Sitting of 22 November 1961

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

    Motorways (Accidents)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Transport what action he is taking to prevent accidents on motorways resulting from a motor car crossing from one carriageway to the other when out of control.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I am taking steps to ensure that the dangers of driving too fast, particularly in bad weather, are brought home to drivers. For example, in conjunction with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and others concerned, a demonstration of winter driving hazards is being staged tomorrow for Press, radio and television correspondents.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a fence has been designed which combines both anti-dazzle and anti-crash protection which might well be erected between the two highways? Is he arranging to have such a fence erected? Is he aware that although the expanded metal fence on M.1 is not primarily designed for anti-crash purposes, it has been hit at least ten times by cars which would have gone into the other carriageway, that no one was injured and that in one case the car was travelling at 90 m.p.h.?
    Mr. Marples: In other cases they have gone through the barrier, so it has not been so good as my hon. Friend suggests. The main point is that if there is a crash barrier the disadvantage is that it might cause a vehicle hitting it to rebound into its own carriageway and come into collision with traffic behind it.

    M.1 (Anti-Dazzle Screen)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Transport what has been the result of the monitoring by the Road Research Laboratory of the experiment with an expanded metal anti-dazzle screen on M.1; and if he will now extend the screen for the full length of the motorway.
    Mr. Marples: Studies made by the Road Research Laboratory have confirmed the efficiency of the screen in preventing dazzle from oncoming vehicles. The laboratory also keeps a check on its effect on accidents. There is so far insufficient evidence for them to reach a conclusion on this.
    For the reasons given in my Answer to the hon. and gallant Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans) on 15th November, I am not prepared at present to extend the screen on M.1 or to install a screen on other motorways.
    Mr. Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that it was eleven months ago that I was told by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that the Road Research Laboratory was monitoring this experiment? How long does it take to complete monitoring and reach a conclusion? With reference to the Answer my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans), would not my right hon. Friend agree that what he described as the danger and discomfort from dazzle in the driving mirror from lights of following vehicles is very much less than the danger and discomfort from headlights of approaching vehicles, and that the light from following vehicles can easily be eliminated by having an adjustment on the rear view mirror?
    Mr. Marples: We have examined all the motoring magazines to see what the correspondents have said and find that opinion is divided between having and not having a screen. Everyone has his own opinion about this, but the Road Research Laboratory says that a screen which is good for oncoming traffic has the disadvantage that vehicles behind do not dip their headlights and their lights are shown in the driving mirror.
    Sir H. Studholme: Will my right hon. Friend have experiments carried out with amber headlights such as are used in France? Is he aware that they do not dazzle and are very much better in fog? Will he take his bicycle and ride about the roads at night in France and use his own eyes?
    Mr. Marples: I take my bicycle to France and ride about there. The Road Research Laboratory has tested the amber light and rejected it.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Does the Minister accept the proposition that the dazzle from headlights is difficult and dangerous when the headlights are on-coming and also when they are coming from behind, but the fact that a device protects one from the first and does not protect one from the second is no reason for not having such protection as one can have?
    Mr. Marples: The accumulated evidence collected by the Road Research Laboratory and the police suggests that the balance of advantage is with keeping motorways as they are, but if they decide that the balance of advantage is the other way, I shall consider the matter.

    Motorways (Construction)
    Mr. du Cannasked the Minister of Transport whether, in order to expedite the construction of cross-country long-distance motorways, he will authorise that such roads in future be developed by private enterprise and local authorities jointly, the capital required being serviced by tolls, in cases where the necessary finance is forthcoming.
    Mr. Marples: This is an interesting suggestion. Legislation would be needed to enable tolls to be charged. I feel sure, too, that Parliament would wish to consider very carefully any proposal to allow local authorities to use for the profit of private interests the powers given them to construct motorways, including the right to acquire land compulsorily and to close private accesses. In any case, it is doubtful if proposals on these lines would expedite the provision of long-distance motorways, in view of the extent to which civil engineering resources are already very heavily committed.
    Mr. du Cann: While appreciating that much has been and is being done now for
    1322
    new road construction, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that it is absolutely clear that much more needs to be done? If the limiting factor of additional new road construction is the amount of capital which can be provided, surely it would be just as well to get this new capital from any source that may be available. Would the Minister keep this matter under consideration and perhaps take the view that the right responsibility of government is to build new roads in the cities and for private enterprise to build outside them?
    Mr. Marples: I will certainly keep this under consideration, as we are doing. The limiting factor is not so much cash, as it were, but the resources of the industry, especially skilled men. What has disturbed me a lot recently is the reduced number of bids that we get when we put out schemes to tender. Also, the prices are higher, which indicates that the resources of the industry are strained to the utmost.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many counties, such as Dorset, only see railway lines closing and have no hope for twenty years of new roads; and that this is a very serious problem for them?
    Mr. Marples: I appreciate that.

    A.590 (Backbarrow By-pass)
    Mr. de Ferrantiasked the Minister of Transport when he anticipates work will start on the Backbarrow by-pass on A.590.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): Preparation is going ahead and, if all goes well, construction should start within two years.
    Mr. de Ferranti: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that this quite inexpensive scheme will do a very great deal to open up communications in this area? I hope that he will make sure that pressure is applied, so that the work will not go back beyond the dates he has given.
    Mr. Hay: Well, we hope to start within two years.

    Marlow Bridge
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Transport if he has yet come to a decision about the future of Marlow bridge; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hay: We will reach a decision as soon as we can. But the analysis of the traffic survey made last August must first be completed.
    Mr. Hall: Is my hon. Friend aware that on 30th November, 1960, he wrote to me saying that he realised that a decision "must be taken soon". Would he interpret for my benefit what he means by "soon"? Is he aware that there is strong opinion in Marlow that the Ministry is just waiting for the bridge to fall down?
    Mr. Hay: Whatever may be the opinion in Marlow, that is certainly not the opinion in the Ministry of Transport. In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, "soon" means as soon as we have had the traffic survey, and have analysed the results.

    High Wycombe By-pass
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Transport when work on the High Wycombe by-pass will begin.
    Mr. Hay: There have been many objections to the line of the road in the draft proposals published earlier in the year. We are now considering these objections and shall consult the county council. An alteration in part of the route may be needed. Like my hon. Friend, I am anxious to see work on this important project started as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hall: While appreciating the difficulties with which my hon. Friend is now confronted, may I ask him to do all he can to speed up the decision? At the moment, High Wycombe is the safest town in England; one can cross the road in perfect safety, because no traffic can move.
    Mr. Hay: I hope that the House will not draw too many conclusions from the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. My hon. Friend knows that, to date, we have received about 778 objections, including a petition, which I have here, from 666 people
    1324
    who do not like the idea of our building part, at any rate, of this by-pass. We will certainly get on as quickly as possible, but I think that this case shows to the House the difficulty we are in in trying to get these things done quickly.

    Pedestrian Crossings (Double White Lines)
    Mr. Walkerasked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce regulations so that double white lines are provided at the approach to pedestrian crossings.
    Mr. Hay: No, Sir. Pedestrian crossings are already well marked by stripes, flashing beacons and studs. It is an offence to park a vehicle on the approach side of a pedestrian crossing, and the Highway Code enjoins no overtaking at or when approaching a crossing. Double white lines would not prevent overtaking on streets where there is room for two lanes of traffic on each side.
    Mr. Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that very large numbers of accidents occur on pedestrian crossings as a result of cars passing on the approach to the crossing and knocking over those pedestrians who have seen the inside car stop? As drivers have become used to double white lines, would my hon. Friend at least give further consideration to this measure?
    Mr. Hay: We are always willing to consider any suggestion which would help us to get rid of this sort of problem, but I think that it is mainly a matter for the common sense and good driving manners of motorists. As I said in my Answer, the Highway Code very strongly advises motorists not to pass another vehicle when it has stopped at a pedestrian crossing, and I am sure that the police enforce this as much as they can.

    Accidents
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Transport whether, in the interests of road safety, after more than one serious road accident has occurred at the same spot, he will ask the police to supply the fullest information to the highway authority so that lessons may be learned and more accidents avoided.
    Mr. Marples: Highway authorities generally are in touch with the police about accidents which suggest that an improvement is needed to the highway, but I am considering whether any additional measures would help. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, I will gladly look into it.
    Mr. Digby: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind how important it is for traffic engineers to know the full facts of these accidents, because they can often learn for the future from the unfortunate lessons of the past?
    Mr. Marples: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. We have a policy in the Ministry of trying to eliminate the "blind spots", as we call them, where accidents occur. A pamphlet has been published showing the progress made. It is an excellent pamphlet. I have a copy here, and 1 will present it to my hon. Friend.

    M.1 (Extension)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Minister of Transport whether, having regard to the traffic needs of the East Midlands and of the special function of the M.1 extension as a by-pass road for Nottingham, Derby and Leicester, he will accelerate procedures for the construction of that section of the motorway which is intended to link the present terminal point at Crick with the junction with A.611 at Selston.
    Dr. Broughtonasked the Minister of Transport when the motorway M.1 will be extended to Yorkshire.
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Transport by what date he estimates M.1 will be in use beyond Leicester, thus easing the present traffic congestion in the city and suburbs.
    Mr. Hay: I have nothing at present to add to the Answers which were given on 24th October and 15th November to the hon. Members for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) and Ashfield (Mr. Warbey).
    Mr. Warbey: As this programme as a whole is lagging, as compared with what happened in the case of the first section of the M.1, and as the total length of the Yorkshire extension is 86 miles, will
    1326
    the Minister give serious consideration to the idea of starting, completing and opening the extension in two or three sections, each of which would provide a valuable traffic link and which would serve as a temporary terminal?
    Mr. Hay: It is a little early to decide that particular matter, because we are still in the stage of the numerous statutory preliminary processes which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have caused some delay to this project as a whole in the past. But I will certainly bear that in mind.
    Dr. Broughton: Does the Minister realise that the extension of the M.1 into Yorkshire is needed in the near future in order to speed up the passage of raw materials and manufactured goods to and from the great industrial cities and towns of Yorkshire, and is it not the case that the Minister is short of money for this project owing to the economic mess into which the Government have led us?
    Mr. Hay: No. The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong in the second part of his supplementary question. The reason this project lagged was simply that the people in Leicestershire objected very strongly to the original line. That put the whole project back, as we have now seen, by a couple of years. We have now a new line and we are progressing with that as quickly as we can. In the meantime, we have proceeded with the large-scale improvement of the Great North Road, which also goes in that direction, and which will serve us very well not only in the intermediate period but for a long time to come.
    Mr. Farr: Can my hon. Friend speed up these formalities in order to cut the waiting period and enable a start to be made sooner? Would it not be of great assistance to the highways committees of Leicester and Leicestershire if they could have some idea when the pressure on Leicester City at the moment will be relieved by the construction of the M.1 beyond that city?
    Mr. Hay: As I have said before in Answers to Questions, Parliament has placed upon us an obligation to proceed in these road matters at a certain pace. We cannot, much as we should like to, speed up the preliminary processes

    1327
    faster than Parliament will allow us to do. Within the confines of the processes imposed upon us, we are making all the speed that we can.

    Carlisle
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Minister of Transport whether he will include road schemes for the relief of traffic congestion in the City of Carlisle in his classified road programme for 1964–65.
    Mr. Hay: We are still considering the classified road programme for 1964–65. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of the claims of Carlisle for a place.
    Dr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in addition to the congestion in the centre of the city, we also get an invasion of traffic from the north into Carlisle, which is rather reminiscent of the days of Bonnie Prince Charlie in the damage that it is doing to our city? Has not his right hon. Friend had an invitation from a lady constituent of mine living in Scotland Road to spend a night at her house—and is he aware that this lady, so far as I know, is still languishing for a reply?
    Mr. Hay: My right hon. Friend tells me that he has not so far received this invitation, but before replying he would like to know how old the lady is.

    South-West Motorway
    Sir Richard Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport when work on the south-west motorway is to start.
    Mr. Hay: Work has already been put in hand on four sections of the London-South Wales Motorway, one of which, the Maidenhead By-pass, is open to traffic.
    The proposed motorway from London to west of Basingstoke is still at an early stage of planning. I cannot say when we shall be able to make proposals for its route.
    Sir Richard Pilkington: Is my hon. Friend aware that the South-West feels that it is very neglected in this matter? If he will look at his own pamphlet, showing where the new roads are to go, he will see that they go to the north, the north-west and the west but not to
    1328
    the south-west. Will he take action about this because there is very heavy traffic on the roads leading to the south-west?
    Mr. Hay: This was a policy decision taken a number of years ago to concentrate our main effort for a number of years ahead on the improvement of the communications between the main industrial centres of the country. I am quite sure that this is still the right order of priorities, but we have not forgotten the claims of the south-west and, as my Answer indicated, we have long-term proposals for a London-Basingstoke motorway.

    Motorways (Safety Rails)
    Sir Richard Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to put safety rails down the centre of motorways.
    Mr. Marples: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) on 8th November.
    Sir Richard Pilkington: Having seen that Answer and heard the Answers given this afternoon, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend would agree that the answer to this problem is to put very tough shrubs along the centre of the motorways, which would have the combined effect of reducing dazzle and of making any collision on the centre-pieces rather less severe than it would be if there were a more substantial barrier?
    Mr. Marples: That is a possibility. It has been studied by the Road Research Laboratory, but we have to remember that shrubs take some time to grow.

    Easington, Castle Eden and Old Shotton
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Transport what road improvements are in contemplation for the junction at Easington Village and the various bottlenecks on the Stockton Road at Castle Eden and Old Shotton in County Durham.
    Mr. Marples: A scheme for the provision of a roundabout at the junction in Easington Village is included in our trunk roads programme. A by-pass of Castle Eden and a diversion to eliminate

    1329
    the bad bend in Old Shotton are also contemplated, but it is too soon to say when these can be carried out.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Easington Village junction is converged upon by seven roads and that there is considerable confusion there? In view of the heavy traffic in that area, is it not possible to proceed rather more expeditiously with the work?
    Mr. Marples: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall act as fast as possible, because I realise the seriousness of the traffic congestion in that area.

    Parking Meter Schemes
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Minister of Transport whether he will refuse to sanction schemes submitted to him by local authorities for placing parking meters in streets unless they include provision for a considerable number of parking bays smaller than those in existence at present.
    Mr. Hay: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not prescribe the length of parking bays. We think this is best left to the local authorities which prepare and administer the schemes. Most schemes have some end bays which are shorter than the usual 20 ft.
    Mr. Dugdale: I realise that the Minister goes about on a bicycle, but do not many of his colleagues—probably the majority of them—go about in very large cars? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the right hon. Member for West Bromwich, for example, goes about in a Mini-Minor and that two Mini-Minors could easily fit into most of the parking places provided?
    Mr. Hay: I am not aware of any of the points mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, except the last one. I and most of my colleagues travel in comparatively small cars. I can only repeat that my right hon. Friend has no duty to prescribe the length of parking bays. It is entirely a matter for local authorities.

    Long Street, Thirsk
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the danger to pedestrians, especially the
    1330
    elderly, in Long Street, Thirsk, through the absence of pedestrian crossings in this portion of the trunk road A.19; and what steps he proposes to take to mitigate this danger in the immediate future.
    Mr. Marples: It is unusual, Mr. Speaker, but may I add my congratulations to the loud chorus of "Hear, hear" which has been expressed in welcome to a very noble Member of this House, namely, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Logan), who celebrates his ninetieth birthday today.
    The Answer to the Question is this. I explained fully in my letter of 14th March last to my right hon. Friend why the conditions on this road do not justify the provision of a pedestrian crossing. I have re-examined the position in the light of the most recent accident records but I regret that I can see no reason to alter my decision.
    Mr. Turton: Has not my right hon. Friend overlooked the fact that at an inquest on an elderly person who was killed art this site early this year the jury strongly recommended the provision of a pedestrian crossing? My constituents unanimously take the view that unless something is done there will be a repetition of the accidents to elderly people crossing the trunk road, because at present they have no aid at all.
    Mr. Marples: A zebra crossing does not necessarily by itself and automatically bring safety. I wish it did. It has to be sited correctly and there must not be too many of them, otherwise the motorists tend to ignore them. I have consulted the police in this matter. They agree with me that it ought not to be provided.
    Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. Friend content to have these fatal accidents constantly occurring? My Question asks what steps he proposes to take to mitigate the danger. Does he intend to take no action at all to mitigate the danger?
    Mr. Marples: I will take as much action as I can to mitigate danger, but I do not think that the action my right hon. Friend proposes is the right one.
    Mr. Turton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on Adjournment.

    M.1 (Dangerous Conditions)
    Mr. Hockingasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the recent experience in wet and stormy weather on the M.1, he will provide at each entrance to a motorway a warning system so that all motorists may he aware of such dangerous conditions.
    Mr. Marples: I do not think it should be necessary to provide a special warning system but I am taking steps to re-emphasise the need for motorists to take special care in wet and stormy weather, either on motorways or on other roads. This is basic to safe driving.

    Clearways
    Mr. Grant-Ferrisasked the Minister of Transport what plans he has to extend the clearway system to other roads.
    Mr. Marples: I hope shortly to add to the length of clearways on trunk roads and roads in the London Traffic Area as they are brought up to the necessary standard. I am asking local authorities outside the London Traffic Area to consider making clearways on such of their roads as are suitable.
    Mr. Grant-Ferris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this scheme has brought a great deal of satisfaction to many road users? Will he press on with it as fast as he can?
    Mr. Marples: I will certainly press on with it as fast as I can in the area under my control, which is the London area. We are now considering 13 lengths of road, totalling approximately 54 miles. It is up to other local authorities in the country to take the initiative for their areas, but I help them all I possibly can.

    Great North Road (Yorkshire)
    Sir M. Stoddart-Scottasked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made with improvement of the Great North Road in the West Riding of Yorkshire since the completion of the Doncaster by-pass.
    Mr. Marples: Dual carriageways have been opened to traffic between the northern terminal of the Doncaster by-
    1332
    pass and Wentbridge and on the Brother-ton by-pass. In addition the Went-bridge by-pass with its imposing new bridge over the Went valley, will be opened to traffic next week and will complete a 26-mile stretch of dual carriageway from south of Blyth in Nottinghamshire to Knottingley Round-about.
    Sir M. Stoddart-Scott: Does my right hon. Friend know that some of us think that at last he is providing the goods and doing very well indeed?
    Mr. Marples: It is rather a shock to me to hear any hon. Member say that, but I will try to bear it.
    Mr. Strauss: To give an example in the use of good and simple English, will the right hon. Gentleman and his Department cease using the phrase "dual carriageway" and substitute "double roads"?
    Mr. Marples: I will consider that.

    Worcester and Kidderminster Road
    Mr. Walkerasked the Minister of Transport what proportion of the A.449 road between Worcester and Kidderminster has been marked with either double white lines or with hazard lines; and what is the daily average of passenger car units that use the road.
    Mr. Hay: Sixty-one per cent. and 14,000 respectively.
    Mr. Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures he has just given probably account for the fact that on this stretch of road there has been a serious accident every two weeks for the past three years? When may we expect something to be done about this stretch of road?
    Mr. Hay: No; I do not accept the interpretation my hon. Friend puts upon the figures I gave.
    Mr. Walker: May I have a reply to the second part of my supplementary question? When does my hon. Friend expect something to be done about the appalling conditions on this road?
    Mr. Hay: My hon. Friend had better table a Question on that subject.

    West Country (Holiday Traffic)
    Mr. Denis Howellasked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the delay caused to holiday traffic proceeding to the West Country; what is the number of cars estimated to be entering Devon and Cornwall during holiday weeks; and what steps he will take to provide an adequate motorway that will prevent this frustration to the travelling public.
    Mr. Hay: Figures from this year's traffic census are not yet available. I know that holiday traffic to the West Country is delayed, but only at a limited number of weekends. Certain road improvements are being made to help the flow of traffic, but the main objective of our road programme must for some time remain the improvement of the heavy industrial routes.
    Mr. Howell: Is not that reply, that road traffic to the West country is sometimes delayed, the greatest under-statement of the year? Is it not a fact that at holiday time people are held up for up to twelve hours, with consequent tremendous frustration for industrial people whose only opportunity comes at that time each year to get away from it all for two weeks? Although we must give some priority to industry, does not the Minister think that he is taking a lopsided view of the purpose of life if the subject of leisure is completely eliminated from his consideration?
    Mr. Hay: No, Sir. I do not think so. We really have to concentrate on the improvement of the heavy industrial roads. It would be a waste of money to spend large sums in improving roads in certain holiday areas which would be heavily used only at limited periods of the year. In practice, there is, I think, a tendency emerging for people to spread their journeys over the twenty-four hours and not to concentrate them so much on certain times of the day.

  TRANSPORT

    Right-Hand Driving
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Transport what consideration he has given to introducing right-hand driving on United Kingdom roads as in most
    1334
    other countries; and what estimate he has made of the approximate cost of instituting such a change.
    Mr. Marples: The subject is at present being studied in my Department. The cost of adapting roads, changing traffic signs, and converting buses and other vehicles would be very high, but no estimates are yet available.
    Mr. Gower: Will my right hon. Friend please remember that every month of delay in this matter is bound to add to the cost of any ultimate change, if one is desired? Will he also remember that it is somewhat absurd that we should continue in this way, placing an extra disability on our motor car industry's export drive?
    Mr. Marples: I do not think that left-handed steering is a very severe disability for exports. The point which my hon. Friend has made will be taken into account, along with other items such as questions of traffic signs, which would have to be altered, white lines, minor works at road junctions and the 76,000 public service vehicles which would have to be converted. The accident factor would also have to be taken into account.

    Public Service Vehicles (Travel Concessions) Act, 1955
    Mr. Oliverasked the Minister of Transport how many local authorities have promoted Private Bills seeking powers to make travel concessions to pensioners and afflicted persons since the passing of the Public Service Vehicles (Travel Concessions) Act, 1955.
    Mr. Marples: Eleven, Sir.
    Mr. Oliver: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why these Bills were opposed during their passage?
    Mr. Marples: The hon. and learned Member must ask the people who opposed them.
    Mr. Oliver: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that in Private Bill promotion the Government's views are not sought. If the Government had wished that these Bills should go through there would not have been opposition to them.
    Mr. Marples: In the case of all Private Bills it is up to the House of Commons as a whole to decide.
    Mr. Oliverasked the Minister of Transport whether he will give consideration to the introduction of legislation to amend the Public Services (Travel Concessions) Act, 1955, by extending its provision to local authorities competent to discharge the purpose of the Act and desirous of doing so.
    Mr. Marples: While I sympathise with the problems of the classes of traveller affected by the provisions of the Act, I am not prepared to propose an extension of the concessions under the Act.
    Mr. Oliver: Why are the Government so much opposed to travel concessions for blind persons, people suffering from disabilities and old-age pensioners when so many of the large towns already provide these facilities?
    Mr. Marples: To give concessions on particular services would give benefits to pensioners who use the services but not to those who do not use them. The same principle can be applied to such things as tobacco, where concessions which helped smokers did not assist nonsmokers. The great thing is to do what the Government have done, and that is to raise pensions.
    Mr. Mellish: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the large towns have already implemented these concessions. Why, if they are able to do so—in spite of the anomalies about which the right hon. Gentleman talks—are the Government not able to do so as a whole? The Government would get a lot of credit for this, and that is what I thought the Minister was after.
    Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman's last remarks are incorrect.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport, in view of the possibility of the United Kingdom entering the Common Market, what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the Channel Tunnel.
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport to what extent regular cross-
    1336
    Channel boat and air services were delayed or cancelled as a result of bad weather conditions during the month of November; and, in view of this experience, what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the construction of a Channel tunnel.
    Mr. Teelingasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement about the progress which he made in his discussions with the French Minister of Transport last week on the subject of providing a Channel tunnel; and whether he is satisfied that machinery can now be set in action to ensure a rapid decision which will enable private enterprise to provide the necessary facilities at the earliest possible date.
    Mr. Marples: I had a useful discussion about a Channel link on 17th November with the French Minister of Public Works and Transport, and reached agreement with him about the next steps to be taken on the proposals now before our two Governments for the construction of a tunnel or a bridge. Many aspects of these projects require further joint study, and this is to be undertaken by officials of both countries.
    I have some detailed information about recent delays to cross-Channel services, which I will circulate, with permission, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people will be pleased to hear of his discussions with the French Minister of Transport? Would he confirm now that this technical study will go ahead seriously and quickly, because private enterprise is ready to finance and to build the Channel tunnel without any recourse to public funds? Would he also bear in mind that, since the East Goodwin lightship went adrift, maritime interests really think a bridge is not possible?
    Mr. Marples: That may be so. I can assure my hon. Friend that the joint study—and joint study is necessary in this case—between the two Governments will go ahead as fast as possible. I must say that I myself suggested to the French Government in December last, 11 months ago, that we should have these joint talks, and it is not my fault that they have only just taken place.
    Mr. Teeling: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that for nearly

    1337
    three years a study group has been working on this, largely started by pressure from a Parliamentary Committee of over 100 members? That study group has already spent over £½ million on the possibilities of either a Channel tunnel or a Channel bridge and, having worked it out, has decided that a bridge is not possible. In the circumstances, would my right hon. Friend try to use what information has already been obtained by the Committee, and save a lot of time and trouble?
    Mr. Marples: The information given by the Committee will certainly be used by the joint study group—information given on the tunnel—but a lot of questions will be asked on separate aspects—the legal aspect, the economic aspect, the financial aspect, and so on. But it would be wrong if we omitted from our considerations and calculations evidence presented to us only in October on a Channel bridge. There, again, many detailed considerations will have to be gone into.
    Mr. Warbey: As the Minister said in reply to an earlier Question that the limitation on the expansion of our transport services is due to shortage of physical resources and not of capital, will he give an undertaking that when it becomes possible to begin construction of a Channel link, it will be done as a public enterprise under public control?
    Mr. Marples: I think that I had better await the outcome of the studies before I start giving assurances—that is the first thing to do—but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the question of resources, both the French resources and our own resources and priorities, must be taken into account.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the Minister aware that if he proceeds with this project, he will have even less resources than before to carry out the proposals contained in Questions 1–14 and 16–69?
    Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend is quite right, but the House of Commons has always been noted for asking for individual things which, in total, amount to more that the nation's resources.
    Following is the information:
    I am informed by the British Transport Commission that gales caused serious interference with cross-Channel shipping services on 4th, 5th, 13th and 14th November, including the cancellation of a number of services on the 13th and 14th.
    On 4th and 5th November, the Dover-Dunkirk ferry services were seriously delayed, the longest delay being 7 hours. Other cross-Channel services were maintained with fair regularity.
    On 13th November, all the Dover-Dunkirk ferry services were cancelled, and on 14th November they were all cancelled, with the exception of the night-passenger sleeping-car ferries. On 13th and 14th November, other cross-Channel shipping services were seriously delayed, and on 13th November the Calais to Dover Golden Arrow service was cancelled, and other services were diverted.
    I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation that a few cross-Channel air services were delayed by high winds in the early part of November but that, thanks largely to the absence of fog, air services were not much affected during the month by bad weather.

    Motor Lorries (Long Loads)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to prohibit the driving of long lorry loads requiring police escorts on the highways.
    Mr. Hay: We hope shortly to introduce new controls on the movement of long loads; those over 90 ft. long will need an order issued under the authority of my right hon. Friend, and others will also be subject to control. Our original proposals met with considerable opposition, and we have revised them to reduce the burden on industry. I hope these controls will divert some loads to other means of transport or cause them to be split into smaller units. But complete prohibition would be no solution to the problem.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that some of these long loads take as long as two days to pass through counties, escorted by police—and, incidentally, at no charge to the industrialist? Does he not realise that other countries have got together with industry and, as a result, the nature of the manufacture is such that it is possible to prohibit this type of escorted long lorry load being imposed on the highway? Does he realise that these long loads constitute a menace to all road users, including cyclists?
    Mr. Hay: It is precisely those conditions which led us to circulate last year regulations to deal with this problem. We are now, as we are obliged by Statute to do, considering objections which have been made by the various interests concerned, and we will announce our decision as quickly as we can.

    Rural Bus Services
    Mr. Speirasked the Minister of Transport whether he has now had an opportunity of examining the Jack Report on Rural Transport; and whether he will make recommendations to assist bus operators in the rural areas.
    Mr. P. Browneasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the position of the rural bus services is causing widespread concern; and if he will take steps to prevent a further deterioration in these services.
    Mr. Marples: I am still considering the rural bus problem in the light of the report of the Committee on Rural Bus Services. But I am not yet in a position to make a statement about this.
    Mr. Speir: While I recognise that the Minister has many urgent and difficult problems to contend with, may I ask whether he does not realise that this will cause great disappointment in the rural areas where there is a feeling that this long-standing problem has not had the attention which it deserves from his Department? Furthermore, if we have the closure of branch railway lines in the future, does it not become ever more important that we should have some policy for assisting the rural bus operator?
    Mr. Marples: In any closing of branch lines under the new Bill, if the House passes it, the Area Committee will be deciding upon the degree of hardship and therefore will take into account the alternative bus services—alternative to the railways. We have invited and received the considered views on the Report of the Jack Committee of associations in England, Wales and Scotland representing local authorities and the bus industry, and these are now being considered.
    Mr. P. Browne: In view of what my hon. Friend said, may I ask whether
    1340
    my right hon. Friend realises that this is a matter of real urgency, if some of the rural bus services are not to break down to the great detriment of the countryside? Will he consult his right hon. Friend and see whether we can have a debate on the Jack Committee's Report, for which we asked last Session and which we never had?
    Mr. Marples: I will refer that to the Leader of the House. I am aware of the urgency of the matter.
    Mr. Callaghan: Meanwhile, will the Minister bear in mind that the Welsh rural authorities have been making representations about his failure to reach conclusions on this Report, and that if we go on as we are at the moment, not only will there be no rail services in some of these areas but there will be no bus services either, because they are being withdrawn almost week by week. Will he please give us an indication as to when he can come forward with his conclusions and when he will give us a debate on this subject?
    Mr. Marples: I have answered the question about a debate. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I think that the hon. Member is grossly exaggerating this closing of the services. But we have received the reports from England, Wales and Scotland, and these will be considered in due time.
    Sir J. Duncan: As this difficulty is particularly acute in Scotland, where a large number of branch lines are being closed, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is in close touch with the Secretary of State for Scotland on the matter?
    Mr. Marples: Yes, I am indeed. In addition, the Highland Transport Inquiry, which is a joint inquiry by the Scottish Transport Council and the Secretary of State's Advisory Panel on the Highlands and Islands, recently presented a first report dealing with bus services in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
    Mr. Callaghan: As for any exaggeration, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that I am repeating to him what has been said to me by the Welsh rural authorities? In view of the criticisms which have also come from Scotland, is

    1341
    he sure that he is as closely in touch with the problem as he ought to be and could he not be less pert and a little more pertinent in some of his replies?
    Mr. Marples: If the hon. Member thinks I am impertinent to him, I can only say that he is always courteous to everybody in the House at all times and I should like to return that courtesy, if I may. I promised, and I repeat the promise, that these representations from England, Wales and Scotland will be very seriously considered.

  RAILWAYS

    Scotland
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that present rail services to the North of Scotland are prejudicial to the development of industry there; and if he will specify his plans for capital development on diesel trains, railway electrification and other schemes, to be applied to the long hauls to the North of Scotland from the South of Britain, to remedy this situation.
    Mr. Marples: The British Transport Commission is improving services to the North of Scotland by modernising traction on the West coast and East coast main lines. It has also introduced express freight services. I do not, however, accept the suggestion made in the first part of the hon. and learned Member's Question.
    Mr. Hughes: If the Minister does not accept the suggestion in the first part of the Question, does he realise that his Answer shows confusion of thought, just as did his speech on the Transport Bill? The right hon. Gentleman fails to realise that Britain is an island unit needing a co-ordinated system of transport to bring trade, industry and population to the North of Scotland, where it is badly needed. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his policy is in conflict with that of the Secretary of State for Scotland in this respect?
    Mr. Marples: I cannot agree with the last part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question. Regarding the first part, there is no better judge of confusion than the hon. and learned
    1342
    Gentleman. The dieselisation of the Scottish services is proceeding rapidly. Twenty-two Deltic, very powerful diesel electric locomotives for the east coast will be in service by the first half of 1962. The whole of the east coast route from King's Cross is being modernised by diesels. Some are already operating between Euston and Crewe and an experimental diesel service is in operation between Glasgow, Aberdeen and Oban.
    Mr. Mellish: In fairness to my hon. Friends who represent Scotland, let me put it on record that they certainly have good cause for complaint when they know that at least 300 passenger trains are to be withdrawn early in January. If we had planning about adequate services there would not be these complaints and if the services are inadequate now, what will they be like then?
    Mr. Marples: I gave an example on Monday of one of the train services to be withdrawn and I pointed out that, on average, it carried three passengers per day.
    Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. This is a genuine point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer and since I failed to get into the debate yesterday, I give notice—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have repeatedly asked the House not to depart from the traditional formula. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not entitled to usurp to himself the right to make a speech when giving notice.

    Victoria Line Underground
    Mr. Albuasked the Minister of Transport what reply he has made to the letter from the Edmonton Borough Council about the proposed Victoria Line underground railway.
    Mr. Marples: I informed the council that its views had been noted, and invited its attention to the reason I gave for deferring a decision on this project in my reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) on 26th July last.
    Mr. Albu: Is not the Minister aware that this long-recommended line is not

    1343
    only very badly needed on social grounds but that it would make a substantial contribution to the economy of London, by reducing traffic congestion and enabling traffic to be speeded up? Is it not time that the Government paid attention to the planning of transport in the London area?
    Mr. Marples: This must be considered among all the other projects which the railways wish to undertake.
    Mr. Popplewell: The Minister has said that the plans for this have been in his Department for a considerable time. Public opinion seems to be in favour of this and the Report of the British Transport Commission for 1960 indicated that if the Minister gave consent, tenders could be let for this work within one month. Will the right hon. Gentleman expedite a decision and so ease the traffic jams which are so acute in this area?
    Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) made an interjection in yesterday's debate and said that an awful lot of money had been spent by the B.T.C. since 1955 when the White Paper on capital expenditure was prepared. That is true, but this has not been one of the projects it selected for expenditure.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is it not true that this line, which on the face of it seems to be uneconomic, could be made to pay if the fares were slightly above the average for London and, on this basis, would not this be worth doing because of the crowds who want to travel from the north-east to the south-west and vice versa? Will the Minister consider this?
    Mr. Marples: I will consider that.

    London Termini (Redevelopment)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Transport what plans the British Transport Commission has for the major redevelopment of the sites of London rail termini.
    Mr. Marples: I understand from the British Transport Commission that it has at various stages of consideration the redevelopment of all suitable main line
    1344
    termini in London. Work is proceeding at Holborn Viaduct and Cannon Street Stations.
    Mr. Robinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this redevelopment will be done by the Transport Commission itself or, as reported, in connection with the Clore-Cotton enterprises? Is he is aware that if private speculators are to be allowed to share in the profits of developing publicly-owned sites, profits which should go to public corporations, we on this side of the House shall take a very dim view of it? Will he give an undertaking that he will withhold his approval from any such proposals?
    Mr. Marples: This is really a question of two developments: first, those solely necessary for the development of railways, which the British Transport Commission can now do itself. At present, under the Act passed in 1947, it cannot do the next kind of development, which is commercial development, and it is forced by the 1947 Act to go to speculators for that sort of development. The Bill which we introduced and to which we gave a Second Reading last night removes that grievous disability from the Commission, and, in future, if the Bill becomes law, the Commission will be able to do these developments itself.

    Uneconomic Services, South-West England
    Mr. P. Browneasked the Minister of Transport what reports he has received from the Central Transport Consultative Committee about progress in the closing of uneconomic railway services in the south-west; and what consideration is being given to the replacement of branch lines by alternative means of transport.
    Mr. Marples: During 1961 a number of passengers and freight facilities in the south-west have been closed with the approval of the Central Committee. The Commission informs me that it is considering the economics of a number of others. Any further closure proposals will be submitted to the Consultative Committees, which will take into account what other transport services will be available.
    Mr. Browne: My right hon. Friend will have been made aware already his afternoon of our concern about rural transport.

    1345
    Will he himself ensure that when these branch lines are closed for economic reasons other forms of public transport are definitely available?
    Mr. Marples: That will be taken into account. Under the new Bill, the degree of hardships involved and the alternative facilities will be taken into consideration by the area committees.
    Mr. Strauss: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this aspect of the problem? It sometimes happens that alternative forms of transport are provided by buses, that these run for a short time, are then withdrawn and there is nothing left.
    Mr. Marples: If the right hon. Gentleman has a case in mind in which he thinks that there has been an injustice, I should like to look into it. Broadly speaking, the British Transport Commission has sometimes provided these services at its own expense in order to provide alternative facilities.
    Mr. Hayman: Is the Minister aware that one of the branch lines to be closed is the Gwinear Road-Helston line in West Cornwall? Will he bear in mind the fact that, although British Railways give a summary of bus services now available, in five years' time many of these bus services may have disappeared and the people in the rural areas will suffer disastrously?
    Mr. Marples: Yes. I will take that into account.

    King's Lynn-Hunstanton (Sunday Services)
    Mr. Bullardasked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received a report from the Central Transport Users' Advisory Committee on the proposals of the British Transport Commission to discontinue the Sunday passenger railway services between King's Lynn and Hunstanton on Sundays from November to March in each year.
    Mr. Hay: I understand that in the light of the recommendation of the Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee the British Transport Commission has decided not to proceed with its proposals.
    Mr. Bullard: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. His proposal will avoid two towns of the size of Hunstanton and
    1346
    King's Lynn having their rail communication with each other cut on Sundays during the winter, which would have been very serious for us.

    Reduced Services
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Minister of Transport what general direction he has given to the British Transport Commission to compensate wherever possible for the reduction of rail services in certain areas by the improvement of alternative rail services.
    Mr. Hay: None, Sir. The Transport Users' Consultative Committees, when examining proposals for closure or major reduction of railway services, take into account alternative transport facilities. My right hon. Friend also has regard to these when considering the Committees' recommendations to him and when deciding whether to give the Commission a direction.
    Mr. Warbey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not only a case of taking into account existing alternative services? For example, if the British Transport Commission persists in going ahead with its policy of closing the Great Central line to Nottingham and Sheffield, will the Minister at least tell the Commission to improve the Midland service to Nottingham, which is appallingly inadequate, compared, for example with the service from London to Bristol, and also improve the branch service from Nottingham to Mansfield and Worksop, for which diesel-electric trains were promised four years ago?
    Mr. Hay: I answered the Question on the Order Paper. As regards the Great Central line, the hon. Gentleman may care to know that the Committee has now fixed 9th January as the date on which it will hear oral representations against these proposals. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman gets in touch with the Committee if he wishes to say something about it.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask his right hon. Friend to prepare a paper explaining why he rejected the main recommendation of the Select Committee, namely, that the case for contracting the railways had not been proved?
    Mr. Hay: I am not clear to which Select Committee the right hon. Gentleman is referring. If he is referring to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, my recollection of that Report does not entirely coincide with what he has just said.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the relevant paragraphs again.

    Southern Leicestershire
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Transport what reports he has received from the Central Transport Consultative Committee about arrangements to provide transport for those people in southern Leicestershire who will he without rail facilities on which they now rely, when the railway line between Rugby, Midland and Leicester, London Road is closed early next year.
    Mr. Hay: In recommending the closure of this line the Central Committee took into account the alternative bus services which would be available. These include the proposed new service between Rugby and Leicester.
    Mr. Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if the proposed new service is to be effective, it must call at all the villages which are at present served by the railway, which is not the case, and terminate somewhere in Leicester City fairly near to the Midland Station and not three-quarters of a mile away, as is proposed at present?
    Mr. Hay: I understand that the arrangements for the establishment of the new service are not yet finally complete, so perhaps those responsible will take note of the point my hon. Friend has made.

  SHIPBUILDING

    Government Assistance
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Transport what was the total Exchequer assistance to the shipbuilding and marine engineering industry during the last financial year; and what was the total Government subsidy to ports and harbours.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research gave grants totalling £130,000 to the research associations of the shipbuilding and marine engineering industries. It also spent £285,000 on the Ship Division of the National Physical Laboratory. The Board of Trade made loans of £649,500 under the Local Employment Act, for projects connected with shipbuilding and ship repairing.
    Expenditure by Government Departments on ports and harbours, covering storm repairs and grants under the Fisheries Act was £262,000.
    Mr. Digby: While I take this opportunity of welcoming the new research organisation which has been set up, may I ask whether these amounts are not small compared with what is being given to the aircraft industry? In view of the recession in shipping and shipbuilding and in view of the advent of new methods of propulsion, is there not a strong case for a little more money from the Government for shipping research?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We, too, welcome the decision to amalgamate B.S.R.A. and PAMETRADA. As for the future, I remind my hon. Friend of the statement which my right hon. Friend made concerning the vigorous research programme which is to be undertaken in connection with nuclear propulsion, which will involve the expenditure of far larger sums of money.

    Inquiry Report
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take to assist British shipbuilding and shipping, following the publication of the Peat, Marwick, Mitchell report.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: This report confirmed that price has been a main factor in influencing British owners to place orders abroad. I think, however, that British yards are now quoting keener prices and there are signs of improvement in the competitive position of the industry.
    My right hon. Friend and I are in close and regular touch with the senior representatives of the industry about its

    1349
    problems, but I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that on many of them it is only right that the initiative should come from the industry itself.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that it was not necessary to have even such a distinguished firm as Peat, Marwick, Mitchell to tell us that it was price which made shipowners place their orders abroad? Is it not a fact that what we want to know is why shipbuilders abroad can quote a lower price than British shipbuilders? Further, may I ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether he can distinguish easily between bantam's eggs and hen's eggs?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I have no difficulty in making the latter distinction, but I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that this report and inquiry were unnecessary, because although we had reached a provisional opinion that price was the main factor, this had been based only upon a sample inquiry carried out by my right hon. Friend and myself. We thought it necessary to have a thorough, complete inquiry by an impartial body.
    As for the greater competitiveness of foreign yards, I simply say that my right hon. Friend and I have formed a fairly clear opinion in our own minds as a result of our visits to foreign yards in September, but I would add that the factors which make a yard competitive are of an extremely complicated nature and I do not think that it is easy to generalise.
    Mr. Popplewell: In view of the visit paid by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his right hon. Friend to these foreign yards, will he consider issuing a White Paper or a similar document so that the House in general may have some indication of the type of information which they have? This is very important to shipbuilding, and I am sure that the nation would like as much information as possible in order to form a clear view.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I doubt whether a further White Paper is necessary at the moment. We have had an inquiry published last March—the Dunnett Report as it is known—and we have the Peat, Marwick, Mitchell report, and both my right hon. Friend and I
    1350
    have explained the conclusions which we have reached in a number of speeches and no doubt will continue to do so.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is not the Minister aware that one reason why foreign shipbuilders can quote lower prices is the provision of extended credit facilities which do not operate to the same extent in this country? Is he also aware that some of the shipbuilding firms in this country have recently established the incontrovertible fact that on delivery they can compete on favourable terms with any foreign builders?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I entirely agree. The latter remark is certainly true of a number of British yards, although unfortunately not of all. We keep the question of extended credit under continuous review, but I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we can find no evidence of Government help over credits, anyhow in respect of the majority of our most formidable competitors.
    Mr. McMaster: In view of the contribution which British shipping and shipbuilding has made in the past to our visible and invisible exports, and in view of the contribution made not only during the war but since the war to the taxes of this country, will my hon. and gallant Friend ensure that at least the same credit terms and particularly interest rates and credit insurance rates are paid in this country as are paid in relation to shipbuilding contracts abroad?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: That is another question. I am not in a position to give that assurance. I remind my hon. Friend that one cannot consider the question of shipbuilding credit in isolation. It is part of the general question of credit for exports on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered Questions on 7th November.

HON. MEMBER FOR LIVERPOOL, SCOTLAND DIVISION (90th BIRTHDAY)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, to the fact that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Logan) is in his place and offer him the

1351
warmest congratulations of the House on his 90th birthday.
Mr. Gaitskell: Before you become worried about the rules of order, Mr. Speaker, may I hastily say on behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends that we are delighted to greet my hon. Friend today. He is, I think, the third person in the history of the House to reach the age of 90 while still a Member. We wish him many, many, happy returns.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Logan, for a personal explanation.
Mr. Logan: I thank you first, Mr. Speaker, for your kindliness in having recognised one so humble in the House. The touch of human nature which I have experienced these last 24 hours has been one of the greatest marks of the unification of the minds of right hon. and hon. Members in the House in—I do not wish to be diffident—recognising merit. I do not expect that any other Member would rise to say that personally about himself, because they are too humble. But I have not learned humility here. I learned it outside, married.
From my heart, I thank the House and the Leader of the House. I do not suppose that the next ten years of my life will be very hard to go through, but I hope that I shall be able to see the right hon. Gentleman when he is as old as I am. There is one consolation which an old Irish lady gave to me a few weeks ago. She said, "Dave, when you die—if God spares you—we will give you a wonderful funeral."

BILLS PRESENTED
  HIRE PURCHASE
  Bill to amend the law relating to hire purchase and sales on credit of goods; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. W. T. Williams; supported by Mr. Jay, Mr. Oram, Mr. Darling, Mr. R. Edwards, Mr. Dodds, Mrs. Butler, Mrs. Slater, Mr. Goodhart, and Mr. Shepherd; read the First time: to be read a Second time upon Friday, 8th December, and to be printed. [Bill 18.]
  CONSUMER TEST REGISTRATION
  Bill to provide for the registration of particulars as to the financial state of affairs, control and management of bodies corporate and unincorporate, engaging in the publication of comparative reports on consumer goods or services or in the award of diplomas or of the authority to use marks or emblems denoting approval of such goods or services or their compliance with certain standards, and for the registration of particulars as to the criteria and results of research or investigation carried out for the purposes of such reports or awards; and for purposes concerned therewith, presented by Mr. Goodhart; supported by Mr. MacArthur, Mrs. McLaughlin, Mr. R. Carr, Mr. Darling, Mr. Price, Mr. Proudfoot, and Mr. W. T. Williams; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 26th January, and to be printed. [Bill 19.]
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (HISTORIC BUILDINGS)
  Bill to make provision for contributions by local authorities towards the repair and maintenance of buildings of historic or architectural interest; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Channon; supported by Mr. Deedes, Sir H. Kerr, Dr. Stross, Mr. Ridley, Mr. Driberg, Mr. Robert Cooke, and Mr. A. Royle; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 9th February, and to be printed. [Bill 20.]
  PROTECTION OF AMENITY
  Bill to make better provision for the protection and enhancement of amenity in town and country, presented by Mr. Brian Batsford; supported by Mr. Deedes, Sir H. Kerr, Mr. Crosland, and Dr. Stross; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 9th March, and to be printed. [Bill 21.]

  FAIR TRADE PRACTICES
  Bill to prohibit deceptive and misleading advertising and labelling of consumer goods and other unfair trading practices; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Robert Edwards; supported by Mr. Darling, Mr. Oram, Mrs. Butler, Mrs. Slater, Mr. Owen, Mr. Dodds, Sir M. Galpern, Mr. Pavitt, Dr. Dickson Mabon, and Mr. Stonehouse; read the First time; to be

  1353
  read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd February, and to be printed. [Bill 22.]

  CARRIAGE BY AIR (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS)
  Bill to give effect to the Convention, supplementary to the Warsaw Convention, for the unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air performed by a person other than the contracting carrier; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Neave; supported by Sir A. V. Harvey, Mr. Ronald Bell, Dr. Bennett, Mr. de Ferranti, and Mr. J. H. Osborn; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 23.]
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (AMENITIES)
  Bill to enable local authorities to provide, protect and enhance local amenities, presented by Mr. Ellis Smith; supported by Dr. Stross, Mrs. Slater, Mr. T. Brown, Mr. Harold Davies, Mr. Swingler, Mr. C. Royle, Mr. Frank Allaun, and Mr. W. Griffiths; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd February, and to be printed. [Bill 24.]
  POLICE FEDERATIONS
  Bill to amend the law relating to the constitution and proceedings of the Police Federations, presented by Sir M. Galpern; supported by Mr. Callaghan, Mr. R. Edwards, Mr. John Hall, Sir H. Lucas-Tooth, Mrs. Hobson, and Mr. C. Pannell; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 9th February, and to be printed. [Bill 25.]
  SEXUAL OFFENCES
  Bill to amend the law relating to homo-sexual offences, presented by Mr. Abse; supported by Mr. Chataway, Mr. Rawlinson, Mr. Thorpe, Mr. Fitch, and Mr. LI. Williams; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 9th March, and to be printed. [Bill 26.]

  LOTTERIES AND GAMING
  Bill to make provision with respect to the interpretation of references to private gain in certain enactments relating to lotteries or gaming, presented by Mr. Bidgood; supported by Sir Harmar
  1354
  Nicholls, Commander Donaldson, Mr. Farey-Jones, Mr. D. Howell, Mr. Lagden, Mr. Lipton, Mr. McAdden, Mr. N. Pannell, Mr. A. Roberts, Sir E. Errington, and Mr. E. Johnson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]

  NATIONAL ASSISTANCE ACT, 1948 (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to amend section thirty-one of the National Assistance Act, 1948, and to empower local authorities to provide meals and recreation for old people; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. G. Johnson Smith; supported by Mr. McLeavy, Miss Vickers, Mr. Popplewell, Lady Gammans, Mr. George Craddock, Sir F. Markham, Dr. Dickson Mabon, Mr. T. Brown, and Mr. Worsley; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 8th December, and to be printed. [Bill 28.]
  AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY ASSOCIATIONS (TRADING AGREEMENTS)
  Bill to provide that certain trading agreements entered into by associations of persons occupying land used for agriculture or forestry shall be exempted from the application of Part I of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, presented by Mr. Aitken; supported by Sir R. Nugent, Mr. Corfield, Mrs. Emmet, Mr. Marshall, Sir P. Agnew, Sir C. Osborne, Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine, and Sir A. Hurd; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 26th January, and to be printed. [Bill 29.]
  INSURANCE COMPANIES (SHARE CAPITAL)
  Bill to increase the minimum paid up share capital required by an insurance company to which the Insurance Companies Act, 1958, applies, presented by Major Hicks Beach; supported by Mr. du Cann, Mr. Walker, Mr. MacArthur, and Sir T. Moore; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 9th March, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]

  LANDLORD AND TENANT
  Bill to require the giving of information by landlords to tenants; and for purposes

  1355
  connected therewith, presented by Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 31.]

