the boy and the possibility of admitting him to the Muscular Dystrophy Unit then at the Southern Hospital, since transferred to Joyce Green when the Southern was closed, was mentioned, but his parents wanted him to stay at home and carry on with his schooling. Ronald was put on the waiting list on 12th August, 1960, as a consequence of the domestic difficulties arising in July. Later in August these difficulties, as I have explained, disappeared and the parents again wanted him to stay at home. Early in September the mother left home for the second time and emergency measures became necessary, the boy being admitted to the Royal Sea Bathing Hospital, Margate, on 14th September as a temporary measure.
  The hon. Gentleman secondly made the point in his letter to my right hon. Friend that it was inhuman to take Ronald so far away from his home when
  1006
  there is one of the largest conglomerations of hospitals in the area in which he lived, and the Southern Hospital at Dartford had been closed.
  When for social reasons some form of institutional care became necessary, the hospital authorities did the best they could in the circumstances by getting him into Margate. The closure of the Southern Hospital did not make any difference. The reason why it was closed was that both it and Joyce Green Hospital had a very large surplus of unoccupied accommodation and it was decided to close the Southern and transfer the services and facilities from there to Joyce Green Hospital.
  I understand that Ronald is being well cared for and is reasonably happy at Ashley House where he is in the company of boys of his own age. However, I recognise that it is a long way for the father and other relatives to go to visit him and certainly I would not claim that it can be easy for them to do so. Moreover, I understand that the authorities at Ashley House will be able to keep him only for a limited period. The hospital authorities have now to consider with the county council what other suitable permanent arrangements can be made for the boy in the light of an up-to-date assessment of his condition and needs.
  He is still on the waiting list for Joyce Green Hospital, but the muscular distrophy unit there has only ten beds and there is a waiting list of four of which Ronald is third in order of application. Vacancies in such a unit do not occur frequently but I would explain, as the hon. Member has particularly raised the point, that when a vacancy arises all cases waiting are assessed on need. Priority of admission will not be determined by the date on which they were placed on the waiting list.
  The Regional Hospital Board says that the other three are certainly meritorious cases and points out that Ronald Meloy's need arises on social rather than on medical grounds. I am afraid that I cannot yet tell the hon. Member what the outcome will be, but I am sure that he will recognise that the authorities are faced with a difficult problem. It is not possible to provide special units for this relatively small class of patients so that all of them will be near to their homes.

  1007
  Some degree of concentration is inevitable. It is indeed the same problem as that of the younger chronic sick where one has to balance the desirability of accommodating them near their homes for ease of visiting against the desirability of collecting them together so that they will all be among others of their own age. But I can assure the hon. Member that I will keep in touch with the Regional Board over this case and I will let him know as soon as satisfactory
  1008
  permanent arrangements can be made to care for this boy.
  Mr. Dodds: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Question is, "That this House do now adjourn." The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) has already spoken once on this Motion.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Twelve o'clock.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Local Authority Members (Expenses)
  Local Authority Members (Expenses)
  Ivanhoe Bath Building, Ashby-de-la-Zouch
  Ivanhoe Bath Building, Ashby-de-la-Zouch
  Bank Messengers (Protection)
  Bank Messengers (Protection)
  Private Street Works
  Private Street Works
  Parish Councils
  Parish Councils
  Rating and Valuation
  Rating and Valuation
  Middlesex (New Town)
  Middlesex (New Town)
  Theatres (Preservation)
  Theatres (Preservation)
HOUSING
  Slum Clearance, Gateshead
  Slum Clearance, Gateshead
  Decontrol
  Decontrol
  SUMMIT CONFERENCE
  SUMMIT CONFERENCE
  UNITED STATES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  UNITED STATES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  EAST GERMANY
  EAST GERMANY
KENYA
  Mr. Odinga and Mr. Ochwada (Passports)
  Mr. Odinga and Mr. Ochwada (Passports)
UGANDA
  Elections and Relationships Commission
  Elections and Relationships Commission
MALTA
  Tourist Industry
  Tourist Industry
  Constitution (Commission)
  Constitution (Commission)
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Colonial Development Corporation
  Colonial Development Corporation
THE WEST INDIES
  Hurricane Damage (Relief)
  Hurricane Damage (Relief)
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Constitution (Review Conference)
  Constitution (Review Conference)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Starches (Import)
  Starches (Import)
SCOTLAND
  Glenrothes
  Glenrothes
  Glasgow Overspill
  Glasgow Overspill
  Law of Succession
  Law of Succession
  COUNTY COURTS (TELEPHONE NUMBERS)
  COUNTY COURTS (TELEPHONE NUMBERS)
  PENGUIN BOOKS LIMITED (PROSECUTION)
  PENGUIN BOOKS LIMITED (PROSECUTION)
  PRESS ARTICLE (MR. WAYLAND YOUNG)
  PRESS ARTICLE (MR. WAYLAND YOUNG)
UNITED NATIONS
  China
  China
  Congo
  Congo
  GERMANY (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
  GERMANY (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
  NORTHERN EUROPE (N.A.T.O. COMMAND)
  NORTHERN EUROPE (N.A.T.O. COMMAND)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Flooding, Chandlers Ford and Eling
  Flooding, Chandlers Ford and Eling
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
  Sheep and Cattle (Metabolic Diseases)
  Sheep and Cattle (Metabolic Diseases)
  Fruit Storage
  Fruit Storage
ROADS
  Bridge, Newport
  Bridge, Newport
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  Seismological Stations
  Seismological Stations
  Regional Information Services
  Regional Information Services
  Fire Research Station, Boreham Wood
  Fire Research Station, Boreham Wood
EDUCATION
  Cornwall
  Cornwall
  Technical Colleges, Essex (Status)
  Technical Colleges, Essex (Status)
HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES
  Decimal Coinage System
  Decimal Coinage System
BASUTOLAND
  Ritual Murders and Witchcraft
  Ritual Murders and Witchcraft
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Civil Service (Clerical Staff)
  Civil Service (Clerical Staff)
  State Opening of Parliament (Film)
  State Opening of Parliament (Film)
  Personal Incomes (Taxation)
  Personal Incomes (Taxation)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich
Several noble Lords—Took the Oath.
The Lord Kennet—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

UNITED NATIONS FORCES AND CONGO DISTURBANCES
2.35 p.m.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I beg leave 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 if they will instruct the British representative at United Nations headquarters to protest at the failure of the commander of the large contingent of United Nations troops on parade on United Nations Day in Leopoldville to take any action to prevent the gross ill-treatment by Congolese soldiers of Africans which occurred only a short distance from the parade.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I have no complete report of the incident to which the noble Earl refers. Within the limits imposed by their resources and the terms of their mandate, the United Nations authorities in the Congo are doing their best to maintain good order. Their task is extremely difficult and delicate, and I am reluctant to complicate it by a representation about this particular incident.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he is aware that a full account of this incident appeared in the Daily Express, and that thousands of readers of that newspaper must share the feeling that
308
I have, that Her Majesty's Government have a moral responsibility in this matter? Is the noble Earl further aware that there have been dozens of other instances where outrages have taken place under the very eyes of the United Nations troops, and nothing has been done? The only man so far arrested has been an Englishman, which seems to show a certain degree of partiality.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I must not say that the reports have been exaggerated, but I have nothing to confirm the stories which I read from the Congo of the particular incident to which the noble Earl referred. That is why I am reluctant, without more complete information, to take up this particular incident again. But I would assure the noble Earl that our permanent representative in New York is in constant touch with the United Nations authorities on these matters, and I shall not hesitate, if I feel it is necessary, to bring such matters to the attention of the United Nations authorities. In this particular case I did not feel it was necessary.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl.

BRITISH AMBASSADOR IN THE CONGO
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I beg leave 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 to which Government in the Congo the British Ambassador in that country is accredited.]
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, Her Majesty's Ambassador in Leopoldville is accredited to the Head of State of the Republic of the Congo, and the Head of State is Mr. Kasavubu.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, in view of the fact that there is apparently no Government operating in the Congo, to whom does the British Ambassador go when he wants to make representations, and what chance has he of getting those representations listened to by Mr. Kasavubu?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, Mr. Kasavubu is the authority whose constitutional position is recognised because he is the Head of State of the Congo. As the noble Earl knows, there are Commissioners who are administering the Congo at the present time, numbering, I think, some 30, and on any particular matter it may be necessary to go to one or other of them. But in any representation concerning the whole of the State of the Congo, the Ambassador would have a conversation with the President, who is Mr. Kasavubu.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, in fact there is only one Government which has subjected itself to Parliamentary approval.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, it would obviously be improper to pursue this matter further by question and answer. Might I put to the Foreign Secretary this point for his consideration? I do not ask for any answer now. In view of the very serious situation in the Congo, and the fact that Her Majesty's Government must have some responsibility as a member of the United Nations, would the Foreign Secretary consider giving time either for a debate on the Motion which I have on the Paper, or for some occasion when a full statement could be made by Her Majesty's Government?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should certainly like to consider that, and, of course, we are always willing that these matters should be debated by this House. We should have to consider a time which would be most appropriate. Of course, the noble Earl is quite right. The situation is utterly confused in the Congo, and there is no legal Government. It is in the sense that there is no legal Government that I answered the Question to the effect that the Ambassador's dealings would be in the main with the President of the Congo.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the Foreign Secretary.

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved (pursuant to the Resolution of the 27th of July in the last Session of Parliament), That the Bill be presented, and read,pro forma, a First, Second and Third time, and passed.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill sent to the Commons.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
2.42 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Amendment to the Motion that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as followeth:
"Most Gracious Sovereign,
"We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament"—
namely, to add at the end of the proposed Address—
"but humbly regret that the policies of Your Majesty's Government are not conducive to an ordered and expanding economy."
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we had a full and interesting debate yesterday on the Amendment standing in the name of my noble Leader, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, in a most admirable and remarkable speech. It would seem that to-day there is little left for me or other speakers to say which has not already been said. Fortunately, new life has been given to this debate by the fact that we are to have the privilege of hearing a maiden speech from the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, to which we all look forward. He will be somewhat handicapped if he is going to speak in the tradition of this House and be non-controversial, but I have no doubt that, with the skill which he was taught in another place, he will manage somehow to say exactly what he wants to say.

311
I have, I must confess, few additional facts to add to what was stated yesterday by my noble friends. But I was turning over in my mind the general conception of a debate of this kind, and I realised that such a debate would not have been possible in this House or in another place, say, 50 years ago. At that time Parliament and the Government were in no sense even remotely concerned with the economic position of the country. They were beginning to be attacked by Oppositions for not dealing with unemployment and for the size of unemployment, but these were very small beginnings, and it is a very long road from those beginnings to the position to-day, when Governments accept full responsibility for the economic position of the country.
My former noble friend, Lord Ogmore—politically; I hope he is still my personal friend—yesterday got into some trouble for quoting a remark which had certainly been made at some time, not necessarily at the Election. I am not going to attempt to quote—I do not want to incur the wrath of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—but certainly many speeches were made by many leaders of the Government, at the time of the Election, and before and since, indicating that it is the Government that is entitled to credit for the prosperity which the people of this country are enjoying. And both the noble Lord, Lord Mills, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in the course of their speeches yesterday, implied the same thing. They both suggested that the large amount of employment and the high standard of living that our people are enjoying to-day are due entirely to the actions of the Government.
Accepting that, accepting that Governments have a very large part to play in the economic position of the country, does it not follow that they also have a great responsibility, if not complete responsibility, when things are not going so well? Is it not, on the Government's own theory, their responsibility, if they find it necessary to take drastic and sudden action to deal with, say, inflation or an excess of imports or unemployment? Are they not to blame for not having taken this action, or the action that was necessary, at an earlier stage
312
rather than having to put on the brakes, as the noble Earl said yesterday, suddenly? I suppose we have all had experience of dangerous drivers, and the most dangerous driver of all is the person who boasts of his great skill by jamming on the brakes and taking other sudden action in getting himself out of a situation where he runs the risk of losing his life. The skilful driver never gets into those predicaments, and I suggest to the Government that if they find themselves in the position of having to take sudden action, as they have done, it is because of the predicament in which they have placed this country by not taking early or suitable action.
We on this side put forward what we hoped was a constructive and detailed case of our criticism of the Government, and we had in reply two speeches—they were serious speeches, I must admit—from the noble Lord. Lord Mills, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. But I am bound to say, having heard them and having considered them again, that they did not seriously attempt to deal with the case that was made. I should like just to recapitulate the headings under which our view of the Government's failure has been put. These represent broadly the various criteria for judging the economic position of the country.
The first was the balance of payments, and my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence explained that the balance of payments was in a very precarious position. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, from the other side, presented figures which were, I am sure, most disturbing to every noble Lord who heard them: they showed that for some two years past we have not actually been paying our way; that the balance of payments was definitely going against us. There was the question of exports, particularly exports to the United States and Canada, which in the last few months have declined, in the case of the United States by 27 per cent. and of Canada by 20 per cent. Figures were given showing that our share of world trade is declining.
My noble friend Lord Latham gave a good many figures to establish this fact. He also gave figures showing that production was falling, and likewise that the amount of investment that was taking place was not as much as it had been.

313
There was a considerable decline in the amount of investment. So far as I could gather, the main reply that was made was that conditions were satisfactory; that, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, more people were employed to-day than there ever were and the standard of life was higher, and everything in the garden was lovely. If the criteria that I have put forward can be accepted as reasonable and fair criteria for judging the position of the economy of the country —and I submit that they are, and there are no other tests by which you can judge it—then I say that we are living on a knife's edge and that the position is most precarious.
In spite of the glowing accounts of our prosperity, the Government must have come to the conclusion that something was wrong because they did take action, and we must presume that they must have foreseen the consequence of their action and intended it. I should like to ask the Government whether they really foresaw that the result of the action that they took would be what it actually has been. Did they foresee, for instance, that by raising the hank rate, by introducing credit restriction and by restricting hire purchase, we should be suffering from all these things that I have enumerated? If they did foresee it, did they intend it? And if they did intend it, why? In what way do these reductions in the position of our economy benefit us? Moreover, if they really intended to take action which would be for the benefit of the country, is it not at least doubtful whether the means they adopted are right or effective for the purpose they had in mind?
The raising of the bank rate has been criticised, both in the debate yesterday and on other occasions, not merely as a blunt instrument capable of injuring both the righteous and the unrighteous alike, but, even more, damaging the righteous, because there is no effective curb on the speculator. The person who really suffers is the person who has to go into the market in the normal way and raise money for the purpose of his business. The speculator is always in a position to pay a high rate of interest, and usually will not find it difficult to get the means that he requires.
It was pointed out in the course of the debate—I need not enlarge on these
314
points—that a high rate of interest creates certain difficulties for the economy. It creates uncertainty for business men, and it creates difficulty in planning. It raises costs materially and thereby affects our ability to compete in the export market. It attracts "hot" money which, while it may be of temporary help, can be eventually most embarrassing when it is called in; and it creates competition between one country and another for the attraction of this money by maintaining an unduly high bank rate. It affects the national finances. It will cost the taxpayer some £40 million to £45 million more in interest this year on the National Debt. It affects borrowings by local authorities and other public bodies, and is thereby responsible for increases in the rates and charges by those bodies.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is not here. He was rather under the impression that local authority borrowings could be short while interest was high, and that they could then borrow at lower rates. The fact is that local authorities are compelled by the condition of the market to borrow over long periods, as is instanced by the recent cases of the London County Council and the Surrey County Council, who have both gone to the market and had to raise substantial sums at 6 per cent. interest over a period of twenty years. A high bank rate also involves higher rents and interest charges on mortgages. In consequence, it is something which we should resort to only in the most extreme circumstances. I wonder whether these circumstances have really arisen, and whether, even so, a high bank rate is the answer to the difficulties which confronted the Government.
In this context I should like to read a paragraph from the Report of the Radcliffe Committee. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Radcliffe, is in favour in this House. As Chairman of this Committee, he has been treated with rather scant courtesy by the Government and with inadequate appreciation of the time and effort which he gave in producing what I regard as a most valuable Report. This is what he said—I quote from paragraph 472:
"We are driven to the conclusion that the more conventional instruments have failed to keep the system in smooth balance, but that every now and again the mounting pressure

