Sitting of 4 April 1962

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Non-Graduates (Teaching Appointments, England)
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many third- and fourth-year non-graduate teachers have taken teaching appointments in England since 1st January, 1962.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): Since 1st January, 1962, nineteen three- or four-year trained non-graduate women teachers of general subjects have left Scotland to take teaching appointments in England or Wales.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the Minister aware that certain categories of these third-year and fourth-year non-graduate teachers in Scotland are being paid much less than their counterparts in England? Is he aware that a third-year non-graduate teacher in Scotland receives £40 less at the minimum and £130 less at the maximum, and that a fourth-year non-graduate teacher receives £5 less at the minimum and £120 less at the maximum? In view of the unanimous recommendations of the National Joint Council, could the hon. Gentleman suggest to his right hon. Friend that these recommendations should now be adopted, or else we shall have more teachers, who are badly needed in Scotland, leaving for England?
    Mr. Brooman-White: No, Sir. During the same period twenty teachers with similar qualifications came from England and Wales to Scotland, so on balance we are one up.
    Mr. Rankin: Will the Under-Secretary regard this problem a little more seriously than he appears to be doing? Would he agree that in principle it is bad that cheap labour should flow from one side of the Border to the other, irrespective of what countries are involved? Does not he think that equal teaching standards should be aimed at on both sides of the Border, with equal salaries for these categories both in England and Scotland?
    Mr. Brooman-White: The Question was directed to the flow of non-graduate teachers to the South. On balance, we are level in that respect. There is no evidence that any differences in salaries in these categories or others is causing much movement.

    Local Authority Houses (Rents)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the Government's pay pause policy, he will circularise local authorities advising them to observe a rent pause policy.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): No, Sir.
    Mr. Dempsey: Does not the Under-Secretary think it is scandalous that in spite of the wage and salary freeze since last July, in the last few months rents have gone up by as much as 100 per cent.? There is no justifiable reason for such a policy. Is it not about time that the Government were consistent and insisted on a rent pause as long as the pay pause is in operation?
    Mr. Galbraith: No, I do not think I can agree. My right hon. Friend's position is perfectly clear. It is that when there is an average rent of just over 10s. a week, which is not reasonable, any reasonable increases are perfectly justified even during the period of a pay pause.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not the Under-Secretary agree that if rents are increased, the cost of living is increased, too, and if the cost of living is increased we get demands for increased wages? Are not the Government helping to pursue a policy of inflation and thus

    427
    worsening the economic and financial crisis of this country by increasing rents?
    Mr. Galbraith: Not when the average rent is only just over 10s. a week.

    Regional Crime Squad
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now discuss with Scottish chief constables the desirability of establishing a regional crime squad, which could be made available to any police force in Scotland on request.
    Mr. Brooman-White: As the hon. Member knows, one such squad operates in the west of Scotland and less formal arrangements for co-operation between forces operate from time to time in other areas. I think that any extension of these arrangements is best left to chief constables to arrange among themselves.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the Under-Secretary aware that it is not wise to dither with a necessity of this nature? Does he realise that the criminal mind is adapted to the techniques of the space age at present, whereas we are still influenced by the parish pump outlook in relation to criminal detection? Does he not think that it would be an advantage for Scotland to have its own Scotland Yard so that the cream of Scotland can be available for crime detection?
    Mr. Brooman-White: I think that Scotland Yard in England can move in only at the request of a local force. If local forces in Scotland make such a request they can receive assistance.

    Students (National Insurance Contributions)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what decision the Government have taken on the recommendation of the Anderson Committee that full-time students in receipt of approved awards should be covered for National Insurance contributions.
    Mr. Brooman-White: This recommendation was carefully considered by the Government when the Anderson Report was received, but it was decided not to accept it.
    Mr. Thomson: Is it not unfair that students under 18 should be exempted while students over 18 should have either to pay these contributions or pay heavy arrears when they finally cease their education? In view of the need to encourage people to go on to higher education, would not the Government reconsider this matter?
    Mr. Brooman-White: Students' grants have always been calculated on the basis of meeting necessary expenses during the course of study and not of providing for future contingencies. It was felt that in these circumstances the arrangements which have been made on the basis of the Anderson recommendations were fair.

    Derelict Sites (Clearance)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the light of the recommendations of the Toothill Report on the Scottish economy, he will now take steps to increase the grants available to local authorities for the clearing of derelict sites.
    Mr. Galbraith: The Committee's recommendation about derelict site grants is being studied. Meanwhile, as my right hon. Friend told the hon. Member on 7th March, a fair number of schemes have been submitted on the present basis.
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State also said that the applications were not coming in as fast as he had hoped, and does he not recognise that this question is given increased urgency in view of the grim news which has come out only this morning about the imminent closures of North British and the shale mining industry? Will he not take much more urgent steps to encourage local authorities to clear up derelict sites in order to get industries to take the places of those whose closures are now on us?
    Mr. Galbraith: Certainly we are most anxious to clear up these derelict sites but at the moment I think that we should wait till we have considered the recommendations of the Toothill Committee.
    Mr. Hoy: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a matter of great urgency in view of the news announced

    429
    in this morning's paper that 2,500 men are to be out of work in Scotland with two closures? Does not he realise that it is absolutely essential, if we are to have greater employment for these people in Scotland in future, that sites should become available, and that it is up to the Scottish Office to get a move on in the matter?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is not the hon. Gentleman going to give an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy)? Does not he regard this as being a question of the most fundamental importance to the Scottish economy? Why does he just sit there and refuse to answer the supplementary question?
    Mr. Galbraith: I told the hon. Gentleman that we are anxious to have these sites cleared. I also told him that we were waiting while we studied the recommendations of the Toothill Committee. I am not prepared to go further than that at the moment.

    Industrial Production
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the rate of increase of industrial production in 1961; and how this figure compares with that for England and Wales.
    Mr. Brooman-White: According to the present provisional figures industrial production in 1961 exceeded that of 1960 by almost two per cent. in Scotland and by just over 1 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the record of industrial productivity in Scotland is rather worse than that in England and Wales, and if it should happen that the rate of growth in Scotland is less than 2½ per cent. will the Chancellor's policy on wages still apply? In other words, if industrial productivity in Scotland rises by 1 per cent. will the workers of Scotland still get their 2½ per cent. increase in wages?
    Mr. Brooman-White: We should obviously like to see a still more rapid expansion of industrial production in Scotland, but the figures for last year showed that Scotland did substantially
    430
    better than the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Mr. Hamilton: But the overall figure was very poor, and if it is less than 2½ per cent. do the Government then intend to tie the wages to the low productivity which is the result of the Government's policy?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Brooman-White: Clearly, we should like the industrial productivity to increase still further, but it is a matter of satisfaction in Scotland, I think, that during the last year our figures were better than the United Kingdom total.

    Housing (Immigrants)
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, with a view to introducing legislation to give priority to Scottish-born citizens on local authority housing lists, he will ask local authorities for the number of immigrants who have been given priority over Scottish people who have been waiting for many years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Galbraith: No, Sir.
    Sir C. Osborne: In view of the fact that Scottish Members are always insisting on fair shares for Scotland under the Goschen formula of eleven-eightieths—
    Mr. Ross: What does the hon. Member know about Scotland?
    Sir C. Osborne: —will my hon. Friend see that Scotland gets its fair share of the immigrants and that 10,000 are sent to Dundee, whose Members opposed the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill?
    Mr. Galbraith: I do not think that that supplementary question really follows from the original Question.
    Sir C. Osborne: Oh, yes, it does.
    Miss Herbison: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that no attention whatever is paid to the disgraceful pleas made by his hon. Friend behind him? Is he aware that if we had jobs in Scotland there would not be any doubt about it and that a great welcome would be given to these immigrants in our country,

    431
    where we are one of the most friendly peoples in the world?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Hamilton: When are we going to have some answers?

    Glasgow-Kilmarnock Road
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the total amount so far spent on the development of the Glasgow-Kilmarnock road between Eastwood Toll and Mallets-heugh, and the sums paid to house-owners in the same area as compensation.
    Mr. Brooman-White: The total amount spent so far is £607,000. This includes £37,000 paid for land and in compensation to 99 out of the total of 192 owners and occupiers concerned; the settlements in respect of the remainder have still to be completed.
    Mr. Rankin: While, of course, I agree with the compensation and I also agree that a splendid job is being made of this development between Eastwood Toll and Malletsheugh, will the hon. Gentleman realise that exactly the same problem as faced him on the new Kilmarnock Road faces him on the old Kilmarnock Road which runs parallel to it and a little distance from it because of the increase of the number of feuars. They are being allowed to approach too near the centre of the road? Once again, is he aware that he will have to pay compensation to these feuars comparable to that already paid on the present new road—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—unless he takes some action now?
    Mr. Brooman-White: The question—
    Mr. Nabarro: Parish pump stuff.
    Mr. Brooman-White: —of compensation is, of course, a matter for the district valuer.
    Mr. Rankin: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I am terribly sorry—
    Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is awake today.
    Mr. Rankin: —but owing to an unseemly and ignorant interruption I did not hear all of that answer. May the hon. Gentleman repeat it?
    Mr. Brooman-White: I hope it will satisfy the hon. Member. I said that this question of compensation is, of course, a matter for the district valuer.
    Mr. Nabarro: Parish council stuff.

    Probation Officers
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of probation officers in Scotland; and how far this number is short of establishment.
    Mr. Brooman-White: At the end of 1961 there were 164 persons—including 29 women—in whole-time service as probation officers in Scotland. Local shortages have generally been of a temporary nature. My right hon. Friend is considering the implications of the Morison Report on the future of the service.
    Mr. Brewis: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the staffing of this service is very satisfactory in Scotland and that it does a good job of work? Could he say a little further about the Departmental Committee and what action he proposes to take over their salaries for the future?
    Mr. Brooman-White: I think that any answer to that will have to wait till we have had time to consider the very wide-ranging recommendations of the Morison Committee.
    Mrs. Hart: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that while, of course, many of us on this side of the House agree with what the hon. Member has just said about the excellent work being done by the probation officers' service in Scotland, nevertheless many jobs and tasks are being carried out in England and Wales by probation officers which are not done in Scotland and that in fact the shortage reflected in the Morison Report conceals the fact that there is a great scope for increasing probation work in Scotland?
    Mr. Brooman-White: We are considering the whole problem in its widest aspects.

    Hospitals (Maternity Beds)
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the numbers of maternity beds deficient

    433
    in each hospital region at present on the basis of the minimum requirements of the Montgomery Report; and what are the numbers that will be deficient in each hospital region assuming the hospital building programme, 1961 to 1966 is realised on schedule.
    Mr. Galbraith: As the Answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Dr. Mabon: May I ask the Minister if his Answer departs substantially from what has been published in the Hospital Plan for Scotland? If it does not, will he consider looking again at the priorities because, even with the present

    MATERNITY BEDS—SCOTLAND

    AT 30TH SEPTEMBER, 1961

    —

    Bed complement

    Beds required*

    Deficiency

    Surplus

    Western

    …

    …

    1,653

    2,037

    384

    —

    South-Eastern

    …

    …

    662

    762

    100

    —

    Eastern

    …

    …

    207

    317

    110

    —

    North-Eastern

    …

    …

    344

    330

    —

    14

    Northern

    …

    …

    121

    130

    9

    —

    2,987

    3,576

    603

    14

    Net deficiency

    589

    ON COMPLETION OF 1961–66 PROGRAMME

    —

    Bed complement†

    Beds required‡

    Deficiency

    Surplus

    Western

    …

    …

    2,185

    2,095

    —

    90

    South-Eastern

    …

    …

    662

    819

    157

    —

    Eastern

    …

    …

    255

    319

    64

    —

    North-Eastern

    …

    …

    344

    326

    —

    18

    Northern

    …

    …

    150

    129

    —

    21

    3,596

    3,688

    221

    129

    Net deficiency

    92

    *The Montgomery Report recommended that beds should be available for a stay in hospital of 10 days for at least 70 per cent. of total births. For planning purposes, owing to unreliability of estimates of births, this has been converted into the equivalent figure of 0·69 beds per 1,000 population.

    † Account is taken of closures and improved bed spacing.

    ‡ The calculations in this column relate to an estimated population in 1968.

    Fatal Road Accidents
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fatal road accidents took place in Scotland in 1961; and what increase this represents on the previous year.
    Mr. Brooman-White: There were 671 fatalities in 1961; 23 more than in 1960.
    434
    programme, there will be a very long time, almost fifteen years, before the Montgomery Report is fully implemented, particularly in the western region of Scotland?
    Mr. Galbraith: My information is that it ought to be practically implemented within the five-year period.
    Mrs. Cullen: Will the Minister tell us how many of the eighty maternity beds promised in 1960 and again in 1961 are now available?
    Mr. Galbraith: I am afraid that I cannot answer that detailed supplementary question without notice.
    Following are the figures:
    Mr. Brewis: Does not this represent an upward trend, compared with England and Wales in the same period? Is my hon. Friend aware that in England and Wales there are 750 road safety officers and in Scotland only eight? Would he not agree on the importance of providing such officers to give lectures in the schools to the children, and

    435
    other lectures, in order to prevent road accidents?
    Mr. Brooman-White: I should like to consider the point about the road safety officers. Of course, we are concerned that they should be increased; but to set the figures in proportion, there has been a very substantial rise in the number of vehicles on the roads.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that we are going to have this problem very much worsened by the closure of branch lines and main line stations and the withdrawal of hundreds of trains, thus causing more traffic to go on to the roads and causing a greater number of accidents and greater loss of life every year? Will he consider this in any arrangements he is making for road safety in future?
    Mr. Brooman-White: I will certainly consider anything, for the improvement of road safety.
    Mr. Ross: It would cost money.
    Sir C. Osborne: English money.

    Rankin Memorial Hospital, Greenock
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when additional maternity beds will be available in Rankin Memorial Hospital, Greenock.
    Mr. Galbraith: As indicated in the White Paper Hospital Plan for Scotland, the Western Regional Hospital Board hopes to be able to start this scheme in the period up to 1965. It will announce the actual date when it is able to do so.
    Dr. Mabon: Is the Minister aware that not long ago he gave me an Answer saying that this hospital would be provided for in the financial year 1962–63? May I ask when this hospital will actually be built?
    Mr. Galbraith: All that I can say is that the regional hospital board intends to start the scheme in the period up to 1965.

    South of Scotland Electricity Board (Finance)
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the nature of the consultations he had with the
    436
    South of Scotland Electricity Board prior to his setting the financial objectives of the Board for the next five years.
    Mr. Millanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will state the total net surplus set by him as the financial objective of the South of Scotland Electricity Board for the five years 1962 to 1966 inclusive, the increase this represents over the actual net surplus for the five years to 1961, and the amount that this increase represents per electricity consumer in the Board's area;
    (2) what estimate he made of the price increases which will have to be borne by consumers in the area of the South of Scotland Electricity Board when determining the new financial objectives which he has set for the Board.
    Mr. Steeleasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Electricity Consultative Council for the South of Scotland District regarding the financial objectives of the South of Scotland Electricity Board and their effect on consumer prices.
    Mr. Brooman-White: My right hon. Friend's consultations with the South of Scotland Electricity Board were by correspondence and were concerned with the level of financial return for the next five years and the Board's proposals for achieving this. The objective agreed will enable the Board to finance from revenue more than 50 per cent. of its capital requirements. It was appreciated that to achieve this objective as well as to meet various increases in costs a rise of about 10 per cent. in the Board's revenue would be necessary. The financial objective is not related to the net surplus but to the gross earnings. It is estimated that to meet this the Board's income must exceed its expenditure on revenue account by about £22 million over the five-year period compared with £1½ million during the five years 1957 to 1961. The Board referred the proposed increases to the Consultative Council and it agreed with them. My right hon. Friend had no discussions with the Council, as it is not one of its functions to advise the Secretary of State about tariff increases.
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman used the word "agreed". Is he aware that

    437
    a cursory reading of the Report of the South of Scotland Electricity Board demonstrates, first, that it considers that it is achieving its aim in getting cheap electricity on a sound financial framework; and, secondly, that far from this being an agreed objective it has been one dictated by the Government which has compelled the Board to raise revenue up to about £6 million by raising its tariffs purely to meet the arbitrary figure of 12½ per cent. on net capital laid down by the Government against the judgment of the Electricity Board?
    Mr. Brooman-White: I think that the contributions from revenue are needed to carry on the Board's business and to finance the development which the Board must undertake in the future if it is to meet consumer needs.
    Mr. Ross: Was it agreed or imposed?
    Mr. Millan: Whatever the long-term view may be, do the Government think that this is a suitable time, with the wage pause and appeals to industry to keep costs down, to impose a 10 per cent. increase in electricity prices in Scotland?
    Mr. Brooman-White: In answer to both supplementary questions, I think that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) misunderstood. I said that the Consultative Committee agreed with the Board's proposals. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), the general position is that it is impossible to distinguish on the figures available between any increases necessarily incurred by price and cost changes and those resulting from the point in the White Paper about the necessity for improved financial arrangements being made by the Board in the future.
    Mr. Steele: As this is in line with the Government's policy to ensure that the Board should be able to be more self-financing than in the past, can the Under-Secretary say what percentage of self-financing was done by the Board in the first period and what is the percentage that it is expected to have in the next five-year period? Can the hon. Gentleman also say whether the Secretary of State or the Board asked the Consultative Committee to look at this
    438
    and whether it was agreed that a higher percentage should go on domestic tariffs than on industrial tariffs?
    Mr. Brooman-White: I cannot answer these detailed points without notice. On the question of capital requirements of the Board, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt have seen the comments in the White Paper. I think that the relevant paragraphs are 14, 15 and 16.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that all these matters of self-financing of electricity boards in Scotland are properly the subject of inquiry by the Mackenzie Committee at the present time?—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Oh, yes—and should not hon. Members opposite be invited to give evidence to the Mackenzie Committee in the same fashion that I have already given evidence myself?
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Nabarro: May I have an answer first?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am being addressed on a point of order.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: There seems to be a suggestion on the part of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) that some limitation is automatically placed on the rights of hon. Members to ask Questions of this kind because a Committee is sitting. Is this equivalent to it being sub judice in the legal sense? This is an important point. The hon. Member has suggested that hon. Members have no right to ask these Questions while the Mackenzie Committee is sitting.
    Mr. Nabarro: Further to that point of order—
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it is one. I do not think that we need bother about views of that kind expressed by hon. Members. I do not think they raise a point of order.
    Mr. Brooman-White: It is true that the Mackenzie Committee is inquiring into the finances of electricity in Scotland. I entirely accept everything that my hon. Friend has said about that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Perhaps hon. Members would listen to what I am saying. I accept that point. The question that I was answering was with reference

    439
    to increased charges by the South of Scotland Electricity Board.
    Mr. Strachey: What justification can the Under-Secretary give the House for this whole doctrine that this body must raise its capital for development out of revenue and not borrow it like other undertakings, public and private?
    Mr. Brooman-White: I think that the justifications are contained in the White Paper.
    Mr. Ross: Would the hon. Gentleman answer a very simple question: was the financial objective imposed upon the Board or was it agreed?
    Mr. Brooman-White: There were consultations with the Board and the Board accepted the necessity to make the necessary changes.
    Mr. Ross: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Civil Defence (Dispersal of Population)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to increase the rate of house building and school building in the areas designated as reception areas under his dispersal plans; and if he proposes to give additional subsidies to local authorities in the areas to provide accommodation for the additional population.
    Mr. Galbraith: No special steps are being taken, and no additional subsidies are proposed because of designation under the dispersal scheme.
    Mr. Hughes: If the Minister has plans for dispersing the population to areas which are already overcrowded, does not he think that he should make some provision?
    Mr. Galbraith: No, Sir. I do not think so. It is perfectly obvious that in an emergency we will have to put up with conditions which perhaps are not those which we should like to have in ordinary times.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the towns of Ayr and Prestwick and the towns on the Firth of Clyde have
    440
    been designated as neutral or reception areas under the new plans for the dispersal of the population in the event of nuclear war.
    Mr. Galbraith: The towns of Ayr and Prestwick and the other towns on the Ayrshire coast have been designated as reception areas. Cove and Kilcreg-gan, Dunoon, Gourock and Rothesay are neutral areas.
    Mr. Hughes: When the Polaris submarine base came to Dunoon we were told by the commander of the "Proteus" that Dunoon was perfectly safe. Can the Minister tell us why the Government do not now regard Dunoon as such a safe area, and also will he tell us why he is proposing to make Prestwick a reception area when it is one of the most important American bases in Britain?
    Mr. Galbraith: The intention is to disperse people from the large industrial areas. I think that the coast of Ayr, near which I live myself, is completely safe.
    Mr. Manuel: Will the Minister tell the House why his right hon. Friend who, apparently, is pledged to a policy of dispersal—though we cannot see how it is to take place—is retaining all the shelters in tenement properties in the densely populated areas in Glasgow?
    Mr. Galbraith: It is unlikely that all the population will be dispersed.
    Mrs. Hart: Can the Minister say whether this is a new policy of civil defence which we are hearing about today, and whether a place which provides a number one target should be designated as a reception area? If so, will the hon. Gentleman offer some advice to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about designating air bases in the Norfolk area as reception areas also?
    Mr. Galbraith: I should like to look into that point.

    Hunterston Nuclear Power Station
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the construction of the Hunterston nuclear power station.
    Mr. Brooman-White: Work is in progress on the first reactor which is expected to be in commission by the middle of 1964. It is hoped to be able to commission the second reactor by the end of that year.
    Mr. Hannan: Since the contractors were allowed an extension of time because of labour difficulties, will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that the delays are not wholly the result of labour troubles? As the Board will be involved in high interest rates for the period because of this extra time, why should it be penalised in the fashion referred to earlier?
    Mr. Brooman-White: Not only labour difficulties but other considerations led to delays in construction. The hon. Member will have noted the comments made about this in the last day or two by the Chairman of the Board.

    New Towns (School Building)
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional assistance he proposes giving education authorities for the building of schools in new towns.
    Mr. Brooman-White: Loan charges in respect of school building in new towns, as elsewhere, are relevant expenditure for purposes of general grant. My right hon. Friend will, before next Session, consider, in consultation with the local authority associations, suggestions that have been made for amending the formula for the distribution of general grant.
    Mr. Lawson: Since it has been found necessary to give special treatment to new towns in respect of many services, for example, houses, in view of the large number of young children in proportion to the population, and because many of these children for whom schools will have to be found in the new towns are living in areas now in receipt of grants for them, will the Under-Secretary bear in mind that there are some factors which make it necessary for new towns to be given special consideration to meet financial difficulties?
    Mr. Brooman-White: We are well aware of the problems which have arisen
    442
    and they will be carefully considered in the review.
    Miss Herbison: Does the Minister believe that he will get the agreement of local authorities on these discussions and that the new town areas will be given something special in the general grant? Does not he realise that there will be great difficulty about getting agreement and that it is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities which have new towns in their areas do not penalise the rest of the area because they have to provide new schools in the new towns?
    Mr. Brooman-White: As I have said, we are well aware of the problems. It would be most unwise for me to speculate on what will or will not be agreed by the local authorities. We should like to reach some arrangement to meet the problem.

    Fintry Housing Estate, Dundee (Repairs)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking respecting the Scottish Special Housing Association houses on the Fintry housing estate, Dundee, where major repairs have been shown to be necessary.
    Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend has asked the Association for a full report as soon as possible, and to keep him closely informed of events. At the same time, the Association proposes to put in hand forthwith permanent remedial work and has been in touch with the tenants and the Town Council of Dundee to explain the necessary arrangements.
    Mr. Thomson: In view of the gravity of this matter, once the Secretary of State has received this technical report, will he consider holding a full public inquiry, as was done in the similar case in respect of Hatfield new town in England? Meantime, will the Minister encourage the S.S.H.A. to give every possible help to the tenants in the problems with which they are faced through this disaster?
    Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend is very sympathetic towards the tenants and will certainly do that. We

    443
    had better wait, however, until we see what is contained in the technical report.

    Barlinnie Prison (Incidents)
    Mrs. Cullenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the light of further incidents at Barlinnie Prison this week-end, he will reconsider his decision about an independent inquiry.
    Mr. Brooman-White: These further assaults are most regrettable. They are being investigated by the police in consultation with the Governor, and my right hon. Friend will continue to watch the position closely.
    Mrs. Cullen: Is the Minister aware that there have been two other incidents during the week-end, which proves that the investigations at Barlinnie Prison have not been successful? Will he reconsider his decision about an inquiry.
    Mr. Brooman-White: We are most concerned about what has happened over the week-end, but it is not certain that any inquiry would add to the evidence produced by the police investigation. My right hon. Friend will do whatever seems practicable to prevent a continuance of this state of affairs.
    Mr. Hannan: When will the Minister face the problem? Even if it were agreed to hold an inquiry, is not the solution to the problem quite obvious? Is not Barlinnie Prison overcrowded and is not there a need for more accommodation? Will the Minister address himself to that problem and get on with the job?
    Mr. Brooman-White: Overcrowding is certainly one of the causes of the difficulties which have arisen. We hope that the new remand facilities which will become available in the summer will ease the strain.
    Mrs. Cullen: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Ibrox Park (Disorder)
    Mr. J. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Glasgow following the riot and disorder
    444
    at Ibrox Park on Saturday 31st March; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brooman-White: My right hon. Friend has called for a report and when it is received he will consider if there is any further action which can usefully be taken.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that there is grave concern throughout Scotland at the shocking behaviour of the supporters of the football club who created a riot at Ibrox Park on Saturday last? If the magistrates at Glasgow fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to this type of outbreak of violence at football matches, will the Secretary of State take the necessary steps to stop this unseemly conduct by football supporters?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Not on your life.
    Mr. Brooman-White: The courts have considerable powers to impose sentences for this type of outbreak and we all deplore the fact that the actions of a few hooligans should have given such an unnecessarily unfavourable impression of Glasgow sportsmanship.
    Mr. McInnes: Will the hon. Gentleman consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so that, in conjunction with the Lord Advocate, he may consider the possibility of sending such culprits to the High Court where more severe sentences may be imposed?
    Mr. Brooman-White: I understand that it is the normal practice for such offenders to be tried summarily by the sheriff who can award a fine of £25 or a sentence of imprisonment for three months.

    Education
    Mr. J. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount of money was spent on education in Scotland in the latest year for which figures are available; and what percentage increase this represents over 1951–52 after adjustment for changes in the value of money.
    Mr. Brooman-White: The total spent by education authorities from revenue and by the Scottish Education Department in 1960–61 was about £90 million, an increase of about 60 per cent. over the cost in 1951–52, after adjustment for changes in the value of money.

    General Dental Services
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that the general dental services provided for Scotland are brought up to the standard of those provided in the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Galbraith: I do not accept that the standard of general dental services provided in Scotland is lower than in comparable parts of the rest of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Member has evidence to that effect perhaps he will let me have it.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the evidence lies in his hands now—that the Report which contains the evidence was presented to him in December of last year? When does he propose to make it available? Is he aware that if we take one dental service as an example, orthodontics, and allow for the disparity in the size of the populations, the amount spent on orthodontic treatment in Scotland in the last three years was £28,000 compared with over £1 million spent in England? Does not that show that a narrower approach is made to the service in Scotland than in England?
    Mr. Galbraith: I do not think so. The hon. Gentleman asked about the standards of the general dental services. I think that they are comparable with the rest of the United Kingdom.

    School Building Programme, Ross and Cromarty
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the school building programme of Ross and Cromarty County Council has fallen several years in arrears, especially in the island of Lewis; and what action he has taken to assist the county council to speed up the programme and create a special schools architects' department since the hon. Member for the Western Isles wrote to him last September.
    Mr. Brooman-White: I am aware that Ross and Cromarty has fallen behind its former school building programme. The education authority has now, however, undertaken a comprehensive review of its schools and is framing a new building
    446
    programme, based on a fresh appraisal both of educational priorities and of the availability of contractors. It is also considering the question of additional architectural assistance, A meeting will shortly take place between my Department and the education authority to discuss how best to carry through the programme.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the Minister aware that some of the school building schemes in the 1958 programme have not yet even been started, that there is no hope of the 1963 phase being completed in scheduled time and that only five schools a year are being reconstructed, although there are 119 schemes of relatively major reconstruction necessary? Does he not think that something should be done in the way of a crash programme now? Will he bring pressure on this local authority which clearly has failed in its statutory duties?
    Mr. Brooman-White: We have been concerned about the lack of progress for some time, but I am glad that this local authority has revised its programme and decided to discuss it with us.
    Mr. MacMillan: May I ask the hon. Gentleman in particular to have regard to the ancillary programme of permanent canteens and to take into account through his Department that in the last five years this county council failed to take up 100 per cent. grants for permanent school canteens worth nearly £160,000 in an area where there is heavy unemployment and gross overcrowding in the schools?
    Mr. Brooman-White: We will take note of what the hon. Member has said.

    Moorland Areas, Western Isles (Reseeding Schemes)
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the successful regeneration by crofters in the Western Isles of extensive areas of moorland; whether he intends to assist further the reseeding schemes; and what grant-aid he is making available for the essential third-year phase of maintenance to prevent the reseeded land reverting to bog.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has been greatly

    447
    impressed by the considerable regeneration of common grazings and other croft land in Lewis, and elsewhere in the highlands and islands. Further proposals of this kind will be sympathetically considered by the Crofters' Commission. The assistance given for such schemes is directed towards the initial improvement, and not to subsequent maintenance of the improvement, and my right hon. Friend considers that the present arrangements adequately serve this purpose.
    Mr. MacMillan: While we all endorse the compliments to the crofters concerned, who by their own hard labour and a good deal of their own money have regenerated many thousands of acres of what formerly was bog land and turned it into excellent pasture and increased the number and improved the quality of livestock, may I ask why the Government have now abandoned what is regarded as the essential third-year consolidation phase when basic slag must be applied to the ground if we are to hold progress made in the reseeding programme? Let us not abandon the whole thing for a miserable economy for which the crofters will have to pay out of their own pockets.
    Mr. Leburn: There is no question of abandonment. I think that the hon. Member does less than justice to these crofters, by whose enterprise this work has been done. I think it will be carried on. Maintenance is not only a question of the third-year maintenance but is required in the fourth year, the fifth year and so on.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Will my hon. Friend see that these schemes are expanded and that the good work that has been done is not lost, because it is important to maintain the quality of the land which has been reclaimed?
    Mr. Leburn: Every encouragement is being given to these schemes.
    Mr. MacMillan: The hon. Gentleman said that maintenance and consolidation in the fourth year and onwards is essential. Surely it is even more essential in the third year? Is it not a fact that crofters will have to find £500 or £600 for each 200 acres in addition to what they have contributed by their labour and their own money? Does not he think that unfair?
    Mr. Leburn: Yes, but it should be borne in mind that these grants are running up to £14 an acre for the initial improvement.

    Places of Public Entertainment (Smoking)
    Dr. A. Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether in view of the recent reports on smoking and lung cancer, he will call a conference of local health authorities with a view to recommending a ban on smoking in places of public entertainment.
    Mr. Galbraith: Wider restriction of smoking in public places was one of the recommendations in the recent Report from the Royal College of Physicians which are now under consideration by the Government.
    Mr. Woodburn: Will the hon. Gentleman call the attention of his colleagues to the well-known fact that example is better than precept? If the Government as a whole announced to the public that they were stopping smoking, does he not think that that might have a great effect on the country?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we can link the Government with "places of public entertainment".

  ROADS

    South-West Durham
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Transport, in view of the closure of railways in south-west Durham, what major road developments he proposes in their place; what they are; and when they will be started.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): No trunk roads are affected and we have received no proposals for major improvements of any classified roads as a direct result of these closures.
    Mr. Boyden: In view of the fact that unemployment has mounted every month this year and jobs stay firmly stuck in the pipeline, does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be sensible to advance some of the road schemes in this area until the jobs get out of the pipeline? Will he take steps

    449
    with the county council to see that this happens?
    Mr. Hay: No, I do not see the connection between road improvements and jobs.
    Mr. Mellish: If branch lines close and more traffic must go on to the roads, is it not a fair question to ask if the Government have a policy in circumstances of this kind to give special priorities to roads like this which will have to take the traffic which formerly went on the railways? It is as straight as that.
    Mr. Hay: If it were as straight as that it would be comparatively simple, but the plain fact is that these roads are not where the services have been before.

    Great Barr Road Scheme, Oldbury
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Transport what is the present position of the proposed Great Barr special road scheme within the borough of Oldbury; and when road operations will begin.
    Mr. Hay: A draft scheme under Section 11 of the Highways Act, 1959, published on 4th March, 1960, showed this road running on viaduct over the railway for about two miles in the Borough of Oldbury. Some seventy objections were received to this part of the scheme. Detailed examination of the line has shown that it would involve substantial demolition of property and cause serious overshadowing. We are therefore investigating, in collaboration with the local authority, an alternative line to the west of the railway which seems less likely to affect homes and property. It is too early to say when road building might begin.

    Traffic Routes, West Midlands (Lighting)
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Transport if he has now considered the recommendations of the consultative committee on the lighting of traffic routes within the London conurbation; and if he will take the initiative in setting up a similar committee for the West Midland conurbation.
    Mr. Hay: In reply to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon.
    450
    Member to the Answer I gave on 24th January to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). As to the second part, it was the lighting authorities who set up the London Committee. We should welcome any similar initiative by the authorities in the West Midland conurbation, or elsewhere, and would be glad to give them any assistance, advice or help that we can.

    Public Conveniences, Bus and Coach Stations (Turnstiles)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Transport what answer he has sent to the National Council of Women's request for his assistance in securing the removal of turnstiles from public conveniences at bus and coach stations.
    Mr. Hay: On 5th February my right hon. Friend told the National Council that he was drawing the attention of the nationalised and private bus operators to the Government's view, as expressed to local authorities by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government, and that he was suggesting that they too should pursue the course we had urged on local authorities.
    Mrs. Castle: While thanking the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend for the action he has taken in this matter, which the women very much appreciate, may I ask what reply has been received from the bus and coach undertakings? Will the Minister point out to them that it is even more inconvenient to have these turnstiles at transport centres than in ordinary public conveniences and that unless they take steps to fall into line with Government policy someone will have to introduce another Private Member's Bill to compel them to do so.
    Mr. Hay: I am afraid that without notice I could not give the hon. Lady the answers we have had from the various undertakings to whom we addressed this request. We shall certainly bear in mind what she said in the latter part of her supplementary question.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: In conversations with the bus companies, will my hon. Friend draw attention to the fact that one of the bus companies at Basingstoke is putting up a new turnstile in this very day and age at a new station?
    Mrs. Castle: Shame.

    Deaths
    Sir J. Duncanasked the Minister of Transport how many deaths there were on the roads in 1931, 1941, 1951 and 1961; and what were the ratios of deaths to vehicles in the same years.
    Mr. Hay: The number of deaths are as follows: 1931, 6,691; 1941, 9,169; 1951, 5,250; 1961, 6,908.
    Deaths per thousand licensed motor vehicles were: 1931, 3·0; 1941, 3·8; 1951, 1·2; 1961, 0·7.
    Sir J. Duncan: In view of those very encouraging figures, will my hon. Friend cease harrying motorists and creating further legal penalties against motorists the whole time and adopt a different psychological approach by saying that the motorist is doing very well and try to jolly him along to do better?
    Mr. Hay: My hon. Friend ought not to draw too many conclusions from these figures. I should be delighted if those conclusions could be drawn, but the figures do not necessarily indicate as good a result as might appear on the face of them. I must resist any suggestion that my right hon. Friend or the Department harasses the motorist. We have this acute accident problem in this country with which we have to deal, and all methods open to us must be pursued simultaneously.
    Mr. Holt: Does not the Minister agree that the number of deaths on the roads is still appalling, in spite of the percentage figures which he has given? Does he not agree that the greatest contributoin which he could make to solving the problem is the segregation of traffic and an improvement in the road system? When will the Government get on with a road programme adequate to the needs of the day?
    Mr. Hay: We are quite satisfied with the road programme as it stands at the moment. It is the largest ever known in the history of this country. My right hon. Friend has been pertinacious in pushing traffic measures forward as quickly as he can.
    Mr. Channon: Will my hon. Friend amplify a little his statment that the figures are misleading? Why are they misleading?
    Mr. Hay: I did not say that they were misleading. I said that we ought not to draw too many conclusions from them. The reasons for that is that the comparisons made, for example, make no allowances for the actual distance travelled. The figures do not make adequate allowance for the exposure to risk of all the separate classes of road user involved, and they take no account of the improvement in the medical services since 1931. These are some of the points involved.
    Mr. Mellish: To put the picture in its right perspective, is it not correct that while the figure for deaths has remained fairly consistent since 1931, the numbers of seriously injured or injured in a minor way have risen alarmingly since that time? Is not this not one of the most frightful aspects of the tragedy on the roads today?
    Mr. Hay: We have never sought to minimise the road accident problem. All I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), was that he should not draw too many conclusions from the figures.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Would not a great contribution be made by some measure making more uniform the application of the law? Is it not misleading to motorists and a cause of increased danger that the law is applied and administered differently in almost every area?
    Mr. Hay: Questions on the administration of the law are not for my right hon. Friend.

    North Ferriby Bypass
    Mr. Coulsonasked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to speed up the completion of the North Ferriby bypass.
    Mr. Hay: The North Ferriby bypass has been open to traffic since August, 1961. The new dual carriageways immediately to the east as far as the Hessle bypass were opened to traffic last Friday. The improvement westwards from North Ferriby bypass to Welton should be completed by the end of this year.
    Mr. Coulson: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply and his confirmation of the completion date, may

    453
    I ask whether he is aware that after recent fatal accidents on the Ferriby bypass the local coroner had something to say about the great danger to road users of temporary diversions? Will he issue instructions to all local authorities and contractors concerned in constructing new roads to exercise particular care in the marking of obstacles, particularly at night and in fog?
    Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir. I take note of what my hon. Friend said. We have very good contacts with the contractors who carry out these road schemes and there is something of a code which we have established with them. But I will see that this particular case is looked into.

  RAILWAYS

    Closures
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the piecemeal closure of railway lines and services and the consequent difficulties created in planning industrial development, he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to publish its railway closure plans for the next three years.
    Mr. Hay: No, Sir. We do not think that a useful purpose would be served by such a direction at the present time; but Clause 55 of the Transport Bill would seem to cover what the hon. Member has in mind.
    Mr. Boyden: If Clause 55 is suitable, why has the hon. Gentleman not done this at once? Has he not read the report of his own central committee which says that this is embarrassing to local planning authorities? It must be just as embarrassing to industrialists in the area.
    Mr. Hay: We have done something. We have put Clause 55 in the Transport Bill and got that Bill through with one sitting less than we thought we should need under the Guillotine.
    Mr. Popplewell: Is the House to understand from the Minister's reply that in future when closures of branch lines are suggested by the Railways Board the Minister himself will give an assurance that he will take the social
    454
    consequences into consideration before he finally approves such closures?
    Mr. Hay: No, Sir, not necessarily. The transport users' consultative committees take all these matters into consideration. As the hon. Member knows, they report to my right hon. Friend on these matters. He therefore has these matters before him.
    Mr. Popplewell: The Minister referred to the change which is to take place under Clause 55 of the new Bill, and with that I agree. It would appear that under that Clause the Minister will have considerably more powers than he had previously. Will he not be expected to use those powers which he has not had previously?
    Mr. Hay: I think that the hon. Member's memory is at fault. He had better study Clause 55 again.

    Orpington-London Services
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Transport what recommendations he has received from the Central Transport Consultative Committee regarding delays and overcrowding on the trains from Orpington to Cannon Street and Charing Cross; and what action he has taken.
    Mr. Hay: None, Sir. I am told that the Consultative Committee for the London area have already decided to study passenger travel on the southeastern suburban lines of the Southern Region.
    Mr. Lubbock: Would the Minister bear in mind, particularly in view of the reports which appeared in the evening papers yesterday to the effect that the Southern Region can foresee no improvement in the facilities over months or years to come, that much could be done without any improvement in the frequency but in the way of ensuring that trains have the correct number of cars on them and that the continual points failures to which we are subjected do not result in all these delays? Is he aware that it took me fifty minutes to get from Orpington to London Bridge yesterday?
    Hon. Members: Speech.
    Mr. Holt: And a good one.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister aware that there is very much to be done, apart from any improvement in the frequency of the services, to lessen the annoyance and irritation to passengers? —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Fernyhough: Take your licking like men.
    Mr. Speaker: Order, The profitability of Question Time is much increased if the Question is able to be heard.
    Mr. Lubbock: There is much to be done to lessen the irritation and annoyance caused to passengers by delays, cancellations and overcrowding.
    Mr. Hay: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will study what I said in my original Answer. Perhaps I may also tell him that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is not responsible for matters of day-to-day management of the railways. Therefore, much as I regret to hear the information that he has now given to the House, I am afraid that my right hon. Friend has no direct responsibility.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does my hon. Friend note that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) draws attention to the overcrowding of the trains from Orpington? Does my hon. Friend think that there is a mass migration of residents from Orpington in the face of the Liberal menace?
    Mr. Mellish: Is the Minister aware that on the Southern Region, which is by and large a very efficient part of the railway service, one of the biggest problems is the number of people trying to get on to the trains between the fatal hours of about 8.30 to 9.30? Will he ask the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) to do what he can, as the rest of us have been trying to do for a long while, to persuade employers to stagger the travel hours of their employees, with a view to having a more equitable service so that we can all travel in a little comfort?
    Mr. Hay: My right hon. Friend and myself have frequently told the House how desirable it would be if travel hours could be staggered. We have done all we can to try to draw this to the attention of employers and employees. I
    456
    should be very glad if the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) would raise this matter in his own constituency.

  SHIPPING

    Lifeboats, Devon and Cornwall (Harbour Facilities)
    Mr. P. Browneasked the Minister of Transport if he will ask for reports from coastguards stationed on the Atlantic coast of Devon and Cornwall as to the number of distress signals and requests for assistance received by them, during gale conditions of force 8 winds and above, during the past six months and on the action taken to meet such requests, including calls for help sent to lifeboat stations.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): There were four such occasions. Lifeboats were launched in three cases, but the ships were able to proceed without help. In the fourth, a tug was sent out to tow a vessel with engine trouble. There were also six occasions in the period when the Coastguard were asked for information about vessels overdue.
    Mr. Browne: While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that we have some good and powerful and very well-manned lifeboats on the West Coast, particularly, at Padstow and Appledore? Is he aware that there is difficulty in that these boats are unable to get across the bars at very low water in gale-force conditions? Does he not think that it would be a good plan for his Department to look at the possibility of building some sort of harbour which would shelter a large boat, an additional boat for life-saving, in this part of the world?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: That supplementary question anticipates the next Question but one on the Order Paper. But I would point out that my right hon. Friend has no request of this nature before him at present from the Royal National Life-boat Institution.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Minister of Transport if he will ask for reports from coastguards stationed on the Atlantic coast of Cornwall as to the number of distress signals and requests

    457
    for assistance received by them during gale conditions of force eight winds and above during the past six months, and on the action taken to meet such requests including calls for help sent to lifeboat stations.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I should have stated that I was answering this Question with Question No. 37. The Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) is the same.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware, following the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne), that the position on the Cornish coast is similar to that in North Devon, in that at low water and high gales there is no way by which lifeboats can get in? Is he satisfied with this situation? What steps is he prepared to take, or is the Life-boat Institution taking, to do something about it?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I can only repeat that there is no outstanding request for facilities of this nature from the Royal Life-boat Institution. Such requests would come to my right hon. Friend as they would have to seek his permission for improvements.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is there on the whole of the North Atlantic coast in Cornwall a harbour into which a boat can get in rough weather? Has my hon. Friend asked whether the Life-boat Institution is happy about it?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I have no reason to think that the Lifeboat Institution is not happy about it. We have had no request of this nature. I should not like to answer that question in detail without notice.
    Mr. G. R. Howard: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Life-boat Institution has
    458
    had this matter very much in mind for some time past, especially in view of the silting up of the Padstow Harbour, and that we are making prolonged research into the possibility of building a new lifeboat station, but I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend agrees that we cannot say anything about this until we have made exhaustive inquiries into whether the site which we propose is the right one?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Yes, Sir. We are well aware of that.