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (WIDOWED MOTHERS)
  Bill to provide for the abolition of the earnings rule in relation to widowed mothers by the amendment of section seventeen of the National Insurance Act, 1946, presented by Mr. W. Griffiths; supported by Mr. Delargy, Mrs. Slater, Miss Herbison, Mr. Mellor, Mrs. Cullen, Mr. Fitch, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. C. Hughes, Mrs. Castle, Mr. Mapp, and Mr. Finch; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 9th February, and to be printed. [Bill 32.]
  SHOPS (AIRPORTS)
  Bill to exempt shops at certain airports, and the carrying on of any retail trade or business at or in connection with such shops, from the provisions of Parts I and IV of the Shops Act, 1950; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Commander Kerans; supported by Mr. J. Harvey, Mr. Goodhew, Mr. Channon, Mr. Shepherd, Mr. N. Pannell, Mr. K. Lewis, Mr. Jones, Mr. F. M. Bennett, Mr. Scott-Hopkins, and Mr. Drayson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 26th January, and to be printed. [Bill 33.]
  AIR GUNS AND SHOT GUNS, ETC.
  Bill to restrict the use and possession of air guns, shot guns and similar weapons, presented by Mr. B. Harrison; supported by Sir L. Heald, Sir A. Hurd, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Goodhart, Mr. Hobson, and Major Hicks Beach; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 26th January, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RECORDS)
  Bill to amend the law relating to the functions of local authorities with respect to records in written or other form, presented by Mr. Ridley; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd February, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]
  COAL CONSUMERS' COUNCIL (NORTHERN IRISH INTERESTS)
  Bill to provide for the appointment to the Industrial Coal Consumers' Council and the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council of persons to represent Northern Irish interests, presented by Mr. H. Clark; supported by Mr. Blyton, Sir D. Campbell, Mr. Currie, Mr. Forrest, Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor, Mr. Maginnis, Mrs. McLaughlin, Mr. McMaster, Mr. Stratton Mills, and Captain Orr; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 8th December, and to be printed. [Bill 36.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.38 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Nearly five years have passed since the last major Housing Bill in 1957. In that time, about 140,000 new houses have been built in Scotland, enough to rehouse close on half a million people. The total number of houses built since the war is also approaching the half million mark, but, of course, the task is a continuing one and the major objective remains that everyone with a genuine need for a house should be able to obtain one at a cost which he can afford. The time has come, however, to reassess the position and to see what changes are called for in the light of progress during the last five years.
  For many years after the war, the compelling need in Scotland was to build just as many houses as possible in every part of the country. The need for that first and almost indiscriminate rush of building has ended and it is now clear that the remaining housing problems differ in kind and in extent as between one area and another. Our job now is to make certain that the resources available are put to the best use by being channelled where the need is greatest.
  In the words of the White Paper on Housing in Scotland, which was presented to Parliament recently:
  "There is no longer, in fact, a single housing problem, but rather a series of particular and local housing problems. In some parts of the country there may no longer be any serious housing needs still unmet; elsewhere, however, there are still urgent problems which call for a sustained and imaginative effort."
  In so far as these problems fall to be met by local authorities, some are better able financially to tackle their problems than others. This is largely because some authorities have a larger number of houses which were built when costs were low, while others have a high proportion of houses which were built when costs were high. Accordingly, the average annual outgoings per house are much higher in some areas than in others, and
  1358
  subsidies have been at different levels at different periods, with the result that the average subsidy payable per house varies. Moreover, rateable values and rate burdens vary greatly from one area to another. The authorities with large programmes of building still ahead of them are not always those best placed financially to undertake these programmes, and it is primarily to help these heavily burdened authorities that we are proposing to redeploy the Exchequer assistance to housing. 1 shall discuss the details of these proposals later.
  If the present situation calls for a redistribution of subsidies to local authorities, it also demands that we should make use of all available building agencies—not only local authorities—in the provision of housing throughout Scotland. Between 1945 and 1960, only 10 per cent. of the houses built in Scotland, compared with 36 per cent. South of Border, were built by private enterprise. The rate has been increasing in recent years, but the proportion is still inadequate and still well below that in England and Wales. Most disappointing of all has been the virtually complete lack of private building for letting. This means that the many people who are unable, or do not want, to buy their own house, but do not need—or want—to live in a subsidised house, are not having their needs satisfied.
  There is no need to assume that local authorities must build for such people, but someone must do so. That is the background to my proposal that Exchequer advances should be made available to housing associations which are building for letting at economic rents or for "joint ownership" on the pattern which has been so successful in Scandinavia. I shall have more to say about that later. At present, Scotland has, in some respects, an unfortunate public image. Years of over-dependence on heavy industry and of relatively high unemployment have conjured up in the minds of some people who do not really know what is going on a totally false impression of the country as a depressed, backward area, with shabby tenements and unattractive, low-rented, subsidised houses.
  I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned to dispel this image, to attract new and more varied

  1359
  kinds of industry, to give more employment and to encourage in every way new economic enterprise and initiative. I say quite frankly that I do not believe that we shall ever do this unless we encourage equal enterprise and initiative in the provision of houses. The skilled workers that we want will not move willingly if we cannot offer them the kind of house that they want.
  There has been a great rise in real incomes since the last war. As more and more people own cars, television sets, and the like, more and more people want to own their own houses or can afford to pay unsubsidised rents. Naturally, we all welcome this. But we must recognise that this is a continuing process, and that means that in a sense there is no final solution to the housing problem; all the more so since, as standards rise, the rate of obsolescence accelerates and people demand not only more, but better, houses.
  Local authorities must adjust themselves to these changing demands. As I have said before, housing should not become the monopoly of local authorities or of any other single agency. That is very far from implying that major housing tasks should not continue to be undertaken by local authorities. Indeed, I believe that, if private enterprise is able to satisfy the demand for unsubsidised housing, then local authorities will be the better able to concentrate on providing subsidised houses for those who need them. They will be left free to attack the special problems of slum clearance, overspill, and so on, which they are best placed to tackle. In short, public and private house building are not mutually exclusive. They could, and should, be complementary to one another, each fulfilling the tasks most appropriate to it.
  No matter how far we try to solve Scotland's remaining housing problems by a redistribution of subsidies and by the encouragement of building for economic letting, we shall fail until the rents charged for local authority houses reach a more reasonable level.
  These are really the main considerations underlying the Bill: the great disparity in housing need between local authorities; the lack of building in Scotland by agencies other than local authorities, and especially of private building for letting; and the continuing policy of
  1360
  too many local authorities charging unreasonably low rents. When I come to the details of the Bill I shall deal with the physical problems which still face us—the need to stimulate slum clearance, the improvement of our older houses, and the provision of houses especially designed for old people.
  Before I explain the detailed provisions of the Bill, perhaps I may make a general comment on the reasoned Amendment which stands on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and some of his hon. Friends. The Amendment refers in the first place to the Bill's failure to
  "deal with the problem of interest rates or to provide the local authorities and other public agencies with the means greatly to increase the supply of houses in Scotland."
  I do not propose, in this speech, to go into the old story of high and low interest rates. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I had occasion to speak on that subject only a very short time ago. One thing, however, that I want to say is that the new subsidy structure in the Bill is designed to give increased Exchequer assistance to those local authorities which are most heavily burdened, either because they have to build more houses or because their houses cost them more. I therefore hope that the Bill will encourage authorities with large housing needs still to meet; and I am sure that the subsidies now provided, combined—I must emphasise this—with the resources available to them in rents and the rate contribution, will supply the means required to meet those needs.
  The Amendment also refers to the "excessive discretionary power" which the Bill gives me and to the "financial uncertainty" to which it will expose local authorities. In this connection, I think that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will at some stage today use a phrase which I have heard him use before, a quotation from my earlier days. I may touch on those points to which I have just referred in my speech, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to deal, in his winding-up speech, with any evidence that hon. Members opposite are able to put forward in support of these allegations. But I do not myself know how they can possibly be justified.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: The evidence is in the Bill.
  Mr. Maclay: I am awaiting for hon. Members to give it, When we have heard it, we shall deal with it.
  The first part of the Bill contains the new subsidy proposals. The kernel of these is to be found in Clause 3, which lays down a new form of "resources test" to be applied to each local authority each year. If this test shows that an authority's resources are less than adequate to its commitments, it will get a subsidy of £32 per house in place of the present £24. If the authority's resources are particularly inadequate—the details of this matter are to be found in the Second Schedule—it will get supplementary payments up to a total of £56 per house.
  lf, on the other hand, its resources are shown by the test to be adequate, it will get a lower rate of subsidy of £12. If as a result of continuing building an authority's commitments outstrip its resources, it will be able to move up from a lower to a higher rate of subsidy.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: I have been a little puzzled to know what happens to the people who are neither black nor white. Presumably, there will be a big gap between the two types of authority who are the ideal cases for the higher and lower rates of subsidy. What will happen to the marginal authorities which it is difficult to say are in one category or the other?
  Mr. Maclay: The right hon. Gentleman will find that the marginal cases are dealt with in the Bill. If I do not pick up the point as I go along, it can no doubt be explained later.
  The mechanics of the resources test are described in the White Paper. Essentially, the idea is to take each authority's housing revenue account for the latest available year, but to adjust it by substituting for the actual income from rents and the rate fund contribution a notional income from these sources related to the gross valuation of the houses in the account. If the adjusted account shows a deficit, the higher rates of subsidy will be payable—£32 or up to £56 if the deficit is exceptionally large. If the account shows a surplus, the lower rate of £12 will be
  1362
  payable. If, however, the surplus is purely marginal as defined in Clause 3 (5), the £32 rate will be payable. This, I think, is the point raised by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn).
  The working of this new test turns, of course, on the notional income from rents and the rate fund which is substituted for the income actually received. For this purpose, we have the new independent assessment of fair market rents of the main assets of each authority—that is, the houses themselves—in the form of the new valuations under the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956. Clearly, the notional income from rents plus the rate fund should not be less than the total of these valuations. The valuations, however, have themselves quite properly been influenced by the long-standing tradition of low rents in Scotland. We have, therefore, provided that where the average valuation in any area falls short of £60 the notional income per house should be set, not at that average, but at that average increased by one-half the amount by which it falls short of £60.
  Since the average valuation of local authority houses in Scotland is about £46, this means that we are assuming an average income from rents and the rate fund of something like £53 per house—that is, half the difference between £46 and £60. The actual figure will, of course, vary for each local authority and there is power in the Bill to alter the figure of £60 if at any time changing circumstances should make this desirable.
  There seems to have been some misunderstanding of this proposal, so I must emphasise that the subsidy structure, does not dictate the actual level of rents charged by a local authority. It will still be for each local authority, as at present, to decide how much of its expenditure should be met from rents and how much from the rate fund, but, in fixing rents, local authorities must, of course, hold the balance fairly between their tenants and the general body of ratepayers, as was emphasised in the reports on the Glasgow and Dunbarton rent inquiries.
  Provision for the supplementary subsidies for local authorities who are shown to need more than the higher

  1363
  basic subsidy of £32 is made in the Second Schedule. This is an emergency provision designed to help the most heavily burdened authorities, and there is, therefore, a preliminary requirement that to qualify for these supplements an authority must have a rate burden above the average for Scotland. The supplements of £8, £16, or £24 then become payable according to the size of the notional deficit on the housing revenue account. With a maximum subsidy, basic and supplementary, of £56, it is thus possible under the Bill for an authority to receive more than double the £24 which it receives at present for the normal run of its houses. This is the practical demonstration of what I mean when I say that we are endeavouring to channel assistance into those areas which need it most.
  The reverse side of the coin, of course, is that some authorities will drop from £24 to £12 subsidy. I have no doubt that the authorities concerned will not like this, but I should like to make two points about it. First, any authority which qualifies only for the £12 rate must have adequate resources to fulfil the housing task which it faces and there really can be no justification for giving such authorities, at the taxpayers' expense, a subsidy which is not shown to be necessary. Indeed, it could be argued that if their resources are shown by the statutory test to be adequate, there is no case for paying them any subsidy at all.
  After all, the more assistance that is given to these better off authorities, the less must be available for those authorities that are badly in need of it. Secondly, under the arrangement made in this Clause, an authority on the lower rate of subsidy knows that if it uses up its surplus resources by continued building, it will qualify for the higher basic subsidy and, in time, if its needs warrant this, it could qualify for the supplementary subsidies as well. These basic subsidies will be available like the present subsidy of £24 for such categories of approved need as slum clearance, overcrowding, old people's houses, and so on, but certain special subsidies will be retained for particular needs.
  Clause 2 of the Bill deals with two of these subsidies: that for building for
  1364
  overspill by local authorities and that for incoming industrial workers. These subsidies will be payable at a flat rate as an alternative to the subsidies at different rates under Clause 3.
  The subsidy for overspill building will remain at the rate of £42 per house. Since this subsidy for local authorities was introduced in 1956, overspill building has continued to increase. Thirty-four overspill agreements have been approved, three of them within the past three months. The total number of houses promised under those agreements is over 7,400, quite apart from the additional houses to be provided by the Scottish Special Housing Association in conjunction with the local authorities' own overspill building programmes.
  Mr. William Ross: How many houses have been built under the agreements?
  Mr. Maclay: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will give that detailed information when winding up the debate. I did not wish to burden my speech with too many detailed figures.
  Clause 2 also provides flat rate subsidies for houses built by housing associations and by development corporations acting as housing associations. This is necessary because the resources test under Clause 3 is not applicable to housing associations, which have, of course, no rating resources. I hope that this increase in subsidy will give further encouragement to the work of housing associations, which have not yet, I am sure, reached the full measure of what they can contribute to the solution of our housing problems in Scotland.
  The other special subsidy provided for in Clause 2 is the subsidy on housing built to meet the urgent needs of industry. This has been raised from £30 to £32 per house and it is our hope that it will encourage that mobility of industry which is so necessary if the new industrial pattern of Scotland is to develop to the full.
  I should like now to deal with the subsidies provided for in Clauses 4 to 7, which are additional to the appropriate rate of basic subsidy. Clause 4 ensures that special subsidy will continue to be paid on houses provided for agricultural workers. Previously, the subsidy was at a flat rate of £36. Now, it is to be £12

  1365
  additional to the basic subsidy, thus retaining the previous differential.
  Clause 5 changes the basis of the subsidy for high flats. When this was introduced in 1956, not much was known about costs of high building in Scotland and the subsidy was in the nature of an experiment. Since then we have learned a lot about these costs, enough to allow us to pay the subsidy as a fixed additional amount instead of on a complicated formula related to the cost of each individual project. We shall now be able to cut out the detailed scrutiny involved in a variable subsidy, and thus save a great deal of administrative time. The rate of £40 is, in fact, the average amount which local authorities have received under the existing formula.
  Sir Myer Galpern: While that has been the average sum receivable by the local authority, could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this £40 flat rate subsidy will compensate for the additional cost of going upwards, or whether the local authority is left to bear some of the addition al costs because of the shortage of virgin sites?
  Mr. Maclay: It is an average. I should just like, to check very carefully on that point before giving a categorical statement in answer to it, but the point is that the figure is almost what the local authorities have been receiving.
  Clause 7 introduces a new subsidy for houses built on expensive sites. Local authorities are increasingly turning to the central areas in our towns where the costs of development can be high. I think that this is a move which we would all welcome. The hundreds of thousands of houses which have been built since the war have too often been in big estates on the outskirts of our towns, involving long bus rides to places of work and of entertainment and, an important point, to the homes of relatives, especially the old people, who were left behind when the young families moved out. One of our biggest tasks in the next few years will be to restore life to our deserted, sometimes even derelict, town centres; what is known as urban renewal and redevelopment.
  I feel sure, therefore, that it is right to provide this additional subsidy for authorities who have to build on un-
  1366
  usually expensive sites. It will be paid, in addition to other subsidies under this Bill for houses built on sites with a developed cost of more than £4,000 per acre. Together with the amendments to slum clearance procedure in Part III of the Bill, it should be a real encouragement to local authorities to tackle the slum clearance and the redevelopment problem with even more energy than before.
  I mentioned earlier that another particular problem was the building for small families, especially old people. Clause 10 extends the definition of "house" to make clear that the full rates of house subsidy will now be paid for groups of small flatlets, specially designed for old people, with some communal facilities and services. These are particularly suitable for older people who are too frail to live in complete independence in a house, but who are able to look after themselves in accommodation where household chores are cut to a minimum and where the help of a resident warden is readily available. I very much hope that this subsidy will encourage experiments in Scotland with this type of accommodation, which can provide a useful halfway house between complete independence and life in an old folk's home.
  All these new subsidies will be payable for houses for which tenders or estimates were or are received in my department on or after 1st November this year, and will as before be payable for a period of sixty years. But by Clause 8 (2) I am giving notice of the possibility that subsidies under the Bill might be adjusted, both in relation to amount and duration of payment, at some time during the period of sixty years.
  This power cannot be used till a period of ten years has elapsed from the passing of this Bill, and any Order which is made under this Clause will be subject to affirmative Resolution of this House. It is the Government's intention that this power should be used only if there were such a major change in the economic circumstances of the country and the community that it would be unreasonable to maintain the present rates of subsidy. It might well be that, in practice, legislation would be required to meet the change in circumstances.

  1367
  The purpose of this Clause is, in a sense, to serve notice upon local authorities that, if economic circumstances alter, the Government, over this long period of years, do reserve the right to seek Parliament's approval to reduce their aid accordingly.
  There is one other point I would make about this, namely, that hon. Members really should not read too much into this.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: It is in the Bill.
  Mr. T. Fraser: Guilty feeling?
  Mr. Maclay: I have no feeling of guilt about this. I was merely realising that hon. Members may not fully appreciate the reasons for this Clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will give them now.
  It is clearly not sensible to freeze payment of subsidy over so long a period as sixty years; for we have seen how radically circumstances can change over a period very much shorter than this. What we are doing—and this is an extremely sensible and wise thing to do—is to leave the way open for any redeployment of subsidies which may be required at some time in the future in order to secure the best distribution of our resources.
  Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. Gentleman has been very good in going over the different categories for which subsidies will be paid. He has mentioned the centres of towns. Now his Department has a list of buildings which are not allowed to be destroyed because of their historical interest. It applies to a great number of places. The City of Edinburgh, for instance—to take perhaps the principal example—is trying to reconstruct High Street to retain its character. Is the right hon. Gentleman still retaining powers to give special consideration where, in accordance with his wishes and the wishes of the Historic Buildings Council, these historical buildings are to be reconstructed in a special way?
  Mr. Maclay: That is a slightly complicated point. I think that I had better not answer categorically at this stage since I might give a rather misleading
  1368
  answer. But I think that the point is covered, though the right hon. Gentleman has put it in a way I had not altogether expected.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: I should like to get this clear. The right hon. Gentleman is claiming the right, in case of circumstances altering, to take this power by Order in Council to reduce the appropriate subsidy during the period of sixty years, but not earlier than ten years. Is he fully realising that a high rate of interest of 7 per cent. to which local authorities' finances have to be geared in the provision of houses does make it very difficult for progressive, forward-looking treasurers to map out ahead as they would like to do to create the towns they want? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that they find it very difficult because of their fear that he will reduce subsidy at some time in the future?
  Mr. Maclay: I do not think that that worry should necessarily arise or need arise, because it is quite clear that the change in circumstances would have to be very substantial indeed before this provision could possibly be operated. It would be very obvious that the whole situation in the country had changed substantially. I do not really think that any treasurers need be inhibited by anxiety about what might happen under this Clause. This Clause is a sensible precaution, to serve warning now. It is better than waiting till, say, twenty years' time—though I doubt whether I shall be the Secretary of State then. It is better to give the warning now.
  I have seen it suggested, and hon. Members opposite will no doubt repeat it, that this new power introduces an element of uncertainty into local authorities' plans for the future—the point which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has already made. I really cannot accept that. As I have said, this is only to serve notice, and this power would be used only if there were any major change in economic circumstances. But in such circumstances the whole basis of housing finance would probably be altered anyway; and the possibility of a reduction at some time between ten and sixty years from now should not, I repeat, worry local authorities any

  1369
  more than all the other uncertainties which may arise so far ahead.
  I come now to another new feature in the Bill to which we do attach particular importance, the provision in Clause 11 which enables me to advance money from the Exchequer up to a total of £3 million to housing associations which undertake to build houses for letting at unsubsidised rents. This is one of the means by which we hope to fill the gap between subsidised local authority houses at one end and unsubsidised owner-occupied houses at the other. For this purpose the Secretary of State will be ready to enter into direct arrangements with housing associations which submit suitable proposals. Where a scheme is approved the advance may cover anything up to 100 per cent. of the cost, though I should expect that the associations would normally be able to put in some money of their own. The advances will be made at the same rate of interest as loans to local authorities by the Public Works Loan Board.
  This is an experiment. It is a bit of pump priming really. I very much hope that it will prove a success, and encourage private builders to re-enter the field of building for letting. Housing associations have been selected for this experiment because, in a sense, they stand midway between the local authorities and the private builders and they already have considerable experience in the provision of houses to let. Only housing associations registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act will qualify for participation in this scheme, so as to make certain that only bona fide, non-profit-making organisations take part in it. We shall also want to make sure that the houses provided under the scheme meet a real local need and are built to a satisfactory standard.
  We have great hopes that this scheme will encourage bold experiments in house building and house ownership, and it is because of this hope that I have taken discretion to waive the requirement that houses provided under this scheme should be kept available for letting. This will allow me to approve houses provided by a housing association on a co-operative basis.
  Under this kind of arrangement the association would finance the building of houses for its members who would
  1370
  occupy the houses as individuals and, as members of the association, would jointly own them. This type of cooperative ownership is already an established and highly successful feature of housing in Scandinavian countries where it has made it possible to build and maintain housing schemes to extremely high standards of design, layout and amenity, and this is one of the cases which we in this country could do well to look at and try to improve upon.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Is the right hon. Gentleman confident that the amount of money set aside centrally will be adequate to meet this purpose?
  Mr. Maclay: Yes, at the start. One can only say that at this stage. One can only take a figure and start with it.
  Houses under this scheme will not attract subsidy. An exception, however, will be made, as I indicated earlier, in the case of houses built for old people. Such houses will attract the £32 subsidy payable to housing associations under Clause 2 (2, c). This is further evidence that we want to do everything possible to encourage the provision of modern, specially designed houses for old people. We must remember that is estimated that in the next twenty years there will be an increase of 170,000 in the number of persons of pensionable age in Scotland and we must try to provide the right kind of houses for them.
  The third main consideration to which I referred at the beginning of my speech was the level of rents in Scotland. I have already said something of the bad effects this has had on housing in Scotland and on the Scottish economy generally. Whatever one does about it is unlikely to be universally popular, but it is something which really must be put right and I am quite sure that many hon. Members would agree that many tenants are themselves uneasy about being heavily subsidised by their fellow citizens.
  I have, therefore, thought very carefully about the best way of tackling this problem. There are, of course, many different approaches which might be tried. The Gordian knot could be quickly cut, for example, by taking the power to fix rents right out of local authority hands, but this kind of solution does not seem to me to be at all sound.

  1371
  I said in debate on the Estimates, on 4th July, 1961:
  "I am certain that in the end good sense will prevail, and do not think that any hon. Member would wish to argue that the general responsibility for fixing rents should be taken out of the hands of the authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 4th July, 1961; c. 17.]
  Starting from this point, therefore, we have considered a variety of other possible ways of limiting or guiding the wide discretion entrusted to local authorities in the fixing of rents.
  One possible way would have been to provide in statute that the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account should not exceed a given level. The difficulty about this is that if the statutory limit were to be high enough to be fair to some authorities, it would be too high for others. This might be avoided by allowing the Secretary of State to grant dispensations in certain cases. But this too would represent, as even I admit, an unacceptable interference with the independence of local authorities. I use the word "even" to meet the complaints of hon. Members opposite. If, however, they study the Bill and all other Bills with which I have been connected they will find that they are permeated with my confidence in local authorities.
  Another plan might seem to be the provision of more detailed statutory guidance for local authorities on the factors they have to take into account when fixing rents. But authorities are already required to charge rents that are reasonable, and after careful study we came to the conclusion that any formal elaboration of this requirement could not be relied upon to achieve its purpose. This does not mean that local authorities are left without any guidance at all; for they have before them the excellent reports by two eminent members of the Scottish Bar on the rent inquiries in Glasgow and Dunbarton which discuss in some detail the factors which they should take into account in fixing rents.
  The publication of these reports, and the action which I have taken to bring them to the notice of local authorities, have undoubtedly contributed to the encouraging movement in rents which has been taking place this year. During
  1372
  the last few months over 100 local authorities have either increased rents or intimated a definite decision to review them. This is only a beginning—for we have still a long way to go before we can be satisfied that Scottish local authority rents generally are on a fair and reasonable basis—but it is a useful beginning.
  I hope, therefore, that the rent return which authorities will be sending in at the end of this month, and still more the return for next year, will show a result which will begin to look realistic and, I hope, well above last year's low average of 9s. 1d. a week. I am confident that the good sense of Scottish local authorities is prevailing, and will prevail, and that they can be relied upon to put their house in order without any further statutory directions.
  It still remains true, however, that some local authorities may disregard their statutory duties in this matter. At present, the default procedure against such local authorities is cumbrous and perhaps not wholly effective. Clause 29, therefore, tightens up the default procedure which exceptionally may have to be carried through against a recalcitrant authority. The effect of the Clause is that where, after the procedure provided in Section 356 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, has been followed, a local authority is found to be in default in its rent-fixing obligations, the Secretary of State may make a "rents scheme" which will be binding on the authority.
  I must emphasise, however, that this applies only in the case of authorities who have been shown by a local inquiry to have been in default of their statutory duties. Not unnaturally, no one will he more pleased than myself if the exercise of the powers in Clause 29 is proved by events to be unnecessary.
  The Bill also includes provisions on other matters—improvements, the functions of the Scottish Special Housing Association, slum clearance procedure, repairing obligations on short leases, and some miscellaneous provisions. I mention them only briefly at this stage.
  Clauses 14 to 17 deal with improvements. The most important of these is Clause 15. Among other things, this enables the owner of a house improved

  1373
  with the aid of grant to increase the rent by 12½ per cent, of his share of the cost of improvement, instead of 8 per cent. as formerly, and it allows the local authority, where a house is not subject to a controlled tenancy, to permit an increase of more than 12½ per cent. It requires the authority in fixing the maximum rent for certain improved houses to have regard to the rents of similar houses not subject to a controlled tenancy. Clause 16 permits an increase from 8 per cent. to 12½ per cent. in the return available to the owner in respect of the cost of imp:7ovements carried out without grant.
  Clauses 18 to 20 and Clause 33 extend the powers and functions of the Scottish Special Housing Association to enable it to carry out works of improvement and conversion, to participate in the scheme of building for letting at economic rents, which I have already described, and to take over the houses belonging to the First and. Second Scottish National Housing Companies. These two small companies, one established during the First World War, the other in the 1920s, no longer build houses, and it seems an obviously sensible arrangement that the S.S.H.A. should take over and manage their houses. The normal operations of the S.S.H.A., including assisting in overspill, will, of course, continue.
  Part III of the Bill contains some useful amendments to the procedure for dealing with unfit houses. I said earlier that slum clearance and redevelopment is one of the biggest tasks before us. Most of our legislation about it dates back to 1925 and 1930 and it therefore seems desirable to see what might be done to improve the machinery under which local authorities carry out this work. I arranged for a group of my officials and representatives of the three local authority associations to review the existing procedures and consider what might be done to improve them. Clauses 21 to 24, together with some consequential and minor amendments in the Fourth Schedule, are based on the recommendations made by that informal group. The amendments have also been agreed in principle by the local authority associations, and I hope that they will be generally welcomed.
  I do not suggest that the amendments set out in the Bill comprise all that might
  1374
  be done to revise the existing provisions, but I was anxious to take this opportunity to make a number of changes which seemed to offer practical assistance to local authorities with their immediate problems. The, amendments are technical in character, and I do not think that the House would want me to go into details of them now.
  Part IV contains provisions designed to protect tenants under leases of under seven years against unreasonable repairing obligations. Under Clauses 25 and 26, the landlord is made liable for the repair of the structure and exterior of the premises and certain main installations, and any repairs provision in a lease purporting to impose liabilities on the tenant is rendered inoperative so far as it relates to matters for which the landlord is so liable. Clause 27 provides that the sheriff may authorise an agreed modification of these liabilities in an appropriate case.
  The liability imposed upon a landlord by these Clauses is one which a good landlord would normally accept as his own responsibility, since the tenant under a short lease of, say, less than seven years does not have sufficient security of tenure to enable him to reap the benefit of any expenditure he might incur on major repairs.
  These, then, are the proposals which I place before the House for consideration and discussion. If I were asked to describe the aim of the Bill in a word, I should say that its purpose is to introduce a much needed measure of flexibility to Scottish housing—flexibility in that Exchequer assistance will now be channelled into those areas which most need to tackle the special housing tasks; flexibility in that encouragement is given for building by agencies other than local authorities, especially for economic letting; and the flexibility which will result from more reasonable rent policies. I commend the Bill to the House in the belief that it will make a real contribution to the solution of the remaining housing problems in Scotland.
  Mr. J. Grimond: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to say anything about the remote areas before he concludes?
  Mr. Maclay: I did not intend to go into detail at this stage. I feel that I

  1375
  have kept the House for a long time. Doubtless my hon. Friend can deal with such matters when he speaks later.
  4.23 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to deal with the problem of interest rates or to provide the local authorities and other public agencies with the means greatly to increase the supply of houses in Scotland; gives excessive discretionary power to the Secretary of State; and exposes the local authorities to financial uncertainty."
  The Secretary of State began his speech, as he ended it, by saying that we all ought to be satisfied with the present rate of house building in Scotland.
  Mr. Maclay: I did not.
  Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that after the war the need was to build as many houses as quickly as possible, and sometimes indiscriminately, and he followed that—it was his next sentence—by saying that the need for the rush has ended. But he ended his speech by telling us about the present need to adjust rent policies, and so on. If he had brought forward any evidence that the local authorities in Scotland which have pursued a high rent policy in recent years had thereby been enabled greatly to increase the supply of houses, we might have been impressed by the contribution which increased rents might make to the solution of our housing problem.
  The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends and their friends in the country constantly say that the one obstacle to the provision of housing is the unwillingness of some local authorities to charge reasonable rents. Are there not some authorities in Scotland charging reasonable rents? Does not Edinburgh charge what the right hon. Gentleman would regard as reasonable rents? What is Edinburgh's performance compared with that of the general run of local authorities? Does not Dumfriesshire charge reasonable rents? What is its performance in the provision of houses compared with the performances of local authorities generally?
  1376
  The truth is that the Bill is introduced for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is so to push up local authority rents that it will be easier for private enterprise to get still higher rents for the houses which it owns—not the new houses which it is to build, because it is not going to build new houses, but for the old houses which it still owns.
  I shall try to put before the Secretary of State a few arguments in support of the contentions set out in our Amendment. I would, first, ask him to join me in examining our housing need. He has told us about the houses provided since the end of the war. He said there have been half a million; the White Paper says 450,000. The White Paper also tells us that about 800,000 houses, have been built since 1919. That is about half our stock of houses in Scotland.
  When the right hon. Gentleman refers to 1919, he might equally well refer to 1913. During the last fifty years we have built half the stock of houses occupied by the people of Scotland at present. Does the Secretary of State know any other industrial country in which 50 per cent. of the population live in houses built before 1913? Such figures are thrown about recklessly and casually and are readily accepted by many people in Scotland who are of no particular political affiliation, and this causes them to adopt a complacent attitude and think that a lot of houses have been built and there is nothing to worry about.
  The fact is that about one-third of our houses in Scotland—just over 500,000—are more than eighty years old, having been built before 1880. The Secretary of State knows full well that precious few of them contain any modern amenities. We are building at the rate of about 28,000 a year, from all sources. How long will it take to replace the houses built before 1880? At the present rate of building, it would take us eighteen years if every house built was set aside to replace one of those aged dwellings.
  But a great many of our houses built after 1880 and before 1913 are also hopelessly inadequate to the needs of our times. A good deal of the slum clearance programme carried out in the last few years has been among houses built around the turn of the century. In

  1377
  industrial counties like Lanarkshire great numbers of houses were built for industrial workers, around the iron works and the coal mines, sixty or seventy years ago, certainly after 1880.
  These houses were being described in this House thirty years ago as slums that ought to be removed. Many of them have been removed, but many still remain and ought to be removed as soon as possible. To us on this side of the House, it is not only a problem of dealing with these half million houses built before 1880. We have very many more families than we had. People are marrying younger, and they have to be accommodated. We also have a great housing need among the homeless families and those living in subtenancies.
  I believe that anyone looking at these figures objectively, and knowing what these old houses in Scotland are like, will realise that, at a building rate of 28,000 houses a year, we shall never solve our housing problem. Indeed, as living standards rise in other parts of the world, our problem will be seen to be getting worse and worse. This is the condemnation of the Bill. It does not begin to deal with the problem of housing. It reeks of complacency, as did the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State seem to think this extremely funny.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith)The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Fraser: I wonder whether any of their hon. Friends are satisfied with this rate of building.
  In a speech last week I mentioned some conditions of housing in Glasgow. I have no doubt that Members opposite thought that I had greatly exaggerated. The following day, many Scottish national newspapers sent their reporters and photographers to look at these buildings, and they discovered that I had not exaggerated. Indeed, they found that I had greatly understated the seriousness of the position.
  I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman now knows of the conditions in which so many of our fellow citizens live. I have brought along some Press reports, but I do not think that I should
  1378
  trouble the House by reading them. I can say, however, that the owner of these houses, let at rents of from £2 8s. to £2 13s. per room per week—houses built before 1880, with no modern amenities—said, following my speech, that any tenant who gave an interview to the Press, or allowed photographers in, would immediately get one month's notice to quit.
  I talked about a family of a husband and wife with two children and one expected, living in a room 9 ft. by 9 ft. If the right hon. Gentleman has read his newspapers during the last few days, he will have read about some families much bigger than that in rooms of the same size. I could give the name and address, quoted in a newspaper which I have here, of a man who said:
  "I live with my wife and five children in one room. It's only 9 ft. by 9 ft.… We pay £2 8s. for it."
  How do these people manage to live in a room 9 ft. square? What is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to do, by the Bill, to alleviate the problems of these people? Nothing at all. All he is doing is to make it easier for the owners of these one-room houses to increase rents still further.
  The Secretary of State makes it clear that he wants to encourage private enterprise. I see that the Under-Secretary of State is nodding vigorously. The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have been responsible for housing in Scotland for the last ten years, but the only kind of private enterprise they have encouraged so far is the enterprise of Mr. Andrew Fulton and his like, who have exploited poor people in Bridgeton and Camlachie and other parts of Glasgow, and Mr. McClughan, in Dunbartonshire. That is the kind of enterprise encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors in their housing policies. It may not be the kind of private enterprise that he wants, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and it is the only kind of private enterprise in housing that he is getting.
  Sir Godfrey Collins, who was Secretary of State for Scotland thirty years ago, speaking on the Second Reading of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1933, said:
  "Human ingenuity and human skill, with goodwill on both sides, could solve this problem and banish slums and over-crowding from

  1379
  our midst … Money is plentiful at low rates of interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February. 1933; Vol. 274, c. 495.]
  The interest rate was then 3½ per cent. Sir Godfrey recognised that the interest rate had something to do with the cost of housing, but the present incumbent dismisses them as though they do not matter.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the rate of interest for investment is of any consequence? if he wants to borrow money, is he unconcerned with the interest rate? He has been telling us about the Toothill Committee, which seems to attach importance to the interest rate paid on money required for capital investment for industrial development. Importance to the interest rate must also be attached by those who are concerned with the provision of housing, whether by private enterprise or public enterprise.
  The problem which Sir Godfrey Collins thought was to be solved under the Act of 1933 is still with us, and what must cause us a measure of shame is that many of the slums which Sir Godfrey wanted then to remove are still with us.
  Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire): In case there is any misunderstanding, we should make it abundantly clear that the 1933 Act was not very effective. I believe that under its provisions a house never was built.
  Mr. Fraser: The Opposition of those days put down a reasoned Amendment and voted against the Bill because its purpose was to reduce subsidies provided under previous Acts of the Labour Governments, But Sir Godfrey Collins was quite certain that, because the interest rate had gone down to 3½ per cent., the local authorities would have no difficulty in solving the problem of slum living and overcrowding.
  I spoke two weeks ago of the comparative performances of other countries. The right hen. Gentleman seemed to think that no useful purpose was served by comparing Scotland's performance with those of other countries. I do not know why he takes this view. Well, perhaps I do know; it is because he comes so badly out of the comparison. Each year, Norway and the Nether-lands build about 7·5 houses per 1,000
  1380
  of the population, Sweden 9, and West Germany 10, but the Secretary of State is satisfied with five per 1,000 for Scotland. Every hon. Member opposite is satisfied with the provision of five houses per year per 1,000 of the population. I et them calculate how long it would take to rehouse all the people, even if the population never increased, at that rate.
  Scotland's performance in the provision of houses represents social stagnation, if not actual decay. The Secretary of State must know that, if he has ever taken time to sit down and consider the magnitude of the problem. He is bound to realise that his performance, the performance of all of us in Scotland, in the provision of new houses represents social stagnation. Every country building fewer than five houses per 1,000 of the population is seen to be suffering social and economic decay.
  The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that. He has only to read the report on housing trends from the Economic Commission for Europe to see the truth of what I have just said. Every country in Europe which is expanding socially and economically has a far better housing performance than we have, and those countries whose performance is worse are countries with which we do not like to be compared.
  Mr. Maclay: Once again, the hon. Member is making a thoroughly emotional speech which is not properly related to the facts of housing as they can be seen in Scotland. He is being selective in his figures, as one is bound to be with figures. Has he carefully studied the building record of some of the countries he has mentioned between the end of the war and 1954 or 1955? One can go on with statistics for ever, but the hon. Member ought not categorically to make statements completely ignoring the housing scene which he can see as he moves around Scotland.
  Mr. Fraser: I thought that every hon. Member would have appreciated that I was not relying upon emotion, but was using statistics to bolster my argument. The Secretary of State has been annoyed not by my emotion, but by my statistics. Of course, I have watched the performance of other countries since 1945. In 1951, when I was an Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office, I visited Europe. The reason for my visit was that in the early

  1381
  summer of 1951 there was one country in Europe which had just overtaken the United Kingdom in the provision of new houses. Housing provision in the United Kingdom under a Labour Government was better than that in any other country in western Europe.
  Mr. Maclay Mr. Maclay rose—
  Mr. Fraser: That is true. Is the right hon. Gentleman rising to say that what I have just said is untrue?
  Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member wanted a debate and I will debate with him for a short time before leaving him to get on with his speech. He does not appear to appreciate that he is making my point. Certain European countries were extremely slow about getting under way with their building programmes after the war, for perfectly understandable reasons. Nevertheless, the fact is that they were very slow in starting.
  Mr. Fraser: Unlike the Secretary of State, I am not interested in making cheap debating points. Over and over again he has asked the House to compare the number of houses the Government are now building with the "miserable" record of the post-war Labour Government. Now he says that the reason we do not have to build as many houses as European countries is that they did not build as many as we did when we had a Labour Government. I wish that he would make up his mind about which leg of the argument he will stand on.
  It is true that by about 1951 some countries in Western Europe began to catch up with the United Kingdom, and that, today, some of them are building twice as many houses as we are. That is my point. If one studied the housing needs of those other European countries, one would find that they do not have one-third of their population living in houses built before 1880. The right hon. Gentleman will find that they do not have only one half of the population living in houses built in the last fifty years.
  On the Continent, they are not satisfied to adopt a housing policy which enables private interests in housing to continue to draw rents ad infinitum, regarding housing, as the Marley Committee said about thirty years ago, as a dripping roast which would go on dripping for ever. They try to provide that
  1382
  houses are replaced when their useful life comes to an end. The Secretary of State seems to think that there is no need for that kind of approach to Scotland's housing problems.
  When the 1957 legislation was introduced, the then Under-Secretary, now Lord Craigton, the Minister of State, said:
  "The interest rate is now 5½ per cent. and it might be assumed that the average over the next few years will be lower—perhaps 5 pet cent … There is absolutely no reason to assume that because they are high now they will remain as high as that for any long period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 2nd April, 1957; c. 284.]
  That was in the spring of 1957 and by September interest rates had risen to more than 6 per cent. and have never been less than 6 per cent. Even four years ago, Scottish Ministers thought that interest rates were of some significance, but the Secretary of State seems to think that they do not matter.
  Paragraph 17 of the White Paper says:
  "The housing problems of Scotland, however, cannot be satisfactorily tackled until housing finance is put on a realistic basis …"
  I agree with that proposition, but I would have thought that housing finance would include the cost of the houses and the cost of the money borrowed to finance them. That is why we want interest rates lowered and housing finance put on a realistic basis. The Secretary of State ought not to have to be told this.
  Neither public nor private enterprise can meet our needs for houses when money costs 6¾ or 7 per cent., or, in the case of those buying their own homes, 8 per cent. We cannot solve our problem on the basis of interest rates of that nature. I challenge the Secretary of State to name one other country which even tries. No other country seeks to provide housing accommodation for letting by public authorities, or by private enterprise, or for owner-occupation at interest rates at that level. Other countries know that it is crazy even to try.
  The Tory Government have been in office for ten years, taking over at a time when the Bank Rate was 2½ per cent. and the rate charged by the Public Works Loan Board for housing and other purposes was 3 per cent. From time to time they have got the country

  1383
  into an economic mess. They have got the balance of payments into a mess. The gold and dollar reserves have been run down and interest rates have had to be pushed up to 7 per cent. to attract hot money from overseas, hot money which comes in short term.
  The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that private and public enterprise will borrow money for this long-term purpose of providing houses at these interest rates which are justifiable only as a short-term remedy for a short-term problem. He will not get the houses built. After all, a house which costs £2,000 to build costs over £7,000 over sixty years. This is not because of the cost of materials and labour, or because of wage rates. It is because the moneylenders have to get a bigger cut.
  The right hon. Gentleman wants to get some assistance from the non-profit-making housing associations. He thinks that they might be able to let houses at non-subsidised rents. Does he know that if the interest rate stays at 7 per cent. or 8 per cent., or, in the case of the Public Works Loan Board at 6¾ per cent., the non-profit-making housing associations will have to charge a rent of not less than £4 a week? Does he know that in addition the tenants have to pay the rates on the houses, and, as these could not be less than £2 a week, it will mean an outlay of £6 a week?
  Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the young married man trying to buy a house at the moment has to pay nearly £3,000 for the most modest bungalows built by speculative builders? Does he know that such people have to pay at least £6 a week, or £300 a year, for the accommodation they occupy? Many have to pay a good deal more, usually £350 a year, but this figure, of course, includes the rates.
  Does he realise that the young man who has graduated from university and has married at a fairly early age, as people do these days, and got a job at, say, £750 a year—which means that he has not become a school teacher—will not get a mortgage? The right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is the type of person who ought not to be dependent on the local authority. Such a young man cannot possibly qualify for a local authority house for some years
  1384
  to come. His name just goes on the housing list. Does the right hon. Gentleman expect this young man to provide a house for himself by borrowing money at 7 per cent. or 8 per cent.? The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that, first, the building society will not advance the money, and, secondly, it will take more than half this young man's salary to finance the loan if he gets it, and to pay his rates.
  Local authorities, public agencies, or private enterprise will not provide houses either for letting or for owner occupation as long as the interest rate remains at 6, 7, or 8 per cent. The Secretary of State talks about these nonprofit-making housing associations, but I have quoted the rents they have to charge. I have stated an aproximate figure. I hope that he will not say that I have exaggerated. How many tenants of our half-million old dwellings can afford to pay £6 a week for a house? How many of our homeless families living in sub-tenancies can afford to pay that sum? The right hon. Gentleman will have to look far and long to find one person who can take the accommodation which he is so hopeful of being provided under the provisions of this Bill.
  The right hon. Gentleman explained his new subsidy plan. I turn to paragraph 25 of the White Paper to get an explanation of it. It says:
  "The test of financial need will be based upon a comparison between the local authority's expenditure on housing, as brought out by the housing revenue account, and the resources available to them for meeting this expenditure."
  All very nice, but the Secretary of State for Scotland arrogates to himself the determination of the resources available to a local authority. He decides what the resources are. The expenditure can be ascertained. This is not a notional figure. It is an actual figure which has to be met.
  According to the Rates Review published in December last year, in 1959–60 the average expenditure per house was just over £70 a year. The average expenditure now will clearly be much more—£72 or £73 per year and for some local authorities it will be £80 or more. But each new house provided by a local authority will involve an expenditure of twice the average expenditure on existing local authority houses. Indeed, I

  1385
  doubt very much whether any house built before 1952 involves an average expenditure of £72 or £73 per house.
  In short, this new formula has been worked out by the Secretary of State fur Scotland for the purpose of transferring the burden of dear money to the tenants of council houses and for no other purpose. That is the whole object of the exercise. Incidentally, I wonder whether the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will tell us when we can expect a new Agriculture (Scotland) Bill? I shall be interested to see the formula by which the Secretary of State for Scotland will calculate the notional income of the individual farmer and put it against the actual expenditure before he determines whether the farmer will get the higher or the lower subsidy. There are a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite who will no doubt be most willing for an attempt to be made to measure their ability to meet their expenditure before they get any subsidies from the Exchequer.
  It may be that it will be necessary to have a notional figure for the individual farmer, just as we have a notional figure for the local authority, but we will not be able to measure this figure against the gross annual value of the land which he occupies because, under the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, the land has no gross annual value. It is not entered in the valuation roll at all. But, when the local authority wants to buy some of the land to build houses, or even when private enterprise wants some of it for the same purpose, and the individual would-be owner-occupier seeks to occupy a little plot of the land, it has value all right. Perhaps we should take these things into account when determining the subsidies to farmers in future.
  In seeking to find out how fair this formula was, I consulted a few local authorities. That seemed a reasonable thing to do, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will not think that it was unfair of me to do that. For example, I consulted the records of the Burgh of Hamilton and I discovered that between 1919 and 1939 it had the best housing record of all housing authorities in Scotland. What will its reward be for doing so well in the provision of houses? For its enterprise in those years between the two wars it will receive a subsidy of
  1386
  £12 per house for as long as the Bill remains on the Statute Book—unless the Secretary of State, at some time reduces or even abolishes the subsidy, by virtue of his powers under the Bill. He has no powers to increase the subsidy. The local authority cannot look for that. It will never receive a higher rate of subsidy—for no other reason than that it built far more houses in the inter-war years than it has built in the years since the war.
  The local authority has been told that if it can build houses very quickly in the next three or four years it could qualify for the higher subsidy, but by that time the Secretary of State will no doubt have used his powers to adjust the figure of £60, and will have made it £70, so that it will be in no better position.
  How does the Secretary of State know that Hamilton does not have a need equal to that of other large burghs in Lanarkshire, or other parts of Scotland? Does he know what its need is for houses for people who have no separate homes? Does he know the number of unfit houses in the burgh? Has he any idea of an average income of a Hamilton family, or of the level of employment in the burgh? All these questions will have to be taken into account if we are to assess the measure of the need of any local authority for more houses.
  In cases where private enterprise was making a contribution within an area of a local authority the Secretary of State says, "We will take a notional figure." He thinks of a number, and the number is 60. Why is the number 60? He has omitted to tell us, although it seemed to me that in the course of his speech he was criticising the Scottish assessors for having arrived at a figure of about £46 as the gross annual value. He seemed to think that if it had not been for the long history of low rents in Scotland the gross annual value would have been determined by the assessors at about £60. That was the inference to be drawn from that part of his speech.
  Since he has had to deal with a lesser figure of £46 or thereabouts, the right hon. Gentleman provides, in a complicated way, for arriving at a figure in respect of the gross annual value which is half way between £46 and £60. This is taken as the notional income from

  1387
  local sources, to which he adds the Treasury subsidy, which gives him the full income. If that figure exceeds the rate of expenditure per house the lower rate of subsidy is paid, and if it does not the higher rate is paid.
  But the Secretary of State proposes to take powers to adjust this figure, by Order. When does he think that it will be necessary to increase it to £65 or £70? Why does he think he should increase it? I suspect that it is simply so that he can pay about the same amount in subsidies as he is paying to local authorities at present, with some getting more and some getting less. If a local authority which is receiving the lower rate of subsidy builds houses costing £140 or £150 a year it will add to its expenditure and will begin to qualify for the higher rate of subsidy, and then the Treasury subsidy expenditure will increase. At that point, will the Secretary of State bring in an Order to increase the figure of £60? We are entitled to be told.
  The Minister is taking power to adjust the figure, or even to reduce or abolish subsidies retrospectively after ten years, and I would have thought that any Government with any respect for parliamentary democracy would have taken the view that any such alteration merited the kind of consideration that we are giving the Bill today, and would have incorporated the necessary provision in a Bill to be brought before Parliament, and would not merely have brought forward an Order which is subject to an affirmative Resolution, with the Whips on and with hon. Members opposite being invited to sit in the Smoking Room until the Division bells ring. We have no right to give any Government or Secretary of State for Scotland—and least of all this Secretary of State—the excessive powers being sought in the Bill, or to place local authorities in such financial uncertainty.
  In the past, local authorities have entered into a partnership with the Government in the building of houses. For many years they have borrowed money from the Public Works Loans Board at the current rate of interest, and they have to pay that rate of interest for the whole period of sixty years. If the rate goes down at any time they do not receive the
  1388
  benefit of the reduction. By the same token, they receive the subsidy for the whole sixty years. But the whole business of partnership is being ended by the Bill. Local authorities are now being told—and some of them may have been taken in by this—"Here is an adjustment of the subsidy provision. Instead of the existing £24 subsidy for sixty years you will get a £32 subsidy until the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Treasury, thinks that you are getting too much." The subsidy will then be adjusted by adjusting the £60—and it will be either reduced or, perhaps, abolished retrospectively after ten years.
  Over the next ten years local authorities will be building houses in respect of which they are receiving a subsidy, and, normally, they would assume that subsidy to continue for the whole life of the loan, namely, sixty years. But the Secretary of State is now telling them that there is a possibility that a future Secretary of State will exercise the powers provided in the Bill, and, at the expiry of ten years, will abolish all subsidies retrospectively, right back to 1st November of this year—the date on which houses are approved for subsidy under the provisions of the Bill. And the right hon. Gentleman wonders what the reasoned Amendment means when it talks of local authorities being placed in uncertainty! If he does not understand what it means by now he should resign as quickly as ever as he can see the Prime Minister.
  When the Secretary of State was dealing with the detailed provisions of the Bill he referred to Clause 4, under which he proposes to make money available for non-profit-making associations. If they can give us more houses, hon. Members on this side of the House will be delighted. I have seen the work of some co-operative housing associations in other countries. They are doing an excellent job, but I repeat what I said a short time ago; I have not seen any co-operative housing association trying to build houses with money borrowed at a rate of interest of 7 per cent. I cannot see any of them in Scotland trying to do it either; or, at least, if they do, they will certainly not be providing houses for the working population.