315
of demand has in one way or another (generally via the exchange situation) driven the Government to take action, and that the quick results then required have been mainly concentrated on the hire purchase front and on investment in the public sector which could be cut by administrative decision. The light engineering industries have been frustrated in their planning, and the public corporations have had almost equally disheartening experience. That these two should be the 'residuary legatees' for real resources when sharp adjustments were called for is not a comforting thought. It is far removed from the smooth and widespread adjustment sometimes claimed as the virtue of monetary action; this is no gentle hand on the steering wheel"—
I draw the noble Earl's attention particularly to this because he was so pleased with the idea that we can put on the brake and then put on the accelerator—
"that keeps a well-driven car in its right place on the road."
That is a pretty strong condemnation of the policy of resorting to monetary control as has been done by the present Government, and I do not think it needs anything stronger from me.
Now I want to turn to one or two points which were made in the course of the debate yesterday and which, in my view, have not been answered. The first is the point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that in order to have a successful export trade we need a good home trade. I am sure that, as an economic doctrine, that cannot be denied, and I do not think I need argue it; but the policy of Her Majesty's Government has been to restrict the home trade by restricting credit in hire purchase, and so on. How, then, do they expect that we can increase exports when, through their very action, we are having to increase the price of goods through being unable to spread the overheads sufficiently far, thus increasing our inability to compete abroad? I should be grateful if one of the noble Lords who are to reply would deal with this point of the home trade. Undoubtedly there is a contradiction between restricting the home trade and endeavouring to increase the export trade.
The other thing I should like to ascertain is this. On the statements that have been made from the Government side we are not, in fact, reducing consumption. While the intention of these various
316
actions of the Government was to reduce home consumption, they are not, in fact, doing so: the only result is to direct consumption along certain channels. The purchasing power of the public remains, and if a man cannot buy a car, a washing machine, or whatever you will, on the hire-purchase system, he will spend his money in some other direction; and there is no assurance that he will spend his money in a direction that will not Involve even more imports than the manufacture of the articles he might have obtained on hire purchase. Indeed, if he chooses to spend his money on luxurious foods or wines or other items of that kind, practically all of which are imported, that might well tend to cause our balance of payments position to deteriorate rather than to improve. So I should like to have explained to me, by one or other of the noble Lords opposite, what is the advantage in restricting production and sales in one field and diverting expenditure into another channel entirely?
Then I want to say a few words about the Cunard position. A good deal has been said on that matter, but having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Mills, and read his speech, I still fail to see what is the case for making an advance to the Cunard Company, and for making them a present of £3¼million. This is not a time when we are flourishing and have money to spare. Indeed, we have so little to spare that we have asked the British Transport Commission to cut down their investment programme this year by £20 million. It seems to me an odd kind of priority to take a portion of that sum in order to hand it over to the Cunard Company. I should like to have a clearer account of what is the case for making this payment, and particularly for giving a grant to the Cunard Company.
If it is believed, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Mills said, that at the end of ten years that company will be in a position to repay, why make a present? If they will be able to repay, will they not be able to repay the £3¼million? And why are the Government giving this grant without getting any return? Why is there any objection to their having some share in the equity, or having some representation on the board? I do not think we have had this transaction fully

317
explained to us. After all, this is public money. This is our money which is being given and lent, and we are entitled to have the fullest possible explanation. If there is anything in the Report of the Committee of the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, which would throw light on this, why is not that Report put before the House? I do not know whether or not it will be published one day, but. I feel that the time for publishing that Report is to-day, at the time when we are being asked to make the grant: and I should be glad of a more specific answer on this question of the advance to the Cunard Company.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, raised the question of tenders from abroad. I think there is a lot to be said for inviting tenders from abroad if we are prepared to accept the lowest tender. But I imagine that one of the reasons for giving this assistance to the Cunard Company is that the shipbuilding industry is in a bad way and that we want to provide work for one of the shipbuilding yards in this country. If that is the argument, then, of course, it would be quite wrong to invite tenders from abroad, knowing in advance that we shall not accept one. I feel that the American position whereby they accept tenders from abroad and then, on grounds of national policy, are not prepared to accept them is not one that we ought to emulate.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, my point is that either our shipbuilding industry is efficient or it is not. If it is efficient then the Government should produce the report of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. If it is not efficient, then this is a subsidy—another subsidy—to the shipbuliding industry the extent of which we do not know and have no means of knowing. That is the point.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it may well be that this is a subsidy to the shipbuilding industry, but the fact remains that in my view—and I believe in the view of most people—this advance is being made in order to Whelp the shipbuilding industry; and if that industry is not efficient and cannot compete with overseas firms, then obviously we are to that extent making a grant to the shipbuilding industry as well. It may be a perfectly proper thing to do. It may be that we ought to subsidise all indus-
318
tries which are either inefficient or unable to compete in the world market. That is a new state of affairs, but it is something which we ought perhaps to consider. The fact that we are making this advance to the Cunard Company will encourage this thought, because they are not the only large concern that could do with a bit of assistance; and to the extent that we make the advance to the Cunard Company it will be difficult to resist making advances to other concerns in similar circumstances.
I should have liked to say a few words about the position of the British Transport Commission, but time will not permit. I am certainly not going to lay myself open to the implied criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, by taking up too much time from this Bench; and I am sure we should all like to hear the views of other speakers. I will content myself with saying that I feel we are paying too little attention to the effect of traffic strangulation which is taking place in this country. Everybody is taking far too much time, either in moving goods or in getting about. The loss to the country in the increased time taken through traffic strangulation must be enormous and I do not think it has ever been carefully worked out. I believe that one of the ways in which we can drastically increase the efficiency of this country is by doing something really serious and really quick on the traffic position—and not merely the position of transport but the carriage of goods. But this is a subject which I feel is worthy of a full day's debate, and I do not want to carry it further to-day.
I think, my Lords, in conclusion, that so far we have had no adequate answer to the charges that have been made regarding the policies of Her Majesty's Government, that they
"are not conducive to an ordered and expanding economy."
I think we have established that, far from their being conducive to these matters, the economy, largely as a result of the action of the Government, is neither ordered nor expanding. Accordingly, unless the noble Lords who are going to speak for the Government can give us much stronger grounds for refuting the case we have made, we propose to divide the House at the end of the debate.
3.11 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I think I shall be following a good and well-established precedent if I intervene from this Bench for a few moments to elaborate briefly the reference in the gracious Speech to agriculture. Many of your Lordships are experts on agriculture, and we in this House always try to give this great industry—and it still is our greatest single industry, with its gross output of over £1,400 million a year—its proper place of honour in our deliberations.
Several of your Lordships have already referred in this debate to agriculture, and doubtless others will do so later on this afternoon. But before I turn to the points which have already been made I should like to say a word about the floods, for the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition has specifically asked me to do so, and I believe that all your Lordships would wish me to do so. Flooding this autumn has been most serious and widespread for more than a month, and some areas have been flooded more than once. More than 30 counties have been affected, and the floods have been serious in the South-West and in Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, Norfolk, Suffolk and North Essex, and recently in Hampshire, the Isle of Wight and Kent and Sussex.
A NOBLE LORD: And Somerset.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Somerset I included in the South-West. Conditions this year have been quite exceptional. In some parts of the South-West, for instance, the rainfall in October has been about four times the normal rainfall for this time of the year, and it has fallen upon ground that is already saturated. In Exeter, for example, there were 13 inches of rain in the month of October.
In recent years much good work has been done by the river boards. If this had not been so the floods would have been very much more serious. And it so happens that, as a result of preparations and consultations over a long period, and not, of course, as a result of last month's floods, a further Land Drainage Bill has now been laid before Parliament. It will give the river boards greater resources; it will enable local authorities to do works with grant
320
assistance to prevent urban flooding. It would not, of course, be realistic to think that provision can ever be made against every eventuality everywhere. Absolute and total flood prevention is not a practical proposition.
The aspect of the floods which is most tragic is, of course, the distress and danger and financial loss suffered by people whose homes have been flooded. I myself had the opportunity of seeing some of the worst damage and distress in one of the worst flooded areas of the South-West recently; and I can assure your Lordships that the Government are anxious that everything possible should be done in alleviation. I would say that, as one would only expect, the cheerfulness and courage of those who have suffered is beyond all praise.
It is not easy in a few words to summarise the reports reaching Ministers on progress in relief and rehabilitation. The different areas are at different stages, but all have tackled the problem vigorously. And the various services, civil and military, voluntary and official, have all played their full parts. Not for some time will it be possible to say what the cost will prove to be, but the statement of Government financial support which was made to your Lordships on Wednesday last has given a necessary reassurance to all concerned, and it has been well received locally and by the local authorities. Over and above ordinary grants which are payable, local authorities will be able to make applications for assistance towards any extraordinary burdens. They need not make their claim until all their liabilities are known; and, of course, this will take some time. The voluntary funds which are relieving private distress may, therefore, the sooner be in need of reinforcement, and it is manifest that the calls upon them will be greater than the funds so far collected. I hope, therefore, that subscriptions to these funds will continue to flow in. They are seriously needed. But those administering the funds are wisely limiting their immediate grants to distress needs, leaving full claims to be settled later; so that here, too, no call for Exchequer assistance has yet been made. The Government's statetment has in fact given the necessary financial backing to enable this work to be done without delay.

321
One thing we must all be profoundly thankful for is that, so far, there has been so little actual loss of life. To turn for a moment to agricultural damage—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that aspect, can he make this point clear? He made it perfectly clear that the local authorities can, in due course, apply for Exchequer grants for damage to local authority services. Is he in fact saying that the Government will at some future date make grants to these voluntary funds for the relief of distress, private distress, or will that again be done through the local authorities?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I cannot answer that question. That is a question that is being seriously considered. Your Lordships will remember, as I said in the statement that I made before, that the scope of existing funds —for instance, the Lynmouth disaster fund—may well be expanded. But the question of any sort of national fund is a matter on which my right honourable friend, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and other Ministers, have not, as I understand, come to a conclusion. That is still being considered.
Perhaps I may turn to agricultural damage from these floods. This has not been so serious as the damage in urban areas. There has been little loss of livestock. And it is perhaps even more difficult as yet to assess the agricultural losses. If the present fine weather holds it should be possible to some extent to catch up with the work that has been seriously delayed, particularly the lifting of root crops. We have had the present kind of weather now for a few days, and tremendous efforts are being made by farmers and workers everywhere. But in some districts there will be, I fear, shortages of hay and winter fodder, as in these flooded areas cattle have had to be put on full winter rations much earlier than usual.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, is not perhaps the most difficult thing to calculate the effect on next year's harvest, because farmers have not been able to get on to their land and effect their sowing, and because what has in fact been sown is in danger of decaying?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Of course, I do not dissent from that at all. A great deal of the winter wheat is not in. It is going in now, in some cases where it is possible, late, and we shall have to wait until later for a full assessment.
I will now turn briefly to the points raised on agriculture in this debate so far. The first was by the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, and I think that I need hardly add anything to the reply which was given to him by my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack. But I must say that when I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wise, my first reaction was one of astonishment. He painted a grossly exaggerated picture. He implied that agriculture was on the verge of "collapse". That was his word. He spoke of bankruptcies, and he painted a general picture which, if it were true, would be alarming indeed. May I suggest that he takes seriously to heart a remark which was made yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, sitting on his own Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 226 (No. 4), col. 222]:
"There is one thing I have learned in the course of a very long life: that you cannot with impunity ignore physical facts, and if you take actions that imply that certain existing physical facts are non-existent you are asking for trouble and will almost certainly get it."
My Lords, what are the facts? Human memory is short, and some people tend to forget, and many others are scarcely old enough to remember (although that perhaps does not apply to the noble Lord, Lord Wise), the enormous difference between pre-war agriculture and the position we have reached to-day. Before the war, only one-third of our food was produced at home. Now, with a good many more people, and with eating standards on the whole a good deal higher, the proportion has risen to almost one-half. If we look only at the foods which it is climatically possible to produce at home—the temperate foodstuffs, as they are rather charmingly called—we find that their proportion has risen to almost two-thirds, instead of the one-half that it was in 1939. Then in some of the basic essentials we have become practically self-sufficient. Last year, agricultural output, across the board, reached the highest level yet

323
recorded; and farming income was well over £300 million by whatever method you make the calculation, which is a substantial income. This year we are expecting much the same results, or perhaps even better: rather higher output, on the whole, of livestock products, and at least the same output of farm crops, although, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, we cannot yet judge the full effect of the floods and of the recent appalling weather that we have had.
But, even so, we can reasonably expect that the splendid achievements of previous years will, on balance, be maintained. When we consider that it is a bare six years since we were able to lift all controls, with the essential help of a vastly expanded home agriculture; that not so long before that meat was rationed to 1s. a week, and eggs to a couple a week; and that offal had become not merely a term of esteem but a prized rarity—when we remember all this, the transformation is quite remarkable. These achievements have been won by a prodigious and sustained effort on the part of the farming community, with a very great measure of Government assistance and encouragement.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: May I say that I think most of the figures so far quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary are the figures that have been amassed by the farmers' unions and quoted by Mr. Woolley in his case against the Government of showing insufficient respect for the position of the farmer in a balanced economy, and as not paying sufficient regard to the farmer's income as compared with other sections of the community?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Perhaps the noble Viscount would make his speech later, and will allow me to make mine now. I dissent from that interpretation of the position, and I would say that these achievements have been won, not only by these great efforts by the farming community, but because they have been backed by Government assistance and encouragement—solid financial help in meeting both capital and running costs. And not only have the Government given financial backing; we must not forget
324
the extremely valuable contributions made by the Government's advisory services, which, as farmers readily acknowledge, have done much to stimulate the impressive technical advance which has been achieved. It has, in fact, been a combined operation between farmers and the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, when he referred to the meetings which are taking place between the farmers' unions and the Agricultural Departments, put a gloss on those meetings which I do not think is justified. It is the same gloss which the noble Viscount, in his interjection, has just sought to put on the position. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, said that they conveyed that there was something drastically wrong with the industry, and that this was the reason for the meetings. Now my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, in his speech last Thursday, referred to these talks, and I echo his hope—indeed, I am sure—that they will have proved most valuable in removing misunderstandings and in indicating directions in which, without any dramatic changes in our established and proved system of agricultural support, agriculture can continue its forward progress. This is the true basis of these talks: not that there is anything drastically wrong with the industry or with the policy, or that they represent any radical, new development.
My Lords, I cannot stress that fact too strongly. Over a number of years, there has been the closest consultation between the farmers' unions, as the producers' representatives, and the Government. It is part of our tradition in the agricultural set-up. We are working, to a common objective which is enshrined in the Agriculture Acts and the long-term assurances—the common objective to fill the nation's larder with as much good food as can best be produced at home, and at the lowest prices consistent with a fair reward. It is significant, and should not be forgotten, that in the agreed communiqué issued after the meeting between Mr. Woolley and the Prime Minister in Downing Street last year they both agreed that our system was probably the best system—and they did not use the word "probably"—for our country and our conditions. Let me assure your Lordships that this new Hyde Park Corner improvement is not devised

325
solely to improve communications between Agriculture House and Whitehall Place. Of course, it will certainly help, but that particular traffic pattern is constant and even already.
I would not deny that in certain quarters there has been some uneasiness; a disquieting feeling that now that farmers have done, in the broad, that which was required of them, they are regarded as unprofitable servants; and that the Government are finished with agricultural expansion and are anxious to sacrifice home agriculture altogether to our overseas trading interests, especially in Europe. My Lords, nothing could be further from the truth. Total consumption of food will undoubtedly continue to rise, for two main reasons: the natural growth of the population, and the ever-increasing standards of living under this Government. The problem is to keep production and consumption in step.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, was right when he reminded your Lordships that the Government are pledged "to maintain a stable, efficient and prosperous agriculture." My Lords, we may indeed be a nation of shopkeepers, but agriculture has an essential supporting role and one which neither we nor any other industrialised country can for one moment afford to neglect, still less ignore. Agriculture directly supports about one million people in this country. It provides a large home market for manufacturing industries, and supplies about half of what one might term the raw materials for the 2 million other people who are engaged in food processing and food distribution. All the industrial countries give, and very rightly give, powerful support to their home agriculture, and it is unthinkable that we should not continue to do the same. And that is the policy to which the Government have always been, and will remain, firmly pledged
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wise, will forgive me if I do not follow him into the detailed arguments about the price-support system which we have adopted in this country. We have had thee discussions before. He and I never seem to get any further with them, so I will confine my remarks to saying this. I emphatically rebut the charge that the guarantees and subsidies are diverted into
326
the pockets of the wicked middlemen, and that the farmers do not benefit from them.
I listened in vain during Lord Wise's speech for any constructive suggestions. If he really thinks the position is as bad as he painted it, one would suppose that he or his Party would have some alternative policy. But I have carefully read every word in Hansard this morning, and at the end of all his Cassandra-like utterances, he holds out the following alternative to the well-tried policy which the Government have followed over the years. This is what he says [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 226 (No. 4), col. 285]:
"We on this side of the House"—
that is, his side of the House—
"invite the farming industry to proceed by way of an ordered and expanding economy."
So far, so good, Then he goes on:
"This involves planning our movements, our activities, our daily engagements of hand and brain, our markets, our financial obligations, and, last but not least, increasing our production."
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, said—and this was the basis of his attack on Government policy for agriculture—that the resolutions and intentions of the Government were "thin and meaningless", and that the words in the gracious Speech were platitudes. I must ask your Lordships whether "planning our daily engagements of hand and brain" is not a rather better example of thin and meaningless words. I doubt whether they would give as much comfort to the farming community or to the country at large as the words in the gracious Speech. And I would remind your Lordships of the words in the gracious Speech, and they are these:
"At home My Ministers are resolved to maintain a stable, efficient and prosperous agriculture."
My Lords, there is no reason at all for our farmers to be afraid of the future.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: May I ask, does not the Parliamentary Secretary really realise when he is criticising my noble friend's statement, that our quarrel with him on this matter is this: that, like all other parts of the economic activity of the Government, they vary and tend to shut down departments of agriculture or push them back on their course—I mean