    Coastguard Service, Devon and Cornwall
    Mr. Thorpeasked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for improving harbour facilities for the Coastguard Service on the Atlantic coast of Devon and Cornwall.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Her Majesty's Coastguard does not operate any craft and the question of improving harbour facilities for the Coastguard Service does not therefore arise.
    Mr. Thorpe: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there is a great shortage of harbour facilities on the west coast? Notwithstanding the fact that the Royal National Life-boat Institution apparently has some diffidence in having its views made public, do not the Government think that they have a responsibility to look into this matter in the interests of safety on the whole Atlantic coast?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: This is not a matter in which my right hon. Friend would normally wish to take the initiative or to interfere in the Institution's business. We are quite satisfied that the Institution is managed in the most efficient manner.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)
Report [2nd April] of the Business Committee to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]
Considered accordingly.
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Report, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee), and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  3.34 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: I would call the Recommittal Motion in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) if she would be willing to amend its terms by leaving out the reference to Clause 1, page 2, line 18, and to Clause 2, page 3, lines 9 and 29.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 2, page 3, line 10; Clause 3, page 5, line 27; Clause 9, page 9, lines 27 and 45; Clause 24, page 21, lines 42, 43, and 44; and Clause 29, page 25, line 43, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Miss Margaret Herbison.—[Miss Herbison.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL

    Clause 2.—(AMOUNTS OF SUBSIDIES—APPROVED HOUSES PROVIDED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES AND HOUSES PROVIDED BY OTHER BODIES.)
    Mr. John Robertson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, at the end to insert:
    "plus twenty-five pounds for every one per cent. by which the prevailing rate of interest exceeds three per cent.".
    460
    The purpose of the Amendment is to try to relate the subsidy to be paid under the Clause to the actual cost of financing the building of houses. We are all aware that the actual cost of building accounts for only a fraction of the total costs involved in house financing. Even if we accept the argument, advanced by the Government in the White Paper, that an income of £53 per house per year from rents and rates is reasonable, this still leaves costs of about £120 per house built per year to be met from somewhere or other. The subsidy proposed in the Clause leaves a deficit of £78, perhaps £80, per house per year. It is not suggested where this money is to come from.
    We have been told many times that the Government's proposals are based on spreading the deficiency over the whole stock of existing houses, but what will happen in practice? In Paisley, rents and rates already account for £57 10s. per house per year. This is above what the Secretary of State said is reasonable. Consequently, the added burden on the town council for each new house built under the provisions of the Clause must either be spread over all the ratepayers or confined to the council tenants by increasing the rent. I have never been able to accept the idea of pooling housing costs and spreading them over the stock of existing houses. It is a mistaken idea. It fails to take into account many factors, such as the age of the oldest houses and the higher costs of maintenance of older houses. It tends, too. to establish a uniformity of rent. It creates a lack of flexibility in dealing with local authority problems.
    Whatever one may say about that matter, these arguments can certainly not be applied to development corporations and only in a very modified way to the Scottish Special Housing Association. What the Government propose to do in the Clause is to squeeze the tenants as hard as they can, and then to meet the remaining deficiencies of the development corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association by applying a hidden subsidy in meeting the deficiency of these two bodies.
    Because of the lack of time, I shall restrain myself. One of the difficulties in dealing with this subject under the Guillotine is that one cannot develop

    461
    the point as one would like. There are so many Amendments to be considered that the time available is only 20 minutes to each Amendment. This is a preposterous situation. That being the position, I shall not give a long explanation of the figures in the Amendment, but will only say that the effect would be to keep static the cost to local authorities, development corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association, and so avoid putting an extra burden on the ratepayers or on the tenants.
    The Amendment would also help the problems of importing authorities by not placing a tremendous new burden on small local authorities, and it would also, perhaps, help to speed up Glasgow's overspill. The Amendment would do much to provide the kind of flexibility about which the Under-Secretary has been talking during the last two or three weeks. The only difference is that his kind of flexibility has been all the one way—a flexibility that would give him the right to reduce subsidies. We believe that, where the circumstances warrant it, local authorities should have added subsidies.
    The effect of the Amendment would be to increase the subsidy to such a figure as to provide that the rent and rate contribution would be at the £53 or £54 per annum level that the Government desire. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary will see the logic of the mathematics, and accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson) is an optimist in asking the Minister to exercise some degree of flexibility, because that is the last thing I would ever dream of expecting from the the Under-Secretary. The Amendment, if it were accepted, would certainly help to stimulate the rate of municipal house building in the county in which the Minister himself resides, and I am quite sure that he would have to pay less in rates if that local authority were able to get a lower rate of interest for its house building.
    The Amendment talks about
    "… twenty-five pounds for every one per cent. by which the prevailing rate of interest exceeds three per cent."
    462
    In the counties and the burghs there is certainly a great deal of feeling about the high rate of interest which, for example, constitutes an almost insuperable barrier to the County of Ayr and the town councils of Kilmarnock and other places building as they would wish.
    Members of local authorities ask us very difficult questions about the rate of interest. The Amendment speaks of 3 per cent. We were recently told that the Government were borrowing a considerable sum of money from the International Monetary Fund and from the Government of Switzerland at that rate. Some members of local authorities wanted me to ask the Minister to put them in touch with the International Monetary Fund, or even with the Government of Switzerland, so that they might discover whether they, too, could borrow money at the very reasonable rate of 3 per cent.
    I therefore ask the Under-Secretary to disappoint me by showing his flexibility in accepting the Amendment, and so helping the local authorities in the area in which he resides to go forward with the housing that is so badly needed there.
    3.45 p.m.
    Mr. James Dempsey: The purpose of the Amendment is to give a stimulus to local authorities to proceed with house building on a much greater scale, which the figures produced in the Housing Review for Scotland show to be more than ever necessary. In that document we find that between 1955 and the end of 1961 the number of houses built by local authorities had fallen from 29,278 to 19,541.
    I am sure that the Under-Secretary will agree that added encouragement must be given to local authorities to build houses. If he does not believe that the rate of interest payable at present is a deterrent to house building policies, he should look at the replies given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in reply to our Parliamentary Questions. Over the past three months the right hon. Gentleman has said that nearly half of the Scottish local authorities are not building any houses at all. That is a shameful state of affairs in a country which, in my view,

    463
    is at present about the worst housed in Europe.
    By encouraging local authorities to play their part in what is still Scotland's No. 1 social service—municipal housing—we will be fulfilling our responsibility, and I could not think of a better inducement to them than acceptance of the terms of the Amendment. Local authorities are at present having to pay quite prodigious interest rates. It is not simply a rate of 5 per cent. or 6 per cent.—the rate is at least 6¾ per cent.—and one has only to follow that transaction over the sixty years' life of a house to realise the devastating effect of high rates of interest on local authority housing revenue accounts.
    If the Under-Secretary does that, he will find that at the completion of the financial term the houses cost, on an average, anything from two-and-a-half to three times the actual building cost. I know that I am being rather conservative in quoting such a figure, but I give it as an average. There is no doubt that some houses cost very much more over the sixty years.
    I can vividly recall that when the interest rate was increased by 2 per cent. some local authorities decided to take strike action, and stopped building. The Under-Secretary might call those "wildcat" strikes, but one local authority was controlled by his party. As a protest against such prodigious financial burdens being imposed on the local ratepayers, it elected not to build any houses at that time. That indicates the effect of the interest rates on the outlook of local authorities.
    The Secretary of State was asked by me whether he could make a comparison between the interest rates of 1951 and 1961; and what would be their effect on present-day costs of building. He replied:
    "Annual loan charges on these 1961 costs would, at 6¾ per cent., be greater by the following amounts than at 3¾ per cent. in 1951; 3-apartment—£54 16s.; 4-apartment—£59 11s. 4d.; 5-apartment—£68 13s. 10d."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February 1962; Vol. 654, c. 148.]
    That shows the extra we are paying in interest rates for the houses we are building. If the Under-Secretary cares to multiply that figure by 60 he will have
    464
    a good idea of the crippling effect high interest charges have on the housing revenue accounts of Scottish local authorities.
    How are we to tackle the problem? What must we do to redress this financial disadvantage? It would seem that we must make a financial contribution to local authorities so that they can overcome this serious economic problem and proceed with their house-building programmes. The Amendment would serve an extremely useful purpose in this respect, and, for that reason, I support it. Its object is clear, for it is designed to give authorities a stimulus and encourage them to proceed with enthusiasm and greater velocity—and, indeed, with more imagination—with their house-building programmes. Goodness gracious, if any part of the United Kingdom requires large-scale housing expansion, that part is Scotland.
    I hope that the Under-Secretary will realise that the Amendment does not have a mischievous intent. Its object is to provide a financial inducement without which local authorities in Scotland will not be able to provide the housing needs of the people we represent. If the Government are genuinely keen to solve this problem, the Amendment provides one method of doing so. I hope that the Under-Secretary will see it in that light and will realise that the Amendment could be a boon to Scotland.
    Mr. John Brewis: The Amendment seems to give a subsidy to certain houses built for overspill and other purposes under Clause 2 (1). The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) seemed to consider that the Amendment would extend to all houses built by local authorities and I believe that once the Amendment became law it would be difficult to differentiate between the conflicting needs of overspill and other local authority housing needs.
    The Amendment appears to insulate the building of a house costing £2,500 from the increased Bank Rate because 1 per cent. of £2,500 is £25. To my way of thinking, local authority houses, in many cases, cost less than £2,500 and, therefore, there is an element in the Amendment of a concealed subsidy, even over and above allowing for high interest rates. Once one allows this idea.

    465
    that housing should be able to contract out of the economic policy of the country, one is in difficulty. I notice that Sir Stafford Cripps, as long ago as 1948, said that the rates of interest charged to local authorities were fixed from time to time to correspond broadly with Government borrowing rates for a comparable period.
    Expenditure by local authorities on capital account is about one-fifth of the expenditure of the country and, therefore, if favourable interest rates were given to them it would, to a certain extent, nullify the economic policy of the country as a whole and some money would have to be raised either by taxation or inflation. I do not say that interest rates are not an important matter in the provision of houses, but it is relevant to quote from the Toothill Report, paragraph 1724 of which stated:
    "It was claimed by some local authorities that high rates of interest are a serious factor in housing finance. The great bulk of local authority houses were, however, built at low rates of interest so that current high rates have a small effect on total costs. Against the rent factor, the burden of current interest rates is small."
    We must keep a sense of proportion about this and, for that reason, I object to the Amendment.
    Mr. J. Robertson: The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) quoted from the Toothill Report. May I draw his attention to the opening words of his speech, when he referred to overspill, which, of course, has a bearing on the development corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association. Will the hon. Member relate his arguments to the accounts of this Association and the development corporations?
    Mr. Brewis: I was pointing out that once we started giving an extra subsidy for overspill it would be difficult to stop there, for we would have to extend it to other types of expenditure by local authorities, including that on water and on old people's homes.
    Mr. John Strachey: If an hon. Member who was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill but who has tried to follow the proceedings—and it is important that all hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies should express their views—wishes to join the debate at this point, may I say that the Amendment
    466
    is an extremely interesting one because it raises the whole issue of the effect of interest rates on local authority housing, in whole or in part, and the question whether or not it is right to offset that effect in any way. As the hon. Member for Galloway asked: is it or is it not a good thing to discriminate between housing and other economic activities? We are perfectly clear about this; we are clear that it may be a good thing to do so. I would be surprised if the Leader of the House, whom I see in his place, would take the view that it is really wise to put the Government in a position of opposition to any form of discrimination as between one kind of economic activity and another.
    Surely any element of planning, even financial planning, must result in the Government paying attention—even though this Government only pays lip-service to planning—to precisely this process of discrimination, although, apparently, that shocks the hon. Member for Galloway. My hon. Friends and I believe in discrimination between one kind of economic activity and another. We certainly do so regarding Scottish housing where it is desperately needed and where some sort of discrimination is necessary in favour of this economic activity.
    Surely that is the principle here involved. It can be achieved by giving specially low rates of interest. But, if the Government will not do that, they can offset the high general rates of interest by special housing subsidies. That is a rather roundabout way of doing it, but it is quite possible. That is the issue of principle. What reason can there be for not doing that?
    The hon. Member for Galloway produced the argument that interest rates do not affect housing. That, of course, contradicts the whole of the earlier part of his speech, in which he implied that interest rates were an overwhelmingly important factor facing local authorities. That is, of course, true and everyone knows it. The rate of interest is, of course, an enormously important factor when considering highly durable goods like a house.
    We believe that Scottish housing, above all, must be exempted in one way or another from the general restrictionist

    467
    policy of the Government. That is the issue I ask the Under-Secretary to deal with, because it is the only real issue of principle to be faced, and the Amendment brings it out in an acute form. We would like to see this matter dealt with clearly and as a matter of principle.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. J. A. Stodart: As the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) has just come into the Chamber, I should say—I would have said it, in any event—that I am a considerable recipient of subsidies. But I have never failed to state publicly, in this Chamber and on many occasions outside it, that it is a good principle to have no more subsidies than are absolutely necessary and that that policy, in my industry also, should be directed to doing what the Bill tries to do, which is to put subsidies where they are most needed.
    Mr. William Ross: On to the hon. Member's farm?
    Mr. Stodart: That is a matter for discussion.
    The Amendment calls for a fairly stiff increase in the rate of subsidy. Although I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) that a stimulant is necessary in house building of all kinds in Scotland, there are two weaknesses in that line of approach.
    I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), despite all the blandishments of the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), that there should not be discrimination between loans for house building. I have not heard one argument which has convinced me that we should isolate this sector from the ordinary free market rate of borrowing. Why not have cheap loans for public services of all kinds, including gas, electricity and all sorts of undertakings? The hon. Member for Fife, West has never failed, in any debate in Committee upstairs on this Housing Bill, to mention the farming industry. Why I cannot quite think. He has said more than once that we are virtually publicly owned.
    Mr. William Hamilton: I have never said that the farming
    468
    industry was publicly owned. I said that it was publicly financed.
    Mr. Stodart: The hon. Member has certainly said that we ought to be publicly owned. If that is the case, I might ask: why not have cheap loans for farming? The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie has mentioned what he calls the cruel rate of interest of 6¾ per cent. I had a much more cruel one of 8 per cent. not long ago.
    Mr. Ross: Is the prevailing rate of interest on capital for agriculture taken into account in the determination of the needs of the industry?
    The Chairman: Order. The Committee is in danger of turning this into an agricultural debate, which would be out of order on the Amendment.
    Mr. Stodart: I am sorry, Sir William, for straying. I was tempted to go a little further.
    The second weakness in the Amendment is that however we achieve what hon. Members opposite want, whether by cheap loans, by higher subsidies, or by discrimination of one kind or another, somebody must pay for manipulating the market. That somebody is the taxpayer. One has to strike a point of balance between the advantage to house building and the cost to the taxpayer. Subsidies are invariably a blunt weapon and they have little precision about them wherever they are used. For that reason, I do not support the Amendment.
    Mr. A. Woodburn: We have had some curious economic arguments this afternoon. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) seems to me to be completely misinformed about housing subsidies, in which there are all sorts of differences. One of the arguments of the Government for increasing the present housing loan interest and keeping it high is that the local authority can spread the increase over all the other interest rates when some of the loans are obtained at cheaper rates.
    In effect, therefore, there is already discrimination in interest rates by the Government. Older loans are charged at less than the new loans, which will be charged for about sixty years at the present rate even if interest rates come down. This is certainly a method by

    469
    which the Government reduce subsidies to local authorities by increasing their interest rates.
    The idea that the Government borrow money from farmers and others to lend to local authorities is so much "hooey"—
    Mr. Stodart: I did not suggest that.
    Mr. Woodburn: But the farmers are being investors. When they get these big profits, they must do something with them and they do not invest them all in Government loans. Presumably, however, some of the money finds its way back to the Government in loans.
    In any event, that is not where the bulk of the money comes from. It is created by the banking institutions and it costs the Government only the amount that is necessary to administer these loans over sixty years. This is not something which is borrowed from the public in order to lend to the local authorities. It is a method by which the Government are increasing the charge for a loan service for sixty years. It is a method by which the local authorities are made to pay a higher proportion of the cost of a house than formerly.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West is quite right. The houses have to be paid for either by the tenant, the local authority or the Government. A constant struggle goes on about who should pay most. The Government use all sorts of tricks to see that more goes on to the local authority or to compel the local authority to push more on to the tenant. What has to be settled is not all this academic business about the cost of loans, but the question of what are the fair proportions as between tenant, local authority and Government. That is the argument which is presented by the Amendment.
    The Government are increasing the cost to the local authority and, through the local authority, to the tenant by subterfuges of talking about market interest rates and things of that kind. This is a matter of Government decision. The Government can decide what proportion is to be paid by themselves, by the local authority and by the tenant. That is done by different methods, of which the subsidy is one and the rate of interest another. It would be far better if the Government were straight
    470
    and honest and stopped all this humbug about interest and decided what proportion would be paid. Then, the public, the tenants and the local authorities would know where they stood.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): We have had an interesting debate on the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson). Its effect would be to increase the rate of subsidy for overspill houses or houses provided by the new town development corporations or the Scottish Special Housing Association by £25 for every 1 per cent. by which the prevailing rate of interest exceeded 3 per cent. It would accordingly tie the overspill rate of subsidy to the prevailing rate of interest, which, presumably, is the Public Works Loan Board rate.
    The Amendment is an attempt to introduce the conception that subsidies should be increased to compensate for increases in the interest rates.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is that not exactly what the Home Secretary did when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he increased the subsidies in his first Budget?
    Mr. Galbraith: I do not think that he did it in the way proposed in the Amendment.
    Mr. Woodburn: But he did it.
    Mr. Galbraith: The Amendment is an attempt to introduce the conception that subsidies should be increased to compensate for increases in interest rates. As the Committee will know, this is a very old hare which has been chased on many occasions. I do not think that hon. Members opposite—certainly not the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) who has the honour to represent me in Parliament—will be a bit surprised to hear that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
    As has been explained on very many occasions, the Government take the view that, as the rate of interest reflects the economic situation, there is no reason why local authorities, as regards housing or other services, should be exempt from the economic trends which are reflected in the rates of interest they are called upon to pay for the money they require in order to build their houses.

    471
    In any case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) pointed out, how could such a policy be limited just to overspill housing?
    I thought that my hon. Friend answered very well the point made by the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey)—whom we are glad to have with us this afternoon. Once this policy was adopted for overspill housing, why not for all housing subsidies? Indeed, why not for a good many other services, such as water and electricity? A similar insulation from increases in interest rates might be claimed for such services on the same grounds as have been used in this debate in respect of housing. The Amendment cuts across the whole economic policy of the Government. It is unacceptable for that reason.
    Moreover, the Amendment bears little relation to the actual practice of local authorities in borrowing. Although the cost of local authority housing is usually financed over a period of sixty years, the initial borrowing will usually be for a very much shorter period. It is, therefore, completely wrong to assume, as hon. Members in advocating the Amendment seem to assume, that local authorities will continue to pay interest for sixty years at the rate prevailing when the subsidy approval was first given. What most large local authorities do is to maintain a consolidated loans fund under which the cost of borrowing borne by the new services is not the cost of raising new money, but the average cost of all outstanding loans.
    Mr. Dempsey: That is not what the Secretary of State seems to say.
    Mr. Galbraith: That is what happens in fact. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), who has a great deal of experience of local government affairs, must be aware of that. These internal borrowing rates have, admittedly, risen in recent years, but they are still normally less than five per cent., which is well below the P.W.L.B. rate.
    I need hardly add that, besides being unacceptable on grounds of principle, the Amendment would raise the subsidy under Clause 2 to an unreasonably high level. At the present Public Works
    472
    Loan Board rate of interest, it would add £75 to the subsidy rate of £42. I am sure that hon. Members will not expect me to accept a subsidy rate of £117—which is what it would amount to—over sixty years, or nearly three times the rate payable under existing legislation.
    Mr. J. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee the position of the development corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association, and what the actual subsidy is per house built by a development corporation taking into consideration the grant made by the Government towards deficiencies?
    Mr. Galbraith: I cannot do it "off the cuff". If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have that information, I can easily find out for him.
    As so often happens, the good hearts of hon. Members opposite seem to be ruling their heads. What they suggest in this Amendment is really impossible. Interesting and ingenious though it is, I must tell them that the Government cannot possibly accept it.
    4.15 p.m.
    Miss Herbison: The Minister's reply is not surprising. When he has no case at all, he accuses us of letting our hearts rule our heads. What we intend by the Amendment is to ensure that more and more desperately needed houses are built in Scotland. To look at only part of it, overspill, and relate that to the need in Glasgow, one sees how forcibly the need for additional subsidy is shown.
    It has been interesting to hear the back benchers on the Government side. During the Committee stage and today we have heard from the hon. Member for Galloway (Mar. Brewis) why the Government cannot accept our Amendments. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) amused me. He said that subsidies were a blunt weapon and, because they were a blunt weapon, he was against them. It has been evident throughout our consideration of the Bill that he has been against reasonable subsidies for housing, but I wish that he carried that strong principle into his attitude to farming. If he did, he would not want the kind of subsidies that many

    473
    farmers receive today. I shall be able to believe that he is really in earnest about this blunt instrument when he speaks in an agriculture debate and says that he will vote against the farming subsidy on that ground.
    The Minister and the hon. Member for Galloway both said that the rate of interest reflects the economic situation of the Whole country. Year after year, of course, our economy has under this Government sunk further into the mire. We do not quarrel with that description from the Minister, but we do quarrel with him when he says that it is vital that local authority housing should not be insulated against what he calls the prevailing economic situation. This is a heartless attitude on the part of the Government. We have had evidence of it throughout the whole Committee stage proceedings.
    Have the Government ever said that industry generally—I leave farming out of it now—cannot be insulated against the high rate of interest or against the prevailing economic situation? What happened to Colvilles? If the Government were to apply to Colvilles what they have rigidly applied in the matter of subsidies and interest rates for housing, Colvilles would be in a much more difficult position today. What about the motor car industry? I am not quite sure, but I suspect that the Government are by their help insulating that industry—for very worth-while purposes; I do not complain in the least—against the prevailing economic situation. The whole argument advanced by the Minister and the Member for Galloway falls when we find that in other sectors
    the Government have done what we are asking them to do for Scottish housing.
    The Minister said that the Amendment would raise the subsidy to an unreasonably high level. We had worked out, of course, that it would mean a £75 increase, but we regard that as absolutely necessary if we are to have the number of houses we need, and absolutely necessary, also, even if the average gross annual value is charged as the rent. In other words, in asking for this subsidy we are not in any way supporting low rents in Scotland.
    I could have adduced other arguments, but we are pressed for time and I will content myself with adding that we must vote against the Government's attitude on this matter and for our Amendment.
    Mr. J. Robertson: The Under-Secretary has not answered the points at all. The Clause deals particularly with development corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association, and we are asking that the Government subsidy be paid to these two bodies. The Public Accounts Committee investigated the accounts of the Scottish Special Housing Association and the development corporations, and the hon. Gentleman will find that the grants made by the Government to meet the deficiencies add up to this amount. The realistic situation of Scottish housing is that a subsidy of £117 is required so that houses can be let at rents that people can afford.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 153. Noes 208.

    Division No. 145.]

    AYES

    [4.21 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Forman, J. C.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Cronin, John

    Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Awbery, Stan

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Ginsburg, David

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Beaney, Alan

    Deer, George

    Grey, Charles

    Benson, Sir George

    Dempsey, James

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Blackburn, F.

    Diamond, John

    Hannan, William

    Blyton, William

    Dodds, Norman

    Harper, Joseph

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leice, S. W.)

    Driberg, Tom

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Bowles, Frank

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

    Healey, Denis

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Boyden, James

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Edelman, Maurice

    Holman, percy

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Hoy, James H.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Evans, Albert

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Callaghan, James

    Fernyhough, E.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Finch, Harold

    Hunter, A, E.

    Cliffe, Michael

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Monslow, Walter

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Moyle, Arthur

    Small, William

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Neal, Harold

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Jeger, George

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

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Oram, A. E.

    Steele, Thomas

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

    Oswald, Thomas

    Stones, William

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Owen, Will

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)

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

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Kelley, Richard

    Parker, John

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    King, Dr. Horace

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Peart, Frederick

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

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Pentland, Norman

    Timmons, John

    Loughlin, Charles

    Prentice, R. E.

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Warbey, William

    McInnes, James

    Probert, Arthur

    Weitzman, David

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Randall, Harry

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Rankin, John

    Whitlock, William

    McLeavy, Frank

    Redhead, E. C.

    Willey, Frederick

    MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

    Reid, William

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Rhodes, H.

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Manuel, Archie

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

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

    Mapp, Charles

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Marsh, Richard

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Ross, William

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Short, Edward

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Millan, Bruce

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Milne, Edward

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lawson.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Drayson, G. B.

    James, David

    Aitken, W. T.

    Duncan, Sir James

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Eden, John

    Jennings, R. C.

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Balniel, Lord

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

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Barber, Anthony

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Barlow, Sir John

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Barter, John

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Kimball, Marcus

    Batsford, Brian

    Farr, John

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Finlay, Graeme

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Fisher, Nigel

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Biffen, John

    Fletcher, Cooke, Charles

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Freeth, Denzil

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Bishop, F. P.

    Gammans, Lady

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Black, Sir Cyril

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Longbottom, Charles

    Bossom, Clive

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Longden, Gilbert

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Box, Donald

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Lubbock, Eric

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs.)

    Brewis, John

    Goodhart, Philip

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Brooman-White, R.

    Goodhew, Victor

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

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Gower, Raymond

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr, R.

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Bryan, Paul

    Green, Alan

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Bullard, Denys

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Maddan, Martin

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Maitland, Sir John

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Chataway, Christopher

    Hastings, Stephen

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hay, John

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

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

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Mills, Stratton

    Collard, Richard

    Hendry, Forbes

    Miscampbell, N.

    Cooper, A. E.

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hobson, Sir John

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Holland, Philip

    Morrison, John

    Costain, A. P.

    Hollingworth, John

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Coulson, Michael

    Holt, Arthur

    Neave, Alrey

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Hopkins, Alan

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Hornby, R. P.

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Critchley, Julian

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Curran, Charles

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Dance, James

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Peel, John

    Doughty, Charles

    Jackson, John

    Percival, Ian

    476

    477

    Peyton, John

    Seymour, Leslie

    Turner, Colin

    Pitman, Sir James

    Shaw, M.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Pott, Percivall

    Skeet. T. H. H.

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

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

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Smithers, Peter

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Speir, Rupert

    Walder, David

    Pym, Francis

    Stodart, J. A.

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Ramsden, James

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Rees, Hugh

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Talbot, John E.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Tapsell, Peter

    Wise, A. R.

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Temple, John M.

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Woollam, John

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Worsley, Marcus

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Russell, Ronald

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Mr. J. E. B. Hill and

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Mr. Noble.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3.—(AMOUNTS OF SUBSIDIES— OTHER APPROVED HOUSES PROVIDED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Archie Manuel: I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, at the end to insert:
    (7) Section one hundred and forty of the principal Act (which requires every local authority to carry, in each financial year, to the credit of the housing repairs account in respect of each house, building and dwelling such amount as they may think proper, not being less than eight pounds) shall have effect in relation to the first financial year beginning after the first day of November, nineteen hundred and sixty-one, and to each subsequent financial year with the substitution for the words "eight pounds" of the words "twelve pounds".
    This Amendment is a proposed addition to Clause 3 (6), which deals with the provision of the 1950 Act which decides the amount that should be paid by a local authority in respect of each of its houses into its housing repairs account each year. Under the 1950 Act the sum was £4 a year. A few years after that the amount was increased to £8, obviously because it had become insufficient as a result of increasing costs. We contend that we have now reached a point in time when there should be another increase.
    I believe that the Government recognise this, but what they are saying, in effect, is that they do not trust local authorities to make a true return. According to subsection (6), if a local authority puts to its housing repairs account £12 per year per house instead of £8, the Secretary of State may debar
    478
    it from including the additional £4 in the debit side of its housing revenue account and thus he could debar it from qualifying for the £32 subsidy, and the result might be that it would get a subsidy of only £12.
    There are very substantial grounds for our case that the amount should be increased automatically as it was previously. I estimate that since the repairs allocation was increased to £8 the cost of repairs has risen by about £75 per cent. The Secretary of State has told us that the average being paid in Scotland is £8 14s. That is already over the figure laid down, and many local authorities are paying much more. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) instanced during the earlier Committee proceedings the Burgh of Dumbarton as paying an average of £11 16s. in repairs, but the actual contribution that the authority is making to its repairs account in respect of each house is 12 guineas per year.
    The figures that we have culled from the rating review apply to 1960, and now we are in 1962 and costs have gone up substantially in the meantime. I am sure that hon. Members opposite who are fair-minded would agree that the tendency would be for the figures to have increased because the costs in respect of labour and material for repairing local authority houses have risen.
    Taking the 1960 figures, one can pick out the small burghs of Alloa, Barrhead, Irvine and Troon with the figure for repairs per house varying between £11 and £13. Turning to the counties, we have Angus, Caithness, Dunbartonshire, East Lothian, Inverness, Kirkcudbrightshire, Renfrew, Ross and

    479
    Cromarty, Selkirk and Sutherland paying from £11 to £14 18s. per house for actual repairs. Therefore, we are already well over the figure laid down.
    The Scottish Office is well aware of this, but does not want to make it appear to the local authorities that it is raising the figure because of the new formula which has been introduced. I see the Under-Secretary shaking his head. Why does he not allow local authorities to debit their housing revenue accounts with the actual cost? He is not allowing them to put to their housing repair accounts the difference between £8 and what they are actually paying unless he consults them and they can justify it.
    Does the hon. Gentleman think that he is dealing with a crowd of school children? He seems to be lining them up in a row and asking them their intentions. This is a besmirching of Scotland's elected representatives, and I am sick and tired of it. It is dreadful. I indict Ministers and Departments. I do not know where this emanates from, but whoever had this brainchild ought thoroughly to be condemned and "given his cards", whether he is an elected representative or otherwise.
    The Government are virtually telling the public-spirited men and women who are coming forward for election into local government that they are not to be trusted. This is likely to result in people of a lower calibre coming forward, for what ordinary, decent, straightforward men or women would allow themselves to be treated in this way and held to these rules? It is most disgraceful and shocking that this should be brought into Scottish public life.
    Mr. Brewis: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the rules are exactly the same whether the figure is £8 or £4, as it was under the Socialist Administration?
    Mr. Manuel: The thing that I deplore about hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they think in abstract terms and deal with only one part of a problem.
    An amount between £8 and £12 or £14 is not to be allowed to count on the debit side of the housing revenue account, as it has hitherto been allowed to count, because this might have an
    480
    effect in deciding whether a local authority is to get the £32 subsidy or the £12 subsidy. That is the part I deplore. This formula is entirely new, so the hon. Member is off the rails a little.
    I think that I have said enough to show our thoughts on this matter. If the Committee wishes to strengthen local authorities, it should show more trust in them. Do not let us destroy the fabric of local government and discourage the men and women who come forward to serve in a selfless way. I hope that the Committee will have regard to the strength of the Amendment and its purpose towards the elected representatives of the people of Scotland on local authorities.
    Mr. Forbes Hendry: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). Everything he said has confirmed my view that he has misread the 1950 Act and that the Amendment will not achieve any purpose. Certainly, it would not achieve what the hon. Member claimed for it. Under the 1950 Act, a local authority must put to its housing revenue account a minimum sum of £8. There is no question of a maximum sum. The Bill says that the Secretary of State may disallow that part of the excess which he does not consider to be reasonable.
    Mr. Manuel: I said so.
    Mr. Hendry: The hon. Gentleman may have said so, but he went on to give figures which belied that understanding of the situation. He told us that the average figure placed to the debit of housing revenue accounts throughout Scotland was not £8 or £12, but £8 14s. That is very much less than the figure he proposes.
    Mr. Harry Gourlay: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the fact that the figure is only £8 14s. is because the Secertary of State gave certain local authorities discretion to charge only £6 per house against the repairs account where the account is in a healthy state.
    Mr. Hendry: That may be so, but the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire is seeking to substitute £12 for £8 when the average figure is £8 14s. That makes nonsense.
    Mr. Manuel: If the hon. Gentleman studies the rating revenue for 1960, he will see that those local authorities charging only £8—some are charging less—are doing so in a desperate attempt to save rates, but are finding their housing repairs accounts becoming in a parlous condition.
    Mr. Hendry: The hon. Gentleman is getting into deeper water. The cost of maintaining a house is ascertainable in pounds, shillings and pence, and is not related to any notional figure of £8 or £12 or any other. The figure which a local authority notionally carries to its housing revenue account makes no difference to the rates.
    Mr. Manuel: That is a monstrous statement. The hon. Gentleman was once a town clerk. He does not know his business. He should resign.
    Mr. Hendry: The hon. Gentleman then went on to quote what he thought were extreme cases. He mentioned the large burgh of Dumbarton, with a figure of £11 16s. That extreme case is still below the figure of £12, which makes nonsense of the argument for the Amendment. He spoke of figures between £12 and £14 for burghs, admitting that some of them were under £12. The Amendment is nonsensical, because it would allow a debit in a housing revenue account of £12, when the average now is only £8 14s. Only in the most exceptional cases is the figure £12.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: That is not surprising under a Tory Government.
    Mr. Hendry: If a local authority is so ill-advised as to carry as debit a figure which is in excess of its actual expenditure, the Secretary of State, quite rightly, has power to disallow part of it. But an honest local authority—which means 99·5 per cent., I hope, of local authorities—will put in an honest figure and the Secretary of State will not have occasion to use his power. In view of the fact that the Amendment would not only achieve nothing, but is also nonsensical, it should be cast out without further consideration.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Galbraith: I wish that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) were on the Opposition Front
    482
    Bench again. When he is there his speeches are very much more reasonable than they are when he is, to a certain extent, up in the clouds.
    The effect of the Amendment would be, as he said, to raise the minimum contribution of a local authority to its housing repairs account from £8 to £12. As he pointed out, Clause 3 (6) provides that where the Secretary of State considers that a local authority's contribution from its housing revenue account to its housing repairs account is excessive, having regard to its previous practice and to any other circumstances, the excess amount may be excluded from its expenditure for the purposes of the resources test. That is all. It is only excluded for the purpose of the resources test. The expenditure admitted for the resources test cannot be less than the minimum of £8 per house.
    It is perhaps worth emphasising, since the hon. Gentleman seems to be in doubt on this, that, if the Secretary of State decides that a local authority's repair contributions are excessive, he need not disregard the whole excess over the minimum of £8. He may admit some amount intermediate between £8 and the actual amount paid out of the housing revenue if the circumstances seem to him to justify this.
    The statutory minimum contribution is £8 and the Amendment proposes to increase it to £12. I think that the hon. Gentleman had in mind the fact that, with a statutory minimum contribution of £12 instead of £8, the Secretary of State's scope for disregarding expenditure under subsection (6) would be correspondingly reduced.
    Mr. Willis: So it should be.
    Mr. Galbraith: I thought that that was probably the reason. As I have said, I think that the hon. Member makes this proposal for a mistaken reason, as the Secretary of State would not automatically out excessive contributions down to the minimum figure.
    The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire also suggested that because costs have increased since the minimum contribution of £8 was laid down in 1952, the minimum ought to be higher today. It is true that costs of maintenance have risen and that the actual contributions by local authorities to their repairs

    483
    accounts have risen in consequence. But the minimum amount which is mentioned here is indeed the minimum. There is nothing to prevent any local authority from putting into its repairs account whatever money it needs to spend. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman quite appreciates that fact.
    A local authority can put in more than £8 if it wishes to do so. If it can show that repairs and maintenance will cost more, it is fully entitled to keep its repairs account in funds by increasing the contribution which it makes to it from the housing revenue account. There is no intention that any such contribution to the repairs account which is genuinely required by reason of increased costs or because of other things—
    Mr. Willis: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "increased costs"?
    Mr. Galbraith: I thought that would upset the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). If, in my right hon. Friend's opinion, such a contribution is required for the purpose for which it is stated to be required, it will not be disregarded in the resources test calculations. I can give hon. Members opposite a complete assurance on that point.
    Nothing in the Bill will prevent a local authority from properly maintaining its houses, nor will it be in any danger of getting a smaller subsidy through carrying out necessary repairs and maintenance. Since the Government are so keen on the proper maintenance of houses, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire may wonder why we refuse to accept the Amendment to raise the minimum contribution from £8 to £12. The reason is quite simple. We agree that the cost of repairs has risen and we also realise that if it rises further the time will come when an increase in the minimum figure will be necessary.
    Where the hon. Member and I part company is that I do not think that that time has yet come.
    Mr. Willis: When will it come?
    Mr. Galbraith: I do not know, but it has not come yet.
    Mr. Manuel: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that on-costs and repairs have increased more since the figure of £8
    484
    was introduced than they did in the few years between the increase from £4 to £8?
    Mr. Galbraith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument.
    I am saying that the time to increase the minimum contribution has not yet come. I say that because a number of authorities are still able to repair and maintain their houses at an annual cost of less than £8 a house. This is shown by the fact that in 1960–61 no less than 24 applications by local authorities to contribute less than £8 a house to their repairs account were granted by the Secretary of State.
    These applications were made under Section 140 (3) of the 1950 Act, which empowers the Secretary of State, after consultation with the local authority, to give a direction for the reduction or suspension of the repairs contribution if he thinks that the sum standing to the credit of the repairs account is more than sufficient for the purposes for which the account is kept. The fact that no less than 24 applications to contribute less than £8 were agreed to by my right hon. Friend indicates that the figure of £8 is not unduly low.
    If the Amendment were accepted, the result would be that more local authorities would have to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to contribute less than the proposed figure of £12. Hon, Members opposite must, therefore, realise that the Amendment would force extra work on local authorities by obliging them to make application to the Secretary of State which would be quite unnecessary if things were left as they are.
    In the Government's opinion, the Amendment is premature. It has been shown that £8 is a sufficient minimum at the moment—and I stress "at the moment". I therefore regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Miss Herbison: The great difference between hon. Members on this side and hon. Members opposite, including the Under-Secretary of State, is that we trust local authorities, whereas hon. Members opposite continually show by their speeches and their votes that they distrust local authorities and always try to find ways and means of hamstringing them.

    485
    I wish to take up the final point made by the Minister. He said that the Amendment would only place extra work on local authorities because many of them would ask for permission not to contribute £12 to their repairs accounts. I want to point out what the result will be if the Amendment is not accepted.
    The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) said that the Amendment was nonsensical. In Committee we were accustomed to the kind of speech which he made today. I was accustomed to that kind of speech before he came to the House of Commons. I suspect that it was nonsensical of the hon. Gentleman's Government, in 1952, to raise the figure from £4 to £8, particularly in the light of the information which the Minister has given to the effect that more than 20 local authorities in 1960 asked for permission not to contribute as much as £8. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would listen to the arguments adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and not put an interpretation on them completely different from that intended by my hon. Friend.
    The Minister stated that the figure would remain at £8 for some time. He clearly showed that even he and his officials had their doubts about the wisdom of refusing to accept the Amendment. The figure of £4 was raised to £8 in 1952. Now, ten years later, can the Under-Secretary of State argue that repair costs have not increased since 1952? Of course he cannot. The hon. Gentleman should have tabled an Amendment which at least showed that the Government realise that the cost of repairs to houses has increased in the last few years.
    The Under-Secretary of State said that the Secretary of State would not automatically disallow any figure of £8. We know that. He said that 24 applications by local authorities to contribute less than £8 a house to their repairs account were granted. It would have been more useful if he had told us the number of local authorities which have contributed more than £8 a year per house to their
    accounts, if he could have shown that there was none, or perhaps two; but the numbers have been growing each year. Each year, more and more local authority houses are getting older and need more repairs. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary of State took that into account.
    I am sure that every local authority in Scotland would willingly accept the little extra work which would be placed on its officials if the figure of £12 were accepted. That is better than every local authority being put in the invidious position of being treated as though it were dishonest by being told "There is a big increase in the sum that you wish to put into your housing repairs account. My officials at St. Andrew's House will examine that very carefully and only when we have the result of that examination will we decide what to do." This is an attitude to local authorities which has been growing during the last ten years under a Tory Government.
    5.0 p.m.
    We on this side have no doubt about why this Clause has been put in the Bill and why there has been resistance to our Amendment. Under the Bill, quite a number of local authorities are to be given a £12 subsidy instead of one of £24. Which are the local authorities? They are those local authorities which, in the Minister's own words, have a big pool of houses which were built when the subsidies were higher; and if that is so. they are older houses and need much more repair.
    If the Under-Secretary of State continues to resist the Amendment, we feel, and, I think, rightly, that this part of the Clause will be used as a weapon by the Government to ensure that those local authorities which are to get the £12 subsidy will be prevented from going up into the £32 subsidy category. We have no doubt about that, and it is for these reasons that we intend to vote on this Amendment.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 165, Noes 215.

    Division No. 146.]

    AYES

    [5.1 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Beaney, Alan

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Benson, Sir George

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Blackburn, F.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Awbery, Stan

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Bowles, Frank

    Callaghan, James

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Boyden, James

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Chapman, Donald

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

    Rankin, John

    Cliffe Michael

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Reid, William

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Keller, Richard

    Rhodes, H.

    Davies, G Elfed (Rhondda, E)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    King, Dr. Horace

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Deer, George

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Rosa, William

    Dempsey, James

    Loughlin, Charles

    Short, Edward

    Diamond, John

    Lubbock, Eric

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Dodds, Norman

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

    McInnes, James

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Small, William

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    McLeavey, Frank

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

    Snow, Julian

    Evans, Albert

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Finch, Harold

    Manuel, Archie

    Steele, Thomas

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Mapp, Charles

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Forman, J. C.

    Marsh, Richard

    Stones, William

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Mendelson, J. J

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

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Millan, Bruce

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

    Ginsburg, David

    Milne, Edward

    Taverne, D.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Mitchlson, G. R.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Monslow, Walter

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Moyle, Arthur

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Grey, Charles

    Neal, Harold

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

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

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

    Hannan, William

    Oliver, G. H.

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Harper, J.

    Oram, A. E.

    Timmons, John

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Oswald, Thomas

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Healey, Denis

    Owen, Will

    Warbey, William

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Padley, W. E.

    Weitzman, David

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Paget, R. T.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Holt, Arthur

    Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Whitlock, William

    Houghton, Douglas

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Willey, Frederick

    Hoy, James H.

    Parker, John

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Peart, Frederick

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

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Pentland, Norman

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Prentice, R. E.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Jeger, George

    Probert, Arthur

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Proctor, W. T.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Randall, Harry

    Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lawson.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Farr, John

    Aitken, W. T.

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Allason, James

    Chataway, Christopher

    Fisher, Nigel

    Arbuthnot, John

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Freeth, Denzil

    Balniel, Lord

    Collard, Richard

    Gammans, Lady

    Barber, Anthony

    Cooper, A. E.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Barter, John

    Corfield, F. V.

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Batsford, Brian

    Costain, A. P.

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Bell, Ronald

    Coulson, Michael

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Goodhart, Philip

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Goodhew, Victor

    Biffen John

    Curran, Charles

    Gower, Raymond

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Dance, James

    Green, Alan

    Bishop, F. P.

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Black, Sir Cyril

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Bossom, Clive

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Box, Donald

    Doughty, Charles

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hastings, Stephen

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    du Cann, Edward

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Brewis, John

    Duncan, Sir James

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Brooman-White, R.

    Eden, John

    Hendry, Forbes

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

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

    Hobson, Sir John

    Bryan, Paul

    Emery, Peter

    Holland, Philip

    Bullard, Denys

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Hollingworth, John

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Hopkins, Alan

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Hornby, R. P.

    488

    489

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dams P.

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Howard. John (Southampton, Test)

    Morrison, John

    Speir, Rupert

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Stodart, J. A.

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Neave, Airey

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Noble, Michael

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    James, David

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Talbot, John E.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Tapsell, Peter

    Jennings, J. C.

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Temple, John M.

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Percival, Ian

    Thornton- Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Peyton, John

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Leavey, J. A,

    Pitman, Sir James

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Pott, Percivall

    Turner, Colin

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Pym, Francis

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Longbottom, Charles

    Ramsden, James

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Walder, David

    Loveys, Walter H,

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Ward, Dame Irene

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

    Rees, Hugh

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

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

    Renton, David

    Whitelaw, William

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Maddan, Martin

    Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Maitland, Sir John

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Wise, A. R.

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Marshall, Douglas

    Russell, Ronald

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Woollam, John

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Seymour, Leslie

    Worsley, Marcus

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

    Shaw, M.

    Mills, Stratton

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Miscampbell, N.

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

    Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Peel.