  1389
  I say to the Secretary of State that Clause 16 goes much too far in giving to the owner of private property 50 per cent. of the improvement cost. I do not suppose that many such payments will be made, for the simple reason that many houses owned by private enterprise and subject to these terms are more than fifty years old. Many are more than one hundred years old and many of them are not capable of being improved at all. But assume that some may be capable of being improved. Bearing in mind that the houses are very old the improvement is likely to be rather costly. It may cost £400. If a bathroom and kitchen is to be installed and a food store and hot and cold water provided, that would be the minimum figure.
  First, the landlord gets £200 from the State. Incidentally, there is no test of need. The landlord may be a millionaire, or a property company which has been paying dividends of 20 per cent., 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. for years. The landlord finds £200 out of his own resources and, as a result of investing this £200 on a house on which he and his predecessors have probably not spent anything for fifty or sixty years, he will be able to increase the rent by £25, or 10s. a week. That increase is not for a set period of years, but for as long as the house remains standing. This seems to us to be quite unnecessarily generous to the private landlord. But we are inclined to think that most of the houses owned by such people are in such a state of dilapidation and needing replacement that it is not likely much can be done under this Clause.
  I turn to the default powers of the Secretary of State in Clause 29. The right hon. Gentleman said that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) might quote some remarks which the right hon. Gentleman made some years ago. I do not want the Secretary of State to be too disappointed and so I will quote to him part of a speech he made fourteen years ago, on 17th December, 1947, in the Scottish Standing Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "For the last two years we have seen, stage by stage, the centralisation of a number of things, particularly in regard to local government matters.… I have been extremely worried about it."
  1390
  I can see the right hon. Gentleman's brow wrinkling as a result of his worrying that centralisation powers were being sought at that time by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn).
  The Secretary of State went on:
  "If the Secretary of State wanted to use his powers for political purposes he could do so".
  Then we got the story of Senator Huey Long, and the right hon. Gentleman continued:
  "That may seem very far-fetched, but it shows what happens when powers are put completely in the hands of one man. We know that it would not happen with the present Secretary of State, but we shall have other Secretaries of State in the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 17th December. 1947; Vol. 1, c. 2304–5.]
  Those were prophetic words from the Secretary of State—we have got him. The power he is now claiming for himself under Clause 29 as he knows quite well runs counter to everything he has ever said about trusting the local authorities and about fostering local government. If the Secretary of State wishes to negative local democracy, this is the way to do it.
  Already, the right hon. Gentleman must know that local authorities are saying, "Why should we bather to adjust rents? Why not leave it to Maclay?" That is what they are saying. That will not encourage responsibility for local affairs. This is the complete negation of local government and local democracy. Clearly, the Secretary of State wants to see rents which are fixed and determined by the county assessors. In 1956 the valuation for rating purposes was the actual rent. This was seen to be wrong, and so the assessors were told to get on with their job and to pay no attention to the rent in making their assessments. Now that they have determined figures which are at least 100 per cent. more than the rents paid, the Secretary of State says, "These men know what they are doing. The figure determined by them is the rent we ought to apply to local authority houses"
  When the right hon. Gentleman exercises his powers under Clause 29 he will have no difficulty at all in working out a rent scheme for any little local authority in any part of Scotland. He will just say that the rents are as laid down by the

  1391
  county assessor in the gross annual value he has determined for the house. Am I right?
  Mr. Maclay: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member on that point, but I wish to make it absolutely clear, in case he has not understood the Bill, that I cannot function on this matter until a local authority has been declared to be in default.
  Mr. Fraser: I know that perfectly well, but I thought that the existing provisions of the Statute had worked reasonably well. We have not had very many local authorities which have been declared in default over the years. So far as I am aware, there has been only one occasion on which the Secretary of State has been unable to accept the new rents proposed by a local authority after it had been said by the Commissioner to be in default. To make a complete break with the past and introduce this new arbitrary power for the Secretary of State in this Bill on a basis of one example over forty years of housing provision by local authorities is a bit thin and ought not to be done, in my opinion.
  The Secretary of State is concerned about people paying more in accordance with their ability to pay. To listen to him, one would think that every tenant of a local authority house was an average industrial male worker earning £15 a week. This figure of £15 a week earnings does not apply in Scotland at all. But, in any case, local authority tenants are not all industrial male workers. A great many of them are non-industrial workers. A great many of them are sick and unemployed and the number includes industrial and war disabled and retired people. As can be seen from the Government's own statistics, 50 per cent. of the population in the United Kingdom as a whole is living on a wage of less than £10.
  The Secretary of State and his hon. Friends tell us from time to time that rents are just over 9s. and, as they say, equal to the cost of two packets of cigarettes. That is not true. A person who buys two packets of cigarettes and pays 4s. 6d. for each of them is not only paying the price of the cigarettes. He is paying the duty as well. The price
  1392
  of a packet of cigarettes happens to be 10d. Three shillings and eight pence of the purchase price is duty. But the purchaser does not get one without the other. Similarly, in housing, he does not get a house for 9s. without paying the rates. The rent and rates for some people will be at least 25s. That is a hefty lump from a wage of £10 a week, bearing in mind that the same person is paying more than 10s. a week in National Insurance contributions. We ought not to talk gaily about increasing rents to this kind of person.
  Having said that, I want to make it quite clear to the Secretary of State that I think that many of the local authorities have been too slow in adjusting their rents. I have said this before. There are some tenants in secure jobs, with incomes of £1,200 a year or more, who ought not to be in subsidised local authority housing at all. I can tell the Secretary of State that in my constituency I know people in this category, and they are all members of the local Tory Party. They are not on my general management committee, but in the Tory Party, and I wish they would get out of their subsidised local authority houses and make room for the people whose need is greater than theirs. I should like the Secretary of State to help them, albeit they are members of the local Tory Party, by enabling them to borrow money to make provision for homes for themselves at lower rates of interest than is the case at present.
  Rents are not the real problem. With our housing conditions as they are, this Bill should have aimed at a building programme equal to those of our European neighbours. I do not ask for more than that. It would require a programme of between 45,000 and 50,000 houses a year in Scotland. Instead, we have a Bill the only purpose of which is to bolster private enterprise landlords to make their money out of houses built last century—houses which ought to be swept away as soon as we can rehouse the tenants.
  5.22 p.m.
  The Earl of Dalkeith: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), and I was slightly irritated to find that he anticipated some of the things which I

  1393
  intended to say myself. I welcome this Bill as far as it goes, though I will admit that I would have liked to see it go further in some respects. However, it takes several steps in the right direction.
  Having the honour, as I have, to represent the constituency which combines some of the finest city architecture in the world with some of the most squalid slums in Britain, I feel that I can speak on housing in Scotland with some feeling. At the risk of exposing myself to the criticism of irresponsibility, I should like to say that I should like to see a vast expansion in our housing and house building programme in Scotland. However much we may boast of what we have done since the war, however we may compare the records of houses built under a Unionist Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tory Government."]—and a Labour Government, and however much we may rejoice in the fact that one in every three families in Scotland now lives in a post-war house, I am very far from satisfied with what has been achieved and, indeed, with the progress we are now making.
  We have to look at this matter as a long-term problem, which must include also recognising the fact that Scotland's population will not only increase by natural means, but also by virtue of the fact that, with new industries coming to Scotland, a great proportion of our population in future will remain in Scotland, unlike the process in the last few years whereby they tended to drift south of the border. That means that we have an enormous task to cope with.
  I am fully aware of the arguments to which we must naturally listen inasmuch as the Government have to strike a happy balance of priorities between what they spend from the available funds on housing as opposed to all other demands, for such things as schools, hospitals, roads and a hundred and one other demands. Nevertheless, I feel that housing should have a higher priority than it is enjoying at the present time. I also realise that everyone has his own pet subject on which he feels that the Government should spend more money, but we must recognise that in order to do so the Government can only spend more money at the expense of some other subject.
  1394
  Following, as this debate does, on a two days' debate on transport, I would rejoice in seeing some of the money saved on our railways being put towards housing. It may well be that we could find some way whereby some of the money at present expended on uneconomic coal mines could also be devoted to more deserving things, such as housing.
  I should like to comment briefly on one or two of the proposals in the Bill, and the first question is that of the subsidies to the local authorities. I hope that in the deserving cases these subsidies will be sufficient. Nevertheless, they are a good deal more generous than what English boroughs are to receive, though I hope the Secretary of State will stick to the policy outlined in the White Paper for housing, where there is mention on the first page of flexibility. I hope that that can be taken to mean that the Bill will be flexible, not only in regard to the areas where help can be given, but also in reviewing the amount of the subsidy in a reasonable period of time, according to the progress that is being made.
  In regard to advances for private building by non-profit-making associations, this is an excellent idea, which works well in other countries. The hon. Member for Hamilton wondered whether, with the present interest rates, much advantage will be taken of this. Undoubtedly, interest rates constitute a very serious problem, and I shall look forward to hearing the comments of my hon. Friend when he winds up this debate.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: If the noble Lord says that interest rates have not very much to do with it, he does not understand the problem at all. Does he know what the interest rates are on houses? The Secretary of State gave the figures ten days ago, showing that the amount of interest per annum has gone up on a £1,500 house from £51 to £107. Does the noble Lord think that this has no influence on housing at all?
  The Earl of Dalkeith: I think the hon. Gentleman must have misheard what I said. If he consults HANSARD tomorrow, he will find that he is taking up the wrong point.

  1395
  I wonder whether the sum of £3 million will be enough, should this scheme be satisfactory, and I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he would consider reviewing this amount at the end of a period of, say, one year, particularly in view of the fact that 1 understand that included in this £3 million there will also be the share-out to associations which have carried out the modernisation of old houses under the standard grant system. My anxiety about this figure of £3 million is this. Assuming that we can build houses for £2,000 each, this will mean that only another 1,500 houses will be provided for this money. I should like to see a very much higher figure.
  I am also very glad to see something in Clause 7 with reference to the redevelopment of central areas. This is an extremely important point. With more cars on the road and with the difficulty of coming into and leaving large towns and cities, more and more people want to live in the centre of cities, and I am very glad to see that the Government have recognised this in Clause 7. There is not time to mention all the points with which I should have liked to deal, but I want to submit what I think are a few constructive suggestions.
  In the first place, I wish to mention the question of the improvement of older houses. It seems to me that there is an unfortunate tendency nowadays to assume that because a house is old it is necessarily bad.
  Mr. Manuel: How old?
  The Earl of Dalkeith: I do not think that the age necessarily makes all the difference. Very often old houses, even if built in the early nineteenth century, can be structurally sounder than houses built by local authorities between the wars.
  Mr. Manuel: I am not talking about ancestral homes. They come into a different category. In the type of houses that I am used to there is usually no damp course, and to try to put a damp course into such houses is unbelievably difficult and really not worth while. It is often better to build a new house than to try to modernise an old house in the way the noble Lord indicates.
  The Earl of Dalkeith: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Of course, in the case of some houses it is less economical to try to improve them than to build a new house. Nevertheless, there are many houses which are structurally sound and capable of improvement and which we should try to do more to improve.
  There are several suggestions that I should like to make in this respect. We have, as we know, the standard grant which, alas, has only been taken advantage of in the case of some 4,000 houses during the last year. This is a trifling number compared with the number of houses built in Scotland before the 1914–18 War. I understand that there are some 800,000 such houses, which represent, approximately, half the houses in Scotland.
  I wonder how many house owners realise what advantage they can take of these grants. Is it possible to give greater publicity to their availability? Might it not even be worth the while of my right hon. Friend buying time on Scottish Television in order to advertise the availability and advantage of these grants?
  I also wish to suggest that perhaps special grants might be made available in the case of those houses which are too small for modernisation. There is an enormous number of houses in Scotland which can only be turned into decent homes by knocking two into one. Many owners are reluctant to do this because the cost of conversion is fairly high and because they do not think that it would pay them to do it, with one rent coming in at the end of the day instead of two. I think that the making of a special grant in these cases would ultimately increase the number of available decent houses.
  Could we also consider removing some of the uncertainties which owners feel as far as the future of development areas is concerned? Some owners may ask whether it will be worth while improving properties if the street is going to be pulled down in the next ten or twenty years. I wonder if local authorities could do more by way of notifying the public about future development.
  We should also try to avoid discouraging modernisation by introducing rent control after modernisation

  1397
  by Standard Grant for houses which are not at present rent controlled. I am sure that some owners may be discouraged from risking their money if they feel that they are not going to get an adequate return from it after modernisation because of control.
  On the question of a special subsidy for buildings of architectural interest, in the City of Edinburgh there is a number of fine buildings of architectural interest and the local authority is faced with the difficulty of trying to preserve the buildings from the point of view of the amenities of the city as a whole. It is having to pay a great deal more in conversion costs than it would if it were pulling down the entire street and building more modern types of houses. I wonder whether in these special cases it would be possible for an Exchequer grant or a subsidy of some sort to be considered.
  On the question of tackling the present rent control of houses, I wish to quote from a memorandum sent by the National Federation of Property Owners and factors in Scotland. It states:
  "It is not difficult to appreciate that out of present controlled rents it is utterly impossible to carry out adequate maintenance at present day costs and that owners are powerless to avoid the progressive deterioration of their properties. A most serious aspect of the position from the national point of view is that the post war rent legislation in Scotland has achieved practically nothing in the way of arresting the premature run down of substantial and basically sound properties. It is hardly surprising that in Scotland practically no use whatever has been made of improvement grants or standard grants in respect of investment property since owners are understandably unwilling to invest additional capital in an investment which to date has proved even more disastrous than many Government Stocks ".
  The hon. Member for Hamilton made reference to a curious body of people whom I, personally, have never come across, who are, I understand, millionaires owning down-at-heel houses and who are, supposedly, going to reap enormous rewards and benefits by taking advantage of the grants available under the Bill for improving old houses. I do not believe that the difference between what owners of houses are to get now compared with what they have been getting will be very great. If what he said was the case, the number of houses improved would not have been 4,000 but
  1398
  40,000. I think it is a flight of fancy to suggest that there are many millionaires owning these down-at-heel houses. There are certainly many cases in Edinburgh where the owner of the house is often less well off than the occupant.
  Could we perhaps consider a scheme to facilitate the exchange of houses? I think we all know of cases where old couples are living in houses which are bigger than they want and of cases where young couples with large families are squeezed into small homes. Would it be possible to introduce a scheme, in collaboration with the local authorities, to encourage such people to exchange houses? There is, of course, the question of the cost of removal, and this may prove at present to be a disincentive to making the exchange. Could my right hon. Friend consider giving some sort of Exchequer help to such people to enable them to move from one house to another?
  My final point in relation to the building industry itself. First, in relation to the labour force. I have been told on many occasions in Edinburgh that one of the principal reasons for the delay in producing more houses is the shortage of building labour, particularly skilled labour. This position is, quite clearly, likely to become more difficult in the future.
  More factories will be built as the Local Employment Act becomes more effective. This will create an extra demand on the building labour resources of the country. More shop owners are going in for modernisation as customers become more prosperous. Shops generally are doing a bigger turnover and their owners can better afford to pay the high charges for improvement than can local authorities for house building. There are many cases where builders are being taken away from house building to undertake other work, necessary though it may be.
  What is more, with new factories and new industries, there is the possibility that a part of our present building force will be attracted away from the building industry into the factories, partly because, as we all know, the building industry is so dependent upon the weather. I wonder if the Government would look into the whole question of labour in the building industry and see

  1399
  specifically if it can help by introducing some form of Government-sponsored apprenticeship scheme.
  Mr. William Hannan: Will the noble Lord explain how introducing an apprenticeship scheme would enable the present labour force to build more houses?
  The Earl of Dalkeith: I believe I introduced this part of my rather rambling speech by saying that this is a very long-term problem which we have to look at. I started by saying that throughout Scotland more factories are coming. We know the population is increasing and expect that more people will stay in the country. As I see it, we shall have a heavy house building programme for the next fifty years at least.
  Mr. James Dempsey: Is the noble Lord aware that the only way to attract recruits to the building trade is to give them a guaranteed working week in the winter period? Does he realise that the Government will not help matters by suggesting the exclusion of Irish labour?
  The Earl of Dalkeith: We can all look round the country and see extremely progressive building firms, of which many are operating in my constituency. They have no difficulty in getting good men of the right type. It is the smaller builders who are having the greatest difficulty.
  Mr. W. Baxter Mr. W. Baxter rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. If the noble Lord does not give way, the hon. Member must resume his seat.
  The Earl of Dalkeith: I am sorry. I failed to hear the hon. Gentleman trying to intervene.
  Mr. Baxter: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think I may help him on this occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has stated that he thinks that a guaranteed working week in the building industry would help an apprenticeship scheme. In order to put it clearly on the record, I wish to point out
  1400
  that there is a guaranteed working week in the building industry. The problem is that many of the large firms which come from across the Border and get major contracts in Scotland do not employ apprentice labour. Small local firms are under an obligation to pay for a 32-hour guaranteed week, but most of the small building firms pay for a 44-hour guaranteed week.
  The Earl of Dalkeith: I am grateful to the hon. Member for helping me on that. I do not think I should be drawn into becoming a self-appointed arbitrator on this subject.
  Finally, I ask if it is possible for the Government to do a little more in the way of research into new techniques in building and new methods. I wonder if we are doing quite as much as we might be able to do by borrowing ideas from abroad, ideas which have been successful, and passing them on to the industry. Prefabrication is an example. There are many ways in which we might make the building industry more efficient than it is, particularly compared with the industry in some of the Scandinavian States and also in the United States. I wonder if the Government could aid research, either directly or by giving assistance to private builders to carry out research.
  I do not pretend that the suggestions I have made are a complete answer to the housing problem. They are more in the nature of side issues which I have put forward in the hope that they may contribute in some way to getting on with the job. I think the crux of the housing problem is largely the question of local authority rents. Many of our troubles stem from utter disregard for the economic facts of life. I firmly believe that we must see higher rents, but I think it right that they should be based on some form of rent differential, or preferential, or rent rebate schemes. That works in many parts of the United Kingdom; I cannot see why it should not work in a large part of Scotland. Clause 29 particularly, and other points in the Bill, could help in this respect.
  I feel that the Bill deserves the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House who want to see an improvement in Scotland's housing position.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. James Bennett: It is with a great deal of trepidation that I rise to make my maiden speech, but I am fortified by the thought that hon. Members will listen sympathetically and say to themselves, "There once upon a time stood I."
  May I crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments while I pay my tribute to James Carmichael, my predecessor and my friend, who represented the Bridgeton constituency of Glasgow from 1946 until his tragic illness compelled him to retire? While it is with a feeling of great pride that I stand here today, I find that feeling tinged with regret that I am here because of the illness of James Carmichael. I shall endeavour to live up to the very high standards and uphold the traditions set by the late James Maxton and James Carmichael.
  I believe it rather unusual for an hon. Member to be sworn in one day and to make his maiden speech on the next. Hon. Members may rest assured that this is not bravado on my part, but because I sincerely believe that I should be failing in my duty if I did not raise my voice in this debate on behalf of the people who have sent me here. My presence here is a direct result of a by-election which was fought last week, a by-election where housing became the overriding issue. Each candidate recognised that; one in particular did not like it.
  Last week my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) told this House of some of his experiences in my constituency. I assure the House that the examples he gave are not isolated cases. The House will be aware that the Bridgeton constituency is a highly industrialised area. It is a classical example of where industry and housing have grown cheek by jowl. In my area one-apartment and two-apartment houses predominate. In far too many cases there is a lack of ordinary sanitation. Conditions exist which are an affront to humanity and a constant reproach to ourselves. In too many families all that is left is hope. I look in vain in this Bill for something which will alleviate or destroy the appalling conditions which exist.
  1402
  If hon. Members will bear with me, I shall give some figures from the City of Glasgow which demonstrate the urgency of the problem. Almost half the houses in the city have only one or two rooms. More than 400,000 people are living in them, 34,000 people live more than four persons to a room, 90,000 live more than three persons to a room. In May, 1959, there were 328,000 houses in the city of which 55 per cent, were acceptable, 15 per cent, unacceptable but which could be made acceptable, and 30 per cent, which were not capable of being improved and were totally unfit for human habitation.
  While finance no doubt has a tremendous influence on housing generally, surely the greatest need is to ensure that our people are decently housed and are not, as so many are, accommodated in squalid conditions. The White Paper on Housing in Scotland contains the statement that the City of Glasgow presents a special problem, and I accept that wholeheartedly. The White Paper talks of overspill as being necessary to help solve Glasgow's problem.
  I humbly suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State would only grant permission to the city council to build on two estates—Darnley and Summerstown, a permission that has been sought for five years—about 10,000 houses could be built and we could thus alleviate, in the near future, the heavy burden that falls on Glasgow. For too long Glasgow has been quoted as being the worst-housed city in Europe. I urge the Government to help us to make a start in destroying that unenviable reputation by removing the cause at its source—the slum dwellings.
  I am grateful to the House for the tolerance that has been shown to me. The understanding of hon. Members for me as a new hon. Member, undertaking what in effect is a major ordeal, has helped me tremendously and has prevented the butterflies in my stomach from getting out of hand. I look forward to taking part in future debates with a great deal more confidence.
  5.52 p.m.
  Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: It is something like 22 years ago that I stood in this Chamber, or in the predecessor of this Chamber,

  1403
  to make my own maiden speech. On that occasion I had to wait until 8.30 in the evening because two new hon. Members wished to speak in the same debate and I was the junior of the two.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. J. Bennett) is to be congratulated on two accounts. Firstly, because his maiden speech is over early. I cannot remember another hon. Member coming to this House one day and making his maiden speech the next, and that is not something of which the hon. Member for Bridgeton need be ashamed. And, secondly, it is very much to his credit that, coming straight from a hard fought by-election, he has not hesitated to rise in his place before he had got the feel of the House—before giving himself an opportunity of hearing the sound of his own voice while putting supplementary questions and the like.
  This has happened, I believe, because the hon. Gentleman is filled with that "divine discontent" which his predecessors possessed, and I regard him as being in the line of James Carmichael, Jimmy Maxton, Campbell Stephen and Geordie Buchanan, all of whom were appalled at the housing conditions in the city the hon. Gentleman knows so well and who felt impelled on every occasion possible to rise in the House and to vent their feelings about the housing position in Glasgow in particular and in Scotland generally. I take pride in being the first to congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgeton on a model maiden speech, made from the heart, brief and to the point and giving great promise of many contributions which we look forward to in the future.
  Whenever we debate housing I can never forget that we are discussing an intensely human problem; something that touches at its closest point the lives of those whom we represent and our fellow human beings. I apologise to the House tonight because while I would have preferred to have made a less impersonal, a less dull and a less technical speech it is because this is a somewhat technical Bill—and I dare say that many people would call it somewhat dull
  1404
  —that I intend to be technical and dull myself. I apologise in advance for this because I intend dealing absolutely and entirely with the details of the Bill.
  I must first deal with one omission which I regret. When the Rent Act was before the House in 1957 it was provided that the rent of houses which remained subject to control in England and Wales could be raised to a maximum of twice the gross annual value. But because in Scotland we had no recent rating assessments to guide us in this matter, the corresponding Scottish provisions were of an interim nature, owners of controlled property in Scotland being allowed to increase rents by 25 per cent, of the pre-1954 Act rents or by 50 per cent., if they had repaired their house or houses in terms of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954.
  Time and again in Committee, and during the Second and Third Readings of that Bill, I urged that provision should be made in the Bill to cover the position after the 1961 rating lists in Scotland were approved. Hon. Members who wish to go into this further will find my words in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 28th March, 1957, where I said that the maximum increase payable in Scotland would be of the order of 4s. a week and the average increase throughout Scotland about 2s. a week, and this at the time when the average male earnings in Scotland were a little over £11 15s. a week.
  The point was taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who, in the Third Reading debate on the Rent Bill, as it then was, said:
  "So far as the rent provisions of the Bill are concerned, the Scottish Clauses take a very different form from those relating to England and Wales. The Scottish Clauses are, frankly, of an interim nature. Until new and uniform valuations, based on the principle of fair rents, are available under the Valuation and Rating Act, 1956, we have no basis on which to build a new rent structure. We in Scotland must therefore continue meanwhile to rely on the Rent Acts and on the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954.
  The changes that the Bill brings about—the new 25 per cent, increase and the revised repairs increase of 50 per cent, of the 1954 recoverable rent—are necessarily limited in scope. Since we cannot at this stage seek to provide a new rent structure and new rent

  1405
  limits, our object has been, in the changes introduced by the Bill, to make the 1954 Act work better and so to enable as many houses as possible to be kept in, or put into, repair."
  The Secretary of State later said:
  "These rent provisions are, as I have said, of an interim nature and the Government do not look on them as representing a new rent structure for houses remaining in control. It will be necessary, once the new valuations become available in 1961, to make a fresh and comprehensive review of the position as a whole."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 28th March, 1957; Vol. 567. c. 1419–21.]
  Mr. John Robertson: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the average earnings of Scottish workers in 1957 amounted to £11 15s.? If so, from where did he get that figure?
  Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Yes, they are official figures. They were obtainable in the Digest of Statistics in either the last quarter of 1956 or the first quarter of 1957. The exact figure of average male earnings in Scotland was a few pence above £11 15s. a week.
  Mr. Robertson: I think that if the hon. Gentleman carefully examines the figures he will find that he has quoted the figure for the United Kingdom, not for Scotland, because those figures have never been taken out.
  Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong; they are the Scottish figures. I used them in debate and checked them myself, and the hon. Member can, by walking to the Library, check them for himself.
  The effect of rent controls has unquestionably been to hasten the deterioration of rented houses in Scotland. The process has not been halted by the Government's failure at the time to make realistic provision for houses remaining subject to rent control. We should remember that whereas in England and Wales about 15 per cent, of controlled houses were decontrolled at that time by the rateable value provisions of the Act, the corresponding figure in Scotland was only 8½ per cent, that 8½ per cent, being decontrolled in that way in 1957.
  I must confess that I am very disappointed that advantage has not been taken in this Bill today to introduce those permanent provisions.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  6.2 p.m.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:
  The House went:—and, having returned;
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Tanganyika Independence Act, 1961.

  2. Southern Rhodesia (Constitution) Act, 1961.

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.
  Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: The visit of the House to another place provided me with an opportunity to confer with the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson), who queried a figure which I gave earlier. I was wrong in my recollection of the figure in 1956 which I quoted. I looked these figures up, but, as he has been able to show me from the Scottish Digest of Statistics, a reference to the column at which I looked shows that they are United Kingdom figures. He is right and I am wrong, and I apologise.
  Before the House went to another place I was saying that I was disappointed that opportunity has not been taken in the Bill to introduce permanent provisions for rent decontrol. The adoption in England and Wales of gross annual value as a basis for arriving at the rents to be charged for houses remaining under control gives a precedent which we might well follow in Scotland. The pattern of gross annual value which is emerging shows values which are substantially lower than the rents at which local authority and privately owned houses would let in a free market.
  In a Written Answer to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay), my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland last week gave the average gross annual value of local authority houses in Scotland. The figures were: Edinburgh, £48; Glasgow, £48; Aberdeen, £46; Dundee, £50; and

  1407
  then down to £43 in Perth, £41 in the City of Stirling, and so on. I hope that my hon. Friend who is to wind up the debate will indicate that the Secretary of State will give sympathetic consideration to an Amendment in Committee designed to relate the maximum rent which may be charged for privately owned houses remaining under rent control to the gross annual values as ascertained under the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956.
  I want to turn to the rent of local authority houses. The Public Accounts Committee, of which I have long had the privilege of being a member, in its Third Report for the Session 1960–61, drew attention to the effects of unduly low rents upon the Exchequer equalisation grants. The amount of those grants is determined by local authority expenditure, which includes expenditure from the general rate fund to meet deficits on housing revenue accounts after the receipt of subsidies. If rents are unduly low it follows necessarily that the corresponding expenditure is proportionately greater and a larger Exchequer grant becomes payable.
  Mr. Woodburn: Is it not the case that for some time that has not been so and that the Exchequer equalisation grant has been based on notional rents which have nothing to do with the actual rent charged in any local authority?
  Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: If the right hon. Gentleman cares to look at the Third Report of the Public Accounts Committee—I am telescoping it—he will see that, in effect, the position is as I say. The Committee was informed that between 1938 and 1959 the average net weekly rent for all types of local authority houses in England and Wales, outside the London area, had been increased from 7s. 6d. a week to 19s. 6d. a week, which was the equivalent of 160 per cent, whereas during the same period in Scotland local authority net rents had risen from 5s. a week to 8s. 8d. a week, a percentage increase of only 73 per cent.
  During the same period—here I must go carefully, because I must not again make the mistake of quoting United Kingdom figures—the Public Accounts Committee was informed by those in a
  1408
  position to know that earnings in Scotland had increased by more than 250 per cent, and were only 5 per cent, or 6 per cent, below those in England. The Report of the Department of Health, Scotland, 1959, showed that, expressed as a proportion of local authority housing costs, rental income in Scotland was less than half that of England and Wales, and the corresponding rate contribution was therefore more than double. The House knows that the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, requires local authorities from time to time to review rents and to make such changes in rents and rebates as may be required. The Comptroller and Auditor-General informed the Public Accounts Committee that twenty local authorities in Scotland had not reviewed their rents in the last five years and that one had not reviewed its rents since 1937. The average annual standard rent, excluding rates, of these authorities ranged from 2s. 10d. to 10s. 8d. a week.
  We all know that the legal position is that the Secretary of State may not himself assess what is a reasonable rent, but if he feels that a local authority has not itself fixed a reasonable rent he can institute an inquiry, either on local representation, or on his own account under the terms of the Local Government Act, 1947. He has done so as a result of local representation in two cases. There is the Glasgow case where Mr. C. J. D. Shaw, Q.C., now Lord Kilbrandon, made a report in July, 1958, following which the Corporation raised its rents, on average, from 5s. 2d. to 8s. 5d.
  Then there was the catalyst case—the one which has brought this provision into the Bill—of the Dumbarton County Council on which Mr. G. C. Emslie, Q.C., reported in February this year, Mr. Emslie found, as hon. Members will see if they read his report, that the council's average rent of 2s. 10d. a week represented less than one-third of the cost of hiring a television set, one-quarter of the weekly cost of hiring a garage and one-half the cost of repairs that had to be done to the houses. This had resulted in a housing deficit in 1959–60 of £286,000, in respect of which an Exchequer equalisation grant of £50,000 became payable. The facts led him to the conclusion that the county council had not carried out any review of rents, within

  1409
  the meaning of the Statute, between 1950 and 1960, so that it had failed to comply with the law.
  What, of course, happened was that the majority on the council were deliberately, and with their eyes open, permitting tenants to occupy houses at 2s. 10d. a week and requiring the other ratepayers to shoulder a net housing burden of 7s. 9d. in the £. That was certainly not "holding the balance evenly between the tenants and the general body of ratepayers." It was, in fact, as the leader of the so-called "No Action Group" on the council admitted, "fortunate for the tenants, but unfortunate for the ratepayers." As Mr. Emslie pointed out in page 19 of his report, it was
  "A cynical and deliberate disregard of the duty of trust which was and is theirs towards the general body of the ratepayers."
  Mr. J. Robertson: Would not the hon. Member not agree that this situation was brought about by the rating Act which transferred the owners' rates on to the tenants and that during the passage of that Act the Government spokesman said that there would be no increases of rent by reason of the transfer of the owners' rates?
  Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: That has nothing whatever to do with the position in Dunbartonshire. If the hon. Gentleman would read Mr. Emslie's report he would see that the causes axe quite other than that. It is all clearly set out in the report. I myself welcome, and I am sure that all hon. Members who are fair about this and who have read the report will welcome, the provision of Clause 29 which provides that where an inquiry has been held and the local authority is found to be in default in its duties under the 1950 Act, the Secretary of State may make a rent scheme and direct that the local authority shall comply with it.
  I should like to make one point on this. When a public inquiry has been held and, if it is found that the county or the local authority concerned is in default, I would like to see this as mandatory on the Secretary of State and not permissive. I should like the Secretary of State to be required to make a rent scheme and not just do so if he wants to.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: In the case of a local authority under whose rent scheme council house tenants are paying a higher rent than the notional rents suggested by the Secretary of State, would the hon. Gentleman then make it mandatory on the Secretary of State to enforce that local authority to reduce its rent scheme to his level?
  Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Of course not. I believe that it is the right of a local authority to fix what rent it believes to be right. [An HON. MEMBER: "Only one way."] Not at all. I say that where a local inquiry has been held and the finding of the local inquiry is that the local authority has fallen down on its job and not done it properly, the Secretary of State should instruct it to make a rent scheme. This would naturally flow from Clause 29, provided that a local inquiry has been held and the authority had been found in default.
  I welcome Clause 32, which provides roughly that where an agricultural cottage, which has been improved by a grant and which is supposed to be in the terms of the grant, occupied by an agricultural worker, becomes vacant, and there is no further use for it as an agricultural cottage, the local authority may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, allow other workers to go into the house as tenants. I think that that is very good indeed. I have only one qualification to make. It hardly seems necessary to bother the Secretary of State with a detail like that. I would have thought that it could have been left to the local authority. There are hundreds of agricultural cottages becoming vacant in the country today. As agriculture becomes more mechanised, the number of farm workers has been cut down, and young couples are leaving the land. I can think of literally dozens of good cottages within reach of my own home in the north east of Scotland which are vacant. It would be a good thing if a local authority were able to allow a lorry driver, say, to go into one of these cottages. A lorry driver came to me the other day who had just got married and who wanted a cottage. Could we let them have one? If we could let such people have these cottages, I believe that it would be a great help in agricultural districts. If the local authority could

  1411
  say, "I will let this chap have a decent house—a roof over his head—to live in" I do not think we need bother the Secretary of State about it.
  The noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (The Earl of Dalkeith) was urging the adoption of modern techniques in building. I was very impressed yesterday to read in The Times, which my constituents will insist in calling "The London Times", an account of a contract worth £5 million placed by the Stevenage Corporation with a well-known firm of building contractors to build 2,000 houses. This contract was thought to be on such a substantial scale as to warrant the application of mass production techniques. Concrete construction will be used for the houses and there will be much prefabrication of components. I should like that sort of thing to be done in Cumbernauld and in the new town, which we welcome, which is to be built in the Lothians. I hope that the Secretary of State will look into this because I think that it is something that ought to be looked at. If we could place sufficient orders so that the big contractors could get on with building the houses that we need, that would be all to the good.
  6.30 p.m.
  Sir Myer Galpern: May I, as the first speaker this afternoon from this side of the House since the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. J. Bennett), join the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) in offering my sincere congratulations to my hon. Friend on his most effective speech. I have known him for many years. I am not surprised that he has so successfully overcome the first hurdle. He has shown this afternoon a quality which has been characteristic of him throughout the whole of his public career and long before that, namely, a spirit of humanity and a humanistic approach to the many problems confronting the people of Scotland, particularly those in Glasgow.
  However, I must part company from the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns on the rest of his speech. His speech did not contain one helpful suggestion towards solving Scotland's housing problem. Does he suggest, as
  1412
  the Secretary of State has suggested, that the terrible plight of the people in Scotland by virtue of their lack of adequate housing conditions has been in any way contributed to by local authorities not having charged adequate rents? I challenge the Secretary of State to show one instance where the policy of a local authority in not charging an economic or near-economic rent for municipal houses has contributed to the present housing situation.
  I read that the Secretary of State was to move the Second Reading of a Bill to
  "Make further arrangements for the giving of financial assistance for the provision and improvement of housing accommodation in Scotland"
  so I came to the House this afternoon in a hopeful mood, anticipating that the right hon. Gentleman would deliver a rousing speech. I hoped that he would give us a clarion call which would arouse everyone in Scotland, in whatever sphere of activity they may be engaged, to make a united effort so that we can once and for all rid ourselves of Scotland's terrible scourge in housing.
  I regret to say that I have been sadly disillusioned. When I entered local government almost thirty years ago the same pious platitudes were being uttered. Yet today, thirty years later, the people of Scotland, and especially those in Glasgow and on the Clydeside, are in an even worse plight than they were thirty years ago. What have we achieved throughout the years? Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds further with the Bill, he, together with officials from St. Andrew's House, should make a tour of inspection of Glasgow and the Clydeside. The right hon. Gentleman showed this afternoon that he has failed to grasp the gravity and urgency of the situation. This is because he has not first-hand knowledge of the conditions. I regret to say that the officials in St. Andrew's House are not helping him or the Under-Secretary to appreciate the need and urgency.
  Let the right hon. Gentleman temporarily suspend the Bill or delay its further stages. As a former Lord Provost of the City, I ask him to go to Glasgow and look at some of the things which for many years we have been asking to be remedied. He will find a situation which is demoralising. My

  1413
  hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton spoke of the special conditions in his constituency. It gives me no pleasure, pride or satisfaction to say that in Glasgow we have housing conditions which are demoralising to the individuals who are forced to dwell in them.
  Mr. John Brewis: The hon. Member asked my right hon. Friend to suspend the Bill. The object of the Bill is to give increased subsidies to areas such as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. In view of that, does he really want to suspend the Bill?
  Sir M. Galpern: I do not think that finances alone will help to ease the housing shortage. No one could charge Glasgow, which is the subject of a committee of inquiry, or any other local authority with putting a brake upon housing development, despite the extortionate interest charges. The Secretary of State should make a personal investigation so that he can discover the size of the problem with which he proposes to deal. The problem is largely centred round Glasgow and the west of Scotland. Even the Toothill Report, which was published this morning—there are a number of toots in it, some of them musical and some not so musical—categorically states that Glasgow has a special problem.
  I propose to deal with some of the special problems as we see them in Glasgow and as we think they can be remedied. They must be remedied speedily. If the right hon. Gentleman made a tour of inspection he would find that Glasgow has 30,000 homeless families. London has been making a great song and dance—and rightly so—about 3,000 homeless families, but Glasgow has 30,000 homeless families. I want to be quite fair and state that these 30,000 families have never been tenants of houses. They are living in sub-tenancies, in rooms. I do not necessarily mean that they are all herded together in public institutions, but there are 30,000 families who have never had a home. Therefore, in the true sense of the word they are homeless.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton gave details of the conditions of the houses in which other families are compelled to live. These are the people who are fortunate enough to be the
  1414
  proud possessors or tenants of homes. Eighty-eight thousand of them are housed in accommodation without an inside toilet. I am not talking of baths, which are nowadays regarded as essential. These people have not even got an inside toilet. Three or four families are sharing the same toilet. Twenty-eight per cent, of the houses in Glasgow come within this category of having no inside toilet. All we hear is a speech from the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns and a speech from the Secretary of State telling us what they think is the cause of the trouble, implying that it could have been remedied if only one thing had been done, namely, if a near-economic rent had been charged.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) told the House, we face a great problem in slum clearance, and in Glasgow the problem is becoming overpowering. During the last five years, we have been able to average only 1,381 houses demolished per annum out of our colossal legacy of properties 50, 60, 70 and even 100 years old. Moreover, as we close and demolish houses, an almost equal number requiring demolition the following year comes up to take their place. We make no progress. I doubt whether we break even in slum clearance. I regret to say, also, that our standard of habitability in Glasgow is not very high compared with that of other authorities, but this is forced upon us because, if we were to adopt the same standard as other authorities in Scotland, we should be completely overwhelmed.
  These are the sort of things which the Secretary of State and his officials in St. Andrew's House ought to see for themselves. Only then will they learn of the urgency of the tremendous problem in Glasgow and Clydeside.
  I mention next what are called farmed-out houses, that is to say, houses in multiple occupation. In the City of Glasgow we have 552 of these, and in them there are no fewer than 4,867 persons. The situation is really desperate. I pay a tribute to what the City Corporation has done over the years. With all deference to what Hamilton has done. I doubt whether any authority in Scotland has made a greater contribution than has the City of Glasgow in these matters. Glasgow has performed an almost

  1415
  Herculean task in building well over 120,000 municipal houses since the last war. The brake has been put on now only because we have no more virgin sites.
  The problem of farmed-out houses has become so desperate that the Corporation is contemplating the introduction of something which was known in the Victorian era, namely, "ticketed" houses. I do not know whether the English Members are aware of what that system is, but there was such a system many years ago. Now, the City of Glasgow is being forced to consider the licensing of farmed-out houses in order that it may be able to control the number of people per room and ensure that certain minimum standards of decency in toilet accommodation and cooking and water facilities are provided by the owners.
  At a conservative estimate, the City of Glasgow today requires no fewer than 75,000 houses as quickly as possible. We are here discussing a Bill and financial proposals which do not even start to make a dent on the problem. With the exception of the two referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridge-ton, we have no virgin sites left. What has the Secretary of State told us which will give some comfort, encouragement and hope to the people of Glasgow and Clydeside that they can look forward to decent housing conditions within a measurable distance of time?
  I will tell the House how Glasgow is tackling the problem. We are dealing with it in a two-fold way, by overspill and by the creation of new towns. Glasgow has concluded agreements—I think the Secretary of State might have referred to this—with thirty-seven authorities in Scotland which have undertaken to provide 8,585 houses for overspill families from Glasgow. That number will be matched by a similar number under the Special Scottish Housing Association, which will give us altogether a total of 17,170 houses. The new towns of Cumbernauld, Glenrothes and East Kilbride under their present agreements are to provide 4,800 houses and they hope ultimately to provide for the City of Glasgow 15,800 houses. Those totals represent the maximum possibility open to the City of Glasgow
  1416
  at present and, as I have said, the magnitude of the problem is shown by the need to have 75,000 houses quickly and the presence of 30,000 people homeless.
  How successful has the overspill arrangement been? At 18th October this year, the number of families rehoused totalled 2,960. The number of families nominated by the City of Glasgow for rehousing in overspill areas is 1,175. In preparing and introducing a Bill of the kind now before us, the Secretary of State ought to have looked at the mechanics of rehousing under the overspill arrangement. As most hon. Members will know, the system is that an individual who desires to go to an overspill area applies, not to his own local authority, but to the area of his choice. He has to complete a quite lengthy questionnaire, answering, among others, questions about the nature of his employment and his skill. The authority to which he applies scrutinises his application. Then the Ministry of Labour steps in. It is very co-operative, and it checks whether the individual has made a correct assessment of his skill. The overspill authorities do not want people unless they are likely to go into jobs in the area.
  After the applications have been vetted, they are sent in batches of twenty to the City of Glasgow, and it is for the Glasgow Corporation to determine how many of those who have applied and successfully passed the scrutiny of the overspill authority will have their applications approved and accepted by the City of Glasgow.
  In my view, any question of whether a man has a job to go to should be omitted from the overspill arrangements. There are very many people who commute from distances much further than the distances of some of the areas with which we have entered into overspill agreements. Literally hundreds of people travel daily from Edinburgh to Glasgow who could quite easily stay there. Hundreds of people travel 20 to 50 miles into Glasgow.
  A contribution was made in this House some time ago which agreed with me that overspill arrangements depend on the individual finding a job in the overspill area. It should be left entirely

  1417
  to the individual to make up his own mind as to whether he is prepared to commute between an area of his own choice or an area in which he has obtained a house and Glasgow. In the movement of industry from Glasgow, which is linked with overspill arrangements, we find that industrialists and manufacturers are loth to move out, and it becomes very much harder for the people to satisfy the overspill authority that they will be able to get a job. I propose, as has been proposed in this House before, that we should abandon the present system. I say that we should let the individual choose whether he wants to travel or not.
  Surely there should be incorporated in a Bill of this kind some provision about the disposal of houses vacated by people who are successful in getting houses in overspill areas or new towns. What is happening to these houses? We in Glasgow have found that only a fraction of the houses which are vacated by these people is offered for letting by the private landlords. The majority of them are put up for sale.
  Mr. Manuel: They are lying empty.
  Sir M. Galpern: I will come to that question in a moment.
  Some provision about these houses should be incorporated in a Housing Bill because this is a matter which is intimately linked with the overspill and new town arrangements. Local authorities should be empowered to be able to control houses which are vacated by people who have moved from one area to another under an overspill arrangement and they should be entitled to nominate as tenants of the vacated houses people from their own waiting lists. At the moment local authorities possess no powers to enable them to make use of these houses. In Glasgow, we find that people from outside the city are buying the vacant houses, and our own housing problem becomes more aggravated. At some time in the future the circumstances of these people may change. They may not be included in the Prime Minister's forecast that people will be earning £1,000 a year in ten years' time and they may throw themselves on the tender mercies of the local authority. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider this proposition that
  1418
  power should be given to local authorities to control the letting of these houses as they become vacated by people leaving the city under an overspill arrangement.
  We have heard a great deal about the great financial contribution which is being made by the Exchequer to housing. The Kirkintilloch local authority is seeking an early meeting with the City of Glasgow because it says that it cannot carry out the obligations into which it has entered. I think that it entered into an arrangement to provide 450 houses in Glasgow. It has not done very much in that direction. The authority wrote to Glasgow Corporation saying that it must have an urgent meeting with the Corporation's representative because of the financial difficulties in which it finds itself.
  I do not know why Glasgow has a problem such as this. Other areas escape it, including those in the south of England. I do not know Glasgow's sin of omission or commission that it should be saddled with this problem. We are doing our best to deal with it, but, because the Kirkintilloch authority is to receive only £14 a year for 10 years, it says that this is wholly inadequate and that unless it can be substantially increased the authority cannot proceed with the arrangement into which it has entered. As soon as that gets out—it is out now—we can rest assured that many other local authorities will fall in behind Kirkintilloch and will express similar dissatisfaction with the financial arrangements. What does the Secretary of State propose to do about this matter? He is as well aware as anyone that the Kirkintilloch local authority has indicated its dissatisfaction about the arrangement into which it has entered.
  The question of finance has been the corner stone around which most of the argument so far has developed and around which it will probably continue to revolve. I wish to be fair to the Secretary of State and to the House and to deal quickly with the economics of a house which I am not pricing too high and where the rate of interest is very reasonable. Let me deal with a house in the City of Glasgow which costs £2,250. At 5 per cent., the annual loan charges on that house amount to

  1419
  £118 17s. 3d. After 60 years, £4,830 in interest will have been paid on it. Repair and management costs amount to £11 a year, making a total expenditure of £129 17s. 3d.
  Let me take the new subsidy. As far as we can judge, Glasgow will very narrowly qualify for it. I should like the Under-Secretary of State to confirm that Glasgow will just manage to qualify for it. We estimate that Glasgow's new subsidy will be £32, and, therefore I will base my calculation on that sum, leaving the amount to be obtained from rent and rates £97 17s. 3d. The Secretary of State said that there will be a notional figure of £53. That is something which the Secretary of State will readily accept and for which he will probably award the Corporation councillors medals. Let us assume that the rents in Glasgow are raised so as to enable us to reach that figure of £53. We are still left with a balance of £44 17s. 3d. which has to be met from the rates.
  With the subsidy of £32 and with the notional rent and the rate fund contribution, the City of Glasgow will still be left to find from the rates a deficit of £44 17s. 3d. I should like the Under-Secretary when replying to give just one reason why the City of Glasgow in particular should have to face a situation of this kind. I should like the hon. Gentleman to note also the fact that last year Glasgow paid away in interest charges on its housing account £5,374,141.
  We are told that the Bill will assist the provision of houses because private builders will erect them. I should like the Under-Secretary to quote any instances in Glasgow and Clydeside of private enterprise erecting house property for letting. The reason why private enterprise has not done so is the high interest charges. I do not know any instance of house property having been built in the City of Glasgow within the last twenty years by private enterprise for letting. The economic rent for such property would be so high that it is impossible to find tenants quickly for that type of house.
  It has been suggested that if only Glasgow had had a proper level of rental we would have been saved much trouble and would not be in our present plight.
  1420
  Let me remind the Government that the situation is the very reverse. There have been cases when local authorities have built houses but, because economic rentals were fixed, they have had to advertise for tenants to take them over. Because they tried to have something like an economic rent, they were unable to get tenants.
  The redevelopment of Glasgow is another big problem. After the redevelopment areas are cleared away, Glasgow is building to a density of 150 rooms per acre, the highest density in the country. Only 40 per cent. of the people from the demolished houses will be rehoused in the redevelopment area and 60 per cent. must go elsewhere. Therefore, we have a problem of 200,000 overspill because we have so many areas urgently requiring redevelopment but we can only rehouse 40 per cent. of the people in those areas. Therefore, Glasgow is forced to build multi-storey flats.
  We have no more virgin sites. When the Secretary of State gave way to me in speech this afternoon, I asked whether the proposal of a £40 flat-rate subsidy would cover a local authority which had to build multi-storey flats. The right hon. Gentleman did not know the answer and said that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would deal with it when replying to the debate. I can give the answer. Glasgow is still further penalised and punished.
  In the first place, Glasgow has its big housing problem. Secondly, we have no virgin sites. As a result, the only way to help the people who require accommodation is to build upwards. The proposed £40 flat-rate subsidy represents only two-thirds of the additional cost of having to build high. That is a gross injustice, particularly for an authority which would wish to spread itself out if it had the opportunity to do so.
  Clause 8 relates to the power to reduce or abolish subsidies. The uncertainty is bound to worry local authorities. This power is linked closely with Clause 39, because it is obvious that the only way that subsidies could be reduced after ten years would be by the Secretary of State looking round, deciding that the rents in certain areas were too low and, after local inquiry, forcing

  1421
  local authorities to introduce what the Minister would describe as more realistic rentals. The Secretary of State practically admitted as much. That is the only way by which it can be done, by pushing up rentals and enabling the Secretary of State to say that there is a balance and that, therefore, the subsidies should be either cut or abolished.
  When a local authority has been taken before a committee of inquiry and the committee recommends a certain rent structure, which the local authority either does not operate or which the Secretary of State does not regard as being adequate, will the Secretary of State continue to have power to impose his rent structure upon that local authority or must he repeat the process and have another court of inquiry?
  There are several other points to which, I hope, the Under-Secretary will make an effort to reply. In my opinion, the situation in Glasgow and Clydeside is so serious that it warrants the setting-up of a special committee of inquiry to examine the whole position. That is not in any way to cast aspersions on the local authorites, to whom I pay tribute and will continue to do so. I was a member of a local authority for over twenty-five years. My view is that we need a special committee of inquiry, including members from the local authority and outside people, experts, too, who would be charged with the duty of examining the whole position of housing in Glasgow in particular and in Clyde-side generally.
  In my view, housing in Glasgow and Clydeside has now become a regional matter. It has reached the stage when it is impossible for Glasgow and the surrounding authorities to deal with it on an individual basis. A committee of inquiry could consider this aspect also. The problem is such an urgent one that the committee could cut across the divisions between certain local authorities. There should be less red tape and there should be a coming together of Glasgow and the surrounding authorities to see whether, once and for all, we could make a genuine improvement in housing conditions.
  The 1951 census showed that 15 per cent. of people in Clydeside lived more than two in a room whereas in the remainder of Scotland only 9 per cent.
  1422
  lived two in a room. The English figure was 1 per cent. There may have been a slight improvement by the time of the 1961 census but, even so, the disparity must still be just as great. There is great need for Glasgow and Clydeside to get together to see how far the problem can be solved.
  I have referred to the job qualification for an individual who seeks a tenancy in an overspill area or a new town.
  There should be specially low interest rates, if not the complete abolition of interest rates, to deal with the special and peculiar problems afflicting Glasgow and Clydeside. There should be more new towns. We cannot help it if they become dormitory towns, but the provision of new towns is the only way to solve the problem.
  I have referred to the powers of requisition, and unoccupied houses have been mentioned. On Whit Sunday, 1960, there were 4,356 unoccupied houses in Glasgow, the bulk of them in the sort of area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton so that they were not big houses. They had boards displayed to say that they were not to let, but for sale. Local authorities, particularly those like Glasgow, should have power to acquire those unoccupied houses. Finally, local authorities should have power to control the price of building land. The price of land and the price of house building and interest charges make a combination which it seems impossible to defeat.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will accept my challenge. If he and the Under-Secretary make the tour which I have invited them to make, they will scrap the Bill and give us something much more imaginative.
  7.12 p.m.
  Mr. John Brewis: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) speaks with a wealth of experience as a former Lord Provost of Glasgow. I agree with him that this is a partial problem in Scotland in that certain areas, particularly the City of Glasgow, are very much worse than others. But I do not agree that the Bill should be scrapped. Housing subsidies