327
bacon, pigs, eggs, and the like. We can give any number of examples. It is no good running away with a general sort of reply of that kind.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. I maintain that if any changes in the structure and support of the farming industry prove necessary, they will be gradual ones; and I confidently expect that the industry, with the continued support of Her Majesty's Government, will prove sufficiently adaptable and efficient to take them in its stride.
3.36 p.m.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment which was moved in such clear terms by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. That Amendment regrets—
"That the policies of Your Majesty's Government are not conducive to an ordered and expanding economy."
The word "ordered", I think, typifies the difference of approach between the Opposition and the members of Her Majesty's Government, the word being used in the sense of a planned and methodical approach. I think it is commonly understood that the Labour Opposition believes in planning, and believes that the life of the country, industrially and commercially, is so complex that it cannot just be left to the empirical and arbitrary means which the Government from time to time apply. We approach this problem in, perhaps, a deeper recognition of the phase into which our country is moving.
In at least two debates in this House I have said, claiming no special knowledge, that it seemed to me that we were moving into a world where competition would be very much more intense in the future than it has been in the past. I said that we were moving into a world of competing economies, and that, however disguised it may be, and however we may attempt to get round the difficulties by so-called agreements, like G.A.T.T., which we all know are full of loopholes and from time to time are subverted by some of the signatories, the Government recognise that competition in the world's markets is increasing. But it is rather a belated recognition, and, so far as my recollection goes, it is only in the last two or three years that
328
any kind of emphasis has been placed upon that by the Government of the day.
There may be a reference to the need for our equipping ourselves as a country to meet such competition, but I do not think it would be doing injustice to the Government to say that very little of a practical character had been done to further our competitive efficiency. It appears to us on these Benches that the Government really believe in the free play of what they call economic forces, though among the economists there are many who substitute for that euphemism the free play of the capitalist system. where the profit-seeking motive is the driving force and national interests are very low down in the list, not because of any mal-intention on the part of those directing industry, but because, in the nature of things, the only justification for economic activity and investment by individuals is the amount of profit that is likely to accrue to them. No amount of playing with words will disguise that major difference in the approach to this question between those on these Benches and noble Lords sitting opposite.
I dearly wish that private enterprise, which on other occasions I have said is sometimes not very enterprising, could be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny as the publicly owned industries are. Then we should see a great deal of the inefficiencies which can be concealed under the present system in the operation of those industries. But, of course, planning presupposes some kind of control, and control is anathema to the Government and their supporters. I would go so far as to recognise that controls are usually looked upon with disfavour by the citizens of this country, and probably by the citizens of other countries where they have some form of free Government. But the fact, if one looks at it historically, is that day after day Governments are required, in one direction or another, to impose more and more controls in order that the economy of the country can proceed, and it is simply a waiting until the emphasis has become so clear to everybody that characterises the Government's reluctance in the use of controls.
I think that this is the really big issue involved in the gracious Speech itself. In one passage it says:

329
"My Government will seek to maintain a sound economy and to ensure a well-balanced growth of production in conditions of high and stable employment. Their aim will be to preserve stability of the general level of prices and to further the expansion of overseas trade and strengthen the balance of payments."
Somehow, the Government hope to do all that—a most laudable and desirable objective—while not at the same time imposing controls over the economy. Let us just remember that there are some countries in the world which believe in a completely planned economy and go much farther in that direction than anyone who sits on these Benches. They form a very large part of the world. Soviet Russia and. China are building up their economies entirely on a basis of planning, with the power to see that the plans are carried out.
Last night, I listened to a television extract of a speech in which Mr. Khrushchev was proclaiming that the triumph of Communism throughout the world was inevitable. He may have been somewhat over-optimistic in that respect—and from some of the aspects of what passes by the name of Communism, I devoutly hope that he is. But so far as the economic system goes, I question whether anybody can stand up in your Lordships' House and assert that an unplanned system, a system in which private enterprise, so-called, had flee play, would have resulted in the rapid development of the industrial and commercial life of Soviet Russia which has happened since the Revolution. I should like to hear the theme developed by someone that would bring conviction to me on that point.
There is no question at all—and there is no use blinking our eyes to it—that Soviet Russia, the oldest of the States in the revolutionary sense, has achieved remarkable things in the years that have gone over the last three or four decades, until to-day it is commonly recognised that Russia has the power largely to disrupt the economy of other countries. Although the standard of fife in Soviet Russia has consistently been low, there is considerable evidence that that is changing for the better, as I myself witnessed when I was there with an electrical delegation in 1956. I remember one of the principal officials concerned with the economic life of 'the country saying to me, when I was in Russia on
330
that occasion, "What do you think is Russia's biggest problem?" I thought for a moment and then I said, "Well, I think that over the next twenty years you will have solved the problem of poverty. I think that it is quite conceivable that you will rival the West, and certainly you will surpass many of the countries of the West. But there is one problem you have to surmount and that is, to reconcile your system of economy with the freedom of the individual. You cannot suppress that indefinitely." And that, of course, is the problem. If we on these Benches believed that, side by side with a planned system of economy, it would be necessary to impose dictatorship on the country and stifle the freedom of the people, we should never advocate it., but we are quite convinced that, with 'the resilience of mind of the British and their long tradition, we can combine both principles without going to extremes in either.
I wonder whether we recognise that our economic system has not really been tested since the war. The Government, quite properly from a Party political point of view, take credit for a rising standard of life and for full employment, and I, for one, am very glad that it has been possible in the post-war period to attain and maintain those objectives But they have been operating in an unusual set of conditions. Throughout this period there has been an insistent and growing demand at home for all kinds of commodities and services and a world hungry for those goods and services. But as I said a little earlier, we are passing out of that phase, and it will be a serious test to the flexibility of our system and the enterprise of our people whether they can find a way to succeed in maintaining those two very commendable achievements.
I do not like to use language which appears to be that of a scaremonger. All my trade union life I tried to emphasise this to the trade union members I was was trying to guide. What I say is not being said by way of trying to paint a harrowing picture of the country. All of us on these Benches are as British as noble Lords on the opposite Benches and want to maintain the prestige of our country so far as it is possible to do so, but the greatest country in the world where "free enterprise" is operating (and I use "free enterprise" always with

331
quotation marks), the United States of America, according to what I heard listening again to the television, has some 5 milllion unemployed at the present time. Although we in this country have nothing like a proportionate number of people out of work, it shows that even with a highly developed system such as operates in the United States you can slip into a position where, because of a trade recession or something of the kind, you have millions of people out of work. I have said before that the remembrance on the part of many people in this country that at one time we had 3 million men and women out of work, colours the thinking of trade unionists in regard to this post-war period and the general attitude of mind which they bring to bear upon its problems.
I hope we shall avoid circumstances ever arising where we once again count our unemployed in millions. But there are bad patches of unemployment within the broad figures of 1·5 per cent. given in this House yesterday. It is not much comfort to the man out of work in Glasgow or in Northern Ireland, or even in places like the ordnance factories at Nottingham and elsewhere, to know that the average level of employment is high. Averages conceal a whole lot of sins and omissions. It is like the fellow who fell into a pond shouting at the top of his voice: "Help, help! I'm drowning". A passer-by said, "You can't drown in that pond; the average depth is only three feet", and the fellow said, "But I am in the six-foot end." That applies to many of these people. Due to the immobility of labour—and the shortage of housing as one of the causes of this—we can, in a period of full employment, have many people out of work
I saw headlines both in the week-end Sunday Times and the Observer something like this: "Give us less wages". I looked with astonishment and then read the articles, which were to the effect that the workers in the ordnance factory at Nottingham were pleading for a still further cut in their working week which would enable more of their people to be retained rather than become redundant. I cannot see how this objective of full employment and prosperity can be achieved in any permanent sense—and I stress those words—without a much greater measure of planning of our
332
economy and the use of some physical control.
As is commonly recognised, we have to keep the balance between home consumption, capital investment and an expanding measure of exports. With regard to the control of consumption, I think we have all funked it in some way or other in not telling the people of this country in plain language that we must cut down personal consumption. It has been wrapped in all sorts of language, and up to yesterday I had not heard—at least, I cannot recollect it—any Minister of the Crown saying anything of a sufficiently direct character in this respect. The President of the Board of Trade, according to Hansard of November 2, said that everybody must accept that we should consume a smaller share than we do at present of what we produce. What a simple home truth! But it is one that somehow we try to shrug off, and few of us personally set any example to others in trying to carry it into practice. How do we deal with that kind of problem? We deal with it by the general system of taxation. We have hire purchase restrictions—a juggling business, now and again relaxing the restrictions and at other times putting them on, and getting a sort of, I will not say false, but meretricious prosperity, plunging the community further and further into debt by mortgaging their future earnings. That is what hire purchase means. I know, of course, that used in moderation that system can help to raise the standard of life; but at the same time I think that a doubling of the hire purchase debt, as happened in a matter of a few months in this country when the restrictions were removed two years ago, shows the dangers.
Others have spoken about the credit squeeze and the bank rate. It is a most unscientific method of operation: leaving the bankers and others to decide—which of course they never do decide—what are the essential activities that ought to be carried on and what are those where credit should be withheld. There is no doubt that the credit squeeze reduces production. How can it be otherwise? If all types of enterprises find it more difficult to raise capital and the means of carrying on their business, it follows that business, although it may not contract absolutely, must be restrained. This certainly does not help

333
the expanding economy which the Government seek to achieve. What I do not like about it is that it is so largely indiscriminate. It hits our exporting capacity; it penalises and reduces both private and public investment—and that last statement, to my mind, shows the complete contradictoriness of the policy.
The investment programmes of all the nationalised industries are approved by the Government as something essential in the interests of the community; and then the Government, through the credit squeeze, make it not only more difficult but well-nigh impossible to carry out the expanded work that the board set themselves, and see that they pay a much higher price to the bankers where they have had temporary borrowing to carry on this work. It creates, as a noble Lord who is a banker told us in the Finance debate and which of course all those of us who have been in touch with the problem knew, uncertainty and hinders forward planning both by individual firms and by public undertakings.
I think he would be a bold man who said that at the present time the measure of capital investment in this country is adequate. Capital investment, as everybody knows, simply means the equipping of the industries of the country to create a greater standard of efficiency, which in turn affects their competitive position. Last year the nationalised industries invested some £760 million—that was all done, of course, with Government approval—whereas private manufacturing invested something like £820 million. Investing in capital goods necessarily means that a smaller proportion can go to home consumption. I have no figures on this point to support what I say, but it remains my conviction that this country is devoting a smaller proportion of its annual income to capital investment than many of our competitors are doing. If any reply is made on this point, I should like some indication as to whether what I have said is accurate or not.
We all know very well that this position cannot be redressed except by further saving, and this again means reducing personal consumption. I pay my tribute to the President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Maudling, for his statement in another place, when he said that we simply could not go on taking the same proportion of our national product
334
as consumers. I think it wanted courage to say that, and I wish it was said much more frequently and by a great many more people.
I think it would be accepted that capital investment is essential to an expanding economy. When I say "capital investment" I mean an increasing capital investment, and not a stationary one. But when we look at the position of the railways, what do we find? We find that the Modernisation Plan which was approved in October, 1956, was reappraised in July, 1959. Why was it reappraised? In the document itself the reasons are clearly given. They are in order to speed up the process so that advantage could be taken, in increased revenues and greater efficiency, of the measures which had been planned in 1956.
But what has happened since then? So far as I can see, instead of encouraging that process of rapid speeding up of the measures to create greater efficiency, what is actually happening is that capital investment in railways is being cut hack. Instead of being able to spend £168 million, as they did last year, they are to be cut back to £140 million. This £140 million is approximately the same amount that was spent in the year 1958 before the Plan could really get into operation, and before orders had to be paid for. In other words, just as the measures are getting into their stride, along come the Government and say, "Sorry, but you cannot go on with these things. We know how important it is to the life of the nation that we should have an efficient railway system, but, as a Government, we are sorry to say that we cannot give you the money to achieve this."
The effect is that the Modernisation Plan of the railways is being slowed down. The reason is the losses that are being incurred in successive years (in circumstances we all understand pretty well) by the railways and the Transport Commission. In another place the Minister of Transport said that these losses were equivalent to 4d. in the pound on the income tax. When one remembers that the whole Plan was estimated to cost £1,600 million, just as much as we spend in one single year on armaments—or on defence, if that is a better phrase—then I think we get it into somewhat clearer perspective.

335
I should like to refer to main line electrification. As far back as 1931, Lord Weir presided over a committee composed, among others, of railway managers—that was when the private companies were operating—and they showed the advantages that would accrue from main line electrification. I had the pleasure of discussing these measures with Lord Weir at the time. Therefore, when main line electrification was put forward as one of the principal features of the railway Modernisation Plan in 1956 and affirmed by the Government then, and affirmed again by them in 1959, one would have expected that after the fullest review as to the efficiency and economics involved in that Plan it would have been carried out. Now we are told there is going to be a review of main line electrification. I am perhaps putting it too strongly, because I am speaking from recollection. I think the word "possibly" or something like that was connected with it, but I do remember that the Minister said he was going to refer this matter to a study committee, and I am sure the word "review" was used in the statement.
I find it very difficult to understand the method of operation in these matters. Twice a plan has been reaffirmed by the Government of the day, after the most careful examination by the Transport Commission, before it was presented as being sound economically and promoting the efficiency of the railways. Now, apparently, the whole thing is to be reviewed. I figured as chairman of one of the nationalised industries for some years, and I say this with emphasis: only those who are employed in the industries understand the sense of frustration and discouragement that can result when they are told that plans which have been matured over a period cannot be proceeded with for financial reasons.
There is one other aspect of this matter. What about the effect upon British manufacturing industry of postponing or reviewing these things? By far the greater proportion of the work of re-equipping the railways is being done by private manufacturers—reputable firms who have pushed on with the work as rapidly as they can, and who have produced some encouraging results.
336
Now what is going to happen? It has been stated that contracts will not be cancelled or anything like that, but no further new contracts will be placed. Anybody who has had any connection with business on a large scale knows very well that contracts have to be placed sometimes years in advance before the actual orders materialise in the shape of finished goods, services or work. I personally think it may be very serious for British manufacturing industries if that process, which was entered into in 1956 and reaffirmed in 1959, is interrupted in this way.
I know there is a bland assumption that if home activity is diminished, somehow energy is concentrated upon the export field. I should like to see the mathematics of that worked out at some time, because I do not believe it is happening on any substantial scale. My opinion is confirmed by manufacturers who themselves are anxious to engage in that field. I hesitate to speculate what the moral effect of this curtailment and these hesitations and doubts, even as described in the papers, will be on the average railwayman. After all these years, after Select Committees and goodness knows what, who have bored into the work of the Commission, after the structure has been altered by Parliament, we are told in the gracious Speech that the
"Government will submit to you proposals for reforming the structure and functions of the British Transport Commission."
When I was a trade union official, I supported the principle of the public corporation very strongly, for this basic reason. The conception of nationalisation up to that time had been operation through a Government Department, and I did not believe that, outside the narrow sphere of the Post Office and one or two services like that, industry could flourish under a Government Department subject to Treasury control. I thought that a larger measure of freedom was desirable; and the Government of the day who nationalised these industries subscribed to that conception. A measure of commercial freedom, commercial judgment and treating their business as large private corporations would have done, was the basic principle.
Now what is happening? The Minister of Transport is to require the Trans-

337
port Commission to submit to him all schemes over £250,000. Well, in a large reorganisation scheme involving £1,600 million there will be many instances of that kind, and we all know perfectly well what will happen. There will be meticulous examination of these schemes by people who have no practical responsibility for carrying them out, and in Government Departments and archives there will be minutes of all kinds, all of which will delay conclusions being made and decisions being reached which would be reached quickly in the case of private companies in a comparable setting. I think all this strikes at the root of the competence of the Commission, indeed at the viability of the public corporations.
All these corporations have men who have been appointed by the Government of the day; let us remember that. They have been appointed for their expert knowledge of this subject or that subject as the case may be. Many of them are men of outstanding business ability —I could mention half a dozen off hand—men who have risen to the top of their own businesses and shown their efficiency and qualifications in that way. These experienced businessmen, harassed by all sorts of inquiries, are now to subject their judgment to a Government Department. I make no reference to be Minister or anything of that kind; I am dealing only with the setting in which the work of experienced people will be reviewed. If there is one thing calculated to stifle initiative, which we are told is one of those qualities which large-scale organisation tends itself to fritter away, it is the bringing of Civil Service mentality into the field of industry.
I have many times testified to the competence of the Civil Service in the range of subjects in which they engage. I do not individually challenge a single person in that sphere. But their activity is usually either in preventing their Minister from making a fool of himself or alternatively doing something to stop somebody else from doing something. The sphere in which they function is a broadly negative one. And while I hope am not going to be construed as making an attack upon them (noble Lords may laugh, but remember what I have said; said I regard them as competent in
338
their particular sphere) that sphere is assuredly not that of the business world.
I deplore this development. I deplore it because I believe it represents an encroaching feature of the attitude of Parliament and the Government of the day to the public corporations. I was glad yesterday to hear the pronouncement of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, in connection with the Transport Commission, when he assured the House that no question was being raised of hiving off any of the services or activities of the Commission. Lord Mills is a business man. I met him in his sphere when I was Chairman of the Central Electricity Authority, and I would ask him to use his influence and his power to try to preserve the independence and the freedom of action of the public corporations w thin the broad setting of their constitutions.
The last thing I want to say concerns the preservation of the stability of the general price level, which is, of course, one of the aims in the gracious Speech. There is an implication in this that the principal way of doing it is to keep incomes within control. And there is no doubt whatever that the principal agency for doing that is regarded by governmental people as being the trade unions by way of restraining applications for advances in wages. Always the thing that has befogged this has been the psychological aspects, because the average trade unionist wants to see some outstanding examples whereby private individuals in receipt of dividends, for example, operators on Stock Exchanges and others are not constantly furnishing him with an example of a rising standard of income in their own particular level. I know very well the difference between capital appreciation and income, although one can fade into the other, as we very well know. But the Stock Exchanges of recent months have become almost a ramp, and while I have not the competence to examine closely into their activities, nor the desire to, I am perfectly sure the effect on the minds of trade unionists and working people generally is not a good one and not one to make them inclined to restrain their applications for advances; in wages.
A question we should all ask ourselves is: are we now entering into another inflationary round? Are we at this moment