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Smithers, Peter

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 9.—(SUPPLEMENTARY POWERS WITH RESPECT TO SUBSIDIES FOR HOUSES PROVIDED BY HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS UNDER AUTHORISED. OR SPECIAL. ARRANGEMENTS.)
    Sir Myer Galpern: I beg to move, in page 9, line 27, to leave out from "State" to "pay" and to insert "shall".
    The Chairman: It may be convenient to take with this Amendment the other Amendment to Clause 9, namely, that in page 9, line 45, to leave out from "State" to "pay" and to insert "shall".
    Sir M. Galpern: As this rotten Bill moves with indecent swiftness through its final stages, I am coming more and more to the conclusion that its purpose is not that which the Secretary of State has so often claimed for it—the stimulating of house building in Scotland. I believe that it has a two-fold objective. The first is, by various devious devices, certainly not in keeping with the dignity with the Secretary of State or even a
    490
    Tory Government, so to frame legislation that it will ultimately relieve the Government of any financial contribution to house building in Scotland. The Bill shows a determined desire so to arrange financial matters and to give the Secretary of State such power that ultimately he will be able to tell local authorities that they are to get nothing from the Government to help them with their terrible housing problems.
    The other and more dangerous objective is to elevate the Secretary of State to the rôle of dictator. The offending phrase which we are seeking to delete from Clause 9,
    "may, if he thinks fit",
    is the language of the bully. It is arrogant to say to people who ought to be regarded as partners, "I am the big boy and you will do as I think fit". That is not an attitude which should be adopted towards democratically elected public representatives. I do not know how new this phrase is, but it occurs too often in the Bill and a number of our Amendments have been directed towards its deletion.
    Local authorities are doing their best. It is they who build the houses. Although

    491
    the Government claim credit for a tremendous increase in the number of houses which have been provided, those who do the work are the very people who are insulted throughout the Bill. Our Amendment says, in effect, "Mr. Secretary of State, there are other people as interested and more interested in house building than you are, and you must deal with them in a reasonable and just fashion".
    5.15 p.m.
    If, as I hope, the Amendment is accepted, the Clause will read:
    "The Secretary of State shall pay to the local authority a sum equivalent to any subsidy …".
    What is proposed in Clause 9 is that when a housing association or development corporation defaults in the arrangement which it has made with the local authority, the local authority will automatically be vested with the houses with which the association or corporation was concerned.
    It is only natural that the local authority should take over from a defaulting housing association or development corporation. But if it falls heir to a project, it should also fall heir to the rights which go with the project, namely, the subsidy. But in subsection (2, a) the Secretary of State says that no further subsidy shall be paid, but that in certain circumstances, "if he thinks fit", he may pay to the local authority a sum equivalent to any subsidy which would have been paid.
    Let us examine this provision in some detail and apply it to a given situation. Housing associations are entirely new. They are experimental. We do not know how they will develop. In that state of newness, one can expect many difficulties, and I expect a great crop of difficulties which will lead to the abandonment of people who have entered such associations with the best possible purposes only to find ultimately that they are overwhelmed by the project which has to be abandoned and left half finished. It may be completed, but if it is unfinished the local authority will be asked to take it over. The subsidy will stop and, if the Secretary of State thinks fit. he may grant the local authority the sum equivalent to the subsidy which would have been paid.
    492
    It is not reasonable to expect a local authority to carry on with a project when it is uncertain of the economic mood of the Secretary of State, on which will depend whether he will continue the subsidy or say that it is not an occasion which warrants the continuance of the subsidy. Why should a local authority be at the whim and caprice and mood of the Secretary of State at any time? That could lead to a local authority justifiably declaring that in those circumstances it would have nothing to do with a project of that kind, for it is entitled to know exactly where it stands.
    If we total up all the "if he thinks fits" and all the other qualifications, we see that local authorities are to be left completely uncertain about future contributions from the Exchequer. This is deliberate policy and not something which has happened merely by chance, for the phrase "if he thinks fit" in this Clause follows the rest of the purpose of the Bill, with which the Opposition are in total disagreement.
    When a local authority accepts the responsibilities, it should also have the rights which go with them. I hope that we shall not be told that this phrase is used in other Bills. We are not now dealing with what has gone before. It is too easy to wriggle out of a situation by saying that this has been done before. We are concerned with a housing situation on which very little impact has been made. The Secretary of State puts on a front by saying that he is anxious to help, but his actions seem to show that he has some other objective.
    I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment he will follow it by accepting others and will categorically tell local authorities that if they take over responsibility from a housing association or development corporation he will pay them a sum equivalent to any subsidy which would have been paid, so that they are not left in this state of uncertainty.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not for one moment expect that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will accept this Amendment, because if it were carried it would completely thwart the purpose of the Government,

    493
    which is to take every possible power out of the hands of the democratically elected representatives of the people and concentrate it in the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Under-Secretary of State. In future, as regards rents, subsidies and policy, the Under-Secretary of State will be a "tinpot Hilter".
    We were told during the last war that it was a war against dictatorship, but most dictators come from inside a country and not from outside. I am not sure whether, in dealing with housing, Hitler would not have been a far more democratic person than the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Under-Secretary of State. In many ways the Under-Secretary of State is like Hitler, except that he does not have his moustache.
    Mr. Willis: Hitler was a house painter.
    Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend reminds me that Hitler was a painter. At least, therefore, he knew something about houses, and I am sure that if he were responsible for housing he would exercise more intelligence and discretion than we can expect from the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State.
    The Government are here taking powers away from the democratically elected representatives of the people concerned. The Ayrshire County Council is dominated by Socialists, but they understand the housing needs of the area and were returned to the county council by the small burghs and by the landward areas largely because they were pledged to do something to change the appalling housing situation that has existed for so long in Scotland, but which in Ayrshire at any rate has to some extent been remedied by the progressive policies of the county council and the town council.
    For many years I was provost of the burgh and member of the Cumnock Town Council. We had a progressive policy, as a result of which 90 per cent. of the houses are now owned by the municipality, and we resent power being taken out of the hands of the people who were sent to the town hall and put in the hands of somebody who is remote from the area concerned.
    494
    I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland does not like Cumnock Town Council. This is because of its policy of cheap rents. I do not want to go into the history of housing development in the area, but the town council has had to fight to make Cumnock Burgh one of the best towns for housing not only in Scotland, but in the country and, indeed, in the world. We have had to fight reactionary people. The reactionary landlord who supported the Government did his best to prevent houses being built, and we had to put a compulsory purchase order on him. Again, we had to go to arbitration over the cost of the land. Here again we were successful. In fact, the arbitrator gave less to the landlord than the town council were prepared to give him.
    The more these small towns have asserted their democratic rights, the more jealous the Secretary of State for Scotland has become, and now the Government propose to whittle away the authority of the town and county councils so that they can concentrate power in the hands of the bureaucracy in St. Andrew's House; a bureaucracy which is taking its cue from the Conservative hierarchy throughout Scotland.
    We know what is happening in Scotland. The people in the big house see democracy encroaching on their preserves. They do not like these housing schemes. They prefer houses dominated by local landlords. But now that these houses are being built, they have said to themselves, "We will allow them to build houses under certain restrictions, but we will retain power to fix the rents and to prevent any further advance by democracy."
    This Bill takes us back to the seventeenth century.
    The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Member is going a long way from the Amendment that we are now debating.
    Mr. Hughes: It is a long way back to the seventeenth century, but the Minister is—
    The Chairman: Order. That is what I am complaining about.
    Mr. Hughes: That is precisely what I, too, am complaining about. However, Sir William, I am glad to see that we are not at cross-purposes.

    495
    I want to see the Bill so amended that powers will not be taken away from local authorities; that powers will not be put in the hands of a "tinpot Hitler" or a "tinpot Stalin", but that the local authorities will have power to administer housing in the way they have done up to now and as a result of which they have made such good progress.
    Mr. Brewis: May I call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that the same words occur in the 1950 Act? Section 87 (2, b), says:
    "the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit …"
    Why is it that in those days the hon. Gentleman did not say that the Secretary of State for Scotland was a "tinpot dictator" or a "tinpot Molotov"?
    Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman had been here at the time he would know that I said a good many things then that I am saying now. One can use the same form of words to create bigger powers in a different way in a different setting and in a different Clause. The hon. Gentleman is an adolescent in these matters. As regards housing, he has not cut his wisdom teeth.
    I hope that these Amendments will not be resisted and that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will say that he does not propose to usurp the powers of the people who are sent to the organs of local authority to represent ordinary people.
    Mr. Ross: I hope that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) appreciates that we are serious about this Amendment. Apart from the fact that he took us back to 1950, he must appreciate that we are clear here dealing with something that is being enacted for the first time. We are dealing not only with authorised arrangements made between a local authority and housing association corporations, but between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the corporations. What may have been applicable in 1950 is not entirely relevant now.
    Apart from that, there is now a different attitude to housing from what there was in 1950, because until 1957
    496
    the Government were prepared to meet rising costs and rising interest rates by increased subsidies. We then entered a new housing era in Scotland.
    This is a very narrow point. The Clause deals with authorised arrangements which have been made between a local authority and a housing association or corporation. The words "authorised arrangements" lead one to ask who authorised them? That person is the Secretary of State. The other arrangements are those made between the Secretary of State directly with the corporations or housing associations, so once again the Secretary of State authorises.
    5.30 p.m.
    We start with that, and then assume that these authorised arrangements have broken down and that the housing association or the corporation is in default. By virtue of the terms of the authorised arrangement the houses become vested in the local authority. This is where the grouse comes. If nothing had happened in relation to the authorised arrangements made between the local authority and the housing association a subsidy would have been payable, and would have continued to be payable not directly to the housing association but to the local authority, which would then pass it on to the housing association.
    If, in these default circumstances, the house is vested with the local authority, why on earth, in this day and age—never mind what happened at any other time, or what words were included at any other time—should the Secretary of State take unto himself a discretionary power? Why should he decide to pay this to the local authority "if he thinks fit"? To me, those are rather insulting words. Before the question of default is mentioned in the Clause there is no mention of the Secretary of State's changing the subsidy payable to a local authority, to be passed on to a housing association "if he thinks fit". At the beginning of the Clause it is provided that the Secretary of State shall do so if he thinks that it is just. But the question of justice does not arise; it is purely a question of arrogance. It is purely and simply befuddled, bureaucratic arrogance.
    If the Under-Secretary thinks that it is essential to retain these words, will he

    497
    explain what the rest of the subsection means? It reads:
    "the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, pay to the local authority a sum equivalent to any subsidy "—
    and then come the words to which I wish to draw attention, and which to my mind construct a barrier of injustice—
    "which would, after the said time, have become payable to them under this Part of this Act in respect of the house if all conditions precedent to the payment of the subsidy had been at all material times observed",
    that is to say, if conditons were such that the question of default had never arisen.
    If the question of default had never arisen the subsidy would have been payable. It would have been mandatory to pay it. All that we suggest is that if those conditions apply there is no justice in giving the Secretary of State power to withhold payment "if he thinks fit". I hope that my hon. Friends will support the Amendment.
    Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) began by discussing the whole purpose of the Bill. It would be better if we left that aspect of his speech until the Third Reading. The effect of the Amendment would be to delete the words
    "may, if he thinks fit"
    and replace them by the one word "shall". This would make it obligatory upon the Secretary of State to pay to a local authority, when a housing association because became vested in it, a sum equivalent to the subsidy which would have been payable in respect of the house if it had remained in the ownership of the association.
    Subsection (2), in effect, empowers the transfer of a subsidy from a housing association to a local authority when a house built by the association, with the aid of a subsidy, under authorised arrangements, becomes vested in the local authority. Subsection (4) applies the same provision to special arrangements. The principle behind these provisions is in no sense new. It is merely a continuation of the power contained in Section 87 of the 1950 Act. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston need not wave his hand; I am coming to his argument in a moment. The 1950 Act made the transfer of a subsidy subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State
    498
    in the same way as is now proposed. There is nothing new in this power.
    Mr. Dempsey: Tell me the old. old story.
    Mr. Manuel: There is nothing new, except for the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Galbraith: The Secretary of State is new; but he has been going for longer than any other Secretary of State.
    I may say that the provision contained in the 1950 Act, including the permissive power, had its origin in Section 11 (1) of the 1946 Housing Act, which was enacted by a Labour Administration.
    Mr. Willis: We were not here then.
    Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member may not have been here, but some of his hon. Friends were here. I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite find this power objectionable now, when it has been in operation for so long.
    Sir M. Galpern: The reason that we find it so objectionable is that the whole purpose of this Bill is diametrically opposed to that of the one referred to.
    Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member said that the words he seeks to delete are arrogant, and were words such as would issue from the mouth of a bully. All I can say is that they have been issuing from the mouths of hon. Members opposite, and that if we on this side are guilty of being bullies they are equally guilty. Theirs is an utterly nonsensical argument.
    Let me explain the position. There may be an element of misunderstanding; I hope that there is. In the normal course of events no subsidy is payable to a local authority for houses which it acquires by purchase. An exception is made when a housing association house becomes vested in the local authority. The reason for that exception is that housing association houses are themselves subsidised, and the association providing subsidised houses is, in effect, thus supplementing the building programme of the local authority. Accordingly, the Bill proposes to continue the provisions of previous Acts, whereby, when such a house is sold or otherwise passes to the local authority, the subsidy may continue to be paid to the local authority and shall be retained

    499
    by it instead of being handed to the association.
    I can assure the hon. Member that where a housing association house becomes vested in a local authority a payment to that authority, in lieu of subsidy, is likely to be made in virtually every case. In our opinion, however, it would be wrong to make it obligatory, as the Amendment seeks to do, for the Secretary of State to make a payment irrespective of the circumstances of the takeover or the purposes for which the local authority intended to use the house. We appear to differ only on that very small point.
    It is conceivable that upon acquiring a house from a housing association a local authority would intend to use it to accommodate members of its own staff, or for some other purpose for which, as the hon. Member will appreciate, a subsidy is not payable. Surely he is not contending that in those circumstances a subsidy should be paid. It is only
    logical, therefore, that before agreeing to the payment of a housing subsidy in respect of such a house the Secretary of State should have a similar discretion to that which he has in relation to new local authority houses, and should be able to decide whether a payment in lieu of subsidy should be made. This is really a very narrow point. The decision of the Government is reasonable, and I hope that for once the Opposition will try to understand why we have included these words. I understand why they do not like them, but the purpose is to give a discretion to the Secretary of State so that he shall not be obliged in every case—in some of which it might be improper to do so—to continue the payment of subsidy.
    For these reasons, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 219, Noes 174.

    Division No. 147.]

    AYES

    [5.41 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Curran, Charles

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Aitken, W. T.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hendry, Forbes

    Allason, James

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Arbuthnot, John

    do Ferranti, Basil

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

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Holland, Philip

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Hollingworth, John

    Balniel, Lord

    Doughty, Charles

    Hopkins, Alan

    Barber, Anthony

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Barlow, Sir John

    du Cann, Edward

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    Barter, John

    Duncan, Sir James

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Batsford, Brian

    Eden, John

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Bell, Ronald

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Berkeley, Humphry

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

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Emery, Peter

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Bitten, John

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Errington, Sir Eric

    James, David

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Jennings, J. C.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Farr, John

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Finlay, Graeme

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Bossom, Clive

    Fisher, Nigel

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Box, Donald

    Foster, John

    Kimball, Marcus

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Brewis, John

    Freeth, Denzil

    Leavey, J. A.

    Brooman-White, R.

    Gammans, Lady

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    George J. C. (Pollok)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Billiard, Denys

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

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

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    Longbottom, Charles

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Longden, Gilbert

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Goodhew, Victor

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Gower, Raymond

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Green, Alan

    Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs.)

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Collard, Richard

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

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

    Cooper, A. E.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Corfield, F. V.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Costain, A. P.

    Hastings, Stephen

    Maddan, Martin

    Coulson, Michael

    Hay, John

    Maginnis, John E.

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Maitland, Sir John

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

    Marshall, Douglas

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Roes, Hugh

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

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

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Mills, Stratton

    Renton, David

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Miscampbell, N.

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Morrison, John

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

    Turner, Colin

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Neave, Airey

    Russell, Ronald

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Noble, Michael

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Seymour, Leslie

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Shaw, M.

    Walder, David

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Wall, Patrick

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

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

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Smithers, Peter

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Speir, Rupert

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Peel, John

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Perclval, Ian

    Stodart, J. A,

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Peyton, John

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Wise, A. R.

    Pott, Percivall

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Powell, Rt. Hon, J. Enoch

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Talbot, John E.

    Woollam, John

    Pym, Francis

    Tapsell, Peter

    Worsley, Marcus

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Ramsden, James

    Teeling, Sir William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Temple, John M.

    Mr. Whitelaw and

    Mr. Michael Hamilton.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Albu, Austen

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Monslow, Walter

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Hannan, William

    Moyle, Arthur

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Harper, Joseph

    Neal, Harold

    Awbery, Stan

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

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

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hayman, F. H.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Healey, Denis

    Oram, A. E.

    Beaney, Alan

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Benson, Sir George

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Owen, Will

    Blackburn, F,

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Padley, W. E.

    Blyton, William

    Holman, Percy

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S. W.)

    Holt, Arthur

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Boyden, James

    Houghton, Douglas

    Parker, John

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Hoy, James H.

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Peart, Frederick

    Callaghan, James

    Hunter, A. E.

    Pentland, Norman

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Chapman, Donald

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Cliffe, Michael

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Probert, Arthur

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Cronin, John

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Randall, Harry

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Rankin, John

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Reld, William

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Rhodes, H.

    Deer, George

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Dempsey, James

    Kelley, Richard

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Diamond, John

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Dodds, Norman

    King, Dr. Horace

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

    Lawson, George

    Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Ross, William

    Edelman, Maurice

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Short, Edward

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Lubbock, Eric

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Evans, Albert

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Fernyhough, E.

    McInnes, James

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Finch, Harold

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Small, William

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Snow, Julian

    Forman, J. C.

    MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Manuel, Archie

    Steele, Thomas

    Ginsburg, David

    Mapp, Charles

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Marsh, Richard

    Stones, William

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mason, Roy

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mendelson, J. J.

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

    Grey, Charles

    Millan, Bruce

    Swain, Thomas

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Milne, Edward

    Taverne, D.

    502

    503

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Warbey, William

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

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Weitzman, David

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Winter-bottom, R. E.

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Whitlock, William

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

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

    Willey, Frederick

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Timmons, John

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 24.—(DETERMINATION OF UNFITNESS FOR HUMAN HABITATION.)
    Mrs. Alice Cullen: I beg to move, in page 21, to leave out line 42 and to insert:
    (g) a separate indoor water supply for each house.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir R. Grimston): It might be convenient if the two Amendments in page 21, leave out lines 43 and 44 and insert
    (h) a hot water supply at a fixed bath or shower in a bathroom and at a wash-hand basin, and at a sink.
    and in line 44, at end insert:
    "including a separate water closet for each house."
    were discussed with this Amendment.
    Mrs. Cullen: The items (a) to (k) in subsection (1) of this Clause were laid down many years ago and I think that we should set our sights higher in 1962. Can anyone say that it is wrong to insist on a separate indoor water supply for each house; or a hot water supply at a fixed bath or shower in a bathroom or wash-hand basin, or even in a sink; or a separate water closet for each house? The houses in the constituency which I have the honour to represent never had these facilities, and if the Government are not prepared to accept this Amendment they will stand condemned by public opinion throughout Scotland as a Government who are interested not in house building but merely in saving money.
    Mr. Galbraith: I am very surprised to see that there are apparently so few Members on the benches opposite who wish to speak—
    Miss Margaret Herbison: On a point of order, Sir Robert. On two occasions the Under-Secretary has made that sort of remark. Are you aware, as the occupant of the Chair, that we are working to a Guillotine Motion
    504
    and that we have to get these matters discussed as quickly as we can?
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Galbraith: I merely thought that if other Members wished to speak and were waiting for me to speak first, it would be better if it were the other way round.
    Mr. A. Woodburn: We thought that this Amendment was so reasonable that the Under-Secretary would agree to it.
    Mr. Galbraith: The right hon. Member cannot have been in the Committee. If he had been, he would realise that I am not going to accept it.
    The three Amendments to which the hon. Lady the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) has referred so movingly all propose to amend the list of items in Clause 24 (1) to be taken into consideration in determining whether a house is unfit. Their effect is, first, to delete item (g) "adequacy and accessibility of water supply" and to substitute "a separate indoor water supply for each house"; secondly, to delete item (h) "adequacy and accessibility of sanitary and other conveniences" and to substitute "a hot water supply at a fixed bath or shower in a bathroom and at a wash-hand basin, and at a sink"; thirdly, to amend "adequacy and accessibility of sanitary and other conveniences" to read "adequacy and accessibility of sanitary and other conveniences including a separate water closet for each house".
    The discussion on a similar Amendment in Committee showed that, as a matter of drafting, the words proposed on that occasion by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) did not fit very neatly into the pattern of the Clause. That is not a reason for rejecting the Amendment out of hand because, of course, drafting deficiencies can be put right. There seems, however, to be some misunderstanding

    505
    among hon. Members opposite about what Clause 24 sets out to do. There also seems to be some difference of opinion as to what they want it to do. On the one hand the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North seemed to agree in Committee that the object of the Clause was to set out matters to which a local authority should have regard in deciding whether a house is unfit. That is our view of what the Clause is intended to do. On the other hand, the hon. Member for the Gorbals seemed just now to be tempted by the idea that a house might be condemned, more or less automatically, if it lacked one of these specified amenities. She used the words, "We should insist".
    Hon. Members: What is wrong with that.
    Mr. Galbraith: If that is what hon. Members opposite really want, it is a very different matter from what the hon. Lady was proposing. It is a departure from the whole conception of Clause 24 and the existing provisions which it replaces in Section 184 (2) of the 1950 Act. That Section states that in determining whether a house is fit, a local authority are to have regard to the extent to which it falls short of the standards set by the local building regulations. Clause 24 retains the same principle. It requires local authorities to have regard to certain factors, and items (a) to (k) in the Clause are specific features to which they are required to have regard. None of these items by itself decides whether a house is fit or unfit. I think that the hon. Lady, in moving the Amendment, indicated that if a house did not have, for example, an internal lavatory it should automatically be considered unfit. What matters is whether a house is so far defective in one or more of these respects that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mrs. Cullen: We have had so many houses of this type in the Gorbals, which were slums as soon as they were built, that we want to get rid of them all.
    Mr. Galbraith: I am absolutely with the hon. Lady—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, certainly. I am convinced that—
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is a "proper square".
    Mr. Galbraith: I am not a "proper square". I am a round peg in a round hole.
    As it stands, the Clause sets out eleven items to which a local authority shall have regard. It does not say what standard the local authority should look for under each of these headings. For example, there are references to the general state of repair and to the adequacy of the water supply and to the sanitary conveniences. Clearly, under each of these headings it would be possible to give fuller guidance about the particular requirements to be looked for; no doubt this is what the hon. Lady had in mind in relation to the items she was discussing.
    There are two points I wish to make. First, it does not seem right to go into detail on these items only and not on the others. Surely structural stability, to take one example, is no less important than whether there is a bath on the premises. The lighting and the amount of air are important, but we do not go into detail about them. Why, therefore, should we go into detail about sanitation?
    Secondly, it is not really necessary to invite a local authority to have regard specifically to the presence or absence of certain amenities. It comes strangely from hon. Members opposite to suggest that local authorities do not know, without being told in a Statute, that a house without a separate w.c. or water supply falls short of adequate modern standards. In considering whether a house is unfit, a local authority would automatically award a good mark if it had a hot water supply and a bad mark if it had not. Those hon. Members opposite, who have had wide experience of local authority work, know this very well. Local authorities know what a good house is like and, by comparison, when a house does not measure up to the proper standards. I therefore suggest that it is not necessary to specify these items in the Clause.
    I assure the Committee, however, that when the Bill becomes law we shall take the opportunity to give guidance in a covering circular about the way in which local authorities should exercise their

    507
    powers and particularly about the importance of certain specific items. But it would still remain the case that no single item would determine whether a house was or was not unfit. The local authority would still have to decide—I think it is right that it should—whether, having regard to the condition of the house in each of these various respects, it was or was not reasonably suitable for occupation. With this explanation, I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that I have made the matter clearer to her and will feel disposed to withdraw the Amendments.
    Miss Herbison: I am quite certain that the brief which has been read out by the Under-Secretary could not possibly have been supplied by any official from the Department of Health—it is so terribly poor that it must be the Minister's own brief. We were bedevilled during the Committee stage proceedings by the Minister reading a brief which gave answers to points that we had not raised but which his officials thought that we might raise.
    I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the first part of this Clause, which states:
    "In determining for any of the purposes of the Act of 1950 whether a house is unfit for human habitation regard shall be had"—
    I wish to repeat that—
    "regard shall be had to its condition in respect of the following matters …".
    Then we are given a list of the matters to which the local authority must have regard before it decides that a house is unfit for human habitation. Hon. Members on this side of the House looked at these matters and decided that, in 1962, it was time that local authorities had regard to certain specific matters when deciding whether a house was unfit for human habitation.
    The Under-Secretary said that it was not right to go into details on these matters since we had not gone into details on other matters. If the hon. Gentleman will accept the details which we have gone into on these three matters, I can assure him that during the Committee stage proceedings in another place we shall see to it that similar details are provided for the other matters, if that is the main objection from the hon. Gentleman. He could help us to ensure that the kind of
    508
    details which he thinks should go in for all, or for none, shall go in for all.
    Mr. Galbraith: I am sure that the hon. Lady does not wish to be unfair. I was suggesting that if we put in all the details for some matters we ought to put in details for the lot, and that if we did that we should not have the faith in the discretion and judgment of local authorities which the Opposition is always suggesting that the Government ought to have.
    Miss Herbison: I think that is the "phoniest" argument which we have heard in the whole of these discussions. Hon. Members on this side of the House regard members of local authorities as responsible people. We know that local authorities will have regard to these matters either as they appear in the Bill now or as they would appear were the Clause amended as we desire.
    I wish to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) about houses in Glasgow and to say that there are similar houses in the Highlands and in our Scottish villages. There are many families in Scotland who have to share the use of one water closet.
    Mrs. Cullen: In my constituency sixteen tenants have to share one water closet.
    Miss Herbison: Is that what the Under-Secretary and the Tory Government consider to be correct? If not, they have no argument at all for not putting specifically in the Statute that regard must be had to the necessity for each family to have a water closet.
    The second item relates a water supply for each house. I have constituents in houses in my own village where six people have to share one sink on a landing and one water supply. In some parts of the Highlands conditions are much worse than that. Is it wrong that in 1962 we should ask that when a local authority is considering whether a house should be condemned one of the specific needs which it ought to take into account is whether there is a separate water supply for each family. If the Government think it wrong that that should be so, it shows just how little they think about the needs of our people.

    509
    What about a hot water supply? Is there any hon. Member opposite who does not consider a hot water supply an absolute necessity in his own home?
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: They are always in hot water in any case.
    Miss Herbison: Hon. Members on this side of the Committee think the same, but we also think that conditions should be the same in all the homes in Scotland, and that is where we differ from hon. Members opposite.
    What is wrong in putting into this Clause a reference to the need for a hot water supply in the bathroom or for a shower, or a sink? The hon. Gentleman has given no valid reason, but places the responsibility fairly and squarely on the shoulders of members of local authorities. If we could raise the sights of local authorities a little higher, some local authorities, particularly Tory-controlled local authorities—might feel a greater urgency to get rid of houses which we consider unfit for habitation. Unless the Under-Secretary will state that he is ready to accept the Amendment, we shall have no alternative but to take it to a division.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I wish to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has said in her reference to houses outside urban areas as well as those in them. She rightly referred to houses in the Highlands and Islands which still not only have no hot water supply, but have no communal piped cold water supply.
    I think that this Amendment is right. As my hon. Friend said, we should set our sights higher. It seems that the lower the standards that are set, the more likely are they to be completely ignored. The wrong type of local authority is only too glad to escape obligations which are not clearly defined and which it is not strictly enough obliged to apply. The Minister as well as the local authority has a duty. He has a duty to see that the statutory obligations of local authorities are carried out by those local authorities. Where they are not carried out, he cannot escape condemnation for the local authority's failure. He has a financial respon- 510
    Sibility and also a general statutory responsibility.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland has direct responsibility for many hundreds of houses on Department of Agriculture estates in the Highlands and Islands many of which are still with no sort of water supply—let alone a hot water supply, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) referred to as an absolute minimum necessity. The Minister has been shirking his duty and continues to do so in not making the necessary money for communal water supplies available, without which local authorities cannot satisfy the demands of the Acts which are already in being, apart from what we ask in these Amendments, and provide piped water supplies to individual tenants of rural houses.
    The Under-Secretary asked that the Government should not be pressed to give any more detail in defining what local authorities have to have regard to in considering the possibility of having to condemn a house or impose a closing order. With what is already in the Bill we have enough to condemn certain local authorities, and hundreds—indeed thousands—of houses on their failure to satisfy the requirements about adequacy and accessibility of water supply, plus adequacy and accessibility of sanitary and other conveniences. A closing order could almost certainly now be put on thousands of houses in the rural areas of Scotland. The Minister must know that that is true.
    That is largely because many local authorities have not carried out their existing duties and statutory obligations to provide a water supply, and Governments have not tried very hard to see that those local authorities do carry out their obligations. For example, the Minister has been writing to local authorities in Inverness-shire. Those authorities wanted, however belatedly, to get on with their plans for water supplies, which were almost ready; but, because in July last they were not ready in detail—the detail which the Under-Secretary so much abhors in these Amendments—they were told by the Secretary of State that their schemes would come under the latest economy axe. The result is that in respect of the southern area of South Uist, which

    511
    is so popular an island for rocket ranges and defence installations of all kinds, the county council has been told that because it had not the last dot and stroke written into its schemes, those water schemes would be put off indefinitely.
    One result is that a group of county council houses, in order to satisfy the law, have to be tacked on to an already inadequate school water supply. The school water supply is itself so inadequate that there was a panic some time ago over an outbreak of polio. Some people thought that indirectly, if not directly, the outbreak was due to the poor and inadequate water supply of the school. Yet this water supply has to be tacked on to a new group of houses. It is absolutely unpardonable. For any local authority to get into that situation is to condemn itself out of hand for its failure and delays.
    The Minister has an obligation to see that local authorities carry out statutory obligations in regard to water supply. The Labour Government after the war insisted that in every new house in the crofting areas provision must be made at the time of building for a bathroom, a kitchen, a kitchen sink and plumbing throughout the house and for waste disposal, so that, immediately a water supply was available the water could be laid on. All the things which are demanded in these Amendments ought, then, to be provided, not only in the City of Glasgow, but also in outlying rural parts of the country. That was all provided for specifically in the first rural Housing Act brought in by the Labour Government after the war.
    6.15 p.m.
    I do not see what the Minister is so frightened about. The Under-Secretary poured cold water on hot water. All he achieved was to raise a little steam, but it was not enough to take him very far in the right direction. I do not see how any hon. Member can conscientiously say that while he at home enjoys hot baths and a water supply he is prepared to condemn other people to remain in houses which do not have the simple ordinary amenities of civilised living in 1962. I do not think any hon. Member opposite is below the poverty level. How, then, they can decently
    512
    defend the situation as it is now beats me. Of all the impertinence and hypocrisy to say that other less fortunate people should be without water supplies, and that hundreds of housewives in the Islands and Highlands and elsewhere in rural areas should have to go often for a mile—that is no exaggeration—carrying buckets of water in order that they might wash. This is not a fantasy or the history of past centuries, but is true now. In many places, the situation is exactly as it was 2,000 years ago, with people still grubbing in holes in the ground to get water for washing and cooking and drinking.
    The more we fail strictly to apply the Acts, the more will recalcitrant local authorities show their unconcern for the plight in which many people still live, the plight of thousands of people in the Highlands and Islands. The Minister has his Ml responsibility for that. He and the Secretary of State have done more in the last few years to prevent even slow local authorities getting on with the supply of water than have any Ministers before them. From 1945 onwards there was more progress with provision of water supplies in rural areas than ever before; but that has all been slowed down and now people in some areas are looking to 1970 or 1972 before they will be able to have the simple benison of cold water. The Secretary of State ought not to look so pleased about that; he ought to be ashamed of it.
    Mr. Hendry: I say at once that I am absolutely in sympathy with the Amendment—I think I speak for every horn. Member on this side of the Committee—but I think that the Amendment would add nothing to the Bill and that the proposal is to a large extent impracticable. I think it tragic that in this twentieth century there should be any house which has not a separate hot water supply. I think it lamentable that there should be any house without a bath, and absolutely deplorable that there should be any house without a separate water closet.
    The Amendment refers to a separate water closet for every house. I would go further. If we were being ideal, I would say a separate water closet in every house, but these are ideals. They are things we should all like to see, yet what we have to deal with is not the ideal, but the very practical situation

    513
    in Scotland at present. These are the things we should like. Certainly if there is a house or building, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) said, which has one water closet for fifteen tenants that certainly comes within the definition of paragraph (g) of the subsection,
    "adequacy and accessibility of water supply."
    That house ought to be condemned out of hand.
    Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) is a man of legal experience. The Clause says that the local authority, shall have regard to these items. If there is any item not mentioned there, is not the local authority entitled to say that Parliament has asked it not to pay special regard to such items? Therefore, any item not in the category is not within the category to which the local authority shall pay regard. If the Amendment is rejected is it not possible for someone in a local authority to argue that Parliament has said that the local authority shall not have regard to the things which have been mentioned by my hon. Friends?
    Mr. Hendry: The right hon. Gentleman has underlined from the other point of view what his hon. and right hon. Friends have said during these discussions—that certain people do not trust local authorities. He does not trust them.
    Mr. Woodburn: That is not an answer to the legal question.
    Mr. Hendry: We are considering a practical question—whether a house is suitable for human habitation. It is deplorable if any house has not these amenities. But all hon. Members admit that there are many thousands of houses without them which are in other respects good houses. The Committee should encourage the Government of the day, irrespective of party, to take steps to bring that situation to an end by providing these amenities where the houses are otherwise good. In other parts of the Bill that is precisely what is done—by making it easier for people to take advantage of improvement grants and of other provisions.
    I remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite of the definition in Clause 10 whereby a house is defined as
    514
    "any residential accommodation provided for occupation by not more than two persons and equipped with cooking facilities for the exclusive use of those persons, notwithstanding that it is not equipped with facilities of other kinds for such exclusive use."
    That provides for houses for old people, where it is not considered necessary that they should have an exclusive bathroom provided that a communial bathroom and other communal facilities are available in the building.
    Mr. Willis: The hon. Member is an ex-town clerk. Having heard him give that definition and realising the type of advice which he might give to a local authority, I think that it becomes increasingly obvious that these provisions ought to be included in the Bill.
    Mr. Hendry: I should not have given way had I not expected a more sensible intervention, as is customary, from the hon. Member.
    We are trying to produce a practical code for the guidance of local authorities, but hon. Members opposite are tying local authorities down to provisions which are in no way practicable. I hope that on reconsideration they will withdraw the Amendment and leave the Clause as it stands. Personally, I am sorry that the Clause had been introduced, because Section 184 of the 1950 Act gives local authorities a very good standard of comparison—a comparison with the type of house which they are approving at present. Every hon. Member will agree that it would be intolerable if any house being built today lacked these amenities. But the Government have decided to give further guidance to local authorities by laying down these carefully-worded standards.
    It seems to me that the Amendment adds nothing to what is in the Clause and that the Clause gives a good code for circumstances varying from the Gorbals in Glasgow to the Western Isles and the part of the country which I represent. The Amendment is ill-thought-out. Hon. Members opposite should take it back and think about it again. I am certain that if they did so they would be able on another occasion to produce an Amendment of a much more satisfactory kind This Amendment should be withdrawn.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I do not want to keep the Committee long but I felt that the kind of speech

    515
    made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) ought to be answered. In his Dr. Jekyll form we heard his idealism and the sort of thing which we ought to have in houses, such as an inside toilet in every house. But the hon. Member then went on in his other guise of Dr. Hyde to tell us that this was not practicable. That is the nub of the argument. We are seeking to provide a goad not only on local authorities but also on the Scottish Office. If there is any subject on which the Government ought to be prodded it is that of Scottish housing. If we pass legislation which irritates them and forces them to grant a bigger housing programme for local authorities, all the better for the people of Scotland.
    It is wrong that in 1962 we should be unwilling to write into legislation an exact provision of this nature. The Under-Secretary of State's suggestion that these amenities are details would be laughable if it were not so tragic. That he should consider the provision of an inside toilet and a piped water supply as details in the code of living is a sad state of affairs.
    Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member misunderstands me. I said that these words were spelling out what paragraph (g) means. When we talk about the
    "adequacy and accessibility of water supply",
    that is general, and it is unnecessary also to say that there should be an internal water supply.
    Dr. Mabon: All hon. Members have had the experience of people coming to them and raising matters which they subsequently take up with the sanitary inspector who, even though he has as much sympathy as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West and feels that a house should be condemned, is always able to fall back on the law and to say, "By law I am not required to condemn it". There are all sorts of practical reasons advanced. Normally the local authority cannot provide a new house or is in great difficulty in rehousing people. Or he may say, "I have been given a quota of houses which I may condemn and I cannot exceed it". He is able to take refuge in laws which are ill-defined like this and which enable him to say, "This good family must remain in this inadequate house".
    516
    This is the point which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West must face. If he wants legislation which a local authority, either through negligence or because it does not want to spend the money, can use as an excuse for not providing further housing for Scotland, he should leave the Clause ill-defined. But if he accepts the need of the people of Scotland and wishes to meet it, he should accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Galbraith: We are perhaps generating a little unnecessary heat on the Amendment. I understand exactly the feelings of hon. Members opposite; they feel so strongly that an internal water supply, a bath and a private w.c. are essential for living a decent life today that they wish these items to be specifically mentioned in the Bill. I agree with them absolutely about the need for these items—and I want to make that clear, because it seemed that there was a danger that the Conservative Party might be branded as a party which did not think that these things were necessary.
    Mr. Willis: It is true. They do not think them necessary.
    Mr. Galbraith: It is not true. If the point in moving the Amendment is to make that charge, then it is a purely political Amendment. I understood that hon. Members opposite were concerned about the condition of houses. But it now seems that they are more concerned with trying to put before the country a false image of the Conservative Party. I agree with them absolutely about the need for these items which are specified in the Amendment, but I do not see why they should be mentioned more specifically than, for example, details about the amount of light or air or the state of repair. After all, consideration of the adequacy—
    6.30 p.m.
    Miss Herbison: On a point of order. Sir Robert do you realise that we are working under the Guillotine? Is it right to have needless repetition? The Under-Secretary is making the same speech.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Galbraith: I am sorry if I am offending the hon. Lady. I did not want to rise at the beginning, but she forced

    517
    me to my feet at the beginning. I therefore think that it is only right that I should reply to this. I am not making the same speech. Hon. Members opposite may think that I am making the same speech, but I am not. Considerations of the adequacy and accessibility of water supply must include the questions whether the supply is indoors and separate and whether such a supply could reasonably be provided.
    Mr. Willis: I have heard all this.
    Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member says that he has heard all this, but it obviously has not sunk in. That is why I am saying it again. Hon. Members opposite are always saying that the Government do not trust the local authorities. Here it seems to me that it is they who are not trusting the local authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) rather let the cat out of the bag when he referred to what he called the wrong sort of local authorities.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Certainly.
    Mr. Galbraith: That implies that the Opposition do not trust the local authorities. All through the Bill they have been criticising the Government for what they call not trusting the local authorities. I maintain that the local authorities do not need to have everything spelt out for them. They know very well when the state of repair is bad. They know when the lighting is not sufficient. Equally well, they know when the water supply is adequate. Adequate means whether it is inside or whether it is not.
    I therefore regret that I cannot accept the Amendment. I emphasise that this is not because I do not value internal plumbing most highly. I value it as highly as hon. Members opposite value it, perhaps even more highly. I value internal plumbing as highly as I value a good state of repair. I cannot accept the Amendment simply because it is unnecessary to specify these matters in detail, and I prefer, and the Government prefer, unlike the Opposition, to trust the local authorities to do the job within the general guidance contained in the Clause.
    Mr. Woodburn: I do not want to take up any time, but I must point out that the Under-Secretary has not treated this
    518
    matter seriously. It has been suggested that there are two alternatives—either to have a general description covering anything like the existing standard of local authority housing, or to specify the things to which local authorities must have regard. The Government have stated a a number of matters to which local authorities must pay regard, but local authorities are entitled to think that matters which are not specified need not be taken into consideration. The Under-Secretary, by refusing to accept the Amendment, is lending not only his own authority but also the authority of Parliament to the view that local authorities are not bound to pay attention to matters which are not stated in the Clause.
    Mr. Brewis: What is important in this matter is to get the amenities into these houses and install sanitary fittings. [Interruption.] We did just that in the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1949, which dealt with the standard grant.
    Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order. We are under the Guillotine and my colleagues are doing their utmost to get through the Bill. Are we to be all the time held up by hon. Members opposite rising and trying to spin out time?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I have already said that that is not a point of order. If an hon. Member on either side rises to speak and remains in order, he is entitled to speak and no point of order arises.
    Miss Herbison: Sir Robert, may I put this point to you and ask for your advice? Is it possible for me to move the Closure on this Amendment? I ask for advice.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Lady can move the Closure. That is not to say that it will be accepted.
    Miss Herbison: Sir Robert, I beg to move, That the Question be now put.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I shall not accept that Motion at this moment.
    Mr. Brewis: The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) should be a little more patient. It is important to get the amenities into houses and not condemn houses just because they have not got them.
    Mr. Ross: Would not the best and quickest way of getting amenities into houses be to condemn houses which have not got them?
    Mr. Brewis: Then what would happen to the inhabitants? My area has a very great problem indeed. In many cases there is not a water supply, so not much can be done. If a house is in good structural order and not liable to be condemned under paragraphs (a) to (k), I cannot see that we are doing a service by condemning it if it has not got a bath, if a bath cannot be installed because there is no water supply. In my area one could condemn a great number of houses. The agricultural cottages would come under two of these paragraphs. I cannot see that the Amendment would take the matter very much further.
    Mr. J. Robertson: To listen to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) one would think that the provisions in the Clause would cover all
    circumstances, but what are the facts. In Paisley—I am now reading from the last survey in Paisley—there are 8,514 tenement houses. Over 7,000 share external w.c.s. There are 8,319 houses with no baths. There are 5,000 houses with no hot water. Three thousand houses have gas heaters. Three thousand have no sculleries. Eight thousand, five hundred have no larders. I could go on. These houses would be condemned under almost every paragraph in the Clause, but they are not being condemned. They are considered to be fit for habitation.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the Committee is ready to come to a decision.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 219, Noes 172.

    Division No. 148.]

    AYES

    [6.37 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Curran, Charles

    Hobson, Sir John

    Aitken, W. T.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Holland, Philip

    Allason, James

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hollingworth, John

    Arbuthnot, John

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hopkins, Alan

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Hornby, R. P.

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    Balniel, Lord

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Barber, Anthony

    Doughty, Charles

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Barlow, Sir John

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Barter, John

    du Cann, Edward

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Batsford, Brian

    Duncan, Sir James

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Bell, Ronald

    Eden, John

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    James, David

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

    Jennings, J. C.

    Biffen, John

    Emery, Peter

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Bishop, F. P.

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Finlay, Graeme

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Bossom, Clive

    Fisher, Nigel

    Kimball, Marcus

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Box, Donald

    Foster, John

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Freeth, Denzil

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Brewis, John

    Gammans, Lady

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Brooman-White, R.

    Clover, Sir Douglas

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Longbottom, Charles

    Bryan, Paul

    Goodhew, Victor

    Longden, Gilbert

    Bullard, Denys

    Gower, Raymond

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Green, Alan

    McLaren, Martin

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Gresham Cooke, R.

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

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Chataway, Christopher

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

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

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Hastings, Stephen

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Collard, Richard

    Hay, John

    Maddan, Martin

    Cooke, Robert

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Maginnis, John E.

    Cooper, A. E.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Maitland, Sir John

    Corfield, F. V.

    Hendry, Forbes

    Marshall, Douglas

    Costain, A. P.

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

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

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

    Mills, Stratton

    Renton, David

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Miscampbell, N.

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Morrison, John

    Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Turner, Colin

    Neave, Airey

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Russell, Ronald

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Seymour, Leslie

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Shaw, M.

    Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Shepherd, William

    Walder, David

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

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

    Wall, Patrick

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Smithers, Peter

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Peel, John

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Percival, Ian

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Whitelaw, William

    Peyton, John

    Speir, Rupert

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Pott, Percivall

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Stodart, J. A.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Wise, A. R.

    Pym, Francis

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Talbot, John E.

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Ramsden, James

    Tapsell, Peter

    Woollam, John

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Worsley, Marcus

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Teeling, Sir William

    Rees, Hugh

    Temple, John M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Mr. Noble and Mr. Frank Pearson

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Padley, W. E.

    Albu, Austen

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Paget, R. T.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Hannan, William

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Harper, Joseph

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Awbery, Stan

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Parker, John

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hayman, F. H.

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Beaney, Alan

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Peart, Frederick

    Benson, Sir George

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Pentland, Norman

    Blackburn, F.

    Holman, Percy

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Blyton, William

    Holt, Arthur

    Prentice, R. E.

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S. W.)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Boyden, James

    Hoy, James H.

    Probert, Arthur

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Randall, Harry

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Rankin, John

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Callaghan, James

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Reid, William

    Chapman, Donald

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Cliffe, Michael

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Rhodes, H.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Cronin, John

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    King, Dr. Horace

    Ross, William

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Short, Edward

    Deer, George

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Dempsey, James

    Lubbock, Eric

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Diamond, John

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Dodds, Norman

    McInnes, James

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Driberg, Tom

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Small, William

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Edelman, Maurice

    MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Steele, Thomas

    Evans, Albert

    Manuel, Archie

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mapp, Charles

    Stones, William

    Finch, Harold

    Mason, Roy

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mayhew, Christopher

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

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Mendelson, J, J.

    Swain, Thomas

    Forman, J. C.

    Millan, Bruce

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Milne, Edward

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Monslow, Walter

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Ginsburg, David

    Moyle, Arthur

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

    Gooch, E. G.

    Neal, Harold

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

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

    Timmons, John

    Gourlay, Harry

    Oliver, G. H.

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Oram, A. E.