  1423
  in England and Wales total about £61 million. Those payable in Scotland in the financial year 1961–62 are nearly £19¾ million. If Scotland's population is about one-tenth of that of England and Wales, we are getting proportionately three times more subsidy. Admittedly we have a great need of it, but this is a valuable Bill in that it distributes that amount of subsidy to where it is needed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) said that there were dozens of empty farm cottages in his area. He is extremely fortunate, because that is not the case in mine. I have in my hand a report of the Medical Officer of Health for Wigtonshire who, to take one example, quotes a two-apartment cottage in an appalling condition of dampness with no water, toilet, or other convenience and inhabited by two adults and five young children. The tenant is an agricultural worker who has been on the same farm for more than five years. Such conditions should not exist in this modern age.
  I welcome the provision in Clause 4 that a subsidy for agricultural housing by a local authority may be as much as £44. At the same time, I doubt whether that will be much use in an agricultural area. I have obtained some figures which show that the subsidy spent on agricultural housing is equal to only 1 per cent. of the total housing subsidy in Scotland.
  The main agricultural occupations in my part of the world are milk production and hill farming. In such farming the agricultural worker has to live in an isolated area and probably a long way from a road. I do not see how a county council can build cottages on each farm to let to agricultural tenants. There are many difficulties. How would the rent be collected? It would be an awful job for the rent collector. If the farmer quarrels with the worker, is the worker to be put out and a new one put in by the county council, or is the farm not to be run? Provision of that sort of housing must be undertaken by the farm owner himself.
  In the case I have given, the rent could not be more than 2s. 6d. per week—there is probably no rent charged. There is absolutely no incentive to an owner to
  1424
  improve the house, because he knows that the maximum rent he can charge under the wages agreement is 7s. a week. Nothing gets done until the ploughman goes off to Glasgow, or threatens to go. If he does go to Glasgow, he makes Glasgow's housing problem worse.
  On present agricultural wages it is not feasible to take 10 per cent. of a wage as being a reasonable rent for a house. The proportion may be all right for a worker getting £15 a week, but 10 per cent. is too much for a man earning £9 a week. One way to deal with this difficulty would be to raise agricultural wages to about what they probably ought to be, say £12 or £13 a week, letting the farmer charge an economic rent for the house. If it were a good house, he might be able to charge up to £2 a week. If the worker preferred to live in a hovel, he would pay only 2s. 6d. and he could put the rest of the money in his pocket. Economic forces like that must enter the solution of the housing problem.
  Under Clause 4 a subsidy of £44 a year for sixty years is to be paid to a local authority. The total is £2,640, but for the ordinary private owner who builds a new house the subsidy is only £300, which is considerably less than the grant of £400 which is paid for improving an old house under the 1952 legislation. That merely leads to a position in which people in the country tend to tinker up old houses because they get a bigger grant for doing that than for building a new house. That is economic madness. When the grant for building a new house was first introduced in 1938 it was £200, or, roughly, 50 per cent. of what it cost to build a house in those days. Today, at £300, it is nearer one-seventh.
  Under the Farm Improvement Scheme, which has been a tremendous help to the countryside in the supply of new fixed equipment on farms, the grant payable is 33⅓ per cent., but cottages are excluded. Yet cottages are definitely part of the fixed equipment of a holding. That might be thought to be illogical as housing comes under one Vote and agriculture under another, but under the Hill Farming Scheme one can get a grant of 50 per cent. towards the cost of a new cottage. So there is no logic in this situation and I hope that the

  1425
  right hon. Gentleman will reconsider it, because the need for agricultural housing in my area, and, no doubt, in other areas of Scotland, is very great.
  Dealing with the urban areas, I think we must be very alarmed at the housing conditions which have been described by the hon. Member for Shettleston and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. J. Bennett) in what I thought was an excellent maiden speech. On the other hand, going back to 1945, if one had been told then that in the next sixteen years one in three families in Scotland would have moved into a new house, one would hardly have believed a problem could exist.
  A report has recently been issued by the Alliance Building Society. Referring to Great Britain, it says that we shall need 8 million houses in the next twenty years. Some blame is put on the Registrar-General for not appreciating that the birth rate would go up and that the population would increase so much. But in Scotland, according to the last census, the population has hardly risen at all. Therefore, I do not think we can blame the housing shortage in Scotland on an increased population.
  It is partly because old houses are falling into disrepair at a greatly increased rate. What is happening is that the rent is not sufficient to cover essential repairs, and they do not get done. The tenant moves out, and a slightly worse tenant comes into a slightly worse house. Over the years that tenant leaves, the house gets still worse, and a worse tenant still comes in. Eventually the house comes into the hands of one of the people who are the problem in the Welfare State, an old couple with very little means, or perhaps an old lady.
  I think that local authorities must rehouse that type of person. It is no good saying that if the rent is decontrolled there will be more houses to rent in that type of case. I think that the local authority must build houses for people like that, preferably two-apartment houses, because if an old lady falls ill she wants somebody, perhaps her daughter, to live in the house and look after her.
  I therefore welcome the provisions for building houses for the elderly, not only by local authorities but also, as the
  1426
  Secretary of State for Scotland said this afternoon, by housing associations who will be encouraged to provide housing estates designed for this type of person. On the other hand, it is entirely wrong to give the impression that all council house tenants are in the same position as the old lady or the old couple whom I have described. The figures I have show that the average industrial wage in Scotland—and these figures come from the Department of Health publication—is £14.
  Mr. J. Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman examines the report again, he will find that the Department of Health obtained that figure from the Ministry of Labour, and that it is the figure for the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Brewis: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I heard of his remarks, but I was not here when he made them. In another speech he gave a figure of a little over £13.
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman must read HANSARD correctly. The figure of £13 was the figure given in the White Paper, and was the figure for the United Kingdom. The figure I quoted as my estimate was £12.
  Mr. Brewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for this estimate, but I do not think it affects my argument very much.
  Mr. Manuel: A wee bit.
  Mr. Brewis: Yes.
  The present policy over rents undoubtedly leads to certain disadvantages. One is the disadvantage of immobility, because people are prevented from moving into more suitable areas. I understand that in Kelvingrove there are a lot of old people. They would probably be better off if they moved out of the centre of Glasgow, but as there are no houses to rent they cannot go. Again, one often finds a father and mother in a big house. The children have married and left. The parents would probably much prefer a smaller house if only they could get one to rent. Similarly, and this is the worst condition of all, one finds a young married couple who cannot find anywhere to live and so go to live with mother and father.
  I should welcome any houses which were for rent. The hon. Member for

  1427
  Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), giving a high example, thought that they would have to be rented at £4 a week. I am prepared to accept that there are people who are prepared to pay £4 a week rent. Perhaps not the ordinary man, but there are people in Scotland who earn wages above the average as well as under the average. There are people coming into Scotland, perhaps as managers in a new industry, who want a slightly better house, and every new house reduces the housing shortage because it means that someone moves out of an overcrowded house or ceases to live with his in-laws.
  In the United States, a very much higher proportion of a person's wage or salary goes in rent. The figure was quoted in the Glasgow Herald, and is as much as 25 per cent. In Canada anybody who earns more than six times the rent of his house cannot live in a council house. There are people who are prepared to pay more rent. I do not want to press this point, but the housing shortage is so serious that, in connection with the Newington Lodge business in London, one lorry driver said that he would be prepared to pay even £5 a week to get somewhere to live. Some people can pay much higher rents than the average rents in Scotland at the moment.
  What the Secretary of State for Scotland regards as reasonable is to raise the rents to approximately those in England, to about £1 a week.
  Mr. Dempsey: Plus rates.
  Mr. Brewis: Yes, rates have to be paid in addition.
  As regards the Glasgow overspill question, I have glanced through the Toot-hill Committee's Report which calls for considerable redevelopment in Scotland. At the moment, the overspill is concentrating on giving mare population to small towns on the outskirts of Glasgow, or else creating new towns like East Kilbride, Cumbernauld, and the one proposed at Livingstone, all with a population of under 100,000 people.
  The average Glaswegian does not want to go to a small town. He is probably more an urban person than an oppidan person. He wants the amenities which one finds in a large city. The difference is probably this. When one travels in
  1428
  a tube train in London, one is not looked at by other people as one is in a small town. If one walks down the street in a small town people look at one and greet one, and if one happens to be a stranger there one is looked at even harder. The Glaswegian is an urban dweller. He wants hotels, parks, a first-class football team and the kind of amenities which go much more with city life.
  Sir M. Galpern: The hon. Gentleman said that there were exceptions and that people could afford to pay more than £4 a week in rent. Similarly, some Glasgow people are prepared to go to the quieter rural areas for the sake of their health and for the benefit of their families. I do not think it pays to generalise.
  Mr. Brewis: I accept that immediately. Stranraer, in my constituency, has entered into an overspill agreement, and if any people go there, from now on they will be welcomed.
  We want more new cities in Scotland, and by cities I mean places with over 250,000 inhabitants. My right hon. Friend should consider making the proposed new town of Livingstone very much bigger. We have the Bathgate factory there, and it should be possible to bring more industry into areas where more labour is available. Another alternative would be to take an existing Scottish burgh and redevelop it by building big blocks of flats around it, making it a much bigger place. There are some very formidable difficulties about developing the centre of a burgh, but if we look ahead for two or three decades we find that we must consider this point and also remember that in an existing burgh there is a certain communal feeling, which is very useful for people coming in. America has had some experience of new "green belt" towns. They have tended to become dead places, without any community spirit growing up through churches being built, and so on. They have tended to be merely dormitories.
  When we hold our Scottish debates English Members are seldom present, and we seldom think of the English aspect, but the two countries are joined together. The population of England, especially in the south, is becoming enormous, and it will tend to increase

  1429
  still more if we enter the Common Market. There will be a spread of urban development right across Kent and Sussex. People ought to be better distributed in this island of ours. It is not reasonable for an industrialist to say that a Factory in Wick or Thurso is out of the question. Such an argument is like an American saying that no factory could be made to pay if it were not within 400 miles of New York. It just is not true. The Government must consider the situation with imagination, and consider building new cities or developing some of the new towns as cities.
  I very much welcome the Bill's provision for subsidies in respect of multi-storey buildings. These are very desirable, and are to be seen much more on the Continent than here. I also welcome the subsidies for house building, because in this country it tends to be far too slow and costly. In Germany practically no bricks are used. Concrete blocks are used instead, and enable the Germans to get the job done much quicker and probably much cheaper. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that point. I also welcome the small subsidy for amenity building.
  Lastly, I welcome the Bill and the redistribution of subsidies which it entails.
  7.34 p.m.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: I hope that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely. I have some very good notes of my own, and I intend to get their contents on the record. The hon. Member is a young man who has liked the country all his life, and I know that there are many slums in our rural areas—many places which are quite unfit for human habitation. Many of them have no water laid on, but despite that some of them are subject to flooding. I do not think that the solution he advocates is the right answer to the problem. The only real answer is the creation of village communities by the county councils, and a getting away from the idea that we can keep farm workers segregated in lonely countrysides. We must provide for them a community life and a community spirit, in a community village.
  I welcome any of the provisions of the Bill which give more power to the local authorities and which give them a
  1430
  greater stature. I even welcome the money that the Minister is giving to co-operative housing associations if they will produce more houses, but I have great doubts about the real intentions of the Government in bringing forward the Bill.
  There is undoubtedly an intention to increase rents. That is one of the main intentions. Another declared intention is that, somehow or other, private enterprise shall be brought into the swim. We should consider this matter more carefully for a moment or two and not deal with it merely on the surface. In the main, most of the housebuilding operations which take place in local authority areas throughout Scotland are already carried on by private enterprise. It is therefore clear that the Scottish Office, the Secretary of State and the Joint Under-Secretary are not really concerned with the private enterprise employees and builders who are doing the work.
  What they are really concerned about are the people who support the Conservative Party and who have money invested in the Prudential or in banking houses which will provide the money for housing development, and whose shareholders will therefore have a bigger and quicker return on their capital investment. It is no use talking about the need for private enterprise house building. Private enterprise houses are going up in every local authority area which cares to build them.
  Quite apart from the scorn poured by the Secretary of State upon local authorities and town councils and their tenants, and what they do and do not do, the building of municipal houses in Scotland has put many townships and burghs on the map. It has enhanced their rateable value. It has given them a borrowing power that they did not formerly possess, and has placed them on a higher rung of the local authority ladder than they formerly enjoyed. These points are never mentioned by the Secretary of State. One would think that municipal house building was a continual drain and dragging down of the community in which the houses were being built, but it is much more than that.
  I welcome certain of the Bill's provisions. I welcome the changes provided

  1431
  for by Clause 21, which will allow local authorities to proceed direct to make closing or demolition orders, and so stop the time lag caused when an unsightly building is demolished and it is impossible to trace the owner. That is a big improvement which I am quite sure that Scottish local authorities will commend.
  I also welcome the provisions in Clause 22 which enable local authorities compulsorily to acquire sites after demolition. This will enable a lot of mopping up to be carried out in town centres and other areas where houses are being demolished. Clause 23 links up with this Clause to enable local authorities to make a charging order in favour of themselves for the recovery of expenses incurred in demolishing buildings which are the subject of demolition orders. But these are but slight adjuncts to the main purpose of the Bill.
  I am delighted that the Secretary of State has returned to the Chamber during my speech. He usually comes in when I am speaking and I appreciate the interest he takes in the facts which I continually reveal to him. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the previous part of my speech, about the stature and strength of local authorities and what has been achieved by municipal housing, I think that it will do him good. Undoubtedly he is worried about the heavy deficit on the housing revenue accounts of our local authorities. Let us examine the causes of these deficits.
  First, I put the heavy increased interest charges which are the direct responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman. Secondly, I put the large reduction in subsidies; and the Secretary of State may add a third cause, which is too low rents. Let us examine these causes carefully, sincerely, objectively and dispassionately. I consider that the heavy increase in interest charges has had the greatest impact. Recently a Question on the subject was addressed to the Secretary of State by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) and the Minister's Answer showed how interest rates affect the average Scottish local authority house. In 1951 an average house costing £1,500 to build had an impact of interest charges amounting to £54. In 1961 that figure
  1432
  had risen to £107, which is £1 short of an increase of 100 per cent. Undoubtedly this has greatly affected the position and is responsible much more than rents for the deficit in the housing revenue account. But I have yet to hear tile right hon. Gentleman reefer to it at meetings at which he has discussed the housing problems which are engaging the attention of earnest men and women in Scotland.
  Mr. Willis: It is the Government who lend the money through the Public Works Loan Board.
  Mr. Manuel: My hon. Friend will be aware that it is only when one is unable to obtain the money from elsewhere that one is allowed to go to the Public Works Loan Board. First, the would-be borrower is sent to the public market.
  The reduction of subsidies was a blow to local authorities and frustrated or destroyed their hopes of grappling successfully with the housing problems in their areas. There is no doubt that the increased interest charges and the halving of the housing subsidies are the real reasons for the morass of debt and the heavy deficits on the housing revenue accounts of local authorities. Were it not for the impact of these two things the Secretary of State could not have high-lighted the question of too low rents, as he has done so often.
  The full picture has never been given. I do not advocate rents which are too low. I adhere to the principle of a reasonable rent. But the issue has been clouded and confused because of the speeches made by the Secretary of State. I wish to take the opportunity later in my speech to clear up some of the points at issue and to put the picture into correct focus. So far as I can discover, there is no record of the right hon. Gentleman telling the meetings he has addressed on this subject about the impact of lower subsidies and increased interest charges. Surely the Minister will agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). If the Minister wishes to persuade private enterprise to build houses for sale, he will not be successful if money is to be provided only at interest rates amounting to 6¼ per cent., 6½ per cent. or 7 per cent. I agree completely with my hon. Friend that under

  1433
  those circumstances the Secretary of State will be unsuccessful in his endeavours to get what he terms private enterprise houses.
  In the White Paper on Housing in Scotland there is an indication that something is wrong because more than one-third of the houses in Scotland are owned by local authorities. That is stated to be wrong because local authorities are tending to become monopoly landlords. But, in any area where one-third or more of the houses are local authority houses, if the people are not pleased with their landlords they can sack one-third of them each year, and in three years can be rid of the lot. We cannot deal with the landlords of privately-owned houses in the same way. Therefore, I think that the point about local authorities being monopoly landlords is wrong. The democratic rights of tenants of all categories in those areas will enable them to get rid of the members of the local authority, and I wish that we could get rid of private landlords as easily.
  Mr. Maclay: As the hon. Gentleman has recognised, I am following his speech with great interest, but I do not think he is correct in suggesting that I am casting a slur on local authorities. In the interests of housing of all types it is not desirable that any one agency should become monopolistic. To say that is not to cast a slur on the local authorities. I made clear what are the functions of local authorities.
  Mr. Manuel: I do think that it would be more democratic to allow people in an area to make the decision rather than that it should be made by the Secretary of State as an individual. This is the way we carry on government, and I would hope that the Secretary of State is not now putting a Khrushchev kind of look about him in order to try any dictatorial stuff in regard to the local authorities aspect of this Bill in Scotland
  Despite no sign of revolt, and despite the fact that our local councillors are carrying on to the best of their ability, devoting their lives in trying to create the city beautiful in their own little areas in the best way they can, against the very great impact of interest charges, reduction of the subsidy and so on, the Secretary of State, in looking at their
  1434
  work, does not seem to have much faith in them. All he can say is that his great cure for all the ills in the non-provision of houses and all the other things which he sees in the local government spectrum is an increase of rent. I want to devote a little time to a paragraph in the White Paper on Housing in Scotland (Cmnd. 1520). The reasons are clearly given in the White Paper for the insertion of Clause 3 in this Bill. The White Paper, on page 6, deals with rents, and I wish to read a sentence from paragraph 17, which says:
  "On the 1960 average rent of just over 9s. a week"—
  it is actually 9s. 1d. a week—
  "the tenant of a Scottish local authority house meets rather under a third of the cost of providing and maintaining the house; an English local authority tenant, with a rent of about £1 a week, meets almost three-quarters."
  Let us examine this a little closer. During 1960, as is indicated there, local authority tenants paid just over 9s. per week in rent. The English local authority tenants paid rents of about £1 per week, but will the Secretary of State agree that in the case of the local authority which was charging that 9s. 1d. per week, that is, the same rent as pre-1956, which is not so long ago—I hope the right hon. Gentleman is getting the point—the actual rent fixed by the local authority would have been 18s. 2d. per week then? The right hon. Gentleman reduced it to 9s. 1d. by the Rating and Valuation Act in order to take off the weight of owners' rates from rented property in Scotland. I know that there was a difficulty and that something had to be done about the need for new valuation in Scotland. I admit that, but what I completely disagree with is the highlighting of the lower figure in every speech which the Secretary of State makes, without indicating the figure which the local authorities themselves by resolution decided was to be the rents of the houses.
  I have gone to some length to obtain this true picture, and I want to quote an average figure from an average burgh in Scotland. I take a good Ayrshire burgh, which has integrity written all over it, which has never seen graft in all the hundred years in which it has been in existence. To take an average pre-1956 local authority house, the rental was £30 a year. Do not let us forget that that

  1435
  figure was then the valuation for rating purposes. The Secretary of State then decided that the local authority tenant should pay owners' rates, and owners' rates on such a house were considered to be £14 a year. So the Secretary of State took £14 off the rent and brought it down to £16, and said: "You will still pay the £30 a year, but the £14 owners' rates will not be called rent any more."
  The right hon. Gentleman rambles about the country and says these things. Imagine the feelings of these respectable town councillors who have never had any kind of criticism and who have had nothing but commendation for their splendid housing schemes in their areas. One of them was even the subject of a document which was sent round to all local authorities as illustrating the way in which housing should be planned and developed. Then it is indicated to the tenants that they are being charged only £16 rent for their local authority house, whereas the figure was £30.
  What actually happened? It is time hon. Members on both sides of the House realised that this was a very clever confidence trick. I admit that something needed to be done about rating and valuation, but instead of the Government doing it, and taking to themselves any ignominy for any injury that might result, they have done it in this way. They have said to the local authorities, "Your rents are too low and you must put them up." The poor local authority tenant is still paying £30 in rent for the house, and these tenants do not understand. They are not politicians like the Secretary of State for Scotland. As for the local authorities, they landed themselves in a morass of difficulties, because of having to put up the rents. I wish the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) were in his place now, because he talked about too low rents, and the point was made perfectly clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson).
  Therefore, I should like the Secretary of State to understand that in the case of the houses about which I am talking—those with the so-called £16 rental—the local authority has now increased the rental to £36, and the tenants last
  1436
  year paid a total amount of rates and rent of £55 15s. In the current year, 1961–62, despite the fact that the rates have been reduced from 26s. 6d. under revaluation to 20s. 3d., rent and rates paid by a local authority tenant are now £74 9s. 6d. That illustrates the trend of what is happening in Scotland. It is a fairly hefty increase, and I do not think that anything so disheartening to any town councillors as what has been said by the Secretary of State should have happened. That is on the record at last.
  Mr. Maclay: Far be it from me to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I have been wondering whether we were in Wonderland, except that I would not accuse either the hon. Gentleman or myself of being Alice. He was saying the most surprising things. What happened before 1956 was that nobody had any idea what they were paying in rent, because they were paying rent plus an element of rates, and it was only after 1956 that people realised what the true rent was.
  Mr. Manuel: That is not quite right. I was treasurer of a burgh for a time. In that rental of £30 it is true that there was an element of owners' rates, but the general revenue rate was applied to the occupier distinctly. There was no question of a mix up. We knew the element of rates in the £30. There is no confusion unless the Secretary of State is confused.
  Despite the fact that the Secretary of State tried to play this down when I made an interjection in his speech, I am rather concerned about Clause 8. He is taking great new powers such as no Secretary of State has had before. The Clause says:
  "The Secretary of State may from time to time by order direct that, in respect of approved houses of any description specified in the order, or such houses in any area so specified, exchequer subsidies under this Part of this Act—

  (a) shall cease to be payable, or

  (b) shall be reduced to such amount as may be specified in the order, or

  (c) shall be payable for such reduced number of years as may be so specified."

  This is a deplorable departure from accepted practice. I want to underline what I said in my interjection. I am sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), because

  1437
  of his local authority background, will support me. We must have regard to the impact of interest charges on a debt which is piling up over fifty or sixty years.
  If local authorities are taking on contracts to erase from town space bad housing conditions, they should at least know the size of the rate burden they are carrying. If we are faced with the situation in which they pay interest on money borrowed for houses at 7 per cent. over sixty years and the Secretary of State says that at any time over ten years he can do away with the subsidy, we shall be in a very difficult position to make any real progress.
  In Clause 29 the Secretary of State is also taking great new powers which will give him mandatory authority to fix rents where he thinks fit. He will tell me that that is to be done after inquiry, but it still gives him power to do so where he thinks fit. I think these Clauses 8 and 29 are an insult to the integrity and intelligence of local authorities. In the description of the burgh which I gave is the trend which has been present in recent years among many local authorities It has been to tackle these rent problems realistically. Now the Secretary of State brings in mandatory powers to force them to do this when they were moving along very nicely. There may be a few who have not done so, but his inquiries could have cleared that up without these great powers.
  I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton was wrong to remind the right hon. Gentleman of his speech on behalf of local authorities in the past. That speech was not the only instance. We can remember his speeches about giving greater power to local authorities and to the effect that the man in Whitehall does not know best. Nor does the man in St. Andrew's House know best, but here the man in Whitehall suggests that he knows best. The right hon. Gentleman was making those speeches in his flightier days when he lived on the East Coast. No doubt the breezes there inspired him to make more pithy speeches and he said things which gave rise to very keen situations in this House during the period of the Labour Government.
  Now he has burned all that and it is behind him. I am convinced that
  1438
  Whitehall does not know best in these things. Looking at the long-term plan of the Government, it appears that they are to take more and more power from local authorities while at the same time making local authorities find more and more money from ratepayers and less from Government sources. When this Bill becomes an Act, will it be used to enable more houses to be built in Scotland? I think that fewer will be built. I am fortified in that belief by the White Paper, Cmnd. 1522, in which it is shown that the provision for housing investment in 1962–63 is being cut by £1 million. That must mean that fewer houses will be built.
  I think that the saddest feature of this Bill is the lack of trust shown in our Scottish local authorities. Local authority people are tending to become disheartened. I appeal to the Secretary of State when we reach the Committee stage to amend the Bill and to strengthen the powers of local authorities, not weaken them and treat them like school children who must be kept to the straight and narrow path of moral rectitude in financial matters.
  8.7 p.m.
  Mr. Forbes Hendry: Now that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has achieved his ambition of getting the Contents of his notes on the record, I wish to refer to the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. J. Bennett.) I have listened to a number of maiden speeches, but I do not think I have ever heard one so modestly and capably delivered and characterised by such sincerity. I felt that he was speaking from the heart. Hon. Members who were present had a model from him of how speeches should be delivered if they are to be effective.
  I have to contrast his modesty and sincerity with the speeches made by other hon. Members opposite. The difference was incredible.
  Mr. Manuel: Did the hon. Member say insincerity?
  Mr. Hendry: I did not say "insincerity". I said I was contrasting the hon. Member's speech with others made by hon. Members opposite. I did not say "insincerity", far be it from me. What we have had from other hon.

  1439
  Members opposite has been pretty good constituency stuff which people in Scotland will read in the newspapers. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire has spoken about whether this Bill will lead to any more houses being built in Scotland. That, of course, is not what the Bill is for at all.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Member is being honest.
  Mr. Dempsey: Now the hon. Member has let the cat out the bag.
  Mr. Hendry: It is not the Secretary of State who builds houses nor the local authorities who build houses. The building industry builds houses. What the Bill is trying to do is to provide a series of priorities and to clear up a thorough mess. I was extremely interested to read in the People on Sunday something about the building of houses. The People is not a paper notably in favour of the policies emanating from the present Government. In fact, it is very much inclined to favour the policy pursued by hon. Members opposite. On Sunday it had a heading:
  "London's Record—a Disgrace to Britain".
  It gave in large letters the names of the two men it blamed, and also published pictures of them—the chairman of the London County Council and the head of the housing committee. These are not particularly notable hon. Members of the Tory Party.
  Mr. Dempsey: What has that got to do with this Bill?
  Mr. Hendry: It has a lot to do with it, for the building industry and not the local authorities build houses, and the Secretary of State is trying to get the priorities in the right places.
  Mr. Dempsey: Who lets the contracts to build houses if not the local authorities?
  Mr. Hendry: If the hon. Gentleman will finish making remarks I can get on with my speech. This Bill provides evidence of great political courage on the part of the Secretary of State. It shows a spirit of endurance and doggedness which has characterised him for many years. Hon. Members opposite must be aware that if I think
  1440
  the occasion demands I will criticise my right hon. Friend, but in this case 1 give honour where honour is due. I have always said that the Secretary of State has remarkable political courage, and he is certainly showing it in this Bill.
  My right hon. Friend is letting the fair wind of commonsense blow into the jungle which has grown up in Scotland around rents of private, municipal and all other houses. He is taking some steps—possibly not many—along the road to removing Scotland from the horrible position it is in at the moment of being the laughing-stock of the world.
  Mr. Dempsey: After ten years of Toryism.
  Mr. Hendry: I am not exaggerating the position when I say that. It stems from a legacy of years past, but Conservative Governments in the last ten years have shown what the position is and have attempted to clear it up.
  Mr. Dempsey: And now we are the worst-housed country in the world.
  Mr. Hendry: In the last two years I have taken a particular interest in this matter. On 5th April, 1960, I raised the question of houses in Dunbartonshire being let for 2s. 10d. a week. At that time I got a rather dusty answer from my right hon. Friend, but I focussed that disgraceful situation in the Press in Scotland and, I hope, to some extent in England.
  Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman is not quoting local authority rents, is he?
  Mr. Hendry: I am talking about rents charged in 1960. On 9th March, 1961, I again asked by right hon. Friend what he was proposing to do about 623 temporary houses lot by a Scottish local authority—it was Stirling County Council—at an average weekly rent of 2s. 5d. If these figures did not make Scotland the laughing stock of the country, they should have done. I am proud that my right hon. Friend has had the courage now to seize the bull by the horns—
  Mr. Manuel: The bull is a cow and he is milking it.
  Mr. Hendry: —and take steps to cure this nonsensical situation. The

  1441
  cause of this nonsensical situation in Scotland is the fact that there was an element of rates in rents, and it was not until proper action was taken in 1956 by a Tory Government that the position was brought home to the people of Scotland.
  The Sorn Report made some extraordinary disclosures, particularly about the controlled rents of private houses. It disclosed that there were cases in Scotland where the reduction of owners' rates from the rent payable actually produced a minus quantity.
  Mr. T. Fraser: Impossible.
  Mr. Hendry: No it is not, and the hon. Gentleman will find that what I am saying was the fact if he will cast his mind back to what actually happened.
  In certain circumstances, the 20 per cent, addition and the other additions permitted by the 1920 Act fell to be disallowed, In at least one burgh the owners' rates were as high as 16s. in the £. If my calculations are correct, 20 per cent. remains, and if over 20 per cent. was deducted one was left with less than nothing. Thus a ludicrous position could take place.
  Mr. Dempsey: It is a jigsaw puzzle.
  Mr. Hendry: An hon. Member opposite has already spoken of a situation where the actual ratepayer did not have the faintest idea what he was paying in rent and rates. That position continued until 1960 in Dunbartonshire, when the deficiency in municipal housing caused a charge on the rates of 8s. 10d. in the £. In one of the worst cases in Stirlingshire the actual rate poundage applicable to municipal housing was as high as 13s. 5d. in the £. That was a deplorable state of affairs, and it had to be dealt with.
  Thus, my right hon. Friend made an inquiry into the Dunbartonshire case and ultimately took steps to make Dunbarton County Council raise its rents to a reasonable figure. My right hon. Friend had difficulty in doing this, and hon. Members know well that Dunbartonshire and Glasgow were obviously not carrying out their statutory duties in fixing the rents of their houses. They did not exercise their discretion properly. I believe that they acted in bad faith;
  1442
  they ignored every factor which was essential to be taken into account in deciding the amount of rent to be charged, and obviously some drastic steps had to be taken to bring them to their senses.
  My right hon. Friend did that, despite the difficulties he had in doing so, and as long as even one local authority in Scotland will behave in that way the powers my right hon. Friend is taking in this Bill are more than justified. If I may criticise the Secretary of State in one respect it is that the powers he is seeking are not drastic enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
  Mr. Manuel: What does the hon. Gentleman suggest?
  Mr. Hendry: A rents scheme will be made after an inquiry, but that inquiry must be instituted by someone. My criticism of the Bill is that it does not specify by whom that inquiry is to be instituted. In the case of Dunbartonshire, a number of public-spirited citizens spent a great deal of money, time and energy finding the facts, initiating an inquiry and putting those facts before it. I do not think that it is justifiable that public-spirited citizens should have to go to these extremes, and I should like the Secretary of State to take powers to initiate such an inquiry. It would seem that if local authorities are going to behave in the sort of way I have described the situation is so serious that the powers being taken by my right hon. Friend are not strong enough.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not like this, but in my view the rents of council houses in Scotland have been kept artificially low for political purposes.
  Mr. Manuel: Nonsense.
  Mr. Hendry: It is obvious that that has been done because there is no earthly reason why any local authority should charge absolutely ludicrous rents like 2s. 5d. a week for modern houses.
  Mr. James McInnes: Is the hon. Member suggesting that a Tory-controlled council in Dunbartonshire did this for political purposes?
  Mr. Hendry: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that it was no Tory

  1443
  majority that did this—[Interruption.] He knows full well that the committee that fixed these rents was Labourcontrolled—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  I go as far as to say that I believe that in the matter of council houses there has been absolute corruption of the electorate. In certain counties in Scotland—I need not mention their names, because hon. Members opposite can apply it to their own county or burgh, as the cap fits—more than half the houses are council houses and, obviously, if any candidate in municipal or county council elections shouts from a loudspeaker van, "I am in favour of low council house rents," he is buying votes—
  Mr. Cyril Bence: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned Dunbartonshire a good deal. I do not want to argue with him about Moderates, Independents, Conservatives or others, but the fact is that the affairs of the Dunbartonshire County Council have been controlled, while I have been there, by the Moderates and Independents, whatever their alignment may be—and it was not Labour.
  Hon. Members: Apologise.
  Mr. Hendry: I withdraw not one word of what I have said. In certain parts of Scotland this has been a complete scandal and, in other parts, people have not recognised what the house rents are and what they should be. The average rent of council houses in Scotland is £23 odd a year. Any Englishman, whose average council house rent is £1 a week, would laugh if told that. He would say, "And I thought the Scots were business people!"
  I welcome the powers that my right hon. Friend has taken. The reasoned Amendment refers to discretionary powers. The Bill contains discretionary powers, but the powers that my right hon. Friend is taking are not half enough. I should like to see him be even more severe. I should like him to go to the length of fixing what he considers to be a proper minimum rent for a council house in Scotland—
  Mr. T. Fraser: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will tell the House
  1444
  whether he, through his professional interests or through his family, has any interest in private landlordship?
  Mr. Hendry: I have not mentioned private landlordship. I am speaking of council houses, and I will not have red herrings like that drawn across the trail—[HON. MEMBERS: "Just take the rent."] I suggest that my right hon. Friend might very well have laid down as a suitable standard the gross annual value fixed this year by the local assessor in each local authority area. Personally, I do not think even that is half enough—[Interruption.]—because there are a great many people living in council houses who can very well afford to live elsewhere or pay a proper rent, but that is probably the ideal to work to.
  I have taken the trouble to consult the various local authorities in my constituency, and one of them thinks that that would be a jolly good thing to do. It is rather a pity, however, as my right hon. Friend said, that a good local authority which takes a sensible point of view should be forced to lose its discretionary power because of the black sheep among local authorities—
  Mr. T. Fraser: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the latest rent return, the small Burgh of Huntly, which I believe is in his constituency, has an average council house rent of £17 12s. 5d., when the average for all the burghs is £23 8s.? Will he tell us whether these amounts are fixed by the town clerk of Huntly for political purposes so that the electors have been corrupted like so many others?
  Mr. Hendry: The hon. Gentleman's information is not quite up to date. He should know that the Burgh of Huntly has increased its rents since that return.
  It is not my intention to be dictated to by my local authorities. On the other hand, I regard it as my duty as a Member of Parliament, who takes an interest in these things, to advise my local authorities, and that I am ready to do—
  Mr. Willis: But did not the hon. Gentleman accuse them of corruption?
  Mr. Forbes Hendry: I have spoken in the hope of bringing it home to people in Scotland that these rents are absolutely nonsensical. It has taken a great deal of courage on the part of my right hon. Friend to introduce such legislation as this. I am thoroughly glad he has done so, and 1 am perfectly certain that the sincerity and integrity he has shown in facing up to this problem will be to his own benefit in the long run.
  Leaving municipal houses for a moment, I want to quote from a letter from one of my own constituents who owns a privately-owned house. He says:
  "… my tenant is a railwayman … and for six rooms I am allowed to charge £13 13s 4d. per annum as rent."
  That is 5s. a week for six rooms. It is true that the house does not have modern conveniences, but how can a landlord who is a working man provide modern conveniences when he receives such a rent—
  Mr. Manuel: What are the rates?
  Mr. Hendry: The gross annual value of that house, as settled by the assessor, is £30. If the assessor says that a reasonable rent for that house is £30 there is no reason why the man should not be allowed to charge it. I join my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) in his plea to my right hon. Friend to go further by fixing proper rents for privately-owned houses as well. My right hon. Friend promised to do that before, and I suggest that it was contrary to the party's manifesto not to do this. It is not a question of releasing any house from control but of giving effect to a proper adjustment of rent, which was dealt with only in an interim way in 1957.
  This is a matter of very great importance. In my constituency it is very common to find that proper rents are not allowed to be charged for privately-owned houses. I would remind my right hon. Friend that a jobbing plumber charges 9s. 1d. an hour. That is what it costs if one wants to change a washer on a tap, plus the cost of the washer, and it is absolutely impossible to pay out very often from such ludicrously low rents as I have mentioned.
  In England, the landlord is allowed to charge twice the annual gross value as
  1446
  fixed in 1939. In Scotland, we have new gross values based on the fair rent in 1961, and I ask my right hon. Friend to think along those lines.
  I wish to mention the question of privately-owned houses in connection with the slum problem. As I said at the beginning, it is the intention of the Bill to get the priorities right, and every hon. Member knows full well that one great priority in Scotland is to get rid of the slums. I dislike the use of the word "slum", because a slum is not a house; a slum is something which a house comes to be. I ask my right hon. Friend to give thought to the reason why many substantial properties become slums, or what I prefer to call deficient houses.
  Mr. Manuel: Houses unfit for human habitation, which is the definition in the Act.
  Mr. Hendry: Many could be made fit for human habitation.
  I express sorrow that my right hon. Friend has tried in the Bill to short-circuit the procedure to deal with such houses. It would be much more useful to encourage local authorities to deal with that type of house under the present procedure, to give teeth to the present procedure and to make sure that local authorities exercise it. My right hon. Friend has gone a long way to bring houses up to a proper state.
  Mr. Dempsey: How many houses does the hon. Member own?
  Mr. Hendry: I own one private house—the house in which I live.
  I ask my right hon. Friend to give serious consideration to increasing his public relations organisation to persuade local authorities to get on with the reconstruction of many old houses. This is often a task not so much for private enterprise as for local authorities. If my right hon. Friend goes to the burgh of Denny and Dunipace he will see what has been done there by the town council, which took a block of old property, some good and some not good, and reconstructed it into one unit. That policy has not been followed to any extent by local authorities in other towns, and I ask my right hon. Friend to take steps to make known to local authorities the advantage which there

  1447
  is in doing that sort of thing. Although it does not say so in the White Paper or the Bill, it remains the position that if a local authority takes steps along these lines the subsidy will be neither £12 nor £32 but one half of the estimated annual loss. That is very important for a local authority. I ask my right hon. Friend to suggest to local authorites that this is a very good way of dealing with an extremely difficult problem throughout Scotland.
  Turning to the question of subsidies, there is a great deal of dismay on the part of local authorities generally, and particularly in my part of Scotland, which regard themselves as canny and careful. It would be very useful if my right hon. Friend explained, possibly by means of regional conferences of local authorities, what is his purpose and what he expects them to do. He is trying to bring housing in Scotland into a sensible situation, and if that is properly explained to local authorities, I believe that they will agree to co-operate with him along these lines.
  Undoubtedly there are a number of points in the Bill which can be improved in Committee, and I will reserve comments for then. I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that. Many of the points could, however, be dealt with by better public relations and better explanations to local authorities. In principle, however, the Bill is the work of far-sighted statesmanship and an example of political courage, strength and determination. I say that deliberately.
  Mr. Dempsey: Onward Christian soldiers, on.
  Mr. Hendry: My right hon. Friend has undoubtedly weighed the possibility of immediate unpopularity against ultimate good. He is looking at Scotland through the eyes of a statesman. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh as much as they like, but if they think about this they will back him in what he is doing. I ask him to go on with his job not only of clearing slums but of preventing the formation of more slums. We in Scotland have a reputation for independence. Houses must be paid for, and if the people in Scotland can afford to pay for them, they should do so. If they can-
  1448
  not, then, as my right hon. Friend says, they can get rebates. If the Bill is put into operation it will go a very long way not only towards clearing up this horrible mess but towards getting things in Scotland in perspective and ultimately getting Scotland proud of itself, with a proper standard of housing.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: I have been amazed by what we have heard in this debate on the Housing (Scotland) Bill. First we were told by the right hon. Gentleman that this is a Measure to deal with a housing situation in Scotland which is unsatisfactory, and that it would help him to so finance housing that there would be an extension of housebuilding in Scotland. Subsequently, however, we were told that this Bill had nothing to do with increasing the supply of houses. It has been obvious from the debate that there is only one motive for the Bill. That motive is, by the processes which have been going on since 1951, to bring the housing of the people, any sort of people, once again into the commercial field of investment. That is what the Government want to do. That is why we cannot get an answer to the question: what is a fair rent for a house?
  The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) congratulated his right hon. Friend on establishing a rent approximately equal to the gross annual value, but when he was challenged as to what the rent should be, although he had congratulated his right hon. Friend, he said that it ought to be twice as much, because that would be nearer the rent figure for commercial investment in speculative building. This is another stage in trying to get houses back into the commercial field. I do not think that will ever be done again in any industrial society. The time for private enterprise, whether by commercial finance or by private building, has gone.
  Apart from the building of luxury service flats outside the centres of industrial cities, I do not believe that in the rural districts and provinces of the industrial areas the provision of houses will ever again be a commercial investment. It certainly has not been since 1919. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not of houses to let."] That is what I mean by commercial investment. There is not one

  1449
  contractor in this country who could build a house at a reasonable price and sell it at a profitable figure if it were not for the building societies providing the finance. I do not think that solicitors could arrange the necessary mortgages to satisfy the demand for houses.
  What is the position down South? I read in the report of a building society, of which I am a member, that because of the rent situation in London, and the pushing up of rents, the demand on the building societies in the Home Counties by people who want to buy houses has gone up to such an extent that the building societies can no longer find the funds. Because of the high interest rates, they cannot attract money into the societies. Everything that has been done by the Government makes the financing of houses more difficult every year. The building societies are in such a position now that their liquidity is not sufficient for the whole of the financing that is required. They have had, almost, to lay down a rule that unless a man has regular employment and almost a guarantee of regular employment and has over £1,000 a year they are very reluctant to finance his buying a house.
  The Government have been preaching, at least since the war, that they wanted to encourage home ownership but what they are in fact doing by high interest rates is to compel people not to go in for home ownership. A Conservative council in my area had a man on its housing list for nine years. He was a professional man with an income of over £1,000 a year and a secure position. In my own house one Friday night I convinced him from my own experience as an owner-occupier that he would be better off if he bought a house through his local authority. I told him what to do. I told him about the Treasury Order introduced by hon. Members opposite to enable people to own their own houses. He went to the Tory local authority and saw the provost and the town clerk. Each of them sent him to the other. He told them that he had seen me. They said to him, "It is all right for Bence to talk about that, but we have never done it here". He rang me a fortnight later and said, "As it is such a lot of trouble, they have decided to allocate me a council house". He is now living in a council house. This is nonsense.
  1450
  We hear a lot about owner-occupiers subsidising council tenants. The burgh of Milngavie has a rent scheme under which the people subsidising the low-income groups in council houses are not all the ratepayers. They are the tenants in council houses with good incomes. Therefore, the main contributors to the subsidy to the low-income group occupying council houses are council house tenants. Does the Secretary of State intend to tell the Milngavie Town Council that this is unfair? It is not merely people with high incomes in council houses who should subsidise the low income groups. All the ratepayers should do this, whatever houses they live in.
  It has been argued that the Secretary of State should not use his powers when a local authority is over-charging council house tenants but only when it is under-charging. This is a typical Conservative approach. If anybody is undercharging, put the snoopers in. If anybody is over-charging, take the snoopers away.
  Mr. Willis: Give them a knighthood.
  Mr. Bence: I have read somewhere that the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) is a farmer, so he should be interested in what I am about to say. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) has said that private enterprise should build more houses for letting. Hon. Members opposite talk about subsidies going where they are needed. Private enterprise cannot build a cow shed for cows unless the farmer is given a subsidy. How in the name of fortune will private enterprise build houses for human beings without subsidies if it cannot build cow sheds for cows? Building contractors and financiers cannot build cow byres without the Government paying a subsidy to the farmer, because the farmer cannot afford to pay for them. He might be able to pay for them if he sold his "Jags". I have sometimes been asked what test I would apply before I paid a subsidy to a farmer. I should find out how many cars he had registered for his own pleasure and that of his wife and children.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I hope that the hon. Member will bear in

  1451
  mind that we are discussing the Second Reading of the Housing Bill.
  Mr. Bence: What I am saying has a lot to do with housing. Many farmers could have received grants for building agricultural cottages, but cars are very expensive. They thought that it was better to use their resources on buying cars and give up the idea of trying to get a grant to build cottages for labourers. This is why there are so many bad cottages, as the hon. Member for Galloway knows very well. A farmer does not get a subsidy for putting a roof over a car but he gets one for putting one over a cow. This is the sort of society in which we live. If people were interested in housing human beings and giving them decent homes, they would apply the same principle to housing the people as they apply when they decide to equip our policemen and our soldiers whom they ask to defend us. We should cut out all this nonsense of financing housing in the way we do.
  Let us finance the housing of the people through the Ministry of Housing. Let us have a capital sum below the line. In a few years, it will be self-financing. Let us cut out all the nonsense about interest rates. Let us house our people in the way we equip them when we go to war. That is the way to do it. We should not dream of having Measures of this sort if we had to equip our people to defend the country; we should lose the war before we started it if we did. That is why we are losing the war against bad housing, because we are fiddling about with financial principles, pandering to the moneylenders, pandering to the principle of usury. Physically, we can house our people. But, because of the sacrosanct laws of the moneylenders and bankers, we say we cannot do it. It is utter nonsense, and, to my mind, all this is a waste of time because in a few years we shall have to have another Bill because we shall have failed again.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. Does he not agree that our financing of the new towns is done on the basis he advocates?
  Mr. Bence: The arrangements for the new towns are a sort of compromise. I am fed up with compromise on this matter. I was in Bridgeton in Glasgow not long ago. When I went home I was more depressed than I have ever been in my life. In the second half of the twentieth century there are people living in conditions worse than those I remember from 1910. We have had about three housing Measures since I have been in the House.
  Mr. Willis: Four, or more.
  Mr. Bence: I am getting older and my memory is going. I am becoming so depressed about our housing conditions that I cannot recall things right.
  Mr. Hendry: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that his Government produced a major housing Measure in 1950 but failed to produce the houses?
  Miss Margaret Herbison: We produced far more houses than the Government are doing this year.
  Mr. Bence: When the war ended, those of us who wanted new houses realised very well that, if this country was to get itself on its feet and if we were to repair all the war damage, we should have to wait a little longer for houses. There was so much work to be done in order that we might earn our own living in the world that we had to wait a little while. Everything could not be done at once. I remember hon. Members opposite saying in those days that the Labour Government were trying to do too much for the people. Now, after ten years of being in power, this Government have done—I was going to use a word which would have been out of order—an awful lot too little, and not because the physical resources were not there but because they are all schizophrenics. They want commercial satisfaction, but they are afraid to retreat too far.
  I have this question to put to the Secretary of State. Under the Bill, he has statutory power to take action if a local authority fixes rents in a scheme which he regards as unjust. I use the word "unjust". A local authority could fix a rent which was really unjust to many tenants—I do not say to all tenants but to a large minority of the tenants. The sum total of the rent income from

  1453
  the authority's houses could be a splendid sum, making the whole scheme almost economic. However, having regard to the injustice that that rent scheme imposed upon a minority of citizens of the burgh within the housing scheme, would the right hon. Gentleman take power to force the local authority so to adjust its rent scheme that that injustice was removed? That is what we want to know. We know that he will act if the rent is too low, but will he act when it is too high for people whose incomes are such that they cannot afford to pay it? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Will the right hon. Gentleman use this power to act when an injustice is being done as well as when a local authority is helping to increase the revenues of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the expense of the working population?
  I now wish to refer to a point which was raised by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns. I think he said that between 1938 and 1951 earnings in Scotland had increased by 220 per cent. and that the increase in England and Wales during a similar period was 160 per cent. He also said that rents in Scotland had increased by only 70 per cent. whereas in England they had increased by 200 per cent. I am sick and tired of hearing this. I have heard it so many times. I remember a tenant telling me that some costs that she had to bear had been increased by 400 per cent. I asked, "What used you to pay?" She said, "Threepence". A business man in Clydebank used to give the office boy 3d. as a tip. Now he gives him a shilling. Therefore, the tip has increased by 400 per cent.
  Anyone who knows anything about industry in the United Kingdom knows that in 1938 the wages of light engineering workers in the Midlands and the Home Counties were about 2½ times as great as the average engineering worker's income in Scotland. When I packed in my job at the British Motor Corporation, I obtained a smiliar job in Scotland for half the wages, although there had been a 220 per cent. increase. I am sure that on the income which I was receiving I could not pay the rent that the Secretary of State expects people to pay. So let us have less of this nonsense of comparing percentage
  1454
  increases as between England and Scotland. The wage of Scottish workers in 1938 was a disgrace and it was almost impossible for any man to raise a family and to pay a fair rent at the same time. Workers today do not pay the rent that we used to pay. Historically, employers in Scotland built the houses for their employees. They said to their employees, "You can live in a house for 2s. a week. We will employ you at 30s. a week and make £3 out of it." In England, speculative builders build the houses.
  It is no good asking the Secretary of State to withdraw the Bill. We know darned well that he will not do that. But I hope that those who consider the Bill in Committee will do everything in their power to destroy Clause 290.
  Mr. Hannan: I am following my hon. Friend's remarks with great interest. Since we have a wage pause, does he not think that we should also have a rent pause?
  Mr. Bence: I am one of those who have felt for a long time that, in the interests of the producers in this country, the Government should introduce a wage freeze, or, as I would call it, an income freeze. I would freeze the incomes of the stockbrokers, the moneylenders and the owners of land. I would wipe out the Clause in the Bill under which, even though the landowners can get a fancy price for their land, we the taxpayers have to pay them a subsidy through the local authority. I would freeze the monkeys' incomes. I take strong exception as a taxpayer to paying subsidies to people who own things and can blackmail us into paying a hell of a price for them.
  This is a shocking situation. We are subsidising all sorts of people who do not produce anything. They merely cause a lot of trouble for the rest of us. We should have had a freeze on the incomes of landowners and moneylenders. What their contribution to society is, I should like to know. As an engineer, I could never understand why, with all our steel and raw material, we could not produce anything unless the moneylender said so. I should have thought that the moneylender could not live unless we produced the food, clothing and shelter for him.