339
not facing prospective applications for advances in wages in quite a number of industries. In so far as these advances are kept within the advances in production, there is no inflation. But one cannot always be sure of that. I should like to see some measure of voluntary restraint on the part of trade unions in this matter, because I do not believe the spectacle of chasing prices by advancing wages is any good in the long run to anybody. I should like to see longer-term agreements between the trade unions and the various employers' associations whereby over a period, we will say, of three or five years as the case might be, we should revert to the principles of pre-war days. These agreements would have to have some provision for automatic adjustment to rising costs of living. But it is something to aim at and something which will be found more and more in the negotiations between the parties.
Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, made a number or suggestions in respect of the work of the trade unions. He referred to restrictive practices, membership of trade unions, and supervision of the unions by the Registrar. I do not propose to traverse any of those questions, but if the noble Lord would care to put down a Motion I think it would furnish us with a very interesting theme of discussion.
I am delighted to see that the Trades Union Congress is collaborating in the newly formed European Export Council. I made a suggestion broadly to that effect in the House, when, apparently by an inadvertency, they had been omitted from the consultations which the Prime Minister then entered into. They are also, so far as I know, apart from their independent inquiry, embarking upon some investigation under Government auspices, in consultation with the employers, to review unofficial strikes. I think that shows, to all who have read the Report and the debate at the Trades Union Congress in September, their readiness to face up to their responsibility.
I would say, finally, in this rather exaggerated conception of individuality to which we cling so tightly, that we must try to balance it a bit by an increasing measure of co-operation. We are seeking in the export markets to raise the level of our exports and so
340
improve the standard of life of our people. I believe that measures like co-operative marketing and better organisation, not merely of a national character but of a local character, and in particular industries, are essential to a solution of this problem. They involve a measure of co-operation amongst people who are fiercely competitive in the normal way. Unless we recognise that that kind of competition is of minor interest measured by the interest of the community as a whole, we shall fail to achieve our objective in the export field.
4.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I wish to crave your Lordships' indulgence on the occasion of my addressing this House for the first time. I had, in fact, not intended to inflict a speech on your Lordships so soon as this. I thought it would be more fitting that I should profit by sitting for a space in respectful silence, listening to and absorbing the collective wisdom of your Lordships' discussions. But one reason why, nevertheless, I have sought to speak this afternoon is, I confess, that recently I received from my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn a long list of subjects for debate, with an invitation to mark all those on which I felt qualified to offer your Lordships advice. When I looked through this list I was shocked to find that, even after fifteen years' service in another place, there were astonishingly few subjects on which I felt fit to offer your Lordships my advice. Then I remembered the shrewd observation, "If only those who were qualified spoke, the world would be filled with a profound silence".
Another reason for my seeking to speak this afternoon is that I own, after listening to the debate yesterday, that from time to time I felt mildly stimulated to make one or two observations on one or two matters with which I have been rather closely concerned during the past two and a half years. Even so, I intend to follow the instruction that I remember one used sometimes to find at the top of an examination paper—" Do not attempt more than three questions." I know that I must not be contentious or controversial on this occasion, and, indeed, I think it will be not difficult not to be so, because, if I may respectfully

341
say so, the views from which I wish to dissent were put yesterday with great courtesy and moderation.
I should like to say what a delight it was to me, as a newcomer to your Lordships' House, to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, one of those vigorous and lucid expositions of his views to which I know your Lordships are well accustomed. As a friend and admirer of the noble Lord, I know I can say that without any risk of his concluding that I agree with all or most of the views that he expressed. As my work employed me at a rather central point in the field we are discussing, it may be that some of your Lordships feel that the right place for me this afternoon would be in the dog-house, or the dock, or at least the witness box. I want to say, only that, so far from feeling any remorse or regrets at my past actions, I shall be well content to occupy at any rate either of the last two of those locations.
The reason and the justification for the Government's economic policies were fully and, I thought, if I may respectfully say so, most thoroughly explained by my noble friends Lord Mills and Lord Dundee in their excellent speeches, and I find myself in complete agreement with what they said. Therefore I will venture to supplement what they said on only one or two points. The main objects of fiscal and monetary policies are to keep the economy in balance anti prevent its going either too fast or too slow. It sounds obvious and trite to say that, but I think we need to remind ourselves of it because sometimes people are apt to complain at painful effects when the necessary measures are effective in achieving just that object. I think it is fair to say that there is at present a wide measure of agreement between the economists that these measures, fiscal and monetary, are more fitted to free a competitive economy than a mass of elaborate and detailed physical controls. I say "a mass" deliberately, because I think experience of the past shows that in that field, if you start with one or two it leads you further, on and on, until eventually you do have a mass. I think controls of that kind tend to lead to rigidity, whereas, above all, flexibility is what we need in the competitive conditions of the modern world.
342
Some, I know, while agreeing as to the choice of these instruments, in practice complain if they are used in more than one direction. Stimulation is fine, but restriction is anathema. I know that many people feel that any measure of temporary restriction is not really a policy. I always like the story of the man who went to his doctor about his health, and the doctor said, "You are receiving too many stimulants. I advise you to halve your consumption of whisky and port"; and the indignant patient said, "I did not come here to get that sort of advice; I want a positive remedy".
We are told that confidence among business men to plan ahead is impossible when changes are made from time to time in, shall we say, the bank rate or in the volume of credit. I have sometimes found that when complaining of this frustration what business men are really objecting to is the effective use of any restrictive controls. After all, the whole object of economic controls is, and must be I think, to cause some people to modify their plans and intentions, and the justification for doing that is, of course, the lone-term benefits to be obtained from overall stability and full employment which make that price worth paying.
I think we ought sometimes to remember that it is only since the war that Governments have accepted a serious degree of responsibility for keeping the economy in balance. Both the Labour Government between 1945 and 1951 and the Conservative Government since then have been experimenting, as it were, in a new field in rapidly changing world conditions. The central problem, as I see it, is to keep the economy operating at a high level of activity and at full employment, without danger to price stability or the balance of payments, and, of course, operating under conditions where the Government do not directly control the two main elements in our costs—wages and profits. En the present state of our economic knowledge I believe that that task does entail fairly frequent manipulations of a limited number of instruments of control.
Having said that, I should like to go on to say that I should be disappointed if I did not think that during the course of the next decade, in the light of our experience, we shall succeed in devising,

343
either more delicate instruments, and quicker-acting ones, or perhaps learn to use our existing ones, in the light of further experience as time goes on, more gently while still obtaining the necessary effects. But we have been deliberately, and with the approval of the nation, seeking to operate our national economy at a very high level indeed—with a much higher level of employment than economists have generally thought would be practicable: and that of course means inevitably that we have a small margin of safety.
In such circumstances, much more frequent use of instruments of control is necessary than if we were working the economy less flat out. But businessmen, I am sure, should conclude, and will I think conclude, when they think this over, that any frustrations that come to them from the use of existing monetary controls are infinitely less harassing than would result from the booms and slumps of pre-war days in an entirely uncontrolled economy. I should like to say, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, whose speech I found so very interesting, that we are not really against all planning. We believe in appropriate planning in the strategic field. What we are keen on is that every necessary control should be the minimum required to do the job and should not be carried too far down into the tactical field. I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord said about the danger of carrying Civil Service and bureaucratic methods too far into industry, but I feel that I must not follow that up to-day or I might be in danger of entering into a dangerously controversial field.
One word, if I may, about the level of interest rates. I thought that one or two noble Lords spoke yesterday rather as if it were a law of nature that there should be low-interest rates, and that it was a kind of sacrilege to interfere with that law. Whether or not we are destined to live much or most of our time in the years ahead under some degree of credit squeeze I do not know. It is as difficult to define the limits of a squeeze in the economic field as, I understand, it is in the field of amorous proceedings. One thing I am sure we do well to remember is that, looking ahead as far as we can, it can be said that the demand for capital
344
is likely to be enormously greater than the supply; and in such circumstances the price of capital, year in year out, one would expect, might be relatively high rather than relatively low; otherwise, I believe, we are apt to bring in a factor which may distort the economy rather dangerously.
There is one thing which I believe we should remember: that savings, either voluntary or compulsory, are the source of all capital, and a high level of savings, preferably—and much preferably in my opinion—voluntary savings, is essential to our national future. Other things being equal, high-interest rates are more likely to stimulate savings than low-interest rates. I will leave that matter there. On hire-purchase controls I will say only this: they are, of course, quick-acting and effective in their field, as one of a battery of instruments; but they have the disadvantage that they make their impact on a relatively narrow section of industry—upon only certain industries. To that extent, they are discriminating and not so fair as more general controls; and perhaps for that reason that is an instrument which, in the light of experience as time goes on, should be adjusted and changed infrequently rather than frequently. It is a club which, I feel, one should take out of one's bag only very seldom, if I may put it in that way.
One benefit—and a benefit which I think is a benefit of the first order—which we have enjoyed for two and a half years is a stable cost of living. I noticed that noble Lords opposite yesterday in their speeches—no doubt through lack of time—did not dwell very much on that point. As my noble friend Lord Mills said, price stability, so far as it lies under our own control to ensure it, is essential both to our competitiveness in trade and for reasons of social justice. The trouble is that it is one of those things which, once one has them, one is rather apt to take for granted. I am sure that the contrary is the real fact: that it is something difficult to maintain combined with our other objectives, and something worth paying a very high price for and worth, If necessary, sacrifices in other directions; because it can be so easily lost, and once lost it is so hard to regain.
On the present situation, I agree that our main anxieties must be centred on

345
our export performance; and on the other point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, agree there is a risk that further increases in wages—and in profits, if may say so—may well outstrip our likely further increases in production, bearing in mind that our manpower is now very fully employed. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, told us yesterday that a good export performance must be based on a 'buoyant home market and that the best way to prevent inflation was to encourage maximum production. That was what I understood the noble Lord to say. If I may respectfully say so, I think there is much truth in both those, maxims, but I do not think either can be accepted without important reservations. An efficient export performance must be based on a firm and, I believe, expanding home market, but not such a rapidly expanding one that it is either soft or easy. I believe that the situation we have been experiencing during the past year has carried some dangers of both those factors being present.
Looking back I recall the forecast made to me by some businessmen in 1958: that the export performance on their part, if the current restrictions could be removed, would show astonishing results. Their unit costs did no doubt come down, but I am afraid that in a number of cases their sales in the home market expanded so enormously that there was not sufficient room for their export figures even to be held. Looking back, I cannot help feeling that in some ways during the time of those temporary restrictions in 1957 and 1958 I detected more signs of really keen export effort than I have detected since.
One word about stagnation. My noble friend Lord Mills implied that he thought it was a misuse of the word to call the present situation one of stagnation. To get matters in perspective we must remember that to-day the economy is operating at pretty full stretch. Production and employment are running at record levels, with average unemployment down at the present time to 1·7 per cent. Public and private investment are running at all-time record levels, as my noble friend Lord Dundee pointed out, I believe; and total savings are probably the same.
Though it is good that production should be running at a record level, I
346
think there is an inclination in some quarters to judge the strength and soundness of our economy solely in terms of the Index of Industrial Production. Important though that is, to start with people's consumption demands to-day are increasing more strongly in the field of services than in the field of physical production. But I think that if we seek to-day a further immediate sharp rise in production we shall experience once again what we have experienced in the past: the danger of achieving most certainly an increase in the price level to the detriment of our balance of payments. And looking back to when the Labour Government were in power in 1949 and 1950, and the Conservative Government in 1955 and 1.956, I would say that the efforts made then to maximise production, absolutely flat out, resulted first and foremost in a further rise in prices.
The lesson seems to be that that top band of production, just under the ceiling, is one that may or may not be a bonus. It may be a bonus or it may be a very dangerous field to enter into. What I am sure, we must aim at—and I know your Lordships will agree—is to get our economy expanding over the years at a pace steady enough not to strain our resources of manpower or our reserves, and to remember that if we seek immediate further big gains in production now we 'are doing so against a background of a very fully employed manpower. And the starting point is a very important one in this respect. It is like the Irishman who was asked the way to. Roscommon, and he said, "If it was to Roscommon I would be going, it would not be from here I would be starting." Here we must, in considering what more we can do, remember the progress we have achieved and the position we are at to-day.
My Lords, I am not going to detain you this afternoon on the sordid subject of taxation, except to say this: that I greatly admired the eloquence and passion with which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, reminded us, very effectively, if I may say so., of the disincentive effects of high taxation on individuals. I entirely agree. Unquestionably, as my noble friend Lord Mills said, the level of taxation to-day, particularly of direct taxation, is disagreeably high.

347
Personally I think that further reduction in direct taxation is so desirable that our aim should be to achieve it, even, if necessary—and I hope it will not be so—at the expense of raising indirect taxation.
But something very significant has been achieved in this direction over the past nine years. It has been often said that if the rates current in 1951 were still current to-day we should all be paying something like £1,300 million extra in taxation; and I like to think that it fell to my lot to propose a reduction in those rates over three years which have amounted to something over £400 million. But I think that to put it in the most relevant way is to put it as a percentage of the national income; and there the figure taken in 1950–51 by the Central Government amounted to 30·6 per cent. of the national income, whereas the amount I proposed to lay my hands on this year, if I could, amounted to 26·6 per cent. That was, anyhow, a substantial move in the right direction.
I should have liked to say a word about agriculture, commenting on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wise. Like my noble friend Lord Waldegrave, if I may respectfully say so, because I know the noble Lord's great knowledge of this subject, I think he chose rather depressing colours from his palette to paint the picture of the present agricultural situation. Does the noble Lord really feel that the current statistics of production, of aggregate income or of agricultural land values quite bear out the rather gloomy picture he painted? If agriculture really is in such a parlous state it seems rather strange that there is such a very long queue of people anxious to enter it and to secure farms and to share this tragic misfortune
Finally, my Lords, I want, before I sit down, to try my hand, in a few sentences, at what I consider the essentials of the sort of economy we want, though I cannot equal the ingenious and succinct definition of my noble friend Lord Mills. These I believe to be the aims we ought to keep in front of us. First, to keep our currency, sterling, strong and respected. That is the basis of our trade and our livelihood. Secondly, to keep the cost of living and our costs of production stable, for the reasons I have given. Thirdly, to encourage a high and,
348
I hope, still higher level (it has been rising very agreeably over recent years) of productive investment—and I mean productive "in the widest sense. Then, fourthly, but only fourthly, to encourage further growth in our living standards and an expansion of our economy generally at a pace consistent with our success in achieving the first three of those aims. These, then, my Lords, are the priorities that I think right, and they are, I am confident, those by which the Government will continue to be motivated.
My Lords, do not let us be daunted by the new and formidable challenges that face us as a nation in this rapidly changing world. That sort of challenge has been the very lifeblood of our nation throughout our long history. And if each one of us as an individual, whatever his job, resolves to play his part with energy, and not to let our internal differences run too deep or become too hitter, and always to put the welfare of the nation first, then I am confident that we shall continue to give a good account of ourselves whatever challenges lie ahead. I apologise once more for addressing your Lordships with rather greater precipitancy than I had intended and, indeed, it may be, with rather greater impetuosity than it would be fitting for me to do.
4.48 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I regard it as a signal distinction and a very great personal pleasure to have the opportunity of congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, on his maiden speech in your Lordships' House. I find it difficult to resist, and only convention prevents me from addressing him as "my noble friend", because we entered another place at the same time, in the same year, and we were representatives in another place of the immediately neighbouring constituencies, Tiverton and Taunton. I have, indeed, although disagreeing with him on many things, always entertained the greatest respect and admiration and friendship for him. My regard is such that, although he may have deserted Tiverton in the political sense, I am going there on Monday to do my best to ensure that Labour at least gets second place; and I shall again, therefore, renew acquaintance with the noble Viscount on the political platform.
I feel also, my Lords, that we are extremely fortunate to have with us one

349
who, as it were, has been at the centre of the financial web of our country at a time of very considerable difficulties; one, indeed, who assumed the high office of Chancellor of the Exchequer at a time of political difficulty for his own Party, when he used his considerable yachting skill to steady the financial and national boat and, as some would say, saved his Party from acute political difficulty. In particular, we welcome him, not only for his very great knowledge and attainment, but for the fact that he is perhaps the most modest of all politicians. When the noble Lord first took his seat here he characteristically sat on the rearmost Bench of all. This afternoon he has progressed somewhat by stages. He went to the next rearmost Bench, and I thought that that was because it was cushioned. Now he has come to the one immediately behind the Front Bench, and I am sure that that is so that he can overlook the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, to make sure that he is getting the right kind of Treasury briefs.
I welcome the noble Lord also because he has a particularly warm humanity which he does not wear on his sleeve; and, as your Lordships have noticed this afternoon, he has a bright and pungent wit which can convulse his audience without ever hurting his victim —a very great attribute. But as listened to the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, this afternoon, I felt that it was not so much a case of not speaking without knowledge, or that if we spoke only when we had knowledge there would be a vast and empty silence in the world: I thought it was much more important to remember what the late Artemus Ward said:
"It isn't what you don't know that causes the trouble, but what you do know and ain't so."
There seemed to me a great deal of that in the speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and particularly in many of the speeches we have heard from those Benches during this two-day debate.
The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, very rightly paid tribute to my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence for his outstanding speech, and expressed some disagreement with parts of it without particularising them. That has been a notable feature of the speeches made by
350
noble Lords opposite, and none more so, I feel, than that of the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, when he was commenting on the speech of my noble friend Lord Wise. I felt that my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence made not merely a notable speech but one which was completely factual and altogether unanswerable. Indeed, it has not been answered. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, described it, I think, as gloomy and exaggerated. It was a good job he did not stay to hear the speech of his noble friend Lord Hawke, because he would have regarded that as terrifying. That was supported by actual figures quoted from official reports which at one stage indicated that we are presently suffering from an actual deficit of exports compared with imports, counting in invisibles, amounting to approximately £88 million a month—which, my Lords, is £4 million per working day.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, if the noble Lord would allow me, may I take this opportunity of correcting a figure? The figures of the balance of trade were taken from two different sources and were compiled on a slightly different basis. Therefore there falls to be subtracted from the deficit a shipping credit, or added on the other side a shipping debit, which would make a difference of something of the order of £30 million a month. But I still stand by the figure which I gave, which was that 1960, as compared with 1958, will probably show a deterioration of the order of £450 million to £500 million; in other words, from a plus of £350 million to something like a minus of £150 million.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. He will remember that I interrupted him yesterday and asked him for confirmation of those figures, because they were indeed very much worse than I personally had in mind. That is why I asked him to confirm them, But, as he said—and as, indeed, I was going to quote [OFFICIAL REPORT. Vol. 226 (No. 4), col. 274]:
"In fact, if we were to compare the year 1960 with 1958, we might well find our position deteriorating by as much as £450 million to £500 million".
My Lords, despite the speech which the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, has just delivered, and which we very much enjoyed and appreciated; despite all the artificial sunshine of Mr. Macmillan's