    Warbey, William

    Grey, Charles

    Oswald, Thomas

    Weitzman, David

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Owen, Will

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    522

    523

    Whitlock, William

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Willey, Frederick

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

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Lawson and Mr. Irving.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 29.—(DEFAULT POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE IN RELATION TO RENTS.)
    Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 25, line 43, at the end to insert:
    (4) Subsection (5) of section seventy-three of the Act of 1950 shall have effect as if there were added thereto the words "provided that any such change shall not result in the charging of an excessive rent".
    Section 73 (5) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, states:
    "The authority shall from time to time review rents and make such changes either of rents generally or of particular rents and rebates as circumstances may require."
    If this Amendment were accepted, that provision would continue:
    "provided that any such change shall not result in the charging of an excessive rent".
    We discussed in Committee two other Amendments which sought to ensure that the Secretary of State, whom we consider is taking unwarranted powers under this Clause, would at least use those powers not only where a local authority was charging rents that he considered to be too low but where a local authority were charging rents that were excessive. The Under-Secretary tried to make the case that those powers are already there—that the Secretary of State could intervene where a local authority was charging too high a rent—but the whole tenor of the debate on Second Reading and the whole tenor of the debate in Committee has quite clearly shown that the powers that the Secretary of State is taking in this Bill, the powers that he already has under a local Measure of, I think, 1947, and those he has under Section 73 (5) of the 1950 Act, are regarded by him only in the sense that they shall be used to deal with local authorities that are charging rents that are too low.
    We on this side want to ensure beyond any doubt at all that the Secretary of State will have the power to intervene where a local authority is charging rents that are too high. One local authority might be considered to be charging
    524
    excessive rents. The tenants in another authority might consider that their rents are also too high. Some local authority rents might be considered by any reasonable person as being too low. Despite that, the Amendment is designed to deal solely with excessive rents. In Committee last month the Under-Secretary said:
    "It would follow that if the rents were found to be too high the Secretary of State, under power given him in this Clause, could make a rent scheme laying down lower rents in exactly the same way as he could lay down higher rents."
    The hon. Gentleman continued:
    "It is not for the Secretary of State to say what a reasonable rent is … for any particular area."
    All through the Bill we have been puzzled by the inability of the Under-Secretary to tell us what the Government believe to be a reasonable rent. The Under-Secretary added:
    "At the moment, it does not seem to him that the situation in Milngavie warrants his interference. That does not, however, stop residents in the town who feel aggrieved from making a complaint and giving my right hon. Friend the opportunity to consider the matter further."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 27th March, 1962; c. 974, 976, 978.]
    That remark must have led the Committee to believe that no complaint whatever had been made by any tenant in Milngavie to the Secretary of State. That is just not the case. Information has been supplied to me—it came only yesterday—from a tenant in Milngavie who read a report of the debate. Perhaps I should add that we took care to ensure that he read the whole of the debate. My correspondent states that in Committee I quoted from the White Paper the figures of the average standard rent in Milngavie which, according to the White Paper, is £69 16s. 2d. Even that figure was 20 per cent. above the next highest standard rent being charged by any local authority in Scotland. My correspondent goes on to say that that figure of £69 16s. 2d. has been challenged time and again by the tenants of Milngavie.
    At a ratepayers' meeting last week the town treasurer made a clear statement that the average standard rent in Milngavie was not £69 16s. 2d. but

    525
    £80 19s. 8d. Since this information comes from the town treasurer, does the Minister consider this—and I am citing Milngavie as an example because other local authorities may be in this position in the future—to be a reasonable rent? If one takes the average gross annual value, which the Secretary of State thinks is a reasonable rent, it works out at £53. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that an average standard rent of £80 19s. 8d. is excessive? My hon. Friends certainly do. Referring to our proceedings in Committee, my correspondent states:
    ". . Mr. Galbraith gave an assurance that Mr. Maclay had powers to reduce rents."
    The letter points out that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) asked the Secretary of State in November last year if he was prepared to use his power regarding Milngavie. At that time the Secretary of State replied, "No, Sir." My correspondent points out that the Under-Secretary of State suggested that any dissatisfied resident could complain to the Secretary of State and continues:
    "In November the local Tenants Association did so complain and were informed that the Secretary of State was satisfied with the position in Milngavie."
    It is clear, therefore, that this very high standard rent in Milngavie is not considered by the Secretary of State to be excessive, and my hon. Friends and I want to ensure, by the Amendment, that consideration will be given to this matter.
    We have made it clear that we do not want the Secretary of State to interfere, but if he is going to interfere with local authorities in one way we want some protection for people such as those living in Milngavie and others whose rents may be raised to the same degree. If the Under-Secretary today insists that his right hon. Friend already has power to do this, he should have no hesitation about accepting the Amendment which will spell out his powers. If he accepts it we will believe that he is interested in these people who are forced to pay excessive rents, just as interested as he is in those who are paying what he considers to be too low rents. All ratepayers should be considered by the Secretary of State. At present the right hon.
    526
    Gentleman seems to consider every ratepayer but the one who lives in a local authority house.
    Mr. J. A. Stodart: I do not wish to detain the Committee but this is a matter in which every hon. Member should be interested. It is one which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has described as a topic which interests hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland. There was considerable controversy and genuine disagreement on this subject in Committee. I would venture to say, however, that all hon. Members opposite agree on one point: that quite a lot of rents—and I put it no higher than that—have been too low. They would also agree, I think, with the utterances of some of their hon. Friends—among them the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and my own constituent, the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), each of whom has gone perfectly openly on record in the last few years as saying that they do not disagree that some rents in Scotland should be raised.
    7.0 p.m.
    Where there is tremendous room for honest disagreement is on the question of what is a reasonable rent level. What seems reasonable to some seems out of the question to others, and what struck me as being two extreme examples are worthy of consideration. The first I heard on a television programme at Christmas time, when a Glasgow town councillor, an Edinburgh town councillor, Dr. Whitley of St. Giles' Cathedral, and a chairman were discussing the question of rents in Scotland. I have with me the transcript which the B.B.C. has sent me of an extract which interested me and from which I should like to quote.
    The chairman said
    "Now, the average rent in Scotland just now is about 10s. 1d. Is this not"—
    Miss Herbison: On a point of order. You will be aware, Sir William, that the Amendment is a limited one dealing with powers which the Secretary of State should take to deal with excessive rents. So far, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has been dealing with what he considers to be low rents.
    The Chairman: I appreciate the point of order. I have been listening carefully to the debate and there are limits beyond which, I hope, the hon. Gentleman will not go.
    Mr. Stodart: I am trying to show, and hope within the next twenty seconds to show, what one person thinks is an excessive rent. The chairman said:
    "Is this not in fact too low …?"
    Bailie David Gibson, who, I think, is the housing convener of Glasgow, said:
    "Surety not. Is there something very wrong with a thing because it's cheap? Does it need to be dearer? The … first essential, do we not agree that it's a good thing from the health point of view to have a cheap food policy, to have a cheap housing policy, to have a cheap policy for health, health services and so on? As a matter of fact, you make them so cheap you make them free which is a wise thing."
    Those were the words of the housing convener of Glasgow Town Council. Obviously, if Bailie David Gibson considers it a good thing if rents were free, even 5s. or 10s. 1d. would be regarded by him as grossly excessive. I merely say this as an illustration of how difficult it is to arrive at what is a reasonable rent.
    Mr. Thomas Fraser: Is the hon. Member aware that he promised to give a quotation that would show what somebody thought was an excessive rent? Bailie David Gibson did not say that a rent of 10s. 1d. was excessive, as the hon. Member will see if he looks again at his quotation.
    Mr. Stodart: This makes it very clear how difficult it is to arrive at what is a fair rent.
    If one is to find out what is an excessive rent, we also have to find out what is a fair rent. At the other end of the scale, as one who is several benches behind my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has not managed to satisfy the Committee about what he considers to be a reasonable rent, I am happy to say that I consider a reasonable rent to be somewhere between the suggestion of Bailie David Gibson and the highest that I have been able to find, and that is the example of a council which deducts one-seventh of a person's income for rent, excluding rates. That seems to me to be excessive. I make no bones about saying so. The answer lies
    528
    somewhere in between, possibly round about the half-way mark.
    Mr. Dempsey: What is it?
    Mr. Stodart: The half-way mark would be round about 7 per cent.
    In trying to arrive at what is a fair rent beyond which the rent would be excessive, one has to try to take yardsticks and make comparisons. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) said in Committee that one must judge on rents being paid elsewhere and at other times. One yardstick which is not unfair is the ratio of rent to earnings today and pre-war.
    In 1939, rent was an average of 5s. and earnings averaged 69s. Funnily enough, that ratio was exactly 7 per cent. Today, average rent is 10s. 1d. The figure for average earnings in Scotland is a matter of great dispute, but looking at it in its most favourable light, it is am average of £12 a week, the figure which has been agreed by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson).
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: But the cost of living has gone up since 1939.
    Mr. Stodart: The ratio of rent to earnings today has sunk from 7 per cent. to 4 per cent. If one calculated 7 per cent. of £12 today, what I think would be a reasonable rent on average is about 16s. 9d. to 17s. a week.
    Mr. Gourlay: Surely, the hon. Member is trying to colour the argument because when he compares pre-war rent with present-day rent he is not giving the whole picture. He should say what it costs a person to live in a house and compare rent and rates pre-war with rent and rates today. Those are the comparative figures and not solely rent.
    Mr. Stodart: I do not propose to develop this argument, but the hon. Member will find that even if he takes rent and rates as a percentage of earnings, it will not help his case very much. In any event, I do not accept the argument that one is bound to take rates into consideration, because I cannot see why the householder in a corporation house should not face up to the rates. For example, the rating in Edinburgh includes 1s. 3d. for the health services. 1s. 4d. for housing, 1s. 7d. for cleansing

    529
    and 13s. for education. Surely, all these things are not to be tied together with rent, but must be regarded separately.
    Miss Herbison: On a point of order. I must again call notice, Sir William, to the fact that we are working under a Guillotine, not of our seeking, but of the seeking of hon. Members opposite. It seems to me that the points again being made by the horn. Member are as far away from the Amendment as they possibly can be.
    The Chairman: The Amendment deals with excessive rents. Therefore, it would seem to be quite in order to argue what is or is not an excessive rent. In so far as the hon. Member uses that as his argument, he is in order.
    Miss Herbison: Further to the point of order. When I rose to my feet, the hon. Member was telling us what part of the rates—not rents—in Edinburgh went for health and what part went for anything else. It seems to me to be wrong that our time should be used for these purposes when it is so limited.
    The Chairman: Both sides of the Committee come into this. I heard the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) specifically raise the matter of rates besides rent, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) responded. I am sure, however, that the Committee appreciates the situation and that no time will be unnecessarily wasted.
    Mr. Stodart: I thank you, Sir William, for forgiving my following the trail laid by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay).
    My only further point is that as the gap widens between money earned and rent paid, it inevitably means that there must be an increased subvention from the rates. That is inevitable. The City Treasurer of Edinburgh has told us that 200,000 ratepayers there are helping to pay the costs of maintaining 35,000 council houses.
    We often hear stories about very wealthy council house tenants. These stories always reach the headlines, and for that reason it is clear that these people form a very small minority. But there is no doubt—I have many examples of this—that many people in
    530
    my constituency living in their own houses are less well off than certain tenants living in council houses. There is without doubt an injustice being perpetrated in that respect.
    Mr. Ross: That applies to the farming subsidies, too.
    Mr. Stodart: It is most unfair for the hon. Gentleman to try to divert me into discussing agricultural matters.
    Mr. James McInnes: On a point of order. Since the start of the hon. Member's speech right up to the present moment, he has adduced an argument on low rents. He has just said that the Edinburgh City Treasurer has to find a subvention because of the low rent policy in that town. Every word that the hon. Gentleman has uttered has had absolutely nothing to do with the Amendment, which is concerned with excessive rents.
    The Chairman: Of course, there is a connection between a rent being high and a rent being low, but I remind the Committee that the words of the Amendment to which we must try to adhere as closely as possible are
    "provided that any such change shall not result in the charging of an excessive rent".
    That must be the criterion by which I judge whether what an hon. Member is saying is in order.
    Mr. Stodart: I think that I have convinced you, Sir William, that, before one can decide what is an excessive rent, one must have some idea about what is a reasonable rent. I have given my idea of what is a reasonable rent.
    Mr. Willis: What is it?
    Mr. Stodart: The hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber when I dealt with that matter. That is his loss—and, of course, mine.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Gentleman has given a yardstick by which he thinks rents should be judged. He must, therefore, concede that excessive rents are being charged. My question to him is this: if he is in favour of the Secretary of State intervening to raise rents which by his standards are low, is he in favour of the Secretary of State intervening to lower rents which by his standards are high?
    Mr. Stodart: I agree that logic certainly demands that investigations should be made.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. W. Hamilton: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) did not address his argument very closely to the Amendment. That was not very surprising, because throughout the Committee stage we repeatedly asked the Minister and hon. Members opposite what they meant by "a reasonable rent". It is true that there can be arguments about what is an excessively low rent, what is an excessively high rent and what is a reasonable rent, but we must take the Government's view as expressed in the Second Reading debate and in Committee.
    This is the first time that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West has ventured into a discussion about what is a reasonable rent. He never referred to a rent of 7 per cent. of a person's income in Committee, as far as I recollect. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) was much more specific. In Committee, I quoted what the hon. Member said on Second Reading, which was this:
    "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."
    He then went on—and these are the relevant words—
    "Personally, I do not think even that is half enough."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November. 1962: Vol. 649. c. 1444.]
    In other words, the hon. Gentleman thinks that a reasonable rent is about £100 a year.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West thinks that a reasonable rent is 7 per cent. of a person's income. It has been said that rents in Milngavie are roughly £80 a year. Therefore, according to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, rents in Milngavie are not excessive. Does the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West agree with that? Will he rise to his feet and assert that rents in Milngavie are not excessive? I will give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity of answering. It appears that he is not willing to do so.
    Hon. Members opposite always talk as though all rents in Scotland were
    532
    unreasonably low. What we are seeking to do in this Amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to take power to deal with rents which are excessively high. It is interesting that right hon. and hon. Members opposite always refer to excessively low rents in connection with local authority tenants. But the Government connive at providing people with houses at no rent at all. They happen to be grace and favour houses.
    The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is now in serious danger of going beyond the Amendment.
    Mr. Hamilton: I was about to say that one could not call that an excessive rent. If hon. Members opposite want to tackle the rent problem, they should start much nearer home. Why pick on local authority tenants?
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West gave us the usual story about the poverty-stricken people living in private houses subsidising the local authority tenant who has two cars standing in the street outside his house. What about the poor tenant who is subsidising the wealthy farmers, some of whom are sitting on the benches opposite and who are drawing subsidies? No question of other poorer people subsidising them is raised. I am much poorer than the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, yet I am subsidising him. He does not suggest that his subsidy should be reduced in order that my tax problem might be relieved.
    The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going too wide of the Amendment.
    Mr. Hamilton: I merely wished to put the picture in perspective. We are dealing with people who are paying excessive rents, and "excessive" implies a judgment by somebody. We wish to know whether right hon. and hon. Members opposite regard the rents charged in Milngavie as excessive. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West is on record as saying that they are not and that they should be increased by at least 25 per cent.
    The hon. Member recommends a rent of not less than 7 per cent. of a person's income. That is roughly 1s. 6d.

    533
    in the £. I remind the hon. Gentleman that many industrial workers in Scotland are receiving less than £9 a week. The average rent in Scotland is 10s. 1d. Therefore, people are paying more now than the sum which the hon. Gentleman suggests is a reasonable rent. He must, therefore, support our Amendment. We suggest that the Secretary of State should take action against authorities charging rents on average of 10s. to workers who are receiving less than £10—and there are many of them in Scotland. If it is right for the Secretary of State to take action against authorities which are, in his view, charging excessively low rents, we say that he should take action against those authorities which are charging excessive rents. If the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely interested in solving this problem, we will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Brewis: If we look at the Toothill Report, we see that if we had an average figure of 18s. per week for rents in Scotland, that would do away with the need for any rate contribution at all, and that an average rent of 15s. a week would do away with a rate contribution in excess of the Exchequer contribution. I think that gives us some guidance as to what rents might be.
    I have heard the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) say in Committee and here time and time again that we should trust the local authority, because the local authority would know what is right. When we consider rents, there are various things to be taken into account, such as the capacity of the tenant to pay and the amount of work which the landlord does to maintain the property—and sometimes landlords do internal decorations, fit washers to taps and so on, and in such cases, they would be entitled to a bigger rent. Incidentally, when we look at the provisions of Clause 25, we find that local authorities will have to take on a bigger repairs burden than that which they often carry at the moment. Therefore, it seems to me that the people to decide the rents are the local authorities.
    I am very surprised at the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North putting forward this point, because
    534
    Section 73 (5) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, provides
    "The authority shall from time to time review rents and make such changes either of rents generally or of particular rents and rebates as circumstances may require."
    The whole point of this business has arisen because Dunbartonshire and Glasgow have not reviewed their rents at all, and that is where the trouble started
    Sir M. Galpern: I think that the hon. Gentleman is under a complete misapprehension with regard to Glasgow. I can assure him that Glasgow has on two occasions reviewed the rents, but there is no direction to the Glasgow Corporation and no indication that, as a result of the review, the Corporation must raise the rents to astronomical figures. Having reviewed the rents carefully, with the expert advice of the city factor and the assessor at that time, the corporation came to the conclusion that certain adjustments were required, but these were not acceptable to the Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in saying that Glasgow did not review rents.
    Mr. Brewis: With very great respect, I wish to differ from the hon. Gentleman. I have here a copy of the Shaw Report on Glasgow rents, and, reading from page 14, recommendation 6—
    Mr. Ross: On a point of order. I am wondering, Sir William, what exactly this has to do with this Amendment.
    The Chairman: I have been listening carefully, and I do not think that the hon. Member has gone further from the Amendment than the other examples which have been put from both sides of the Committee. I appreciate that the Committee should keep as closely as possible to the terms of the Amendment. May I remind the Committee once more that this Amendment is to add the words—
    "Provided that any such change shall not result in the charging of an excessive rent."
    That is what we are debating.
    Mr. Brewis: I was saying that the local authority had to review the rents and to see whether they are too low or excessive. In the case of the Glasgow Corporation, it has on many occasions since 1953 refused, on being so moved,

    535
    to review rents, and that is why it was necessary to hold this inquiry.
    Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman has just made a very excellent case that rents are the concern of the local authority, and he went so far as to say that, in his opinion, the local authorities were the people who should decide. What is he complaining about when they do decide?
    Sir M. Galpern: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he means by "from time to time"? Who is to determine what time is to elapse? Since 1953, rents in Glasgow have been reviewed twice.
    Mr. Brewis: The hon. Gentleman will find, if he reads that Report, that the local authorities are under a statutory duty under the 1950 Act. I will read the provision again:
    "The authority shall from time to time review rents and make such changes either of rents generally or of particular rents and rebates as circumstances may require."
    Mr. Fraser: On a point of order. I submit that, on this Amendment, no one is entitled to discuss whether or not local authorities are entitled or obliged to review rents. As a matter of fact, I think we all appreciate that local authorities are obliged to review rents. I submit that we are only entiled to consider whether we should add to the responsibilities of local authorities, in addition to what is provided in Section 73 (5) of the 1950 Act, that any such change which it might make shall not result in charging an excessive rent. The question before the Committee is whether or not we should put this limitation upon local authorities when they have to review rents, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has not applied himself to the Amendment.
    The Chairman: I suppose the effect of a change suggests that a review might be made before the change takes place, but I hope that the hon. Member will not go further than he needs on this Amendment.
    Mr. Brewis: I was merely arguing that these words are necessary, because we should leave it to the local authority, taking all things into account, to decide whether rents are excessive or not. For example, Milngavie recently reviewed
    536
    rents and, in my submission, the local authority is the best body to decide whether the rents are reasonable or not.
    Mr. Ross: As far as I can gather, the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) thinks that when rents are too high, they are reasonable—that is what he said—and, in such a case, we should trust the local authority.
    Can the hon. Gentleman be a little more objective about this? We are dealing with a Bill the whole purpose of which, as declared by the Government and agreed by back benchers opposite, as hon. Members who have read the Bill or the White Paper will realise, is to raise rents in Scotland. Does any hon. Member opposite deny that? The purpose of the Bill is to raise rents. The purpose of the power taken in Clause 29, to which we shall come later, is to raise rents, and if the hon. Gentleman would take the trouble to read the White Paper on housing, he will see that that is perfectly clear. Indeed, in the same way, the purpose of a new Clause which is on the Notice Paper, and to which the hon. Gentleman has put his name, is to raise rents in respect of another section of houses altogether. That being so, surely we are in the position, or will in future be in the position, that in Scotland we may have local authorities going far too far in respect of many people who are quite unable to pay anything like economic rents and who are faced with a situation in which the rents are excessive. These things have happened in Scotland before. These default powers have had to be used in respect of the responsibilities of local authorities, and Secretaries of State from time to time have had to intervene.
    If it was right, as hon. Gentlemen opposite admit, for the Secretary of State to have an inquiry in regard to local authorities whose rents are low, he will surely appreciate that it may well be necessary in future, if not now, to have this power to intervene in respect of excessive rents. That is the whole point, and the only thing we are discussing at the moment—whether or not. by any change that is made after a review of rents, the rents charged are excessive. The tenants or ratepayers may complain to the Secretary of State, and the right hon. Gentleman, having examined their complaint, may set up an inquiry. That is what we are discussing.

    537
    We now want to put these words into the Bill as a future protection for the people of Scotland. I should be very surprised if the hon. Gentleman opposite would go to his constituency and deny this right. Would the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), who sat so silent until he was questioned by one of my hon. Friends in regard to what rents are in Milngavie, go to Inverurie in his constituency and tell them that their rents should be raised? He knows quite well that he has not the courage to do that. He Likes to argue and to make vague generalisations about low rents, but when he has an opportunity to protect his constituents from being charged excessive rents, according to his or someone else's standard, he prefers to dodge the question and perform a Parliamentary "twist" without discussing the matter at issue. This is purely and simply a matter of affording some protection to Scottish council house tenants from what may be in the future, after the Bill is passed, very much higher and even excessive rents.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Hendry: I was invited by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) to intervene during his speech. I did not do so because I was asked a specific question and I would far rather deal with this whole matter generally and hope to answer all the questions which have been put to me as I do so.
    We are here concerned with reviews by local authorities of rents and with their making such changes in rents and rebates from time to time as may be most appropriate. That does not mean that the rents have to be increased or decreased. It means that the local authorities have to alter rents and rebates to meet the circumstances of their particular case.
    In Scotland, as in other places, there is a vast range of incomes of tenants and what may be an excessive rent for one may be very much less than a proper rent for another. If a person can afford to pay an economic rent for his house, he should do so. I do not think that hon. Members opposite would suggest that the rents being charged in Milngavie are anything like the economic rents. There is no mysterious fund from which the cost of the upkeep of houses
    538
    can be drawn. Apart from subsidies, the cost of upkeep can come from only two sources—rents and rates—and both are contributed by the people who live in the area of the local authority concerned. I say without fear of contradiction that if a person can afford to pay the full rent, he ought to do so. When we discussed Clause 11, which provides for the building of houses without subsidies, hon. Members opposite agreed that the rents for those houses should be the economic rents.
    The Amendment is concerned with a local authority which is charging excessive rents, but I know of no local authority in Scotland—and this is the question which I was asked—which is charging excessive rents. There is another side to the question of the review of rents and that is the review of rebates. Every local authority should be concerned both with proper rents and proper rebates.
    Mr. Willis: This has nothing to do with the Amendment.
    Mr. Ross: It is not in the Amendment.
    Miss Herbison: On a point of order. Rent rebates and what is happening with rent rebates have nothing whatever to do with the Amendment, which is specifically concerned with local authorities charging excessive rents, a matter with which the hon. Member has not been dealing.
    The Chairman: Anything connected with whether a rent is excessive must be in order, and so far as the argument of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire. West (Mr. Hendry) covers that point, he is in order.
    Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Member answer one plain question? Is he or is he not in favour of protecting people against excessive rents? That is the only question before the Committee.
    Mr. Hendry: I thank you for dealing with that point of order as you did, Sir William. I will try my hardest to keep even more strictly in order. I do not think that the question of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was strictly in order.
    Mr. Willis: Of course it is. It is the only question.
    Mr. T. Fraser: On a point of order. Is not the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) the only question which is in order? Is not the question before the Committee whether a local authority should not be able to charge an excessive rent? Is that- not the question which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) has to answer, whatever he may think an excessive rent is?
    The Chairman: I saw nothing out of order in the question asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh. East (Mr. Willis).
    Mr. Hendry: I will be guided by you. Sir William, and—
    Mr. Willis: Further to that point of order. All that the Amendment seeks to do is to protect tenants against excessive rents. The hon. Member has now stated that he has no intention of addressing himself to this question? If that is so, is not his speech out of order?
    The Chairman: If I am of opinion that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West is out of order, it will be my duty to interrupt him.
    Mr. Hendry: May I revert to my argument?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman does not have one.
    Mr. Hendry: The Amendment will produce absolutely nothing, and hon. Members opposite will agree that legislation which means nothing is bad legislation and should not be passed. The 1950 Act provides machinery for dealing with an excessive rent. It also provides that a local authority must consider rebates and make such changes in rebates as may be necessary from time to time. That is the best safeguard for ensuring that poorer tenants are looked after.
    Mr. Ross Mr. Ross rose—
    Mr. Hendry: I cannot give way. Hon. Members opposite have complained enough about the passage of time, and I must take a leaf out of their book and refuse to give way.
    540
    The 1950 Act provides that a local authority shall have a duty to consider not only rents, but rebates, and that is an adequate safeguard for tenants who are not able to pay what the local authority regards as a proper rent. If in reviewing its rents and rebates a local authority fails to make proper provision for a person unable to afford to pay the rent, that person has the simple remedy of complaining to the Secretary of State, in accordance with the 1950 Act, and saying that that local authority has failed in its duty. The Secretary of State will then have a duty, under the Bill, to take disciplinary action against that local authority, no matter whether it has failed to charge a sufficient rent or whether its rents are too great.
    Mr. Manuel Mr. Manuel rose—
    Mr. Hendry: I cannot give way because of the passage of time.
    Mr. Manuel: With his views about the under-charging of rents, I wonder why the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) has not initiated an agitation for a review of rents in Aberdeenshire, which charges only £20 18s. a year, while Dunbartonshire, a county about which the hon. Member is constantly complaining, charges £6 a year more than the county which he represents.
    Mr. Hendry: That is something of a red herring, but at the risk of getting out of order, I ask permission to answer to some extent. The hon. Member has not kept himself up to date. Aberdeenshire now charges a rent of 10 per cent. over and above the rateable value.
    Mr. Manuel: That was my latest information.
    Mr. Hendry: It may be the hon. Member's latest information, but it is completely out of date.
    I can put what I have to say in a nutshell. The provisions of the 1950 Act and of the Bill are sufficient to ensure that the Secretary of State can interfere if rents being charged are too low, as in the case of Dunbartonshire where they are 2s. 10d. a week, or too high for the tenants to pay. In either case a complaint can be made to the Secretary of State. In fact, a complaint does not have

    541
    to be made. He can on his own initiative take action against a local authority to bring rent and rebates into line with the circumstances as appropriate in the area at the time.
    Mr. Galbraith: We have had an interesting, lively, and, I think, fairly wide-ranging debate on this Amendment. Section 73 (5) of the 1950 Act requires a local authority from time to time to review rents and to make such changes either of rents generally or of particular rents and rebates as circumstances may require. The Amendment seeks to add the proviso that any change in rents resulting from such a review shall not result in the charging of excessive rents.
    The Amendment is not concerned with the new provisions that we are proposing in Clause 29 to enable the Secretary of State to make a rent scheme where a local authority has been found to be in default. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) is now turning her attention to the existing provisions of the 1950 Act and seeking to amend the provisions relating to a local authority's rent fixing obligations which have remained unchanged under both Labour and Conservative Administrations since 1949.
    When the hon. Lady moved the Amendment, she expressed great concern about the possibility that a local authority might charge rents which were excessively high. In fact, she mentioned only one example, the small burgh of Milngavie, and it seemed to me that she was making rather heavy weather of this case. There has been no marked tendency on the part of local authorities in recent years to charge rents which are excessively high. As my right hon. Friend has said on a number of occasions, the trend has been in the opposite direction.
    Mr. Manuel: In his opinion.
    Mr. Galbraith: I should have thought that it was also the opinion of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that the rents charged by many local authorities in Scotland were too low.
    Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman says that his right hon. Friend has referred to this on many occasions. My point is that the right hon. Gentleman's statements are much too all-embracing, and that we continually have this lambasting and denigration of local authorities and municipal tenants. We believe in charging reasonable rents, but we think that this slur should not be cast generally on municipal tenants in Scotland.
    Mr. Galbraith: I did not intend that at all. My right hon. Friend has on frequent occasions recently had to complain about a trend in the opposite direction from that about which the hon. Lady was complaining. In any case the protection for tenants against being asked to pay rents which are unreasonably high in relation to their resources is provided by the existence of a proper rebates scheme; and I know that there is a proper rebate scheme in Milngavie.
    The hon. Lady and hon. Gentlemen opposite no doubt have it in mind that if this provision were added to Section 73 (5) of the 1950 Act it might be easier for the Secretary of State to find a local authority in default on the ground that it was charging rents which were excessively high. Here again, as on an Amendment put forward with a similar object in Committee, I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that their concern on this point is unnecessary.
    Section 73 (5) which they are seeking to amend refers to changes in rents; but the rents which result from any such change must, in the terms of Section 71 (1) of the 1950 Act, be "reasonable,"—as indeed must all rents which local authorities charge for their houses. If, therefore, a local authority charged rents which were excessively high, this could not be said to be a reasonable level of rents; it would therefore be possible for the Secretary of State after the normal procedure of inquiry had been gone through, and if he thought fit, to declare that authority in default for charging rents which were unreasonably high. The words which the hon. Lady wishes to add to Section 73 (5) would not add anything to the protection already available to tenants against the charging of excessive rents. For this reason I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 150, Noes 194.

    Division No. 149.]

    AYES

    [7.46 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Harper, Joseph

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Albu, Austen

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Pentland, Norman

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Awbery, Stan

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Probert, Arthur

    Beaney, Alan

    Holman, Percy

    Proctor, W. T.

    Benson, Sir George

    Houghton, Douglas

    Randall, Harry

    Blackburn, F.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Rankin, John

    Blyton, William

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Bowden, Rt. Ht. H. W. (Leics. S. W.)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Reid, William

    Boyden, James

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Rhodes, H.

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

    Callaghan, James

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Ross, William

    Chapman, Donald

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Short, Edward

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Cronin, John

    King, Dr. Horace

    Small, William

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Lawson, George

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Darling, George

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Deer, George

    McCann, John

    Steele, Thomas

    Dempsey, James

    McInnes, James

    Stones, William

    Diamond, John

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Driberg, Tom

    MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

    Swain, Thomas

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Manuel, Archie

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Mapp, Charles

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Marsh, Richard

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

    Evans, Albert

    Mason, Roy

    Timmons, John

    Finch, Harold

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Weitzman, David

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Millan, Bruce

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Forman, J. C.

    Milne, Edward

    Whitlock, William

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Monslow, Walter

    Willey, Frederick

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Moyle, Arthur

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Gimburg, David

    Neal, Harold

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Oram, A. E.

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

    Gourlay, Harry

    Oswald, Thomas

    Winter-bottom, R. E.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Owen, Will

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Padley, W. E.

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Paget, R. T.

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Parker, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hannan, William

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. Grey.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Bullard, Denys

    Duncan, Sir James

    Aitken, W. T.

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Eden, John

    Allason, James

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Chataway, Christopher

    Elliott, R. W. (Nwc'stle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Emery, Peter

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Barlow, Sir John

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Barter, John

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Farr, John

    Batsford, Brian

    Collard, Richard

    Finlay, Graeme

    Bell, Ronald

    Cooke, Robert

    Fisher, Nigel

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Corfield, F. V.

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Costain, A. P.

    Foster, John

    Biffen, John

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Fraser, Ian (Pymouth, Sutton)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Freeth, Denzil

    Bishop, F. P.

    Curran, Charles

    Gammans, Lady

    Bossom, Clive

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Dance, James

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Box, Donald

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Goodhart, Philip

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Goodhew, Victor

    Brewis, John

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Gower, Raymond

    Brooman-White, R.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Brown, Allan (Tottenham)

    Doughty, Charles

    Green, Alan

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    du Cann, Edward

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Lubbock, Eric

    Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Russell, Ronald

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Hastings, Stephen

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Seymour, Leslie

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Maddan, Martin

    Shaw, M.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Maginnis, John E.

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

    Hendry, Forbes

    Maitland, sir John

    Smithers, Peter

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

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

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Speir, Rupert

    Hobson, Sir John

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

    Stodart, J. A.

    Holland, Philip

    Mills, Stratton

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Hollingworth, John

    Miscampbell, N.

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Holt, Arthur

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Talbot, John E.

    Hopkins, Alan

    Morrison, John

    Tapsell, Peter

    Hornby, R. P.

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Teeling, Sir William

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Temple, John M.

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Neave, Airey

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Noble, Michael

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    James, David

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Jennings, J. C.

    Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Walder, David

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Wall, Patrick

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Peel, John

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Percival, Ian

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Peyton, John

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Pott, Percivall

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Wise, A. R.

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Pym, Francis

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Woollam, John

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Ramsden, James

    Worsley, Marcus

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Longbottom, Charles

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Mr. Gordon Campbell and

    Longden, Gilbert

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Mr. McLaren.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House, pursuant to Order [17th March].
    Bill reported, without Amendment; as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

    New Clause.—(POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO PRESCRIBE NEW RENT LIMIT OF CONTROLLED HOUSE.)
    (1) (a) the Secretary of State may if he thinks fit by order provide that, as from such date as may be specified in the order, the rent. in the case of any dwelling-house subject to a controlled tenancy, recoverable from the tenant shall, notwithstanding anything in the terms of the tenancy or any enactment, be fixed in relation to the amount of the gross annual value thereof in such manner as the order may provide.
    (b) An order made under this section may contain such incidental consequential and supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient for giving effect to the purposes of the order.
    (c) For the purposes of this subsection "controlled tenancy" has the same meaning as in the Rent Act, 1957, and "gross annual value" in relation to any dwelling-house to
    546
    which an order made under this section applies means the gross annual value of such dwelling-house as shown in the valuation roll for the year 1961–62 or for any subsequent year, or, where the dwelling-house forms part only of the land or heritage shown in the valuation roll, such proportion of the gross annual value shown in the valuation roll for that land or heritage as may be agreed in writing between the landlord and the tenant or determined by the sheriff.
    (2) (a) The power to make an order conferred on the Secretary of State by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
    (b) Any such order may be amended or revoked by a subsequent order made in like manner and subject to the like conditions.
    (3) Where, pursuant to an order made by the Secretary of State under this section, the rent of any dwelling-house subject to a controlled tenancy recoverable from the tenant thereof is increased the amount of such increase shall be disregarded in determining any question as to the rights of the tenant to retain possession of such dwelling-houses as a statutory tenant and such rights shall not be prejudiced or affected thereby.—[Mr. Hendry.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Hendry: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

    547
    The Bill which we have before us this afternoon is an excellent one. It sets out to give greater help to those authorities who most need it; it sets out to do something that is very necessary in Scotland, namely, to provide houses for letting; it makes new provision for strengthening the hands of local authorities in dealing with houses unfit for human habitation, and it gives additional powers to the Secretary of State to deal with certain abuses which have crept in during the course of the years.
    Unfortunately it is not complete. One very important provision is left out. It does not attempt to l with one of the basic causes of bad housing in Scotland. Undoubtedly the housing position in Scotland now is extremely bad. No houses have been built for letting for many years. Generally speaking, those houses which are privately owned in Scotland and are available for letting are gradually becoming more and more dilapidated. A great proportion of the houses in Scotland have reached a state of dilapidation when they can no longer reasonably be regarded as fit for human habitation. It is to deal with that basic fault in the Scottish housing system that I move the new Clause.
    A certain amount of misunderstanding seems to have arisen about it, and I want to tell the House, at the outset, just what the new Clause does not do.
    Mr. Willis: Why not tell us what it does do? The hon. Member would be in order if he told us that.
    Mr. Hendry: If the Clause is given a Second reading and thus forms part of the Bill, paragraph (3) will ensure that no house is removed from control. That is a very important matter, because pledges have been given at one time or another that during the lifetime of this Parliament the Government will not remove any houses from control.
    I want to deal briefly with the difference between the restriction on rents and the control of houses under the main Acts, because the two things are very much tied up together. It must be pointed out that the position of Scotland is different from that of England, and I must develop my argument in order to show how the two situations differ.
    548
    At the beginning of the First World War—in 1915—provision was made that the rents of houses both in England and Scotland would remain at their existing level and that no matter what the length of the lease the tenant of the house at that time would have security of tenure. That was right and proper when the country was in an exceptional situation, and for a long time afterwards, when there was a serious shortage of houses. In 1920 provision was made for a permitted increase in the rents chargeable for controlled houses throughout the United Kingdom. The amount varied from place to place according to circumstances, but generally speaking—
    Mr. Willis: On a point of order. I submit that the hon. Member has now been speaking for between five and ten minutes without having referred to the subject matter of his Clause, which deals with a very simple matter, namely, the amount of rent to be paid.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): The hon. Member is developing his case for the new Clause. We should get on better if he were allowed to do so.
    Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. T. Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We are operating under a Guillotine Motion which has been imposed by the majority who sit on the Government benches. In all the circumstances, I submit to you, Sir, that you have a duty to the minority, the Opposition, to prevent hon. Members on the Government benches from abusing this timetable Motion by making speeches which are clearly out of order.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have ruled that the hon. Gentleman is not out of order. If he gets out of order I shall call him to order.
    Mr. Hendry: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Let me now return to what happened in 1920—
    Mr. T. Fraser: If the hon. Gentleman intends to deal with what happened in 1920. I submit that he is most definitely out of order.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman should be allowed to develop his case. It is always in order to develop a case. If I may say so with all due respect, the hon. Gentleman will get on more quickly if he is allowed to do so, and we shall save time.
    Mr. Hendry: I am obliged to you, Sir.
    I have almost finished what I was going to say about 1920. By and large, in both kingdoms landlords were entitled to raise rents by roughly 40 per cent. The reason for that was that the cost of repairs and so on had increased during the war and it was necessary for landlords to increase rents in order to cover the increased costs. In England that produced a system which was quite reasonable for a number of years, but in Scotland there was a peculiarity which was purely Scottish. It was not an English problem at all. It was that the landlord had to pay part of the rates in respect of the house.
    During the years the tendency was for the rates to rise, with the result that the landlord had an increasing burden to bear out of his rents, which he could not pass on to the tenant. The general effect was that in Scotland the rents, instead of remaining stationary as they did in England, gradually diminished until the situation became so serious that in 1957 something had to be done about it. In 1957 a Bill was introduced which altered the situation. In England it was comparatively easy to do so, because just before then there had been a complete revaluation of all house property in England.
    Mr. Willis: For goodness sake get on with the new Clause.
    Mr. Hendry: Provision was made whereby the rents of controlled houses would be related to the rateable values, but in Scotland that was not possible because no such revaluation had taken place. In Scotland a small addition, which varied from time to time and from place to place, was permitted in these rents. But the effect of that was extraordinary, and it may surprise hon. Members to know that in many cases the rent, after the Rent Act was introduced in 1957, was actually less than it had been in 1920.
    Mr. Manuel: The tenant was paying the same, though.
    Mr. Hendry: In Glasgow a house which in 1920 was rented for £20, in 1962 has a rent of £15 11s. 8d. In the County of Dunbarton, another urban county in the South of Scotland, a rent of £20 in 1920 has become a rent of £10 7s. 6d. this year.
    Mr. Manuel: The tenant is paying the same
    Mr. Hendry: Obviously there has been a material change in the costs met by landlords in the interval. I cannot give an up-to-date figure of the cost of repairs, but a committee reported in 1953 that at that time the cost of repairs had risen by 216 per cent. since 1939, and certainly the cost of repairs has risen since then. The effect of that is that unless a landlord is prepared to produce money out of his own pocket, which many of them have done, he cannot keep his house in proper repair out of the rent. A great many houses in Scotland, as hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware, have become seriously dilapidated and there are still a great many houses in Scotland which are basically perfectly good houses and capable of improvement.
    Mr. Dempsey: They have been dilapidated for the past thirty years.
    Mr. Hendry: I do not suggest that all the privately-owned houses in Scotland are good and that all privately-owned houses would have been kept in a proper condition if a proper rent structure had been set up in 1957, but hon. Members will understand the magnitude of this problem in Scotland when I mention that at the time of the Rent Act in 1957 there were estimated to be no fewer than 600,000 houses in control in Scotland, and the estimated figure today is now fewer than 450,000 houses, which is a vast slice of the housing accommodation in Scotland and housing now no fewer than one-third of the population. Therefore, this is a matter of extreme importance.
    As year follows year these houses are running the risk of further dilapidation, and it is for that reason that I have introduced this Clause. In doing so I have followed a very good precedent.