  1455
  It seems to me that we cannot do anything with this person whom we call the moneylender. The Bill patronises him. It will force up rents and make local authorities pay high prices for land. A figure of £1,000 an acre is mentioned. The people who make the money from it are often not the people who have done the work on it.
  An hon. Friend of mine told me of the landowner who, before giving permission for a business to be established on his estate, required 33⅓ per cent. of the profits without putting in any of the money. He is prepared to let a business man build up a business on his estate and to pay an annual feu of 1s. or so, provided that the owner of the business hands over 33⅓ per cent. of the profits. I would rather go out of business than submit to this kind of blackmail.
  I am sorry to see that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber. We are sick and tired that people living in the slums of Glasgow, those living in council houses in Milngavie, those who moved from Glasgow to Kirkintilloch and the people of Clydebank, many of whom, especially widows and pensioners, live in these slum houses at these so-called low rents, find on their transfer to new houses that the reduction in their material standards is terrific because the rent for them is so high.
  When I hear the right hon. Gentleman pay what I call nothing more than lip-service to these things and the need to get on with rehousing our people, I know very well that all the forces are arrayed to prevent and frustrate the solution of the problem of housing our people, and housing them in a way whereby all of them pay rents of such a nature that the income which is left to them permits them to enjoy what a scientific and technological civilisation can give them.
  I give the Under-Secretary this reminder about hardship. I said it at a public meeting last week. Twenty years ago, it was a hardship if a woman's gas cooker was out of action and she had to cook on the fire. Today, it is a hardship for the young woman with a family who does not have a washing machine. The conception of hardship should rise as we improve our techniques and produce more and more. In terms of the
  1456
  present-day society, any person who cannot have and enjoy what modern science and technology can provide in the way of a refrigerator, a washing machine or a television set is suffering hardship. I hope that this will be kept in mind when we get the next Bill to succeed this one after it has failed.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. McInnes.
  Mr. Harry Gourlay: On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether due notice has been taken of the fact that no hon. Member on this side of the House representing the eastern areas of Scotland has been called to take part in the debate? While there is a housing problem in Glasgow, there is no reason why hon. Members from the east of Scotland should not have had an opportunity to speak about their housing problems.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I very much regret that a number of hon. Members, on both sides of the House, have not had an opportunity to speak. The reason is that if speeches are very long, there is time for fewer of them. That has been our experience today.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. James McInnes: This has been an exceedingly good debate and it has provided us with the opportunity to highlight many aspects of the housing problem which concerns us in Scotland. Many constructive suggestions have been advanced, and I trust that the Secretary of State will pay some heed to some of the constructive suggestions which have emanated from this side of the House.
  I associate myself with the congratulations which have been extended to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. J. Bennett) on his excellent maiden speech. It was an informative speech delivered with a great depth of sincerity, and I congratulate him on his performance this afternoon.
  The noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (The Earl of Dalkeith) expressed his intense dissatisfaction with Scotland's housing programme, and I need only say that I entirely agree with him. The Government's record,

  1457
  with the continual decline year after year during the past seven years, is shocking. Between 1953 and 1960, there was a decrease in building of more than 9,000 houses a year—in a country which has perhaps the worst housing record in Western Europe.
  The noble Lord seemed to be some-what disturbed about decontrol and said that he thought that rent control should be abolished so as to enable exchanges to take place, especially among old people. He should realise that decontrol would only cause more difficulty and would enable landlords to increase rentals to any limits, which would be of no advantage to the old people.
  The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) referred to the desirability of building up existing towns on a large scale by the export of Glasgow's overspill to such towns. I entirely agree with his observation.
  This is not a Housing Bill, as it is called, but a rent Bill, or a rent herring Bill. It is a Bill which will not produce another single house in Scotland. Our problem is such that we require more and more houses and the Bill lamentably fails to provide the houses which are so necessary in Scotland.
  Paragraph 3 of the White Paper says that the housing needs of Scotland are still very great. I am glad of this belated admission by the Government. We have a housing problem in Scotland the magnitude of which is unsurpassed by that of any other country of comparable size in Western Europe, and I make no apology for outlining the extent of this problem.
  There are over 200,000 applicants on local authority waiting lists, of which over 40,000 are homeless. We have the problem of approximately 300,000 slum houses, and the great overspill problem of Glasgow which is to export 300,000 of its population to other parts of Scotland. This is the problem, ugly in its nature, and soul-destroying in its effect, and I can find no proposal in the Bill Which will expedite the solution of it.
  Most of my hon. Friends, and many hon. Gentlemen opposite, have dealt with the default procedure for dealing with local authorities who fail to carry out their obligations in regard to the fixing
  1458
  of rents. The Secretary of State for Scotland has taken unto himself the right to make a rent scheme for all or any houses under the management of a local authority. This proposal is a complete repudiation of the demands and sentiments so often expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. On numerous occasions their attitude has been that the maximum amount of freedom, liberty, and independence must be given to local authorities in running their affairs.
  Indeed, the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) once said:
  "I take the view, … that local authorities ought to be regarded as responsible citizens and bodies, and that they should be free to maintain the dignity, integrity, and good order of their burghs without interference from Whitehall, or St. Andrew's House, …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 28th November, 1950; c. 1768.]
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has obviously changed his mind very quickly indeed on this matter, for as recently as 4th July last, speaking on rents, he said:
  "Some authorities have taken action, but many authorities have still a long way to go before their rents become realistic. Although I appreciate that all this will take time, I have no intention of relaxing pressure to try to achieve higher rents all over Scotland. I am certain that in the end good sense will prevail, and I do not think that any hon. Member would wish to argue that the general responsibility for fixing rents should be taken out of the hands of the local authority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 4th July, 1961; c. 17.]
  It is abundantly clear to me that, once the right hon. Gentleman makes up his mind, no power on earth can make him stick to his decision.
  This is supposed to be a Housing Bill. I want to quote from paragraph 8 of the White Paper. It says:
  "There is, therefore, an urgent need to stimulate further progress by private enterprise in Scotland, and it is one of the objects of the Government's housing policy to do this…"
  That sentence reveals that private enterprise has gone out of business in house-building in Scotland.
  It is worth recalling why it has gone out of business. The history of the matter began no less than fifty years ago. In 1911 the Government appointed a Royal Commission to go into the whole question of the housing of the

  1459
  working classes in Scotland. The Commission sat for six years, and issued its Report in 1917. It said that it found:
  "…gross overcrowding and huddling of the sexes together in the congested industrial villages and towns."
  We still have it today, fifty years later. It also referred to a
  "widespread absence of decent sanitary conveniences"
  whole townships unfit for human habitation, and clotted masses of great slums in our city. It said that all the troubles it had been investigating were due to the failure of private enterprise to provide and maintain houses in quantity and quality. It was driven to the conclusion that the sources and forces that were then available had failed to provide anything like a sufficiency of houses and that in particular they had failed to provide houses of a reasonable standard of accommodation and habitation. It therefore recommended that the State should put on to the local authorities the responsibility for seeing that sufficient houses were built. It said that the Government should, from central sources, provide the funds necessary to make up the inevitable difference between the economic rent of the houses and the actual rents obtained by the local authority.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to the next part. The Commission went on to say that it was opposed, taking into account the behaviour of the builders, the landlords and the landowners in the past, to any attempt to get private enterprise to tackle the job even with the aid of subsidies. That Royal Commission certainly did not mince its words. I hope that the Secretary of State will have some regard to it, because it is akin to the situation confronting us today.
  Mr. Maclay: I missed the date of the Report referred to by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. McInnes: It is the Report of the Ballantyne Commission which was appointed in 1911 and reported in 1917. Let me tell the Minister that it is worth while reading.
  I regret that the Secretary of State has made no provision in this Bill, which he calls a Housing Bill, for dealing with
  1460
  landlords and property owners who deliberately keep rented houses unoccupied in order to sell them. I remember vividly, as no doubt will my hon. Friends, that during the proceedings on the Rent Act we were told by the right hon. Gentleman in no uncertain terms that the Act would create a greater pool of houses for letting than ever before. Let us see what has happened and take the example of the City of Glasgow. I apologise for doing so, because I think that Glasgow has been over-emphasised in this debate.
  In 1956, before the introduction of the Rent Act, there were 2,953 unoccupied houses in the city. In 1960, three years after the Rent Act had been in operation—the Act which was to create this greater pool of houses for renting—we discover that the total number of unoccupied houses in Glasgow at Whitsun, 1960, was 4,356. As I have already indicated, these houses are held unoccupied by the landlords so that they may be sold to the get-rich-quick speculators who in turn let rooms to families who, unhappily, can find no other accommodation in the city.
  Mr. T. Fraser: This is private enterprise.
  Mr. McInnes: I am still dealing with private enterprise to convince the right hon. Gentleman of the unwisdom of the contents of his own Bill.
  In Burnbank Gardens, Glasgow, off the Great Western Road which the right hon. Gentleman will know, six houses were let to accommodate thirty-seven families. In the same area two adults and nine children occupy a single apartment. These rooms are rented by the get-rich-quick speculators at 27s. 6d. to 35s. 6d. a week, and this takes place in a city which has 25,000 homeless people and 120,000 people on the council's waiting list. The right hon. Gentleman tolerates it and takes no action about it.
  Why does not he take any action? I find that in the housing legislation relating to England the Minister of Housing and Local Government has made provision for dealing with a some what similar situation existing in England and Wales, and particularly in London. I wish to quote from the

  1461
  White Paper which was issued in connection with that legislation:
  "One of the most acute housing problems still left is the multi-occupation by families or lodgers of many large houses designed originally for use by single families. There has been no proper conversion, and the houses are without adequate cooking or sanitary facilities for the numbers now living in them. Often as a result the houses are decaying and the living conditions are disgusting.
  Such houses are mainly to be found in large cities.… Structurally, they may still be sound, but they have been made squalid by over-occupation. The living conditions in property of this sort are often far worse than in many of the outworn small houses occupied by a single family which are, rightly, having to be pulled down as slums."
  If the English Minister can take action to remedy that situation in England and Wales, why cannot the Secretary of State for Scotland make a somewhat similar provision in this Bill, so that it might put an end to this ruthless exploitation of an elementary need?
  Mr. J. A. Stodart: It is my recollection—I am speaking from memory and I may be incorrect about this—that in my early days as a Member of this House, I had a complaint exactly on these grounds from Edinburgh. I discovered then that the local authority, certainly in Edinburgh, has complete powers to deal with this situation, and I imagine that the same would apply in Glasgow.
  Mr. McInnes: The hon. Member's early days are far beyond me.
  Surely the Secretary of State will now make up his mind to take action on this matter. He is due to take action some time. He is entitled to take action against property owners in Scotland, because, after all, he has introduced more legislation beneficial to private landlordism than any other Minister in history. We have had the Housing (Rent and Repairs) Act, the Rating and Valuation Act and the Rent Act, and the Government have also introduced standard grants and discretionary grants. In paragraph 11 of the White Paper there is specific mention of the provision of discretionary and standard grants, and it indicates that in Scotland advantage is not being take of these grants.
  May I indicate to the right hon. Gentleman that in Glasgow there are almost 170,000 privately-rented houses to which these grants apply? I am sure
  1462
  that the right hon. Gentleman will be greatly encouraged to know the way in which the landlords and property owners of Glasgow have responded to these provisions for standard grants and discretionary grants. There has been one application from a landlord, as distinct from an owner-occupier, for a standard grant—one application from all the landlords who own the 170,000 houses in Glasgow. Regarding discretionary grants, applications covering eighteen houses have been received from landlords. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will express his gratitude to the landlord who applied for the standard grant.
  Above all, and no matter which way we look at the housing problem, I consider that the greatest deterrent to the building of houses is high interest rates. The Secretary of State today in his opening speech said that he did not desire to deal with the question of high interest rates. What a dodger he is.
  I have had this worked out by the city chamberlain in Glasgow. Today a house costing £2,200 with interest charges at 5 per cent. would involve an annual outlay by the local authority of £116 for the repayment of loan and interest and £11 for repairs and management, a total of £127 per year for sixty years.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. McInnes: No, I am sorry, I cannot.
  Assuming that we increased the present rent level in Scotland by 150 per cent., that is, from £22 10s. to £56—which is even higher than the figure the right hon. Gentleman suggested—and assuming that the Exchequer subsidy amounted to £32 as provided for in this Bill, there would be an annual income of £88 as against an outlay of £127. Local authorities, therefore, are taking 150 per cent. increase in present levels and, taking this "attractive" subsidy—at least the right hon. Gentleman considers it attractive—into account, they are faced with a deficit of £39 per annum for sixty years. That is a total over sixty years of £2,340.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. McInnes: I have far too much good stuff to get over yet.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: The hon. Member will not listen to the truth.
  Mr. McInnes: I am not compelling the hon. Lady to listen. She could be better employed no doubt.
  Under this Bill the Secretary of State takes power to reduce or abolish subsidies after a period of ten years. This introduces an element of considerable uncertainty and could well cause a local authority to think twice before letting itself in for a heavy burden of loan charges.
  All this arises from the fact that the Government persist in the use of the monetary weapon, the Bank Rate. They persist in using the Bank Rate to regulate the course of the country's economy. Why, I have never been able to understand. By so doing they place an intolerable burden on local authorities, a burden which is a national responsibility. Why do the Government not use the Budget or another economic weapon such as taxation to deal with the regulating of the country's economy? I am afraid that if they were to adopt the budgetary method or the method of raising taxation, the country would realise that they "have never had it so bad".
  I reiterate what I said earlier: this Bill will not assist local authorities to solve Scotland's housing difficulties. It will do nothing to add even one more house. It is a mean, miserable and mournful Measure, unworthy of the Secretary of State, and we shall register our protest by dividing against its Second Reading.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I must begin my speech by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. J. Bennett) on his maiden speech. I certainly would not have had the nerve to make my maiden speech the day after I had taken my seat. Although he is a very new Member, he acquitted himself very well. He made a good speech, one that was to the point and short. I hope that we shall hear a lot of him in the
  1464
  future and that he will not pick up from his hon. Friends, any bad habits, such as the long rambling speeches which they often inflict upon us in the Scottish Commitee.
  Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman will be sorry for that.
  Mr. Galbraith: It is customary in winding up to say that we have had a good and interesting debate.
  Mr. Willis: From this side.
  Mr. Galbraith: Unfortunately, I find myself immediately having to cross swords on this very point with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes). I must confess that it has been rather a disappointing debate, not so much for what has been said or the criticisms that have been made, but for the basically unconstructive, unimaginative approach of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Indeed, many of them have scarcely dealt with the Bill at all.
  I should have liked to have an indication from them of the points they dislike so that I could have done my homework before the Committee stage. Last Session the English had a somewhat similar Bill and an Amendment was put down to it which contained some of the criticisms in the Scottish Amendment. But the English Amendment at least had the grace to recognise that the Bill introduced some improvements. There is no recognition of that in the Amendment now before us.
  I admit that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) had one or two kind things to say, for which I am grateful. The terms of the Amendment, however, are utterly irrelevant to the solution of the housing problem in Scotland. Accept the lot of them and it would bring no improvement, no vast increase in the number of houses being built.
  I should now like to say a word on the matter of interest rates which has excited a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. This is a hoary old chestnut which the Opposition persist in regarding as a hot potato.
  Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman is getting his vegetables mixed up.
  Mr. Galbraith: If one looks at the interest charged in relation to one particular house and makes the sort of calculation that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) made, it amounts to a substantial figure. But to look at the problem in that way represents an outmoded attitude, like so much of the thought of the party opposite on housing matters. Local authorities are well aware that if they spread the load and pool their resources they will find that the high interest rate is no deterrent to continued building. It is simply tilting at windmills to suggest that the level of interest rates is a serious deterrent.
  Last week, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire asked me a Question—and I apologise for not being present when he spoke tonight—
  Mr. William Ross Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)rose—
  Mr. Galbraith: No, I cannot give way. I have a great dead to get through —and in not giving way I take my lead from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central.
  Last week, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire asked about the number of local authorities which during each of the last four years had not had any houses under construction. My reply showed that this year there were fewer authorities not building than in either of the past two years. It is the case that of those that were not building only ten—and those ten were very small burghs—out of a total of 231 local housing authorities in Scotland had indicated that it was for financial reasons that they were not going ahead with building.
  Let us look at the situation in Glasgow. Does the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central, with his great knowledge of Glasgow, seriously suggest that building in that city, which we both have the honour to represent, has declined by about half over the past five years because of financial difficulties, or uncertainties, or high interest rates? Of course that is not the answer. He knows as well as I do that the reason for the decline is that there is simply not the space to put the houses on. That is why housing has declined in Glasgow. Indeed, the
  1466
  hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston blew the gaff there when he admitted that the reason was not finance.
  If finance were an obstacle, why should the corporation be trying to amend the town development plan in order to allow house building to go on in areas scheduled for open spaces? That is what the hon. Member for Bridgeton told us. But so far from Glasgow being deterred by the so-called financial difficulties which hon. Members opposite imagine exist, the corporation is keen to build houses on any spot it can find—
  Mr. McInnes: I definitely say that finance in Glasgow is a consideration, but the greatest consideration there is the lack of land. The right hon. Gentleman, or his predecessor, was advised in 1952 that Glasgow would be without a single site by 1960, and that is what has happened.
  Mr. Galbraith: That is exactly what I am saying. Interest rates have nothing whatever to do with the biggest housing problem of all in Scotland, and the hon. Gentleman might have admitted that instead of talking of interest rates.
  As for multi-occupation, which is another matter he raised, this is one of those occasions where we have not done what we are always being accused of doing—slavishly following the English. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) rightly suggested, the reason for our decision is that local authorities have existing powers that are adequate to deal with this problem.
  The hon. Member for Shettleston made a very helpful speech this evening. He again let the cat out of the bag, for which I am grateful—
  Sir M. Galpern: The hon. Gentleman has already let one cat out of the bag.
  Mr. Galbraith: Yes, two cats out of one bag—when he said that the problem of housing was largely local. However unpalatable it may be to hon. Members opposite, the truth of the matter is that in many areas the housing problem is practically solved. Indeed, one large burgh in the industrial area has found that the problem of overcrowding in the existing stock of houses could be

  1467
  solved if the town could rearrange its tenants according to the numbers in their families.
  This shows the physical extent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name it."] Yes, I will give the name—it is the Burgh of Paisley —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This shows the physical extent of the success of our housing policy, which only my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) seems to recognise for what it is worth. I did not say anything about slums. I was referring to overcrowding, and if hon. Members look in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow they will find that I referred to overcrowding. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central doubts my word, he will find the word "overcrowding" on my notes.
  But while in some areas the housing problem has been solved, there are, as is recognised in the White Paper, other areas where there is still a massive housing problem to be solved, and that is why the Bill has been introduced —to concentrate in the areas which need it most the help which is given by way of Government subsidy. What is wrong with that? It is what hon. Members opposite are preaching the whole time. They want the wealthy to pay more in order to help the poor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear hon. Members applauding. If that is good philosophy for dealing with individuals, equally it is good philosophy for dealing with local authorities.
  All that we are doing is saying to the local authority with ample resources that it will receive a lower subsidy so that a higher rate of subsidy, up to as much as £56 per house, can be paid to the poorer authority. We are adopting the Socialist maxim of giving to each according to his need. Whatever gloss hon. Members opposite may put upon it, the fact is that if they go into the Lobby tonight against the Bill they will be voting against a Measure conceived in the humanitarian spirit of giving help where it is most needed.
  Turning to the Amendment again, I think that what is worrying hon. Members Opposite most is what they describe, using Parliamentary language, as the "excessive discretionary power" of the Secretary of State, but what, in their more expansive moments, they probably regard
  1468
  as my right hon. Friend's dictatorial powers. This criticism comes strangely from a party which when it was in power, proclaimed in answer to objections, "We are the masters now."
  Mr. W. Hamilton: Who said that?
  Mr. Galbraith: An ex-member of the Labour Party.
  In fact, what do these discretionary powers amount to? First, there is the power to alter the key figure of £60 in the light of changing circumstances. Secondly, after 10 years there is the power to alter the amount and the period of the subsidies granted under the Bill. These may seem pretty wide powers, but the Secretary of State cannot invoke them without first of all obtaining the approval of the House. Strictly, therefore, the Secretary of State has no discretionary powers at all. Any change which he desires will need the authority of the House in the ordinary democratic way before it can be implemented, and there is adequate provision against any improper exercise of his powers. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) believes in counting heads, and that is all that we are doing.
  The reason these provisions have been included in the Bill is that no one can see what the position will be like in 20 years' time, far less in 60 years' time. One has only to think back 60 years to the reign of Queen Victoria to see how utterly ridiculous it is to suggest that the rate of subsidy which was proper then would necessarily be proper today. If, looking backwards, one can recognise this, surely one can appreciate that the same argument applies to the future.
  This is not retrospective legislation as the hon. Member for Hamilton suggested it was. It does not affect subsidies already in existence—it affects only new subsidies payable under this Bill. There is nothing retrospective about it.
  Mr. Ross Mr. Ross rose—
  Mr. Galbraith: I will not give way. A change will be proposed to the House only where there has been such a major alteration in the economic circumstances of the country as to make it unreasonable to maintain the previous rate of subsidy. In those circumstances, the whole basis of housing finance would be altered

  1469
  anyway, and the possibility of a reduction in subsidies ten years from now should not, I suggest, worry local authorities any more than the many other imponderables which inevitably lie ahead and are likely to affect us all in our daily lives. What seems particularly to stick in the gullets of hon. Members opposite is the strengthening of my right hon. Friend's default powers in relation to local authority rents. Yet Clause 29 is not a device to enable my right hon. Friend arbitrarily to raise rents.
  Mr. Manuel: Then what is it?
  Mr. Galbraith: If the hon Gentleman will wait a moment, I will tell him. Rent fixing will normally remain the prerogative of the local authorities, which are the best judges of local conditions. My right hon. Friend cannot just instruct a local authority to implement what he considers to be a fair and reasonable rent scheme. Before my right hon. Friend can do anything under the Bill, there must first of all have been a public inquiry. It is only after the inquiry, when it has been established that the local authority has clearly failed to carry out its duty—it is only after it has been established that it has failed to carry out its duty—that my right hon. Friend can act.
  My right hon. Friend is, after all, the watchdog to see that local authorities carry out their duties. There is nothing new about my right hon. Friend having these default powers. He has always been able to bark; and now this Bill gives him some teeth so that on those few occasions when it may be necessary to do so he can bite as well.
  We on this side of the House have no desire that rents should be high for their own sake. I wish that hon. Gentlemen opposite could get that into their heads. All that we say is that the rent structure should be reasonable and that it should take account of the real increase in wages that has been achieved under a Tory Government during the last ten years. There is nothing unfair about a reasonable rent policy coupled with a rebate scheme. Indeed, this too is based upon one of the favourite socialist maxims—"From each according to his ability"—and that is all my right hon. Friend will ever ask anyone to pay.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: If that is so, why is it that the Bill in framing rent rebate
  1470
  schemes will not allow them as part of the allowable expenditure within the local authorities calculations?
  Mr. Galbraith: I should have thought that it would have been very obvious to the hon. Gentleman why that is so. I do not intend to explain it to him just now. It is sticking out a mile away, but it is a long explanation.
  This more reasonable rent policy, which under my right hon. Friend's influence I am glad to say, more and more local authorities are adopting, will not only be fair as between different types of ratepayers—and this seems to be something which hon. Members opposite always disregard in their calculations—but which will also have the benefit of helping local authorities' finances about which hon. Members opposite are so concerned.
  Where there is a heavy deficit on a local authority housing account, there is bound to be pressure to economise. We have only to look at the poor standard of amenities and lack of adequate landscaping in some housing schemes to see what happens when an unnecessarily low rent policy is pursued. Instead of having any advantage, the tenants suffer because the layout has been skimped and they have to live in unnecessarily drab and desolate surroundings. Furthermore, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, a low level of rents stamps an area as industrially and socially old-fashioned, and expanding industry does not like coming to it. Therefore, it is utter folly for us to perpetuate this set-up when we should be doing everything in our power to attract industry to come to our country.
  Mr. T. Fraser: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that for several years he and his right hon. Friend have been insisting that local authorities should cut out the frills in their housing schemes? Has he not been imposing economies on local authorities to keep down housing costs? Why should he now complain about the plans he imposed on local authorities?
  Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. If he reads my speech he will see what I am getting at.

  1471
  Another advantage of more reasonable rents is that it will encourage the better-off tenant—
  Mr. Willis: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "reasonable"?
  Mr. Galbraith: —If the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper, the Bill and the letter my right hon. Friend has sent to Dunbarton County Council, he will know what we mean by reasonable rents. Another advantage of more reasonable rents is—as I was saying—that this will encourage—this is one of the main purposes—the better-off tenant to leave his council house and provide himself with private accommodation, so making room for those on the waiting list who cannot provide for themselves.
  Clause 11 contains a further encouragement to the better-off tenant who may feel that he ought not to be a council house tenant but who does not feel like buying a house of his own. This clause allows Exchequer advances to be made to housing associations for co-operative ownership schemes or for houses to let at economic rents. We believe that it is quite wrong that people should be faced with the alternative either of staying on in a council house or having to buy a house of their own. Many people would prefer to rent a house, but unreasonably low council rents have prevented the demand for this type of accommodation making itself felt. We hope that the Bill will rectify this.
  These are the advantages which will flow from local authorities adopting a more reasonable rent policy. Yet the Opposition by their speeches tonight and by their Amendment seek to prevent my right hon. Friend from acquiring powers which will enable him to ensure that local authorities adopt the new attitude towards rents which is essential if each housing agency in Scotland is to produce of its best. If the House denies my right hon. Friend these powers, it is certain that the situation will not improve.
  On the subject of rents I had expected a little more support from the Opposition. I do not want to bore the House, but I have here quotations from the late Mr. Bevan, from the right
  1472
  hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), and from the hon. Members for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) and Hamilton, all of which more or less say—I will quote only the hon. Member for Hamilton—"Rents are on average too low and should be increased…"
  Mr. T. Fraser: I said that today.
  Mr. Galbraith: It is all on the record, yet what is the hon. Member doing? He is doing something which will prevent rents rising, because he is denying my right hon. Friend the teeth which are necessary to ensure that local authorities do not default in their duty. It is all on the record. When it comes to a debate, the old Adam rises up in them and they are haunted—particularly the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence)—by the spectre of housing as a social service. It is the same in everything—they have this schizophrenia, this split mentality. They are split on defence, on further nationalisation, and on rents. No wonder they do so badly at by-elections.
  Low rents have been the bane of housing in Scotland for far too long. This is referred to again today in the new Toothill Report. Low levels of rent were, perhaps, once justified by low wages. But now unreasonably low rents are doing untold damage—damage to the tenants, damage to the local authorities, damage to the homeless, and, indeed, damage to the whole Scottish economy. I had hoped that on this subject we might have had a fresh approach from hon. Members opposite, particularly in the light of the remarks of the hon. Member for Hamilton. But no. We on this side are called the Conservative Party, but it is the Opposition who are the dyed-in-the-wool reactionaries. When those who have the interests of Scotland at heart try to introduce into the local authority rent structure a new sense of realism, all we have from the benches opposite is prevarication and a refusal honestly and openly to come down on the side of what hon. Members must know in their hearts is the only answer to the housing problem of Scotland, that is, a combination of reasonable rents and a humane rebate system.

  1473
  In this Bill we have tried to be constructive. We have tried to look ahead and provide new weapons with which to attack bad housing, not on one front only but on all fronts. We have tried to help local authorities by redistributing Exchequer money so that it goes to those with the greatest needs. We have tried to help them tackle the problem of slum clearance by improved procedure. We have tried to help tenants in substandard private houses by increasing the return on money spent on modernisation. We have provided a stimulus to private building and to the development of houses to let at economic rents. None of those things contains the whole answer by itself; but together they make a constructive contribution on a number of different fronts towards the improvement of Scottish housing.
  The Bill will be an encouragement to all the different agencies on whose enthusiasm and enterprise, as well as the Government's, depends the improvement of Scottish housing. It is in this go-ahead, forward looking, flexible and adventurous spirit that I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  9.58 p.m.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: This is a disastrous Bill, the successor of several Measures each of which has failed during the time it has been operated by the Government opposite to solve any of the problems or justify one of their contentions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said, when the Rent Act was introduced we were told by the Under-
  Secretary of State, now Lord Craigton, the Minister of State, that in Scotland we should see the "For sale" notices coming down and the "To let" notices going up. In fact, this has not happened, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) reminded us earlier this evening.
  Again, the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954, has failed to do anything to improve the stock of houses in Scotland to any appreciable extent. The Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957, also has failed, as the Secretary of State had to admit today. Indeed, the failure of that Act passed only four years ago has led to the introduction of a new Bill today.
  This is not a Bill dealing with houses. It is not even a Bill dealing with rents. It is a Bill primarily concerned with the moneylenders. When the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary argues that interest rates are irrelevant, he forgets that, if an economic rent were charged in Scotland, the charge would have to be—
  Mr. Michael Hughes-Young (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury)Mr. Michael Hughes-Young (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury) rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 159.

  Division No. 11.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Brooman-White, R.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Arbuthnot, John

  Bryan, Paul

  Danoe, James

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Buck, Antony

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Barlow, Sir John

  Bullard, Derrys

  Deedes, W. F.

  Barter, John

  Bullus, Wing Commander Erlo

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Batsford, Brian

  Burden, F. A.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Doughty, Charles

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Chataway, Christopher

  Drayson, G. B.

  Bidgood, John C.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  du Cann, Edward

  Biffen, John

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Bingham, R. M.

  Clarke, Brig. Terenoe(Portsmth, W.)

  Elliott,R.W.(Nwostle-upon.Tyne,N.)

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Emery, Peter

  Bishop, F. P.

  Cole, Norman

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Brack, Sir Cyril

  Cooper, A. E.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Bossom, Clive

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Farr, John

  Box, Donald

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Corfield, F. V.

  Foster, John

  Braine, Bernard

  Costain, A. P.

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Brewis, John

  Crowder, F. P.

  Freeth, Denzil

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Curran, Charles

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Gammans, Lady

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Roots, William

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Lingtead, Sir Hugh

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Gilmour, Sir John

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

  Russell, Ronald

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Longden, Gilbert

  St. Clair, M.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Seymour, Leslie

  Gower, Raymond

  MacArthur, Ian

  Sharpies, Richard

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  McLaren, Martin

  Shaw, M.

  Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Green, Alan

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Gurden, Harold

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Speir, Rupert

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax,)

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Maddan, Martin

  Stodart, J. A.

  Harrison, col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Maitland, Sir John

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Hastings, Stephen

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Hay, John

  Marten, Neil

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Mawby, Ray

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Hendry, Forbes

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Taylor, F. (M'ch'ter & Moss Side)

  Hicks Beach, Maj. M.

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

  Teeling, William

  Hiley, Joseph

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Temple, John M.

  Hilt, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

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

  Morgan, William

  Thornton, Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Neave, Airey

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Hobson, John

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Holland, Philip

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Hollingworth, John

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Hopkins, Alan

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Walder, David

  Hornby, R. P.

  Peel, John

  Walker, Peter

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Peyton, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Webster, David

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Pitman, Sir James

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Whitelaw, William

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pott, Percivall

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Wise, A. R.

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pym, Francis

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Woollam, John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ramsden, James

  Worsley, Marous

  Kitson, Timothy

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Renton, David

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Mr. Noble and

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Mr. Gordon Campbell.

  NOES

  Ainsley, William

  Dodds, Norman

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Albu, Austen

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hilton, A. V.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Holman, Percy

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hoy, James H.

  Baird, John

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Evans, Albert

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Benoe, Cyril

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Finch, Harold

  Hunter, A. E.

  Benson, Sir George

  Fitch, Alan

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Blackburn, F.

  Fletcher, Eric

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Blyton, William

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

  Forman, J. C.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Bowles, Frank

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Kelley, Richard

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Gooch, E, G.

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Gourlay, Harry

  King, Dr. Horace

  Cliffe, Michael

  Grey, Charles

  Lawson, George

  Collick, Percy

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Ledger, Ron

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Grimond, J.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Darling, George

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Hannan, William

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Deer, George

  Hart, Mrs- Judith

  Logan, David

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hayman, F. H.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Dempsey, James

  Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(Rwly Regis)

  MacColl, James

  Diamond, John

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  McInnes, James

  1476

  1477

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Swain, Thomas

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Probert, Arthur

  Symonds, J. B.

  McLeavy, Frank

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Randall, Harry

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Rankin, John

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Reid, William

  Thornton, Ernest

  Mapp, Charles

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Timmons, John

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Mason, Roy

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Weitzman, David

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Ross, William

  Wells, William (Walseil, N.)

  Millan, Bruce

  Short, Edward

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Milne, Edward J.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Whitlock, William

  Moody, A. S.

  Skeffington, Arthur

  WiIkins, W. A.

  Moyle, Arthur

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Neal, Harold

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Small, William

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

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

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

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

  Oswald, Thomas

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Owen, Will

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Padley, W. E.

  Steele, Thomas

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Peart, Frederick

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Pentland, Norman

  Stonehouse, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Stones, William

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Mr. McCann

  Prentice, R. E.

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

  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further arrangements for the giving of financial assistance for the provision and improvement of housing accommodation in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise:—
  A. (1) The payment out of money provided by Parliament of annual Exchequer subsidies, or equivalent payments, in respect of every new house provided by—

  (a) a local authority, or

  (b) a development corporation, or

  (c) a housing association in pursuance of arrangements made with a local authority or the Secretary of State, or

  (d) the Scottish Special Housing Association in the circumstances specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section twenty-three of the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957,

  in accordance with proposals approved by the Secretary of State.
  (2) The payment out of money provided by Parliament of such sums as may be required to enable the Secretary of State—

  (a) to make to any housing association, for a period not exceeding sixty years, annual payments in respect of arrangements made between him and the association for the provision of housing accommodation by the conversion or improvement of existing houses or by the conversion of other buildings, being payments equal to three-quarters, or in relation to housing accommodation situated in the Highlands and Islands seven-eighths, of the annual loss determined by the Secretary of State to be likely to be incurred by the association in carrying out the arrangements;

  (b) to make to the Scottish Special Housing Association, with the approval of the Treasury, such payments (hereafter in this sub-paragraph referred to as "deficiency payments") as he may determine in respect of any excess in any year of the total net expenditure (as calculated in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State) incurred by the Association in the provision of housing accommodation over the sum of the payments made to them under section ninety-three of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, section twenty-three of the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957, and any provision of the said Act of the present Session (other than a provision for the making of deficiency payments);

  1480

  (c) to acquire, with the approval of the Treasury, shares in any authorised society within the meaning of the Housing Act, 1914; and

  (d) to pay into the Exchequer the sums authorised to be so paid under paragraph (b) of head E hereof.

  B. —(1) The issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be required for the purpose of making advances—

  (a) to housing associations (being associations registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893), providing housing accommodation for letting.

  (b) to the Scottish Special Housing Association for the purpose of—

  (i) enabling or assisting the provision of housing accommodation by that Association.

  (ii) meeting expenditure incurred by that Association in the provision of housing accommodation for letting,

  (iii) enabling or assisting that Association to purchase the assets of housing societies or trusts,

  so however that the advances referred to in sub-paragraph (a) of this head shall not exceed the aggregate sum of three million pounds, and that the aggregate amount of the advances referred to in sub-paragraph (b) of this head, together with any advances made under subsection (1) of section ninety-four of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, shall not exceed one hundred and ten million pounds.
  (2) The borrowing in any manner authorised under the National Loans Act, 1939, and payment into the Exchequer of any money needed for providing or replacing such sums as may be issued as aforesaid, and the repayment into the Exchequer, with interest, of any such sums and their re-issue out of the Consolidated Fund.
  C. The payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums becoming so payable in consequence of amending existing enactments as follows:—

  (a) the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950:

  (i) the extension of the definition of a hostel in respect of which contributions are payable by the Secretary of State;

  (ii) the extension of the Secretary of State's power to make contributions for hostels so as to include hostels provided by housing associations under arrangements made with the Secretary of State;

  (iii) the extension of the Secretary of State's power to make contributions in respect of building experiments;

  (iv) the extension of the Secretary of State's power to contribute to the expenses of a central association for housing associations;

  (b) the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957: the restriction to houses completed after the commencement of that Act of the prohibition of the making to the Scottish Special Housing Association of payments under section ninety-three of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, in respect of houses provided by them.

  D. The payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable otherwise than as aforesaid to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums required or authorised under any other Act to be so paid.
  E. The payment into the Exchequer, on the winding up of any housing society or trust in which the Secretary of State owns (at the commencement of the winding up) all the shares, of—

  (a) any sum received by the Secretary of State on the winding up;

  (b) a sum equal to the excess, if any, of—

  (i) any amount outstanding, as at the commencement of the winding up of the society or trust, of any advances made to the society or trust by any government department, over

  (ii) any amount received by the Secretary of State on the winding up;

  and the payment into the Exchequer of any sum received otherwise than as aforesaid by the Secretary of State by virtue of the said Act of the present Session. —[Mr. Maclay.]
  10.12 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: One would not expect Scottish Members to allow a long Money Resolution of this character to pass without a certain amount of discussion, especially after some of the speeches which we heard during the previous debate. I want to ask a number of questions, some important and some not so important, about the Money Resolution.
  In head A (1) there is a reference to "equivalent payments". What is a payment equivalent to a subsidy? I should have thought that it could only be a subsidy. What does the right hon. Gentleman expect will be spent as a result of the provisions in A (1), and how will that compare with what is now being spent? I ask that because the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill says:
  "It is estimated, however, that the expenditure over the next few years under the proposals will be about the same in aggregate as the expenditure if the present subsidies were to continue…"
  In other words, there is to be no increase in expenditure.
  I am interested in that because the Under-Secretary told us that the purpose of the Bill was to build more houses. A number of local authorities, I understand, are to receive higher subsidies than they are now receiving. If higher subsidies on more houses are to be paid, how can there be no increase
  1482
  in expenditure? I think that most local authorities will get the benefit of the £32 subsidy. If that is true and if more houses are to be built, surely the sum involved must be greater than that now being spent. If that is not obvious, there is something wrong with my arithmetic, and I should like an explanation.
  Paragraph (2, a) of head A is concerned with,
  "annual payments in respect of arrangements made between him"—
  that is, the Secretary of State—
  "and the association for the provision of housing accommodation by the conversion or improvement of existing houses or by the conversion of other buildings, being payments equal to three-quarters…"
  How much are we likely to spend under this provision?
  10.15 p.m.
  I find it rather difficult to understand head A (2). It says:
  "The payment out of money provided by Parliament of such sums as may be required to enable the Secretary of State…
  (b) to make to the Scottish Special Housing Association, with the approval of the Treasury, such payments (hereafter in this sub-paragraph referred to as 'deficiency payments')"
  and so on. We then get the proviso at the end:
  "other than a provision for the making of deficiency payments."
  I have read this two or three times. I am not much of a lawyer, and I find it difficult to understand what the proviso means. What does it mean?
  Head A (2, d) says:
  "to pay into the Exchequer the sums authorised to be so paid under paragraph (b) of head E hereof."
  I do not understand this and should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would tell me what it means, because head E says:
  "The payment into the Exchequer…"
  In other words, it is doing the same thing. I do not follow why it refers to paying into the Exchequer in two different parts of the Money Resolution, and I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us something about this also.
  I return to what I consider the most important point, which is whether the Bill that we discussed earlier means the

  1483
  payment of larger subsidies to Scotland. We are entitled to some information about that. I should like to know whether what the hon. Gentleman said means that we are to get more. If so, how do the various discrepancies I have pointed out arise?
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that interest rates did not matter, and that was repeated by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. The Money Resolution does not deal with interest rates, but with the subsidies payable to be approved by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  From what both Ministers said today, I gathered that they thought the higher rate of subsidy for which provision is made in this Money Resolution would be an inducement to local authorities to build houses. That is, if they get £32 per house it will be an encouragement which they will not have if they receive only £12 by way of subsidy. There is a difference of £20. Is it not a fact that a change of 1 per cent. in the interest rate represents a difference of £20 in the annual cost of a house?
  If the right hon. Gentleman were to reduce the rate of interest by 1 per cent., he would be giving the same inducement to all the local authorities to build more houses as would be given by a subsidy of £32 instead of the present subsidy of £12. Can he explain why an increased subsidy is an encouragement to a local authority to build a house, but a reduced rate of interest, which will have precisely the same effect on the housing revenue account, is regarded as quite beside the point and something which will not influence local authorities in any way?
  Mr. William Ross: There is one thing that puzzles me slightly. Head B (1) says:
  "The issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be required for the purpose pf making advances… to the Scottish Special Housing Association for the purpose of"
  and then three purposes are set out in (i), (ii) and (iii). The Resolution then goes on to say that
  "the aggregate amount of the advances referred to in sub-paragraph (b) of this head"—
  1484
  that is, the aggregates of the purposes in (i), (ii) and (iii)—
  "together with any advances made under subsection (1) of section ninety-four of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, shall not exceed one hundred and ten million pounds."
  Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what advances are made under that subsection of the 1950 Act? Only if we know that shall we know the aggregate amount of money that is to be applied in respect of the purposes set out in (i), (ii) and (iii).
  Can the Minister also tell me how much of the money under the various subheads is to enable or assist the provision of housing accommodation by the Scottish Special Housing Association, and the nature of it? We have already had a previous reference to the Scottish Special Housing Association in head B (1). It would be of value to the Committee to know exactly what is the expenditure of that Association in respect of this matter, so that we may judge whether or not it is being provident with the moneys that Parliament is voting. It is our function to ensure that the provision we make is being properly handled.
  The third purpose is that of
  "enabling or assisting that Association to purchase the assets of housing societies or trusts."
  Until we know the estimated amount of money to be allotted in that respect it will be difficult for us to make up our minds whether to agree to this power to obtain money for this purpose.
  Has the Secretary of State any information to give us about the trusts and societies whose assets he is now going to allow the Association to purchase? What is their value? What is the nature of the assets? Are they actual houses? If we have that information in respect of head B, and an explanation of the difference between the aggregate amount concerned therein and the permissible amount under section 94 (1) of the 1950 Act, we shall be in a better position to judge the extent of the work that is foreseen for the Association.
  It might be worth while for the Minister to give us an indication of the number of houses to be provided. I presume that the sum involved will be an aggregate sum that will take us over a number of years. It may be that the

  1485
  Minister will have to come back to Parliament, under the provisions of Section 94 (1) of the 1950 Act, to ask for an increase of the sum of £110 million. Only if we know exactly what are the intentions of the Association that have been approved by the Government can we obtain any idea of the number of houses likely to be provided.
  There are a few other questions that I should like to ask, but I will leave them for the moment.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: The only question I want to ask the Secretary of State concerns head C (a) (iii):
  "the extension of the Secretary of State's power to make contributions in respect of building experiments".
  I have always considered that there has not been enough experimentation in this country in the processes and techniques of house building, because most of the planning development of housing in Scotland is by the local authorities. They are the driving force. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is paying attention to the question which I wish to ask.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The Minister is tired.
  Mr. Bence: Some of us are worried that we may be falling behind the Continent in the matter of techniques. Let us be frank about this. It was, I think, referred to in the Second Reading debate. Many of us are anxious that there shall be an intensification of experimentation in new techniques and the general organisation and planning of house building.
  I wish to know what power the Secretary of State has at the moment, if he has any, to make grants. I should like to know to what extent his powers have been extended. Have they been extended to enable the right hon. Gentleman to make grants to institutions to which he could not previously make grants? Can he make grants to local authorities to undertake massive experiments in new techniques in building? Can he make grants to private building contractors to experiment in new techniques? What exactly does this mean?
  In view of the question I have asked about different institutions to which this would seem to enable the Secretary of
  1486
  State to make grants, may I also ask what idea the right hon. Gentleman has about how much money is likely to be entailed? What does the Treasury envisage as the sum that the Secretary of State will be able to dispense in Scotland to all sorts of institutions engaged in technological developments in house construction? I should like an answer to that question because of my particular interest in the need to increase technological and scientific development in this country. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should give us some idea about how much we should expect will be spent by his Department in Scotland on research, development and experimentation in house construction.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: It was unfortunate that we did not get this information in the previous procedures. I wish to refer to head B (1, a). It is stated that the amount
  "shall not exceed the aggregate sum of three million pounds."
  I take it that that £3 million applies:
  "to housing associations (being associations registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893) providing housing accommodation for letting."
  I welcome, as I am sure do most of my hon. Friends, this new social venture. I am glad that the Swedes have managed to percolate their ideas to the Under-Secretary whose conversion I also welcome.
  I wish to know what is represented by the £3 million in terms of the number of houses which could be built. Perhaps the nature of the finances—since they do not seem to be relevant in other spheres —has escaped me. But, by the ordinary process of marketing, I assume that this £3 million would probably finance the building of 1,000 houses. Is that the intention? Would not it be a great pity if the Financial Resolution went through in this rather strait-jacketed form and it resulted in the Secretary of State having to come to Parliament again to ask the House to extend it?
  10.30 p.m.
  I understood from what the Secretary of State said earlier that he particularly liked this idea and welcomed industrial and provident societies using the housing associations in Scotland. If this is his intention, why does the Financial

  1487
  Resolution circumscribe so considerably the position of the housing association—
  The Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot argue that the Financial Resolution should be expanded.
  Mr. Willis: Surely it is in order to point out as a relevant argument for discussing, agreeing to or opposing the Resolution that it is too tightly drawn and should be more widely drawn? That, surely, is one of the reasons for discussing and, if necessary, voting against it?
  The Chairman: The argument that it should be more widely drawn is beyond the scope of the Queen's Recommendation.
  Mr. T. Fraser: I have listened to discussions on a great many Money Resolutions and I assure you, Sir Gordon, that on most of those occasions the Opposition, irrespective of which party was in opposition, have asked that the Resolution should be taken back and redrawn more widely and made less restrictive so that the Standing Committee handling the Bill would be able to adjust it.
  I understood that on this occasion my hon. Friend was asking that this restriction of £3 million ought not to be written into the Money Resolution. We are not here discussing how much money will be spent in one year, ten years or twenty years, but how much will be spent on this purpose for the rest of time. By taking out some words, not putting in words, the Standing Committee would be made more free to propose Amendments to the Bill.
  The Chairman: We cannot recommend any Amendment which would go beyond the scope of the Queen's Recommendation. We cannot argue that more money should be paid out than has been proposed.
  Mr. Willis: Further to that point of order. Is it in order to argue that it does not go far enough and that, therefore, we should reject it?
  The Chairman: The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to argue that it should be rejected.
  Mr. Willis: It is in order to put forward as one of the arguments that it does not go far enough. This is done every day.
  The Chairman: We cannot recommend that it should be increased.
  Dr. Mabon: If I may now intervene after that contretemps, I do not think we should be driven to the extent of having to reject it. On the other hand, I think that the Secretary of State should justify this. We are in a difficult position. How many associations are there which could possibly benefit from this? If there are very few it might be adequate, but if the intention is to create a number—and I hope there will be a number—this seems a small amount of money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said, it seems a rather small amount for the particular task that the Secretary of State envisages.
  If the Bill which fathers the Resolution were to run for ten years—which is much longer than one would expect—this would be a tiny number of houses, 100 houses for all the housing associations. That seems hardly a case to justify the experiment. Even if it were five years it would not be a significant number of houses. I think that the Secretary of State should justify why he is suggesting that the Resolution should be drawn in this way. Will he be kind enough to give information of the number of housing associations? I am told by one of my English friends who was relating this matter to the English Bill and the comparable Money Resolution that there was power given to the Minister of Housing and Local Government to contribute to the expenses of a central association for housing associations. I refer to head C, paragraph (a, iv).
  The suggestion was made during the Second Reading debate that the amount of money to be given would not exceed £2,000. This raises certain questions, such as whether this amount will be adequate for the purpose. During an intervention earlier—I believe the Under-Secretary gave some advice to his right hon. Friend—the Secretary of State said that this amount concerned "the beginning," or words to that effect. What does that mean, since the Bill is

  1489
  intended to run for some time? Do the words at "the beginning" mean in one year or ten years? If it is to be at the beginning, will it be a sort of instalment to the central association, and is the Financial Resolution drawn with this in mind? What is the intention of the build-up of moneys to be spent in relation to this? My hon. Friends and I would like to know.
  Since this is a new matter, would it be possible to use the vehicle, so to speak, that is used in England for this purpose? I am willing to see whatever agency in the south which may have relationships in the north—over the border—acting as well as it might. There might be another central association which we might like to start.
  Is it the Government's intention to seek to second from, say, the Cooperative Union someone who will be concerned either with advising the already existing central association or with creating a new one? The question of money arises and I have no doubt that part of this money—this £2,000—might have to be used for fees in relation to persons either in the employ of the organisation—part-time or otherwise—or receiving fees. Is this matter being considered?
  This is a wholly new venture and should be given every chance. I am at one with the Government in this matter. It is not a controversial subject and I am sure that my hon. Friends wish to see this experiment work successfully, although we have reservations on such questions as that of the influence of interest rates.
  Mr. Bruce Millan: My hon. Friends and I will undoutedly require more information about this Resolution, particularly concerning the subsidy payments under head A (1).
  We shall also require further details about head B (1) (b) which provides for the financing of the Scottish Special Housing Association. We find in head B that the total sum authorised is £110 million. It will be noted that this amount is not the total sum to be provided under the Bill, but a sum which takes account of advances made under Section 94 (1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950.
  1490
  I am sure that my hon. Friends, like myself, want to know how much has already been advanced under that Act so that we may have some idea of how much new money is being provided by this Resolution. This is an important point, for we are dealing with £110 million. We should also like to know how much of this maximum sum has already been advanced under the 1950 Act and how much is the net figure which we are giving the Secretary of State power to advance under this Resolution.
  Some hon. Members have been worried about the sums of money that have already been advanced to the Scottish Special Housing Association because the activities of this Association have, unfortunately, declined considerably over the last few years. For example, in 1955 it started on the construction of 3,253 houses, but in 1960 it started on the construction of only 1,778 houses. It seems part of deliberate Government policy to restrict this organisation's activities. If so, we should have some information. The right hon. Gentleman should tell us how far this provision represents a further restriction on the activities of the Scottish Special Housing Association, because I very much suspect that that is what it does represent.
  We all recognise that the Association has made a very considerable contribution to the solution of Scotland's housing problem. This is a publicly-owned body and does not make any private profits. It has, over the years, shown a very considerable surplus, if one compares the cost of the houses it has built with what would have been the equivalent costs had the houses gone to private builders. I very much hope that the activities of the Association are not to be circumscribed in the future, but what has happened over the past few years seems to indicate that the Secretary of State intends that to happen. I hope that we shall have considerably more information about that head.
  Secondly, I respectfully submit that there is an error in the drafting of head E, and that this Money Resolution ought not to be passed as it stands. The Government should withdraw it because of a defect in the wording at the end

  1491
  of the head. The words to which I refer are:
  "The payment into the Exchequer, on the winding up of any housing society or trust…"
  of certain sums. There is no definition of the kind of housing society referred to. The head, as drawn, is quite impossibly wide.
  Clause 33 of the Bill states that the only sort of housing society in which the Secretary of State has power to invest money is one within the meaning of the Housing Act, 1914, but head E does not say that. The drafting is quite insufficient. The Clause states:
  "The Secretary of State… may acquire shares in any authorised society within the meaning of the Housing Act, 1914."
  In other words, there is a restrictive definition in head A but none at all in head E. That must be an error of drafting, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, therefore, consider withdrawing the Money Resolution.
  In any case, under this head we really have the most odd circumstances that it provides for what happens in the event of winding up of one of these housing societies in which the Secretary of State owns all the shares, but there is nothing to say what happens to any money received by him in the event of the winding up of one of these societies in which he owns only part of the shares. I see nothing in the wording of the Bill to prevent him investing money in a housing society, assuming we are talking about Clause 33, and there is nothing in the Money Resolution to tell us that. There is nothing in Clause 33 that signifies that the Secretary of State, if he is to invest money in a housing society at all, has to buy all the shares, yet there is nothing in the Money Resolution that says what he has to do with the money paid to him on the winding up of a housing society in those circumstances.
  The whole head is very badly drafted, and I think that the Committee —and the Secretary of State, in his own interests—would be extremely ill-advised to allow this Money Resolution to go forward with this deficiency in head E. In the circumstances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.
  10.45 p.m.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: Will my hon. Friend also give his attention to the question of housing trusts in relation to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1925? He will find on page 28 of the Bill a reference to "the society or trust", whereas the Resolution refers to "any society or trust". He ought to say a word about trusts as well as about societies.
  Mr. Millan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend that he has noticed this. It is exactly the same point. In Clause 34 we are not concerned with any sort of housing trust but with a specific sort of trust under Section 119 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925. This is the only sort of housing trust in which the Secretary of State has authority to invest Government money, and yet the Resolution seems to assume that he will get money in his possession which he has never invested because he has never had statutory power to make such investment.
  I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Money Resolution.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Chairman: I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that the time allowed for the debate is limited.
  Mr. James Dempsey: There are several points which I should like to mention, but in view of the time I will confine myself to head (E). What is meant by "winding up"? Have we in mind bankruptcy or the coming to an end of some form of association? May we have some information about this? One or two of these societies have gone bankrupt in Scotland, and it would be interesting to ascertain from the Secretary of State to what extent we should be involved by the Money Resolution in bankruptcy. I thought that we were prudent business people and that when we were looking after public funds they would be properly managed and that when we invested public money it would be in societies which would produce good results.
  The words "winding up" are a nice piece of phraseology, but I should like to know their implications. I should be grateful for some facts and figures

  1493
  and to know whether it could mean the possibility of bankruptcies in which our investment would be lost to the nation.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): The passion for information of hon. Scottish Members on Money Resolutions is admirable and utterly insatiable. I will try to deal with as many requests for information as possible in the time and within the realm of my abilities, although listening to some questions it seemed that I should have to call on my imagination, which I would not dream of doing.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked what would be the total expenditure under the Act. He will find it in paragraph 26 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum in which it is estimated that expenditure over the next few years
  "under the proposals will be about the same in aggregate as the expenditure if the present subsidies were to continue; thereafter, expenditure may be expected to rise."
  Mr. Willis: How much is that?
  Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member can work it out—
  Mr. Willis: If local authorities are to have bigger subsidies under the Bill, how can they build more houses within the same total?
  Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member has listened to most of the debate, including my speech, in which I tried at some length to explain how the Bill is supposed to work. He will realise that some authorities can get bigger subsidies. Some will get less, if they do not qualify for the higher rate of subsidy. The hon. Gentleman will find that the answer is clear. If he considers what I have said and read out from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, he will see that it is in order.
  Another point raised by one or two hon. Members concerned the £110 million. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) went into some detail on head B (1, b) (i), (ii) and (iii). The first main answer is that so far a sum of approximately £90 million has been committed. At present £100 million is the limit. We are taking wise advantage of the Bill to increase that sum by another £10 million. This is merely to
  1494
  avoid running hard up against a statutory limit.
  The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mahon) asked questions about the £3 million. This is bound to be an estimate. One cannot tell at the moment how far and how fast this new proposition will go or how many houses will be built. Always having proper regard for the great concern of Parliament for proper financial controls and the utter reluctance of hon. Members opposite to trust the Secretary of State too far with anything, we have put a reasonable limit in the Bill. If this proposition goes with great urgency and speed and does all we hope of it and does it faster than we expect, it is always possible to come back to the House for further sums of money. This is a reasonable and reasoned estimate of what might sensibly happen in the next few years. This is a very wise and sensible approach to a problem of this kind. I am sure that the hon. Member for Greenock will agree with me on this.
  I was asked which were these housing societies. Head E says:
  "The payment into the Exchequer, on the winding up of any housing society or trust in which the Secretary of State owns (at the commencement of the winding up) all the shares…"
  Money Resolutions are usually drafted very clearly, concisely and carefully, and need to be studied. Strangely enough, this one means precisely what it says, namely, what I have just read. At the moment there are two such societies. They are the First and Second National Housing Companies. These are the ones which are involved. No others would be involved, unless I found myself for some obscure reason owning all the shares in them, in which case they would be covered by this point.
  Mr. Millan: We are looking to the future. The Secretary of State is empowered to acquire shares in other societies. The present position is of no consequence to us. The only authorised societies in which he can acquire shares in the future are those within the meaning of the Housing Act, 1914. He has not explained why that sort of thing is not mentioned under head E.
  Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member is only making suppositious theories if he

  1495
  is talking about some period in the future when I may own other shares. His question is simply whether this head applies to housing associations in which I own part of the shares. The wording is clear. He must accept the wording of the Resolution for what it is. I do not think it would make any difference to the range of the debate or make the passing of the Resolution more a matter of enthusiasm for hon. Members opposite.
  On the general point it is correct to say that the Resolution, as hon. Members will appreciate if they have studied it with their usual skill, energy and care, is drawn in very generous terms and is singularly unlikely to lead the Chairman of the Standing Committee to be restrictive in his views on what can be discussed. I seem to remember that over a great many years—
  Dr. Dickson Mahon: What about head C (a) (iv)?
  Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton wants an answer on one point. The hon. Member for Greenock wants an answer on another. Another hon. Member wants an answer to another question.
  Mr. Dempsey: We are dealing with public money.
  Mr. Maclay: My only hope of being fair to everybody is to take hon. Members right through the Resolution.
  I will start with head A (1). This provides for the payment of subsidies for new houses under Part I of the Bill to the local authorities and other bodies specified in Clause 1 (1).
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: What about head C (a, iv)?
  Mr. Maclay: I really cannot—
  It being five minutes to Eleven o'clock, three-quarters of an hour after the House had resolved itself into the Committee, The CHAIRMAN put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 1A (Exemptions from Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)).
  Question agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS, ETC.) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee. —[Mr. Maclay.]
  Question agreed to.
  Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS, ETC.) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
[Queen's Recommendation signified.]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for revision of apportionment of expenditure and general grants among local authorities in Scotland, to make further provision as respects Scotland with respect to payments in lieu of or by way of rates by the British Transport Commission. Electricity Boards and Gas Boards, relief from rates of charitable and other similar bodies, sums borrowed by local authorities and with respect to Valuation Appeal Committees and other matters, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the said Act of this Session in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament by way of Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in Scotland. —[Mr. Maclay.]
10.56 p.m.
Mr. E. G. Willis: Will the Secretary of State tell us what is meant by the words "or other matters"? My recollection is that the Bill is very tightly drawn. The Long Title is so tightly drawn that one cannot get any matters squeezed into the Bill apart from those enumerated in the Money Resolution.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I think that to give the hon. Gentleman an absolutely clear answer would involve something which I am not quite able to do at the moment

1497
because I have not got the complete details of the Bill and the point he raises by me. I will examine the point. I think that the Resolution is not restrictive in any way. I will let him know.
Mr. William Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the last two lines? The Money Resolution reads:
"For the purposes of any Act… to provide for revision of apportionment…to make further provision"—
and so on—
"it is expedient to authorise any Increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament by way of Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in Scotland."
Am I right in saying that this means an increase of sums payable out of money provided by way of equalisation grant? Could that in any way be attributable to the actual Bill? As I understood, the equalisation grant which we get in Scotland was based on what was spent in England. Under no Scottish Measure in the past could we actually increase the sum. The apportionment of the sum could be changed, but the actual sum itself was fixed.
Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, right in his reference to the very complicated calculations which must be made in relation to the equalisation grant. There are variations possible in the apportionment of Exchequer equalisation grant inside the total sum which comes to Scotland. Equally, there are variations between the Scottish and English sums which alter every year according to the incidence of quite a large number of factors. I think it would be quite impossible to single out precisely which factors might be involved here. The point to have clear is that an increase in expenditure on equalisation grant as a result of the Bill is authorised by Clause 11. Any increase is likely to be very small. The Money Resolution recites all the main purposes of the Bill, but expenditure or equalisation grant will in fact result only from additional expenditure falling on local authorities under Clauses 6 and 7. That is the explanation, and I hope that the
1498
hon. Member will feel that it fully fulfils the needs.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported.
Reported to be received Tomorrow.