351
smile; and despite all the false prosperity slogans of high-pressure publicity agents, nothing can disguise the fact that we are in a dangerous economic situation, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, very rightly said. No amount of talking about a high level of production, of full or over-full employment, can disguise the fact that, relatively, we are doing very much worse than most other nations. Our productivity is falling. And it is no use replying to the point made by my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that we should have higher production, by saying that we are full now. We know that all the time, in all the industrial nations of the world, productivity is advancing, except in this country; and here it is falling.
Of course, since the war we have had a tremendous advance in productivity per man, and that is our increased wealth. That is the whole basis of the hopes which the present Home Secretary has given us, that in 25 years our standards of living will be doubled. So please do not let us start from the premise of complacency, that we are doing well now. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, reproved my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and said that there may be a pause. Objection was taken to the term "stagnation". What else is it but stagnation if you are not making any upward move, and if, in fact, in productivity you are making a downward move? There is one other thing which we cannot get over. At the very best estimate, we had on current account a surplus of only £35 million on our international trade in the first six months of the year (and that is the best half of the year), and that compares with the Government's figure, which they insist on, of a £450 million surplus which they say is necessary if we are going to finance our capital commitments. No one can dispute that our rate of capital investment as a percentage of national income is the lowest among all the industrial countries of the world. Nor can anyone dispute that, since 1951, the growth of our industrial output has been the lowest in Europe. If we are going to get down to facts, let us compare like with like. Let those challenges be answered from the Government Benches when the noble and learned Viscount comes to reply. They are unhappy facts,
352
and they are entirely due to Conservative policy. I do not think it can be disputed that, unless the Government's policy is radically changed, our people's living standards will soon be, not necessarily lowered, but lower than those of people of other countries in Europe who formerly were very much below us. That is the kind of criterion we have to look at.
My Lords, the Government's economic policy always reminds me of the story of the discovery of roast sucking pig. Your Lordships all remember the story.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): The story is in the Essays of Elia, which was published over 100 years ago.
LORD STONHAM: That does not make it any the less attractive. In fact, if it is of any interest to the noble and learned Viscount, I must have read it at least 45 years ago, but it has stuck in my mind. Perhaps I may refresh his mind of the principle of the story—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I remember it very well.
LORD STONHAM: The poor farmer suffered the misfortune of having, his pigsty burned down soon after the sow had farrowed; and when he mournfully approached the ruins after the fire had died down, he stretched out his hand and touched one of the little bodies and immediately put his burned fingers in his mouth. And, as the story goes, so a new culinary delight was born to the world. The sow farrowed several more times and the pigsty was burned down several more times before the neighbours persuaded him that it was possible to enjoy roast sucking pig without burning down the house.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I hate to cap the learned Lord's story, but in the interests of literary accuracy I must insist that it was the house, not the pigsty, each time.
LORD STONHAM: I said the house because, again in the interests of accuracy, the house and the pigsty were one and the same dwelling. So the noble and learned Viscount is putting a little too fine a point on it. But the lesson of the story is one that the Government have yet to learn.

353
If I may summarise what has been said by a number of noble Lords, the cycle goes like this. The Government release spending power for an Election-winning boom. Home consumption naturally rises and the amount of exports suffers relatively. Imports increase and therefore we have balance-of-payments problems, so imports have to be reduced. The Government are not satisfied with one or two little pigs. They refuse to reimpose restriction's on the less essential imports, such as foreign motor cars, refrigerators, washing machines and items like that—restrictions, incidentally, which they foolishly lifted not so very long ago in lifted "never had it so good" period. I refer to it as a "period", as it undoubtedly was, so as not to say who in particular invented it or who fostered it, although I think we all know. Instead of that kind of selective control, the Government imposed a 6 per cent. bank rate.
My Lords, what does the price become of what would, after tall, have been only a marginal reduction of imports? The price becomes a £40 million increase in the cost of the interest charges on the National Debt. That means increased costs of all local authority and social services, higher rates, higher mortgage charges for house-owners, which all adds up to higher living costs and, consequently, increased wage demands and reduced exports;. The latter, of course, destroys the value of any cuts in imports which may have been achieved by the policy of burning down the house.
I think the worst effect of it is that, instead of a steady rate of planned expansion, with the proper measure of the right sort of capital investment, which the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, claimed the Government were providing, we do in fact get a cycle. It consists, roughly, of one year's spending spree and three years more or less of frustration and financial restriction. That is why, in my view, we are at the bottom of the investment and production tables of the industrial countries of the world; and I believe that we shall go on sinking relatively lower until we have a change of Government or until the Conservative Party cease to regard planning and controls as dirty words that is, of course, if there are still any dirty words left in the language after the trial last week.
354
I also feel, quite apart from that, that there is the Government's relentless hostility towards public ownership—publicly-owned undertakings, to which Lord Citrine and others of my noble friends have referred. There is a contrast between their hostility to publicly-owned undertakings and their tenderness towards anything privately owned. I honestly regard that as the second major cause of our present difficulties. Because, after all, the nationalised industries, apart from agriculture, are the main basic industries and services which have such a great effect on the costs, efficiency and prosperity of other industries.
Let us, for example (I do not think this point has been taken yet) contrast the Government's attitude to the coal industry and their attitude to the steel industry. Coal was, and to a large extent still is, our industrial lifeblood. We embarked on a full-scale expansion and modernisation programme for which the Coal Board have had to pay full and ever-increasing rates of interest. Not so the steel companies. Colvilles, a private undertaking, is allowed to borrow £60 million at special rates. Llanelly and Staveley Steel Companies have been sold to private companies at well below their intrinsic value, at a loss of millions of pounds of public money. Again, when supplies of coal were short the Coal Board were never allowed to charge world prices to enable them to build up reserves. Instead, they were compelled to pay the enormous losses involved in the import of foreign coal—a quite unjustifiable burden. Meanwhile, the steel companies were free to fix their own prices, and anyone who wants to import steel has to pay the full price for it. And after all that rigging, as it were, of the conditions of those two industries, the Conservatives have the effrontery to describe coal as an inefficient failure and to laud steel as an outstanding success! Then, to rub it in still further, the Government damage the market for coal by encouraging the unrestricted import of other countries' surplus fuel oil.
My Lords, I think it is a tragedy that a body of patriotic men can, for these, as I regard them, stupidly doctrinaire reasons, destroy or damage one of our greatest industries. And the worst of the tragedy is that, in the process, they take the heart out of some of the finest

355
men in the country—the miners. Five or six hundred of them are leaving the coalfields every week to go to better-paid, easier and more assured jobs. For a year or so now we have been talking of coal surpluses. If that drain on manpower continues, it will not be long before there will be a shortage of coal. And all because of the Government's policy.
A great deal has been said about the railways. I do not want to go over the same ground again, but I should like to add one or two points which have not yet been made, with particular reference to the statements about losses and inefficiencies. I will remind your Lordships that for 30 years the railways were starved of investment capital. They were overworked and badly knocked about during the war, and suffered losses amounting to £68 million in 1947, the last year before vesting day—the last year of private enterprise. That figure of £68 million compares with the figure, which is indeed alarming, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mills, yesterday, of £74 million last year. I know that he said that by a different calculation it would come to £110 million. Nevertheless—and I am sure he will agree with this—the £110 million, at its full figure, including so many of the costs arising from the increased capital investment, is a relatively lower figure than the figure of £68 million in 1947.
Despite the condition of the railways in 1947, it is a fact that in 1950, 1951, and again in 1953, they earned their interest and central charges and produced a small surplus. That all arose out of the conditions created by the 1947 Act. But in 1953 we had the Act of the Conservative Government, to which my noble friend Lord Latham referred yesterday as tearing asunder the co-ordinated road and rail transport system. What has been the result of that?—because that is exactly what it did. The result has been accumulated losses of £540 million, for which the general public, the newspapers, and noble Lords opposite blame British Railways, when in fact the blame should reside where it belongs—namely, with the Conservative Government.
Then, five years ago, the Government approved the Transport Commission's
356
bold and imaginative modernisation plans. But since then, as my noble friend Lord Citrine made so clear, it has been a continuous process of start and stop. It is always the railways and the public undertakings who suffer as whipping-boys for Government errors in financial policy. They have never been told their capital allocation for more than twelve months ahead, and it is virtually impossible to implement such a big programme on that basis. They have been plagued with Committee after Committee, and we learned yesterday that we were not to hear the findings of the latest Committee, headed by Sir Ivan Stedeford. One wonders whether that Committee did not come up with the answers the Minister wanted. Now another Committee has been appointed, again a secret Committee. Again we shall only be told what the Government wish to tell us.
I think, and I hope your Lordships will agree with me, that the worst feature of the present position with regard to the railways is the open and undisguised hostility of the Ministers directly concerned with them. At the Conservative Party Conference the Minister of Transport, Mr. Marples, is reported to have announced, in the manner of a man expecting cheers, that
"for the first time in the history of this country the railways are taking less than 50 per cent. of the total traffic."
He went on to declare that, if big things like coal and minerals were moved on the railways, it would not ease congestion in the cities. It is impossible to reduce the chaotic overcrowding of our roads unless we carry more big things on the railways. But Mr. Marples went on to quote, from his own business experience, that when you send things on the railways bits are liable to drop off. That is positively inciting people not to send goods by British Railways.
His Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Hay, adopted a similar line. He said that the £160 million cost of the London—Manchester electrification scheme was eight times the cost of M.1. As was pointed out in an excellent letter in The Times the other day, the line to be electrified is ten times longer than M.1, and the £160 million includes no less than £94 million for rolling stock and traffic control. It would be more true if I were to say that, mile for mile, the build-

357
ing of M.1 cost ten times as much as British Railways electrification. But we ought not to say nonsensical and stupid things of this kind. What matters is that we need more M.1s and also the electrification, improvement and modernisation of British Railways. It should not be a case of railways competing with roads for capital. They both need a great deal more capital. When Ministers so disgracefully misrepresent the industries for whose wellbeing they are responsible it is not surprising that the men who work: in them become utterly disheartened and leave their jobs, as they are doing.
British Railways is down now to a little more than 500,000 men, which is no: enough to do an efficient job. Many small stations—and here I speak from my own business experience—deliver passenger parcels only once a week, and sometimes parcels arrive ten days after they left the senders. A big London depôt near the City has no replacements of cartage men, and if one falls sick, his collections are not made. There are no: enough men to handle the transfer of goods at the junctions, so goods consignments take anything up to ten days to reach their destinations. Only this morning I learned that at Kidderminster they are not taking any more consignments because they are so congested. All this has an effect on the export trade and on general trade, and it is happening all over the country. These delays are not due to strikes, hut to the fact that there are not enough men to handle goods; and that is due to the reasons I have already given. For all these, and many more, shortcomings the public blame British Railways, though the real culprits are the Government of the day.
My Lords, there is this further disheartening news. Yesterday the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said that in 1960 there would be a 20 per cent. increase in capital expenditure over last year. Yet British Railways have been told that they are going to suffer a £20 million cut. So it is not only a case of not knowing twelve months in advance—and the noble Lord, Lord Mills, knows just what that means in the context of the nationalised railways and ordering locomotives—but also of a £20 million cut. And almost in the same breath we are told that the Cunard Company is to get an £18 million loan, including a £3 ¼million subsidy.
358
It would almost seem, though I do not say it is the case, that the modernisation of the railways, which we all own and use, is to be held back for the benefit of the Cunard shareholders.
The Select Committee had many good things to say for British Railways, and recommended that modernisation should proceed on a five-year basis and not a twelve-month basis. Surely this is the first essential step towards an efficient transport system, both road and rail. Our railways are being starved of capital to satisfy this doctrinaire hatred of nationalisation. Our roads system is the worst in Europe. We need continuous, sustained and heavy investment in both, and neglect of such long-term investment for the sake of quick returns elsewhere is equal to eating the seed corn. We cannot have efficient industry without efficient transport, and we cannot have competitive end-product industries without sound and prosperous basic industries, with satisfied workers in them. If we are to resume our rightful place in the economic world, the Government must bolster up our international credit with high and expanding production and not with high-interest rates. They must restore the confidence of the workers and management by announcing a programme of bold and planned expansion, of more public investment, not less. Give the people heart and they will respond, as they have always done. If, through that programme, the total of imports becomes too high, let the Government reduce selectively—cut out the frills and keep the essentials. And let the Government give us a promise that never again will they burn down the whole house for the sake of a little roast pig.
5.18 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, unfortunately I could not follow the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, but I should like to add my tribute to that of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the wonderful maiden speech we have just been privileged to hear. I hope that if the noble Viscount searches the Order Paper more diligently he will find many other subjects on which he is qualified to speak.
I do not propose to keep your Lordships long this afternoon, but I should like to express my deep regret that there is nothing in the gracious Speech about measures to spread the holiday season.

359
I ventured to address your Lordships on this subject about a year ago, in particular with regard to the proposal for shifting Bank Holiday from the first to the last Monday in August. I am sure that such a measure would do much to avoid the appalling congestion on the roads and at holiday resorts which now occurs. Some months ago, the Board of Trade held an inquiry but nothing has emerged from it, in spite of the fact that many views have been expressed in favour of such a change. The British Travel and Holidays Association have come out very strongly in support of the proposal, as have many other bodies, such as air lines, hoteliers, and transport operators. Indeed, in a competition organised by the Evening Standard after my Motion 75 per cent. of those who entered for the competition were in favour of this change of Bank Holiday.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in replying to my Motion last November, said that the Government contemplated ascertaining public opinion on the matter. But there again, nothing seems to have been done. Of course, the shifting of Bank Holiday is only one of many measures which could be taken to spread the holiday season, but I lay particular emphasis upon it because it is the easiest to alter, in that it does not in any way interfere with, for instance, the school holidays.
I am also disappointed that nothing further has so far been done about the extension of Summer Time. I understood that an announcement was going to be made about that, and I hope that in 1961 we shall see Summer Time continue until the latter part of October. I hope that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will be able to say something in his reply about the points which I have raised, because I feel that they are of great importance to the country as a whole, and to all those connected with travel and the holiday industry. I would remind him that this industry is one of the greatest earners of dollars and of other foreign currency that this country possesses. Therefore I make no apology for raising these matters once again in your Lordships' House.
5.22 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, evidence of hearsay is always dangerous ground, particularly with the noble Vis-
360
count, Lord Hailsham, sitting opposite, but I understand that there is quite a difference in speaking in another place and in your Lordships' House. Yet in a matter of a few days the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, has quickly adjusted himself to this House and has delivered a speech which we all thoroughly enjoyed. I should like to be associated with those noble Lords who have spoken a tribute. I hope that he will enjoy his stay in this House and not regret his transfer to our company. The noble Viscount said that he agreed in full with the speeches made by the Ministers yesterday. I frankly think that he would find difficulty in disagreeing. I was most disappointed in the speeches that were made. We are living in dangerous times, and neither of those speeches, I thought, reflected the urgency that is facing this country. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, when speaking of the growth of production said [OFFICIAL REPORT. Vol. 226 (No. 4) col. 246]:
"I suggest that we are entitled to only the expansion we work for and deserve."
I do not believe that is correct. I should like to put it to the House in this way: by what standards are we to judge our economy and the Government record? I think we must get this very much in our minds. If this country stood in isolation, with no commitments to the Commonwealth and to our Allies if we were concerned only in having a Welfare State and full employment, perhaps the economic position that faces this country would be regarded as reasonable. But, my Lords, that is not the case. We are a world Power, with all its responsibilities.
Naturally our great aim is to achieve peace: a peace not of living in a cold war, but a peace when all the seeds of conflict have been eradicated. The noble Earl the Foreign Secretary knows as well as any other Member of the House of the seeds of future conflict that exist in Africa and Asia to-day—seeds brought about by squalor and misery. I should have thought that the challenge of our time is whether we shall be able to build up our economy quickly enough and efficiently enough to withstand the psychological and economic warfare that this country and our Allies of the West are going to face. That warfare will be as ruthless and as savage as any hot