    551
    In the debate on the Rent Act in 1957 this point was discussed in the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, speaking in the Third Reading debate in March, 1957, 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 REPORT, 28th March. 1957 Vol. 567. c. 1421.]
    Since 1957 a good many things have happened. There has been a complete revaluation of all heritable property, including house property, in Scotland. The change to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred in his speech in 1957 has taken place. This revaluation has taken place and the Government are now in a position to consider the effects of these revaluations and produce a completely new rent structure for controlled houses in Soot-land in the same way as took place in England in 1957.
    Mr. J. Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if the rents of privately-owned houses were increased to the gross rateable value, all the necessary repairs and alterations, including the installation of inside lavatories, running water, hot water systems and so on, would be provided?
    Mr. Hendry: The hon. Member knows the powers and duties of local authorities as well as any other hon. Member, and he can make up his own mind about that himself. The fact is that thousands of basically sound houses in Scotland have become dilapidated because the controlled rents are insufficient to meet the cost of repair, and many more will be lost unless these steps are taken. Hon. Members know that very well.
    Mr. Willis: That is sheer nonsense.
    Mr. Hendry: I agree that this matter may cause the Government a little embarrassment. I shall try to satisfy my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that he need have no embarrassment at all. Just before the last election the then Minister of Housing and Local Government in England made a statement at a Press conference, when he said that the Government would not remove any
    552
    houses from rent control. As I took care to point out at the beginning of my speech, this Clause has not that effect and no house will be taken out of control as a result of it.
    The second point which might embarrass my right hon. Friend is that the then Minister of Housing and local Government subsequently said, outside this House, that no alteration would be made in rent levels during the lifetime of this Parliament. By that I take him to mean that he would make no alteration in the level of rents at which houses were controlled or decontrolled, which in Scotland at the moment stands at £40. I am not seeking to make any alteration in that at all.
    I would remind hon. Members of the provisions of Section 11 (3) of the Rent Act, 1957, which gives power to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by order to remove houses from control. I suggest to my hon. Friend that what the Government spokesman meant at that time, if indeed he meant anything at all, was that no steps would be taken under Section 11 (3) to bring houses out of control by altering the rent level by which they remained in control.
    If the Government give effect to this, they will, in my opinion, be quite consistent with their pledge. I have taken even greater care to make sure that the Government need have no embarrassment about this. I have in my new Clause tried in no way to fix what level of rent would be appropriate for these houses. What I seek to do is to give powers to the Secretary of State at such time as he thinks fit to make a new rent structure. It may be that he is not yet ready to do that because I understand that in some parts of Scotland revaluation has not been completed. If he finds any difficulty on that score, he need not be worried, because the new Clause gives him discretion to impose this rent structure as and when he thinks fit, which may not be in the course of the present Parliament, although I hope that it will be.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Does that mean that the Clause bears no relation to the amount of the gross annual value? Is it merely words, or does it mean that it is an argument to try to bring parity

    553
    between the practice in regard to council houses and the practice in houses of this kind? What is the purpose of it?
    Mr. Hendry: It means that the Secretary of State, in considering this matter, has merely to use the annual value as a sort of yardstick. It might be higher than the level in use or it might be lower. To illustrate that, in England the Minister used the gross annual value as the yardstick of rents but he did not use it simplicitá, because it was fixed immediately after the war and things had changed. In England, at the moment, I understand that the level of rents of controlled houses is not the gross annual value, but twice the gross annual value, which shows that that is merely a measure which might be used for the purpose of settling things at some time in the future.
    Mr. J. Robertson: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what is twice the gross annual value in England? What is the figure—is it £20?
    Mr. Hendry: If I were to answer that question, I should be completely out of order, in discussing rents in England. I am discussing the situation in Scotland. We are trying to give the Secretary of State power to remedy this situation in which we find ourselves in Scotland.
    I have spoken at considerable length. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] No doubt, I have spoken very much longer than hon. Members opposite would have liked, but I feel that I must remind the House of the extraordinary situation of these houses in Scotland. An example of 1962 rents for a three apartment controlled house with all modern conveniences—kitchenette, bathroom, hot and cold water and all the rest—in the City of Glasgow is 9s. a week. The average figure for a similar house in Dumbarton is only 6s. a week. That is rather less than the 1920 rents for the same houses, which is a completely fantastic situation.
    Mr. McInnes: May I ask the hon. Member where he got his figures? Did the Factors and Property Owners Association supply them?
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Hendry: I got the figures from the organisation to which the hon. Gentleman refers which, of course, is an
    554
    organisation which has made a study of these matters. If any hon. Gentlemen opposite are in doubt about the veracity of the figures, I will read, in conclusion, parts of a letter which I received last year from a lady in my constituency. This lady, who is elderly and has very slender means, told me that she bought a house, a double villa, which consists of two semi-detached houses each containing three apartments, with bathroom and kitchenette. One of these houses was let under controlled tenancy and at the time she bought it the controlled rent was £13 per annum. In 1957, under the new Act, she was allowed to increase the rent by 25 per cent., making the present rent £16 5s.
    Mr. Ross: She could have increased it considerably more—by 50 per cent.—if she had been able to show that she had been doing the repairs.
    Mr. Hendry: I am reading from the lady's letter—[Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite want me to carry on longer I am willing to do so.
    Having got her rent to £16 5s. she then had to deduct from it no less than £5 7s. 3d. in respect of owner's rates, leaving her with a net rent for that house of £10 17s. 9d. That was not slum property. It was a stone-built house kept in first-class repair which that lady has had to pay for out of her own pocket.
    Mr. Manuel: On the point of owner's rates, which in this case amount to about £6, will he not agree that that is a much better bargain now than it was previously when individual house owners had to pay for the services of the fire brigade, which is now paid for by the general body of ratepayers? They now get these services free and the cost is carried by the rest of the ratepayers.
    Mr. Hendry: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if he can get a three-apartment, stone built house, with a kitchenette and bathroom, for £10 17s. 9d. a year, or 4s. 2d. a week, it is a mighty good bargain. There is the situation. The present gross annual value of that house on revaluation is £29. Obviously that it what the county assessor considers to be the proper rent of that house and all that this lady is entitled to charge is £10 17s. 9d., or

    555
    4s. 2d. a week. She concludes her letter with these pathetic words:
    "I am sure you, with your sense of justice, will be able to help those poor small house owners who need help so badly. I am (a greedy grasping landlord). Yours respectfully, Miss Anton."
    That is what I am asking the House to give the Secretary of State power to remedy. It is with the greatest confidence that I commend the new Clause to the House.
    Mr. T. Fraser: This is a disgraceful Clause, and we have just listened to a disgraceful speech. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) has taken half-an-hour of the time allotted to consider this Bill to discuss a matter which does not come even within the Long Title of the Bill. He has made abundantly clear that he sees the purpose of this Bill is to enable there to be an indefinite continuation of the right of private enterprise landlords to draw rents for houses which they own and which have been occupied for the past hundred years. By this Clause the hon. Gentleman is asking that rents for these hundred-year-old houses which are less than the gross annual value, as determined by the assessor, shall be raised to that figure or that at least the new rent shall have a relationship to the valuation.
    Is this done in the interests of equity? Does the hon. Gentleman have in mind that the figure determined by the assessor should be the figure of rent to be paid by all who occupy private enterprise rented houses in Scotland? Not at all. As the hon. Gentleman has said, there are about 450,000 controlled houses in Scotland. There are about 150,000 houses that were taken out of control by the provisions of the 1957 Act, and houses are coming out of control with every week that passes. In every case the rent charged after control ceases greatly exceeds the amount laid down by the county or city assessor.
    In the interests of equity, did the hon. Gentleman suggest that rent should be brought back to the amount determined by the assessor? In reaching this gross annual value the hon. Gentleman was determining what he regarded as a fair rent. But it is suggested in the interests of equity that the assessor should determine
    556
    a figure which would be made applicable in the case of those 150,000 houses taken out of control since 1957? Not at all? The hon. Gentleman did not move this Clause in the interests of equity, but in the interests of the landlords. And I am not sure that he should not have declared his own interest.
    The vast majority of those 450,000 controlled houses in Scotland were built before 1880. The vast majority of them are one- and two-apartment houses with no amenities at all. With no hot and cold water supply, no bathroom and no kitchen. The vast majority of the tenants have to share a toilet with several other tenants. Thirty years ago a Royal Commission said that the owners of those houses regarded them as a dripping roast that would go on dripping for ever. In the intervening thirty years most of the landlords have not spent any money at all on keeping those houses in a decent state of repair.
    The hon. Gentleman regrets very much that the net income from those houses is less today than forty-two years ago when the 1920 Act was put on the Statute Book. Those houses have earned more and more money during those years and in most cases no money has been spent upon them to keep them in an adequate state of repair. Every decent-thinking Scot wishes to see most of those 450,000 houses, which the hon. Gentleman himself said were dilapidated, pulled down and replaced by decent houses for our people. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that this Bill is not calculated to increase the supply of houses by a single house a year. The net effect of its provisions will be to reduce the number of new houses built in Scotland to replace those which are 80, 90, 100 and 110 years old, the sort of houses occupied by many of our fellow citizens.
    The hon. Gentleman knows full well that about one-fifth or more of the population—about one-third—live in houses privately owned and rented. He recognises that nearly one-third are living in houses still rented. The number is a little less than one-third but more than one-quarter. The hon. Gentleman knows that more than one-fifth of our fellow citizens are living in the sort of houses which I have described, with no amenities at all. In the main it is in

    557
    respect of that type of house that the acceptance of the hon. Gentleman's Clause would result in there being a little more "lolly" few the landlord. I do not know why even the hon. Gentleman was not ashamed of himself as he moved this new Clause. I sincerely hope that the Under-Secretary will reject it. If he does not, he will show that the Government have shed the last remnants of decency that reside on the benches opposite.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley.
    Miss Herbison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I understand that the question has been raised with you before, but we are working under a timetable Motion and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) took, I understand, about twenty-four minutes of our precious time in moving this Motion. I hope that the Minister will deal with the matter at once, but if not I wish to move, That the Question be now put. There are other matters of immense importance which we shall not be able to discuss and which could not be discussed during the Committee stage because of the imposition of a Guillotine, which was supported by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but I must tell the hon. Lady that that is not a point of order. I have called the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley). I hope that the hon. Member will be brief.
    Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: I have—
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Member should declare his interest.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley —not had an opportunity to speak because I was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill for reasons that were beyond my control. I have a speech which I can make if I am provoked by hon. Members opposite. In view of the fact that I know the House wishes to pass on to other matters of importance I will take the minimum amount of time. But I must ask for the courtesy of an opportunity to say that I think that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) did not put the whole picture before the House.
    When we referred to controlled houses we were speaking of the homes of one-third of the people of Scotland. Although many of these houses are old, and I agree with the hon. Member when he says that many should be swept away and that decent Scotsmen would like to see them pulled down, in fairness, I must say that quite a number are decent flats in the cities and have all the amenities. They are not bad houses and they are eagerly sought after by tenants.
    Mr. Ross: How many?
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I am not going into a lot of detail. Obviously if I am driven into giving a lot of detail I cannot make my speech short. We must face realities. Whether we want to or not, we cannot sweep all those houses away at once and replace them by new ones. What, therefore, should we do? They are all under controlled rents. I make no apology for speaking on behalf of Scottish landlords because I think they have had the muddy end of the stick over this matter. Scottish owners of housing property have long suffered under the grievance that because of the impact of owners' rates with which we have now done away—
    Mr. Manuel: They get protection for the rates.
    8.30 p.m.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Every increase from 1940 onwards was eaten into by the ever-increasing owners' rates so that there was an insufficient rental income to provide for repairs of these houses.
    What my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) wants is to see that in those cases where there are still houses subject to the control under the Rent Act the rental income shall be sufficient to allow for repairs to the property and to see that they are properly maintained. He does not suggest what the rental should be, but simply that it should be fixed in relation to the gross annual value. That seems a sensible proposal. My right hon. Friend would not be precluded from bringing that into operation by any pledge which was given at the time of the last election because they were not relevant to the circumstances.
    Before closing my speech, I wish to deal with the only one which, I admit,

    559
    gave me a great deal of thought. The pledge was made in these terms by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government—the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury. At a Press conference on 30th September, 1959, he said that the Government did not in the next Parliament intend to alter the rent levels laid down in the Rent Act. There are no rent levels laid down in the Rent Act other than the rent levels laid down in Section 11 (3) of the 1957 Act which says that the controlled rents shall cease to be controlled if the value rises above £40 in Scotland or the Metropolitan police district of London or £30 in England and Wales.
    Mr. McInnes: What about repairs? Did they not get money then?
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: That is not covered by this pledge.
    Mr. McInnes: But we know they got it.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) is not usually so far off the mark. I was not talking about the increases allowed under the Act. Those increases were admittedly 25 per cent. or 50 per cent. subject to certain qualifications, but they had been siphoned away by the incidence of owners' rates in excess rents. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is not precluded by any pledge that has been given not to introduce this sort of thing. I think this would be a wise measure in the interests of the tenants of owners of controlled houses in Scotland.
    Mr. Galbraith: I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). I was glad that we had him back with us again. I think that while he has been away he must have got up a lot of steam because I thought he was a little unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) who moved the Second Reading of this new Clause.
    The effect of the new Clause would be to empower the Secretary of State by order to fix the rents of controlled houses, despite the terms of the tenancies or of the Rent Acts, by reference to the gross annual value. This proposed new Clause seems to be outside the Long Title of the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] I know that my hon. Friend has put down
    560
    an Amendment seeking to extend the Title sufficiently to cover this Clause, but I must say to him that the contents of the Clause seem rather to belong to the Rent Acts than to the Housing Acts. It is not, therefore, entirely appropriate to the present Bill. For this reason alone I should be reluctant to accept it in the present Bill.
    In addition, however, the Government have already made clear that they do not intend in the present Parliament to alter the rent levels laid down in the Rent Act. Although my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) was able to satisfy himself that this new Clause would not do that, I am afraid that neither I nor my right hon. Friend has been able to satisfy himself. In our view this new Clause would cut right across that undertaking. That is another reason for not accepting it. I am sure that my hon. Friend would appreciate that it would be wrong for us not to keep our word. [Laughter.] I do not understand why hon. Members opposite laugh—
    Mr. T. Fraser: If the hon. Gentleman does not understand, may I remind him that in the General Election his party promised not to introduce a Bill to amend the Rent Act. What was the 1957 Bill but a Bill to amend the Rent Act?
    Mr. Galbraith: I think the hon. Member has got it wrong. What we said was that we would not introduce a Bill, but we would review the position. Here we are seeking to keep our word, and we regard ourselves as bound by what the Chief Secretary said. When the 1957 Act was passing through Parliament my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that he regarded the Scottish Clauses as being of an interim nature pending the 1961 revaluation. He indicated that it would be necessary
    "once the new values become available in 1961 to make a fresh and comprehensive review of the position as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1957: Vol. 567. c. 1421.]
    Mr. McInnes: A confidence trick.
    Mr. Galbraith: It was no confidence trick. The Secretary of State's remarks in that year did not imply any undertaking that legislation to review the Rent

    561
    Act would be introduced immediately the new values were available. Quite apart from the Government's pledge not to alter rent levels in the present Parliament, the collection of the necessary information about the gross values and the rents of controlled houses would be a major operation, and for this reason, if for no other, the early introduction of fresh rent control legislation would clearly be impracticable.
    I am not entirely unsympathetic towards my hon. Friend's case, and my right hon. Friend has it very much in mind, but at the moment I regret that I cannot accept his proposal. I hope that, in the light of the three reasons which I have given, he will feel disposed to withdraw the new Clause.
    Question put and negatived.

    Clause 3.—(AMOUNTS OF SUBSIDIES—OTHER APPROVED HOUSES PROVIDED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)
    Mr. McInnes: I beg to move, in page 4, line 17, to leave out from "pounds" to "by" in line 20.
    This Amendment seeks to remove the power which the Secretary of State desires in order to prescribe by order some other figure than the key figure of £60 in the resources test calculation. Prior to the Bill being introduced housing subsidies were generally based on the estimated annual cost of the house and the reduction of the estimated rent, and the balance thereof was met to the extent of three-quarters by the Treasury and one-quarter by the local rate contribution. Under the provisions of Clause 3, subsidies will in future be based on a formula relating to the local authority's potential resources.
    In order to arrive at a realistic measure of a local authority's potential resources on its housing revenue account for the purpose of the calculation of subsidy under Clause 3, it is proposed to substitute for the actual income from rents and the rate fund contribution the total gross value of the local authority's houses plus half the difference between that total and the figure arrived at by multiplying £60 by the total number of houses. This is a very complicated formula. The Secretary of State now
    562
    seeks powers to alter the key figure of £60 in the future. The Amendment seeks to omit these words because we believe that their retention would inevitably produce uncertainty in local government calculations. I do not think that the Under-Secretary will deny that.
    Why does the Secretary of State desire this power to amend this key figure upon which the whole formula was based? The Under-Secretary said in Committe that it was to meet the changing circumstances—changes in the standard of living, for example. When asked if changes in revaluation would be regarded as changing circumstances, he replied that they might be or they might not be. When asked if the intention was to vary the key figure of £60 to keep the annual subsidy bill down because too many local authorities were receiving the higher subsidy rates, the Under-Secretary said that that was an entirely hypothetical question.
    I do not regard it as a hypothetical question. It is a very pertinent and relevant question. I genuinely believe that what is behind this desire to amend the key figure at some future date is the fact that too many local authorities may receive the higher subsidy and the Government's calculation of this formula has gone haywire. When were subsidies ever related to changes in the standard of living? Indeed, when were subsidies ever related to valuation, except in this Bill?
    I think I have the real answer to this problem from the Under-Secretary himself. When this matter was discussed in Committee, the Under-Secretary concluded his statement by saying this:
    "I am sorry that I cannot give to the Committee any precise indication of the circumstances in which the figure of £60 will be varied. The whole point of the provision is to cater for changes that may occur in the future; we cannot say, in advance, what they will be, should they arise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee: 13th March. 1962; c 695–6.]
    I am amazed that the Under-Secretary, with all the facilities of the Scottish Office and with the help of those who worked out this rather complicated formula, is unable to give us any indication or information as to what circumstances are likely to arise which would justify an alteration of the key figure of £60.

    563
    8.45 p.m.
    To me, all that implies that the Government themselves have no confidence in their own Bill and, in particular, no confidence in this formula when they now seek to amend this figure at any subsequent time. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not happy about the figure of £60. It was, as he said, an empirical figure—a figure arrived at by trial and error; there has been more error than trial about it. The Secretary of State, lacking faith in his own figure, desires to change it without his having adduced a single argument in Committee in favour of it. Those being the circumstances, we feel justified in refusing to give him the power to amend the figure at some future date.
    Mr. Galbraith: The Amendment seeks to remove the power of the Secretary of State by order to prescribe another figure in place of the key figure of £60 in the resources test calculation. The arguments against the Amendment are very much the same as those which I used in Committee, but perhaps I should try to explain the matter again. In order to do that, it is necessary to explain the background.
    As is stated in paragraph 25 of the White Paper, the actual level and pattern of a local authority's income does not give a true measure of its resources, and we think that the new valuations should provide, for the first time, a realistic basis for determining the value of a local authority's main assets—the houses it owns. But market values in Scotland have been depressed by the long-standing tradition of low rents, and assessors' valuations have, quite rightly, reflected that state of affairs. We therefore propose to allow for this distortion of the market pattern by adding to the valuation an amount related to the difference between the actual average valuation and the figure of £60 per house. That will secure that those local authority areas where valuations are higher will be subject to a lesser increase, while those areas where valuations have been most depressed by low rents will be increased by a correspondingly larger amount.
    As I said in Committee, the figure of £60 is, admittedly, an empirical one—and the hon. Member for Glasgow,
    564
    Central (Mr. McInnes) has referred to that. Nevertheless, the addition of a supplement related to that key figure seems to produce a reasonable result as between individual local authorities. By that, I mean that the adoption of this criterion draws a reasonable line between the local authorities with relatively inadequate, and those with relatively adequate resources, so that we can give a substantial increase in subsidy to those authorities which need it most, while maintaining Exchequer assistance to housing at about its present level.
    If the criterion were set lower, so that more local authorities qualified for the higher subsidy rate, the increase in subsidy that we could afford would be correspondingly less, and we should not be able to achieve our object of giving considerably greater help where it was most needed. That is what I mean by this process of trial and error. It is as a result of trial and error that we got this figure which enabled us to give a very much higher subsidy to those local authorities that needed it and, at the same time, to keep more or less within the global Exchequer figure.
    That criterion does not seem to be unreasonable when one considers that the average gross valuation of houses owned by the local authorities in Scotland is about £46. Allowing for the supplement—that is, half way to £60—we estimate that the average notional income per house will be about £53. We believe that it is perfectly fair to expect local authorities generally to obtain an income of this order from rents and the rate fund contribution. That is the situation today and £60 is the right figure.
    Now I come to the Amendment. It is necessary to provide for alterations of this figure of £60 because while it produces a reasonable result at present we may have to change it if, at any time, the result it produces were no longer in line with the conditions then prevailing. This might arise, for example, after the next revaluation in 1966. It could easily arise before or after that date as a result of changes in circumstances which we cannot at present foresee.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central asked what those circumstances were. All I can say is that they are rather like an elephant—very difficult

    565
    to define but unmistakable when one sees it. The Government cannot accept the Amendment, although I can assure hon. Members that there is at present no intention of varying the key figure of £60. Nevertheless, in a calculation of potential resources, it is inevitable that the Secretary of State should have power to adjust the calculations when circumstances change.
    The whole object of the key figure is to ensure that those local authorities that need the subsidy most get a big subsidy, and yet, at the same time, the payments are approximately maintained within the global figure. Because of this the Secretary of State must have powers to vary the figure of £60. This sort of flexibility we believe to be essential and, for that reason, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. McInnes: The Under-Secretary has not, up to now, indicated what the changing circumstances may be, and I appreciate his difficulty. But if it is something that may happen in years ahead, would it not be better dealt with by leaving the figure of £60 in the Bill and, if such circumstances arise in the future, new legislation could be introduced to amend the figure?
    Mr. Manuel: What is wrong with that suggestion?
    Mr. Galbraith: That would be quite out of place. It is a small adjustment
    which keeps the Bill flexible. It would be unnecessary to have a Bill for this purpose.
    Miss Herbison: It is evident that the Under-Secretary had great difficulty tonight, as he did in Committee, in giving any idea of what the circumstances might be in which the Secretary of State would wish to change the figure of £60. The Under-Secretary says that it gives us a reasonable result now, but what is that result? It is that a certain number of local authorities will have their subsidies cut by 50 per cent., to £12, and many will have them increased to £32.
    It seems Chat the Under-Secretary wants the Clause to remain as it is so that his right hon. Friend can juggle with the figure. It is obvious that if the Secretary of State considers that too many local authorities will come up to the £32 level of subsidy the figure will then be immediately altered. We have no doubt (hat that is why he wants to keep this power. He wants to juggle with the figure and we intend to go into the Division Lobby against the Government.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided; Ayes 196, Noes 142.

    Division No. 150.]

    AYES

    [8.55 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Freeth, Denzil

    Aitken, W. T.

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Gammans, Lady

    Allason, James

    Collard, Richard

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Cooke, Robert

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Corfield, F. V.

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Costain, A. P.

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Goodhart, Philip

    Barter, John

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Goodhew, Victor

    Batsford, Brian

    Crowder, F. P.

    Gower, Raymond

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Curran, Charles

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Green, Alan

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Dance, James

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Bitten, John

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Bossom, Clive

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Box, Donald

    Doughty, Charles

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    du Cann, Edward

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Duncan, Sir James

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Brewis, John

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Hastings, Stephen

    Brooman-White, R.

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

    Hay, John

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Emery, Peter

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Buck, Antony

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Billiard, Denys

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Hendry, Forbes

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Farr, John

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Finlay, Graeme

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

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Fisher, Nigel

    Hobson, Sir John

    Chataway, Christopher

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Holland, Philip

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Foster, John

    Hollingworth, John

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Holt, Arthur

    Hopkins, Alan

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

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

    Hornby, R. P.

    Mills, Stratton

    Smithers, Peter

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    Miscampbell, N.

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Morrison, John

    Speir, Rupert.

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Stodart, J. A

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Iremonger, T. L,

    Neave, Airey

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Noble, Michael

    Talbot, John E.

    James, David

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Tapsell, Peter

    Jennings, J. C.

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Teeling, Sir William

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Temple, John M.

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G

    Peel, John

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Langford-Holt, sir John

    Percival, John

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Leavey, J. A.

    Peyton, John

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Pott, Percivall

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Pym, Francis

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Longden, Gilbert

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Walder, David

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Ramsden, James

    Wall, Patrick

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Ward, Dame Irene

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    MacPherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

    Wise, A. R.

    Maddan, Martin

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Maginnis, John E.

    Russell, Ronald

    Woollam, John

    Maitland, Sir John

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Worsley, Marcus

    Marshall, Douglas

    Seymour, Leslie

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Shaw, M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Shepherd, William

    Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. McLaren.

    NOES

    Albu, Austen

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Padley, W. E.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Paget, R. T.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hannan, William

    Parker, John

    Awbery, Stan

    Harper, Joseph

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Beaney, Alan

    Henderson, RtHn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Pentland, Norman

    Benson, Sir George

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Blackburn, F.

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Blyton, William

    Holman, Percy

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S. W.)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Probert, Arthur

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Randall, Harry

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Rankin, John

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Callaghan, James

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Reid, William

    Chapman, Donald

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Rhodes, H.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Cronin, John

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

    Darling, George

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Ross, William

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Short, Edward

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    King, Dr. Horace

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Deer, George

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Small, William

    Dempsey, James

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Diamond, John

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Driberg, Tom

    McInnes, James

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

    Steele, Thomas

    Edelman, Maurice

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Stones, William

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Evans, Albert

    Manuel, Archie

    Swain, Thomas

    Finch, Harold

    Mapp, Charles

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Marsh, Richard

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Forman, J. C.

    Mason, Roy

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Mendelson, J. J.

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

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Millan, Bruce

    Timmons, John

    Ginsburg, David

    Milne, Edward

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Gooch, E. G.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Weitzman, David

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Monslow, Walter

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Courlay, Harry

    Neal, Harold

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Oram, A. E.

    Whitlock, William

    Grey, Charles

    Oswald, Thomas

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)

    Owen, Will

    Willey, Frederick

    568

    569

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Willis, E. Q. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Lawson and Mr. McCann

    Mr. John Rankin: I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, at the beginning to insert:
    "if the Secretary of State thinks fit after consultation with the local authority".
    The Deputy Chairman: It will be convenient to discuss with this Amendment that in page 4, line 24, to leave out "shall" and insert "may".
    Mr. Rankin: If the Amendments were passed, paragraph (b) of subsection (3) would read:
    "if the Secretary of State thinks fit after consultation with the local authority there may be excluded from the debits any expenditure by way of rebates from rents".
    In Committee, we had a long discussion on subsection (3). We on this side moved an Amendment to leave out the whole subsection, but, unfortunately, numbers triumphed over intelligence and we suffered defeat after an inconclusive debate. I think I am right in saying that the debate centred round the issue whether, when a local authority pays out money, that money should be regarded as expenditure or not; in other words, we said that rebates paid out by a local authority were expenditure by the local authority. By a strange freak of financial wizardry, the Under-Secretary tried to prove that when these rebates were paid out by the local authority, they were not debits but credits. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman remains at the Scottish Office when that high form of intelligence as so badly needed, and will be even more badly needed during the Budget debate next week.
    To be fair to him, however, he did say that our claim had been allowed for already on the resources side of the income test of a rebate, but when he was asked why it was that irrecoverable rents could be included when calculating the amount of the subsidy, while rent rebates could not be so included, he admitted a certain lack of clarity. Whether that was an example of myosis or not, I will not say. It is for him to judge, but he admitted that he was not clear on the issue, and he pleaded that we should give him time to think it over. He got time, whether sufficient or
    570
    not, and he replied later in the debate to the effect that no discretion was exercisable by the local authorities in the matter of rents which were irrecoverable, but that the authority had discretion in the case of rebates.
    I wonder exactly what discretion a local authority has in the matter of rebates. Every individual on the Opposition side knows that rebates in case of very many local authorities are almost a matter of necessity, for the simple reason that rents, as charged in Scotland today, could not fully be met by a very large number of those people who are bound to get new houses because of need and are entitled to live in them, and who could not pay the full rent. That situation will be intensified in Scotland by the fact that the locomotive works in Springburn have closed down. The shale oil industry of the Lothians has closed or will be closed down, and the Mossend tube works of Messrs. Stewarts and Lloyds are to be closed down. Therefore, it would seem that local authorities have no discretion in the matter of rebates, just as they have no discretion, on the admission of the Under-Secretary himself, in the matter of irrecoverable rents. I agree that there might be an argument if he had said that the local authority had discretion in varying rebates, but he said that rebates were not like irrecoverable rents, for m the one there was a discretion, while in the other there was not.
    To show that we are not vindictive, we are offering the hon. Gentleman a way out. We are suggesting that before he puts this subsection into operation he should consult the local authorities. That is not asking him to do a great deal. It will not infringe the supreme authority of the Secretary of State, nor affect his dignity in the least, but it may give him a great deal of wisdom which will help him to a wiser decision. Local authorities know all the circumstances of the people in their areas and have all the facts which can help the right hon. Gentleman to reach a wise decision before he applies paragraph (b) with all its rigours. He must also remember that

    571
    conditions are very harsh in many parts of Scotland.
    We go a little further and say that instead of being imperative and saying that they shall be excluded, as the Secretary of State says, he should accept the conditional and say that they may be excluded. Whenever we talk about the words "shall" and "may", our minds immediately go searching back into those days when right hon. Gentlemen opposite used to argue that "may" included "shall". My hon. Friends will all remember the arguments which we used to have. The Under-Secretary will remember that the Government used to say that the words were interchangeable. He cannot now say that "shall" does not include "may", because for so long he said that "may" included "shall". He cannot deny that. Now we are asking that he should say, as Euclid used to say, that the contrary is also true and that "shall" must include "may".
    Mr. Manuel: He may agree.
    Mr. Rankin: I am glad to hear that optimism and I leave it to the Under-Secretary to justify it.
    Mr. Galbraith: Subsection (3, b) at present provides that in the resources test there shall be excluded from debits any expenditure by way of rebates from rents.
    Mr. Willis: Shocking.
    Mr. Galbraith: It is not shocking but very sensible. The effect of the Amendment would be to alter that to provide that it the Secretary of State thinks fit, after consultation with the local authority, he may exclude from the debits any expenditure by way of rebates from rents. This Amendment does not go as far as a rather wider Amendment which was debated in Committee, since it does not propose to get rid altogether of the requirement that the amount of rebate should be excluded from the resources test, but seeks instead to give the Secretary of State power to exclude rebates after consultation with the local authority. However, it is really very much the same point as was debated before, and I am sorry that it is being raised again because it indicates, I think, that hon. Gentlemen opposite are still under a misapprehension. I shall do the best I can to remove it from their minds.
    572
    In the resources tests we are disregarding the local authority's actual income from rents and the rate fund, and are substituting a notional income from these sources. Clearly when we talk about the income from rents we mean the actual money which the local authority has received from tenants; that is, the net rent which the tenants pay after allowing for any rebates granted to them. I need not explain to hon. Gentlemen opposite, with their experience of local government, that the tenant does not first pay the full gross rent and then receive a refund from the local authority. He pays only the net amount of the rebated rent. There is only one transaction.
    9.15 p.m.
    But for accounting purposes—and this is where the difficulty arises—the net rent does not appear as a separate item of income in the housing revenue account. The income side shows the gross rent, and the expenditure side shows the rebates which are set against the gross rent. This does not alter the fact that the local authority's real income from the houses is the net rent. It is interesting to note that the housing revenue accounts of English local authorities show the net rent on the income side, with no corresponding item for rebates on the expenditure side.
    The need for Clause 3 (3, b) in a Scottish Bill is the result, therefore, in effect, of an accident of Scottish accounting. The point involved in this Amendment was never raised in the debates on the English Bill, and yet rebates take place in England just as much as they do in Scotland.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman founding legislation on two fictional things—an accident, and a notional figure?
    Mr. Galbraith: I am not doing that at all. I was trying to point out that in England, where they have rebates, this point was never raised, because they have a different accounting system. But the situation as regards the passing of money is the same.
    I realise that this is a complicated matter, but the actual income from rents received by a local authority does not matter, because it is left out of the calculations altogether and is replaced by an assumed income. Therefore, a

    573
    local authority can give away as much money in rebates as it likes without losing subsidy because what determines its subsidy position is not its actual income, which is ignored, but the actual expenditure which it has to meet in repayment of loan charges and so on, set against the notional income based on the gross value of the houses.
    Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman said that a local authority could give away as much money as it liked by way of rebate. This is not so, and the hon. Gentleman must correct his statement. The Secretary of State for Scotland must agree to any rebate scheme which a local authority proposes to adopt, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman controls the extent of the rebate. A local authority cannot give away as much money as it likes.
    Mr. Galbraith: I said that a local authority could give away as much money as it liked without losing subsidy. I am talking about the subsidy point. Rebates are not expenditure. For accounting reasons they seem to be expenditure, but they are not. They are therefore irrelevant to the resources test calculations and should always be excluded from them. Because of that I cannot accept the Amendment even
    though the hon. Gentleman moved it in such an amusing way.
    Miss Herbison: The Under-Secretary has done his best to make a case for the rejection of the Amendment, but in spite of What he has said about the calculation, and so on, there are certain local authorities which, if they are to charge the rents which the Secretary of State wishes them to charge, will have to give many rent rebates. The more they give in rebates the less their real income will be. I believe that an examination was made in Coatbridge only a few weeks ago, and it astounded everybody to discover the number of people earning less than £10 a week. If that council were to charge the rents which the Secretary of State wishes it to charge its real income would be very much smaller than would be represented by the rents charged, because there would have to be so many rebates.
    The Under-Secretary seems determined that no matter how reasonable an Amendment may be, if it is moved from this side of the House it will not be accepted. We intend to vote for the Amendment.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 199.

    Division No. 151.]

    AYES

    [9.21 p.m.

    Albu, Austen

    Fernyhough, E.

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Finch, Harold

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Awbery, Stan

    Forman, J. C.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    King, Dr. Horace

    Beaney, Alan

    Caitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Benson, Sir George

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Blackburn, F.

    Ginsburg, David

    Loughlin, Charles

    Blyton, William

    Gooch, E. G.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    McInnes, James

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Gourlay, Harry

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Greenwood, Anthony

    McLeavy, Frank

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Grey, Charles

    MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Callaghan, James

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Chapman, Donald

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Manuel, Archie

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hannan, William

    Mapp, Charles

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Harper, Joseph

    Marsh, Richard

    Cronin, John

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mason, Roy

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Darling, George

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Millan, Bruce

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Holman, Percy

    Milne, Edward

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Deer, George

    Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

    Monslow, Walter

    Dempsey, James

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Neal, Harold

    Diamond, John

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Oram, A. E.

    Driberg, Tom

    Hunter, A. E.

    Oswald, Thomas

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Owen, Will

    Ede, Rt. Hon C.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Padley, W. E.

    Edelman, Maurice

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Paget, R. T.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Parker, John

    Evans, Albert

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Timmons, John

    Pentland, Norman

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Small, William

    Weitzman, David

    Prentice, R. E.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Sorensen, R, W.

    Whitlock, William

    Probert, Arthur

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Randall, Harry

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Willey, Frederick

    Rankin, John

    Steele, Thomas

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Stones, William

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Reid, William

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Rhodes, H.

    Swain, Thomas

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

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Taverne, D.

    Winterbottom, R, E.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Ross, William

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Short, Edward

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

    Mr. Lawson and Mr. McCann.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

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

    Allason, James

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mills, Stratton

    Arbuthnot, John

    Goodhew, Victor

    Miscampbell, N.

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Cower, Raymond

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Morrison, John

    Barlow, Sir John

    Green, Alan

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Barter, John

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Neave, Airey

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Noble, Michael

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Bitten, John

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Bishop, F. P.

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Bossom, Clive

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hastings, Stephen

    Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Box, Donald

    Hay, John

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Peel, John

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Percival, Ian

    Brewis, John

    Hendry, Forbes

    Peyton, John

    Brooman-White, R.

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Pott, Percivall

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

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

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Buck, Antony

    Hobson, Sir John

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Bullard, Denys

    Holland, Philip

    Pym, Francis

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Hollingworth, John

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Holt, Arthur

    Ramsden, James

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hopkins, Alan

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Chataway, Christopher

    Hornby, R. P.

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hornsby-Smith, Rtfl Hon. Dame P.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Robinson, Rt. Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

    Collard, Richard

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Cooke, Robert

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Russell, Ronald

    Corfield, F. V.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Costain, A. P.

    James, David

    Seymour, Leslie

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Jennings, J. C.

    Shaw, M.

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Shepherd, William

    Crowder, F. P.

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

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

    Curran, Charles

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Smithers, Peter

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Dance, James

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Speir, Rupert

    Deedes, W. F.

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Stodart, J. A.

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Doughty, Charles

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Talbot, John E.

    du Cann, Edward

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Tapsell, Peter

    Duncan, Sir James

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Teeling, Sir William

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

    Longden, Gilbert

    Temple, John M.

    Emery, Peter

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Errington, Sir Eric

    McLaren, Martin

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Farr, John

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Finlay, Graeme

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Fisher, Nigel

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Foster, John

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Maddan, Martin

    Walder, David

    Freeth, Denzil

    Maginnis, John E.

    Wall, Patrick

    Gammans, Lady

    Maitland, Sir John

    Ward, Dame Irene

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    576

    577

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Woollam, John

    Mr. Wbitelaw and Mr. Batsford.

    Wise, A. R.

    Worsley, Marcus

    Clause 8.—(POWER TO ABOLISH OR REDUCE SUBSIDIES.)
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Willis: I beg to move in page 8, line 29 after the first "day", to insert "not".
    I assume that the following Amendment, in page 8, to leave out lines 31 to 25, is included in this discussion.
    Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I ought to have said so. That is so, if the House so approves.
    Mr. Willis: This Clause is what I call the "welshing" Clause of the Bill, inasmuch as it gives statutory sanction for welshing by the Secretary of State on the solemn obligation that he undertakes with the authorities when he authorises the building of certain house's. We are anxious about this ethical deterioration of the Government and we wish to save them from themselves.
    This Clause makes it possible for the Secretary of State, by order, to stop the payment of subsidies, to reduce their amount or to reduce the length of time for which they are payable. It enables the Secretary of State to do this in respect of houses, after the order has been made, up to a period of ten years, after which it permits the Secretary of State to do this in respect of houses no matter when they were approved. That is why I say that it enables the Secretary of State to break the solemn obligations which he makes to local authorities when he approves houses for building and for grant purposes.
    The object of the Amendment is to save the Government from themselves. If these two Amendments are accepted, it will mean that the Government cannot after ten years make retrospective any of their actions in regard to the changing of subsidies, the amount of subsidies or the length of time for which they are payable. We believe on this side of the House that this is a desirable thing to do.
    The provision relating to the ten-year period is a new provision. I do not think that it appears in any previous legislation. Here, for the first time, the Secretary for State has taken to himself
    578
    power to say that in ten years' time he will stop paying subsidies for houses built ten or fifteen years ago. The Secretary of State can say, "I shall reduce the subsidy or pay it only for another year longer." These are enormous powers to give to the right hon. Gentleman. One of the obvious effects of giving them will be to make it almost impossible for any local authority to plan ahead.
    Local authorities will be in a position where, if empowered to proceed with house building at certain rates of subsidy, they will not know what will happen at the end of a ten-year period. No longer is a local authority to be able to say that in respect of certain houses it will receive £x a year for sixty years. No longer will a local authority be able to plan ahead on the basis of revenue coming into the housing account in the form of subsidies for so many years, because the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take these new powers. I do not know what is the justification for them.
    The Under-Secretary said that circumstances may be such as to justify this course of action.
    Mr. Ross: Let the Government of the day decide that.
    Mr. Willis: Precisely. Certainly, if a Government are to suddenly break their promise—
    Mr. Galbraith Mr. Galbraith indicated dissent.
    Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that is what the Government will be doing.
    Mr. Galbraith: No.
    Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman says, "No". But of course they will be breaking their promise to the local authorities.
    The Government ought to come to the House and ask for powers to do that in a way which would enable the matter to be debated on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman says that we should trust the Secretary of State who would not act in an irresponsible fashion. But different people have different ideas of responsibility. The hon. Gentleman thinks that he is acting responsibly in relation to this Bill. We happen to disagree with him. It is not always easy

    579
    to decide what is responsible action and certainly this is something which ought to be decided on the Floor of the House and not be a decision taken only by a Minister. I ask the hon. Gentleman to think seriously about these powers and not to advance the same argument again.
    Another point is that this sort of thing is decided by the Treasury and not by the Secretary of State. Even though the Secretary of State may not think it a desirable thing to do, he must comply or resign. The present "minnows" on the Government Front Bench would not resign even on such a matter as this. I suggest that these enormous powers should not be granted to the right hon. Gentleman and I am surprised that hon. Members opposite should allow this to happen. These powers could be used to weaken the power of local authorities over their own housing policies and programmes. This cannot contribute to the housing problem in Scotland. The local authorities will not have the confidence they ought to have in the future to enable them to plan ahead on any substantial scale.
    Before embarking on a large housing programme—which, heaven knows, most local authorities in Scotland ought to do—I should have thought that a local authoritiy would wish to do so in the knowledge that at the end of ten years it would not lose all its subsidies. But under these provisions no local authority could do that, and it is an alarming state of affairs. We have had housing legislation and subsidies for forty years and in the past no Government have asked for these powers.
    No Government in the past have asked for powers at the end of ten years suddenly to stop subsidies without coming to this House. Why the experience of forty years should have led to this conclusion I do not know. The hon. Gentleman has never given a satisfactory explanation; he certainly did not in Committee. What in those forty years has led to the Government now seeking to obtain these powers? So far as I know, there has been nothing. The hon. Gentleman has to justify this proposal very much more than he did in Committee before he can satisfy us. I do not think he can do that and I hope that my hon. Friends will vote for this Amendment.
    Mr. Galbraith: The effect of this Amendment, if read with the linked Amendment, would be to remove the power of the Secretary of State to reduce or abolish subsidy or to pay subsidy for a reduced number of years, on houses which had already been approved under the Bill. It would do so by providing that the Order could not apply to houses in proposals received before the day on which the draft of the review Order was laid before Parliament. In short, what it seeks to do is to remove the allegedly retrospective power of the Secretary of State in relation to subsidies already in payment. As I said in Committee, I appreciate what is worrying hon. Members opposite, but I am afraid that I must again oppose the Amendment.
    Mr. Willis: Why?
    Mr. Galbraith: If the hon. Member will wait he will hear why. I hope that I shall satisfy him.
    The provision in subsection (2) whereby the Secretary of State may, at any time after ten years from the passing of the Bill, abolish or reduce subsidies already in payment under the Bill, is admittedly a new power.
    Mr. Willis: It is entirely new.
    Mr. Galbraith: That is perfectly true. The reason for introducing it was explained in the White Paper on Housing in Scotland at paragraph 33. The fact that it is a new power does not necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with it. I am surprised that the hon. Member, who regards himself as being a member of a progressive party, should think that anything which is new is necessarily wrong.
    Mr. Willis: I suggested that these were new powers and very big powers. I said that the hon. Gentleman had to justify them in a much better manner than he had justified them in the past before he can expect us to accept them.
    Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member said that, but he also seemed to think that because this was a new power it was wrong. I am saying that it is not necessarily wrong.
    It could indeed be argued that these powers do not go far enough. For the £14 million or so which is being paid out annually in subsidies to local authorities under previous Acts will of course

    581
    be exempt, and some £3 million out of that £14 million is payable in respect of the cheap pre-war houses where the case for revision might well be held to be strongest, because the current cost of those houses is mow probably below the potential income from them. The earlier subsidy Acts provide quite categorically, however, that the contributions are to be made at the specified rate for forty or sixty years, so the Government would be exposing themselves to a charge of breaking faith if they invited Parliament to make retrospective changes in regard to those subsidies.
    What subsection (2) of Clause 8 does is to give notice that if after a reasonable period the kind of economic change occurs which has already taken place in respect of the cheap pre-war houses, the Government reserve the right to seek Parliament's approval—I stress that because the hon. Member seemed to think that we were not seeking Parliament's approval—by means of an Order submitted for affirmative Resolution, to an appropriate reduction in Exchequer subsidies.
    Mr. Willis: We cannot amend that.
    Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member is quite right; the House cannot amend that. The change in circumstances leading to the need for review might, in practice, be so radical as to call for fresh legislation; but the existence on the Statute Book of the power to reduce by Order subsidies already in payment would protect the Government of the day against any possible accusation of bad faith in retrospectively reducing subsidies such as prevents the Government from reducing subsidies on pre-war houses if they wanted to do so. The new power cannot be used until ten years after the Bill becomes law, and it will be used only if the circumstances—for example the rent-paying capacity of the tenants—have changed so drastically that the maintenance of the present subsidy cannot be justified.
    Mr. Willis: That is an astonishing argument. The hon. Gentleman says that it is necessary to do this because the Government lack the courage to face the country and to explain their actions to the people. "We should be accused", he said, "of not keeping faith if we reduced subsidies given before the war."
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Galbraith: I said that subsidies under previous Acts were for a fixed period of years. Although the case for changing them may be strong, if we were to change them we should be open to the charge of acting retrospectively. We should be breaking our word. In the Bill we are not breaking our word because we are giving a warning that if the circumstances change we reserve the right to reduce the subsidy.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East suggested that this provision was a breach of contract with the local authorities. That is a complete misrepresentation. In fact, it is a warning placed on the Statute Book now that subsidies under the Bill may be changed. The result is that any future Government who find it necessary to use the power will be protected against an accusation that the reduction represents a breach of statutory commitment. Local authorities will know from the moment that a house is approved that the possibility exists, even if only very remotely, of a reduction in subsidy. When a specific advance warning is given it is nonsense for the hon. Member to speak about a breach of contract.
    Again, there is no suggestion of retrospective legislation here, since the new power to reduce subsidies already in payment applies only to houses approved from the day the Bill was published. I sometimes think that hon. Members opposite use the word "retrospective" without realising exactly What it means, since the whole object of putting this provision in the Bill is precisely to avoid any suggestion that a future Government is acting retrospectively.
    Mr. Willis: I did not use the word "retrospective".
    Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member may not have used that word just now, but it was used in Committee, and I thought he gave the impression that that was his view. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) laughs, but he was not in Committee, and I can assure him that the word "retrospective" was used endlessly in Committee.
    Mr. Willis: That was a different debate.
    Mr. Galbraith: But it happens to be the same point which I am answering.
    Mr. T. Fraser: From the same brief.
    Mr. Galbraith: I have not the same brief.
    Mr. Manuel: Is it not retrospective if it is back-dated to 1st November last year?
    Mr. Galbraith: That shows that the hon. Member has not understood one word that I said. It is not retrospective.
    Mr. Manuel: I say that it is.
    Mr. Galbraith: Perhaps the hon. Member and I should have a discussion afterwards behind Mr. Speaker's Chair about the precise meaning of the word "retrospective".
    Sir M. Galpern Sir M. Galpern Is not the Minister telling the House that the purpose of the Clause is to give a guarantee of subsidies for ten years only? Is he not saying that after that guarantee anything may happen?
    Mr. Galbraith: That is one way of looking at it.
    I want to make it clear that there is no question of asking local authorities to pay back money. They will be able to retain all the payments made to them up to the date of the Order. In spite of what was said by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), I do not see how it can be regarded as retrospective to alter the amount of money which they have not yet received. To preserve flexibility it is necessary to have this power, and I therefore regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Miss Herbison: One of the points made by the Under-Secretary was that a local authority should know from the moment a house is built that in future its subsidy might be axed. Do the Tory Government want local authorities to build houses, or do they not? It seems to me that the Tory Government do not want local authorities to build houses. The Government have put into the Bill not only this Clause but other Clauses under the pretension that other bodies, such as housing associations, will build houses. In what position does the Under-Secretary think that the Government are placing every Scottish local authority?
    Until now, in spite of this provision, which the Under-Secretary continually
    584
    tells us has been in other Bills but which he has had to say has never been used, local authorities have known when they have built a house that they would get a subsidy from the Government each year for sixty years. In other words, there was a partnership. They borrowed money from the Public Works Loan Board. They knew the interest rate they would have to pay on the money over sixty years. They knew exactly what subsidy they would get from the Government. It was a real partnership. They were not in any doubt. When they built houses, they knew what responsibility they were undertaking as a local authority.
    Mr. Galbraith Mr. Galbraith One thing which they did not know was the future capacity of the tenants to pay rent. I ask the hon. Lady to consider that. The tenants' capacity to pay rent may very well change over sixty years. She has left that factor entirely out of her calculations.
    Miss Herbison: No. That does not alter my calculations. The Under-Secretary has not told us in what circumstances these subsidies would be axed. It may have nothing to do with incomes. It may be another economic crisis brought on by a Tory Government. Every local authority will be placed in the greatest uncertainty. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) spoke of old houses whose rents he wants to raise. Many of them need to be replaced by local government houses. How shall we get those houses if legislation such as this is put on the Statute Book, especially under the Guillotine?
    The case made by the Under-Secretary was derisory. He said that the Government could go much further. That was indeed part of his case. He said that the Government were not going to take back from local authorities money which local authorities had already received. The fact that he has had to advance such a derisory argument shows how weak the Government's case is. I know that many of my hon. Friends would like to speak on this question, because it affects every local authority in Scotland. It affects the chances of many thousands of people

    585
    getting houses, but because of this dreadful Guillotine we shall now have to vote on the Amendment.
    Sir James Duncan: I was not on the Committee. This point has been raised with me by local authorities in my part of the world. I want to get my mind clear about what is being done in the Bill so that I can decide what attitude to adopt on the Amendment. As I understand it, all existing houses built before November are sacrosanct because they are old contracts. The Government are not going to break their contracts. So far, so good. However, houses approved about the time of the introduction of the Bill are not sacrosanct. The Government are giving ten years' notice that there will be no change in the subsidies in the Bill, whether they be £42 or any other rate. There will be no change in the subsidy rates in the Bill for ten years. [Interruption.]
    In this Bill the Government give notice that after ten years there might be changes. What are the safeguards? First of all, there is the ten-year period, certain. Then there must be a material change of circumstances—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has said so. Thirdly, there must be an affirmative Resolution—I suppose in both Houses—which gives ample opportunity for discussion, or for the throwing out of that affirmative Resolution by this House. I know that such a Resolution cannot be amended, but it can be thrown out—and it is an affirmative, not a negative, procedure that is being adopted.
    I would only add that if the Government's only purpose in connection with this matter was to reduce the period of the subsidy, to do so by means of an Order is much simpler than having to go through all the paraphernalia of a Parliamentary Bill, and there is a good deal of justification for the Government adopting that procedure, particularly as it is a positive procedure. Another safeguard is that there should be consultation with the local authority. That is written into the Bill, which is unusual.
    With all those safeguards, it seems to me that local authorities can have every confidence in going on building houses
    586
    for the needs of Scotland as they have done in the past, and I hope that they will intensify their efforts. I do not agree with the hon. Lady when she says that local authorities do not have that confidence. I believe that there is every reason for them to be confident, and I hope that they will continue to act as they have done in the past.
    Mr. Hendry: I want to make only two points. First, the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) referred to the contract between the Government and the local authority in regard to a period of 60 years. She suggested that local authorities borrowed money for that period. Surely, she knows that local authorities very rarely borrow for longer than five years, which means that they are willing to take a risk in the hope that interest rates will come down. The Government's guarantee is for ten years, not for five years.
    Secondly, we have heard a great deal, not only tonight but in Committee, about the "wicked Tories" proposing this procedure for altering subsidies. I have said it before, and I think that it is time for me to say it again in this House, that the "wicked" procedure was invented in 1924. It is contained in Section 5 of the Housing (Financial Provision Act) of that year, a Measure brought in by a Socialist Government—
    Mr. Willis: In the interest of truthfulness, the hon. Gentleman knows that the ten-year limit is new.
    Mr. Hendry: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument.
    That Measure provided that the Government might, after consultation, by order alter the subsidy in respect of any house that had not then been completed. That was a house that had already been approved. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know full well that it takes anything from a year to 18 months to complete a house. There, there was a case of a house started by a local authority and not yet completed but, before that house could be completed, the Socialist Government of 1924 took powers to change the subsidy.
    Question put, That "not" be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 200.