TRANSPORT [MONEY]
Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the reorganisation of the nationalised Transport Undertakings now carried on under the Transport Act, 1947, it is expedient to authorise—
A. The payment out of the Consolidated Fund—

(1) of any sums required by the Minister of Transport for the purpose of making loans to any of the Boards or the Transport Holding Company established under the new Act;

(2) of any sums required to fulfil any guarantee by the Treasury of the repayment of, and the payment of interest on, any money temporarily borrowed by any of the said Boards or the said Company.

B. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(1) of any sums required by the Minister—

(a) for making grants to the Railways Board and the Inland Waterways Authority established under the new Act to meet any deficit on revenue account arising during the period of five years beginning with the vesting date (as defined in the said Act) but so that the aggregate of any such grants (together with any loans made by the Minister to meet such deficits) shall not exceed, in the case of the Railways Board, four hundred and fifty million pounds or, in the case of the Inland Waterways Authority, ten million pounds;

(b) for making grants to the British Transport Commission to meet any deficit on revenue account or interest on loans made by the Minister to the Commission to meet such deficits;

(2) of any expenses incurred by the Minister in consequence of any provision of the said Act setting up a Nationalised Transport Advisory Council;

(3) of any expenses incurred by the Minister in consequence of any provision of the said Act amending the constitution and jurisdiction of the Transport Tribunal;

(4) of fees and allowances to referees and boards of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour under any provision of the said Act relating to compensation or pensions, and allowances to persons giving evidence before any such referee or board;

(5) of any increase in the amount so payable under the Road Traffic Act, 1960, in consequence of any provision of the new Act amending the powers of the traffic commissioners in relation to the carriage of

1499
passengers by road in the London Passenger Transport Area or by the London Board established under the said Act outside that Area;

(6) of any increase in the amount so payable by way of rate-deficiency grant or Exchequer equalisation grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland, which is attributable to any provision of the said Act relating to the liability of the said Boards to rates;

(7) of any administrative expenses incurred by the Minister of Transport by virtue of the said Act.

C. The remission of any obligation of the British Transport Commission to make payments under section forty-two of the Finance Act, 1956, or section two of the Transport (Railway Finances) Act, 1957, in respect of sums advanced to the Commission by the Minister under those Acts.
D.—(1) The transfer to the Treasury of all rights and liabilities of the British Transport Commission in respect of stock created and issued under section eighty-nine of the Transport Act, 1947, and the treatment of that stock as if it had been created and issued under the National Loans Act, 1939;
(2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums which may be required by the Treasury for making payments to the British Transport Commission under any transitional adjustment of interest or dividends in consequence of any provision of the new Act transferring to the Treasury the investments comprised in the redemption fund established by the Commission in respect of the said stock.
E. The borrowing in any manner authorised under the National Loans Act, 1939, and the payment into the Exchequer of any money needed for providing or replacing any sum required by the Minister for the purpose of making loans to any of the said Boards or the said Company.
F. The payment into the Exchequer and the re-issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required to be so paid or re-issued by virtue of any provision of the new Act.
Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [21st November]

  TRANSPORT
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the reorganisation of the nationalised transport undertakings now carried on under the Transport Act, 1947, it is expedient to authorise any incidental charge to income tax or profits tax which may arise from any provision of the new Act modifying Parts X and XI of the Income Tax Act, 1952 (which relate to certain capital expenditure), section four hundred and eighty-two
  1500
  of that Act (which relates to certain statutory transfers of property) and section seventeen of the Finance Act, 1956 (which relates to expenditure on dredging), in their application to the British Transport Commission and the Boards established under the new Act in connection with any transfer of assets and functions from the Commission to the Boards.
  Resolution read a Second time.
  Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.

GREEN BELTS
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
11.1 p.m.
Mr. James Dance: I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise the whole question of the future of our green belts. When discussing matters of this sort, it is easy to dramatise and to become sentimental, but I do not intend to pursue that policy. I wish to give the facts, which speak for themselves. It is not always understood that quite as much benefit will be given to the residents of our large cities and towns by this green perimeter round them as will be given to the people who live in that perimeter. I am certain that when the original proposals were made, the view was taken into consideration that the people living in the urban districts would benefit by this breathing space which they would get outside the cities.
While this is a national problem for many tens of thousands of people living near large cities, for the purpose of clarity I should like to refer to the green belt area to the south of Birmingham, a large part of which is in my constituency and of which I have a certain amount of local knowledge. Also for the purpose of clarity, I should like to go briefly into the history of the green belt in that part of the world. I hope I shall be forgiven if I have to make quotations.
Under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, local planning authorities were required to prepare development plans for their areas. These plans were to show the broad pattern of land use

1501
proposed and they were designed to propose a background against which individual applications for planning permission might be judged. They required the approval of the Minister and of the local government authorities.
Worcestershire and Warwickshire county development plans were prepared and were approved by the Minister some years ago, but they did not contain a definite green belt because at the time there was no approved method of doing so. The Worcestershire plan contained, however, the general statement that
"It is the intention of the county council to submit to the Minister an amendment of the development plan by the inclusion of a green belt south of Birmingham and the Black Country based on a sketch map which has already been forwarded to the Minister."
No doubt, the Warwickshire plan contained a similar statement. In fact, ever since the 1947 Act, both councils have been deciding applications for planning permission in those areas on the basis of a green belt policy, often supported by the Minister in doing so.
In 1955, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government recommended planning authorities to establish formal green belts wherever they were necessary, and he issued a circular at that time saying that what he wanted to do was to check further growth of the large built-up areas, to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into each other, and to preserve the special character of a particular town.
Sketch maps of the green belt of Birmingham were submitted to the Minister, who approved them in 1956, and he instructed both councils to use them as a basis for planning applications, pending the submission of formal amendments to their own development plans. It was then necessary to prepare formal amendments as the green belt was to be between six to ten miles in depth, and a great deal of survey work and much consultation were involved. Eventually, in 1959, Worcestershire and Warwickshire submitted their amendments to the Minister to incorporate the formal green belt, and the land in question was all included.
In the meantime, early in 1959 Birmingham City Council submitted a planning application to develop this
1502
land and land adjoining, a total of some 2,400 acres, for housing purposes. An inquiry took place in 1959 and, in a letter dated 5th April, 1960, the Minister gave his decision and refused permission. He said that he believed that it was very important to all Birmingham citizens that the green belt proper should be preserved and that he would be unwilling to see an outward expansion of the city as proposed.
Since then, various meetings have taken place. Early in September of this year we heard of the Minister's decision that about 600 acres in the Wythall area was to be developed to take Birmingham overspill. As a result of that, a public inquiry was set up by the Ministry itself. At that inquiry, strong protests were made on behalf of the residents concerned by various authorities, by the Worcestershire County Council, Bromsgrove Rural District Council, and the councils of Warwickshire and Solihull. As the inquiry is sub judice, I fully understand that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will not be able to make any comment on this aspect, but I wish to point out that until we get a final definition of the green belt area, great confusion will continue in the minds of many people—quite naturally.
In the past, the county councils have respected the wishes expressed by the then Minister in 1955, and have turned down many applications for private developers and builders. I am aware of that personally, as I have taken up several cases on behalf of my constituents. Reluctantly, they have accepted the ruling because they realised—or thought that they realised—that the green belt was to be held sacrosanct.
Another important feature of the green belt proposals is that people who wished to live in the comparatively rural atmosphere of the green belt moved in under the impression that they would not be disturbed, or have their privacy broken into, by the construction of large urban building programmes. The confusion in their minds can be imagined when they realised that the land, which they felt was safe from major development and in which they themselves had been refused planning permission for building, was now being considered by

1503
the Minister for a major building project for Birmingham City overspill.
Mr. Harold Gurden: There is a tremendous problem in Birmingham. If the green belt can be treated as an overspill area, if some owner-occupier private houses were built, as well as municipal houses, and if this area of land were not taken within the city boundary—and it would contain the same number of people whether it was in the boundary or not—would my hon. Friend object to the proposals of Birmingham?
Mr. Dance: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was coming to the question of the problems of Birmingham. I realise that Birmingham has these problems. I think that a certain amount of development in the Wythall area could be accepted, but I do not wish to see mass building, and the whole conception of the green belt as a lung surrounding a big city being stifled and damaged by large buildings going into the green belt area. I would not object to a certain amount of private development.
We all appreciate the plight of the people of Birmingham, that plight being largely due to the Government's good policy in slum clearance but being also due partly to the increased population. But I feel most strongly that this development should take place within the city's own boundaries, or should leapfrog over the green belt. Schemes have been put forward which I believe are being considered at the present time, and I believe that those schemes would be more acceptable. They would involve either the building of new towns —and one at Dawley is under consideration—or more town development schemes, of the kind being proposed at the moment for Redditch, Droitwich and other towns in the same area.
If projects such as the present Birmingham one were allowed to proceed, where would the process end? Once the green belt had been penetrated in one place it would be far too easy to argue that it could be penetrated elsewhere. I can foresee the whole conception of lungs round the big cities being entirely forgotten. Once again we should see the ghastly sprawl of towns and cities,
1504
growing like ugly sores across our green countryside.
I assure my hon. Friend that there is grave apprehension in the minds of many of my constituents. If it is in their minds it will eventually be in the minds of many other thousands of people, who at present imagine that they are living in a green belt area but who, when they read about the situation now occurring in the Wythall district, will have serious doubts about it.
Mr. Victor Yates (Birmingham, Lady-wood): Does not the hon. Member take into consideration the thousands of people in Birmingham who are condemned to live in slums? The alternative that he suggests is no solution at all. Unless some action can be taken immediately the Birmingham slum clearance programme will come to a complete halt. It is a grave problem for Birmingham. It is easy for Bromsgrove.
Mr. Dance: I will tell the hon. Member what Birmingham can do. It can use the land it has at the moment. It has a devil of a lot of it, and it should be able to use it.
Mr. Yates: Where is it? Ask the Minister. Ask the Government.
Mr. Dance: It is very close. It can use quite a lot of land, and it should get on with its present development. The outlook for Birmingham is better, and not worse, than it was in 1960. In 1960 the Minister was still refusing Birmingham a new town. Now he is providing a new one, and perhaps two. He is also taking a more active part in promoting town development schemes for Birmingham. There is evidence that Birmingham's land shortage will not become any more acute before 1967. Let it get on and use its own land.
I am fully sympathetic with the people to whom the hon. Member refers, but there is really no point in being down-hearted. It is for the people themselves who live in the cities that we are all speaking. It is they who will benefit in the long run. There are other schemes in hand at present, and I hope that they will come to fruition. I really do have the greatest sympathy with the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers.
Mr. V. Yates: There are 60,000 families waiting for homes.
Mr. Dance: Yes, and there is the land. Why destroy the green belts? There is land at the moment for immediate development, immediate. One has only to go there and it can be seen. As I have already said, there are towns such as Redditch, Droitwich, and so on, and there is this conception of a new town. I say, "Chase up your Birmingham city councillors and get them to build on land which they have at the moment."
It is now 13 or 14 years since the town and country planning department was required to prepare plans, and it is six years since the Minister of Housing and Local Government asked the local authority to prepare a formal plan. I say that it is high time that the decision was made. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will give an assurance that a final decision about the green belt will be forthcoming in the very near future, and that, when this decision is made, the green belt will really be sacrosanct.
I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend will give a definite assurance and thereby remove from the minds of my constituents, and the many thousands of people throughout the country, their fears as to the future of their land, their homes and, indeed, their whole way of life. They must have this assurance so that they may know where they stand.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) has raised this topic at an opportune moment, a moment when green belts are again in the news. I cannot say much about some of the matters he has raised, for reasons which are known to him, but, as he also knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister has already stressed that the green belts have come to stay. In the debate on the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech a few weeks ago, the Minister said:
"…I want to make it perfectly clear that we intend to adhere to the green belt policy." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1961; Vol. 648, c. 655.]
This is now a suitable occasion for me to try to clarify exactly what the green belt policy is. There has, I think, sometimes been misunderstanding, not only
1506
about the nature and the purpose of a green belt, but also about the nature of the procedure for establishing one.
Of course, as we know, general acceptance of the green belt idea started with the proposals for a green belt around Greater London, contained in Sir Patrick Abercrombie's Great London Plan of 1944. He then said that, when a reasonable size was decided upon, and a certain margin of choice allowed for, the green belt should be the final barrier—a fortified urban fence—into which the town should not be allowed to extend. That is very much in keeping with the policy which the Government have consistently pursued. We say that a green belt, once established, should, except in very special circumstances, be maintained inviolate.
Therefore, it is all the more important that it should be sensibly drawn in the first place and that, allowing for what the Abercrombie Report terms "a certain margin of choice", it should not be drawn so tightly as to include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open for the purpose of the green belt, or land which is already so built up that it cannot reasonably be said to be "open development".
The success of the London green belt, which is now established in the approved development plans of the counties concerned, and which is being maintained despite all the pressures for building land, prompted an extension of the policy in the 1955 Circular to which my hon. Friend has referred. In that Circular, and in a later one in 1957, the procedure for establishing a green belt, was shown as starting normally with a sketch plan.
If preliminary approval is given, the next step is to define the boundaries precisely and to put forward proposals as a formal amendment to the development plan. At that stage the proposal is open to public criticism and objection and an inquiry is normally held. There may even be another inquiry if the Minister decides to put forward a modification to the proposals. I think that this happened at Wythall, in which my hon. Friend is interested.
To some people it may appear rather incongruous that there should be a situation in which the Minister is both empowered, indeed required, to put forward

1507
modifications to green belt proposals, and to stand in the appellant position in relation to his own modifications, but this follows on acceptance which the whole House endorsed at the time—of the specific recommendation of the Franks Committee to this effect. It is all part of the process of ensuring that at every stage there is full public consideration of the proposals put forward.
It is only when all these stages have been completed, if the Minister then approves it, that the green belt in fact becomes part of a statutory development plan to be maintained subsequently, except in very special cases, inviolate. This crucial position is reached only when realistic boundaries are settled by the decision on a formal green belt proposal, and not before. As yet, only one green belt has been formally approved—the one round the Greater London area. To date, out of 70 sketch plans submitted, 47 relating to 16 green belts have been accepted generally or in part and 23 proposals have been submitted for formal incorporation in development plans.
It is fair to say that over the greater part of the country we have nothing more than green belt proposals safeguarded by a measure of interim control. What happens is that during the period between the submission of the sketch plan and the formal incorporation in the development plan local planning authorities are asked to apply a restrictive policy to building in the areas shown on the sketch plans as if they were established green belts, leaving the Minister as the ultimate adjudicator on appeal on any particular issue that may arise. I have noted what my hon. Friend has said about Wythall. I think that he set out the history as fully and fairly as he could, but this is a matter which, since the issues have been the subject of the recent inquiry, is in a sense sub judice. It is now before the Minister and I do not think it would be in any way appropriate for me to offer any comments.
Reverting to the general observations, I hope they will be of some help to my hon. Friend in forming his own conclusions on particular cases. It is clearly important to prevent nibbling at either side of any proposed green belt and genuinely to permit development only in
1508
terms of the 1955 Circular for the purposes of:
"agriculture, sport, cemeteries, institutions standing in extensive grounds or other uses appropriate to a rural area."
On the other hand, since the boundaries of the green belt to be ultimately incorporated in the development plan have to be drawn with particular care, the process of approval is necessarily a slow one. It is, therefore, important that the Minister should be free to decide in appropriate cases that certain provisional boundaries are too tightly drawn or that some important and specific issue must be decided before the whole green belt area is finally settled.
In formulating green belt proposals we do well to consider that, when necessary and where possible, existing towns and cities must be allowed some elbow room. That is not by any means the same as allowing urban sprawl or ribbon development, for the alternative to allowing natural development may result in unnecessary overspill to the less suitable areas. I am sure that the aim must be to regulate and guide, rather than to hold up or direct this natural force of expansion.
There is no question whatever of green belts becoming what someone called "green ditches separating subtopias." There is no intention of just repeating urban sprawl on the other side, where it must also be under planning control. Nor, in my view, should the green belt itself be thought of as just an area subject to negative control.
It is worth remembering that the Scott Report on Land Utilisation in Rural Areas, published in 1942, is the starting point for much of our thought on this subject. That Report directed its attention not merely to the preservation of rural amenities, but also to the well-being of rural communities. When the members of the Committee which prepared that Report spoke of the green belt, they emphasised that the term was widely misused by those who thought that it meant a belt of land to be preserved from building—or "sterilised"—and that such a concept was false. They did not want sporadic or scattered building, but they expected village extensions and even new villages and other appropriate development.
Planning in the proposed green belt is necessary in the interim period and has

1509
been directed primarily towards protecting and conserving existing facilities. It is right, however, to think of the green belt in more positive terms, as having recreational and landscape values which could be enhanced or created in some parts of the country which the Industrial Revolution has left derelict.
Mr. Dance: May I repeat the question I asked at the end of my remarks? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that a green belt formula will be settled and, so that the people in these areas may know where they stand, made known in the near future?
Mr. Rippon: We are making substantial progress, as the figures of sketch plans and proposals I gave indicate. It is much better to be slow than wrong.
11.29 p.m.
Mr. Julius Silverman: I should not have intervened in this debate had the question of Birmingham, Wythall, not been raised. Is my conception of the green belt correct—that it is the intention to preserve the amenities for a few fortunate dwellers who like to live in the rural areas?
Mr. Dance: I stressed from the beginning that people living in the urban areas, in the cities, were to benefit more from having this breathing room around them than the people inside the areas.
Mr. Silverman: It is really nonsense to suggest that it is of any real value to the overcrowded people of Aston or Ladywood to have somewhere in Wythall to visit when they are living in terrible and overcrowded conditions. The trouble is that many people living in or near the green belt areas do not want any interference with their district. They do not mind private residents coming along, but they object to council house residents from Birmingham coming in.
1510
Is that not the view of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden)?
Mr. Gurden: I am not in the least against the Birmingham scheme, but I see no reason why there should not be some of the other types of houses too, even if only a small number of them.
Mr. Silverman: That is not an issue. We are discussing the green belt, and that is infringed whatever type of houses are there. If that matter is raised, it shows the real objective of the move. In substance, those people say, "I'm all right, Jack, and I don't care two hoots what happens to the poor, overcrowded people of Birmingham."
For Birmingham and the Midlands conurbation more is wanted than just a new town. That is long-term, and requires development of both industry and houses and will not be solved to any considerable extent in the next ten years. There is not only the question of a new town; overspill is an essential part of the solution of Birmingham's problem, and must therefore be proceeded with. Incidentally, that is not only my view but that of the Birmingham City Council. It is the unanimous view of both parties there, because they realise that it is quite inevitable.
I shall not again quote the number of people—there are thousands of them—on our housing register, or the number of houses that will have to be built in the overspill areas for not less than about 50,000 families—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ROADS
  M1
  M1
  Parking Meters
  Parking Meters
  Otley-Burley Road, Wharfedale
  Otley-Burley Road, Wharfedale
  Vehicle Testing Scheme
  Vehicle Testing Scheme
  Sheffield-Leeds Motorway
  Sheffield-Leeds Motorway
  Lydiate Ash-Great Barr Motorway
  Lydiate Ash-Great Barr Motorway
  Leytonstone
  Leytonstone
  Pink Zone Scheme (Parking Places)
  Pink Zone Scheme (Parking Places)
  Off-Street Parking, Central London
  Off-Street Parking, Central London
  Gosforth
  Gosforth
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Traffic Lights
  Traffic Lights
  River Stour, Canford (Footbridge)
  River Stour, Canford (Footbridge)
  A.449 (Worcester-Kidderminster)
  A.449 (Worcester-Kidderminster)
SHIPPING
  "B.P. Explorer" (Wreck Commissioner's Report)
  "B.P. Explorer" (Wreck Commissioner's Report)
  Shipbuilding Orders
  Shipbuilding Orders
  Credit Facilities
  Credit Facilities
RAILWAYS
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Monmouthshire
  Monmouthshire
  Branch Lines, Scotland (Closures)
  Branch Lines, Scotland (Closures)
  Rugby-Leicester Line (Closure)
  Rugby-Leicester Line (Closure)
TRANSPORT
  British Transport Commission (Advertisements)
  British Transport Commission (Advertisements)
  Transport Charges
  Transport Charges
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Lorry Drivers (Working Hours)
  Lorry Drivers (Working Hours)
  Road Vehicles (Noise)
  Road Vehicles (Noise)
  Trafficators
  Trafficators
  English Channel (Dam)
  English Channel (Dam)
  SOUTH-WEST AFRICA (UNITED NATIONS MISSION)
  SOUTH-WEST AFRICA (UNITED NATIONS MISSION)
  VIETNAM, LAOS AND CAMBODIA
  VIETNAM, LAOS AND CAMBODIA
  IRAQ (BRITISH PRISONERS)
  IRAQ (BRITISH PRISONERS)
  ATLANTIC INSTITUTE (DECLARATION OF PURPOSE)
  ATLANTIC INSTITUTE (DECLARATION OF PURPOSE)
    DECLARATION OF PURPOSE
      THE ATLANTIC INSTITUTE
      THE ATLANTIC INSTITUTE
  UGANDA (BATUTSI REFUGEES)
  UGANDA (BATUTSI REFUGEES)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (AFRICA)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (AFRICA)
  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION (LEAFLET)
  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION (LEAFLET)
CONGO
  United Nations Troops
  United Nations Troops
  Mr. Lumumba (Death)
  Mr. Lumumba (Death)
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  IVORY COAST (EMBASSY ACCOMMODATION)
  IVORY COAST (EMBASSY ACCOMMODATION)
  GERMANY (KRUPP INDUSTRIES)
  GERMANY (KRUPP INDUSTRIES)
EMPLOYMENT
  Factories (First-Aid)
  Factories (First-Aid)
ROYAL NAVY
  British Honduras (Relief Work)
  British Honduras (Relief Work)
  H.M.S. "Terror", Singapore
  H.M.S. "Terror", Singapore
BRITISH ARMY
  Military Medal
  Military Medal
  Recruiting (West Indies)
  Recruiting (West Indies)
  Imperial War Graves Commission
  Imperial War Graves Commission
  Married Quarters, Germany (Caravans)
  Married Quarters, Germany (Caravans)
  National Service Men
  National Service Men
  Troops, Far East (Home Leave)
  Troops, Far East (Home Leave)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Gypsies
  Gypsies
WEST INDIES
  Passports (Children)
  Passports (Children)
WEST AFRICA
  Commodity Prices
  Commodity Prices
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Khormakgsar Station, Aden
  Khormakgsar Station, Aden
  Gan Personnel (Leave)
  Gan Personnel (Leave)
  El Adem Station (Accommodation)
  El Adem Station (Accommodation)
  Married Quarters, El Adem and Tobruk
  Married Quarters, El Adem and Tobruk
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Site, Thorp Arch
  Site, Thorp Arch
HOSPITALS
  Consultants
  Consultants
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Sight Tests, Manchester
  Sight Tests, Manchester
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Drunkenness
  Drunkenness
SCOTLAND
  Glasgow University
  Glasgow University
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  South Caernarvonshire
  South Caernarvonshire
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  British Forces, Europe
  British Forces, Europe

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell
The Lord De Freyne—Took the Oath.

SHOOTING OF BELGIAN BY UNITED NATIONS GUARDS
2.36 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 whether they will instruct their representative at the United Nations to protest against the killing by U.N. guards of a European, who tried to escape from a prison camp on October 28.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, no; I cannot do what my noble friend asks. The dead man was a Belgian citizen and any representations to be made would be the concern of the Belgian authorities.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, might I ask my noble friend whether he would not agree that the Government have some responsibility as a member State of the United Nations; that this man was arrested without any charge being preferred against him; and that, according to the information supplied by a reputable journalist, Mr. Ian Colvin of the Daily Telegraph, the circumstances of his subsequent death were at least suspicious? However, I do not wish to pursue the subject in view of what I regard as the very desirable attitude the Government are taking in regard to the operations of the United Nations in the Congo.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I shall always be perfectly ready, in general, to make quite clear what the attitude of the United Kingdom is about operations in the Congo or, indeed, if the lives of United Kingdom citizens are involved.
858
But this man, as I say, was a Belgian so I think it is right that any representation about him must be made by the Belgian Government.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, to carry the Question perhaps a little wider, I wonder whether my noble friend could have more widely circulated the admirable speech, if I may say so, which he made in Scotland commending the federal solution as the wisest solution for the Congo. Most people who have experience in the Congo recognise that as not only the best but the only possible solution for peace and prosperity for that country.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, that falls, I think, a little outside the Question. Her Majesty's Government often make very wise suggestions which are not always adopted by other people, but I will see whether I cannot take more effective steps to bring this proposal to the notice of those concerned.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it would be more in accordance with the spirit which I believe the noble Earl himself in Britain wishes to infuse into the United Nations that ordinary members of the United Nations should show concern about the fate of other nationals besides their own? After all, it is a matter that concerns the United Nations as a whole, not simply Britain or Belgium. And would it not really promote the objects which the noble Earl has in view if we showed some interest in the fate of a Belgian citizen?
LORD REA: My Lords, may I ask to which noble Earl the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is referring?
LORD SALTOUN: The Foreign Secretary.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I do not think it matters which noble Earl it is. Of course, we do pay particular concern to these matters, and are gravely concerned about what is happening in the Congo to-day. Our Permanent Representative, Sir Patrick Dean, has made this very clear in respect of both the operations which took place early on August 13 and the massacre of the Italian airmen the

859
other day, about which I sent a message to Signor Segni, the Foreign Minister of Italy; and we have stressed time and again that the rôle of the United Nations in this matter is pacification: no rôle which would tend to make the matter worse and to increase the dangers to life both of the Africans and of the Europeans, whether in Katanga or in the Stanleyville area, or, indeed, any other area of the Congo.

POLITICAL ATTACK IN BROADCAST SERMON
2.40 p.m.
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 whether they are aware that in the course of a religious service broadcast by the B.B.C. on Sunday, October 29, the preacher, in his sermon, made an attack upon the policy of the Government over a wide field; and whether they will represent to the B.B.C. that this is a breach of the rule by which political attacks are confined to the time allotted for broadcasts by political Parties.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, there is no rule under which matters of political controversy are confined to the Party political broadcasts arranged in agreement with the B.B.C. and the political Parties, but the Government rely on the Corporation to treat controversial matters with complete impartiality. The programme referred to was certainly critical of some aspects of Government policy, and it is therefore up to the Corporation to see that views supporting Government action are expressed in other programmes.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend very much for his Answer, which entirely fulfils the purpose of my Question? I do not want to pursue the matter much further, but the sermon was very critical of the Government and I think it was a very wrong occasion for that.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Lord telling the clergy
860
of the country that their interpretation of Christian ethics must necessarily be reconciled with the actions of the Government?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think that if the noble Lady could persuade anybody to believe that I was doing that, it would be a very remarkable argument.

APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES
2.42 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government—

(a) how many county court judges have been appointed as High Court Judges since 1945, and when;

(b) how many stipendiary magistrates have been appointed as judges of higher courts since 1945, and when.]

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, since 1945 five county court judges have been appointed to the High Court bench (one of them was subsequently promoted to the Court of Appeal). The appointments were made in 1945, 1947, 1948, 1950 and 1958. Two stipendiary magistrates have been appointed as judges of higher courts within the same period, in 1945 and 1961.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, is the inference from the Answer of the noble and learned Viscount that no county court judges except one have been found suitable for promotion since 1951, and only one magistrate?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the figures speak for themselves, as to the dates. I think it would be more profitable if we left our debate on the inferences to be made on the figures until our discussion to-morrow, when the noble Lord has put down Amendments to raise this point. But I think I ought to point out to him, in view of the speech that he must make to-morrow, that county court judges have on several occasions been appointed as Commissioners of Assize. In 1947 His Honour

861
Judge Sir David Davies became the first National Insurance Commissioner and the late Judge Clark Williams became a Deputy Commissioner at the same time.

DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCES
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the appeal for greater industrial efficiency, and to encourage round the clock machinery operation, they will forthwith announce appropriate increased statutory depreciation allowances equitably to balance the accelerated wear and tear.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, some rates of annual allowance for wear and tear of plant and machinery already take account of double shift or continuous working. But if a trader thinks that the rates are inadequate in his case to cover abnormal use, it is open to him, under Section 285 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, to apply to the Inland Revenue for an increase in those rates.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of that reply, and while recognising that no one will be more familiar with the workings of this system than the noble Lord who has replied, may I ask him whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in recognition of the necessity to assist certain industries, particularly those that can operate round the clock, there has recently been recognition, both by the United States Administration and in the Canadian Budget, of the necessity of this principle of conceding supplementary allowances to compensate for what have now been recognised as hitherto inadequate statutory allowances?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I quite understand the suggestion made by the noble Lord; but I suggest that the Income Tax Acts provide that any trader or association of traders can put forward reasons why their rates should be increased to take care of such circumstances. I think we have already
862
got the right machinery to deal with it. If it is not being dealt with in any particular in the way intended and the noble Lord would let me have details of the cases, I will see they are brought to the attention of the Board of Inland Revenue.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the proper method is to shorten the estimated life of the machine if it works round the clock?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I do not disagree with that contention, but it is capable of that kind of treatment within the existing legislation.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that these representations have been continually made by the Federation of British Industries, doubtless under this particular clause, and hitherto it has not succeeded in getting recognition by Her Majesty's Government of provisions apparently made in the regulations?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the noble Lord may be aware that under another cap I have often taken part in such representations. Sometimes they do not succeed because they are too ambitious in their representations; sometimes they do succeed because they are obviously fair and reasonable.

CIVIL AVIATION
2.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD THE EARL OF GOSFORD rose to call attention to the problems affecting Civil Aviation; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is almost four years to the day since your Lordships last held a debate on this subject, civil aviation. The last debate took place in fact on December 11, 1957, on Motions by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who, I am glad to see, is able to take part to-day, and by the late Lord Winster. Much that was foreshadowed in that debate has now come to pass. First of all, we now have a Ministry of Aviation; secondly, the large number of small, or comparatively small, aircraft firms have by amalgamation become a small number of large firms—a tendency which I am sure will continue when one thinks of the large

863
cost of development and manufacture of modern aircraft. I will return to this subject later. Thirdly, the airports now administered by the Ministry of Aviation are to be handed over to a new airport authority in the case of international airports, and to certain local authorities in the case of others. Incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, foreshadowed many years ago the coming of this airport authority. I am indeed sorry to see that he is unable to take part in the debate to-day—in fact, that he is debarred from doing so, as are other noble Lords whose advice would have been of great value to your Lordships. Fourthly, and finally, jet aircraft are with us.
It is the manner of the arrival of the jet aircraft which has, to my mind, brought with it and foreshadows in the future problems of immense complexity. When your Lordships last discussed the question of civil aviation your Lordships were concerned with the delays and the teething troubles of the Britannia turbo-prop. Now, not six years later, this aircraft has been superseded by turbo-jet aircraft on most of the long haul routes. The same thing is happening on the shorter hauls, although I am happy to see that the Vickers Vanguard performance is equal to that of the jets on these shorter runs. Incidentally this aircraft, the Vanguard, with its dual purpose passenger-freight capacity, is, to my mind, a magnificent example of the imaginative thinking of the British aircraft industry.
It is the almost forest fire-like success of the Vickers Viscount, followed by that of the Comet, and the Caravelle, and by several larger jet aircraft, which is responsible for one of the major difficulties of the world airlines—forced re-equipment. The general public, quite naturally, want to travel in the latest and most up-to-date aircraft. A new type of aircraft that only exceeds its predecessor or competitors by twenty or thirty miles per hour, and is otherwise of the same type, does not make much impact on the travelling public. But if an aircraft has some radical difference in design and therefore in performance, such as the jet-engined aircraft, then airlines are forced to re-equip whether they are ready to do so or not, or else
864
they go out of business for lack of passengers.
This giant step, if I may call it so, has happened only twice so far, the first being when the monoplane and the retractable undercarriage were introduced, and the second, as I have already mentioned, being the arrival of the jet engine. We are now faced with the possibility of three similar steps in the not too distant future. I consider that the first step will be the use of the large helicopter for short runs up to, say, 300 miles which, if landing grounds near centres of cities can be found, will cut the overall travelling time to a point where normal aircraft will be quite out of the question. The next step is the aircraft designed for vertical take-off, which will make airports with long runways unnecessary. Incidentally, in this connection I was interested to read in the newspapers on Monday that an agreement has been signed by seven British, American and continental firms to co-operate on a vertical take-off fighter for the N.A.T.O. air force. The last step, as I see it, before we get rockets, is the supersonic aircraft. I should imagine that when each of these new types of aircraft comes on the market the world's airlines will be forced to re-equip whatever the state of their existing aircraft.
As for the helicopter, I understand that B.E.A., and no doubt some independent companies, are ready for this change when it comes. The vertical take-off aircraft would have to be phased in on a world basis because of the air control problems involved. Nevertheless, it will mean that air lines will have to re-equip again, in some cases before they normally would do so. Finally, there will be the supersonic aircraft, which will be a headache indeed both to the manufacturers and to the air lines, and the cost will be enormous. Only aircraft corporations and companies with very healthy financial positions will be able to stand re-equipment of this sort at what I would call abnormally short intervals. Furthermore, I doubt whether any of them will be able to buy supersonic aircraft without Government assistance. I hope that Her Majesty's Government have this problem well in mind.
I come now to the problem of the Corporations and the independent air lines.

865
I regret that, owing to the fact that I had to make a visit abroad at short notice, I have not been able to have the consultations with both sides in this question that I should like to have had. I shall therefore in no way go into detail. But, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to set out the position as I see it. Applications have been made by Cunard Eagle, British United Airways and other independent companies to operate in parallel with B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. on certain of their routes. It was announced in June that the Air Transport Licensing Board had granted a fifteen-year licence to Cunard Eagle Airways for a daily transatlantic service between Britain and the East Coast of the United States, but that they had turned down Cunard Eagle's other application to operate to the West Coast and to Canada. This was the new Board's first decision on a major application by a British independent airline. The Corporation appealed to the Minister against this decision, and it was announced only yesterday that the appeal had been upheld by my right honourable friend.
I myself consider this to be a wise decision in the present situation on the North Atlantic route which B.O.A.C. say is a route which was profitable for them last year but is now showing a considerable loss. Hence, this would be the worst possible moment to introduce a new carrier. Furthermore, they also say that their 1958 order for Vickers VC.10 aircraft, worth about £100 million, was based on the assumption that they, B.O.A.C., would be carrying all the passengers using British aircraft. The Corporation could place such orders for now British aircraft only if they believed that the passenger traffic would be sufficient to fill them. On the other hand, Cunard Eagle maintained at the inquiry that there would be—here I quote:
"No material diversion of passengers from B.O.A.C."
if their application were granted. They said they could get more passengers through their own network of Cunard offices throughout the United States of America.
The applications by British United Airways and other independent companies to operate certain scheduled services in competition with B.E.A. are
866
still under consideration by the Board, though I have just read on the tape that the British United Airways have walked out of the Inquiry—they say, until they know more about what the Minister has in mind. British European Airways say that any British operator working in parallel with them on the continental routes can only have the effect of taking passengers from them. As B.E.A. work in pool to most of the countries in Europe, any new British operator would be able to take passengers only from B.E.A.'s share and not from the indigenous airline—at least not for long, as the latter would see to it that this did not happen at the next pool review which takes place every six months. B.E.A. contend that they have to operate unprofitable services such as the social services in Scotland, and that they have had years of working at a loss while building up their present routes. Both Corporations argue that the independents, who have no obligation to run in off-peak periods, should not now be allowed to operate at peak periods only, thus skimming the cream off the trade. It is this profit to which the Corporations were looking to help them finance the future re-equipment which, as I have told your Lordships, I consider to be a very difficult problem indeed.
The Corporations say that there are plenty of other activities open to the independents, such as charter, trooping and air-coach services, and, not least, that they could pioneer new routes not already served by the Corporations and which they could develop to their own profit. Finally, the Corporations point out that they are not monopolies without competitors; on the contrary, they are in a highly competitive international industry, which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, acknowledged when he replied for the Government in your Lordships' previous debate. I must say that I find some sympathy with these arguments.
I understand that the independents, on the contrary, say that their participation in these particular routes would have the effect of producing more traffic. I can only say that I hope that, if they do participate, this turns out to be so. But it seems to me that what really matters is that the criterion for the added British entry into airline markets

867
should be that the British share of the passengers is additional, and not that the newcomer takes away from what the existing British carrier is already carrying.
I will now turn to our aircraft industry, which has been second only to the United States in supplying world aircraft, and I hope that it will continue to be so for many years to come. If we are to sell these aircraft abroad, there must be a substantial home market for them. As your Lordships know, a substantial home market is the basis of a successful export trade. The export trade in aircraft in the last few years has been running at a level of about £150 million per year, which this year represents about one-third of the industry's total sales. This can be sustained only by a Government policy of continued support for the industry, particularly in the field of research and development. The Corporations and the independent companies have loyally supported our industry, except when B.O.A.C. were forced, by circumstances beyond their power, to buy American after the Comet disasters, which happily have now been fully overcome by de Havillands; but I cannot see how they can continue to give their support if the Government do not alter their present policy.
In the U.S.A. much the greater part of the cost of development is written off against development and production for the United States Air Force. Furthermore, the United States Air Force Transport Command usually have the task, if I may put it in this way, of taking the "bugs" out of new aircraft. It is not so with us. B.O.A.C. had to endure the teething troubles of the Britannia, as in fact was mentioned in your Lordships' previous debate, and B.E.A. have recently done the same thing, though happily on a minor scale, with the Vanguard. No commercial airline, particularly when it is competing with the world's best, should be forced to do this. If the industry is to be able to compete in the world and home markets, prices charged must not bear anything like the cost of research and development that they do now. Furthermore, the Government must reduce or abolish altogether their present substantial levy charged on Government-
868
sponsored aircraft when sold abroad. I am informed that the United States Government charge no such levy on their aircraft. Furthermore, exporters must be able to obtain more generous credit facilities.
My Lords, to come back to the importance of a substantial home market, the size of a production batch or batches is an important factor in bringing down the price. The Government can be of considerable help here by placing substantial orders for R.A.F. Transport Command and by not placing them in penny packets. But the airline companies must equally be in a position to place large initial orders rather than in dribs and drabs. The aircraft industry while fully supporting private enterprise, fear lest the competition between the Corporations and the private airlines may have the effect not of increasing the total goods and passengers carried but, indeed, of diminishing the business of the Corporations to an extent where they would find themselves obliged to cancel or reduce orders for new types of aircraft.
I now come to the problem of supersonic aircraft. I understand that a British Aircraft Corporation design study for a British supersonic airliner is expected to be completed and handed over to the Ministry of Aviation somewhere about now. Dr. Russell of the Bristol Aircraft Company has stated that this project calls for a Mach-2 aircraft—as your Lordships know, Mach-1 is the speed of sound—with a high-altitude speed of 1,400 miles an hour. Now if Her Majesty's Government decide to go ahead, a prototype might be flying by 1966 and an airline service by 1970. In France, according to a report in the Press, Sud Aviation in co-operation with Marcel Dassault, are planning to fly a Mach-2 supersonic prototype late in 1966, and to begin production in 1967. Sud Aviation and the British Aircraft Corporation have, I understand, been discussing supersonic co-operation, and the French project is expected to receive Government financial support which might take the form of a public loan. In the United States a special committee, set up by the President to consider the future of the American aircraft industry, has called for Government help to develop a supersonic airliner flying at Mach-3, at speeds in excess of 2,000 miles an hour. It is argued that this

869
type could be ready by 1970 and would give the U.S.A. a big advantage if it were first in the field.
Experience to date has shown, as I have already mentioned, that the travelling public go for the fastest aircraft provided that the cost of the ticket is somewhat the same. If we decide to go for Mach-2, and the Americans and maybe the Russians go for Mach-3 and are successful, will not the money that we have spent on Mach-2 be wasted? There have been occasions in the past where our sights have been set too low only to find that someone else has got there first. But our skill and our imagination are as good as any in the world, provided that we do not let them leak away to America and Canada, as we seem to be doing at present. If others are aiming at Mach-3 should we not do so, too? The research and development will need and is receiving Government help, but what about the problem of financing the manufacture of these supersonic aircraft and the equipping of the airlines with them? Only a few such aircraft will be needed because of their greater speed. This very fact will cause problems of financing beyond the resources of private industry, and I hope the Government are already thinking ahead and will not be caught napping.
Now I come down to slightly more technical details. There have been a number of accidents to British aircraft this year. Figures quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation in another place on November 6 last indicated that, in terms of passenger miles flown, the record of those companies operating charter flights is not as good, or anywhere near as good, as that of those operating scheduled flights. Here I should like to congratulate B.E.A. on being awarded the Flight Safety Foundation Award for distinguished service in achieving safe utilisation of aircraft. This, I believe, is the first time that the award has been made to a non-United States airline.
It is for the Minister to allay the fears which these facts have produced. This can be done either by showing, as a result of investigation, that these accidents, though tragic and lamentable, need give no grounds for public distrust or anxiety, or that such shortcomings or failings as may be discovered are to be adequately remedied. While these
870
accidents are under investigation it would probably be unwise for me to hazard any particular theory not based on known facts. However, it may be that these older-type aircraft which the charter companies use, while in every way complying with the provisions of the law, are not entirely suited to the job which they have to do. They are operating in competition with modern, high-performance aircraft operating over an air traffic system far more complex than was the case when these aircraft were themselves the best in the air. If that is so, then the legislation relating to the equipment to be carried by, the performance characteristics required of, and the operating limitations to be applied to, these aircraft must be reviewed urgently. Furthermore, before passengers can be carried on scheduled services the crews must have made route training flights. This is not required in the case of non-scheduled flying. It is considered sufficient for the latter crews to be familiar with the radio aids at their destination. It is here, I think, that improvements can be made. Scheduled flights and non-scheduled flights must be equally safe: in other words, the same standards must be applied to both types of operation. If route training is not feasible for charter flights, then the aircraft should by law be fitted with some suitable automatic aid. As to air safety generally, there still seems to be evidence of sluggishness and procrastination within the Ministry of Aviation in matters concerning flight safety.
I will now come for a moment to navigational aids. The installation of V.O.R. beacons in the United Kingdom is far below the standard already operating in all other Western European countries, while the provision of landing aids at many of the airports serving our provincial cities often falls far short of the standard required for operation in bad weather. The absence of a satisfactory long-range navigational aid is already restricting optimum operations on the North Atlantic route.
I will not myself go further into the subject of air traffic or air traffic control, as noble Lords following me will be doing that. I should like, if I may, to congratulate my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation on his announcement of a Bill to permit the

871
setting up of Euro-control. Simplicity is the secret of good flying control and of safety, and to my mind the word should be written in large letters in the offices of all who deal with this vital subject. I should like here to say a few words about the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators who, to my mind, do a wonderful job for air safety in this country. They have committees of pilots who are operating every day, and they advise the Ministry on the latest devices and the latest ideas. I only hope that the Ministry of Aviation will find that it can take up these ideas quicker than it does at present.
As to airports, a Government White Paper issued in August of this year announced the formation of a new airport authority to take over the management of the four international airports—Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Prestwick. The Minister of Aviation is to discuss with local authorities proposals that they should assume responsibility for seven State-owned airports in the Provinces. The Government agree that local authorities might reasonably expect some Exchequer assistance in cases where the financial burden would be heavy. The Government also propose that nine airfields in the Highlands and two others at Land's End and the Scillies should be run by agencies on the Government's behalf. This is all to the good. It seems to me that "decentralisation" is the keyword here. I should like to add a few words on the subject of the situation at London Airport in a few years' time. What is going to be done? I understand that Gatwick is going to be doubled in size. Who is going to go there? B.E.A. have all their maintenance at London Airport. In France, the French insist that they remain at Orly, and anybody else can go more or less where they like, preferably to Le Bourget. It seems to me that we could take a leaf out of their book, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will be able to enlighten us on that matter.
Finally, my Lords, might I say a few words about helicopters, which are already an accepted form of transport? It seems to me that here we are in a poor way over sites for helicopter landings. The heliport at Battersea is a private venture by the Westland Aircraft
872
Company, and, with a lease of only seven years, is scheduled to close in 1964. In any case, it is too far from the centre of London to be considered suitable for a permanent heliport. It seems to me that it is imperative that urgent attention be given to this problem in spite of the reported objections of various local authorities.
My Lords, I have sketched only in outline the problems confronting civil aviation as I see them. Other noble Lords will, I know, be filling in many of the details and will be mentioning subjects on which I have not touched. This country, though not having produced the first heavier-than-air aircraft, has been in the forefront of civil aviation, in the vanguard, if I may say so, ever since the Wright Brothers first flew. Alcock and Brown were the first to fly the Atlantic non-stop; we held the air-speed and height records for many years, and Sir Frank Whittle invented the jet engine. Our airlines and our aircraft industry can continue to be world beaters if the Government give them the help and encouragement they need and use the imagination of which I am sure they are capable. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships have all been impressed, as I have, by the immensely thorough and balanced survey of the civil aviation position in this country to which we have just listened. I hope that the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, is one which will be read very widely, because it sums up not only the prospects but also the problems that confront us. He made his speech in a way which was entirely free from any Party political or other prejudice, and I shall try to continue the debate in the same way as he has initiated it, happily conscious of the fact that, because so much of the ground has already been covered, I shall not have to deliver as much of my speech as I originally thought I should have to.
Of course, the main question confronting civil aviation (as was apparent from the noble Earl's speech) is the survival and development of the great British Flag carriers, British Overseas Airways Corporation and British European Airways. When I say that, assure your Lordships it is not due

873
to prejudice. Even if I am for it, I can assure your Lordships that the remarks I make are not intended to suggest that there is not a future for the independents. But it was apparent from our debate on the subject of air licensing, when the Bill was before this House, that it was the view of both sides of the House—of the Government, of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, and of those of us who in some respects were critical of the Bill—that the position in this matter was well established and that the object of that particular Bill was to provide some proper place for the independents without in any way damaging our national carriers.
Before I go on to that, there are a few matters to which I should like to refer first, some of which have not been dealt with by the noble Earl, Lord Gosford. He has already discussed, in a way that made the position very clear, the problem of aircraft safety and the need for raising standards, particularly on charter flights. I think it rather follows that charter flights are, if anything, likely to call for greater experience and greater skill than do scheduled flights, whereas, unfortunately, I think the situation tends to deal with a position which is the other way round. There is obviously a greater risk in flying a route which is not so familiar, and it is for this reason, perhaps, that some accidents have been caused. They have not necessarily been due to some basic fault in the aircraft or, indeed, in the operation of aircraft—although there have been instances of that—but there is obviously a greater risk involved.
I should like to turn now to the question of airport facilities. We did discuss this matter at great length in the summer; and we are now promised legislation, which the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, has already explained, so I shall not go into it in great detail. I should, however, like to urge the Government to press on with this as quickly as possible. There is no doubt that there are growing difficulties, growing troubles, and, if I may say so, a growing irritation amongst the travelling public. We know that the situation at Heathrow to-day can be absolutely chaotic. There is the need for the development of better facilities; there is the need for the development of the pier system, which was advocated a long while ago; and
874
there is also the need to be able to get to London Airport more easily, notwithstanding the opening of the Hammersmith flyover. The only effect of that is that, instead of spreading the jam more evenly along the length of the road, it concentrates it at some point. We know that the departure of aircraft is being held up by the non-arrival of buses; and if one wants to go out to the airport by private car, one has to leave very early for fear of being caught in a traffic jam.
One of the main attractions of air travel in the past has been its relative simplicity and its freedom from the irritation and frustrations of other types of travel. Incidentally, although this is not strictly a problem of air travel, it certainly is a problem for the travelling public, and may perhaps even add to the confusion. Could not the Government bring some pressure to bear, even if they have to go to I.A.T.A. on it, in order to allow those who wish to do so to book their tourist seats? It is really a ridiculous spectacle, to watch people rushing madly out to an aircraft, walking, as they hope, at a dignified but fast pace in order to choose what they think is the safest seat, or, if they happen to have a slipped disc, to choose an aisle seat so that they can put their right leg out, and so on. I suggest that this really is a reasonable request to make. After all, if you travel on a railway you can book your seat if you go second-class, and I do not see why you should not be able to do the same in an aeroplane.
We have already discussed the serious effect of the high cost of British airport charges. This is a matter on which we get very little satisfaction from the Government, who defended the position on a reasonable ground, as it seemed to me, by saying that it was wrong, in their view, that the British taxpayer should in this way have to subsidise the airlines. But the consequence of these very much higher charges—the figures have been given and really cannot be disputed; the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, gave them at length and compared London Airport with Idlewild—is to penalise our own British operators, whether they are publicly or privately owned, because they are the greatest users of our airports. Although they