361
war in the past. Are we of this country and of the West prepared and geared to-clay to meet that challenge?
The facts that are known in this House and in Government circles must surely show that the West economically is not yet ready to face that challenge. We know that even within our own Commonwealth what we have been able to do has been insufficient to meet the requirements to develop those countries. These are facts. We know that the gap that divides us and these unfortunate people grows wider and wider. It is a vacuum into which the Soviet forces will move. If we wish to stand, we must be ready to meet that challenge. Therefore I would put to the House the question whether our economy could not be developed with that of our Western Allies. I believe that the pattern of to-day is not conducive to meeting and will not meet that challenge. I want to hear from the Government and from those Ministers who are responsible for economic affairs that they are going to direct the economy of this country to stand side by side with the foreign affairs statement made by The noble Earl, Lord Home, last week. This is vital.
As I have said, I do not believe our economy as it is to-day has the ability to deal with the Challenge. We have at present a stagnant production. We need an increased production, because only with increased production can we have a dynamic economic policy. But the point that worries me is this. We heard from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Mills, yesterday that we are already scraping the bucket of labour; that there is not much left of availability of labour. Therefore, if we are using all this labour and yet our production remains stagnant, something obviously has gone wrong.
We know that there is a shortage of capital, but we know also that a large quantity of capital has been put into our economy in the last ten years. Therefore we must ask the question—and I put this in no Party sense—whether our investment has been going in the right channels where it has the greatest effect to stimulate our production and our economy. I am one of those who feel that far too much of our capital has gone into What one would call the soft industries, into the services—by that I
362
mean the servicing side of industry, the store trades, hire purchase—and that inadequate investment has gone to heavy production.
Getting back again to labour—because labour is a priceless asset to this country —I think far too much of our labour has gone into service and is not at the factory bench where it should be. I do not advocate that the Government should use conscription, but it is up to the Government and industry to provide attractive conditions by way of labour and working conditions so that the people of this country will go into the factories and move away from the service side. This can be done, and it must be done. The Government may well say, "This is not our duty." In the opinion of my friends on this side of the House the Government are entrusted with the welfare of the country. It is in their hands, and has been placed there by a free people. If we need increased production, if we need movements of capital and of labour, it is the Government's responsibility in the interests of the country to see that this is done.
Now I turn to another side of our problem, the balance of payments. I do not think the difficulty there is due entirely to high imports. It is largely due to the fact that we have forgotten that this country lives on its exports, and that the wealth of this country was made on exports. There are some who ask the Government to give incentives. I do not go so far as that. I want them to create a climate in which industry and commerce will go back to its traditional trade. Exporting is something you do not go in and out of like the Stock Exchange; exporting is a long-term task. It is something which is full of frustration and difficulty. It carries high financial risk and, unfortunately, a lower margin of profit as compared with the home market. If the noble Lord, Lord Mills, wants to know why we are not exporting to-day, the answer is relatively simple: that business will always go where there is a profit against its capital cost. We know of the risks and the returns on the export markets, and we have in this country a market where there is fat profit to be made and with little financial risk.
There are some who have asked for incentives. I would put one thing to

363
the noble Lord, Lord Mills, which I believe the Government could do, possibly short-term. I believe that, through-the Export Credits Guarantee scheme, they could take a greater share of the risk involved in exports, because risk is not only a doubt as to the ability of the client to pay. We are faced more and more to-day with the sudden imposition of import licences, with contracts that have been made but which could not be shipped through no fault of the buyer, the manufacturer or the financier. This burden is heavy, and I would say that with regard to the Export Credits Guarantee scheme the premium rate is rather high. Realising the importance of exports, I think the Government and the country could well take a bigger share of the risk. That would be far more preferable than giving inducements by income tax rebates or any other devices.
I sincerely ask the noble Lord, Lord Mills, whether he would consider this. May I give him an example? At the very moment when in Africa we should be standing by and stimulating our trade with that continent, because of the uncertainties the business communities and others are coming out. London houses are saying, "Africa is no longer a risk. We are not prepared to do business in that market." As a businessman, I agree with them that the risk, for the return, is very great. But from a national point of view that is wrong and might well be fatal. I ask the noble Lord whether he would look into this point. I say that with great sincerity, not because it would not make any difference to me—it would, in business—but because I think I am a representative of a large number of small people with no great resources behind them who are trying to export. The Government should give considerable aid to them and I think it would reflect very much on the country's position.
I would end by turning to the real, critical point we have to-day, and that is the use of public money in industry. I do not object to the use of public money in industry. I believe myself that it is the pattern of the future. I believe that if we are to meet the challenges that face us as an industrial power, we shall need more and more public money in the private sector. It will be a form of marriage between State and private enterprise, hoping to take the fruits of
364
both. But there is a considerable difference between putting public money into an industry on loan, at probably preferential rates and without any control, and the industry raising it on the market. We on this side of the House believe that if State money goes into industry the State should receive some form of equity. The money should go in on the same basis as other people's money, and should enjoy the same control and the same protection.
Noble Lords opposite believe that participation by the State in industry is an attack on liberty. I think that that is utter nonsense. The State owns parts. It owns the sanitary systems, the Atomic Energy Authority, the water boards and the electricity industry. Would you say that those are an attack on liberty? If public money should be in those industries, why should it not be intermingled in partnership with the ordinary commercial companies? The public money should stand on the same basis, in my judgment, as private money, to share the responsibility, the control and the risk. I believe that this will be the pattern of the future.
In conclusion, may I go back to the words with which I started my speech? I believe this with the greatest possible sincerity. In history this country is at the cross-roads. We have withstood attacks from all quarters. By our ingenuity and our faith we have won through. But we are going to face a greater threat, not of a hot war but of trade, economics and psychology. We must be ready to face that threat. In that, I hope the Government will lead us.
5.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-
BOROUGH: My Lords, we are now coming to the closing stages of this important debate, and it is. I think, fitting that on such an occasion we should, at least annually, if not more often, be able to hear each other's point of view upon such vital issues as the economic position of the country and matters arising, therefrom. May I say, in the first place, how grateful I am to my colleagues on this side who have supported the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper. I am especially grateful, as always, to my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence and for the specially pertinent speech by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth on matters connected with

365
transport. I noticed that he has earned a sort of congratulatory message from the other side of the House, thinking that at least the taxation portion of his speech might have been made to a successful and applauding Conservative meeting. Nevertheless, there was sufficient in that speech critical of Government policy to satisfy me. I do not think any Party is without members who will always resent levels of taxation, although they may even, on some sides of the House, resent the impact of taxation more than the total amount that has to be secured.
The other speech on which I should like to comment is that of my noble friend Lord Wise, who dealt with agriculture. He comes from quite a remarkable agricultural district, and he has constant, almost daily, contact with leaders of thought in that very important agricultural district. He quoted at some length, I think especially for the benefit of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, the opinion of the Conservative Member for Lowestoft as to what the true position is. It seemed to me that the Parliamentary Secretary had not felt constrained to deal with the details, not of all that my noble friend said but what his Conservative Party Member said in another place, and that seems to me to be a very great pity. I will come a little later to say a word or two about agriculture in general.
Yesterday we were also favoured with two speeches from the Government Benches: they came from two of the most charming personalities on the Government Bench. There was the noble Lord, Lord Mills, who is an old friend, specially from war-time days when we were concerned with industry and similar matters; and he always has a charming personality. But when he lectures us upon our views upon matters like national controls and economics and the like, I always feel that he lets only just enough information come out, as he was in the habit of doing as chairman of company meetings; he thinks that we should be given only that amount of information which is in accordance with practice; that shareholders should be told only just enough of what is good for them and apparently just enough to keep up their confidence in the market.
366
The general trend of the debate on this important Amendment seems to, me also to have been fairly well stage-managed. Of course, the noble Viscount who is to reply presently has become very experienced in political stage management in the more recent years of his career, including the chairmanship of the Conservative Party. I felt, as I looked at the list of names down on this Amendment, where we have done our best, as a limited Opposition, to put up a proper front, that the number of Conservative Members who took part surely must have been a little stage-managed.
I do not know how close a supporter of modern association football the noble Viscount may be, but I could not help thinking, as I looked at the programme of speakers, that there was a sort of what is called "playing down". Mr. Puskas, of Real Madrid, and formerly of Hungary, and some other experts of modern Continental soccer, have earned the reputation that when they have got the ball and are in the lead, then they are certainly not going to part with it, even if it means running to and fro and then passing about without saying or doing very much. It seems to me there has been a sort of "playing-down" arrangement, just like that sort of tug of the coat when I interrupted—I am sorry I interrupted—the Parliamentary Secretary, which obviously resulted in the fact that I received no reply to the interjection—a very nice bit of by-play and "playing-down". That may be all right in Parliamentary controversy and stage-management, but it does not dispose of the real troubles that we are seeking to bring to the knowledge of your Lordships, those of you who have not already got it, with regard to the economic situation.
I am bound to say that we have had, in places, some rather extraordinary interjections. I feel that we have not yet been satisfied about the point of. Order, for example, that was raised by my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence when he was dealing with Lord Mills's exposition of the situation in relation to the Chandos Report. I hope that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House., who is to reply presently, will, because of his position as Leader of the House, take some note of that and see whether we are right in our submission that,

367
wherever documents of that kind are likely to be quoted direct, or where very strong inference can be taken from the speeches of Ministers upon them, that greatly strengthens the case for having the document itself laid. I know that the rule itself is pretty well known, but I hope that when the noble Viscount comes to reply he will perhaps put the position plainly.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I must tell the noble Viscount this. Quite frankly I had not realised that he wanted a direct answer from me. If he will put a Question down on it, I certainly will consider it. But, equally certainly, I should not be in a position, in my speech in reply to a contentious Amendment to the Address in reply to the gracious Speech, to give my opinion on what, if it is intended as a point of Order, would be an important precedent. I think he should not press me on that point, having regard to the different function I am performing in my reply to a contentious Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER of HILLSBOROUGH: We will leave it at that. We shall be meeting in a day or two in what is called the "usual channels", and perhaps we can pursue it on that occasion. It is essential that we should have a proper understanding between Government and Opposition Benches as to what is the proper basic conduct in such instances, and I hope that will all be satisfactorily cleared up.
We also had a little controversy (I want to get rid of these points at the start) as between the Government Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, with regard to whether the slogan "You never had it so good" was or was not officially used by the other side in the Election. But I think it is important to remember the complete frankness of the noble Viscount, who said that the words were used in a speech of the Prime Minister twelve months before the Election. That is perfectly true. Of course one has to remember that became a sort of inspiration of many other people, and it was even beyond the control, I think, of the Chairman of the Conservative Party organisation at the time to restrain their many followers in the propaganda field from using the essence of the Prime Minister's
368
statement. Nor was it by any means confined to the actual words. I have here a little book, which no doubt the noble Viscount has already read, in which it says, for example:
"Life is better with the Conservatives. Don't let Labour ruin it."
In regard to the point that was made in debate, that there is a great amount of complacency in the Government about these matters, it is a pity we did not get quite the note in the Government statements that was in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Amory. I am sorry to see he is not in his place at the moment. He really understood what was the danger point in the maintenance of the present high level of the economy of the State. That is a danger note. No Party can really tolerate a state of complacency when dangers arise to the economy.
That is all I need say on that. Certainly, I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, proved his point that the Prime Minister did not use the phrase during the Election. That is quite right. But there is one little sidelight on it that arose at a much later date. I was most interested to see in the Daily Express of October 31 of this year—not so many days ago—that they say that the Tory candidates in the seven Parliamentary by-elections have been given these orders: (1) Play down the theme, "You never had it so good"—all right; (2) Play up the sterner themes of duty and self-reliance (always a good line, says the Daily Express, when times are getting hard). I shall have a word to say presently about the remarkable and courageous speech of the Foreign Secretary the other day, because of a certain aspect of the case with which he dealt and which is not out of place in the connection in which I am speaking.
Then there is the order: Go soft on Labour disunity; let it speak for itself. I take note of these things, you know. But some of us have had long political lives. We have seen other disunities. I look at the noble Earl, Lord Winterton—an old and valued Parliamentary friend of many years' standing. When I was a lad I can remember the League of Young Liberals, and that the noble Earl had entered, or was just about to enter, Parliament. I remember all the controversy he brought with him—it was tremendous—following the great split

369
between the Retaliationists and the Protectionists of 1904 to 1906, and the enormous victory which the Liberals secured as the result.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, as the noble Viscount has referred to me, perhaps he will take comfort from the fact—I do not know what my noble friends will think at my saying this—that the Liberal Party was more divided than it had been for generations, but they won an enormous victory.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I hope that the noble Earl is asking his colleagues not to be complacent in these matters. I think he is wise it giving that advice. I have lived through other splits. I have seen the Liberal Party split from top to bottom, so far without any major recovery.
LORD REA: So far.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Forty-two years. I have seen other splits, later than that. I saw the split in a time of great national economic difficulty in 1931, when there was a Labour Government without a majority in office. That was said to be the death knell of Labour. Was it? There never was such an example of a revivified and united Labour Party than that in 1945, and you are still taking, to your advantage and for the general good of the economy of the State, the physical controls that the Labour Government put into operation in 1945 to 1950. Every decent financier and manufacturer knows that to be true. That is the real case. We shall recover all right—do not worry about that. Because of the points that were so admirably made by my noble friend Lord Citrine to-day, as to what is inevitable in the end, it will be proved that, provided we can find a system of collective controls with proper and reasonable freedom to the individual citizen, there is no question about the speed and efficiency with which there can be an expansion in the economy of a State which is united on one objective: the organised and objective way of dealing with industry.
Now I turn to the views that we hold about the general position of the State. I see that the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, has returned. It would be less than courteous of me if I did not say a
370
special word from this Opposition Bench about his speech to-day. It was an exceedingly happy and well-thought-out contribution, as we should expect from one with his great business, as well as Ministerial, experience. Perhaps he will forgive me for saying that I have always been particularly interested in him since he went into politics, somewhat later in life than some; and as I married a Tiverton girl in Tiverton, and as I spoke in the last General Election in Tiverton, I take a particular interest in Tiverton still. It is a town which has been largely dependent upon two things: the central industry of the town and on its dealings with the surrounding agricultural industry.
I am going to tell a little story, because I was thinking about the noble Viscount's remarks about controls. When I was First Lord of the Admiralty 1929 to 1931, one Sunday morning there was a knock at the door of my wife's mother's house in Tiverton where I was staying. Outside the door and waiting to see me was a gentleman—it was the noble Viscount, Lord Amory. I expect he has forgotten. Such was his great anxiety to see me that even on the Lord's Day he came because I was likely to be there. We had a nice little talk—most pleasant and quite in order. His object was to elicit my sympathy for the expansion of duties to safeguard the main industry of Tiverton.
When I think of some of the ideas that are present in the minds of some members of the Government, in contradistinction to some other members of the Government, as to the increasing value of free trade—I am not saying freer exchange of goods, but free trade—then I find it good to remember that our Chancellor of the Exchequer of yesteryear was able to come and have a friendly talk with a Labour Cabinet Minister in 1930 in case we should make the mistake of not giving some protection by way of having an effective home market to assist the export trade. No doubt he will remember that that was the basis of the conversation, and I am glad to say it has been most effective owing to his industry.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I am most grateful for the remarks of the noble Viscount, and I really must consider following his example one day in selecting, if possible, a Tiverton girl.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, that is exceedingly kind, and I would say, in return, that I cannot for the life of me understand how it is that a gentleman of such good manners, so essential to a successful marriage, has not yet seen fit to indulge in that institution. These preliminaries now having been got over, may I turn to some of the main points I want to make this afternoon?
I want to say, first of all, that our position to-day is gravely affected by two main things—though there are others, of course. The first is the balance-of-payments danger; the second is the amount of the economy and the taxation necessary for our present defence programme. On that I come to what I have said was the most courageous speech of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary. I thought that he spoke completely realistically about the dangers of the future. It was perhaps a confirmation of what Sir Anthony Eden said quite recently: that the present position was very confused indeed—I suppose he thought even more confused than in 1956—and that we were perhaps in greater danger to-day than we have ever been at any other time.
What is the situation in regard to the speech of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary? It is that, apart from relying upon other parts of the collective Alliance of N.A.T.O. and what they can do for us, we have never been in such a weak position in relation to impending dangers, and at such a high cost, as we are to-day. We are spending in this current year £1,625 million upon our defence, and we cannot show, on paper at any rate, more than about one-third of the defence available to this country when I left the Ministry of Defence in 1950. One-third! —and the whole position to-day is even more directly affected by the revelation in the London Times that there is at this very moment a struggle going on apparently between the Treasury and the War Office, over the extent to which it is necessary to cut down the personnel in B.A.O.R.
Figures have been mentioned but I do not propose to go into them. But certainly the volume of collective defence we can put into the field, on the sea or into the air to-day, compared
372
with the price we are paying, is—well, there is only one word: it is fantastic in its weakness. And I sympathise with the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, and with any Foreign Secretary, of any Party, who has to write urgent notes of decision without any lead in his pencil. And that is the fact. Let us look at the reason for this position of defence and cost. I say that it is because the country was misled in an early Election—in 1951, which was preceded by a softer Government than the previous one—on the idea that what was required was to free the economy, but especially to "Set the people free". The noble Earl the Foreign Secretary appeals to us to-day on the basis that he hopes the people of Britain will have sufficient stamina to accept the (I think) implied hardships that must arise in meeting the dangers of the position. There is the rub. I believe he is right. I hope that we shall have the stamina, but I hope also that we shall recognise how the position has come about.
The fact is, of course, that with that freeing of the economy, and the constant rise in the cost of living afterwards, without proper controls to set off our balance of payments, costs of production have increased to such an extent that it has been quite impossible for the Service Departments to meet the planned programme agreed between the Allies in 1950 and 1951. They have not been able to do it. It is true that at one point Her Majesty's Government have broken away from maintaining larger conventional forces and indulged in very heavy experimental expenditure, relying far too much —in fact completely—upon the ultimate deterrent. But the general position is that the Government have not fulfilled even what they themselves would have desired to do: the cost was so great that the plan could not be carried out. The real quarrel going on, so far as the Treasury and the War Office are concerned, is whether or not we can afford to keep the present basis of land forces in Germany—and this at a time when we are under pressure of continuous threats from the leader of the Communists in Moscow.
That gives a lead to what is the true danger in the situation, and brings me next to one of the points that was dealt with by my noble friend Lord Wise yesterday with regard to agriculture. Agriculture was rightly praised by the