    Division No. 152.]

    AYES

    [10.0 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Hannan, William

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Albu, Austen

    Harper, Joseph

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Allen, Scholefleld (Crewe)

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Prentice, R. E.

    Awbery, Stan

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Holman, Percy

    Probert, Arthur

    Beaney, Alan

    Houghton, Douglas

    Rankin, John

    Benson, Sir George

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Reid, William

    Blackburn, F.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Rhodes, H.

    Biyton, William

    Hunter, A. E.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Roberts, Goranwy (Caernarvon)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Rosa, William

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Short, Edward

    Callaghan, James

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Cliffs, Michael

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Small, William

    Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Cronin, John

    Kelley, Richard

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    King, Dr. Horace

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Darling, George

    Lawson, George

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Steele, Thomas

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Stones, William

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Deer, George

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Swain, Thomas

    Dempsey, James

    MCCann, John

    Taverne, Dick

    Diamond, John

    McInnes, James

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Driberg, Tom

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

    MacMillan, Malcolm (Western isles)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg

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

    Evans, Albert

    Manuel, Archie

    Timmons, John

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mapp, Charles

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Finch, Harold

    Marsh, Richard

    Weitzman, David

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mason, Roy

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Forman, J. C.

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Whitlock, William

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Millan, Bruce

    Willey, Frederick

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Milne, Edward

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Ginsburg, David

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Monslow, Walter

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Neal, Harold

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

    Gourlay, Harry

    Oram, A. E.

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Oswald, Thomas

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Grey, Charles

    Owen, Will

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Padley, W. E

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Paget, R. T.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Parker, John

    Mr. Redhead and

    Mr. Charles A. Howell.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Cary, Sir Robert

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

    Aitken, W. T.

    Chataway, Christopher

    Emery, Peter

    Allason, James

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Arbuthnot, John

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Farr, John

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Finlay, Graeme

    Barlow, Sir John

    Collard, Richard

    Fisher, Nigel

    Barter, John

    Cooke, Robert

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Batsford, Brian

    Corfteld, F. V.

    Foster, John

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Costain, A. P.

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Coulson, Michael

    Freeth, Denzil

    Biffen, John

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Gammans, Lady

    Bishop, F. P.

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Crowder, F. P.

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Bossom, Clive

    Curran, Charles

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Box, Donald

    Dance, James

    Coodhart, Philip

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry

    Goodhew, Victor

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Deedes, W. F.

    Gower, Raymond

    Brewis, John

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Brooman-White, R.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Green, Alan

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Doughty, Charles

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Buck, Antony

    Drayson, G. B.

    Gurden, Harold

    Billiard, Denys

    du Cann, Edward

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Duncan, Sir James

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Russell, Ronald

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    MacLeod, John (Ross A Cromarty)

    St. Clair, M.

    Hastings, Stephen

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Hay, John

    Macpnerson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Seymour, Leslie

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Maddan, Martin

    Shaw, M.

    Hendry, Forees

    Maginnis, Simon

    Shepherd, William

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Maitland, Sir John

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

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

    Marshall, Douglas

    Smithers, Peter

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Hobson, Sir John

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Speir, Rupert

    Holland, Philip

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

    Stodart, J. A.

    Hollingworth, John

    Mills, Stratton

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Holt, Arthur

    Miscampbell, N.

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Hopkins, Alan

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Talbot, John E.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Morrison, John

    Tapsell, Peter

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Teeling, Sir William

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Temple, John M.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Noble, Michael

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Hutchison. Michael Clark

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    dames, David

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Peel, John

    Walder, David

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Percival, Ian

    Wall, Patrick

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Peyton, John

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Pym, Francis

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Ramsden, James

    Wise, A. R.

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Rawllnson, Peter

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Woollam, John

    Longbottom, Charles

    Rees, Hugh

    Worsley, Marcus

    Longden, Gilbert

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Loveya, Walter H.

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Mr. Whiteiaw and

    McLaren, Martin

    Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

    Mr. Michael Hamilton.

    Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 8, line 43, to leave out "if he thinks fit".
    May we take with this, Mr. Speaker, the following Amendment, in line 44, at end insert:
    "with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable".
    Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.
    Mr. Galbraith: The effect of the two Amendments is to make it obligatory for the Secretary of State, before laying before Parliament the draft of a subsidy review order under Clause 8, to consult with any particular local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable—in place of the present requirement to consult "if he thinks fit" with any particular local authority.
    These Amendments are the result of an undertaking which I gave in Committee to see whether we could find a form of words to meet a point raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). The hon. Member had argued that the Clause contained a new power. He said:
    "That new power is the power to specify houses within one particular area. If the
    590
    Secretary of State is to lay such an Order he already has that particular area in mind, and I think that he ought to be under an obligation to consult the local authority concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 15th March, 1962; c. 805.]
    I explained that, while we had considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, the Amendment tabled by him to meet it would not be workable in practice because, before deciding to make a review order, the Secretary of State would want to consider whether a particular local authority should be treated in a way different from the rest. He could not, however, make up his mind on this until he had consulted the local authority or local authorities concerned, and he therefore might not think it right to include a particular authority in the draft order before he had consulted it.
    Therefore, the form of the Amendment which hon. Members opposite suggested—which involved an obligation to consult any authority affected by the order—would not bite in the case where the authority was not included in the draft order, or where the Secretary of State had not made up his mind whether it should

    591
    be so included. In other words, as I said:
    "There must be consultation before we can decide whether a particular local authority should be affected by a review order—not the other way round."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 15th March, 1962; c. 804.]
    However, as I promised at that time, we have had another look at the point to see whether we could help the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. I have tabled these Amendments with the object of making it clear that, when there is a chance that a local authority may be affected by a review order in a way different from other local authorities, the Secretary of State will be under an obligation to consult that local authority before laying a draft of the order before Parliament. In this way, he will have an opportunity to hear what the local authority has to say before making up his mind to include it in the draft order.
    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and to his hon. Friends for highlighting this point, and I hope that they will agree that the Amendment represents an improvement on the wording in the Bill.
    Mr. Ross: It would be churlish of me if I did not thank the Under-Secretary of State for what he has said and for having listened, on this occasion, to what we said. I only wish that he had listened on many other occasions in Committee to what we had to say. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that when I moved the Amendment I said that I appreciated that it did not exactly meet the point and that it would place a considerable burden of consultation on the Secretary of State. In view of What the hon. Gentleman has said, however, I think that we on this side should express our thanks to him and be prepared to support the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 44, at end insert:
    "with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

    Clause 11.—(ADVANCES TO REGISTERED HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS PROVIDING HOUSING ACCOMMODATION FOR LETTING.)
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. J. Hill: I beg to move, in page 10, line 39, after "submit" to insert:
    "after consultation with the local authority in whose area they intend to build".
    In this Amendment, we are trying to be helpful to the new housing associations. We axe not asking the Under-Secretary to give the local authority the right to veto any scheme submitted by a housing association. What we are insisting upon is that a scheme of this nature which has been vetoed by the Secretary of State should proceed on the basis of co-operation.
    Local authorities which have the responsibility of building houses will be glad to see some of these new housing associations helping them to solve the problem of bad housing in Scotland. One of the reasons why we suggest that these housing associations should consult the local authority about such projects is that, on the question of the sites that will be available, the local authority will surely be in the best position to advise any new housing association where the best sites are, and, by co-operation with that association, help it to get on with the job of building the houses which it intends to build.
    Then, there is the question of the cost of the servicing of the sites. Here, again, the local authority can be of immense help to any new housing association by pin-pointing exactly Where the services are, and, in all probability, helping the association to save money. There is also the question of planning, because the association must have planning permission before it can go on with the job. The large burghs and the county councils are the planning authorities, and if the new housing associations were to cooperate and consult with them, the advice which they could get would be invaluable. In regard to the small burghs, which are not the planning authorities, no doubt they could be of immense assistance by suggesting to the planning authority that assistance should be given, and, if possible, planning permission also given to the new association. I sincerely hope that the Under-Secretary has no intention of by-passing the planning authorities and giving us another dose of the bad planning which we have had in Scotland for some considerable time.

    593
    We have a precedent for this Amendment. The Scottish Special Housing Association has been working in close co-operation with the local authorities in Scotland for years, and the local authorities are very glad to have its help. In fact, some of the local authorities have even applied for an extra allocation of Housing Association houses to assist them in trying to remove bad housing conditions. I cannot see any reason at all why any of the new housing associations should not co-operate and follow the example of the Scottish Special Housing Association. I am quite sure that the local authorities will be only too glad to help the new associations, no matter where they are going to build the houses that are so badly needed. In the end, of course, co-operation is necessary in any case, so why not let us start at the beginning and cooperate from the start? It would be more sensible and reasonable. I hope that the Under-Secretary, who has given the Opposition nothing so far tonight, will be able to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. Galbraith: I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill) that I shall not be able to say "yes".
    The effect of the Amendment would be to place upon a housing association proposing to build houses for economic letting—that is the point which I wish to stress—with the aid of an Exchequer advance under Clause 11 a statutory obligation to consult the local authority in whose area it intends to build.
    In Committee, an Amendment was tabled which would have had the effect of requiring a housing association operating under Clause 11 to submit its schemes to the local authority first instead of directly to the Secretary of State; it would have made further progress dependent upon whether the local authority recommended the scheme to the Secretary of State. The Amendment was discussed at the eighteenth and nineteenth sittings of the Committee and was withdrawn on the understanding that the Government would give some further thought to the matter before Report.
    The present Amendment does not go quite as far as that in Committee, because whereas that in Committee would
    594
    have given the local authority a power of veto on any scheme under Clause 11 which it chose not to recommend to the Secretary of State, the present Amendment would require merely consultation and would not give a power of veto. To that extent the hon. Member might presumably expect that the Amendment would be more acceptable to the Government.
    It is perfectly true that in Committee I said that I would again look at this matter of consultation between the housing association and the local authority. But I also indicated, I think in reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), that I thought it most unlikely that I would be able to find some suitable provision, because I was reluctant to have any extra stage imposed by Statute.
    I have examined this matter very carefully in the light of the Committee discussions, but I regret that I have to tell the hon. Member and other hon. Members that I do not feel able to accept the Amendment or to table a Government Amendment to the same or somewhat similar effect. The main reason for that decision is simple. As I explained, a housing association operating with the aid of an Exchequer advance under Clause 11 will normally—except where it is building for old people, of course—be building without subsidy and the houses will either be let at economic rents or occupied on some form of joint ownership basis, again at the full economic cost. In other words, housing associations operating under Clause 11 will be catering for a housing need different from that for which a local authority normally caters. The people who occupy the houses will be those who are earning enough to pay the full economic cost of a modern house and not needing any subsidy from the rates or from the Exchequer. In the normal case, those will be people for whom local authorities do not cater. Local authorities rightly regard their primary duty as being towards those people who are not able to provide satisfactory housing for themselves.
    There is, therefore, no question of conflict between the local authority and the housing association building under Clause 11. There is no question of overlap. It therefore seems wrong in

    595
    principle that when a housing association is operating in this way and is in a position no different from that of any other private builder who has decided to build unsubsidised houses, there should be any statutory obligation on the housing association to consult the local authority as housing authority. Certainly private builders must obtain planning permission—that is obvious—and must co-operate with the local authority in the layout of streets, sewerage and such other matters—that is only common sense. But they have no duty to consult the housing authority as such because there is no reason for them to do so. Precisely the same consideration applies when a housing association proposes to build under Clause 11, because it is building houses for economic letting. If it is right for an ordinary individual building for economic letting not to have to consult the housing authority, that should also apply to housing associations building under Clause 11.
    For those reasons, therefore, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Miss Herbison: We are surprised that the Under-Secretary of State has not seen fit to accept this Amendment, particularly in view of the helpful way in which it was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill). My hon. Friend showed clearly that, far from resenting houses being built by housing associations which are not out to make profit, we welcome this move forward.
    The hon. Gentleman said that he did not want anything to come between the decision of a housing association to build in a certain area and its representations to the Secretary of State for Scotland for part of the £3 million that are to be allocated. We are as keen as the right hon. Gentleman that as little time as possible should be wasted in the provision of houses.
    What about local authorities who are now building houses to let at economic rents? The hon. Gentleman suggested that there would be no overlapping and no competition. How wrong he is. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made it clear during our discussions in Committee that Kilmarnock Council was building this
    596
    type of house for owner-occupation. Further, the hon. Gentleman should note that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) only this week tenants have moved into houses built by the local authority and are paying economic rents. I imagine that this is the kind of thing that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to encourage, because he will not get many houses built out of this £3 million that he proposes to allocate, and if local authorities are willing to do this kind of work there will be competition and overlapping.
    We want local authorities, housing associations and the S.S.H.A. to build houses in Scotland, and it seems to me that if the Amendment were accepted the first thing that a housing association would do would be to go to the local authority and have discussions with it on the many points mentioned by my hon. Friend. It would have discussion about planning, about siting, and it would, I hope, discuss what the local authority had in mind with regard to the building of houses.
    It seems to me that, from the point of view of the associations, there is everything to be said for accepting the Amendment. I again plead with the hon. Gentleman to accept it and not regard with suspicion everything that is put forward, no matter how well, from this side of the House.
    Mr. Willis: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider this matter again. We all wish to get the best results in the local authority areas. Obviously many advantages are to be gained from consultation. Certainly no harm can be done by it. Only good can ensue from consultation.
    Why should the hon. Gentleman be so doctrinaire about this and simply turn down the Amendment? I would have thought that anything which contributed to the building of houses was a good thing. I would also have thought that it would be a good thing if it were done with the knowledge and co-operation of the local authority.
    It being half-past Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

  COLONIAL LOANS [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to amend the Colonial Loans Acts, 1949 and 1952, it is expedient to authorise the charge on and issue out of the Consolidated Fund, and the payment into the Exchequer, of any additional sums required to be so charged and issued or paid under the said Act of 1949 by reason of any provision of the said Act of this Session—

  (a) increasing the aggregate amount of the principal of the loans which may be guaranteed by the Treasury under the said Act of 1949 from the equivalent of one hundred million pounds to the equivalent of one hundred and fifty million pounds;

  (b) enabling the Treasury to guarantee under the said Act of 1949 any loan made to an authority established for the purpose of providing or administering services which are common to, or relate to matters of common interest to, two or more territories of which at least one is a colonial territory; or

  (c) extending the meaning of the expression "colonial territory" in the said Acts of 1949 and 1952.

  Resolution agreed to.

  MILITARY TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. M. Hamilton.]
  10.31 p.m.
  Mr. Victor Goodhew: I am grateful for this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House and my hon. Friend the implications of the Government's recent decision to order the Avro 748 aircraft in place of the Handley Page Dart Herald. This is a matter of some concern and consideration in my constituency where we have a factory, at Radlett, at which are employed a large number of my constituents. As the end of the orders for the famous Victor bomber draws to a close, those constituents of mine naturally have their eyes on the future and have put a great deal of faith in this Dart Herald aircraft to help to ensure their future.
  It is not normally necessary to declare that one has no financial interest in any matter one raises, but since it has come to my ears, in recent weeks during which
  598
  I have been asking Questions about this subject, that certain people have suggested that I have a financial interest in Handley Page I think it would be a good thing to take this opportunity to make it quite clear that I have never had and have not at this time. I have a purely constituency interest, which I was prepared to explore, and indeed I was prepared to sacrifice it, if I felt that the national interest, which must come first, made this necessary, but in fact I have found that this is not so.
  Perhaps we could just have a look at the history of this whole question of the Dart Herald, which was originally developed as a possible replacement of the DC 111 aircraft and was first built in 1955 with Leonides piston engines. It was in 1958 that the first flight was made with the present Rolls-Royce Dart propeller turbo engines. I would emphasise that no Government assistance or support was involved in the development of this aircraft. Therefore, this is an example of private enterprise, and one which, I should have thought, this Government in particular would have been glad to support.
  I appreciate fully that the Government decided upon the policy some two years or more ago of rationalisation in the aircraft industry, and it was said at that time that, once the aircraft companies had merged into the large consortia, Government orders would be concentrated upon those five major groups.
  It just so happens that Messrs. Handley Page have not amalgamated with any other large concern. I do not think it a matter for this House whether their reasons, even if they were available to us, were right or wrong. It would satisfy me if I merely knew that the chairman of the company felt that he had not had an offer satisfactory to his shareholders. I should think that he was carrying out his duty in such circumstances to refuse to amalgamate.
  However, in spite of this policy of rationalisation and of emphasis upon the placing of orders with those large concerns newly formed, the Government did in fact in May, 1961, invite Messrs. Handley Page to submit a fixed-price tender for a military version of the Herald aircraft. This was a rear-loading transport aircraft for military purposes. Then the question which I ask myself

  599
  at this stage is why this invitation to tender was made if it was felt that this policy of placing orders with the large consortia was to be strictly adhered to.
  Messrs. Handley Page had great confidence in the Herald aircraft, and at that time the only competitor available was the Caribou, an old piston-engined aircraft made by a Canadian associate company of de Havilland. The Herald was an aircraft which could be produced at low cost, because the development was complete. Early delivery could have been offered—and, indeed, was offered—in 1961. Its performance was greatly superior to that of the Caribou, and its load and range capacity were also much superior. Indeed, Handley Page assumed at the time that the invitation to tender indicated the possibility of some orders being received, and I understand that a further £50,000 was expended on developing a military version of the Herald on this assumption.
  In July, 1961, the aircraft was demonstrated at the expense of the company and at the invitation of the Air Ministry—a demonstration on unprepared surfaces at Martlesham Heath Aerodrome. The Army, the Royal Air Force and the Ministry of Aviation were there, and I understand that they were all completely satisfied with the performance put up by the aircraft. It seems to me that this was the stage at which orders could have been placed, because we then merely had a contrast between the Handley Page Dart Herald and the older piston-engined Caribou.
  I understand that the Army tended to look upon the Caribou as something they might like, but they are ardent traditionalists at heart, and because it was an old-fashioned, piston-engined aircraft the Army's heart may have been warmed to it. But the Royal Air Force had no doubt. It was at this moment that I became anxious lest the Royal Air Force should be robbed of the best aircraft for the job because of the policy of the Government in giving orders only to the big, major groups. I therefore wrote to the Minister expressing the hope that the only consideration would be that the Royal Air Force should have the aircraft which it wanted. This was the point at which it seemed to me that national interest came well in front of
  600
  my constituency interest, although the two really coincided. I have the old-fashioned view that the Minister of Aviation's job is to provide the Royal Air Force with the aircraft it needs. Therefore, I expressed that view.
  Last month, after a further delay of about eight months, we found that an order had been placed for the Avro 748, in spite of the fact the Royal Air Force was more in favour of the Dart Herald. On 5th March I asked the Minister of Aviation a Question on the matter, and he replied that in practice there was no decisive difference between the two aircraft. I asked, in an intervention in a recent debate, who made this evaluation as to there being no decisive difference—whether it was made by the men in the Royal Air Force who have to fly these machines or by the officials in the Ministry of Aviation. It is no discredit to those officials to say that, in my view, the Royal Air Force are the people who should take such a decision, where there is a narrow balance.
  I was disturbed to learn, when it was disclosed in a recent debate on the aircraft industry, that no high-ranking Royal Air Force Officer in the Ministry of Aviation is responsible for this sort of decision. We therefore have a situation in which the Herald is cheaper than the Avro 748—by all accounts; perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to let us have the actual figures—it is a high-wing aircraft, and therefore to be regarded as preferable to a low-wing aircraft for use on rough surfaces such as on desert land, when rocks and stones might fly up and damage the flaps; it takes a larger payload than the Avro; its cabin is higher and wider, and therefore able to contain much bulkier loads—indeed, it is wide enough to take two sticks of paratroops disembarking at the same time—and its performance during trials has been without exception, whereas I understand that the Avro 748 was bogged down twice when it subsequently came to trials.
  The Herald is available much more readily than the Avro, because it is already in service on certain airlines, and twenty-one of these aircraft have been sold for civilian purposes already, including three to B.E.A. I need not mention that His Royal Highness the

  601
  Duke of Edinburgh has been flying such an aircraft on his mission to South America, and we all hope that this will help greatly to encourage the sales of the civilian version.
  We find that the Dart Herald takes the R.D.A.10 engine which is now in production. I understand that the Avro 748 needs a more powerful engine because of the weight of the aircraft and requires the R.D.A.12, which is not at present in use and will have to be specially developed. I do not know the cost Of development but an estimate has been made of £1 million. That would vitally affect the whole cost of the order. I should like to know how long it will take to develop this engine. The period I have been given is eighteen months to two years which, on top of the present delay of eight months, seems to me to be an unreasonable period.
  A newly-developed engine would naturally have to be overhauled and inspected at much more frequent intervals than a tried and trusted engine. Presumably the R.D.A.12 would have to be inspected after 250 or 400 flying hours, whereas the R.D.A.10 would probably run for 1,500 or 2,000 hours before an inspection was necessary. Does not this mean that there would have to be an extra supply of engines to replace those which were being inspected, and that the capital cost and the cost of maintenance will be much greater if this special engine is to be used?
  Added to this we have the restricted propeller clearance of a low-winged aeroplane and I understand that it was found necessary to increase the height of the undercarriage for clearance. When that was done it was found that the cabin was too high for loading and the undercarriage had to be made adjustable so that it would go up and down. This seems to me an unnecessary complication which can only be expensive in maintenance and manufacture.
  There are a good many advantages which one could point to which the Herald has over the Avro 748. It is preferred by the R.A.F. It has a larger pay load. It is cheaper to buy and to run. It would be available two years sooner than the Avro 748. It seems to me that the Ministry of Aviation should have made an exception to its policy in
  602
  this case. It would have been a logical exception. After all, the policy was designed to produce cheaper aircraft and in fact this is a cheaper aircraft, even though it does not result from the policy. It is reasonable because it would give the R.A.F. what it wants, which is what the Minister of Aviation ought to supply, and it would be equitable because Avro, one of the biggest of the consortia, had a chance to produce the aircraft and has not matched up to the aircraft which was produced by private enterprise.
  I think that this shows that a certain shabbiness of treatment has been measured out to Handley Page Aircraft Company, the first in this country to be incorporated for the manufacture of aircraft. The company was a pioneer in commercial passenger flying and in the production of large bombers. I can look back during my lifetime and remember when the Hannibal aircraft was flying, and the Halifax bomber in the last war, and now the Victor bombers today fly over my home and my constituency.
  I feel that this decision is purely political. It is a doctrinaire adherance to a policy decision taken two or three years ago and as such I deplore it. It is made even worse by the fact that the Minister seems to have failed to follow up certain offers made by Handley Page. I understand that the firm was appreciative of the difficulty confronting the Government by having entered into this policy of giving orders to the major groups and, therefore, it suggested that it might be possible for one of the major groups to manufacture the Herald. I believe that this offer has not been taken up. I ask my hon. Friend to ask my right hon. Friend to look at this matter again, bearing in mind the need to obtain for the R.A.F. the aircraft it really wants and as soon as possible, rather than to incur unreasonable delay. Also, as a matter of future policy, he should consider whether we are ever to get the aircraft the Services need so long as the Ministry has the choice and there are no consultations with high-ranking Air Force or other Service officers with more knowledge of what is required.
  I close by thanking the House for this opportunity to debate the matter, and I express the hope, not only in the interests of my constituents who have

  603
  great faith in this aircraft, but also in the interests of the Royal Air Force, that this question will be looked into once again.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. John Cronin: We on this side of the House are very concerned about the situation which has arisen in regard to the Avro 748 and the Handley Page Dart Herald, and we are grateful to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) for bringing the question before the House.
  So far as I know, both are excellent aircraft. Although the hon. Member has made a good case for the Handley Page Dart Herald, I have no doubt that there is much to be said from the opposite point of view. It may well be that there is not much difference between them, but it is important to bear in mind that it is widely said that the Handley Page Dart Herald has been stood down as far as this order is concerned purely for the political reason that it is not produced by one of the consortia, and it is also widely said that this aircraft is more satisfactory than the Avro 748. If that is the case, obviously it will cause considerable impairment of the morale of the aircraft industry, so I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us a detailed explanation of the situation.
  I understand that this deal has not yet been closed. If that is the case, I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will undertake that there will be a detailed explanation of the relative merits of these aircraft when the deal is finally closed and that in the meantime he will give us what information he can.
  10.46 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I wish—in one sentence only, for obvious reasons—to add to the plea so ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) and the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), from the point of view of one who represents in this House a constituency containing the Woodley factory of the company. A very large number of persons there who add very greatly by their skill and knowledge to the value of the aircraft industry in that part of the country are anxiously watching this position and, like myself, they want to
  604
  hear far more fully than they have heard so far by way of explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary.
  10.47 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) for giving me this opportunity to set out the facts on a matter which I am very well aware has caused wide public interest, which has been expressed both in this House and in the Press.
  The military requirement with which we are concerned is for a new light cargo aircraft for two purposes, firstly to provide support in war for forces operating in the field and, secondly, to serve in peace as a replacement of the Valetta for general use. This requirement, as my hon. Friend said, was formally put in May, 1961, to the Ministry of Aviation by the Air Ministry and by us to a number of manufacturers. Several air-oraft both British and foreign were considered for the requirement and after a technical evaluation the choice was narrowed down to three aircraft, two British, the Avro 748 military freighter—a modified version of the Avro 748—the Handley Page Dart Herald and a Canadian aircraft, the Caribou, manufactured by a subsidiary of the Hawker-Siddeley Group. I shall not waste time over the Caribou, which is already in service in the United States and Canada and was therefore ready for earlier delivery than the others and did in fact meet the war-time requirement, but was judged to be inferior in a number of respects for the peace-time role.
  It is not the custom, for good reasons I think, to canvass publicly the individual characteristics of aircraft in such circumstances, because the Government's requirements are to a very tight specification and one would not wish to prejudice any aircraft in any of its other markets by appearing to suggest that simply because it did not meet the extremely tight Government specification it therefore was not up to the mark generally.
  I can give the House certain information about both the Avro and the Herald, which incidentally are both private ventures, without support from Government money in the previous stages. There is no distinction here between the

  605
  Herald and the Avro 748. Both were given a thorough trial in their civil version and the flight trials of both were conducted at the same place in similar conditions. On both occasions experts were present at the trials from the Royal Air Force, the Army, and the Ministry of Aviation. The Ministry of Aviation experts include a substantial number of senior Royal Air Force officers, so in a sense the Royal Air Force was represented twice over in these exercises. It was, as has been said by my right hon. Friend, concluded that there was no decisive difference in the estimated performance or the operational characteristics of the two aircraft. The decision that there was "no decisive difference" was made, not by chairborne officials, but by the technical specialists of the Ministry of Aviation, in close consultation with the operational staff of the Air Ministry, and the conclusion was endorsed by the Minister of Defence himself who, as I am sure the House will agree, can speak for the technical experts in the Air Ministry.
  I come now to particular characteristics. I will take payload first, which affects the number of aircraft to be ordered. There is no significant difference in the cabin dimensions. In the weight that can be carried, the Herald has a slight advantage which would be greater in some very exceptional circumstances than in others. But after careful study with the Air Ministry it became quite clear that, whichever of these two aircraft were ordered, the same number would be required. There may have been some confusion because in the case of the Caribou a larger number would be required, but in the case of the Herald and the Avro that is not the case.
  With regard to delivery dates, it is probably true that the Herald could be released for service a few months earlier than the Avro 748, but the estimated delivery dates for the entire order would be very much the same and in both cases it would depend on the same limiting factor. The limiting factor concerns the engine, on which I should like to reply to the points raised by my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend asked about the additional development cost for the Dart 12 engine. This is still being assessed, but, as far as we can foresee at the moment, it is likely to work out, spread over the
  606
  whole order, at about £5,000 per engine. The time scale is that it would need about eighteen months for development from the date of contract, but the important point which I wish to emphasise is that the recommendation of the Ministry of Aviation experts was that, whichever of the two aircraft were chosen—the Avro 748 or the Herald—the Dart 12 engine would have to be installed if either aircraft were to meet the specification. With the Dart 10, the Air Ministry specification would not be fully met.
  The subsequent cost of stocking and maintaining engines would be substantially the same, whether it was the Dart 10 or the Dart 12, because from the Royal Air Force's point of view both are new engines, but I emphasise again that for either aircraft the Dart 12 would have to be installed.
  1 turn now to price. My right hon. Friend explained on 5th March in answer to a Question that the price for the Avro remains to be fixed by contract, and that is conditional upon reaching satisfactory terms. It is not the normal practice to give details of the quotations, and I shall not do so. However, I should like to answer a question put to me during the debate on aviation the week before last. I was asked whether the price quoted by Handley Page was a fixed price for the Herald. The answer is that we asked both firms to submit quotations which we intended to use as a basis for a fixed-price contract, but it was only at the contract stage that it could be called a fixed price in the ordinary sense of the words.
  It is not a simple matter to arrive at that fixed price, because early quotations, even if called fixed-price quotations, are not related to detailed specifications which could have contractual force, and they must be treated with reserve until detailed technical specifications for the aircraft and the associated engines and equipment have been finally determined. Moreover, the price paid would be subject to negotiation after detailed investigation by my Ministry's technical cost experts, and that has not yet taken place. Finally, the manufacturers usually include in their quotations reservations and conditions which may affect the price, and both manufacturers did so in this case. It is, therefore, impossible to regard the quoted

  607
  price as a fixed price until contract negotiations are concluded on the basis of a detailed specification.
  On the basis of initial estimates, the conclusion, taking into account all the relevant factors, was that the difference in total cost to the Government between equipping the Royal Air Force with Avros rather than Heralds, and the cost of operating and maintaining them after purchase, would be unlikely to be very great, and it might weigh in favour of either aircraft—
  Mr. Cronin: I apologise for trespassing on the Minister's very brief time, but he has dilated at some length on the similarities of the two aircraft. What I think both sides of the House are particularly anxious to know is largely why the Government have come down firmly in favour of the Avro.
  Mr. Woodhouse: I am grateful for that intervention, because it enables me to pass over one or two points that I would otherwise have had to cover in detail.
  Against that background of a lack of any substantial, any decisive, difference between the two aircraft, we had, of course, to take into account the Government's declaration of policy, made two years ago, in which the key phrase in this context is that
  "Except where specialised requirements or public policy make it necessary to do otherwise, we intend to concentrate Government orders on the five major groups."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 958.]
  If, in this particular case, we had decided otherwise, the onus would have been on us to prove that there were exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from that policy. There were no exceptional circumstances.
  608
  My hon. Friend asks why, in that case, Handley Page was invited at all if it were a foregone conclusion. The answer is that it was not a foregone conclusion. There might have proved to be exceptional circumstances, and to refuse to let Handley Page tender in those circumstances would have prejudged that possibility and would, in fact, have been in contradiction of the policy declared in February, 1960.
  In conclusion, I should like to reiterate, as the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) has very rightly said, that these are both very fine aircraft, and I should like to pay a personal tribute to the technical and engineering skill that has been put into the Herald as well as the Avro 748. That is not merely a personal tribute, because some useful orders have already been placed for the Herald and, as I have said, the Government have themselves purchased three for B.E.A., and in one of them the Duke of Edinburgh is now touring Latin America.
  Those aircraft were bought to encourage sales in a market for what might loosely be called a Dakota replacement that we feel to be potentially very large. We hope that both aircraft will be successful in that market, and that both will make a contribution to our exports. Although we can understand the disappointment of some hon. Members, with the best will in the world we could not choose more than one aircraft for one Service requirement, and we believe that our choice was the right one.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eleven o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Technical Education, Dumbarton
  Technical Education, Dumbarton
  Bank Security Forces (Firearms)
  Bank Security Forces (Firearms)
  Returns (Housing Particulars)
  Returns (Housing Particulars)
  Roads, Ross and Cromarty
  Roads, Ross and Cromarty
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Scottish Union of Students (Representations)
  Scottish Union of Students (Representations)
  Murder Cases (Verdicts)
  Murder Cases (Verdicts)
ROADS
  A.38 Crossing, Lulsgate and Potters Hill
  A.38 Crossing, Lulsgate and Potters Hill
  Motorways (Illuminated Signs)
  Motorways (Illuminated Signs)
  Heavy Lorries (Overnight Parking)
  Heavy Lorries (Overnight Parking)
  Cardiff Inner Bypass
  Cardiff Inner Bypass
  Pedestrian Crossing, Slough
  Pedestrian Crossing, Slough
  Roundabouts
  Roundabouts
SHIPPING
  Passenger Vessels
  Passenger Vessels
TRANSPORT
  Drive-yourself Hire Cars (Insurance)
  Drive-yourself Hire Cars (Insurance)
  Motor Vehicles (Diesel Fumes)
  Motor Vehicles (Diesel Fumes)
  Coal-carrying Vehicles, Midlands
  Coal-carrying Vehicles, Midlands
  Central Transport Consultative Committees (Report)
  Central Transport Consultative Committees (Report)
  Public Service Vehicles (Smoking)
  Public Service Vehicles (Smoking)
RAILWAYS
  Diesel Fumes
  Diesel Fumes
  FISHING VESSEL "RED CRUSADER" (REPORT)
  FISHING VESSEL "RED CRUSADER" (REPORT)
  FOREIGN OFFICE INFORMATION EXPENDITURE (SAVINGS)
  FOREIGN OFFICE INFORMATION EXPENDITURE (SAVINGS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Rossington
  Rossington
  King George V Sanatorium, Liphook
  King George V Sanatorium, Liphook
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Australian and New Zealand Defence Ministers (Discussions)
  Australian and New Zealand Defence Ministers (Discussions)
MALAYA AND CEYLON
  Singapore and Trincomalee Bases (Agreements)
  Singapore and Trincomalee Bases (Agreements)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Landing Fees
  Landing Fees
EDUCATION
  School Buildings
  School Buildings
  Science and Mathematics
  Science and Mathematics
NATIONAL FINANCE
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Domestic Oil Heaters
  Domestic Oil Heaters
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Cerebral Thrombosis
  Cerebral Thrombosis
  Motor Vehicles (Emission of Smoke)
  Motor Vehicles (Emission of Smoke)
  Licensing Act, 1961 (Wales)
  Licensing Act, 1961 (Wales)
  Jury Service
  Jury Service
  One-Way Traffic Routes, London
  One-Way Traffic Routes, London
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  Planning Appeals, Wales
  Planning Appeals, Wales
  Rateable Values
  Rateable Values
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  West Germany
  West Germany
  Local Employment Act (Scotland)
  Local Employment Act (Scotland)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield

ERECTION OF HOUSES AT WELWYN
2.36 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: 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 what local planning authority, if any, has given permission to Christopher Rowland and Company of Northwood, Middlesex, to erect the houses at Welwyn advertised in the Sunday Telegraph of February 25, 1962.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I understand that permission to erect the particular houses in question has not yet been given. I am informed, however, that the development of the estate has been proceeding for some time under a permission given before the war, and that a number of houses similar in type to those advertised have been approved by the Hertford Rural District Council.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does this planning authority not concern itself at all with the design of the houses that it permits? Does it pass everything submitted to it, no matter how deplorable? What is the view of my noble friend himself?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, to judge from the photograph in the newspaper, I would agree that the somewhat Tudoresque appearance of these houses perhaps leaves something to be desired. I understand, however, that the local planning authority have already had fairly detailed discussions with the developers on this subject. And in the circumstances I do not think that my right
172
honourable friend would feel prepared to take the matter out of their hands. However, I will see, in any event, that the noble Lord's strictures on these houses are brought to their attention.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask whether houses of this character are going to be produced as one of Dr. Hill's great improvements to Oxford?
EARL JELLICOE: No, my Lords.

PROSECUTIONS FOR DRUNKEN DRIVING
2.38 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: 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—in each of the last five years for which statistics are available:

(1) How many persons have been prosecuted for the offences of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle when unfit to drive through drink or drugs;

(2) What percentage of those so prosecuted have elected to be tried by a jury;

(3) How many persons, convicted summarily or after electing trial of one of these offences for the first time, have been imprisoned for the maximum period of four months.]

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, the numbers of persons prosecuted in England and Wales in 1958, 1959 and 1960 for the offences of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle when unfit to drive through drink or drugs were 4.818, 5,471 and 6,514 respectively. Complete figures relating to the numbers of persons prosecuted are not available in respect of earlier years, but 4,456 offences were dealt with by prosecution in 1956 and 4,654 in 1957.
The statistics do not distinguish between persons electing for trial by jury and other persons committed for trial, but on average over the five years in

173
question about 13 per cent. of the persons charged were committed for trial. The statistics do not discriminate between first offenders and others, and I regret, therefore, that it is not possible to give the further information for which the noble Lord asks in the third part of his Question.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for the trouble to which he has obviously gone to try to provide the information required? Quite obviously, the records do not show it all. But could I ask him this? He said that 13 per cent. of people so prosecuted have been sent for trial. I asked in the Question about those who elected to go for trial. Is there a difference? May I ask the noble Earl whether I am to take it that 87 per cent. of those who were prosecuted for these two offences were dealt with before magistrates and did not go before quarter sessions? The other point is this. Although I quite appreciate the reason why he cannot give me the answer to the third part of the Question, if I put down the Question in another way would the noble Earl be kind enough to answer it at a later date?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I fully appreciate, as I said in my Answer, that I have not answered in full the Question of the noble Lord. Off-hand I cannot tell the noble Lord the differences in numbers between those who elected to go to the higher court and those who were actually sent to the higher court, which is overall 13 per cent. But I will certainly look into that matter to see whether those figures can be ascertained, and will let the noble Lord know in writing. I will certainly try my best to find out any further information for which the noble Lord may ask in another Question.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. As I understand it, what he is saying to me now is that I cannot take it that 87 per cent. of those prosecuted for the offence of being drunk when in charge of, or driving, a motor car are dealt with by courts of summary jurisdiction.
EARL BATHURST: I should like the noble Lord just to let me reserve my position there. We have statistics by the ton in the basement of the Home Office, and I will look into that. I assure the
174
noble Lord that I will find out, if possible.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl.
LORD REA: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that very often the words "sent for trial" and "elected to go for trial" in fact mean the same thing? Where a defendant is given the choice and elects to go for trial to the higher court, and so chooses, he is surely sent by the court of first instance.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, with great respect, I should have thought that that was not the same thing. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend who sits upon the Woolsack would like to comment on that, but I should have thought it was a very different thing.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that, in so far as concerns the vast majority of cases in which accused persons go for legal advice, the lawyer advises them to go for trial by jury because on the jury they are most likely to find someone who, but for the grace of God, might well also be in the dock?
EARL BATHURST: I think that is a very different story. I have no doubt that, as the noble Lord says, there are many different reasons for the advice given to these people that they should go for trial by jury.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the answer to the question to which he has just replied, would it be possible for the noble Earl to give any indication whether guidance is given by an appropriate central authority to courts and other legal places in the country that there should be a greater severity of sentence in all cases where drivers of automobiles are convicted of being under the influence of liquor?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, we have had long debates in your Lordships' House on this subject, and legislation contained in the Road Traffic Acts makes it quite clear, as do the pronouncements from my noble and learned friend who sits upon the Woolsack, what the legal punishments may be. We can in no way direct magistrates or juries as

175
to what should be done. Nevertheless, my Lords, those penalties are there, and I think those who have to inflict the penalties are well aware of their powers.
LORD BARNBY: In thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask him this: would it be wrong to assume that there is disappointment in the appropriate quarters that many of these sentences are inadequate?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I think it would be wrong to assume that, over all the country, that is so. No doubt some people seem to get off very lightly while others appear to be dealt with heavily, but I do not think it would be fair to say that, in the appropriate quarters, there was sorrow.

DRUGS DANGEROUS TO SIGHT
2.45 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: 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 how they propose to bring to the notice of every practising doctor the warning issued in the British Medical Journal, that drugs in extensive use for various diseases, including, rheumatoid arthritis, are responsible for serious damage to the eyes].
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is referring to the possible side effects of chloroquine, they were brought to the attention of all National Health Service doctors in May, 1960. The warning is incorporated in the Comprehensive Prescribing Handbook, which they all have.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if he has read the article? I am talking about the article in the current issue of the British Medical Journal. I have just refreshed my memory, and a large number of drugs are mentioned, including chloroquine, which is used widely for rheumatoid arthritis. But may I draw his attention to Melleril? It was discovered that a drug, N.P.207, which was a tranquilliser, caused complete
176
blindness. That, I hope, has been withdrawn from the market; but I have just telephoned a chemist and I understand that Melleril, which is also mentioned, is still on the market, although this causes only eye damage. The same happens with chloramphenicol. But so far as chloroquine is concerned, would the noble Lord agree with me that, in view of the fact that this drug is being widely prescribed for rheumatoid arthritis to-day, the doctors of the country should have their memories refreshed, bearing in mind this article, and that they should be told that every patient taking this drug should have a periodical examination of the eyes because the damage is irreparable? That is the advice of the British Medical Association.
LORD NEWTON: Yes, my Lords, I have read the article in the British Medical Journal to which the noble Baroness has referred. In fact, I read the other one, too, in the same edition, which was issued on March 31 of this year. One of these two articles, the one by Mr. J. N. Ormrod, is concerned particularly with chloroquine, and I have already told the noble Baroness the position about that. The other article discusses, in addition to chloroquine, four other drugs. One of them is called 1, 7 di(p-dimethylamino-phenoxy) heptane, and the article points out that the use of this drug is being discontinued. As to two other drugs, thioridazine (or "Melleril", as the noble Baroness called it) and chloramphenicol, the article says it would seem that the complications from them have been noted only after unusually high doses.
Further about chloramphenicol, Professor Clifford Wilson of the London Hospital wrote a signed article about this drug in the Prescribers Journal in December of last year and that article concluded as follows:
" Chloramphenicol has a wide range of antibacterial activity, but unfortunately carries a risk of serious damage to the bone-marrow. Although it is still the antibiotic of choice in typhoid fever, in other infections it should be replaced by others which are equally effective and safer."
I should perhaps add that the Prescribers Journal is circulated every two months to all doctors in the National Health Service. The fourth and last drug mentioned in the article in the

177
British Medical Journal is called piperidylethylchlorophenothiazine, and this drug, my Lords, was never on the market.
I have mentioned the facts about this article in the British Medical Journal at some length because I think one must keep these matters in perspective. One would not like the public to imagine—and I know the noble Baroness would agree with me about this—that doctors neglect their professional duty of keeping themselves informed about discoveries, either good or bad, which are reported from time to time in their professional journals.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he has mentioned drugs that I have not mentioned at all? To make a case, he has mentioned to noble Lords here drugs which may be off the market; and, of course, I would not be so irresponsible as to bring them to the notice of the House. I have brought to the notice of the House three drugs which are being widely distributed, and I am shocked to think that the noble Lord has treated the matter in a rather frivolous manner.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, I should have thought I treated it in a most serious and responsible manner.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear !
LORD NEWTON: I would just say to the noble Baroness that, if she will he good enough to look again at her own Question on the Order Paper, she will see that she invites the attention of Her Majesty's Government to warnings issued in the British Medical Journal. The British Medical Journal is issued every week; she did not say to what particular issue she referred, and I naturally assumed that she was referring to the last one, which contains two articles, as I say, about retinal damage.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, after hearing what has been said by the noble Baroness, he does not think that it would be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to warn the public against the danger of taking remedies prescribed by the medical profession?