875
are competing with foreign airlines, they have the greatest number of landings in this country and therefore the cost is the greatest to them. This is a penalty which I hope the Government will take very seriously. This is not just an attempt to get a concealed subsidy, but to enable us to compete on equal terms with other operators.
My Lords, a particular point about airports which I would mention again is that the British, in the shape of the Ministry of Aviation and the Government, are, I think, being a little too fair-minded in regard to foreign operators concerning the use of Heathrow and Gatwick. The French make no pretence about reserving the best facilities for themselves, for Air France, at Orly Airport. Yet we are all the time suggesting that we must be fair to the foreigner, that they must have the same chance as we. If they are going to have to use Gatwick at some time, then so are we going to have to use Gatwick. It really is a nonsense, because the greater part of the maintenance of our aircraft is, not surprisingly, done in this country, and it would be very much more convenient if the aircraft which have maintenance and repairs to be done at Heathrow were always allowed to use the airport facilities. It is a much greater problem for them, and the split in these operations entails an additional charge and an additional complication for British European Airways; and, indeed, the split in the use of certain facilities at Heathrow itself is a problem for B.O.A.C. So I hope that on this matter we can follow our more basic instincts and pursue a purely British policy.
I should now like to turn to another aspect of civil aviation which has not, perhaps, received enough attention either from the Government or, indeed, from Parliament. This is the need for developing private flying, and particularly flying by executive aircraft. At the moment, the general impression is that flying by private individuals or by businessmen, and the manufacture of these small aircraft, is a matter which we tolerate but which we do not encourage. This is a very clear impression which, if I may say so, is revealed in the attitude towards private flying of the Government—and in this matter I make no distinction between
876
one Government and another—and the attitude of the officials. On the whole, the Ministry are backward in their regard to this matter. It is a complication, a frill, which is, in their view, of minor importance in comparison to the big airline operations. The classic example of this has been in the use of airports, and the refusal to allow private aircraft to use our main airports. The battle of Heathrow has now been won, I believe, and under appropriate control private aircraft can now go to Heathrow.
But the most important issue is the future of Croydon. This matter is still under consideration by the Government. Very naturally, this large open space is desired by other potential users, and it is not surprising that local authorities want it for building houses, and so on. But Croydon Airport could be a perfect and ideal airfield for private aircraft. When we consider the position in other countries, in Paris, Chicago and New York, and the amount of private flying that is done, it would be the height of folly to lose this valuable asset. At the New York airport at Teteborough there are no fewer than 400,000 aircraft movements in a year more than at London Airport and there is abundant need to ensure that Croydon should be available. Croydon may have sentimental attractions for some of us who landed there in the earlier days of flying, but it is not only on sentimental grounds but also on sheer hard national need that I claim it should still be preserved for flying.
In passing, I would urge that Air Traffic Control should perhaps be a little less restrictive. There is the impression that it is unduly restrictive on private fliers and certain prosecutions have led to very severe penalties, even though in some of these cases there has been no real risk and no one has suggested that there has been any real danger to aircraft. I realise that there is the view that anybody who flies in an area where there may be airliners is a menace, but there is only so much air space and unless we are going to rule out private flying we have to consider whether prosecutions and the imposition of severe penalties of £250 or more are comparable to the approach we make to road traffic offences. I cannot go into the case at the moment because it is sub judice, but I understand that a

877
private flyer who has lost his way, is alleged to have menaced an Irish Viscount coming in to land. I know of other cases where there has been no risk whatsoever and yet severe fines were imposed, I suppose with a sense of indignation. I think that we ought to look again at this aspect of the matter.
Potentially there is an important market for executive and small aircraft. Your Lordships will have seen an interesting development of a new group. I think that the initiative shown and the risks taken by Mr. Peter Masefield of Pressed Steel and his associates in going into a field which for so long has largely been left to the Americans deserve public congratulation and praise on national grounds. At the present time, we import something like £1 million worth of aircraft of this type, all of which is costing us vital foreign exchange, and the developments of this group and the activities of one or two other companies have already shown that there is no reason why we should not build up a promising industry in the field of executive and small aircraft costing between £2,000 and £20,000. It has been estimated that something like 70 per cent. of output might well go to export. So there is a case on grounds of efficiency for making it possible for businessmen and others with important time to save to use their own aircraft freely in this country, and there is also a case for this industry on the grounds of earning important foreign exchange.
In view of what the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, has said about the aircraft industry, I will not go into details about these ticklish problems, beyond echoing his plea that the Government should again look at this problem of the cost of the development and introduction of new aircraft. In certain matters we have led the world and we are in danger of losing the lead. This is particularly true in regard to vertical take-off aircraft. I maintain that there are strong national reasons for doing everything we can, within reason, to sustain the British aircraft industry. Clearly we do not want to subsidise or "feather bed" an industry which is not efficient, but, from the nature of the aircraft industry, the ordinary competitive and market factors cannot apply and responsibility must rest upon the Government. I fully appreciated that the Government realise this
878
and have taken strong steps to rationalise the industry, but we also have to see that there are enough money and orders to sustain it.
I turn now to the vexed question of the position of the national airlines and the possibility of competition from the independents. First of all, I should like to say a word about the achievements of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. It is worth while noting, as no doubt your Lordships have already done, that B.E.A. have earned an 8 per cent. return on the money which we as taxpayers had invested in the Corporation, and in a field where margins are very narrow and profits are uncertain. As the noble Lord, Lord Casey, said in an earlier debate, most big airlines are teetering on a knife edge in regard to profits, and this achievement of B.E.A. is something of which we can be proud.
The position of B.O.A.C. has been a little less happy. Even so, they have earned their 4 per cent., for, although they show a loss, this is after interest charges have been paid—that is, after what would normally have been the payment of dividends to preference shareholders. I do not need to go into the difficulties in detail, beyond pointing out that an example of the problems which an airline has to face was the difficulty created by the delay in introducing the Boeing 707. This was delayed by Government action, for perfectly good reasons—namely, safety reasons—but the fact remains that in these very sensitive markets they got off to a late start and that was enough to damage their prospects. It affected particularly the load factor, on which I shall have something more to say.
The most serious problem affecting civil aviation to-day is the question of the granting of licences by the Air Transport Licensing Board. It is not long since we debated the Bill which set up that Board. We then criticised the lack of clarity in regard to the administration of the licensing arrangements. From these Benches—and I think there were views which supported us elsewhere—we complained that the Licensing Board did not have a clear enough directive on how they were to administer their powers. The Report of the Air Transport Licensing Board says:
"The Act does not provide any positive guidance on policy for the Board to follow in

879
deciding whether or not to grant an application. It appears to have been the intention of the Legislature to leave the Board unfettered as regards the general policy they should pursue, and in particular free to exercise their judgment with no predetermined preference for any particular class of air transport operator or particular class of service."
It would seem that the recent reversal of the decision of the Board is our fault, the fault of the legislation which was passed through Parliament. At that time, we fully accepted the assurances of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, and others that there was no intention of doing anything to damage civil aviation and the main national carriers; it was recognised that they were our main national carriers and that everything must be done to preserve them.
The issue on which the difficulty has arisen has been the question of money diversion. We tried to write into the Bill a very clear directive on this matter, but it was refused by the Government. I must say that, in my view, despite the fact that I did not like the decision, the Air Transport Licensing Board seem to have done their duty in the way that they thought Parliament intended that duty to be done. Now they find their decision overturned by the Minister of Aviation. I personally welcome the overturn of that decision, but I should be very angry if I were a member of the Air Transport Licensing Board. The news the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, gave us, straight from tie tape, that British United Airways had walked out of the Inquiry until there has been some clarification, is a measure of the confusion that has been caused.
It really seems to be folly that we should inflict this harm on ourselves. This is our own national industry. It is not something that we can allow to operate, unfortunately or fortunately, according to the working of free competition. We know that there is little in the way of free competition of a kind that once was understood to exist in all types of commercial activity. There is, in fact, complete control over prices and over the number of flights that can be flown by particular operators. These are matters of international negotiation. Therefore, the idea that people can freely move into this field and compete, as shipping lines have done in the past, is completely fallacious.
880
On the other hand, there is no doubt that there is any amount of competition with foreign countries. Those of your Lordships who have read the report of British European Airways will have a measure of the amount of competition that there is. For instance, they report that in the last year
"Air France introduced all-the-year-round operations on the London-Nice route and increased its traffic by 59 per cent.; Alitalia, with new routes and new aircraft, increased its traffic to and from Italy by over 50 per cent.; Olympic Airways increased its London-Athens traffic by over 50 per cent. also; D.L.H. operated for the first time to Cologne over routes where previously only B.E.A. were operating; and T.W.A., using large jets increased its London-Frankfurt traffic 2½ times."
B.E.A. then go on to describe how they intend to meet this competition. And there is no doubt that B.E.A. are highly regarded as one of the most efficient and competitive airlines in the world. Both B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. have taken the lead in pressing for reduced fares. But the margins are too small for us to play around in this vital field. We have too much at stake, both in the way of foreign earnings and in terms of national prestige. Last year, B.O.A.C. earned over £50 million worth of foreign exchange.
This is not the first bite into the national cherry. I do not propose to go through the history of Colonial Coach Services, but it was understood when Colonial Coach Services, with the disappearance of certain Colonies into independent countries, were consolidated into scheduled airlines, that the national carriers, B.O.A.C. and others, by accepting that formula were a party to a long-term settlement. Now they are threatened, as a result of this act, by the movement of new competition into a field where they already have plenty of competition. If they are to survive they have to plan ahead and have to order their aircraft. Airlines plan ahead in a way that perhaps other industries are unable to do. But if they are to order aircraft they must be able to make the best estimate they can as to where they are likely to operate and the extent to which they will be able to do so within this limited, internationally controlled field.
Both B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. have shown anxiety about their future aircraft ordering programmes. Over the past years

881
British European Airways have spent something like £130 million in buying British aircraft; and, as the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, said, they have, in addition, the responsibility of proving and developing these aircraft if they are to be brought fully into the market and if, indeed, we are to reap the considerable foreign exchange earnings of the aircraft manufacturing industry. As we all know only too well, our export usually depends on a firm and basic home market. The costs are enormous. The D.C.3 cost £20,000; now a new British European Airways aircraft costs £1 million. What the cost of these new supersonic aircraft will be nobody really yet knows.
I am sure that the noble Lord who is to reply has read the reports of the Corporations, and it may be he will say that they are excessively anxious. But I should like to draw his attention, and that of noble Lords, to the admirable report of B.E.A.—and I may say that the Air Corporations have set an example to the rest of nationalised industry, and to industry generally, in the fullness, clarity, and frankness of their reporting. This is what they say:
"Until now B.E.A.'s plans for the future have been based on a forecast of traffic growth which we were reasonably confident could be achieved. Now, however, the assumptions on which that traffic forecast was based, particularly the share of traffic on each route which would be carried by B.E.A., are in complete doubt."
We have done this by our own legislative action. If the airlines are to succeed they must achieve a minimum load factor; everything depends on the question of load factor. As the new aircraft are introduced there is bound to be a period before enough new traffic is generated to achieve the break-even load. If we are to weaken the position in regard to load factor in the way that might have happened if the Minister had not accepted the B.O.A.C. appeal, we are in danger of pushing the profitability of these air corporations into the red. It must be against this background that the applications of the independents to move into fields where they see the prospect of profit, as they very naturally and properly wish to do, are considered.
Somehow a satisfactory solution to this conflict has to be found, and I am wondering whether it would not be possible for the Corporations and the inde-
882
pendents to co-operate a little more freely. There is already satisfactory co-operation, once it has been established. We see British European Airways cooperating perfectly well with Jersey Lines and Cambrian Airlines. But all that happens at the moment is a highly skilled slanging match in front of the Inquiry. I shudder to think what the cost is going to be. We notice in the recent Inquiry, where the Ministry of Aviation's inspector reversed a decision of the Board, that he made no award as regards costs. That is probably perfectly fair. British Cunard Eagle are obviously going to sustain a heavy loss as a result of the reversal of this decision. But somebody has to find the money. In the case of the B.O.A.C. appeal, we have to find the money. It is rather a worrying thought, in these days when there is so much bureaucracy and obstruction to action, that high-powered executives should spend their time in inquiries, fighting over competition. I would urge the Government to consider again whether there is not some simpler way in which we can settle this problem in the future.
I would only, in conclusion, assure your Lordships that this is not meant to be an appeal for public versus private enterprise. I think we are all agreed that we have reached a stage of development where there are certain fields that properly belong to one or properly to another. This was made clear last week in the debate initiated by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. We can at times pay too high a price for an abstract concept of competition. I hope that we shall be able in future to approach the problems of the civil aviation industry free from some of the political prejudices which both sides have shown, but very conscious that it is the national interest that has to be served. I think the evidence is now available as to how Government policy should be pursued. Whatever Government is in power will undoubtedly come under heavy criticism. It is obviously the duty of Oppositions and all other Members who are not members of the Government to criticise the Government. But I think that on this matter the Government are in danger of incurring more than passing criticism, and I would urge them to look at the operation of the Air Transport Licensing Board—if in fact they have still

883
got one after recent events—and see whether we cannot get ourselves out of these particular difficulties.
3.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, the few remarks which I should like to address to your Lordships this afternoon concern in the main the somewhat chaotic conditions now obtaining at London Airport which have already been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I must make it plain that I speak in no way as an expert like the last two speakers, but merely as a complaining traveller, of which sometimes I feel there is an insufficient quantity. I read in the Press that the control of the apron of this airport is to be handed over next year to B.E.A. by the Ministry of Aviation, and the control of the airport buildings and the services therein is to be vested in some kind of board. I hope the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate this afternoon will tell us a good deal more about these arrangements, because a great many people view them with considerable concern.
We had rather a rude awakening yesterday in finding that where Ministries which are in charge of State-owned undertakings have "passed the buck" to a board, those Ministries subsequently disclaim any responsibility of control, even when an important national interest is concerned. So far as the apron is concerned, I am sure that B.E.A. will run it extremely well. The sad truth is that London Airport, in spite of being a relatively modern airport, is badly designed and conceived. The buildings should never have been placed in the centre, but on the perimeter, which would have obviated the present limitations of landing and parking of aircraft and the difficulties of access to them by passengers. I think your Lordships will agree that it is essential, having regard to the increasing volume of air travel, that a long-term view should be taken about this, especially as I believe that the landing charges at London Airport are higher than at any other airport in the world, and so finance should not be the main objection. It is very important from every point of view that London should have a first-class airport and that determination should be shown by the Government about it.
884
As regards the services provided by the Airport, an up-to-date and carefully thought out plan should be made. A vastly increasing number of people now want to travel from A to B at the minimum cost and with the maximum degree of safety and comfort, and it should be the duty of the Ministry to ensure that this is done. There is no need nowadays to encourage passengers to fly, as was the case when air travel was in its infancy, by giving them free drinks, unnecessarily lavish meals, and so on. I should like to draw attention to a few of the irritations which they now have to endure at London Airport, and which are well-known to most of your Lordships. If bona fide passengers arrive at London Airport in a private car—which they have to do if coming from a country district—they are not allowed to pull up at the main entrances, but are diverted to a parallel road from which everyone, including the aged and infirm, have to walk across the main road at the risk of their lives, and maybe during bad weather. The porters run the same risk of discomfort, and this factor has probably contributed to their present dissatisfaction. I asked a Question in your Lordships' House on May 3 last, urging that some form of protection should be provided, and that until then bona fide passengers should be allowed to draw up at the main entrances. But nothing so far has been done.
The next discomfort is the long queue while the process of ticket scribbling is carried out by an inadequate staff. Obviously, this is something that has to be simplified for the future volume of traffic, and I should like to know whether anything has been done to try to improve this. Then there is the payment of the Airport fee in another queue. Why this should not be embodied in the price of the ticket, I do not understand. Then the harassed passengers go up on the escalator to the main lobby, passing a notice, saying that beyond this point only they and their friends are allowed to go. But there is no one to enforce this regulation, and the lobby and all the shops, restaurants, bars and other amenities which are presumably provided primarily for them are swamped by a milling crowd of sightseers and outsiders, so that sometimes it is almost impossible to move and it is difficult to find a seat. I am told that at night the bars are

885
crowded with local people who are able to drink there long after their own licensing hours. Can we be assured by the Minister to-day that something will be done about this and that outsiders will be kept within specified limits?
Then, after the passenger has passed through the channel door and awaits the loudspeaker call to the aircraft, there is again considerable discomfort, especially if there has been a hold-up due to bad weather. There are not enough seats, and the tables are filled with dirty teacups and litter of all kinds, and the ashtrays are loaded with smelly debris. The catering services are insufficient. All too often the forecasts are mistaken and erratic, and passengers are told that their aircraft will leave one or two hours late. After frantic telephoning to put off engagements, they are subsequently told that their aircraft after all is only a few minutes late, and sometimes the aircraft call is missed by passengers whilst they are still telephoning. I am quite sure that passengers realise very well all the difficulties with which the airport authorities and air lines have to contend, especially in bad weather, but in spite of this there seems to be great lack of imagination and organisation.
Possibly in the future all the accommodation in any aircraft will be of one class, and no one would have any objection to that, especially if fares can be cheapened by virtue of lower costs in running the larger and up-to-date aircraft which we shall get as time goes on, and a little more room is allowed for a bulky person. But a system of allocation of seats would obviate the present ugly and undignified rough-and-tumble which takes place in the case of tourist travel and which can be particularly hard on the weaker sex.
In conclusion, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, upon initiating this debate, and for his excellent speech, particularly as I understand that he was suffering from the hardship of having caught some fall-out or virus during his visit to Russia last week. I trust that this debate will lead to many of the inadequacies in civil aviation being again carefully examined by the Minister.
4.0 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would first of all follow the noble Earl, Lord Dudley. I suppose I travel through
886
London Airport as much as any noble Lord, and I frankly did not recognise his description. It sounded more like Dum Dum Airport in Calcutta. Undoubtedly at London Airport North the situation is not what any of us would wish, particularly as a main gateway into London for overseas visitors. This is soon, I hope, to be a thing of the past. But undoubtedly the Government cannot take much credit over the fact that it has taken so long for the abolition of London Airport North. London Airport Central, I think, in the main is a good airport. It has good facilities although, as I shall point out later, I think those facilities will shortly be so strained that something drastic and radical will have to be done by Her Majesty's Government.
The speech that we had to open this debate from the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, was one which, in some ways, will leave later speakers requiring sympathy, because he covered the ground so well that he has left for the rest of us only the crossing of "t's" and the dotting of "i's". But from the Opposition point of view, while we thoroughly agree with all the views the noble Earl expressed, we have some quarrel in this matter with Her Majesty's Government.
When one looks at civil aviation one has also to take into account the position of defence and military policy, because this is a matter that has a great impact upon the viability of aviation, in particular on the manufacturing side. Undoubtedly we can have pride in the achievements of our aircraft industry, but I have a feeling in some ways that that pride is becoming a little tarnished, certainly the pride of the old days. It is true the aircraft industry makes considerable contributions to our overseas balance of payments. I believe in 1959 the aircraft industry exported merchandise worth £156 million; in 1960, £142 million; and, I believe, up to September of this year it is a figure of £118 million. But it was during this period that there was a remarkable expansion in the aircraft industry throughout the world. All major airlines were re-equipping themselves with modern aircraft, and it is regrettable that we did not see during that period a rise in our exports.
I do not think it is right to compare our progress with that of the United States because they have a large internal

887
market. But when we compare our own progress with that of France, which is perhaps our biggest European competitor, I think we should have feelings of disquiet. My figures are that in 1959 the French exported £40 million worth of aircraft, spares, or engines. In 1960 it had risen to £83 million and in 1961, the last figure, it was £107 million. These figures will show that whilst Britain's exports remained relatively stagnant, or about the same, the French had been able to boost their exports to the tune of nearly £67 million.
Why is this so? Is it a question that our designs were wrong? I do not think that is in fact the case. The Comet was an aircraft well in advance of anything in any other country. It is to be regretted that its early models had such faults that we lost the great advantage that de Havillands had given us. The Vickers Viscount has been a major success in all markets. There are other aircraft which have sold in smaller numbers, but when one looks at the aircraft that we have produced and which we are able to sell (I direct this word to the Independent Overseas Board, which is not an associate of B.O.A.C. or B.E.A.) we get a very small figure—and I talk of aircraft and not of engines.
I do not think it is a question of design. There is some case on the question of delivery, and perhaps we could have sold many more Viscounts if the manufacturers had been able to produce the aircraft more quickly. I believe many overseas airlines bought the Lockheed Electra because by the time they could have obtained the Viscount the model they had ordered would have been out of date. As to the question of price, here, my Lords, I am not too sure. I believe, though, that in general our prices compare favourably with the French, and possibly with the American. However, of this I am quite convinced: that the major reason why we cannot sell our aircraft is the question of credit.
To me it is a remarkable thing, when we consider the Far Eastern route, the route from the United Kingdom to Australia, where we have a combination of Qantas, the Australian airline, Air India and B.O.A.C., that Qantas and
888
Air India bought Boeing 707s. They were prepared to fly their old Super-Constellations until they obtained their Boeing 707s. And yet B.O.A.C. were flying Comets. I should have thought from an economic point of view that it would have been an advantage to both Qantas and Air India to have run a service on Comets, because then they could have pooled not only their maintenance staff but their equipment, which is a great advantage, because we know from B.O.A.C. that the Comet is a money-winner on the Australian service. And yet Qantas and Air India bought Boeing 707s. I have it on very good authority that the aircraft companies were able not only to offer the credit but to re-purchase the old aircraft of these airlines and to offer such terms that these friends of ours reluctantly had to say, "We cannot take the Comet; we cannot enjoy the gain that would come by having a pooled service. We must buy these American aircraft."
I think the story may be very true, even when we get down to military aircraft. The fact is that Australia, a country that is intertwined with us in S.E.A.T.O., is not buying a British fighter; it is buying a French fighter. And yet, as I understand it, there is nothing basically different between the Mirage fighter and, I think it is, the Lightning. I think this is something which the Government must go into. It is no good—I will not say doling out £7½ million to £9 million a year— supporting an industry if you fail to give it the real thing that will make the article that it produces saleable.
I will turn now to the position of the airline operators and the Air Transport Licensing Board. My noble friend Lord Shackleton spoke in the last debate on this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, and the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, speaking for the Government said that the point of the Bill was to break the monopoly of the public corporations; that it was to create an element of competition.
Let us again consider monopoly, because although the B.O.A.C. position has been saved at the very last moment by the action of Her Majesty's Ministers, the position of B.E.A. is still at stake. Therefore let us examine the Government position on monopoly. There are

889
eighteen different ways by which you can leave from London to go to Rome; there are fifteen ways from London to Frankfurt; there are seven ways to Hamburg; there are fifty-six ways to Amsterdam — by competing airlines. Therefore, B.E.A. is in no position of monopoly on those routes. It has to fight for every piece of business it obtains. What has B.E.A. in fact done? In 1949 B.E.A. carried 44 per cent. of passengers coming into or going out of the United Kingdom; 56 per cent. were carried by twelve airlines. In 1959-and it is so for 1960-B.E.A. had uplifted their share of that business to 56 per cent. and the others had been reduced to 44 per cent., but—mark this—that was then shared by twenty different airlines, twenty different airlines operating into the United Kingdom.
How can the Government then say that B.E.A. are in a monopoly position? Both on Second Reading and on the Committee Stage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, leading for the Opposition, took the view that if the independents were brought on to these routes this must affect in a major way the position of these two public corporations. I am sure that most of your Lordships know that on the London to Paris route the number of services in and out is agreed between the British and the French Governments, and they designate who shall be the carriers. If, as the Government said, there was an increase in passengers which the independents could share, that increase itself would be shared between the carriers of France and the carriers of the United Kingdom. That would mean that the independents would have to share in half the expansion. If the independents were to make this service profitable there would have to be a marked increase in passengers, and that is not the case to-day.
But B.E.A., like any other commercial enterprise, must consider the future and its capital investment. B.E.A., as I understand it, have been budgeting for a 22 per cent. increase in sales; they have in fact achieved in this year an increase of 14 per cent., while the world average is 12 per cent. Their aircraft capacity is increasing and will increase very considerably when they get their Tridents. If the independents come on and are to partake in this business, un-
890
doubtedly B.E.A. will find themselves unable to obtain their load factor on these new aircraft. If you bring in the independents you will undoubtedly have a major effect, not only on the present position of B.E.A. but on its future policy. And, again, its future policy may have a grave effect on the manufacturing side of the aircraft industry, because neither Corporation can sensibly go ahead with their major purchases of aircraft and equipment unless they have a consistent policy which they can follow.
I should just like to say one or two words on the Report of the Air Transport Licensing Board. First of all, I think we should acknowledge our regret at the death of Lord Terrington, who was first Chairman of this Air Transport Licensing Board. We have already paid our tribute to his services, not only to this House but to the air industry in general, but I think we should remember his name in this debate. The Board are undoubtedly worried on a number of aspects: first of all, on the financial status of operators, and here, obviously, they are considering the position of the independents. Here one wants to pick one's words carefully, because undoubtedly among the independent airlines there are a number of very worthy organisations. But we must remember that during this year there have been three failures, and when an airline company gets into economic difficulties we must recognise that there is considerable doubt as to the airworthiness of its aircraft.
I should like to put this to the noble Lord, Lord Mills. The Board say that they have had difficulty in examining the financial standing of the licence holders and that they did not wish to hold back last year's holiday business by refusing to grant licences until they were satisfied. But in view of the three financial failures of this year, I think that the Government should treat as a matter of urgency the provision of skilled staff to the Board so that by the time the next summer season is with us the Board themselves can be thoroughly satisfied that they can grant licences to these companies as they are of a financially safe standing. I think this is something that is important; I think it is urgent, and I should not have thought

891
it was beyond the capability of the Government to provide officers to carry out this investigation.
The other matter which I wished to speak about was the question of insurance. The Board are uncertain on this question. They note that under the Air Navigation Act, 1936, powers were taken to introduce compulsory third-party insurance. But they recognise the nature of accidents that occur to-day and the difficulty of insurance companies in giving full policies, and that where accidents have happened in the past there has been no difficulty over insurance. One does not want to visualise a terrible tragedy such as that which took place some time ago in New York; but it is possible; and I do think that the Government should consider the whole question of third-party insurance.
That is all that I wish to say in this matter, except on the question of air control. A Bill is being introduced into another place this week concerning Eurocontrol; but what worries me is that this control is still a year or so away. One repeatedly hears of near misses. Cannot something be done to speed up this control or to increase the present control to prevent these near misses? We have been fortunate in this country in that we have not had collisions, but we are still getting reports of near misses. I ask the Government to consider this matter.
In conclusion, I ask Her Majesty's Government to make clear, both to the Corporations and to the independent companies, what is the official Government view so far as future licensing is concerned. I think it is most unfair for an independent company to have been given the hope that they had a future on the Atlantic service. That they should have bought three Boeing 707's, with all the expenditure involved, and to be granted a licence but then to have it rescinded is, I think, unfair to the independent company. But, more important, I believe, is that we must have a known and consistent policy from Her Majesty's Government towards the public Corporations.
4.22 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, earlier in the course of his speech the previous speaker referred to the rise in
892
exports of the French aircraft industry, which we can only deplore as, to some extent, it adversely affects our industry. But I think that in the main this rise has been due to a firm directive on the part of the President of the French Republic to the aircraft manufacturing industry. One recalls that only a few years ago France was producing mainly prototypes which were not going into the production stage. They now have successful aircraft in the Caravelle, the Mystere and the Mirage. I feel that a firm directive on similar lines from Her Majesty's Government may possibly be of assistance to our aircraft industry.
I should like to comment on the decision of the Minister yesterday to uphold the appeal by B.O.A.C. against transatlantic air services by Cunard Eagle. During the last six years the combined Continent-United Kingdom air traffic on the North Atlantic route to and from the Eastern seaboard has increased at a yearly figure of just over 19 per cent. This year, at the start of the summer season, round about April, the United Kingdom-United States traffic decreased by 11·8 per cent. whilst the Continent-United States traffic increased by 3 per cent. This shows that although there was a fall in the overall North Atlantic traffic, the Continent was attracting many more air passengers.
Without wishing to weary your Lordships on the matter, I should like to quote one or two percentages. International competition on these routes was as follows: during 1961 (that is, the winter period) if one takes in the jet and the propeller aircraft, 12 B.O.A.C. services terminated in the United Kingdom, whilst only 5 foreign services terminated here. On the other hand, B.O.A.C. had only 7 services in transit through this country, against 38 services provided by foreign competitors. In the summer of 1961, B.O.A.C. had only 9 services in transit through this country, but international competition provided 51 services.
That brings me to some remarks contained in this year's B.O.A.C. Annual Report and Accounts, from which I should like to quote two paragraphs, as follows:
"The results of 1960–61 were achieved despite further evidence of the extent to which B.O.A.C.'s competitive position on the Atlantic suffers from the Corporation's inability for a variety of reasons to offer

893
through services from North America into any of the main Continental gateways, such as Park, Rome and Frankfurt.
"All the other major Atlantic carriers—P.A.A., T.W.A., K.L.M., Air France, S.A.S., Alitalia, Sabena and Lufthansa—can offer either direct services into the major cities of Continental Europe or at least through services with the same aircraft. As B.O.A.C. is unable to offer the North American market the advantage of a single carrier network to and within Europe, it tends to be regarded in the market as operating only to Britain, with other carriers, connecting services available thereafter."
As I understand this problem, with regard to Paris, at any rate, the French Government are agreeable to allowing B.O.A.C. aircraft to continue on to Paris, providing a balance is maintained between the French and English capacity between London and Paris. I feel that B.E.A. in this respect are absolutely unyielding in their attitude. I should therefore like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he is willing to exert his influence, and whether his right honourable friend is also, to get B.E.A. to extend to B.O.A.C. its policy of commercial co-operation with foreign airlines operating on parallel routes, as mentioned in B.E.A.'s Report. This might well be in the nation's interest.
I should now like to turn to this question of excess capacity over demand. As your Lordships are well aware, in the main this is the result of wishing to provide a better service and of perpetuating a policy of lower fares. Jet aircraft, with their increased capacity, are cheaper to operate than piston-driven aircraft, and now that the evolution has started there is no other alternative but to see it through to the end. Therefore, my Lords, to cope with the present situation, as I see it, an aggressive sales policy is required by all airlines—or at least by British airlines.
That is why I was a little disappointed by the words the Minister used yesterday, when he said:
"The Minister fully accepts the picture of too many seats chasing too few passengers which a witness for B.O.A.C. presented."
For I feel, my Lords, that if the Minister had entered into negotiations which would enable B.O.A.C. to offer through services from North America to the Continent, and if Cunard Eagle had been given the opportunity to provide a North Atlantic service, this country (I am talking of this country as a whole
894
and not of any specific airline) might in the future be carrying a larger percentage of passengers than it is at the present time. I say this, my Lords, because I was interested to read some remarks, which I believe to be true, which were made by the Air Transport Editor of Flight in the issue of November 2 this year. He said:
"Two impressions stand out most strongly."
This was when he visited Cunard Eagle's Western Hemisphere Division.
"One was the reputation and wide currency in this hemisphere of the name Cunard; the other was the invigorating American idiom in which this British airline handles its selling and marketing."
My Lords, with regard to the position of our main independent operators vis-á-vis our aircraft and manufacturing industry, I feel that the major operators have a part to play in providing the essential home market for new aircraft, because it has been stressed by other speakers that, in effect, no manufacturer can expect to receive an order from abroad until one, at least, has been received from an operator in this country. Naturally, the Corporations must play the foremost rôle, but I think we should not forget the important part that British United Airways, for instance, played in this context in enabling firm orders to be received for the BAC 111, because they were the first ones to place an order for this aircraft, and due to that fact other orders for that aircraft were placed.
B.E.A. have ordered twenty-four DH.121's—which is the Trident—built to their specification, and I understand that they have an option on a further twelve. But, so far, no other orders have been received for this aircraft, and it leads one to think that, possibly, when the specification was laid out for this aircraft, insufficient attention was paid to possible international demand. If one considers the VC.10, which has been ordered in reasonable quantities by B.O.A.C., one sees that orders from abroad have been received for this air-craft. In fact, I am very pleased to say that the R.A.F. ordered five. It is a considerable achievement, my Lords, that, in all, fifty-seven aircraft `Nye been ordered straight from the

895
drawing board, because, as your Lordships are aware, as yet no VC.10 has flown.
Finally, I should like to say a few words on an important question to which most noble Lords have referred to-day, and that is the question of safety in the air. On November 14 last the honourable Member for Barnsley initiated an Adjournment Debate on the independent airlines and safety standards. I agreed with the Parliamentary Secretary when he said in reply [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, VOL 649 (No. 11), col. 332]:
"I think it fair to say that exactly the same standards apply to the independents as to the Corporations."
That is what he said on the question of safety standards. Apart from that, my Lords, I found his speech rather disappointing in so far as on this question of safety in the air he referred only to the air operators' certificate, and, so far as I can gather, it lays down only that certain aircraft may be used in certain zones in the world. How that is going to play a leading part with regard to air safety, I fail to see at this stage. His second point with regard to air safety was a reference to a private publication which draws the attention of operators and pilots to certain aspects of safety in flight, but not to any navigational aids or any equipment which would be of use to them.
However, last Friday in another place a most useful and timely measure was given a Second Reading, and I refer to the Civil Aviation (Eurocontrol) Bill. I believe that several of your Lordships have given this Bill a strong welcome, and I should certainly like to include mine. The Eurocontrol specification is fairly stringent, I am glad to be able to advise your Lordships, and I understand that this organisation have stated that the American international short-range navigational aid will not meet their requirements. I trust, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will press for the adoption of the Decca Harco system, which is a logical development of the Decca system and which uses the same ground stations. Without wishing to weary you with technical details, my Lords, I understand that the equipment will provide an accuracy of not less than
896
a quarter of a nautical mile by day and not less than one and a half nautical miles by night under the worst conditions from ground level to 80,000 feet and above.
Regarding the Decca system, I should like to quote, if I may, two short excerpts from letters of users, particularly concerning operations where limited facilities are available. I do so, because I think that this type of equipment could be of considerable assistance to independent operators, who are particularly liable to fly charter flights. One letter from Ferranti Limited says:
"The particular benefits we have found from Decca over other navigational aids are as follows:
1. The ability to operate into airfields which are located outside the airways pattern and which very often have limited facilities themselves."
Another letter says:
"We fitted Decca because we operate into many small ill-equipped airfields all over Europe, and we must be able to fly in any weather, day or night, with the same regularity as from any major airfield."
So, my Lords, I feel that the development of this form of navigational aid would be most useful. I am therefore wondering if Her Majesty's Government would be willing to look into this question of seeing whether our charter aircraft are fitted with the appropriate air navigational aids consistent with the flights they may be called upon to make, which, in the main, are outside the main trunk routes. I think, too, that possibly an extension in the use of films and devices to simulate approaches—that is, prior to a particular flight—should be encouraged with a view to familiarising the pilot with the approach, particularly to the less commonly-used airfields. Some films are already available, but it is probably something which could be extended even more.
I should like to say a few words on the question of automatic landing. I think an important point here is that there is a different outlook on this problem between us and the Americans. The Americans believe that all-weather landing can be achieved safely by developing existing single-channel automatic pilot systems, and with new types of instrument display the pilot can take over in case of a failure. On the other

897
hand, the British approach to this problem—and I think it is a wiser one—is not to believe in pilot participation, and therefore to concentrate development on the lines of multiple-channel auto-pilots. This brings me back to the new aircraft, the VC. 10, which is to be fitted with such equipment. At the present stage of development these aircraft will be able to descend (to use a technical term) on a glide slope beam. Pitch guidance—that is, in altitude—would be provided in the latter part of the approach by a radio altimeter, but the pilot would still have to take over for Azimuth or direction control.
So, as development is at the present time, a completely automatic aid is not available. For it to be available, further research and development is required. For that, further funds are necessary, because this is not a military requirement; it is a civilian requirement, and a very important one because it affects the safety of passengers. But the contract for this equipment was on a fixed basis and was granted by B.O.A.C., and therefore the firm concerned have to work to a fixed price. I fear that the development of this essential equipment could be held up through lack of funds for research and development, and I am wondering whether Her Majesty's Government would carefully look into the matter to see whether or not they consider it a venture worth supporting, for I feel that this equipment, when fitted to the VC.10 and other new aircraft, has a large part to play in developing our export of civilian aircraft. Here, I should like to pay a tribute to the fine work in this respect of the blind landing experimental unit. A fair amount of money has gone into this organisation for development of equipment, but their equipment is mainly for military aircraft. The experience they have gained has naturally been of great assistance to private industry, but the safety standards of a military aircraft are lower than the safety standards of a civilian airline operator.
To end, I should like to echo the words of the B.O.A.C. Report, which state:
"In particular, the Corporation hopes that in Britain the Minister of Aviation will ensure that the installation of ground aids for automatic landing does not lag behind the certification of the airborne equipment."
898
I think it would interest your Lordships to know what ground system is to be used in the future at London Airport. Perhaps my noble friend, when he comes to reply, can tell us that. Is it to be the new type of I.L.S., or is it to be the blind landing experimental unit leader cable system? Also, would my noble friend confirm that adequate funds are being provided for research and development to solve the problem of rapid automatic change-over for duplicate installations, which must reflect the same degree of safety as the airborne equipment, with regard to blind landing? I understand, without wishing to weary your Lordships with technical details—I have already spoken for too long—that, in aircraft, the change-over time, should there be a failure, is one-tenth of a second, while a change-over on the ground can be effected only in two seconds. I wonder whether my noble friend could say something on that matter when he comes to reply.
4.48 p.m.
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, I feel that this topic has been very fully covered, and I therefore will not detain your Lordships long. However, on the subject of blind landings, as this House knows, I have several times asked the question whether something should not be done. The last answer I received was to a Starred Question about three months ago, when I was told that it would perhaps be three years before the ground radio guidance system for automatic landings would be anything like near complete. I know this is a very difficult and technical subject. If I may go back to the year 1898, and to Percy Pilcher, who was the first man to fly in England, I would point out that from then onwards men have always been dreaming of automatic landings. Many experiments have been tried out on it, and I have seen some of them myself. I can only hope that this ground radio guidance system will be a success when it comes.
There is only one other question I should like to ask, and it is this. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the Opposition, who said that B.E.A. had competition from British firms, whereas recently, as your Lordships know, the Cunard Eagle, having been almost told they would have a licence, now find it is withdrawn. But

899
the noble Lord did not imply that B.O.A.C. had any competition from English firms. I do not know exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, meant by that statement, but if B.E.A. can have competition from English firms why should not B.O.A.C. have similar competition? My Lords, I will not say any more—it is getting late, and I know there are several other speakers—but I should be grateful if those two questions of mine could be answered.
4.50 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would add to the expressions of thanks which he has already received my own thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, for introducing this extremely useful Motion, and I should also like to thank him for a diverse and authoritative (as one would expect) presentation of the case. But, above all, I would thank him for the fact that, though it was objective, it was a truly British presentation on behalf of this very vital industry. I often have the impression that this is an industry where those who run foreign air lines play their cards very close to their chests—as they are entitled to; but they seem to have more "Jokers" handed out to them by their respective Governments than those who run British air lines.
It is right that we should speak up on behalf of this industry of ours, and I am very glad that the noble Earl did so with such knowledge and authority. I was particularly pleased at his mention of the need for a strong home aircraft-manufacturing industry, and, of course, of the need for exports. My noble friend Lord Shackleton supported him in that when he said that we should do everything possible to sustain the British aircraft industry. I could have wished that both noble Lords had said rather more on that point, because when we survey the whole aviation and aircraft picture, the really depressing and alarming feature is the impending closure of a number of famous plants. We can never bring them back again, and we can never have a really effective British civil aviation industry, in my view, unless it is based on British 'planes, designed, manufactured and built here.
It is not only a question of the distress occasioned to the workers and
900
their families, though that is bad enough. They have let down roots in these places, only to find, perhaps, that there is no possibility of work for them at all. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will be able to say something about this when he comes to reply, but I think it calls for an assurance that these workers who will so soon be unemployed should have the most favourable possible financial arrangements made on their behalf with regard to their redundancy, and the utmost efforts by the Departments concerned should be made to find suitable employment for them, with satisfactory transport and housing arrangements if they have to move to other areas. That is the personal point of view of this question of distress.
From the national point of view, it is a real tragedy that we should be breaking up teams of skilled technicians of the type of which we already know we have far too few. These teams take years to build up. They can be dispersed overnight, but it would take years, and perhaps be virtually impossible, to build them up again. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that with wise, energetic, and farseeing action on the part of the Government, this tragic waste could still be avoided. Is it necessary that 4,000 men at the famous Gloster factory should become jobless by June next year? These men are not labourers; they are skilled technicians. And what of the 1,600 men at the Christchurch de Havilland factory, who fear that their work is going to the Chester factory owned by the Hawker-Siddeley group? Yet at Chester there is a proposal from the workers that they shall work four days a week instead of five in order to avoid the dismissal of some 350 men before Christmas. Suggestions have been made by other noble Lords who have already spoken, particularly by my noble friend Lord Shepherd, as to the things the various aircraft manufacturing firms ought to be doing in order to avoid this particular situation; but I believe that the Government ought to be doing much more than they are, and, if they did, I feel sure that these slow-downs or shutdowns could be avoided.
The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, mentioned one of the possible ways to meet

901
this situation when he spoke of the possibility of a British supersonic aeroplane. I do not wish to follow him into the intricacies of whether it should be a Mach-2, 1,350 miles per hour aircraft, or a Mach-3, 2,000 miles per hour aircraft. It is perfectly obvious, of course, that the Russians can build one of the Mach-2 type almost at any moment by basing it on their existing bombers, and the Americans could build a similar type quite soon as an extrapolation of their V-70 bomber. It is also true that the Americans are said to be anxious to produce this 2,000 miles per hour type for prestige and other reasons. My Lords, I would submit that we are not concerned with what the Russians or the Americans might do. What we are concerned with is with what we are going to do. It is certainly not for me to say whether it should be one Mach-2 or Mach-3 aircraft; but what I do think we should say is that it should be one or the other, and that the decision should be made quite soon. As my noble friend Lord Shackleton suggested, this is one case where there must be, in one form or another, the support of public money, and if this were given I think it would receive general support.
But even when this decision is made, there is still one point which is worrying workers in the aircraft industry. The other day there was a very factual-seeming and authoritative statement in the Guardian that the British Aircraft Corporation are going to enter into an alliance with Sud-Aviation, which has links with the Douglas Aircraft Corporation of the United States. If that is so—and it did smell very much like an "inspired leak"—this would mean that perhaps the airframe would be built in France, and that the engines and the allied systems would be built here. I know these are only speculations, but the Society of British Aircraft Constructors did not seem to be very worried on this point, and perhaps there is the feeling that they could get a lot of the 14 million man-hours which would be needed to build this airframe rather more cheaply in France. I think we ought to say from your Lordships' House that those 14 million man-hours should be worked by British workers in our own factories, instead of allowing our factories to be closed down. If we decided on building this supersonic airplane with,
902
I should hope, at least the help of some public money it seems to me it would be utterly wrong if it were not then to be completely and absolutely a British airplane.
One other suggestion, to which, perhaps, the noble Lord, Lord Mills, could reply, is the position of the aircraft workers in Northern Ireland. As he is well aware, there is a proposal for a vertical take-off-and-landing airplane for N.A.T.O. I am sure he will be aware that the mainly Government owned Harland and Wolff plant in Belfast has been doing a great deal of experimentation on the V.T.O.L. 'plane. The point is that we ought to be putting in claims for that 'plane to be built in that factory, because if the work is not continually sent there the already bad employment position is going to be much worse and might well reach 10 per cent. again during the winter. I hope we can have an answer on these two points, or at least an assurance that where public money is concerned, British workers can be certain that they will have an opportunity of building British aircraft.
There has been some discussion on the decision of the Commissioners in respect of the appeal by B.O.A.C. against the granting of a North Atlantic route licence to Cunard Eagle. I do not want to enter into that discussion, but I should like to congratulate the Minister of Aviation on so promptly saying that he accepted and would implement the decision. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, just said, I think that we should always bear in mind very strongly the danger of designating an additional and, in many cases, inadequate carrier to a route of world importance. The noble Lord said how impressed he had been by the Cunard name being so well known, and that their salesmen spoke with a recognisable American accent. Indeed, Cunard is an honoured and well-known name throughout the world, but it cannot be so well-known and honoured a name as "British". I do not think that we shall sell our aircraft services any less well if we speak with a British accent.
When we are considering this point, we have to bear in mind that B.O.A.C. have to fight hard in a very competitive field, and that although the Bermuda Agreement permits the Government to

903
designate an additional carrier on the North Atlantic route, in view of the problems facing the American carriers undoubtedly there will be attempts by them through their representatives in Washington to secure a re-negotiation of the Bermuda bilateral agreement. If this should happen, we should be in a much weaker position than we were in 1946, when our Government could dispose of 'traffic rights in a number of countries which are now free and independent. Our bargaining power will be that much less. The present B.O.A.C. frequencies may thus become open to challenge. Therefore, there is all the more reason, in my submission, to be sure that we do not voluntarily water down our strength, such as was done when this licence was granted to Cunard Eagle. I echo what my noble friend Lord Shackleton said, that it is strange that we should inflict harm on our own industry. We can at times pay too high a price for an abstract conception of competition.
It is most important that we should keep B.O.A.C. as strong as we possibly can. Indeed, the next B.O.A.C. financial results are likely to bear this out strongly. My noble friend rightly said that B.E.A. had made 8 per cent. on our money and that B.O.A.C., though they had made a loss on their last complete year's figures, had in fact earned 4 per cent. But conditions this year are not going to be anything like so good as that. It may well be that they will have a deficit on this year's trading of as much as £9 million. No doubt that will provoke the usual comments which always arise when a publicly-owned undertaking makes a loss. Therefore, it is just as well to point out why this will arise and how necessary it is that B.O.A.C. should be kept as strong as possible.
The difficulty has largely come about because of the success of President Kennedy in urging Americans not to fly abroad. The important thing is that a decline of only 1 per cent. in the B.O.A.C. load factor can mean a shortfall of £750,000, and already in the nine months of the present financial year from that factor alone on the North Atlantic route there is a short-fall of something like £3 million. It may be that over the whole of the B.O.A.C.
904
world routes there is as much as an £8 million short-fall. But we are not doing so badly as other countries. The Scandinavian Airlines have had some very large losses and are now ruthlessly dismissing leading executives and going through managerial convulsions. The Deutsch Lufthansa are likely to have to reveal much heavier deficits than B.O.A.C. Some of the American airline losses will be masked by their very substantial military contracts. I submit that there is every reason to believe that this world drop in trans-Atlantic air traffic is a temporary phase and that B.O.A.C. are entitled to take an optimistic view about the future. Indeed, they must do so, though it is right that they should go on as they are doing, eliminating some of their older equipment, which is over-diversified. But I think there is a need for all of us to acknowledge that B.O.A.C. is a well-run British concern, which compares in efficiency with any other major airline in the world, and one of which we should be proud.
The noble Earl who opened this debate dealt with the relative safety margins of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. and some of the charter companies. The accidents that have happened are tragedies which afflict and distress us all, and I am sure that we all support the noble Earl in his demand for an urgent review of the conditions under which some of these companies operate. While supporting him in this, however, I think we should take pride in the fact that in the last five years none of B.O.A.C.'s many, many thousands of passengers has so much as sprained an ankle. When we talk about British airlines and their subsidies and profits, or losses, never let us forget that what is of the greatest value is that an air company should transport its passengers with perfect safety and be known to do that almost with certainty. In this respect, British airlines lead the world. Long may they continue to do so.
5.10 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken before me, I should like to add my thanks and congratulations to my noble friend Lord Gosford on moving this Motion and for the clear opening address that he made. I am a strong supporter of

905
free enterprise, but I think that one can go too far in any direction. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, put it very nicely when he said that there is a proper place for independent carriers without damage to the Corporations. As the noble Lord also mentioned, in the case of B.E.A. there are a lot of things over which they have no control. We must remember that the airline business is an international business and many of the arrangements are controlled by various Governments. I think it is true to say that if the independents got all the licences for which they asked in competition with B.E.A. routes, B.E.A. would lose probably 20 per cent, of their load. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, gave the example of London-Paris. I think it is the same with Italy. The Italian Government demand 50 per cent. for rights into Rome against a British carrier. If the independents got parallel flights with B.E.A. they would get no more than a share of the 50 per cent., to the detriment of B.E.A.
I wonder whether the original and present Charter of B.O.A.C. is fair. They have been asked to show the Flag and to operate uneconomic routes; and when they make a loss on these routes they pay interest on those losses which is carried on in perpetuity. Is that sensible? I suggest that it is not a sensible thing to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned landing fees at London Airport, which I think are the highest in the world. It is ridiculous that the fares of the first eighteen passengers of a 100-seater aircraft between London and Manchester pay only the landing fees of that flight. I can never understand (I should like the noble Lord, Lord Mills, to comment on this point, because I am sure he has great experience of commerce) why relief is not given to the biggest customer. I believe that B.E.A. pay 70 per cent. of the landing fees at London Airport. If you have a big customer you usually give him a considerably reduced price. As I see it, with the new charges at London Airport, next year B.E.A. will have to pay another £450,000 for landing fees alone.
Mention has been made by several noble Lords of the supersonic aircraft. This worries me a good deal, because I do not think we really know where we are going. I do not think
906
we know nearly enough about the sonic boom of such an aircraft; nor do we know about the economies of such an aeroplane. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that what we must do is not necessarily what other people are going to do. I very much doubt whether any carrier in the Western part of the world really wants to have and operate such an aeroplane, or will want to, certainly within the next ten to fifteen years. I think the only reason why America is doing it is that they know the Russians will, so if they do not they will lose face. And so we all have to follow. This sort of thing is really "keeping up with the Joneses."
There was an interesting remark made by the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Menzies, the Prime Minister of Australia, when he was opening the International Air Transport Association recently. He declared himself strongly against the belief that civil aviation must inevitably be insolvent and could never live without massive subsidies, and went on to say:
"I do not believe it is possible to go on 'keeping up with the Joneses' whatever the cost may be. It should not be beyond the wit of man to organise the production of new aircraft with some relation to the effective use of the great assets already in operation. The people who in the long run paid would require to be satisfied that the economies of air travel were being regarded with as much urgency as its mechanics,"
I am sure your Lordships will heartily agree with those words.
I should like now to turn to two points on air safety, and I find myself in the position of having to be critical of the Ministry of Aviation for what I call procrastination and sluggishness. Two cases come to mind, and the first is the question of altimeters. First, let me give the history of the U.K. Altimeter Committee. This was formed by the then Minister in May, 1959, following a number of accidents in 1958 in which misreading of the altimeters was thought to be a contributory cause. This Committee was set up as a matter of urgency.
"To investigate the design of altimeter faces and mechanisms … and to make recommendations for the design requirements …"
In July, 1959, just two months later, the Design Study Committee submitted their report. In August, 1959, a trials programme Working Party was set up

907
and gave an estimate of nineteen months to complete the programme; that is to say, to March, 1961. It is now November, 1961, and the programme is not yet complete; in fact, no trial flights have yet taken place, although trials and simulations are at present being conducted. Meanwhile, the two Corporations have had to order altimeters for their VC.10's and the Tridents. I think they have chosen instruments independently produced which accord with the Design Study Committee's recommendations of July, 1959. But I suggest that there is plenty of evidence that, by ignoring the provision of moderate fees to carry out the work requested when the Committee was set up, the Ministry of Aviation have incurred the subsequent delay and what are obviously increased costs.
The other point I wish to mention is with regard to the conditions where there has been a confusion of beams, and the difficulty sometimes in knowing which radio call sign you are getting. Your Lordships may remember an accident in 1958 in which 35 people were killed. After the investigation of the accident a recommendation was made that radio call signs should bear some resemblance to the name by which the station was known. In other words, that the Wigan beam should be re-named, "Wig" instead of "MYK", which was easily confused with Oldham, which was "MYL." It is only now, after 3½ years, that a start has been made to revise these call signs.
The pace of things in the Civil Service to-day may have been very nice in the tempo of Edwardian days, but it is no earthly use in these days of supersonic aircraft. I beg Her Majesty's Government to look ahead and try to get things ready in time for when they are required, and not some years afterwards when accidents have happened and a great deal of additional cost is thereby involved.
I was going to say something about Eurocontrol, but much has already been said about that by several noble Lords, and I am glad to see what is happening in that respect. Here, again, I hope that we shall do all we can to get simplification in what is brought about, because a jet going to the Middle East, for instance, starts off under the control of the United Kingdom, and then passes to
908
France, Switzerland and Italy, and probably inside two hours it has had ten changes of frequency. There is one matter upon which I should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government, and that is the setting up of the joint R.A.F. Civil Air Control Radar Scheme centres. This is a very good thing to have done. I have had the privilege of visiting one, and they are doing a wonderful job. Their work will become more necessary as we get more highflying jets coming into this country and more bombers operating on exercises, let alone the production Lightnings. Anything which can be done to help those teams I think should be done, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to say that they are being given enough support, not only in manpower but in equipment, which, of course, means money. If I may say so, I think Sir Laurence Sinclair is to be congratulated on the way he has got these centres working. I will say no more to-night, but again I should like to thank the noble Earl for bringing this Motion before us to-day.
5.24 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I must apologise for being absent during the first part of the debate, but I have been at a ceremony of the Commonwealth Institute, of which I am a Governor. I had previously apologised to the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, for my absence. I hear on all sides that he made a most excellent speech, and it is my loss that I was not here to hear it, and to listen to those speeches of your Lordships which were made before I entered the Chamber. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for my absence during the first part of the debate.
It seems to me that there have recently been two developments in civil aviation which to a large extent I feel were not unexpected. In the first place, a number of airlines, State and others, have had a poor season from the point of view of profit, although perhaps not in other ways. Their accounts are in deficit. Secondly, there has been the decision by the Minister not to permit Cunard Eagle to be competitors of B.O.A.C. on the North Atlantic route. I say that the deficits are not surprising, because, frankly, so far as B.O.A.C. is concerned,

909
I do not see how there could possibly be anything else.
Some years ago I introduced a debate in your Lordships' House in which I forecast this development as inevitable. Of course, it was criticised at the time by Government spokesmen and other noble Lords as being defeatist, reactionary and conservative, and other abusive epithets were used. But it is inevitable. The cost of an aircraft is such, and the life of an aircraft is so short, that it is of the greatest difficulty for any airline to make the thing pay. Now we are told that we are to have a supersonic aircraft. I see in the Press that B.A.C. and Sud-Aviation are going to build a new aircraft to be called the Super Caravelle. This has been discussed in the debate. I do not agree with the protectionist sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I have no objection to the French and the British getting together on this project, or on any other project which is going to help aviation.
This seems to me to be the choice. You can either have a flourishing airline which uses aircraft which are speedy, safe and comfortable, and which will last for a good many years, going at a speed of 350, 400 or 450 miles an hour (and with that sort of aircraft carrying 100 passengers it will make money) or go in for these supersonic aircraft which will cost phenomenal amounts. I have seen figures like 50 million dollars for an aircraft carrying at most, say, 150 passengers, which cannot possibly pay. What is the benefit of these immensely costly aircraft? If it gets there, it will land people a little earlier at their destination than the slower aircraft would. Very often it imposes great problems by so doing. From the passenger's point of view, another hour or two often makes little difference, because if he does not spend it in the air he probably spends it on the ground waiting for the aircraft to take off, if there is some hitch or fog. An hour or two on these long journeys does not make much difference at all to the passenger, but it makes all the difference in the cost of the aircraft. That is the point I wish to make.
The reason why we are told that no company such as B.O.A.C. can afford not to have the latest and most expensive
910
aircraft is because other companies have them and, therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, rightly said, we have to "keep up with the Joneses". Here, it seems to me, is where international agreement can come in. At the present moment, on the North Atlantic route not more than half the seats of any airline are being filled. How long can any airline, whether it is national, State or private enterprise, keep going in that way? In other words, we must get some sense into this thing. We must make these airline operators realise that what they are doing is running buses over short distances, medium distances and long distances. What the man in the bus requires is a reliable, comfortable, reasonably speedy and safe aircraft. That is what the passengers need.
When are we going to have these supersonic aircraft? Can you imagine taking old ladies and little children through the sound barrier? That is what they are going to do; and who wants to go through the sound barrier? You can just imagine, with the average sort of passenger group that you get in an aircraft, taking them through the sound barrier. Really it is fantastic. And who has got to pay? There are only two lots of people who can pay. One of the two are the passengers, and no airline dare put the passenger fare up because they cannot fill the aircraft now. They cannot more than half fill them now—I am talking of long distance journeys, not Lord Douglas of Kirtleside's journeys from Glasgow to London, where he is reducing the fare very much.
The airlines cannot bring the fares down, so what is going to happen? The taxpayers will have to pay. They will have to pay either by some subsidy or by making good B.O.A.C.'s losses, as they have to do now. So those are the horns of the dilemma, and I think we all should say to these airlines, "Cut your coat according to the cloth. Don't talk about going through the stratosphere and breaking the sound barrier and all the rest of it. Use the good aircraft which you have already and which are operating perfectly well, and use them over a sufficient number of years, when they will make a good return on the money paid for them".