373
noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave this afternoon for its services to the State. I think he was quite correct in his appreciation of the situation agriculture holds in the country. But the fact is that while, when danger arises, agriculture is looked to as the salvation of the situation, when the danger recedes (this has usually been the case in the past, certainly up to 1945), the services of agriculture are forgotten. The history of the country for the last century proves that. But since 1945 the position has changed. A Labour Act of Parliament set the standard for a permanent recognition of the economic importance of the agriculturist which was his due, and, secondly, acceptance of the fact that the agriculturist is absolutely essential to the balancing of the economy. So far from money spent by the State on agriculture having been wasted, on the contrary the very figures quoted by the noble Earl the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon proved that, had it not been for the actual increase in the agricultural contribution from production in the last fifteen years, our balance-of-payments position would have been entirely in ribbons. That is the fact. Yet what is the treatment of agriculture at the moment?
I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, called the Conservative Election appeal the "Manifesto". That said that the Party would adhere to the 1957 Act. But is the 1957 Act in adherence to the promise to maintain the 1947 Act? It is not. And the practice has been very different since. The Manifesto of the Conservative Party was very careful to say that they would limit themselves not to go below the basis of the 1957 Act in the lifetime of this Parliament—not exactly the happiest way of giving encouragement to agriculture and expanding investment in the agricultural industry. But there it is, and it speaks for itself. I say to your Lordships that in the danger of an impending conflict, if there is going to be a conflict—and I pray to God there will not be—we should never let down our agricultural industry in any sense whatsoever.
In the second place, if the Government are contemplating the kind of thing mentioned yesterday in the Supplement to the Financial Times about entering into the Common Market, they should at the same time consider very carefully the
374
other matter. Our ability as a nation depends not only upon British agriculture but it will depend here, and in all those nations in support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, on wholehearted and wide support from our Dominions and from the rest of the British Commonwealth. I beg that on these matters Her Majesty's Government will take due note of the anxiety felt by many people in my Party (I will not say all my Party) on this matter.
Then I come to look at the matter in a little more detail. What steps, really, in support of this balancing position in the national economy of agriculture are the Government taking to prevent very large losses of agricultural land to the industry? If Mr. Woolley's estimate is correct, by 1970 the industry will have lost, with the losses that have already taken place since the war, agricultural land equal to the extent of three counties. We are likely to be losing in the next ten years, at any rate, between 30,000 and 40,000 acres per annum. That is a very serious thing. If we are going continuously to meet the retrogression in our export market and to pay for the raw materials and food which we still import, we shall need to keep every acre possible to ensure that agriculture contributes its proper balancing factor to the economy of the community. I beg the Government to look at that very carefully.
I am grateful to Mr. R A. Butler from the point of view of the agriculturist for the publicity he has given to this aspect of the subject in the country. It is a pity that in this matter the Government seem to be widely divided; and it does not matter what sort of explanation was given yesterday, I cannot reconcile the two speeches, the speech of Mr. R. A. Butler and the speech of the Colonial Secretary, on this subject. We will leave it to the wonderful experience of the noble Viscount who is to reply to tell us exactly what the situation is.
With regard to the statements made, reinforced by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, about the high level of our economy and standard of living, I wonder whether the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, could confirm that they are borne out by the purchasing power

375
of the pound. I am looking at statements made in Written Answers. I meant to put down the dates, but forgot to do so. However, they are both Written Answers in the other place given in the last few days. One statement, in one set of circumstances, says that the purchasing value of the pound has been reduced since October, 1951, from £1 to 16s. 5d.; the other Answer says to 15s. 2d. Which is the correct one? I should say, judging by all the movements that take place between trade unions and employers' federations, arbitrations and the like, that the latter figure, 15s. 2d.; is more likely to be the correct one. But how one can possibly argue about the general success of our monetary policy and see such a decline in the value of the pound in that length of time, I fail to understand.
I know perfectly well that when we were confronting great difficulties between 1945 and 1951, the keen Conservative Members made great play about this very factor, the value of the pound; and, in fact, we had to deal with it once in a very drastic way indeed. And yet when I look back to that time I am confident that Members opposite are entirely wrong if they compare the present position with that of the Labour Government from 1945 to 1951. The Tories have always in history been exceedingly clever at the political game which was called "Stealing the Whigs clothing while they are bathing." And we have had periods of bathing. But what is quite certain is this: there is no honest economist, industrialist or Parliamentarian who can deny that if, in the position of bankruptcy this country was in at 1945, we had adopted your free-economy basis, you would never be able to maintain the high economy you have to-day. In the period from 1945 to 1951 was laid the foundation of whatever prosperity in trade, industry and commerce is being made available to the people to-day. There is not the slightest doubt about it. I would challenge anybody to produce facts which controvert the basic truth of my statement.
I should like to say this also. The present position in industry to-day gives rise to serious consideration with regard to individual injustice. That exports must be stepped up to meet our balance of
376
payments condition, I entirely concur. I have heard almost nothing at all in this debate about the situation of the motor industry. Here is a position which is almost frightening in its possible effect upon our industry and our balance of payments. I know quite well that at the present moment we say we have a very low percentage of unemployed: 1·7. But what is going to be the position if the present decline goes on in the motor industry? I think it is likely to Abe quite serious. And we are being, faced with the fact that you are indulging in what looks to be quite unjustifiable expenditure on behalf of this industry in North-West England and in Scotland, in areas which have been suffering from unemployment. And while these very things are going on, one of the firms concerned at Luton has had to stand off thousands of workers and put thousands more on short time. Surely we must recognise what used to be called "the handwriting on the wall", and take proper steps to deal with the situation so far as we can.
I think that the motor industry, taken as a whole, has every right to say it deserves the thanks of the nation for the contribution it has made to our economy in the last fifteen years. It has been a very big contribution. I think that still they have some things to learn before they can be certain of both capturing and maintaining a foreign market. One thing especially always is important to the motor industry, and that is that everywhere where it sells it should maintain 100 per cent. perfect service for the particular products it sells. When I can say that I bought a new car a few weeks ago and was on holiday with it and that in a city like Bristol (with nearly 450.000 of its own population, and with certainly 500,000 or 600,000 people within a radius of a few miles) it took me 48 hours to get a simple electrical switch as a spare to replace one which had become faulty in a new car, it looks to me as if that industry, and perhaps other industries as well, want to make quite sure, when they are dealing with the export market, that they have a service of their product which is completely adequate.
I will turn, if I may, to the steel industry. My Lords, a great deal of credit is claimed on behalf of the Government's action in relation to the steel

377
industry; and no one can deny the importance of the contribution that steel makes to our economy. But may I say this? I am astonished that the Government should persist in their policy of getting rid of steel undertakings at a dead loss to the citizenship. How does that arise? Let me turn for a moment or two to some evidence, and look at the facts about the steel industry. The latest example I have here is with regard to the Staveley Iron and Chemical Company, Limited. Now, my Lords, the State paid compensation to that organisation of no less than £8,200,000 when it passed into public ownership in 1951. Since that date, it has made a regular profit; the highest in one year, 1957, being £1,822,000, and I think the lowest (I have not the complete figures) being last year, when it was over £650,000. How is this institution disposed of? It is disposed of to another steel organisation for a price which is £2,200,000 lower than the amount the State paid in compensation when taking it over. How do the Government come to do, or to allow, a thing like that? And who gets the "bunce"? This is not the only case. We have had to turn to this sort of thing again and again before. I think we are entitled to ask, with regard to the future of the economy, exactly how this is going to affect future deals of the same kind.
Shall we have a word about Richard Thomas and Baldwins? I am quite sure the noble Lord, Lord Mills, knows a good deal about the negotiations which have gone on from time to time and which, apparently, have been stopped or delayed for the time being. I think we ought to be told, in relation to the economic position of this country, what are the intentions of the Government about Richard Thomas and Baldwins. What is the position there? Let us have a look at the figures. Richard Thomas and Baldwins have made profits since public ownership—and the concern is still in public ownership—of £70 million. We had a certain pledge yesterday about what was not going to be hived-off from publicly owned industry. Is it intended to hive-off from the State this £70 million which has already accrued to it? Are the Government going to hive that off? If so, why? And for what? Where is the public interest being taken into account?
378
Let us consider what would be taken over. The value of the capital and reserves when acquired was £19 million; the value of the capital and reserves now is £56 million. The value of the fixed assets was £15 million; the value of the fixed assets now is £44 million. I hope that we are not going to get a decision on this such as has been announced in regard to spending £18 million of the State's money on subsidising the Cunard Company—announced before Parliament was consulted. It is bad enough to have £2,200,000 lost to the State over the Staveley Iron and Chemical Company, without being put into a position of still greater loss over this one—and that in spite of all the development under public ownership. I was glad when my noble friend Lord Citrine put up the case which he did this afternoon about the public Corporations: and, of course, we have an excellent case. The combined surplus of the nationalised electricity undertaking up to March, 1959, was £125 million. We never heard much about that during the General Election from the Tory platforms. The gross value of assets on vesting day was £830 million: now it is £2,556 million. Is this an example of the failure of national ownership, or direction of national corporations?
When we ask for physical controls or controlled ownership, it sets up a snigger or a laugh: the comment is. "What madness these people talk!" But, as was so clearly illustrated yesterday by my noble friend Lord Latham, it is the constant interference with the public Corporations that has led to the lack of proper and ordered progress in the transport industry. Take, for example, as was mentioned by my noble friend yesterday, the hiving-off of the best part of British Road Services from the Transport Commission. The fact is that the road transport services which are still publicly owned have shown, since the vesting date in 1951 until now, a total profit of £38 million, in spite of the ruinous entry into the industry, interference and selling of much of their product by the Government. Then we are told (the noble Lord, Lord Mills, said this yesterday) that it is always to be remembered that they are in favour of a free community and economy. And these things can be done to an industry because it is nationalized! These things

379
can be done in the virtuous name of freedom of industry, although it is to the detriment of the State. When one comes to deal with the serious position which arises now in what we think are the dangers impending, then we wish the Government would pay more attention to us.
There is a point that is very often raised, as it was once or twice in interruptions by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, yesterday, about British labour, that I want to answer. I am not in favour of "wildcat" strikes and sudden stoppages. Nothing is more detrimental to the ultimate success of the workers' own case, apart from the bigger danger to the general economy of the State. But when we come to look at the facts, what do we find? Again I go to the Daily Express for my authority on this, not to a Labour paper. This is the issue of September 5, 1960. It says:
"Some people bitterly attack them over wildcat strikes. They condemn the union leaders for failing to control their members. But what are the facts? Full employment and prosperity certainly give reckless elements a fine opportunity to make trouble. That is always the case."
But the paper goes on to say that, in fact, on an average, only half an hour per annum for each worker has been lost by any of these means. Then in another issue of the Daily Express, appeared this statement:
"The general position is that the number of days lost by work being missed by strikes in the United States is five times the percentage of workers that it is in this country."
Five times, my Lords—and the United States is held up to us as a magnificent example, of the best and highest order, of a free, capitalist State. I think that some of the attacks made upon us and upon our organisations are wholly unworthy.
My Lords, I had intended, but I shall not have time, to comment upon the difficulties created in the balance of our economy by the policies pursued, to which my noble friends have referred, on housing and rents. Shall we ever learn the extent to which the action of Government in these matters, in constantly putting up the cost to the individual, is bound to raise the cost of every one of our products? And the effect upon the finances of local authorities and the
380
unfair restrictions on the capital provided for local authority and public investment only adds to that particular difficulty. I hope that that will never be forgotten.
My Lords, may I, finally, say this? I know that I speak vigorously, and I hope that your Lordships do not mind that. I do not mind at all when the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is vigorous in an argument. I think we must always choose our terms with care, whether we are speaking for this side or for that, but I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I do speak vigorously. I feel deeply on these matters, and I beg you, in the present circumstances, to take very grave account of the dangers impending. We think we have shown that the plans of the Government are not sufficient to maintain a sound economy. We think that the constantly cavorting about between this policy and that, now up, now down, now middle way—as I said in the case of agriculture, suddenly clamping down production in this or the other commodity—is not good for the country. Fancy the spectacle to-day of bacon factory after bacon factory in danger of closing down! And they are in danger of being closed down at this moment because of the indecisive policy of the Government in this matter.
If we really want to get a basis for confidence in industry we must have controls, whether they are actual controls on imports or simply control over what shall be the major emphasis with regard to exports. But they must be understood. With this type of control everyone is free to give the very best of his ability for the general good of the State, and we shall have some reasonable chance of getting to a position where, however high our economy has gone, we have a chance, if there is loyal support throughout the State, of maintaining it.
6.33 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am sure that I shall have the whole House with me in saying that lustre has been added to this debate by the intervention in our discussions for the first time of my noble friend, Lord Amory.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: All his friends in this House have been eagerly awaiting the moment at which we could welcome him in this way. I should like to acknowledge, too, the extremely generous tributes with which he has been welcomed by the Benches opposite. I do not think that, in the circumstances, he could have hoped to be entirely uncontroversial. Indeed, I would say that he would have greatly disappointed both sides of this House if he had not given an absolutely unprovocative but still necessarily controversial defence of the policies which he pursued so recently as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore I feel he caused no offence on the Benches opposite by taking the line he did, although I think he would like me to say that we greatly appreciated the self-restraint which was exhibited. No doubt on other occasions there will be frequent interventions when he expresses his views, but we greatly appreciated the fact that his first speech was not only universally acclaimed, as I think it was, but also treated with the conventional respect that we grant to "maidens", although in his case that is only a comparative term.
I should like to begin what I have to say with an apology for the fact that part of yesterday's debate I had to read up in Hansard. As I told the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, yesterday, I had for some time been under an obligation to attend the by-election meeting at Carshalton, and I had not expected, until a few days ago, that it would be necessary for the House to sit on Monday. It was for that reason that I had selected that day to go there. I went there with great inspiration from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I spoke for forty-five minutes to his prescription. I never said that they "never had it, so good"—and not a word did the papers report this morning. Before I went, I also noticed the plea—perhaps it was the courteous complaint, rather—of my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who felt that the debate on the Address was perhaps,par excellence, an occasion for Back Benchers, who perhaps had been crowded out of the earlier part of the debate yesterday. He commanded my entire sympathy in this matter.
Of course, once an Amendment is dawn, it is really for the Opposition to dictate the pattern and tempo of the
382
debate. They fired off, as they did, their Front Bench guns in succession at the beginning of it, and almost rendered it necessary that we should employ our heavy howitzer behind me. I am sure the House would have been disappointed in that situation had he not been employed tactically in this way. If my noble friend will pursue this question of the right of Back Benchers and the, desirability of their having time., through channels of which he is aware, I can assure him that, so far as I am concerned, we shall treat his complaint, which I thought most reasonable, extremely friendlily.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I also include within the terms of reference of this matter the length of speeches from the Front Benches, which I think perhaps, when we come to an hour and ten minutes, are a little on the long side?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I know I have erred myself in this respect, and perhaps I shall err again this evening, but it is done out of a conscientious desire to deal with points which are made, and I know my noble friend was interrupted—quite legitimately interrupted—on a number of occasions, which probably led him to expand his remarks. However, I must say that, having listened to him, it seemed only half the time, and I was surprised to see the time he had taken when I read Hansard this morning.
The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, began his speech by referring to me as the "noble and buoyant Viscount". Political leaders are sometimes buoyant and sometimes less buoyant. I can only say that I hope, at 53, I am half—perhaps not more, but half as buoyant as the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, is at 89.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear hear!
VISCOUNT HAILSHAIM: If I achieve this modest ambition, I feel I shall have remained extremely buoyant indeed. The noble Lord invited me to lay my hand on my breast and to say that I was entirely happy about the economic state of the country. Politicians, in the main, are divided into breast beaters and non-breast beaters, and I, by conviction—and I hope by practice—am a non-breast beater. But, none the less, I will tell the noble Lord that on this occasion I will,