ASSAY OFFICES BILL [H.L.]
2.51 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR):
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Merthyr.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, before the House proceeds to give a Third Reading to this Bill, as I hope it will do, I would ask your Lordships to consider for a moment the purpose of the Bill and its implications, because although superficially it is a Bill dealing with technical matters, it nevertheless touches very ancient traditions and personal rights. Therefore I think your Lordships would not wish to pass a Bill of such nature without some consideration of what is involved.
The Assay Offices Bill has as its purpose the closing of the Assay Office in the City of Chester, and the dissolution of the Chester Company of Goldsmiths. In doing this, the Bill is implementing one of the recommendations of a Departmental Committee, set up by the Board of Trade in 1955, which reported in 1959. That Report, which was drawn up under the Chairmanship of Sir Leonard Stone, the Vice-Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and himself a learned scholar in the art of the goldsmith and the silversmith, made a number of recommendations for the reform of the assaying and the marking of gold,and silver objects. This Private Hill seeks to implement one, and only one, recommendation of that Committee.
On any count, this is a regrettable Bill, because it brings to an end a tradition, a living, working tradition, of over a thousand years. For there is clear record of the work of the moneyers of the City of Chester in the reign of King Athelstan; and in every century the goldsmiths and silversmiths of Chester have been practising their craft. And their work has been assayed in the city, for it is almost certain that before 1700 gold and silver objects were assayed under the authority of the Earls of Chester. In 1700 the Plate Assay Act set up five provincial Assay Offices: in York, Exeter, Bristol, Norwich, and Chester; and of those five, Chester is

179
now the only one still working. Therefore, by closing the Assay Office in Chester, this Bill brings to an end this long and honourable tradition.
But, my Lords, it must be recognised that this Bill is a regrettable necessity, for although the Assay Office in Chester seems to be prosperous, yet in point of fact its existence is very precarious. For the last two or three years it has been doing some £15,000 worth of business; but it depends almost entirely for its work upon the good will of a small number of merchants in Birmingham. And if they were to withdraw their custom, then indeed the situation of those who man and do the work of the Assay Office in Chester would be extremely parlous.
There are nine people on the staff of the Office: three of them are over 70, and two more are over 60. It may surprise your Lordships to learn, as it surprised me when I discovered it, that these men who do such a notable service to the community, a service which requires great skill and training, have no claim whatsoever upon the National Exchequer, and therefore their livelihood depends upon the earnings which they make from work in the Office. It is true that they are allowed to make provision for pensions out of theft earnings, but since in the past the office of a Master of Assay has been regarded as a life-long appointment, it has not been the custom of Assay Offices to make provision for their retirement. Therefore, if the custom from Birmingham were to be withdrawn from the Assay Office in Chester, these men, who have given a lifetime of service to this very important and skilled work, would be, as I have said, in a very parlous condition. This Bill makes provision for compensation and pensions for the staff of the Chester Assay Office, and if only for that reason it is desirable that the Bill should receive a Third Reading.
There are, however, two matters in the Bill which are of particular concern. One is that the Bill not only closes the Assay Office in Chester but also dissolves the Company of Goldsmiths. Now, there was a Guild of Goldsmiths in the City of Chester long before the 1700 Act, which constituted the Company to run the Assay Office. That ancient Guild was absorbed into the Company. Therefore, if the Company of Goldsmiths is
180
dissolved, so also will the ancient Guild of Goldsmiths in the City of Chester be left without any shape or form. That would be very regrettable, because we have still existing 24 Craft Guilds in the City. We are about to make available to them a church, which is no longer needed for worship, which we hope will become a Guildhall, in which these ancient craft guilds will be able to restore something of their work and interest. It would be profoundly unsatisfactory if the Guild of Goldsmiths, which is one of the senior, should disappear at this moment.
The argument of the Bill for the closing of the Company of Goldsmiths is that, since the Company was set up by the 1700 Act to run the Assay Office, it is desirable that it should be dissolved now that the Assay Office is to be no more. We accept that, since the Promoters of this Bill have been good enough to accept our point. Subsection (3) of Clause 4 makes it abundantly clear that the Officers of the present Company will be the Officers of the ancient Guild of Goldsmiths when once the Company has been dissolved.
The other matter to which I would draw your Lordships' attention is of more significance. As I have reminded your Lordships, this Bill implements only one of a number of recommendations which the Departmental Committee made for the reform of the system of assaying and marking in this country. There are a number of recommendations in this Report which, to somebody like myself who has no knowledge of the technicalities, seem to be admirable and good common sense. Yet, so I understand, this Report has never been debated either in this House or in another place. It is three years ago since this Report was issued and the members of the Committee said that they regarded reform as essential and urgent. Yet, so far as I know, apart from this Bill, nothing has been done to implement the recommendations of the Report. Chester does not relish the unenviable position of being singled out for the one reform which shall be implemented, and we shall have an ugly suspicion that we have been a sop thrown to Cerberus unless there is some indication that the other reforms recommended are going to be implemented.
I think we all recognise that from time to time it is essential to reform

181
ancient institutions in the light of modern requirements. But I think that I shall have the sympathy of the House in saying that when such reform is necessary, then the disturbance to ancient institutions, which have been well tried and have served the nation well, should be as small as possible and that the least possible injustice should be done to those who are the subjects of the reform. By the Amendments which have been made to this Bill in Committee, I think that the former has been dealt with satisfactorily. I hope that we may have some assurance that the latter condition will also be fulfilled.
3.2 p.m.
Time JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if I intervened for a moment on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and particularly of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, to say that my right honourable friend is quite happy with the Amendments which have been made in the Unopposed Bill Committee and which have been referred to by the right reverend Prelate in his speech. I understand that these Amendments have been agreed between the right reverend Prelate and the Promoters of the Bill.
The right reverend Prelate said that the Bill was regrettable, but I am glad that he followed that shortly by saying that it was regrettable but necessary. I must agree that that is the fact: this Bill is a necessity. We are all grateful to the right reverend Prelate for bringing to our attention what might have happened if he and the Promoters of the Bill had not amended it in Committee. It is clear that the Company of Goldsmiths must go but, as the Bill is amended, the ancient Guild will not go, and I am sure that that is desirable.
The right reverend Prelate raised two other points. He asked why this matter of the Chester Assay Office was being taken in isolation from all the other matters that were mentioned in Sir Leonard Stone's Report, which was laid before Parliament in 1959. That Report recommended many changes in the present law on the hallmarking of articles of precious metal; and my right honourable
182
friend the President of the Board of Trade is considering these proposals which, as the Committee suggested, would appear to involve a complete overhaul of the confused—I think I may say that—and ancient body of legislation on this esoteric subject.
My right honourable friend considers that these proposals should be dealt with as a whole, but he does not see any reason why the closure of the Chester Assay Office should not be dealt with separately at this moment by means of this Private Bill. There is not, and there is not likely to be, enough hallmarking business to justify the continuance of four separate Assay Offices in England. Therefore, there is good reason for closing the Chester Office. Responsibility for providing reasonable compensation to the staff and their wives or widows has been agreed to lie with the remaining Assay Offices in England.
I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate should have ugly suspicions. This is no sop to Cerberus. This is not an easy method of getting out of a complicated Report. We think that this is an entirely separate matter. As I have said, the Stone Committee recognised that comprehensive legislation would be needed to cover all their proposals. Therefore, legislation could not possibly be done by Private Bill procedure. Although the Report gives much detailed information and, indeed, appears to be broadly acceptable to the interests concerned, the preparation of a Bill of this nature, based on the Report, would be no simple matter and the Bill itself would be of great length. The aim would be to replace completely the legislative accretion of hunderds of years and this requires much careful study and work. The Government hope that all these matters can be resolved without undue delay and that in due course a Bill will be brought forward, but I am afraid that at this moment I cannot indicate when my right honourable friend will be in a position to bring such a Bill forward. I hope that, after what the right reverend Prelate has said and what I have ventured to say, your Lordships will give this Private Bill a Third Reading.
3.8 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I should like to say only two or three words. First of all, I think the House

183
will agree that it is not part of my duty to deal with the matter of the Stone Report. Any action taken as a result of that Report would properly form the basis of a public and not of a Private Bill. I am sure that the House will appreciate the great interest which the right reverend the Lord Bishop of Chester has evidently shown in this matter and will have listened with interest to his speech this afternoon. I am sure that the House will understand his regret at the passing of something that is very ancient, but will also perhaps understand the necessity for it.
Finally, I would say only this. I think that it is a matter for satisfaction that an Amendment to this Bill, which has been agreed after negotiation between those interested on both sides, has been incorporated in the Bill by agreement and that that Amendment, while not taking anything away from the main purpose of the Bill, goes a good way to preserve the historical associations and historical importance of this matter. And I am very glad to think that the right reverend Prelate may have the satisfaction of knowing that those historical associations will to that extent be continued.
On Question, Bill read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BOXING BILL [H.L.]
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to prohibit the authorisation of boxing matches for profit. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a.—(Baroness Summerskill.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

THE AIR ESTIMATES
3.10 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON rose to call attention to the Memorandum by the Secretary of State for Air to accompany the Air Estimates, 1962–63 (Cmnd. 1630); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, first of all, I should like to say how pleased I am that the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, is to speak in this debate, and to express some regret that many noble Lords, particularly on the Government side of the
184
House, who have had such wide experience and have such great knowledge of this subject (this House is full of ex-Secretaries of State) should feel that the expenditure of £550 million, and the Memorandum, does not call for anything new to be said. It may be that when your Lordships have heard my speech you will feel that perhaps there is nothing fresh to be said.
Nevertheless, we have a task to perform. Those of your Lordships who have a particular affection for, and knowledge of, the Royal Air Force, will, I know, feel that we can, at least, start as we do every year, though none the less sincerely, by paying a tribute to the Service. In particular, it is satisfactory to notice (and this we find also in the Memoranda accompanying the Estimates of the other Services) references to the relief work which, for instance, the R.A.F. have done in particular areas, and especially in Africa. These are referred to, and I would draw the attention of those of your Lordships who perhaps have not read the Memorandum to that section called "Errands of Mercy". It is worth noting, I think, the complete confidence that we all, not only in Parliament but throughout the country, put in our Services in times of adversity, and the total confidence we have that the men of the Royal Air Force, as indeed of the Navy and the Army, will come to the aid of any stricken area with discipline, efficiency and kindness.
Perhaps this is a matter from which we can take encouragement. It is a measure of the fact that there is some real growth in civilisation, when we may be depressed about it, that soldiers and warriors who in the past have not always been looked on with affection by the civil population are now automatically regarded as the people to whom one turns during times of adversity. We have, indeed, very much to be proud of in the Royal Air Force. However one may criticise the structure and nature of the Service, from the standpoint of strategy and from the standpoint of criticising Government policy, we are all agreed that it is a splendid Service, filled with men of great efficiency and integrity and, if I may say so—and those of your Lordships who have occasion to meet the senior officers and others in the Royal Air Force will agree—possessed of a

185
high level of intelligence. We can be proud that we are capable of producing such Armed Services. Therefore, my Lords, while it is right that we should criticise Government policy and look carefully at the results of the expenditure of such vast sums of money, I am sure that no one here will think that this is any reflection on the men who serve us so well.
There is one other point I would make, and in this I would pay tribute to the Government. There is no doubt that improvements have been brought steadily into being in the conditions of service in the Royal Air Force, as in the other Services. There is no doubt that remuneration and conditions have enormously improved, and that the Royal Air Force represents a first-class career, capable of competing at least on equal terms with those in civilian life. On this occasion, since I am being so nice to the Government, I shall even refrain (though I hope that other noble Lords will not so refrain) from criticising the Government on their action in imposing a partial pay pause. None the less, we do see improvements, even in places like Aden, which have in the past received such strong attention from the noble Lords, Lord Tedder, Lord Merrivale and others.
While it is also a matter of satisfaction that the Royal Air Force have nearly succeeded in hitting their recruiting target, the First Lord of the Admiralty will, I am sure, be sorry that once again I shall return, though only in a rather mild way, to what he is apt to call the "numbers game." For a long while we have understood that the target for men for the Royal Air Force was 135,000. We know that they now have 132,000, leaving a comparatively small shortfall. But your Lordships, and especially those in the Services, will know the effect that a shortage of men and a falling below establishment has on efficiency. It is surprising how, whenever the Government attain a recruiting figure, they immediately make it their target. If the figure of a little more than 132,000 is not the target, I should like to know really frankly from the Government how many men they would like Ito see in the Royal Air Force to-day.
We are aware that there are certain particular shortages. We are encouraged by the fact that the aircrew position
186
has apparently improved a great deal; but there are still shortages which we shall have to make good without National Service. There is no doubt that selective service would be of particular value to the Royal Air Force. although nobody is seriously advocating it. In passing, I must express regret that the Prime Minister saw fit to make the remarks he did about the Labour Party and the Liberal Party introducing conscription. However, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who asked me to apologise for his absence at the beginning of the debate, will no doubt take this up more strongly on behalf of the Liberal Party. There are still shortages of manpower in certain sections of the Royal Air Force, and there is still, as a result, a certain amount of overwork in particular areas. This springs to a large extent from the priority that is given to Bomber Command.
I do not want to go over again all the arguments we have had about the nuclear deterrent, but we cannot consider the future of the Royal Air Force and its organisation unless we are prepared to look at this and consider whether or not it has its right place in the order of things. I would repeat, as I have said on other occasions, my personal belief that we were entirely right to build up a nuclear bomber force, and that we were right at that stage to go on, horrible though it may be, to develop the hydrogen weapon. It would have been ludicrous to say: "We will stop at fission weapons only and not go on to the more powerful fusion bomb". There is no suggestion, so far as I, or, I think, most of my friends on this side of the House are concerned, that it should be scrapped to-day.
I want to try and put across, in the perhaps calmer atmosphere that we achieve in this House, some of the arguments that we have to take into account in regard to Bomber Command, and the effectiveness of its contribution towards maintaining the peace of the world. To do so is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, suggested in the Defence debate, to be a "Little Englander". I am sure we are all agreed that we want the best defence we can get for this country. We operate nationally within an agreed level of

187
Defence expenditure—namely, a figure of 7 per cent. of the national product, which is fixed by the Government; and this is the decisive factor in arriving at the size of our Armed Forces. We have to make a choice as to how we are going to spend that sum, not only between the three Services, but within the Services. This, clearly, is the main responsibility of the Government.
The biggest argument in favour of retaining Bomber Command in its present form—and it is a powerful argument—is that we have it. As things have developed in the past ten years it may be that we might have thought something else would be better. But I think that the decisions which were taken ten years ago—or before that—were the right ones. While Bomber Command exists, obviously it has an important contribution to make within the Western deterrent.
I must remind your Lordships that it is still a relatively small component of the Western deterrent as a whole. I repeat these figures from the Defence debate. Our contribution amounts to possibly 200 to 400 megatons, against a prospective 30,000 megatons from America. This is inevitably an asset, efficient and good though it may be, that may be of less value in the future. The argument that "because we have something we must keep it" is a dangerous argument in regard to any equipment, as any industrialist knows, especially when you have to go into the question of modernising and keeping equipment going and making it continue to do a useful service, perhaps at a time when more modern developments have taken their place. We are already committed. Indeed, so far as I know. we have already spent £150 million on Blue Steel, a weapon which I would have thought—and many people I know who have considered this matter also take the same view—adds comparatively little to the effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent. Its range is too short and its operational life, if Skybolt comes along as expected, also is very short.
When we look against this background of the equipoise—the equaliser, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, described it—we have really to consider whether in fact this materially adds to
188
our security in the Western Alliance. We know that there are many thousands of Soviet fighters armed with air-to-air missiles. I do not know how many bombers in the future, as opposed to the position as it was even only two or three years ago, would in fact get through. Certainly the manned bomber is still an important part of the Western deterrent. The Americans still place great reliance on it, and it is right that we should play our part within this sphere. But when these other weapons come along, when the thousand or more Minutemen and the almost invulnerable first and second strike weapons and the Polaris submarines are available, then we must look to see whether or not we might in the future spend this money more profitably, more safely and with greater advantage to the country.
There are, of course, strong political arguments against our having the deterrent, and I will admit that there are also strong political arguments in favour. I must make it clear that I am talking about the strategic nuclear weapon, and not the tactical nuclear weapons. That is another difficult question altogether. We know that other countries are developing these weapons. We know that Switzerland is thinking of developing them. It may be that, in defence of an island, as in a sense Switzerland is, possibility of strategically placed nuclear explosions or weapons will provide the sort of defence interdiction which fits in very well with the Swiss approach to these matters. I can only see one real argument at 'the moment—and it is a powerful argument—in favour of our retaining this weapon, and that is either distrust of the Americans or the feeling that the Russians would think that the Americans might shrink from taking action. We therefore still retain in our hands the power to start a world-wide nuclear war. It may be right that we should have this power, but it is a very sombre doctrine, and it is one that we must think carefully about.
When we look at the Thors, those 60 first strike weapons, standing up like sore thumbs and costing us many millions in maintenance, I would say that this perhaps should make us pause and wonder whether, because we have a thing, it is a good thing to go on having it. There is little doubt that, especially

189
as the intermediate ballistic missiles are developed—I do not know how many the Russians have now, but I am told quite a considerable number—the Thors are increasingly of little value. They cost us many millions of pounds to maintain.
Thus is not to suggest that Bomber Command would not have an important rôle in a conventional war. By "a conventional war" I do not necessarily mean an all-out conventional war, because I think we are agreed that such a war will lead inevitably to nuclear war. However, it is a little frightening to see here again that the main rôle of our tactical bombers is nuclear, that the main rôle as referred to in the Memorandum accompanying the Estimates is of low-level nuclear attack, and that it takes quite a while to switch them over—as happened during the Kuwait operation—to using ordinary high explosives. Here again we have the problem (particularly with these tactical nuclear weapons, to which the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser has so ably drawn attention) of controlling effectively this form of interdiction. I use the word "interdiction" in a rather wide sense, because no doubt these tactical nuclear weapons that fall on a particular area will be as devastating as they were when used on Hiroshima or any other occasion.
I do not wish to pursue this matter now, but I think we should consider whether or not in the long run this is going to be the right rôle for the Royal Air Force. I accept that Skybolt is probably coming along. Now and again we read in the papers rumours, and sometimes statements, which cause us some concern. I should like to ask the Government whether their view is still that Skybolt is going to appear more or less on time and is going to be satisfactory. Of course. I accept fully the claims that have been made for Bomber Command performance in the form of rapid take-off against the early warning. I fully accept that this can be achieved. But I believe that the rôle of the Royal Air Force, like the rôle of the Royal Navy, must be much more in keeping the peace of the world against the unexpected, whether it be the unexpected civil commotion or the minor war.
It is regrettable that the emphasis on the deterrent—and perhaps this is a political argument, but it has a military effect—and our insistence on our retaining this have led the Government to fall down on the job of pressing forward with the really important thing in regard to nuclear weapons; and that is the joint N.A.T.O. control of them. As I say, I see no reason why Bomber Command and the aircraft that they have should not continue to operate for a good many years yet. Of course, they will need the right airfields, and here again I should like to state that my own view of these overseas bases is that they are of supreme importance. Places such as Gan are of tremendous importance to keeping the peace, especially in that area, where we have a special responsibility. Incidentally, I understand that the cost of a base like Gan is a great deal less than that of an aircraft carrier. The policy, therefore, to which I think the Government ought to pay more attention, and which I would personally advocate, is that we should try to build up the Royal Air Force, as indeed we are beginning to build up the Royal Navy, much more as a means of fire brigade action, of providing transport for the Army. And when we look at the present strength of Transport Command, and the fact that the Government are still only "intending" to order ten Belfasts, the situation seems to me, when we consider our world-wide obligations, to be quite pathetic.
In passing, I should like to ask the Government what is their present estimate of the date of production of the Belfast. We are still being told, as we were told in another place by the Secretary of State for Air, that it will be the mid-'sixties. I do not doubt that the Belfast, when it appears, is going to be a good aircraft, though perhaps not so good as some of the others that might have been built. We know that it was given to Shorts largely for political reasons; I do not mean Party political reasons but because of the need to give support to an area which needed industry and which needed employment. I still think it would have been much better, especially since we are having to wait all this time, to manufacture some other aircraft under licence, for we could have had it by now. This is a matter which we have been talking about for

191
two or three years. The noble and gallant Field Marshal. Lord Harding, was pressing the Government on it last year, and it was pressed the year before. I should also like to ask the Government how much these ten Belfast aircraft are going to cost? What will be the cost per aircraft? It seems to me that it is going to be a pretty stiff figure and one that we ought to consider.
I have already said that a really immense expansion of Transport Command would be of value to this country, and particularly to the other Services, all the more so since it seems unlikely that the Government will be able to maintain the forces in Germany which in the past we have undertaken to do. I do not propose this afternoon to press the question of whether we have fallen down on our obligations, because that belongs more properly to another type of debate; but if we could have an Army really airborne in the same way that it is really motorised—and I think that it is still not really airborne—and if the Royal Air Force could be developed in this rôle. I think we should be much nearer to making a more valuable contribution to the defence of Europe, as well as of other parts of the Free World than we are making at the moment.
In considering this matter, we also have some interesting information from the First Report from the Estimates Committee on Trooping. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 35, where it is made perfectly clear, as I read it (and this is on the evidence supplied by the Services Departments and others), that trooping by air is cheaper than trooping by sea. I should like to know whether the Government now accept this view. It may be that they will wish to give it some further consideration—in fact, I understand that they are doing so. But it is worth noting that at the moment only 4 per cent. of Transport Command effort is given to trooping. I should have thought that a much greater effort could have been given to this, without damage to the charter companies, who depend so much on trooping for their continued existence. I think it ought to be a normal part of a military operation that troops move to and from areas, operational or training, by air; and that we should think in these terms. The
192
Royal Air Force will continue to provide that flying which, of course, is such an important factor from a recruiting point of view by aiding the Army in transport—in fact, aiding all the Services—in addition to its conventional warfare rôles, and a tactical rôle possibly using nuclear weapons.
I do not want to press this matter any further, but I should like to turn very briefly now to the question of the supply of other aircraft. I would ask the Government how the T.S.R.2 is coming along. It is unfortunate that, with the length of time that it takes to develop modern aircraft, it is possible to go on asking the same question year after year, and it is interesting to have the latest estimates. I hope the delay in production will not go up as fast as costs always seems to do. I should also like to know from the Government when we are going to get some clear statement of policy with regard to the development of particular types of vertical take-off and landing aircraft, especially the P11 27. This is a field in which the British have undoubtedly had a lead on the world. This has been an important pioneering development, and if now we are going to see a joint Anglo-French effort I hope we shall make up our minds quickly enough to make sure that we do get at least our share of it. The aircraft industry has been greatly concerned—and there was a discussion on this subject in another place recently—about the delay in taking decisions.
May I ask the noble Lord whether the Royal Air Force are interested in hovercraft? I do not really know to which sphere the hovercraft belongs: whether it is a land, a sea or an air instrument. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has argued in the past that it is essentially an instrument of air transport, but I am wondering whether the Royal Air Force are taking an interest in it and where it fits into the scheme of things. Finally, I should like to turn to the Herald. The Government took a very bold decision with regard to the aircraft industry when they enforced rationalisation on it and compelled the industry—because they had the whip hand, as they place the orders—to go in for mergers. It seems to me that the only possible explanation why

193
the Government have not ordered the Herald and are waiting for the Avro 748 is because Handley Page refuse to fit in with the Government's wishes.
This raises difficult issues, because we on this side are in general sympathy with the Government's action in this matter. It does seem to me to be absurd, however, that when the Dart Herald is already in existence, when it is considerably cheaper, when it is immediately available—and the Avro 748 is still under development—when it is better equipped for landing and take-off on rough ground, when it is already accepted by the Royal Canadian Air Force, when it does not need special engines to he developed for it, as does the Avro 748, that we do not order it for the Royal Air Force. This is something in regard to which the Government really ought to tell us what their reasons are. In another place, when the Under-Secretary for Air was pressed on this matter, he gave a cautious answer, but it seems to me that the only possible reason for it has been the Government's determination to place the order with one of tile groups that they have called into existence. It seems to me that this country is perhaps paying too high a price for Government policy in this matter.
There are many other aspects of this subject of the supply of aircraft that I could go into, but I will not waste your Lordships' time. Perhaps my noble friends Lord Shepherd and Lord Stonham will be able to deal with them. But there is one aircraft that I am interested in, and I am sorry to have to refer to it, and that is the replacement for the Shackleton. I served in Coastal Command, and it is purely coincidental that the aircraft I have been most interested in happens to be called the Shackleton. Unfortunately, I must tell your Lordships that although it is satisfactory at the moment, it will drop to pieces one day.
I hope to take this subject up more fully in the debate on the Navy Estimates and perhaps have the help of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, on this matter. But unless the Royal Air Force abrogate their responsibility for air-sea warfare—and there is a real danger of the development of nuclear submarines in a tepid war situation—and unless we order a replacement now, when these aircraft
194
wear out we shall not have a suitable aircraft available. I am quite certain of the facts. We ought now, this year, to order an aircraft with a very much higher performance, one that can fly and transit at, say, 400 knots; that can patrol at 170 knots; that is well designed from an icing point of view and can carry the tremendously complicated detection equipment on which work is still being done. I would hope that the Government will be able to tell us something on that. Last year the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty told us that the Royal Air Force were perfectly satisfied, but we are talking about ten years ahead. It takes that kind of period for a new aircraft to be brought into operational use.
There are only two other points that I want to deal with. First of all, I had intended to say something about a very important part of the responsibilities of the Air Ministry which is dealt with in the Memorandum, namely the Meteorological Service, but I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, may be dealing with this question, and I would only say this. It is a service of very high scientific quality which is doing fundamental research as well as giving us weather forecasts, of the accuracy of which we may all have our doubts, and one that furthermore is spreading its knowledge and providing, a service very widely indeed. I should like to pay a tribute to the work they have done, particularly in helping polar explorers in getting them trained for the job they have had to do on expeditions.
Discussion of the "Met." service brings me to one side of the Service in which already great interest is shown and which will be of great importance not only for the future of accurate weather forecasting but for other aspects that may concern the Air Force; and this is a question that, again, I know, is dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald: it is space. This is perhaps not the time to start a debate on space. We do try to encourage the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, to venture that far, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, is more willing to go up there. The Secretary of State for Air in another place referred to space. The American Air Force will in time become—it shows signs of becom-

195
ing—an aero-space force. Is this not a field in which the R.A.F. must venture in collaboration with the civil authorities? Certainly I would have expected the Royal Air Force in fact to provide some of the manpower. This is not going to happen this year but it certainly is going to happen in the course of the next few years. And, thanks to the miscalculations of the Government in regard to Blue Streak, we are fortunately still in the space game because we are playing an important part in the combined European effort in this direction.
I should also like to ask the Government what their views are on the effect of space from a Defence point of view. What about the importance of satellites from a communications point of view? We have been told that during the Kuwait operation, as on other occasions, there has been a black-out of wireless communication. It is quite clear that this is something which is important, not only to the world but from the standpoint of military considerations. I would say to your Lordships that I myself do not believe in the danger of a nuclear attack from satellites in orbit. First, I think they would be shot down too easily; and secondly, if you want a weapon to land on the earth it is probably easier to send it from somewhere else on earth. The future of the Royal Air Force may be more greatly developed in the direction of space than perhaps we all realise.
The only point on which I should like to end is again to say that I am sure your Lordships will all agree that the Services, and the Royal Air Force in particular, provide a good career. I should like to draw attention to one other aspect which is mentioned in the Air Estimates, and that is the approach towards the adventure side of Service activities. In this, as in other fields, I am quite convinced that the Services are playing an important part from the general standpoint of citizenship. If they continue the type of public relations and publicity they are now showing, I think they will continue to do good not merely for themselves but for the country as a whole. I am sure that, although we may think of some of the Government failures, we are still convinced that the Royal Air Force is a fine Service
196
and that its traditions, which have grown so strongly and so admirably, are not standing in the way of the necessary progress. I beg to move for Papers.
3.47 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has once again opened this annual debate, revealing in his words and tone his feeling for the Royal Air Force, in which he served with great distinction himself. It is a personal satisfaction to me that our Shackleton shows no signs whatever of dropping to pieces yet. I will not accept his implied invitation to follow him into space to-day, and I doubt whether I shall even accept his invitation to precede him into space. If he will allow me to say so, the engaging thing about debating with the noble Lord, particularly on Service matters, and perhaps especially on Air Force matters, is that for all the vigour of the criticisms that he may make of policy or performance, he always sounds as if he would be fairly pleased to hear those criticisms rebutted or proved groundless. He succeeds as well as anyone I know in lifting this sort of debate above Party politics. And in this I shall seek to follow him to-day. At the same time I hope that in doing so, between us, my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty and I, will raise the noble Lord's spirits by our replies to some of his criticisms and views.
He spoke at some length of the nuclear deterrent and although he made it clear that he does not share all the anxieties as to the limitations or viability of Bomber Command expressed by some noble Lords on his side during the Defence debate a fortnight ago, I shall widen my reply a little in order to answer some of them as well. During the past five years the Royal Air Force has provided the means of delivering the British deterrent. The progress in weapons, equipment and arms development such as in stand-off weapons, will enable it to continue so doing until well into the next decade. My noble friend the First Lord spoke at some length during the Defence debate of our contribution in this context and your Lordships would not want me to go over all that ground again. He explained why we needed the deterrent and how relatively little we paid for it, and I do not think he was

197
seriously challenged on that argument. It was the military effectiveness of our deterrent forces and of Bomber Command which seemed to worry some of your Lordships most. I recall, for example, that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, thought that our nuclear contribution was not viable, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, described it as "ageing and not convincing". So I should like to dwell shortly on this aspect to-day.
My Lords, two major criticisms are levelled at the V-bomber force. First, it is alleged that it could not get away from its bases in time and would be destroyed on the ground; secondly, even if it managed to get away it could not get through to its targets. I should like to deal with both of these points. The V-bomber force can be widely dispersed and it can also be held for long periods at a high state of readiness. At the present time the main threat to the force would be from manned aircraft. We should have reasonable warning of any such attack from our own radar system, which is now integrated into the Continental chain, and from the North American Air Defence System. We are confident that the great majority of the aircraft would have no difficulty in getting away from their bases in time.
As the Soviet missile strength grows, of course the warning period will get shorter, but there are measures to deal with this situation. First, as your Lordships know, we are building a Ballistic Missle Early Warning Station at Fylingdales Which will be completed next year and should give us at least four minutes warning, which will be enough to get the bombers into the air. Four minutes may not seem very long, but such is the training, skill and readiness of the aircrews that the time needed to get them into the air, once the critical warning is received, has been reduced to well inside that margin. Many noble Lords will have seen for themselves, as I have, just how successful Bomber Command has been in reducing this reaction time. The average reaction time is at present at around two minutes, and is often substantially less. I have myself witnessed a "scramble" completed in well under that time, and I have no doubt that other noble Lords have enjoyed that experience.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Lord help us by saying how many aircraft were involved in that scramble within two minutes?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I cannot myself see any reason for not telling the noble Lord that, but as I hope he will appreciate, I think we should be careful. I should not wish to keep secrets from him, but I think one must be careful about the amount of publicity one gives to such information. Looking further ahead we have made an agreement with the United States Government for co-operation in the development of the MIDAS space satellite system, for missile detection. This system will supplement and extend the warning available from the BMEWS radar. MIDAS will give us longer warning, and will therefore make it even more difficult for the enemy to launch a successful surprise attack on Western strategic deterrent forces. We are satisfied that, taking into account the dispersal of the aircraft, the warning which would be given by the BMEWS system, and later on by MIDAS, and Bomber Command's speed of reaction, our power to retaliate could not be wiped out by a surprise attack.
The question that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has asked is, if we can get our bombers off the ground, can they overcome all their obstacles and reach their target? We do not seek to minimise the task which would face the V-force if it were launched against targets in Russia, but in considering this we must be careful not to lose sight of the time scale. Analysing some of the anxieties expressed, it seems to me that they pose the question: could we, with the weapons at our disposal to-day, match the enemy's weapons and defence of to-morrow? We do not have to, and we shall not have to. What we are confident of is that Bomber Command is a match for him to-day and will be a match for him to-morrow. The Vulcans and Victors are still among the best nuclear carriers in the world. We are satisfied that, equipped with the latest electronic counter-measure devices which would be used to jam and deceive both ground radars and radars carried in enemy fighters, and armed first with Blue Steel which is coming into service this year, and later with Skybolt, they

199
will remain a viable and credible force until well into the next decade. In answer to the noble Lord's specific question, we are satisfied that both these weapons will come into service on time—that is to say, Blue Steel this year and Skybolt about the mid-'sixties. Of course the great advantage of both these stand-off weapons is that Blue Steel can be released from outside the point defences of an enemy position, and Skybolt from much further outside, outside any frontier defences he may have.
In reaching this conclusion, we have taken account of the possibility that the Soviet Union may develop an antimissile capability. It is quite possible that such a system will be developed, but there are many practical problems to be overcome before a system could be deployed which would be effective against attack from all directions, and even then it would not be immune to counter measures. But supposing that the present and future effectiveness of Bomber Command is accepted for the remainder of this decade, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has further asked for how long it would remain our most useful contribution to Western defence. As we enter the period of nuclear equipoise—that is, when the Russians can do devastating damage to the United States of America on a scale comparable to that which the Americans can do to Russia—the need for the British independent deterrent increases.
At this period the danger is given weight not by deliberate decision, but by miscalculation. We are in no doubt that the Americans would stand by their allies; but, as the noble Lord suggested, the Russians might well miscalculate and assume that America would not in that event risk the devastation of her own country. That might be the Russian miscalculation. If we were not the strategic nuclear force we are, the Russians might well make that miscalculation. The fact that we have our own force in Bomber Command capable of dealing damage in Russia which would greatly outweigh any advantage the Russians could hope to gain by attacking Britain, is a guarantee against Russian miscalculation, and this is the most powerful instrument for preserving peace
This whole matter of the British
200
deterrent upon which the noble Lord dwelt fully is naturally a question which is kept carefully and continually under review. But I think certain weighty factors, some of them permanent, which were not mentioned by the noble Lord among the many which he did mention, should be taken into account. I think it would not be useful or advisable to go into what precise percentage in weight of bombs or means of delivery Bomber Command represents within the total Western defence potential. One thing of which the Soviet Government must be uncomfortably aware is that the manned bomber retaliation from British bases is going to reach Russia some hours before the manned bomber retaliation from American bases. If that smaller but earlier retaliation is in itself sufficient to inflict unacceptable damage, then what is to follow, terrifying though it may be in scale, is certainly not in proportion to the pure weight of the bombs discharged.
I agree, on this point—I am not trying to evade the issues he was bringing forward—that the noble Lord was speaking of the day of the Minuteman and of the Polaris missile, when these timings that I have referred to will no longer hold good. But there is another more permanent geographical factor involved. So long as both Britain and the United States are nuclear powers, it is not possible to attack one without giving prior warning to the other. Therefore, complete surprise is rendered impossible and the danger of retaliation rendered all the more certain. To have an element of deterrent power on this side of the Atlantic is, therefore, of the greatest advantage to the United States and to the policy of deterrence as a whole. The Royal Air Force to-day is a major element of the strategic nuclear striking force this side of the Atlantic. I assure noble Lords that the Americans regard it as of great importance, and most highly.
Another factor of very real importance is the great mutual confidence and respect existing between Bomber Command and Strategic Air Command at all levels. Until or unless the day of the manned bomber comes to an end (and nobody, I think, has been prepared to give a date for this) such human interdependence can play a vital part in our determination to deter. And it cannot

201
be emphasised too often that the purpose of this weapon and of its means of delivery is to prevent destructive war, not to wage it. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that he found it frightening (and he is not easily frightened) that the main rôle of the Canberras in NATO was low-level nuclear attack. But, of course, the noble Lord is aware that they are only one part of the NATO Air strength, and the part they are playing is to deter. That is the part we have been asked to play by Supreme Allied Command, Europe, and it is a part we have accepted. I do not think this came in to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, but some noble Lords feel that we should increase our conventional forces in Europe to the point where they will be capable of fighting for perhaps two or three weeks.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I thought he said something rather significant just now. Do I understand that the nuclear-armed Canberras are regarded as part of the Western deterrent and that the Commander-in-Chief of SACEUR himself plays a rôle of also operating the deterrent? The noble Lord said that it was to deter.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I hope I am not being pedantic about this, but any ability to reply is a deterrent, I should have thought. I do not know whether it can be said that it forms part of the supreme deterrent, but the fact is that it must deter and therefore is part of the deterrent.
LORD SHEPHERD: It is tactical, but not strategic.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I think it would be of interest in this particular context if I relate to your Lordships what contribution the Royal Air Force is making to NATO. We have assigned to SACEUR the whole of the fighter squadrons in Germany, the reconnaissance squadrons there and in Malta, and Valiant squadrons in the United Kingdom. We have ear-marked for NATO the whole of Coastal Command, and maritime forces in Gibraltar and Malta. That is a very considerable and highly valued contribution to the complete force at the disposition of NATO.
My Lords, I have been so intent on answering one relatively short but important part of the noble Lard's speech
202
(other parts of it will be dealt with when my noble friend winds up) that one might almost judge from what I have said so far that we consider bombs and machines as the only element that matters in an air force. That is, of course, the very reverse of the truth. The quality of manpower is the key to efficiency in handling any weapons, either conventional or nuclear. Over the whole manpower field the situation and prospects are both brighter than they were a little while ago. Last year, as your Lordships will recall, we were not getting enough pilots or navigators, and without an increase in the number of candidates we should very soon have run into serious difficulties. Stepping up our recruitment of aircrew without lowering the standard has therefore been our first priority during the past year. My Lords, you will be glad to know that our efforts have so far proved successful.
There are two main categories of officer aircrew entrants. First there are those who choose a full career in the General Duties Branch. They come in generally from the universities or through Cranwell and they are the main sources of the Services' future leaders. This year the Cranwell entry is a little down on our target and we should like more candidates, particularly of the highest quality, to come forward for Cranwell. However, the entry from the universities has greatly improved. This year some 57 university entrants, including 35 entrants to the General List, were commissioned in the General Duties Branch and nearly all of them had been members of university air squadrons. I should like to pay a tribute here to the support which the university authorities give so consistently to the air squadrons. University candidates are particularly valuable to the Service. Most of them will have learned to fly with the air squadrons and the proportion who subsequently fail their flying training is therefore well below the average.
The majority of the flying posts in the Royal Air Force are filled by officers holding direct entry commissions which offer a career for sixteen years or to the age of 38 with a possibility of service to age 55. Here the position is most encouraging. We are getting all the pilots and air electronics officers we need and are approaching the target for navigators. The applications we have had during the early months of this year

203
show that the trend is being maintained. But as in the Cranwell entry, we should like to see more candidates of the highest quality coming forward. We have made special efforts to reduce our manpower requirements or to transfer the work to civilians when this can be done.
Lord Shackleton referred to the apparent discrepancy between the earlier target of 135,000 and the 132,000 now being quoted. We believe that 132,000 will provide a balanced force adequate for the tasks we foresee. But no doubt we could recruit up to 135,000. It is not from any lack of confidence in being able to recruit up to that number or beyond it, but we do not think it is necessary. I think the noble Lord will see that it is not surprising that there should be small variations in the figures for forecasting requirements over a period of five to six years.
The Women's Royal Air Force are also helping in some trades, and recruiting of airwomen has made good progress. New Women's Royal Air Force sections are being opened at several stations, and more stations have also been brought within the local service arrangements whereby women can serve with the Women's Royal Air Force and continue to live at home. Officer recruiting for the Women's Royal Air Force has also done well, but we should like more entrants in their late twenties and early thirties, preferably with executive experience in business.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, spoke of the Royal Air Force as a Service filled with men of personal efficiency and integrity and of a high level of intelligence. All who know them will agree with that description. All those qualities are needed in a modern air force with the enormous responsibility of the Royal Air Force, and all are happily and providentially available in the officers and men now serving. Having returned from a 25,000-mile tour of the Far East, under the auspices of the Royal Air Force, at the beginning of this year, and having been to Germany with the Royal Air Force a few days ago, I can bear witness, with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to the pleasure and encouragement one derives from being in their company or discussing with them their all-important task.
204
Anyone having enjoyed that privilege will rest assured that their task is in able and determined hands.
4.8 p.m.
LORD TEDDER: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said he was frightened of the nuclear weapon. Lord Shackleton has already frightened me with his suggestion that the tactical use of nuclear weapons is quite different from the strategical use. I must emphasise as strongly as I can from my own experience that strategy and tactics mean different things to different people. The General's strategy may be the Air Marshal's tactics, working to a different scale. The worst of it is that I think the nuclear weapon in a tactical use will inevitably go on to a wider field. I cannot see any possibility whatever of preventing that. You just cannot draw a line across the map in that way.
One of the points that has been put forward in favour of abdicating completely is that it will strengthen our influence and authority. I cannot imagine anything more naïve than that. If we can judge well enough from General de Gaulle's reactions, I do not think we could imagine that he is in any way going to be affected, nor is anyone else, by our not having atomic weapons. The fact is that international politics are still Power politics. So long as that situation obtains, we must, in my view, retain the atomic weapon. What is really needed (and I am glad the point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton) is an essential insurance against the Russians' miscalculating the relationships between the United States and Europe. It is quite conceivable that they might think that America would not come in to defend Europe. I am not suggesting that that is possible, but it is perfectly possible that the Russians might think that. The only thing we can do about the atomic threat is to pray—and I mean pray—and, at the same time, keep our powder dry.
My Lords, I think that the Secretary of State for Air and the Service are to be congratulated on the way in which they have minimised the effect of the fall-out from that extraordinary bomb which was dropped in the 1957 White Paper. The past year presents some remarkable instances of mobility and

205
flexibility—the two qualities which are probably more important Ito air power than anything else. The Kuwait operation, which has been referred to, was of course a great success; it was beautifully done, and most efficient. At the same time, it is just as well to remember that it had the element of good fortune which it probably deserved. If the carrier had been in the more normal area, around Singapore, the 7,000 men and 700 tons of material which were flown in would have been in Kuwait before the carrier arrived. It is a point which I think we need to remember, because there is a lesson there. It is clear that we must have a larger transport force, to speed up the build-up and to reduce the reliance on stock piling.
Incidentally, I was rather depressed to hear reference to the Belfast, because I thought my information, that there were only ten orders, must be wrong, and that there must be much later information than that. From my recollection of aircraft production, even for a big aircraft, an order of ten is calculated to discourage the people who are making it; it is calculated to put up the price; it is calculated to delay the project, not to speed it up. In fact, it is a rather depressing subject. But, as I said, one of the lessons of Kuwait is that we need that aircraft, and we need it now. I do not know when it is coming; perhaps we shall have better news from the Government. It is very disappointing to hear that the T.S.R. is still expected next year, and it is surprising to find no specific mention in the Memorandum of the V.T.O.—the vertical take-off aeroplane. If there is one thing we want it is that: something to give real flexibility and to avoid having to rely on these enormous runways.
Twelve years or more ago, the Air Show at Farnborough was the top aeronautical show in the world. It was an international meeting made up of practically all the top people in the industry—the presidents, the general managers and so on—and also the leaders in the Services. The latest one (I almost said the last) which was held last September, was attended not by managing directors or presidents, but by junior executives; not by generals, but by colonels and majors. They came to the conclusion, rightly enough, that there was nothing there to justify a journey across the
206
Atlantic, or even across the English Channel. I was there, and there were no crowds queueing to place big orders for British aircraft. There were engines, yes—thanks to Rolls. But aircraft, no ! I wish one could say why that was. The French seem able to beat us in our own markets, with the Mirage and the Caravelie, while our sales in the markets of the world are very, very limited.
I hope that these remarks about production are not out of order, because, presumably, they concern the Ministry of Aviation. But as the output of the Ministry of Aviation is of vital importance, and a good healthy system is of vital importance to the Air Force, I feel justified in raising the matter. The first question one asks is: is the Service getting what it needs? We have just had this sorry story about the Herald. I am sure that the Government have very strong reasons for making their decision against the operational judgment of the Service, but it is public knowledge that the Service was strongly in favour of the Herald on operational grounds. I hope that this will not be taken as a precedent, because if the operational requirements of the Service are to come second, we shall have trouble. It may seem rather churlish to voice complaints when there is so much in this Memorandum that is good; I do it simply because we seem to be lagging behind. We have no supersonic aircraft. Even now, we are apparently preparing to accept as a fighter replacement a subsonic aircraft. We still have no vertical take-off aircraft. In other words, we are absolutely dragging behind. Why this is so it is not for me to say. I can only quote one example.
Noble Lords may know that ten to twelve years ago a certain eminent and successful scientist and engineer produced a design, on which he has been working for years, for an aircraft which I think has been called the Swallow. It has wings which extend right forward for slow flying, and right back for supersonic flying. I personally tried to encourage him (he is working with Vickers) but I am afraid that he is getting no help. Incidentally, he invented geodetic construction and the dam bomb. He is a genius, but he was an awful "headache" to deal with—almost as much so as young Whittle; but they are worth it. Meantime, I think two years ago, he

207
sent it all over to the States. They are trying to develop what he told them. Whether they will do it or not I do not know, because it is a very difficult thing to adapt a partly developed design. That, I believe, was one of the most hopeful projects for dealing with short landing and short take-off. However, it has not been pursued.
That is almost all I have to say, my Lords, except that I should like to add just a word about the universities and the A.T.C. I am glad that the university squadrons are in the clear again, because a year or two ago one rather gathered that they were for execution. Now, apparently because they have produced some recruits, they are again in favour. I should like to make one point here. I had a great deal to do with the university squadrons from the very beginning, and the point one always made with the university authorities was: "Now these are not recruiting organisations in themselves. Their object is to enable good types in the universities to get to know something about the air, not necessarily to become recruits. "I think it is rather a pity to talk too much about recruitment. While on the subject of the A.T.C. I would add that I think the people who run the squadrons and look after them generally are doing a most wonderful job. They give un half their lives to it, by way of evenings every week, and if we can help them more I think it will pay a dividend from every point of view.
4.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence if, for just a minute or two, I break into the main stream of this very interesting debate on the Royal Air Force in its wider aspects in order to talk for a few moments about one particular small section of it, and that is the one referred to in paragraphs 66 and 67 of the Memorandum. The reason why I do so is that this year is the twentieth anniversary of the formation of the Royal Air Force Regiment. As I was one of those Army officers who were privileged to be concerned in and to help with that formation, I think it is appropriate that I should say something about it.
Looking back over those twenty years, it is hard to put oneself into the
208
atmosphere of those days, which were the very worst ones of the war, when the question of aerodrome defence had alarmed the Government and the public and the whole country to a quite extraordinary degree. The result of a great deal of urgent and high-powered discussion was that this corps was to be formed within the Royal Air Force, and was to be subject in every way to its command, control and administration. It is a serious step to try to form a fighting unit based on Army tradition and organisation within the framework of a Service of a totally different character—a Service of the character of the R.A.F., which had been formed over the years of preparation for the Second World War as an unrivalled instrument for operating highly-technical and very powerful instruments. As I think many airmen realised at the time, that technical efficiency had been achieved at a cost, and the cost was in the realisation that airmen might have to fight with the weapons of soldiers, and on the ground.
I think it was a tribute to the command structure in the Air Force and to the personalities who were in control at the time (among whom the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, was certainly one) that there was such a smooth formation of this rather peculiar child that was given birth in the R.A.F. I think the slang phrase at the time was "brown jobs", which were to be inserted into the R.A.F., but nothing could have been more kind than the reception we received at all levels and from all ranks. Somehow the first stages were surmounted, and it became clear that the rôle of the Army people was to work themselves out of a job. I am glad to say that not very long after the war that task was completed. Now the Royal Air Force Regiment is entirely in blue; its position in the Royal Air Force is completely accepted.
As we see from paragraph 66, its squadrons are based in many areas overseas. They have some squadrons forming part of the strategic reserve in the United Kingdom; and, of course, by the nature of the units and the organisation, it is much easier and much quicker to move an Air Force unit by air, by Transport Command, than it is to move