911
Then we talk of national prestige. Whenever I hear anybody say "national prestige" I feel a chill in the pocket book, because I know perfectly well somebody is going to come after me as a taxpayer. Only a short time ago the noble Lord, Lord Mills, and the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said it was essential for the prestige of Britain to have a new Cunarder. We are not going to have a new Cunarder. I have not heard of any fall in the national prestige of this country as a result. I have just been in Paris for a week's N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference. We discussed all sorts of problems—the Common Market, Russia, Berlin but nobody mentioned the Cunarder not a single soul, strange as it may seem. In fact quite a lot of this national prestige does not depend on whether you have new aircraft or new ships; it depends on whether you can pay your way as a country and whether you do the right things in international life.
Moving from that—and I hope we shall hear something from the Minister on which choice he is going to present to the airlines—may I say a word about London Airport? I was criticised last year for raising the question of industrial relations at London Airport, but when you are talking about civil aviation you cannot dissociate from it those who handle aircraft luggage, and so on, at airports and elsewhere. Why is it that London Airport—which is a very modern airport, which one would think offers an exciting career for people, with a lot of interesting things happening there—has such bad industrial relationships? That I cannot understand. It has almost continual strikes going on, strikes of one class of workers or another. Recently we have had a strike of Ministry of Aviation porters; and I must say it was highly embarrassing for the passengers, many of them old people, to have to carry their bags very considerable distances over the aprons to the waiting aircraft.
Why? I would suggest that one reason is that there are 24 different unions at London Airport. That may have something to do with it. It is quite time that all those concerned at London Airport got down to this question to see whether they cannot cut out a lot of what seem to me unnecessary stoppages and strikes
912
which so impede and upset the passengers. This is where national prestige comes in. I came on a plane from Paris only last Saturday, and when we were turned out a number of people had to carry heavy suitcases the best part of half a mile. That is where national prestige comes in. A man, perhaps a Frenchman, is very critical of the British when he has lugged a suitcase, say, half a mile; and I think he has some right to be.
I should like to ask the Minister who will reply what the position is about London Airport North. It is still being used. It looks even shabbier than it did a year ago when the promise was given that it was to be scrapped within a year. It is more shoddy than it was a year ago, and more decrepit; and I must say it is more depressing—more depressing—than it ever was, and that is saying something. Transatlantic passengers were coming in over the week-end from Los Angeles and elsewhere, and it really is not good enough to bring them into that shabby, rather sordid reception centre.
May we have an answer, too, about the statue of Alcock and Brown? This may seem a small matter in relation to those we have been discussing; in a way it is, but in some other ways it is not. When the statue was contemplated it was decided that it should be in a place where every passenger who came across the Atlantic should see it when he landed, and be reminded of those two great pioneers, the first men to fly the Atlantic non-stop. With the new central building I am not sure whether that will be possible outside, and it may be that it would be better to bring it inside the building. That is a matter for the advisers to the Minister and I should not like to give an opinion. I think that, if possible, we should retain that ideal or get as near to it as we can, and that those who have flown on what to my mind is still the great adventure of flying the Atlantic should see a statue of those two who, with incredible bravery, flew in 1919 from the other side of the world to this country.
Finally, my Lords, I would ask about the connection between Heathrow and Gatwick. Sitting in this Chamber, it does not matter so much, I suppose—one does not think of it quite so much—but if you are in the air coming in, the idea of

913
landing at Gatwick and getting across to catch a plane at Heathrow is not a comfortable one. You have to get up to London by train; you have to move your baggage; you have then to get on a bus to go out to Heathrow, and it is quite a journey. This is something which I do not think as yet the Government have really taken in hand. Unless I am unaware of what has been developing in the last month or two, there is no connection between the two airports by air. I may be wrong, and no doubt if I am the Minister will tell me, but I think there should be a connection between the two sites. If there is no connection between Gatwick and Heathrow it means that we are perpetuating a mistake that was made with the railway termini in London in the nineteenth century. The London termini were built on the circumference of London as it was then, which meant one had to get across from one side to another. What we are doing to-day with airports in fact is putting unconnected airports on the circumference of London as it is to-day; so we are no wiser than our forbears were in that respect. I think there should be an air connection between Gatwick and Heathrow. Those are all the things I have to say this afternoon. May I once more thank the noble Earl for giving us this opportunity of discussing this important subject?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I intervene with the permission, which I deeply appreciate, of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, to say just one sentence, and that is to reinforce what the noble Lord has just said about London Airport North. Twice in the last year I have travelled overseas and gone away from and come in there, and although the staff do everything they possibly can to be obliging and helpful the place is really shocking, both actually and relatively. It is shocking for a great country and it must give a very bad impression. It is inferior to second-class airports in many countries of the world, as I have seen for myself. I beg to reinforce what the noble Lord said and to ask the Minister if Britain cannot do something about this.
5.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, had seen fit to
914
address us for a longer period, as we should all wish to hear much more from him. It is very pleasant for me to follow, or virtually to follow, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who followed me with such success as Minister of Civil Aviation. As I look towards the Liberal Benches I cannot help thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, with whom I worked so closely when he was Chairman of the Air Transport Advisory Council. He was a man loved by all and with a delicious sense of humour frequently turned against himself. There is one story he was fond of telling. I do not think he ever told it in this House and perhaps the House would be glad to hear it now. When he was at a large lunch he was told by the chairman of the lunch that he was always mistaken for Lord Brabazon of Tara and this chairman was determined to get it cleared up once for all. Lord Terrington and Lord Brabazon of Tara were made to stand up at this lunch so that everyone could see which was which. That was that. But on the way out someone at the lunch went up to Lord Terrington and said, "I say, Brab, I thought that was a most frightful rib, all that talk about your being so like Terrington. You are a far better looking man. I cannot think what the chairman was about." That was one of Lord Terrington's favourite stories, and I tell it now in deep devotion to his memory.
Like other speakers, I feel that no one could have started this debate better than did the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, and other speakers have followed it up on the same plane. Naturally, I appreciated the contributions of my own colleagues most of all: those of the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton, Lord Shepherd and Lord Stonham. That may be Party loyalty or it may not. Anyhow, undoubtedly they put the points from this side much better than I can. I myself feel rather like Rip Van Winkle returning after many years to fields where I grazed for a period, as I was Minister for Civil Aviation for three years and have been quite out of that picture since. I believe that when Rip Van Winkle came back he found his wife dead and his house destroyed, but big things had happened because the independence of America had been declared. Certainly there have been very great developments

915
in civil aviation since I was Minister. I certainly pay tribute to the tremendous expansion of the services rendered by the Corporations since my time.
I am indeed glad to think that the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, is a fixed point in a changing age, or at least he has moved the age forward with him. I had the honour of appointing him as Chairman of B.E.A., I think in 1949, and at that time, I am sorry to say, some infantile person in another place, though not in this House, raised the cry of "Jobs for the boys!" All that talk looks pretty silly now after thirteen years of Lord Douglas of Kirtleside as Chairman of B.E.A., in which post he has repeatedly been confirmed by Conservative Ministers, in their wisdom, and after the great services he has rendered, backed up most closely in the first place, by Peter Masefield and more recently by that very effective officer, Mr. Milward. I cannot claim to have appointed Sir Matthew Slattery to B.O.A.C., though I had taken the opportunity before he was tranferred to B.O.A.C. to appoint him a director of my own bank, so he must be thought to be close to my heart. So I think the House can take it that I am full of good will and admiration towards the leadership of the Corporations, not forgetting Sir Basil Smallpeice, who continued for a number of years in B.O.A.C. Certainly when we are reviewing the personalities we cannot fail to describe the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, as still Airman No. 1 in this country or indeed in the world—facile princeps, if I may break into Latin for two words.
There have been these great developments since I was in any way connected with civil aviation. But I am bound to say that some of the problems which are confronting the Corporations have an unpleasantly familiar ring when I bring myself to study them again. Before I became the Minister in 1948, under Lord Winster and more particularly Lord Nathan, very high traditions had already been established by the Corporations. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, the tradition of safety, of the safest airlines in the world, had been well and truly laid. It was the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who coined the phrase, "Safety first, safety last, safety
916
all the time". All that had been achieved by the time I arrived on the scene. In the year before I was Minister the corporations lost about £11 million; in the year during which I ceased to be Minister the deficits were down to £1 million, and the £1 million lost then was nearly all lost on the internal services of B.E.A. which included a large social service element.
We had had plenty of problems. I remember the staff of B.O.A.C. was cut from 24,000 in 1947 to 16,000 in 1951. while the total output capacity was doubled; and that was done without labour trouble, a very remarkable feat reflecting the greatest credit on Sir Miles Thomas and his colleagues and also on Mr. Jim Matthews and the other leading trade unionists. It is now, of course, some years since the subsidies were discarded. B.E.A. reached a record profit of £2 million in 1959–60, and they had a very good result in 1960–61: a profit of £1½ million. But we are told in the B.E.A. Report that much more difficult times are ahead. We are told that the financial results for the first four months of 1961–62 are causing concern; and although I am not aware of any official estimate that has been offered, it seems very doubtful whether there will be any profit at all this year, quite apart from anything the Licensing Board may do.
Indeed, it seems to me that, again apart from anything the Licensing Board may effect or anything the Ministry may bring about as a result of their operations, the experience of B.E.A. this time is likely to be the worst for eight years. But it was very well explained earlier on that they have shown a remarkably fine return throughout the period as a whole; and we were told earlier on they showed a profit of 8 per cent. on the nation's money, and that is not by any means the whole story when we think of other services they have rendered.
B.O.A.C., taking the last ten years or so as a whole, have had a more chequered experience than B.E.A., because by 1951–52, during part of which year I had still some small connection with them, and during which year the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was Minister for a good part of the time, they were making a profit of £275,000, and that include a loss of about £90,000 on the

917
associated companies. So about ten years ago, even including the associated companies, B.O.A.C. were showing a small profit after paying interest on the capital. They have been up and down since then, and we now find that in 1960–61 there was a loss of £473,000 for B.O.A.C. itself, and then we have to add another £2 million for the associated and subsidiary companies. That seems to give a total deficit of £2½ million, but there are various adjustments to be made, which I will not go into, so that apparently the addition to the accumulated deficit for B.O.A.C. and subsidiaries should be looked at as £1,600,000. We have been warned that the loss in 1961–62 is likely to be somewhere between £5 million and £10 million. Lord Stonham put it at £9 million; I am told that it is not likely to be any lower than £10 million. Then we have to add to that probable loss of £10 million for B.O.A.C. the loss—I do not know of how much, but presumably it will be a considerable loss unless something is done about it—on the associated companies. So presumably the total loss will be a good deal more than £10 million. I am afraid that when Rip van Winkle looks at all this, it is remarkably like the picture, in terms of deficits, that confronted him in 1947–48 or when he first became Minister. That is where we are, so far as deficits are concerned, although I hasten to repeat that, of course, the scale of operations is much greater now and all sorts of services have been rendered, and there have been reductions in fares.
I should like to put to the Minister a question or two about the associated companies. He has not been given long notice, but perhaps a few hours' notice. There was a most interesting article to which I refer him and other noble Lords, which appeared in the aviation magazine called Flight on September 28, 1961. It represents an occasion when Mr. Keith Granville, who is in charge of these associated companies, was interviewed by Mr. Frank Beswick who, along with Mr. Lindgren (as he then was), looked after me so well when I was Minister and they were Parliamentary Secretaries. This interview of Mr. Granville by Mr. Beswick, which deals with the associated companies is one which I seriously commend to the House and to the Minister, who has probably studied it already.
918
I must not put all the questions put by Mr. Beswick, but I should like to ask the Minister whether he will explain, even roughly, how this great deficit has come about. Ten years ago the deficit on the associated companies was, as I said earlier, £287,000. In the last year, it was £2 million. It has been multiplied by seven times in the last ten years. I feel that this is something that really must be pressed upon the Minister, and we must ask for some explanation, particularly when we bear in mind that it has been tackled in recent years by Sir George Cribbet in a most thorough-going way—and if he has not tackled the thing properly, I do not know who would be likely to tackle it properly.
Perhaps I can put these two questions to the Minister, arising out of that interview. Mr. Beswick asked Mr. Granville why it was that other companies, American operators, for instance, do not seem to need to rely on arrangements like this. We argue that these associated companies are in some way useful, perhaps indispensable, to B.O.A.C. "But", he asked, "why is it that the American operators do not need associated companies of this kind?" The answer given was that
"… much of what we have done is in colonial territories. Someone has had to help along these countries and it is reasonable to expect that it should have been Britain."
I commend that spirit, and the whole interview, to the Minister.
Is it, then, to be understood that through these associated companies we are running services of a kind that might be called social services? I am not saying that we should not do that, because we run services of that kind to the Scottish Islands. But are these services to be understood in that light? If so, I think it only fair to B.O.A.C. that that should be made plain. I think special arrangements should be made to deal with those duties, and to distinguish them from others which are being undertaken on commercial lines.
The other question which I would put to the noble Lord specifically concerns Bahamas Airways. Mr. Beswick said:
"To many observers this seems a most odd affair. The company is sold, and with a great flourish the new owners say they are going to make it pay; yet you buy it back within two

919
years and show a loss in the next accounts of over £400,000. How can this transaction be justified?"
You sold it off, bought it back again and have lost £400,000 a year over Bahamas Airways. An answer is given here, but I would ask the Minister whether he would be so good as to try to justify that kind of operation to the House.
Unless I am mistaken, the Royal Commission is about to be held. I am in the hands of the Chief Whip.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I do not like to interrupt the noble Earl in his most interesting speech, but I am afraid that I must ask that this House do adjourn during pleasure until the Royal Commission at six o'clock. No doubt afterwards the noble Earl will resume his speech.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
6.0 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Tanganyika Independence Bill

Southern Rhodesia (Constitution) Bill.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

CIVIL AVIATION
6.15 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I was touching on some of the special difficulties which are confronting the Corporations at the present time, but I must re-emphasise my confidence in their future, which is stronger now than ever. As the Chairman of B.O.A.C., Sir Matthew Slattery, says in their Report this year,
"the position that B.O.A.C. had achieved on the 31st March, 1961, was basically one of great strength, though exposed by rapid expansion to the risks of traffic not coming up to expectations."
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, has frequently struck the same
920
confident note, and has again and again been justified. But, as has been said several times this afternoon, our Corporations must be given a chance, a fair chance, to overcome these immediate difficulties and to realise their vast possibilities. Such a chance would be denied them if the Licensing Board, which could be so valuable an institution, interpreted its functions in certain damaging ways.
There is no doubt that the terms of reference of the Licensing Board place a heavy and difficult responsibility on the members of the Board. I do not think those terms of reference are perfect by any means; but, whatever the terms of reference, undoubtedly a heavy and troublesome responsibility would fall on them. I hope I am right in supposing (and I should think the Minister would confirm this) that these specific terms of reference are to me understood as subject to the general development of British civil aviation: that they are not supposed to be exclusive terms at all, and are not intended to be a list of the only factors to be taken into account. I take it there is an overriding understanding that the general purposes of civil aviation are to be secured. As I see it, therefore, when they ark trying to decide what licences should be granted, it becomes not just a question of interpreting and applying certain written words, but a question of public policy. They are supposed, as I see it, to take a broad view of the public interest, adding everything up.
Of course, there is bound to be an element of speculation about the shape that future events are in fact going to take. Indeed, as I see it, there are really three types of question confronting the tribunal, or they are, so to speak, supposed to perform three types of mental operation. First, they are supposed, in a semi-judicial way, to interpret these written instructions, to apply these terms of reference; and, at any rate until those terms of reference are altered, there is nothing to be done about that. We are expecting them to exercise great care in their task. Secondly, they have the businessman's function of trying to predict what is likely to happen in a very uncertain commercial sphere. There, again, no one can give them absolute wisdom. Indeed, absolute wisdom is not given to human beings in these matters, and there is bound to be a great deal of human

921
error. But we hope that there will be a number of correct judgments.
Thirdly, it seems to me that the tribunal and the Minister together are bound in the end to make certain value judgments of great importance to the community; and what I think many of us feel is that the scale of priorities which this Board are supposed to apply and which the Government, in the last resort, will apply has not been made anything like plain enough.
I would just take as an illustration what has occurred in the matter in the minds of all of us in the case of the Cunard application. However one interpreted the terms of reference there, no one sitting on the Board could say for certain what the effect of granting the Cunard licence would be on aviation in general or on the Corporation in particular. It is certainly with a great sense of thankfulness that we learned this morning that the Minister had allowed the appeal. A great disaster for civil aviation has been averted. But many of us feel—I certainly feel—that the scale of priorities which the Government intend to apply in the last resort has not been made anything like plain enough. Therefore, while a danger has been averted in this one case, it still hangs over B.E.A.
The House is aware of the large number of decisions which are pending, and whose settlement one way or the other will affect the fortunes of B.E.A. for good or for ill. I am not going to debate or discuss the details of this case now, but I do want to put one aspect of this question to the noble Lord. Whether or not he answers my precise formulation of it, I am sure that everyone here is hoping to have some guidance from the noble Lord about the general mind of the Government in this field.
To one looking through the terms of reference of the Air Transport Licensing Board, they convey at first sight, I think, an air of fairness, of parity between all comers, of the same kind as one might expect to find in a court of law. The Corporations are not mentioned explicitly, and if they are given any advantage in these terms of reference it is done indirectly and by implication. Yet it is surely national policy to give the Corporations a clear priority, though not
922
an unqualified one. May I remind the House of what was said by Mr. Duncan Sandys, at the time he was Minister of Aviation, when the Civil Aviation Licensing Bill was going through the House of Commons? He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 618, col. 1231]:
"In particular, I can tell the House what the Bill will not do, and is not intended to do. It is not intended to undermine the position of B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. Those two Corporations are our main flag carriers on the air routes of the world. Large sums of public money have been invested in them and they have to face fierce competition from foreign rivals. They therefore deserve, and will get, our full support and encouragement."
That language, I am sure, is very acceptable to all of us on this side of the House and to those who think like us. But, of course, it is just a statement of Government aims; it is not part, as I understand it, of the terms of reference.
I hope I am right in thinking, although I think it could be made much plainer, that the Government intend by that language to give a clear priority to the Corporations; that in the event of either the Corporations or the charter companies being injured, in any doubtful case the Government will give the Corporations the benefit of the doubt. That, I hope, is plain enough, because although Mr. Sandys, no doubt like the rest of us, would wish well to the charter companies, I take it he would not have used this type of language at all about the charter companies he could not have used all of it, but I take it he would not have used this type of language at all—and therefore the Government really do mean to give the Corporations priority. After all, the Corporations and charter companies are not on the same footing. I quite understand someone who says to me that he believes in competition. I happen to be chairman of one of the smaller banks, and somebody might ask me how I should like it if our bank were prevented from competing with the "bit five" by entering some town in which "big five" are already established. If that were the position in aviation—and I think it is at the back of some people's minds that it is—then we should be having a very different discussion.
The truth is that there is very little similarity between that position and the position in civil aviation. The truth is, as the House is well aware, that we

923
expect the Corporations to discharge special responsibilities, whose discharge we have no intention whatever of expecting from the charter companies. I would say, therefore, that the priority of the Corporations is fundamental in Government policy if Mr. Sandys's statement is still to be honoured. I think that to talk of parity, except in the sense that each has the right to a fair hearing, would be very misleading, and I hope the Government will accept my way of putting it.
There was just one aspect of this which I do not think has come up to-day but which I think should be placed before the House. We are all aware, when we talk of the special responsibilities of the Corporations, that they are expected to run services on all the main routes of the world, and generally are expected to provide basic and continuous services which we do not expect from the charter companies. But there is another side of it which should be mentioned. There is no doubt that B.E.A. have financed an enormous amount of development costs in recent years from profits made on international routes. If the Air Transport Licensing Board did something which really undermined B.E.A.'s profitability—although, of course, the same would be true of B.O.A.C.—B.E.A. would have nothing to meet these development costs. The illustrations supplied me are those, for example which were associated with the introduction of the Viscount and the turbo-prop engine. B.E.A. were the first airline in the world to develop this type of engine. That is something which the Corporation has performed which we certainly do not expect from the charter companies, and yet which does in fact imply a high degree of profitability in the Corporation if it is to be done at all.
Another example (and we have had a reference to it in passing) is the commercial helicopter. That seems to have been very slow to come along. I opened the first helicopter service in this country, I think, many years ago. I cannot remember when, but at any rate it was soon afterwards discontinued. But before this country can put a commercial helicopter in the air, someone will have to find large sums of money to develop it so that it is in a state to be sold to foreign airlines. The Government and
924
the manufacturers can assist, but in the last resort the airline itself has to put an enormous sum of money into the development of commercial helicopters; and, again, if the airlines were defrauded of their profits and the Corporations were defrauded of their legitimate profits, then this sort of development would be impossible. And many other examples can be given.
I come back to the basic point, that you cannot talk of parity where the responsibilities placed on the rival parties are so completely unequal. I speak as a Labour Minister who went at least as far in his time of office as, I suppose, any Labour Minister was likely to go in encouraging the charter companies. I took the greatest interest in their welfare. I certainly do not assume that the Corporations are always right. I do not assume that every time the Corporations object to an application it must necessarily be rejected. I think they, like other bodies, probably at times take a narrow view of their own interests; they would not be human if they did not. I believe that in competition there is often a very necessary force in stimulating public service, and I think a monopoly has many dangers of its own. But, of course, on that point the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has very effectively explained that there is no question of monopoly on the international routes.
However, I believe it ought to be made much plainer—and I think this is where we all come together on this side, and elsewhere in the House—than it has been made hitherto by the Government that in the last resort the long-term interests of the Corporations are paramount. I believe intensely that in this year of all years, when the difficulties are going to be so much greater than usual, it would be more than usually dangerous to take any risks with the interests of the Corporations. If we did so, I believe we should in future undo much of the magnificent work which the Corporations have done and that work which they are doing for the prosperity and convenience of our own people and for the freedom of communication between people everywhere. So what we are really asking the Government for to-night is, in the first place, clarification, and then reassurance, not

925
just to enable us to sleep more soundly at night, because that must look after itself, but because unless we can get a satisfactory reassurance, we shall not be encouraging but discouraging those splendid men on whom the major burden of British civil aviation depends.
6.30 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in the first place, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Gosford for giving us the opportunity of debating the problems of this intriguing, exciting and important air transport industry. The debate has ranged far and wide. It has gone from supersonic aircraft to dirty teapots; but it has been none the less interesting and useful for that. I think that the four main things of which we have to take account are the Corporations, the independent airlines, airports and traffic control and the aircraft industry. They have all been touched on this afternoon. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has just given us his views of what the outlook of the Corporations should be. I do not think there is any need to remind your Lordships that my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation has stated repeatedly that the Government regard the Corporations as our main flag carriers. Indeed, the noble Earl quoted my right honourable friend Mr. Duncan Sandys when he specifically said that in another place. And the Corporations should continue to be our main flag carriers.
The intention of the Civil Aviation Licensing Act, 1960, which has been touched upon by so many noble Lords, was to further the development of civil aviation. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, pressed me to say that the Corporations should have priority. I do not quite know what is meant by the word "priority". I am certain that in whatever we do we should take care that we in no way undermine, or allow to be undermined, the position and well-being of the Corporations, which have done such magnificent work and in which so much money has been invested.
The Corporations—and the independents, too—have to deal with an industry which has been developing, technically and in every other way, at a very rapid rate. Competition has been, and will be, very severe, and plans have to be altered continually to deal with new
926
types of aircraft which are coming along. I have little doubt that in due course the Corporations will expect to operate all-jet fleets. This will probably mean, among other things, that obsolescence provisions will prove inadequate, because of the need to finish with aircraft which are quite capable of carrying on but which are forced out by technical advance. That was a point which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, made, and a very important one, but I gather that he would like to see us stand still where we are and not pursue these great and costly developments. I do not think that that is really possible.
In consequence of these great developments, the civil aviation industry is one where profit margins are small. In fact, in some countries much of the industry has had to be subsidised by the Government. Originally, the industry of this country was carried on under subsidy. While there is no subsidy to-day, B.O.A.C., for example, has had to rely on the Government's carrying their deficits. Competition compels expansion of capacity and over-provision of capacity is disastrous from a profit and loss point of view, but I do not see that it can be avoided. This year has been a particularly unfortunate one. World trade has become less. The Americans have been advised, in some measure, to stay at home, and in any case the political troubles in Europe, and particularly our relations with the East, have all had their effect on air travel. B.E.A., who have done so well, have been able to keep competition within bounds but are not unaffected by it. I should like to pay a tribute to a Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, who, I think, has done a very great job, one of which he can be very proud.
It is interesting to note that the preliminary figures for the airlines of all I.C.A.O. countries for 1960 show an operating profit, before payment of interest, of only 1 per cent. Last year, the introduction by B.O.A.C. of Boeing 707s and by B.E.A. of Vanguards and Comets meant a very large increase in capacity, which coincided with the year of recession in civil aviation; but I believe—and I am sure that most of your Lordships will share this view—that there is no need to be despondent about

927
the future. Civil aviation has advanced by some 12 to 15 per cent. annually, and any improvement in world conditions generally could mean an upsurge of travellers and freight that could well surprise us.
A lot has been said about the Civil Aviation Licensing Act, 1960. I see no reason to alter it because the Minister has reversed a decision of the Air Licensing Board. After all, those were the safeguards we put into the Bill when it was before your Lordships' House. It was intended to provide a more liberal régime for the regulation of air transport services in this country and abroad by United Kingdom aircraft. I was very glad that your Lordships welcomed the Minister's decision in this case.
B.O.A.C. has an enormous amount of competition on the Atlantic route. If that factor, in the opinion of the Minister and his advisers, is not fully taken into account, we expect him to alter it. It was suggested that the Board might feel aggrieved, but I do not think they should. The Act is very clear on this point, and I think it is a good thing that early on we have had an example of what can, and should, happen. It is true that the main functions of the Corporations lie in scheduled work, while the independents still largely specialise in charters, but I do not think that any proposal to confine both of them in that way would be a good idea. The idea is that they should operate wherever they can, always keeping in mind (and I fully agree with this) that the position of our two main airlines should not be prejudiced.
I should like to deal with one or two points raised in regard to the aircraft industry itself. I would remind your Lordships that the industry, on the strength of pledges of Government support announced on February 15, 1960, has organised itself into two fixed-wing aircraft groups, two engine groups and one helicopter group, and is busy on streamlining these organisations to get the full benefits from this plan. Unfortunately, there are bound to be some redundancies—this was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham—but the Government will, I am sure, keep in mind, as they always do, the needs of those who are affected. I do not think we should be surprised or dismayed,
928
however, that for a time we shall have to grapple with this problem of redundancy. It is something that the industry must work out and with which they are competent to deal. The Government are still convinced that a substantial aircraft industry is necessary in the national interest, and that Government help is essential for the launching of new transport aircraft and aero-engine projects. In addition to helping specific projects, the Government are maintaining a substantial programme of aeronautical research. At the same time we are not losing sight of the opportunities of international co-operation.
We have heard a lot this afternoon about the supersonic machine. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, spoke as if the Government had come to a decision on the matter. The Government are doing what the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, reminded us we should do—namely, looking ahead with the intention of being ready if and when the time comes. Here, again, we are having studies made of the possibilities; we are seeking what international co-operation there can be; and I hope that, if and when we see the necessity of having supersonic aircraft in the air, we shall be ready.
With your Lordships' permission I will take the points as they were raised and try to answer them. The point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, that we need an adequate home industry and that initial orders, wherever possible, should be placed in support.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I said "home market."
LORD MILLS: I should have said "home market," and I apologise. That point was also made by other noble Lords in the debate. The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, also referred to the question of air safety, and I should like to say a word about this, because I think everyone recognises that it is vital to the aircraft industry. In every way—by international co-operation; by the measures we take here at home; by the men who are checking continually the condition of the aircraft and performance in the air—I am sure everything possible is being done in this field by the Minister of Aviation. I was a little surprised when the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, said there was a certain amount of sluggishness in the Ministry

929
of Aviation in regard to safety. All I can say is that if there is any such sluggishness, which I do not believe, the noble Earl's words will spur them to get rid of their sluggishness.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord again? I am sorry if I conveyed a wrong impression. I did not mean there is any sluggishness on the part of personnel concerned. I merely agree with what other noble Lords have said, that the Civil Service system works too slowly for the air transport industry.
LORD MILLS: There may be a certain amount of truth in the statement that the Civil Service system is not designed or is not the best system to conduct a business. But I want to assure your Lordships that on this particular issue of safety, everybody in the Ministry of Aviation is fully seized of its importance.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, might I say, in defence of the Civil Service, that I am not such a keen critic as some people. I have observed over the years in many respects that when outside industry or financial corporations want really able men, they turn to the Civil Service to get them. When we are dealing with questions of policy or the direct administration on a particular matter, I do not think we ought to involve the Civil Service.
LORD MILLS: I heartily agree, but my object was to counter the suggestion that in this matter, of such importance and concern to us all, the Civil Service Department was sluggish. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in a co-operative and helpful speech, referred to the desirability of more co-operation between the Air Corporations and the independent airlines. On behalf of my right honourable friend the Minister, I can say that he would welcome it. It is to some extent in operation to-day.
The noble Lord made one interesting suggestion about the tourist seat being bookable, which I will see goes to the proper quarter. He also spoke about airport charges. I remember we had a debate on that subject not long ago in your Lordships' House, and afterwards we fully examined the matter, which was also under review by the Select
930
Committee of the House of Commons. It is a point which is very difficult to evaluate because there are so many other cases where charges are levied separately or are not levied at all. We shall probably see the position more clearly when we come to implement the White Paper proposals, when we have an airport authority established, when the local authorities are running their own airports, and when the navigational services are separated and are charged separately. As it is, while the charges are heavy, they are not a vital factor in the competitiveness of our industry.
The noble Lord asked us to pursue a British policy in regard to our airports, and not to be too lenient with the foreigner. I am sure that in this matter we cannot be too local—we must have regard to all the facilities we enjoy. But I am sure that the considerations the noble Lord put before us will be borne in mind.
Then the noble Lord talked about developing private flying. That is a matter in which we can claim that much is being done, both in the development of private flying and making it easy to get the right machines and the right equipment. Private flying, including business flying and gliding, is growing and the aircraft industry is now producing suitable machines. The Ministry of Aviation take a close interest in these developments, and since 1958 there has been a Committee on private flying under the Chairmanship of the Parliamentary Secretary. There has been a survey of aerodromes available for private flying, which shows a very high density of coverage. The noble Lord mentioned the question of Croydon. That is awaiting a decision by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, following a public planning inquiry.
The work of the Committee to which I have just referred has led to a relaxation of import control on foreign light aircraft and engines. There has also been an attempt to reduce the number of radio frequencies a light aircraft must use if it is to meet all control requirements. Another matter which is under consideration is the increase in restrictions imposed by air traffic control, particularly about the size of the control zone round the airports. This

931
is a difficult problem, in which the Minister has to balance his claims for greater freedom against his responsibilities for safety in the air.
The noble Lord talked about vertical take off. It is too early yet, I think, to develop a vertical take-off aircraft for civil use. Much further research is needed to make it practical, economical and safe. Intensive research is now going on on one or two types and this work should have civil value in the longer term. I think the military use of the vertical take-off aircraft will come sooner because the economics of operation are of less importance compared to the advantage of doing without elaborate airfields. The noble Lord talked highly, as I was very glad he did, about the performance of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. and I hope, at any rate, that he has been somewhat reassured about the operation of the Air Transport Licensing Board. I fully share his views about the improvement of the load factor because that is of the greatest importance; and I am sure it is something the airlines watch carefully.
I was interested in the point of my noble friend Lord Dudley in regard to the airport. I thought he had much more persuasive powers than he apparently has, because I did not think he would have the time to stop and see the things he described. I cannot see the noble Earl standing in a queue very quietly—but he apparently has stood in more than one queue. At any rate, there have been provided more checking desks. It is for the airlines to see that all of them are manned at the hours of peak travel. Passengers and their friends can use the concourse facilities. Spectators have other facilities on the roof garden. The difficulty, of course, is to distinguish between who is a friend of the passenger and who is just a spectator; but it is not a simple problem. I went down to see it myself some time ago and the fact is that a lot of revenue is gained from the spectators. What is more important is that there are a lot of children who go as spectators and this encourages them to be air-minded; it makes them understand something of the working of an airport, and I think that is very important.
I am aware of the point raised by the noble Earl in regard to transport facili-
932
ties—the problem of getting your car alongside the building—but all that is being studied; there are experts working on it to see what we should do; whether the whole of that area should be covered in as it probably should be; whether there should be methods to ensure the safety of passengers as well as their comfort, and I think the noble Earl's contribution will forward that.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? What would really help would be if the Government were to carry out the recommendations of, I think, the Millbourn Committee. They were made quite a while ago and there has been any amount of study. What is really wanted is some action on this Report.
LORD MILLS: It should be the right action and there have been a great many changes. It is important that it should be done the right way and that they have consultants on the job to see that it is. What I am trying to say is that it is fully intended to get on with this job and to make the amenities of the airport more suitable.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made a very interesting contribution; he reminded us of the assistance to our balance of payments as represented by this great industry. He complained that Qantas and Air India bought American machines, and I hope his remarks will be read in the right quarters and will help to reverse that. I do not think it is for any want of trying by the aircraft industry and I do not think it is for any want of trying by Government agencies, but these things do happen, and when they do happen I think they should be mentioned, as the noble Lord has mentioned them.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I be allowed to interrupt? I was not exactly making a complaint that Qantas or Air India bought American aircraft. What I was trying to find out—and I wish the noble Lord would help us—was why it was that these companies did buy American? Was it a question of credit? Were the Americans able to give credit facilities so superior that these companies bought American aircraft where, probably, economically it would have been better in the long-term to have bought British and flown the

933
same type of aircraft over the same routes?
LORD MILLS: I will gladly go into these particular cases, but, as the noble Lord has mentioned credit, I would say that we have been prepared to match any credit that was given, so I do not think that has really been a factor. The Export Credits Guarantee Department have taken great interest in trying to develop our sales of aircraft, because it is a very important contribution to our exports. As noble Lords have said, it is of the order of £150 million and we should all like to see that kept up. We should all like to see it improved, but at any rate, we should like to see it kept up.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as that is an important point, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that the Germans, by a method which I can describe to him if he does not know it already, are able to give exactly double the length that our manufacturers can give on goods which cone under the export credit guarantees system?
LORD MILLS: The Government have gone much further than that, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord would give me any cases which I could go into. My information is that in almost all cases, through the Export Credits Guarantee Department, we have been prepared to match the terms of backing offered by other comparable organisations abroad.
The noble Lord also mentioned the question of insurance. It is not considered that the introduction of compulsory third-party insurance would be justified. As was mentioned, powers were granted by Parliament in 1936, but they were never exercised and there has never been any case of failure to pay compensation in full. That, of course, is one of the things that the Air Transport Licensing Board have to take into account, and they have to consider the provision made by operators to meet a liability for loss or damage. In the case of foreign operators in this country, which would be another complication, I am sure they value their traffic rights in this country too highly to jeopardise them by failing to meet any claims there may be for compensation. There would be, I am sure, practical difficulties in
934
doing what the noble Lord suggested, but it is not a point which has been missed at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, also referred to the Cunard Eagle decision, and, if I gathered rightly, he thought the Minister had come to a proper decision. He referred to an international service through the country and the need for co-operation between B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to that effect. I think possibly the problem has been somewhat oversimplified in the B.O.A.C. Report, and it would not be correct to gain the impression that B.O.A.C. have little or no access to the European Market, or that all the European airlines can operate transatlantic services into European points at will. The whole problem is governed by bilateral air services agreements, and I know it is the constant desire of the Ministry of Aviation in their negotiations to try to improve B.O.A.C.'s position.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that point—and I apologise for interrupting—what I was trying to stress was the fact that I should have liked to see Her Majesty's Government enter into negotiations with the French, after consultation with B.E.A. and B.O.A.C., with regard to allowing B.O.A.C. to continue on the Continent, because I understand that the French Government would be willing; that is, subject to arrangements with B.E.A.
LORD MILLS: I think that is a matter which is being pursued, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to it.
The noble Lord had something to say about automatic landing. It is public knowledge that the Blind Landing Experimental Unit is now operating on V-bombers. There is considerable delay in applying the system to civil use, because although the military version is very reliable much higher standards must be aimed for in the civil system, and more work has to be done to see if the Blind Landing Experimental Unit system, dispensing with the leader cable, can be developed. This would be more acceptable internationally. I think full automatic landing must be introduced gradually to build up pilot and public confidence. Work on this problem is

935
going ahead and we are co-operating with the Americans and with European countries. The Americans are going to try out the present B.L.E.U. system on one of their aircraft. The noble Lord, Lord Braye, also referred to this problem of blind landing, as he did to the problem of the Cunard Eagle licensing, with which I have already dealt.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, stressed that we needed a very strong home aircraft industry as a base for our exports, and he referred to the closure of plants, with which I have already dealt. In regard to the supersonic aircraft, he said the Government ought to say what they were going to do; but I think it is still too early to announce any decision on this project. The noble Lord also referred to the position of aircraft workers in Northern Ireland. That is a particular responsibility of the Government, because the Government have a very considerable share in the aircraft industry in Northern Ireland and, so far as the Government can do it, it would be their desire to keep that factory going.
I was most interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, who also referred to the landing charges at London Airport. He, too, mentioned supersonic aircraft and the problem of keeping up with the Joneses. I take the opportunity of saying that I believe that that factor does not enter into the calculations either of the air transport industry, particularly the Corporations, or of the Government. At this time we have met a certain recession, and the pace of development has not gone at the same rate as we have been used to; but I think the Corporations are right to equip themselves with the best machines they can, even though it reduces their profitability for the time being. I do not think it is a question of keeping up with the Joneses.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it means that if you discard these aircraft long before their economic life is finished, as in fact the noble Lord has admitted, the British taxpayer has to pay large sums of money every year as a subsidy? Why should the British taxpayer, in order to enable people to travel across the Atlantic half an hour faster, pay large
936
sums out of his own pocket at this most difficult time? That is the point to which the noble Lord has not addressed himself.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I think I can best answer the noble Lord by giving my own experience. In business we tried to keep up to date; we tried to introduce new machines to do certain jobs. As soon as we saw a better machine we replaced the comer machine.
LORD OGMORE: Did the noble Lord replace the machine at his own expense or at the expense of the taxpayer? That is the point. I have no objection to the Air Corporations doing it at their own expense, but they are doing it at our expense.
LORD MILLS: The noble Lord should have thought about that when the Party to which he lately belonged decided to nationalise things.
LORD OGMORE: Oh, no; they were not making a profit then.
LORD MILLS: I do not want to introduce that kind of thought, but it is a fact that if these Air Corporations are to keep on top of their job, and I think they should, then they must be able to compete through the world, and if they make a deficit the taxpayer must pay.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I help the noble Lord? Is it not the fact that both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. for the last three or four years have in fact made a profit—that they have not run at a deficit, even when they have bought new aircraft?
LORD MILLS: Yes, the noble Lord is quite right. But I was referring to the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, as to why the taxpayer should pay. If the Corporations make a deficit the taxpayer will have to meet it because of the fact that the nation owns these Corporations.
The noble Lord, Lord Waleran, drew attention to the Altimeter Committee. This point was raised By the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators to whom the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, paid a graceful compliment. The Guild is represented on the United Kingdom Altimeter Committee, and these criticisms were made at a recent meeting

937
of the Committee. The Guild complained of a lack of progress. It does not seem to be appreciated that the purpose of the Committee was to design more effective presentation for altimeters. The Committee knew from the beginning that this was likely to be a long task and unlikely to be completed for the D.H.121 and VC.10. The Committee's task was not, however, to design altimeters for specific aircraft. The Corporations have, however, taken into account the view of the Committee when choosing designs for altimeters for the D.H.121 and the VC.10. A planned programme of research has in fact been given priority alongside other important work, but necessarily it is a lengthy project, involving scientific tests on reading altimeter presentations, at the laboratory, in flying simulators and also in the air.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord congratulate the joint Royal Air Force and Civil Air Control radio centres. Of course I listened with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in his reference to the Cunarder. I hope he did not think that the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, and I merely put forward this Cunarder on the grounds of national prestige, because I hasten to assure him that we did not.
The noble Lord mentioned the question of industrial relations and the strike of London Airport porters. As he says, there are a good many unions represented there. We should all like to see industrial relations improved, and I am sure that with good sense we can achieve this. It is, and always has been, important. It is now most important that the new airport authority, when it is formed, should be assured of reasonable industrial relations and should play their part in maintaining them.
The noble Lord asked me about the position at London Airport North. I am told that that will be closed about the middle of next year. Work is going on in the centre which will enable that to be done. I should like also to assure him—I have mentioned the matter myself, too—that the statue of the great pioneers Alcock and Brown will be given suitable accommodation. The noble Lord also raised the question of air connection between Heathrow and Gatwick. There is no air connection, nor at this time would one be justified. The noble Lord said that if we are not
938
careful we should repeat the performance of the railways, when they established stations at the perimeter and made it difficult to get from one to the other. But I think we have to take into account the safety aspect. If we had two airports next to each other, then the problem of air safety would become much more difficult. But if it is right to have them far apart, it may some day be right to have a connection between the two, although at this time it would not be justified.
Then the noble Earl, Lord Longford, having talked about the financial results of the Corporations, pointed out that a good deal of the deficit of B.O.A.C. was due to associated and subsidiary companies. He asked me how has that deficit come about. I should take ,a long time, if I knew, to answer that in detail, but the fact is that some of these subsidiary companies are losing a great deal of money; hence the decision of B.O.A.C. to get rid of them. The noble Earl pointed out that America does not seem to rely on associated companies, and suggested that we were thinking of the social aspects of the matter when B.O.A.C. acquired these outside lines. I do not think that is true. I think they had in mind developing their own air services which were in the making, and preventing other people from getting there first. Very often when one does that one burns one's fingers, but I think they have benefited by their experiences and have taken the right step in getting rid of them.
The noble Earl asked me a specific question, as to whether it is to be understood that we—by "we" meaning the Government, I think—are rendering social services through these airline acquisitions. That is not so at all. I do not know whether the Corporation had in mind, themselves, to render social services in that way, but I should doubt it. They had in mind the advancement of the job with which they were entrusted, and the fact that they lost money should not be construed in any other way. So far as the Bahamas are concerned, the Government of the Bahamas has up to the present time been paying a subsidy in respect of what they considered to be the social service aspect of providing a service for the thousands of islands which are there.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Lord help us? Is it the intention of B.O.A.C. to continue with all these associated companies? I have looked through the losses of these associated companies and they were much the same until 1958 when they rose to £2,500,000. I think this is far too great a burden on B.O.A.C., and I hope B.O.A.C. will get rid of them, if possible.
LORD MILLS: I think that is the intention of B.O.A.C., my Lords. The last time I had a word with the Chairman about it, he said that he was closely examining the results of these companies to see what was the businesslike thing to do with them, and, as you know, he has already made arrangements for the sale of two of them.
As I said at the beginning, the problems with which the Corporations and all units of the air transport industry are concerned are the well-being of the Corporations; establishing the proper sphere of the independent airlines; the question of airports and traffic control, including the right amenities at the airports and the assurance of reliable traffic control. I think our traffic control is among the best in the world. Then there is the aircraft industry and all that that means, both to air transport itself and as an aid to our exports. As I said earlier, I do not think there is any need to be despondent. I think there is every hope that this industry, which is going through difficult times, can develop into something of which this country can be proud. I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, whom again I thank for initiating this debate, would like to join with me in thanking all noble Lords who have taken part.
7.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Mills, in thanking all those noble Lords who have taken part for the very authoritative and wide-ranging speeches which they have made today. I should also like to thank the Minister himself for his very detailed and painstaking replies, which we have all come to expect from him. The debate has remained, as Lord Shackleton said, above politics.
I will not keep your Lordships more than thirty seconds at this late hour, but I should just like, first of all, to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for apparently having covered too much ground in my opening speech, but it does not seem to me to have inhibited or inconvenienced any of your Lordships who followed me. I would thank Lord Stonham for his kind remarks and support his plea that the design and research teams should, where possible, be kept together. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, said that he would look into the question of reserving seats for the tourist class passengers. I should like to help him by saying that, in fact, K.L.M. do this.
My Lords, we have had a good debate, and I would just say that I do not agree with Lord Ogmore that we can keep back progress. I am sure that grandma, when she goes through the sound barrier, will not even notice it, however fantastic it may sound. I am certain we are all assured by what the noble Lord, Lord Mills, said, that the Government consider the Corporations to be the main flag carriers, though I must say that there is obviously a very big place for the independents in the airline schemes. My Lords, I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  INDIA'S INDEBTEDNESS
  INDIA'S INDEBTEDNESS