383
respond to his invitation. I do not think it is the function of the Government to be satisfied with the economic state of the country for which it is responsible. On the contrary, by the time it gets satisfied about the economic state of the country for which it is responsible, I should think it was about time it began to move—that is to say, if an adequate substitute can be found. Our business is to improve the economic state of the country, and it is about that that I want to speak in this final speech on this side this evening.
Perhaps I might add this, since it forms such a notable feature of the debate yesterday. Speaking for myself, at any rate—and I have now spoken in Treasury debates since the beginning of 1957—I have always been much more impressed with what I think my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye referred to as the knife edge of the British economy than d have with any sense of satisfaction in the high degree of prosperity which has undoubtedly been reached. But I would say that there is no real purpose served either by deprecating or denying that a high degree of prosperity has in fact been reached, or by denying that that prosperity is enjoyed precariously. It is precisely the contrast between the thigh degree of prosperity which has been reached and the precariousness which we all feel, partly due to the international situation, that causes us to have these repeated economic debates.
May I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore? During the period of my responsibilities, to which he referred, I was very conscious of what the right path should be in projecting the case for the Government during the Election. I can assure him, quite honestly, that certainly I. and I am sure my colleagues, because, of course, we were working in close consultation in the matter, desired from the first, and on the whole tried, and I think successfully tried, to put the position before the country in a spirit of sober moderation about the possibilities and dangers. Although I know that noble Lords opposite will not agree with me when I say this, if I were asked to say in a sentence why it was that we had secured a success which was better than some people had expected, I would
384
answer that it was because, rightly or wrongly, we succeeded in convincing the country that we were more aware of the danger to our economy of excessive buoyancy (if I may borrow Lord Pethick-Lawrence's phrase) than were the Party of the noble Lords opposite, whose economic programme seemed to us, and so we had to say to the country at the time, to be reckless in the extreme.
Why, then, is it that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is quite right—and he is quite right—in saying that a general belief has grown up that the Election was fought and won on the slogan, as it is wrongly alleged, "You never had it so good"? I think I know the reason —because in the nature of things I had to study this extremely carefully. It was because the slogan was taken out of its context, as I have tried to show, by our critics and an attempt was made to turn it into a sneer. But, unhappily for them, the sneer turned back on those who uttered it, because the fact of the matter was that, although we did not make much of the fact, the country never had been so prosperous. When the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, invites me to put my hand on my heart and say that I am satisfied with the economy of the country at the moment, I cannot do so because of the element of precariousness of which I have spoken; but, equally, I can put my hand on my heart and say that I do not think that he has made out a case of censure of the Government in relation to the economy.
My noble friend Lord Amory has done so much of my work this evening that I do not wish to repeat anything he said. But employment never has been so high. Exports, it is true, are threatened at the moment, for reasons which I do not believe that I can attribute to the Government; but, equally, they have just reached an all-time high level. Production may have faltered at the moment, for reasons we can discuss, but it has never been so high. Our currency has never attracted so much credit abroad. Indeed, the embarrassment from which we are now alleged to be suffering is that of "hot" money; too many people wish to send their money here because the pound has never been so good. Wages, too, have never been so high, rising, I am happy to say, faster than prices, and, I am

385
sorry to say, so far as I can see, tending to rise a little faster than production. Prices, too, have been level, as my noble friend reminded us, for more than two and a half years. Like my noble friend, I am surprised that in this great indictment, which never seemed to get off the ground, so little mention was made of level prices.
There is not much ground for censure here, or for the Amendment to the Address. By and large, I would recognise that our prescription has succeeded. I know that by the conventions of public life, which are perfectly well understood by all, and they are honourable conventions, I am bound to contend that in no single instance have we ever made a mistake. Your Lordships do not really expect me to lay my hand on my heart and say that, though I am bound by convention to say it; but I would claim, with my hand on my heart, that, by and large, our prescription has succeeded. Equally, I would lay my hand on my heart, though I should not expect to find agreement opposite, and say that by and large theirs has proved to be a failure. Broadly speaking, if I may outline it in much fewer and less decisive words than those of my noble friend Lord Mills yesterday, in the nine years in which the principles in which we believe, rightly or wrongly, have been applied, one danger after another has been overcome, and—I must remind your Lordships—always overcome in the midst of the most gloomy Jeremiads from distinguished speakers of the Labour Party, who always warned us that things were going to be a great deal worse the day after to-morrrow as the result of the policies which we were following.
It is true that, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition told us, we started from a common point of agreement, in 1945, with measures of physical control which had to be continued after the war. But the difference between the two Parties is that we thought that they were inherently things which ought to be discontinued as soon as possible, while the noble Lords, like the Bourbons, have come here this afternoon having learned nothing and forgotten nothing, and still say that we ought to have some measure of physical controls. That seems to me to be the difference. The first part of our period
386
of responsibility was from 1951 to 1955 when, as a result of releasing controls, in the face of constant dire warnings of things which never came to pass, we succeeded in getting rid of shortage and moved out of the period of scarcity and rationing into a period of abundance and plenty such as had never been equalled up to that time.
There are those who complain that we did not produce an ordered economy, but our answer to that is that the economy of which we still have a lively memory under what was called democratic Socialism, that period of regulation to which the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, harked back with pleasure, was not an ordered economy, but a litter arid mess of regulations under which life became progressively more and more intolerable and in which control and regulation bred the shortage it was designed to remedy. That is what I would say about it. So far from not having produced an expanding economy, between 1951 and 1955 we succeeded in introducing into this country a degree of consumer expenditure about which the worst thing that has been said by the Benches opposite is that it was excessive. In fact, I would say that we did succeed in producing an expanding economy.
During the period 1955 to 1957 came inflation. Again we applied a remedy, in some degree, of which it is impossible to say here that the objective or effect was not an ordered economy. We were fighting inflation and we applied the monetary remedy. It is true, of course, that noble Lords opposite, with the sincerity and eloquence which they always show, told us that this was a dreadful thing to do; that the trouble would never be cured by monetary regimentation and by the control of inflation. Speech after speech was made in which we were warned that this was quite inadequate to meet the situation. But the fact remains that we did, between 1955 and 1957 and the months that followed in the beginning of 1958, achieve an ordered economy by means of the prescription that we laid down. Whether or not that ordered economy could have been achieved by the prescription which noble Lords opposite would have substituted for it—again our old friend physical controls—is something that we shall never know.

387
But I would say this to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, who complains of our use of a high bank rate for this purpose for reasons which I thought my noble friend Lord Amory fully explained: that apparently the difference between us is that where you get a threatened inflation, and we raise the hank rate for the purpose of exercising some restriction on the inflation, he would reduce the bank rate to 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. If that is his prescription, I would only say to the noble Lord—
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I cannot agree with that. First of all, I never said that a high bank rate would not cure inflation; I said that it could be cured better by a less expensive and less injurious method. In the second place, I never suggested that we should reduce the bank rate down to 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. What I said was that this high bank rate had serious consequences, one of which was that it raised the cost of building houses; and that had the bank rate been lower—and I took the figure of 3 per cent. only as a contrast—and been kept lower, the rent of houses would have been less.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Of course I would agree that any form of restriction, whether in the form of a credit restriction or an increased bank rate, will have the effect explained by my noble friend Lord Amory—that is to say, it will cause somebody pain; and those who have to impose it will do so only with regret and only in a case of necessity. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has said about what he himself has advocated, hut I am certain that I can produce chapter and verse from the Benches opposite, which is what I said at the time, in justification of every word I have just uttered. But whether that be so or not, what we are discussing is an Amendment, in effect of censure, claiming that we did not achieve in that period an ordered economy. I claim that the facts prove otherwise.
Then at the end of 1958 the world moved into a period of recession. Again noble Lords opposite sang the praises of physical controls, and again our view was that this world recession, which was, after all, the biggest challenge which our free economy had faced since the war—a challenge of unemployment, and it
388
resulted in unemployment in many other countries too—should be met by the Government by means of a relaxation of the controls that we had imposed, which was largely what my noble friend did in the first part of the period of his Chancellorship. Again that worked, because, although we were beset with dire threats of ruin from the Benches opposite, and they told us that we should have unemployment (many of them, with manifest sincerity, and sometimes with deep feeling, reminded us of the days before the war when mass unemployment was the rule and not the exception), the fact is that it was a danger which never came to pass. Again the prescription worked, and because it was the appropriate remedy, again we had the return of an expanding economy. Indeed, I think I am right in saying—and I say it in the presence of my noble friend Lord Amory—that as a result of my noble friend's measures production was raised by about 12 per cent. in twelve months. That was very fast. This was the result of the procedure to cure the world recession.
We are not now dealing with that particular danger. Since the Election we began, according to our programme, wiping out one by one and wherever we could the pockets of local unemployment in the country, since we thought—and, as I have shown, thought rightly—that, at any rate for the time being, the danger of national unemployment had receded. We have, in fact, achieved that object. The latest figures are most encouraging. In the North West, which was at one time, as noble Lords will remember, one of our chief anxieties, it is down to 1·7 per cent.; even in Scotland it is 3·3 per cent.; in the North it is 2·5 per cent.; in Wales it is 2·4 per cent.; and in Northern Ireland, which, I am sorry to say, has always been the worst of all, it is down to 5·9 per cent. This was not a bad achievement in securing an ordered and expanding economy. I do not think noble Lords have given us enough credit for the operation of our two Acts, the Distribution of Industry Act and the other Act, which have produced these results.
But, of course, once there is full employment on the scale we are now enjoying, and the productive capacity that we were not making full use of

389
during our period of recession is taken up and used to the full once again, you will find a certain danger for prices to rise arid for inflationary tendencies to assert themselves. Of course you will also find that there are some grounds for not believing that world trade is expanding as fast at it should; and there are grounds for looking at our export position with renewed anxiety. But that is precisely what we are doing, and it is precisely the policy of the Government to guard against these risks and to seek, if possible, to avert them.
I do not share to the full the sense of gloom of the noble Viscount opposite at the future of the motor industry. I would say that, so far and up to the moment, its difficulty has far more been due to the appearance of the American compact car in the markets of the world than to anything that the Government have done. But I cannot but notice, in examining the industry's future plans, the real underlying confidence with which it is facing the future. All its skilled labour has been retained. That is a mark of its confidence. In the machine tools trade, which is terribly short of skilled engineering labour, they have been unable to recruit any from the motor car industry. That is another mark of the industry's confidence. For my part, I believe and hope that this confidence will be justified. Therefore, I would say that over the period under review, although we have heard some quite extraordinary speeches from the opposite Benches, we have utterly failed to hear a single speech which has justified the wording of the Amendment:
"but humbly regret that the policies of Your Majesty's Government are not conducive to an ordered and expanding economy."
Nor, my Lords, do I think that the matter is helped out by the various alternative criticisms, to which we have been invited to subscribe during the course of this afternoon's debate. It is no occasion for threshing out once more the future of the Cunarder; it is not an occasion for threshing out the Government's attitude towards the steel industry.
LORD OGMORE: The reason why we raised the question of the Cunarder was because the noble Lord, Lord Mills, asked us to do so.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The reason why I am not raising the matter of the
390
Cunarder is that it is not germane to the Amendment and it has been dealt with so fully and well by my noble friend Lord Mills.
We have to consider now where this debate is leading us. It is not the occasion, I should have thought, after the full explanation of my noble friend Lord Waldegrave, in reply to the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Wise, to go into great detail about the future of agriculture, or the loss of agricultural land, or the weaknesses, alleged or real, of our defence programme—although I can understand that it is more convenient for the noble Viscount opposite to raise that on an Amendment dealing with our expanding economy than on an Amendment of his own drafting which set forward any positive Labour plan for defence.
What we really have to consider at the present time (and I was hoping that this debate would develop upon those lines) is the extent to which, and the ways in which, our economy could be made to expand. Because underlying the Amendment, which I believe to be misconceived, and the Party politics which are legitimate but, I should have thought, strictly irrelevant, noble Lords opposite, or some of them, have drawn attention to what they allege to be the fact, and to suggest the possibility of an underlying evil. The fact which I have already sought to explain, and to which I do not think too much importance should be attached, is the temporary lag in the rise of production at a given moment. But the underlying question for us all—and here I would say that the terms of the Amendment are irrelevant, and the Party politics are unnecessary—is whether there is in truth and in fact something necessarily rigid in the post-war British economy; and, if so, what are we prepared to do, if anything, to escape that situation.
I cannot at this late hour develop the whole argument upon this part of the case, but I think it is fair to noble Lords who have raised the point—the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, was one; the noble Lord, Lord Latham, was another, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham was a third—that I should say something about it. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, invited me to expound in a little greater detail, although at this late hour I shall be as short as I can,

391
some of the comparisons with other countries which are, to my mind, rather too readily made, about the extent of the expansion of the British economy in relation to them. Manifestly, comparisons with Japan and Russia are not very helpful—Russia particularly, because we, at any rate, and, I expect, many noble Lords opposite, have always held that you cannot have that degree of direction unless you are prepared to accept limitations to freedom which no democrat could do.
The more comparable economies are France and Germany; and here, of course, there are startling contrasts. I hope that the House will forgive me, but I have been doing a little homework in the past two or three days in preparation for this debate, and I could not help being extremely arrested by a book which has only just been published under the imprint of Political and Economic Planning, which deals with this very subject. It is a book which I think would repay a good deal of study on both sides of the House. As a matter of fact, it is not entirely favourable to Government policy. On the other hand, there are certain aspects of it which I think all of us would do well to digest, and there are certain aspects of it to which I am going to invite the specific attention of noble Lords opposite.
Let us take, first of all, France, as I should have thought probably the less apt of the two analogies. The first point which needs to be made about the rise in the French economy is the fact that they started from a relatively low level. The position was that their high level was well back—I think at the end of the 'twenties. Looked at in this light, says the book, the progress made after 1953 is not really remarkable, but only a belated attempt to recover from the economic shackles of the past 30 years. It was gained quite deliberately by the French Governments of the day by running down their sterling and dollar reserves in order to achieve the maximum expansion of production. That, says the book, was clearly admitted by M. Ramadier, then the Finance Minister, admitting that be had deliberately used the foreign exchange reserves in order to keep the expansion of output going, hoping for a reversal of unfavourable factors. That may be very good French
392
policy, but the British currency is far more vulnerable to adverse balance-of-payments factors. I doubt whether a single one of your Lordships ever seriously suggested that it was a policy which we could possibly risk, or would now suggest that it was a policy which we could seriously have risked.
The third item in the French development which must not be forgotten is the considerable increase in the hours worked by the trade unions during that period. That may or may not be a wise policy for France. I doubt whether any noble Lord opposite would suggest it as something we should copy here. Yet it was one of the three factors which enabled them to achieve the rise in their production.
The moral to be drawn from the German analogy is entirely different. Here, to begin with, they had a factor which nobody wants here: an influx in the labour force of, I think, something of the order of 4 million refugees; something which helped them enormously, although at first sight it appeared to be a great disadvantage. The refugees were at first looked upon as an economic burden, but they have proved to be a tremendous windfall. Then there is the attitude of organised labour, and I invite the attention of noble Lords opposite to this if they are going to rely upon this analogy. Organised labour, says the hook, at least acquiesced in policies that paid little attention to fair shares, and went all out to create a thriving capitalist economy. Is that what they want us to do? If so, I should be glad to hear it stated unequivocally. Perhaps we could have a decision of the Labour Party Conference to that effect—we should find it very useful.
The book goes on to say, in case they might find difficulty in supporting this argument, that the policy of seeking economic expansion at the expense of social reform certainly made everyone much better off. The fact of the matter is that if one looks at the German economy, whatever other moral we can draw from it—and it may be that we can draw some—the moral is certainly not that free enterprise economics are bad economics. On the contrary, if we have differed from the German economy in any respect, it is because we are still paying a great deal of attention to the opinions of noble Lords opposite, and

393
not to the free enterprise economists in whom the successive German Governments, with the approval of organised labour there, have confided their trust.
The fact, therefore, is, as we see it at this moment, that the Party opposite is in the position of a doctor who has staked his professional reputation on the efficacy of a single remedy which has proved not only inefficacious but even a deadly poison.
Underlying the failure of so-called democratic socialism there are, I think, some important lessons to be learned and some dangers to be guarded against. The events of the last 30 years and more have proved to us that, whether we are in an inflationary situation or in a period of recession, Britain cannot afford an adverse balance of payments. I think that was the lesson of 1931 no less than of 1951. Neither an ordered economy nor an expanding economy are proof against that. Order will not bring stability if the balance of payments is adverse; nor will expansion. But underlying that, again, there remains an evil. It is the possibility that this country at the present age is in fact suffering from something unduly rigid about its economy. Is this true? Are we stiffening in our joints? Are we suffering from a sort of arteriosclerosis? If so, I would say to your Lordships that we would all wish to fight it with all the means at our disposal.
Are we declaring dividends when we ought to be ploughing back profits into investment research and development, or quite simply into reducing prices? Are there still restrictive practices in the unions? How about individual trades—which I will not mention? Is labour sufficiently mobile? Are we always wise, when some industry has to contract, to feel that an irreparable disaster is taking place when men have to change their jobs? Are managements stockpiling labour in unnecessary jobs as they stockpile materials in time of shortage? Are we sufficiently concerned with exports? It may be that it is fatally easy to exploit some temporary advantage in home or overseas markets. But we may be sure that unless we as a nation, industry and Government, keep on the move technologically, commercially, competitively, our sins will find us out; and we may be quite sure, too, that if we blame anybody else than ourselves, even the Government, unless we happen ourselves to be the Government, for everything that goes wrong with us, then we shall never find out what we have to do to put things right.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 72.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Darwen, L.

Ogmore, L.

Airedale, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Pakenham, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Amulree, L.

Granville-West, L.

Rea, L.

Boyd-Orr, L.

Kershaw, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Carnock, L.

Lawson, L.

Stonham, L.

Chorley, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Citrine, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Uvedale of North End, L.

Colwyn, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williams, L.

Dalton, L.

Nathan, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Chesham, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Ailwyn, L.

Coleraine, L.

Fortescue, E.

Allerton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Freyberg, L.

Amory, V.

Conesford, L.

Furness, V.

Ampthill, L.

Crathorne, L.

Gifford, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Crookshank, V.

Goschen, V.

Auckland, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Gosford, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Denham, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Bathurst, E.

Devonshire, D.

Harris, L.

Bossom, L.

Digby, L.

Hawke, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Dudley, E.

Home, E.

Carrick, E.

Dundee, E.

Horsbrugh, B.

Carrington, L.

Dynevor, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Lambert, V.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Strathclyde, L.

Lothian, M.

Perth, E.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

MacAndrew, L.

Radnor, E.

Swinton, E.

Margesson, V.

Rathcavan, L.

Teviot, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Robins, L.

Teynham, L.

Melchett, L.

Rockley, L.

Torrington, V.

Merrivale, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Tweedsmuir, L.

Mersey, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Waldetgrave, E.

Mills, L.

Sinclair, L.

Waleran, L.

Milverton, L.

Somers, L.

Winterton, E.

Newall, L.

Spens, L.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

On Question, Motion agreed to,nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be pre-
396
sented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past seven o'clock.