209
an Army unit. I am told that a number of exercises have taken place which show that the Air Force has a highly mobile, powerful weapon in the way of reinforcing any of its overseas units when they are threatened.
In other ways, too, the Royal Air Force Regiment has integrated itself into the life of the Service. From the start they were made responsible for the weapon training of the individual airmen, but in recent years they have taken over the crash, fire and rescue organisation of the airfields. They have trained crews; and they have taken over the Royal Air Force Fire Service as well. Then, in many parts of the world they have formed mountain rescue teams which have made their mark and have a number of rescues to their credit.
We are glad to see, also, that their equipment is being modernised. Their rôle in protecting airfields against low-flying air attack, which was so prominent when they were first formed in the days of the last war, may still exist. It may still be a requirement, but I suspect that it is a diminishing requirement and that what are wanted are the all-purpose adaptable units which can take on any job which will protect the Royal Air Force and help it to maintain its operational efficiency. I think it is an outstanding example of good and successful inter-Service co-operation. It seems to me that the original decision that it should be no special independent corps or private army but an integral part of the Royal Air Force, has been completely justified; and, from all I hear, the Royal Air Force Regiment is performing all that, and more than, was hoped of it. I should like to wish it, and all ranks in it, every success.
4.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I should like to echo the noble Earl's remarks about the Royal Air Force Regiment, which has clone wonderful work and is a very well-deserving pillar of the R.A.F. If I may come back to the mainstream of the debate, I find, as the first Back-Bench Government speaker, some difficulty. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said at the beginning that there is really not very much new to say, but he at least had a clean blackboard upon which to work.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I correct the noble Earl? I did not say that there was not much new to say; I merely said that that is what people were saying. But there is a great deal new to be said.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I apologise if I misinterpreted the noble Lord's remarks. However, may I say from this side of the House that I find it difficult to speak in support of the White Paper. I should like to make this suggestion for the future: that the Government and the Opposition might consider the possibility of amalgamating the Service Estimates debates; at least, that they might consider amalgamating two of the Services, if not all three straight away. We in your Lordships' House have not had any recruits from ex-serving officers other than those who have come here by the hereditary route. We have really not had senior officers from the Services since the war-time commanders came to your Lordships' House. It would seem to me that we ought to be having a leavening in this House of an ex-C.I.G.S., or an ex-C.N.S., or an ex-C.A.S., every now and again to keep us up-to-date. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, has come here and given us his view, and, of course, he is always up-to-date. The noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, has given us his views recently, and on more than one occasion, and he, too, is always up-to-date. But it seems to me that it is about time that we had some more like them. The Foreign Office is, quite rightly, permitted to send its chief executives to us when they retire, and the benefit is entirely ours. I would ask the Government whether they would consider doing a little more along this line, so far as the Services are concerned.
Now, my Lords, we have had one anniversary mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and I should like also to mention the fact that this year is the 50th anniversary of the Royal Flying Corps, of military flying—
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): And the Naval Air Service.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: And the Naval Air Service; I stand corrected by the First Lord. I did say "military

211
flying ", and I suppose that includes the Naval Air Service. It seems to me that there ought to be some way in which this anniversary should be commemorated. I should like to pay tribute to a noble and gallant late Member of your Lordships' House, Lord Trenchard, who, though he did not found the R.F.C. or the R.N.A.S., was the founder of the R.A.F. The reason I mention this is because of a book which has recently been published and which I read with pleasure. There have been one or two criticisms in the Press, and it seems to me that in the last few years there have been one or two criticisms too many in trying to tell the world that our heroes have feet of clay. I should like to say, as one officer who not only served under the noble and gallant Viscount but who was personally attached to him on more than one occasion as an R.A.F. officer, in what very high esteem the Royal Air Force held him and hold his memory, and how much encouragement his mere presence, when he went round Royal Air Force stations, even after his retirement, had on the morale of the Royal Air Force.
My Lords, I welcome the Air Estimates, and I should also like to take the opportunity (because, for reasons beyond my control, I regret I was unable to be present in your Lordships' House during the Defence debate) of saying that I would have voted for the Defence White Paper had I been here. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that he was not going to reopen the subject of the Defence debate, and neither am I; but he did mention what he considered to be almost the redundancy of Bomber Command, a point which I feel has been ably answered by my noble friend Lord St. Oswald. In view of the activities of those curious ladies and gentlemen who like to sit on cold streets and pavements, which is not very good for them, physically or otherwise, I should like to take the opportunity of repeating, if my noble friend will forgive me, what I thought was the very admirable statement which Lord Carrington made in the Defence debate, that the deterrent [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 238 (No. 53), col. 531]:
" is the strongest possible safeguard against the danger that the Russians might be tempted to overrun Europe in the belief that America would not intervene with nuclear weapons for
212
fear of the devastation which would be caused to her own country. This would, of course, be a miscalculation; but it is one which the Russians might increasingly be tempted to make as their own power grows. In other words, the nuclear stalemate, on which I believe the peace of the world depends, is not complete so far as Europe and this country are concerned without the British deterrent ".
The noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, in the same debate said that, without the deterrent—our contribution to the deterrent included—World War III would have ere long started. I do not quite know what the "Ban-the-bomb-ers" want, but surely those two observations prove that the reason we have no war to-day, and we hope shall have no war in the future, is the existence of the deterrent.
As I have said, I stand corrected in saying that there is nothing new; of course there are new things to say. One has a feeling that one has said them anyhow. What I like about the Estimates is that they recognise the danger of the lessening importance of our bases overseas. The position of these bases is becoming more and more vulnerable, and more and more untenable. That may not matter so much if we are going into what the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, called maritime warfare—though I regret the use of the word "maritime", because, unfortunately, it has a single-Service flavour about it. I hope that this term will not gain ground.
We have heard already to-day from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, that aircraft carriers—
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend, and I did not want to interrupt the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder; but it really is not true to say that the main "pitch" of H.M.S. "Bulwark" is Singapore. She spends a great deal of her time in the neighbourhood of the Persian Gulf, where presumably she would be most needed. Indeed, if my noble friend looks at the commission of H.M.S. "Bulwark". which has now lasted for some time, he will see how regularly, with a little foresight, she has been in the place where she has been most needed.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, the Minister of Defence's crystal ball is obviously working overtime. That is

213
a very good thing, and long may it continue! I apologise to my noble friend if I have misinterpreted the situation, but I am taking my information from a superior source. The fact remains that aircraft carriers are not exactly swift means of transport. But they are also mobile airfields and if, by any chance, our advance staging posts disappear, and we have to rely entirely on aircraft carriers, these seaborne airfields may not always be in the right place at the right time. What we need is a more massive Air Transport Command. I do not deny that we must have aircraft carriers, but we must not have them at the expense of Transport Command.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, mentioned vertical take-off and landing craft. It seems to me that this is the answer of the future to many of our problems. Could not therefore .a great deal more money be devoted to research on vertical take-off and landing than is being devoted now? We have glibly spent £100 million on this and that project, although the original Estimates were nothing like that amount. I should have thought that a sum of money like that was well worth putting into the speeding up of the introduction of aircraft with vertical take-off and landing capability.
Again, what about hovercraft? I do not think that these are mentioned in the Air Estimates. But surely hovercraft have an amphibious capability of great value in all forms of operation. I applaud the integration of the new Joint Services Staff Cell in the Ministry of Defence, the unified Commands overseas, and the earlier introduction of officers to Joint Staff work. Eventually, the Services will become so integrated as to become one. I wonder whether the speeding up of this process is not being hampered for the same reason as people give for not joining the European Economic Community—that is, a fear of giving up a little sovereignty. By doing that, the Services will become even more efficient and, what will be of still more benefit to the country, the Services will be made even cheaper.
May I turn for a moment to the Dart Herald? I know that the performance of the Avro 748 is not a great deal different, and that in the long run the choice has not done any physical harm.
214
I believe that the R.A.F. would prefer the Herald, chiefly because it is a high-wing and not a low-wing aircraft, which makes it easier for the job it has to do. Nevertheless, the choice of the Avro is not going to lose any war. It is the way the choice was made. Here we have Sir Frederick Handley Page, one of the pioneers of aircraft construction in this country, who from the very beginning has produced famous aircraft of all kinds. Imperial Airways would never have reached the status it did without Handley Page. I realise, of course, that his individuality stood out too much; but it seems to me too harsh, it seems to me punishment on the wrong principle, to punish a man by refusing to buy his products because he will not do what the Government require. I appreciate and agree with the idea behind what the Minister of Aviation is doing, but I think that in this case he could have shown a little more compassion and thoughtfulness for what the Services themselves need.
The increase in pilot intake shows that recruitment has recovered, thank heavens! after the disastrous White Paper of 1957—I say "disastrous", because it was pure crystal-gazing, and perhaps we happened to gaze in the wrong direction. It is all very well for noble Lords on the opposite Benches to laugh.
A NOBLE LORD: Not laugh—cheer.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: Yes, that is what Mr. Khrushchev calls "through the back window". Thank heaven ! recruits are coming forward. The fact that, although Cranwell is below strength, we are not having to accept entrants below a certain standard is a very good sign indeed.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, has already mentioned the university air squadrons. I entered the Service in that way; I have commanded a university air squadron, and I am glad to see that the threat last year, that they were going to disappear altogether, has not materialised. I am sure that it is money well worth spending, not only because of the benefit to public relations, but also because of its value in the type of individual attracted into the Service. Finally, my Lords, I would remind you that the rate of fatal accidents is the

215
second lowest on record. This is a matter on which the Royal Air Force and everybody in it is to be congratulated. The question of space has been gone into before, but there is one point here on which we must keep our eye—namely, that whoever has control of space presumably has control of the world. I hope that we shall play our part, however small it may be, in seeing that the West obtains this control and maintains it.
4.50 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in expressing indebtedness to my noble friend Lord Shackleton for once more introducing this debate and for the vigour, knowledge, range and vision with which he tackled the subject. On these occasions he is so identified with his subject that I have great difficulty in deciding whether he is a Peer or an aircraft; and apparently during his remarks my noble friend encountered a somewhat similar difficulty. I do not intend to attempt to cover the range that he dealt with, but to concentrate my remarks on a subject which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tedder, and again by the noble Earl, Lord Gosford—namely, our need for a considerable increase in Transport Command.
When one looks at the Memorandum, one finds that paragraph 13 indicates that two of the eight most important duties of the Royal Air Force are directly related to transport; that is to say,
" the strategic air lift of men and equipment for all three Services "
and the provision of
" medium and short-range transport support for the Army in the field."
I should like to relate these two important duties to the Government's laudable intention to reduce the number of different types of front-line aircraft in service from the 22 we have down to perhaps 6 or 7, and, in particular, to mention how, in my view, Transport Command can make a contribution to this end. If this is to be done—and it strikes me as essentially a first-class business proposition—it naturally means that one basic type must do several tasks.
216
In the debate in another place on March 12, Mr. Amery, the Secretary of State for Air, gave examples of what he had in mind. One of his suggestions was directly related to transport when he mentioned the need for a
" basically civil aircraft, which could do maritime work and also serve as a long-range military transport."
If such an aircraft can be developed, it will make possible not only an immense saving in the costs of research, development and production, but considerable economies in training and maintenance. Two other invaluable results would ensue: first, the lower final cost per aircraft would make us competitive in the world civil air market; and secondly, there would be far less need to stockpile men and materials in the world's potential trouble spats. I would submit that we have found this basic aircraft type in the Short Belfast, which has already been mentioned several times in this debate. I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Shackleton say that he had nothing against this aircraft, although he regretted that we had not years ago made another type of aircraft under licence. But the fact is that we did not do so, whatever the rights or wrongs of the situation may be, and we have to consider the position as it is to-day.
In the Short Belfast we have the biggest transport ever ordered by the Royal Air Force; and according to the manufacturers some of these aircraft will be flying, not in the mid-'sixties, as I think was suggested, but next year. Their capacity, load and range are much greater than that of any comparable competitor, and, what is more important, they will carry equipment which no other plane in the world can carry. The noble Lord, Lord Tedder, drew attention to the fact that only 10 strategic versions of this aircraft have been ordered, and he rightly said that an order of 10 is calculated to discourage people from making it; and it is calculated to put up the price. But these 10 aircraft now on order have a fuselage 12-feet by 12-feet, a maximum payload of 35 tons and a specified long-rang load over 4,000 miles of about 14 tons. The fuselage is big enough to take heavy Army equipment, such as radar vehicles and missiles, and aerodrome preparation equipment, such as tractors and bull-dozers. It will be capable of

217
refuelling other aircraft. It can take helicopters. Each aircraft, if fitted with two decks, could carry 250 troops, which means that 4 Belfasts could take a battalion virtually to any destination in the world at a speed of between 350 m.p.h. and 500 m.p.h. I submit that sufficient of such aircraft, efficiently used, by bringing any trouble spot within a few hours flying time, could transform the strategic position.
Mr. Amery, in his Memorandum, says that the operational effort of the transport force in Kuwait, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tedder, has already referred, deserves its own chapter; he was very proud of it. He reveals that the Ruler of Kuwait asked for assistance on June 30, and by July 6 the movement of over 7,000 men and 720 tons of stores had been substantially completed. No doubt that was a fine effort, but it occupied no fewer than 93 transport aircraft for six days. Twenty-eight Belfasts could have moved the men in one trip and the equipment in another, say, 36 hours in all; there would have been no need for the crystal ball to work overtime at all, and no need for inspired thinking as to where the next spot was likely to be where an aircraft carrier could do most good.
LORD CARRINGTON: A commando ship.
LORD STONHAM: The principle is the same. I am not attempting to decry what was done; it was doubtless a very fine effort; but I submit that these other arrangements would be much better. Obviously, this is one of the main reasons why the aircraft were ordered, as well as because they will be able to do other emergency transport jobs, such as the carrying of heavy and expensive equipment which is too expensive to stockpile, such as the Bloodhound and Thunderbird, when they are ready. But, unfortunately, there is as yet no indication that the Government have realised the potentialities of the developments which can be made from this aircraft. It was always conceived as a flexible type, devoted to a variety of rôles. For example, one development which Short Bros, have in mind would carry a modern battle tank of the equivalent of the Chieftain a distance of 2,500 miles. By making use of the improved Tyne engines when they are ready, it
218
would be available as a longer-range aircraft, say flying round Africa with a payload of 45 tons, or it could exceed 3,000 miles with a load of 15 tons. This would make all sorts of strategic conceptions possible because, as the Minister himself said in another place last month, if we could be sure of flying our aircraft from one end of the world to the other we need not position so many of these aircraft in different parts of the world. Indeed, increased engine power on this particular aircraft would make it suitable for tactical as well as strategic rôles, and therefore you would get the development which can be made from one basic type.
I submit that additional importance attaches to a long-range military version of the Belfast, because it would be virtually identical with the civil version in which B.O.A.C. have expressed an interest, and which it is estimated would have a 45 ton payload over the North Atlantic at a cost of less than 4d. per ton mile. I submit that, wherever possible, we must consider long-range military and civil requirements at the same time, providing always that the military requirement is fully met. Of course, in "military requirement" in this context I include the naval needs, and I would hope that this particular aircraft could indeed link up to satisfy some naval needs. The trouble is that when we come to think of combining its civil use, it is impossible to talk of prices that would interest the world civil air market on the basis of ten aircraft, the development of which have cost £8 million. The extra development for a super Belfast would cost only £4 million to £5 million, compared with almost £30 million for the development of an entirely new jet transport. When we are talking in terms of money and one basic type, we must remember this.
Obviously, I would submit, if the Government really mean to concentrate on half-a-dozen basic types they must develop the Belfast for medium and long-range strategic transport, and then they could consider it seriously for tactical needs. My noble friend Lord Shackleton asked this question, but according to my information from the manufacturers the total cost, including development, of the ten Belfasts now ordered plus ten of longer range and 30 tactical versions would be £120 mil-

219
lion for the 50 aircraft. But if it were decided to attempt another solution, to start afresh as it were, for these same requirements the cost would be £200 million. I would submit there can be only one answer.
Obviously ten of these aircraft will not be enough for the Royal Air Force transport needs, and it is equally obvious that, having shown their faith in them by ordering ten, the Government must order more, not necessarily of exactly the same type, but including the developed types which I have mentioned. Unfortunately, the Government have so far declined to place further firm orders or, indeed, to sanction work on the new developments. This delay is dangerous and it could be disastrous. Already, in the absence of further orders, the firm's finances are being taxed very strongly, and this is adding to the difficulties—and this is important—of holding together a first-class design team who, as it were, are out on a limb in Northern Ireland. And they are a first-class team. Last year, when Mr. Thorneycroft visited the works he said that
" they compared with the best in the world "
and that
" they had proved their ingenuity in the development of S.C.1., the vertical take-off and landing machine ",
which, indeed, was the first in the world. At the same time he declared his gratification with the efficiency with which Short's is conducted.
It is thus officially acknowledged at Ministerial level that they have the plane, the skill, the design teams and the efficiency, all the elements which, on purely technical grounds, merit the placing of forward contracts now. Over the last five or six years Ministers have been declaring what indeed Mr. Thorneycroft reaffirmed again last year, that it is the Government's policy to
" retain Short Brothers and Harland as a balanced and self-contained development, research and productive unit in the aircraft industry "
I hope that in his reply the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will be able to convince us that those words will be translated into action.
I have so far discussed this matter only on the basis of the firm's efficiency and the merits of its aircraft. Since the
220
essential first criteria are satisfied, I can now bring forward two other reasons—political reasons, perhaps—why, other things being equal, the Government must place the necessary orders in Northern Ireland. The first is that Short's is 75 per cent. owned by Her Majesty's Treasury. I would submit that if there are two firms of equal efficiency, one of which is virtually owned by the taxpayer, the orders should be given to the one which we virtually own. The second important consideration is that Short's is the largest employer of skilled labour in Northern Ireland where, to our regret, they are suffering the shocking depression level of 8 per cent. unemployment.
The firm now employs some 7,500 people, compared with 10,000 five years ago. If we have the orders, it would be unthinkable not to place them there. At present, they have some 5,250 employed in their aircraft division. If no further Belfasts were ordered, it would mean a loss of £12 million and the sacking of 4,000 workers by the end of 1965. If the orders for our known needs—and needs which in this debate have been emphasised again and again—are placed soon, the price of this plane, in the opinion of the directors, can eventually be cut by half, which is a very important consideration. It would mean that the capture of part of the civil aircraft market would then be virtually certain, and the future of this plant and its workers assured.
On Friday last in another place a Motion was moved which the Government accepted. It was with regard to Northern Ireland and it included these words:
" … reaffirms the need to accelerate Northern Ireland's economic development so as to bring employment up to a level existing in other parts of the United Kingdom; and believes that Her Majesty's Government … would be fully justified in adopting further exceptional measures to achieve these ends."
That Motion was accepted by the Government, and in dealing with it the right honourable gentleman Mr. R. A. Butler, the Home Secretary, said this of the factory [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 656, (No. 87), col. 1739]:
" On my own visit I formed the same impression … that there is the most urgent need, in this beautifully-equipped aircraft factory, with a range for the construction of large aircraft almost unrivalled in the world, and with its access to the waterfront, for certainty not only about the organisation but also about future orders "

221
That was a most unequivocal statement. But the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary was not able to say anything more than those very kind and convincing words. I do not know what exceptional measures the Government have in mind. It might be exceptional to ask for a speedy and sensible decision—I would not think so—but I would ask for a speedy and sensible, and favourable, decision and I express the hope that at the end of this debate we shall not be put off with another heartbreaking, non-committal, hope-deferred answer.
On the 22nd of last month Mr. Thorneycroft really acknowledged the case I have put when he spoke in another place. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 656 (No. 81), col. 597]:
" The problem which confronts this industry is in the design staffs—the brains who are the future of the industry … we recognise the need for a healthy long-term future for these priceless design teams … we will do our best to hasten the necessary decisions."
The need to hasten necessary decisions is nowhere greater than in the Northern Ireland aircraft industry. Short's have a priceless design team who are naturally uneasy and anxious about their "healthy, long-term future". They will melt away if favourable decisions are not made soon.
Last week I saw a large advertisement in a national daily newspaper. It showed the giant Belfast under construction and gave smaller illustrations of the Short Seacat missile, the Short Skyvan light freighter, the S.C.1, and other products. The advertisement was headed, "Short's are doing Exciting Things in Northern Ireland ". They are indeed. But I ask the Government to give an assurance tonight that this company, which we all own, will have a chance to go on doing exciting things for a long time to come.
5.12 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for initiating this debate and for the kind way in which he did it. I am even grateful to him for virtually including remarks I made in the debate on Space Research a few weeks ago. I hope that my noble friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty, will be able to tell us
222
that Her Majesty's Government have, in fact, given the Royal Air Force some part to play in what this country does towards space development. I am sure that all noble Lords have quite a little difficulty when taking part in a debate of this nature, because so often what one may say is getting pretty close to the knuckle of security, and I am sure that my noble friend the First Lord is in the worst position of all, in having to reply on these matters. As my noble friend, Lord St. Oswald, put it, one has to think very carefully what one says.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that I might say something about the Meteorological Service, but I should have thought that he was far more qualified than I am to do so, having been in Coastal Command, who were always amazingly "weatherwise". I will say this, however: I do not think the nation, as a whole, appreciates the wonderful work which is done by the Meteorological Service, whose money comes from the Air Vote. The Meteorological Service very often in the mind of the public simply gives them the wrong weather for their holidays. They do not realise the difficulties with which the service is faced, owing to the geographic position of this country, in giving a long-term weather forecast. Unfortunately we are placed almost where three major air masses meet; and for one to tell with any degree of accuracy whether a depression coming across the Atlantic is going to push away a ridge of high pressure over the Continent is extremely difficult.
All the same, my Lords, our weather forecasts can be amazingly accurate; and I do not think I shall be giving away any secrets if I tell you about a yachtsman who was having a race on a Saturday afternoon and who, because he knew his lateral communications, was able to ring up an area forecaster, also a keen sailor. The forecast predicted a shift of wind at a certain hour, and, by Jove! that shift came within five minutes of the predicted time; and as this chap had sailed a course, to take in such a shift, he was able to round the marker buoy and win the race quite handsomely. As I have said, I do not believe that the general public know all that is done by the Meteorological Service, and I hope that more of them will learn to look into the future, which is part of the story

223
of the Meteorological Office. I am sure, my Lords, that you have looked at this, and I will not weary you with repeating it now.
If you go to the Meteorological Report for the year ending December 31, 1960, you will see, at page 25, from (a) to (g) inclusive various things which the Meteorological Office does. I will refer to two that might affect the general public; that is (c) forecasts of at least three days' dry weather during the summer months—a service primarily for farmers, and (d) forecasts for three or four days ahead of weather likely to result in increased demands for a variety of products such as ice cream in summer and anti-freeze fluids in winter. So a great deal is done that is not fully appreciated.
I believe that part of the reason for the forgetfulness we have is due to the fact that Her Majesty's Government some years ago took away that inestimable service called the "Air-Met", which was a boon to the farmer and a boon to the traveller. I should have thought that to-day, with computers, as mentioned in the Report, it would have been quite easy to restore this service without any additional cost. After all, the forecasters are already there, and all that is required is a channel on which to disseminate the forecasts to the public. If I remember rightly it used to be on about 1280 metres, on the long-wave band. But by a clause in the Geneva Convention we allowed the Russians to use this frequency, and I have never heard any other broadcast since. I hope that this point might be looked into again, because not only was this service useful, but it let the public know the state of the weather at a short time. And if anyone happened to know the geographical situation of any stations reporting he could have a lot of fun trying to draw his own weather map.
I want to say only one more thing, and that is that I am rather worried when I hear or read complaints about the use of Transport Command for this or that task; of helicopters being used for rescue service. Such complaints appear in the Press, and are voiced a great deal more often here than in another place. But surely, if we are to
224
keep an efficient Transport Command, it must be kept in full flying training; and if we can give it an active job to do while it is training it is far better to do so. It is the old story of "letting the dog see the rabbit"—even if it is only an unwarlike rabbit. So I believe it is right to make the greatest use of Air Transport Command for all sorts of duties, even though they might be thought lavish—that is probably the wrong word; at any rate, unproductive in building up its own rôle of carrying troops and supplies.
My last point (and this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham) is the question of the Belfast aircraft. No doubt it will be an extremely good aircraft. But I recall that in 1939–40 we thought the look of the four-funnelled destroyers that were lent to us from the United States somewhat old-fashioned. I would hazard a guess that any aircraft with propellers on it by 1967 will look as funny as those four-funnelled destroyers did.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to his opinion, but I wonder whether he is aware that the Russians are still developing turboprops, and no one would suggest that they do not have pretty advanced knowledge in the air. It does seem that this type of aircraft is going to be the cheapest to develop, and the difference of perhaps one hour in arriving on a long journey will not make much difference to Transport Command.
LORD WALERAN: I am aware that the Russians are going on with the turboprop aircraft, but it may be for a quite different reason. I should have thought that there were already in existence pure jet aircraft that can be developed.
5.22 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for not being present at the beginning of the debate. I had not previously intended taking part in It and I have been on important Commonwealth business; therefore I am somewhat at a disadvantage because I have not heard all the many and no doubt powerful arguments produced by both sides. I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, as I am sure many other speakers have, for introducing this Motion.

225
It seems to me that the R.A.F. has come to a stage in its history which is, as it were, a climax. I am no expert in this subject and I look at it purely from the point of view of the ordinary observer who has no special knowledge and no bias one way or the other. As we know, in the beginning of its history the Air Arm, if you like to call it such—it was not even the Royal Flying Corps then—was conceived purely from the point of view of operating with the Army and also with the Royal Navy. In fact, the father of the Royal Air Force, Lord Trenchard, fought strenuously to preserve this rôle far the Air Arm. It was against his will in the first place that the Royal Flying Corps was formed as a separate arm of the Service. He became later, of course, its greatest advocate, and the Royal Air Force owes an enormous amount to him. He developed it and, with the assistance of the other senior Service officers and those who served in the Service, it has become the marvellous instrument that we know to-day.
But I am not sure now whether the time has not come for it to go back to its original concept, because, frankly, I do not see independent bombing being any longer a real rôle for the Royal Air Force. Remember that the Royal Flying Corps first came into existence for the express purpose of bombing Germany in the First World War. I feel to-day, very strongly, that the future of the Royal Air Force depends upon close integration with the Army and the Royal Navy, and that in the future it will not have a rôle of its own as a strategic bombing force.
This really takes in the whole concept of our Defence policy, and therefore your Lordships will, I hope, excuse me if I say a word or two about it, because it is impossible to consider the future of the Royal Air Force without considering how it fits into the general picture, although I do not intend to spend a long period on it. First, to make clear my own point of view, may I say that I entirely agree with paragraph 13 of the Memorandum we are now discussing, except for sub-paragraph (a). Paragraph 13 reads:
" The Royal Air Force exists to-day to deploy air power in defence of our national interests and in support of our friends and Allies. In particular, it provides "—
226
and then it goes on to say a number of things it provides, eight in all. I agree with seven of them. The only one I do not agree with is the first one, in sub-paragraph (a):
" Britain's strategic nuclear striking power ".
I hope that has made my position, and also the position of the Liberal Party, clear on this matter, a point I gather the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned earlier on. Perhaps I may return to that in a moment.
The kind of rôle I have outlined for the Royal Air Force of the future was well emphasised in the Kuwait operation, which I believe has been mentioned to-day by the noble and gallant Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Lord Tedder. It is significant that it was only on June 30 that the Ruler of Kuwait called for British forces. On July 1, H.M.S. "Bulwark" arrived off Kuwait in extremely difficult weather conditions, and on the same day, July 1, two days after the call was made, at the Farwania airstrip the Royal Air Force's first aircraft touched down, the Beverley of 84 Squadron, bringing the ground crew of 8 Squadron, and ten minutes later the Hunters. Those are remarkable figures. The Royal Air Force and the Navy should be congratulated on how quickly they got in. That is the rôle, I suggest, of the Royal Air Force, the Army and the Royal Navy in the future, or one aspect of their rôle—this quick build-up, the "fire brigade" type of operation.
The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, for some reason did not like our supporting cheers, but they were not intended in any way to be derisory; we were fully in accord with him; we did support him and I do now support him in calling the White Paper of 1957 disastrous, because it is from this disastrous White Paper of 1957 that many of our troubles flowed. That is to say, we, in this country, with our strained resources in money, manpower, equipment and in scientists, are trying to maintain at the same time the independent nuclear deterrent and conventional forces. As your Lordships know, the independent nuclear deterrent is provided by the V-bombers. Paragraph 13 of the Defence White Paper said:
" The efficacy of our deterrent will therefore be maintained throughout the 1960s "—

227
I hope your Lordships will note that; that is another eight years—
" by using our V-bombers and fitting them with stand-off weapons, Blue Steel in the first instance and later Skybolt."
So now we know what to expect.
I should like to refer to a speech made by the Prime Minister last Monday in Stockton, when he took the Labour Party and the Liberal Party to task and said:
" Remember, if you vote for Liberal or for Labour, you vote for conscription."
That comes pretty well, I must say, from the leader of a Government who have just passed through Parliament a Bill for conscription! The Army Reserve Bill was a conscription Bill. I thought it was impudence of the first water, with that background, to make a statement of that kind. We supported the Army Reserve Bill, but we did not expect to have this sort of gibe flung at us as a result.
The second point is that the Prime Minister said that a vote for the Labour Party was a vote for conscription. How does he know what a vote for the Labour Party is? No one else does. In the House of Commons their spokesmen say one thing on defence; in this House their spokesmen say another. There is no denying that in the Defence debate the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—they believe this, and there is no reason why they should not say it—thought it necessary to keep the nuclear deterrent. They agree with the Government on that. To-day, I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that, while he believes that the nuclear deterrent is a declining asset, he would keep it for the time being. That is a sort of halfway position—as it were, a bet either way. In the House of Commons they say "Away with it !". So how on earth can the Prime Minister, even though he is a crystal gazer, tell from looking in the crystal ball what a vote for the Labour Party will do in this or in any other direction?
He said in another part of his speech that
" the deterrent, including the bombers, is only 10 per cent. of the total defence cost."
I think that is most doubtful. The First Lord shakes his head. At any rate, it is a pretty big sum; it is £200 million.
LORD CARRINGTON: Why is it doubtful?
LORD OGMORE: I think it is doubtful because statistics can always be made to agree with what you want them to agree with. As the late Mr. Lloyd George said,
" There are three kinds of liars: liars, damn liars and statisticians."
I think statistics can be made to prove anything you like, and that the answers depend upon what you put on to the accounting side of the nuclear deterrent—in other words, how much of the administrative and research costs, and so on, you load on to the deterrent, and how much you load on to other things. I think these figures are doubtful. On February 21, the Guardian, in querying this figure of 10 per cent., asked what I have asked—namely,
" …what proportion of research and development costs, how great a part of the defence of nuclear bases, what part of the R.A.F.'s administrative costs, and so on "
were covered by that figure. The Guardian went on:
" That Blue Streak fiasco cost more than £100 million; … the Blue Steel stand-off bomb is already known to be likely to cost not far short of £150 million; as for Blue Water and the other developments hinted at last year but never specified, their costs are completely unknown."
So there is a good deal of doubt as to exactly what these particular weapons will in fact cost. But even at 10 per cent. it is a substantial figure, which would go a great way in doing what we say it ought to do—namely, support the conventional forces.
It seems to me that the Government's policy—this is relevant to this debate—is, first of all to cling on to the independent nuclear deterrent, which is really a hark back to the sort of gunboat mentality where everybody must have his own deterrent, and bears no relation to the facts of to-day; and secondly, to bilk (it amounts to no less) our Allies over conventional forces. I do not care who says it, no one can convince me that we are carrying out in NATO policy the commitments that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, entered into when he was Prime Minister. The figures are just not there. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has given all the figures on many occasions and I will not trouble to give them now; no doubt his figures are

229
accurate. I am quite certain that we are bilking on our responsibilities; and it you bilk on your responsibilities you can hardly expect your defence policy to be realistic, as on some occasion your Allies may begin to bilk on you.
I am not alone in thinking that this is the wrong policy to pursue. There are many people in the Labour Party who think that, and there are several important people in the Conservative Party who think it also. For example, Mr. Aubrey Jones has come out very strongly against this policy. I heard him myself the other night on television. I must say it is rather a pity that he did not do so when he was Minister of Supply, when he advocated the opposite. But we are always glad, at whatever late hour it may be, to have a convert to our ideas, and Mr. Aubrey Jones is a most powerful convert. As an ex-Minister and one who knows the defence set-up so well, he is a powerful figure in this world. Whatever they think of us—and I know they think little enough of us—the Government cannot just shrug Mr. Aubrey Jones oft in that way. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that Brigadier Fitzroy Maclean is also a supporter of this point of view. If I am not right, no doubt the First Lord will tell me so when he comes to reply.
I have been asked, what is the Liberal policy? I can state it quite shortly. It is to renounce the independent nuclear deterrent and to provide conventional forces, first of all, to carry out our responsibilities to NATo—that is to say, to provide a pause with the shield forces to enable the Commander-in-Chief to decide whether this is an accident or a serious attack, or whatever it may be. That is the NATO policy. Secondly, to provide integrated services, naval, army and air, of a highly mobile nature to cover our commitments elsewhere.
I must say that I entirely disagree with the noble and gallant Field Marshal Lord Montgomery of Alamein who, in the Defence debate the other day, rather pooh-poohed the threat in Europe. To my mind, it is essential to hold Western Europe. Unless we hold Western Europe, however strong we may be in other parts of the world it would be quite useless. Western Europe and the Mediterranean are still the bastions of
230
our defence, and the other areas of the world are the distant perimeter. I am quite sure that after their recent disastrous crop failures the Chinese are in no position, even if they wanted to, to go levying war on anybody else, and they will not be for many years.
Finally, may I say a word on recruiting? No doubt the noble Lord the First Lord will explain to us why it is that for February 1, 1962, there are over 2,000 fewer male Regular other ranks in the Royal Air Force than there were on February 1, 1961. On a previous occasion when I gave figures of this kind the noble Lord challenged them and said that my figures were different from his. The point was that my figures had been issued by the Ministry of Defence and they were, I think, in the end accepted. These, again, are figures issued by the Ministry of Defence on March 5, 1962, and they show that on February 1, 1961, in the R.A.F. the number of men and boys totalled 118,645, and that on February 1, 1962, they numbered 116,100. Unless I have somehow misread these figures—which is quite possible, as I have only just had this Paper—that seems to me to be the position.
It may be, of course, that part of the explanation is that there are fewer short-service engagements and a few more long-service engagements than there were in 1961. But that is not the entire answer, and I feel there must be some other explanation. I hope the answer is not that recruiting is not going up at the rate hoped for. An even more worrying situation, I think, is that on February 1, 1961, there were 7,873 boys and apprentices, and on February 1, 1962, the number had gone down to 7,500. There is no long-service or short-service engagement involved there, but according to this table there were 373 fewer boys and apprentices this year than at the equivalent time last year. We all know the tremendous importance of the boys and apprentices in any Service, and I hope we may be assured that this position can be remedied.
I do not want your Lordships, or anyone outside this House, to think that anything I have said here implies any kind of criticism of the Services, and in particular of the Royal Air Force. I have the greatest admiration for the Royal Air Force, for what they have

231
done both in peace and in war. My only aim—as indeed it is the aim of all your Lordships—is to see that everything shall be done to make their task successful and, so far as possible, easy for them. We believe that the Government's policy is not conducive to this end. We feel that it is a muddled policy—a policy which has been denounced by some of its principal supporters. It is a policy which takes no account or not sufficient account, of our responsibilities to NATO, and a policy which, in the end, the country will reject.
5.43 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I venture to intervene in the debate for a very few moments, and I am moved to do so by the implied reflection of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, when he referred to the expenditure of £550 million seeming not to be worthy of comment from any of those who in past years had been politically responsible for affairs at the Air Ministry. But far more wounding to the conscience would be the acceptance of any imputation, justified or unjustified, that we had neglected to pay our tribute to the magnificent work and the wonderful spirit of the Royal Air Force.
I am also pleased to be allowed to intervene for a moment following the remarkable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, because I was quite fascinated to hear the deployment of Liberal policy in such clear terms—words which were so clear, but which really meant so little. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, showed me clearly how much the remnants of that great Party of which he is now a member lean on the past. He went right back to the 1918 formation of the Royal Air Force. and it is his lone voice that now puts forward a policy that would break up the Royal Air Force—a matter which was considered by many Cabinet Committees and decided finally in 1918.
Lord Ogmore says that he does not believe in an independent strategic nuclear striking force for this country. My Lords, I believe that the Royal Air Force was the sword and the shield of our country at the time of the Battle of Britain, and I believe it is still the sword and the shield against sudden unproyoked
232
aggression upon this country. If the shield is Fighter Command and the ancillary ground defences, the sword—for all to see—is the great deterrent, which would be delivered, if it had to be, by our V-bomber force with effectiveness and speed, and with dreadful consequences for anyone who dared to commit unprovoked aggression. I believe that the V-bomber force will remain the sword in the defence of this country for many years yet.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I do not want to break up the Royal Air Force; that is the last thing I want. But I do want the Government to give it a more realistic and more modern target and rôle than it has at the moment.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I do not want to misunderstand the noble Lord, but I understood that he wished the Royal Air Force to function virtually in close support with the other two Services, and wanted to abolish its independent rôle. At any rate, there is no issue at all about the conflict on major policy, which is that he wishes this country not to have an independent nuclear striking force. I would maintain that the independent nuclear striking force has provided us with the greatest measure of security during the past ten critical years, and it is largely because we do possess that force, I believe, that to-day our voice is a voice of power and authority in the councils of the world.
There is much confused and muddled thinking among those who oppose the possession by this country of the great deterrent. There is a campaign for the surrender of the deterrent as an independent weapon, but with an acceptance of nuclear weapons for what are called conventional forces and tactical usage. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, pointed out, there is no clear line of demarcation between what is a tactical weapon in tactical usage, or a strategic weapon in strategic usage. If, for instance, a Canberra bomber under the operational command of a General Officer Commanding conventional forces was used to drop a nuclear weapon in close support, I presume that that would be acceptable to the Liberal Party because that would be a nuclear

233
weapon in use for tactical purposes—namely the dropping of a nuclear weapon upon an opposing army. Is that so?
LORD OGMORE: If that were a question and not a rhetorical statement, I would say that that might be so, if in the view of the Commander-in-Chief—General Norstad, or whoever it may be—it was necessary (and I hope it never will be) to use a weapon of that kind in a tactical usage. There is no such thing as a tactical weapon; but in a tactical rôle that would be so. I was talking about the nuclear deterrent, not about the use of nuclear or atomic weapons in a tactical rôle. They are two different things.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: We will come to that in a moment. We all abhor the usage of nuclear weapons whether in a tactical rôle or a strategic rôle—that is common ground. But I gather the noble Lord would, in certain circumstances, allow that weapon to be used in what he calls—and I would agree with him—a tactical rôle. But if, say, the Commander-in-Chief wanted to send that Canberra bomber another hundred miles to a town where there was a railhead, then you are on the borderline of whether it is being used in a tactical rôle or a strategic rôle. If you were to send it 400 miles further on, and if it were sent not by the Commanding Officer but by an Air Force commander, then I gather that it would be regarded as being used in a strategic rôle—it would then be the great deterrent.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the noble Lord has not understood the position. What we object to is that there should be an independent nuclear deterrent, the H-bomb, with its method of delivery, retained by us here. NATO already has atomic weapons and we make no objection to that. We hope they will never be used. What the noble Lord is talking about is the exercise by the NATO Commander of the NATO atomic weapons. That does not come into the argument at all. If necessary, of course the Supreme Commander must have those facilities.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The noble Lord really could not sustain that argument—because what is an H-bomb?
234
An H-bomb is a hydrogen bomb, a nuclear weapon. The noble Lord would allow a nuclear weapon to be dropped quite near the enemy, but he would not allow a nuclear weapon to be dropped well behind the enemy in case it hit some town. My Lords, that is quite illogical.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, whether we agree with it or not, we must understand the argument. I am saying that I do not believe there should be any independent nuclear weapons held by anyone but the two great Powers, the United States and Russia. NATO is already a nuclear Power in the sense that it has atomic weapons, and I make no objection to that. But that does not come into it at all. We support NATO.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I do not think there is much purpose in pursuing this argument. I think the House would agree that it is really quite impossible to define in terms of usage what exactly is a tactical rôle or a strategic rôle. At any rate, the noble Lord has now made it clear that he does not mind somebody else having an H-bomb for a strategic rôle in order to help us, provided that we ourselves do not. We have to employ other people, the Americans or NATO, to do the work on our behalf. I cannot think that that is a very attractive policy which will gain much support in the country.
That was the only point I wished to make in my very short intervention. I believe that it is the great deterrent which has rendered us powerful in the councils of the world to-day and which has given us a measure of uneasy peace in the time of cold war; and that it would indeed be a Government not worthy of the responsibilities which any Government must carry which gave up the great deterrent of this country, which is within our own control for use for our own protection in a great emergency, unless the peace of the world were secured by statesmen in a way that has not yet been achieved. My Lords, the Royal Air Force is fifty years old. I see that in this House there are noble Lords who were pioneer members of that Service. It has achieved great honour and glory over past years, and I believe that it will discharge its responsibility as

235
guardian of the great deterrent in the future years to come just as well as it has done in the past.
5.53 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House has already expressed its sincere gratitude to my noble friend Lord Shackleton for taking on to-day the task—and it is a task—of moving the Motion on the Air Estimates. As is usual, his speech typified the care and attention that he gives to those subjects on which he speaks in this House. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, that these remarks apply equally to him. Certainly we on this side of the House always enjoy hearing him when he comes to the defence of the Government. He always speaks with spirit, and he certainly always gives us the impression that, within the limits of the facts he is able to give us, he attempts to answer the case that we make. Therefore, we are grateful to both noble Lords who commenced this debate this afternoon.
May I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for the arrangements which have been made for Government speakers this afternoon? There were some of us who felt that in the Defence debate the House was not rightly served, in that an important debate was wound up for the Government by a Minister who was not intimately connected with Defence matters. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, possibly felt that he should answer some of the unanswered questions of the Defence debate. Therefore, I hope that this arrangement will continue and that at the end of the Service debates we shall hear from a Minister intimately connected with the subject.
There have been a number of tributes paid to the Royal Air Force and to various sections of it, but there is one section which has not been mentioned. Your Lordships will find the section to which I refer in paragraph 101, and I think that the 21st birthday of the Air Training Corps is a very important anniversary. From paragraph 96 we see the importance of this Corps to the Royal Air Force. About half of the officer cadets at Cranwell and Henlow, and 40 per cent. of the boy entrants and apprentices, are taken from the Air Training Corps. Therefore, when on this
236
occasion we pay our tribute to the Royal Air Force as a whole, I think tribute must equally be given to the Air Training Corps, to its officers and to the many men and women who may be outside the Air Training Corps but give so much assistance in making it such a live organisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, gave us a description of the Liberal policy. I do not propose to develop the debate which went on between him and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, but I feel I should say one thing, because the noble Lord attempted to show the conflicting views on defence held by members of my Party in another place and by some of us in this House. I think I should make it clear in this debate that, while we in the House of Lords play our part in the Parliamentary Party, we have the liberty of speaking—very much as in Divisions. I have never hesitated to state what, in my view, is required for the defence of my country. I can well believe that, if we had a debate in this House in regard to defence, there would be no part of the House which would produce unanimity.
I would say to the noble Lord that this is one subject in which the Opposition is placed in considerable difficulty. We have no knowledge of the secret facts. We have to make our decisions, our judgments, on the information that becomes available to us. May I say this—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will agree—that those of us who have been privileged to go to air establishments, naval and NATO establishments are, in fact, placed in an even more difficult position, in that we are in possession of certain information and it is very difficult for us to judge whether we may use that information. Therefore, when we make our judgments and express our views we must do so with the best of intentions and with integrity on the facts available to us as members of the general public.
I spoke in the Defence debate on the nuclear deterrent. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that the possession of nuclear weapons and the capability of delivering them to the Soviet Union has been the greatest insurance for peace. But, my Lords, an insurance policy has its lifetime. I personally believe that our capability today makes the case for an independent

237
nuclear deterrent; but in the Defence debate I tried to indicate the fear of those of us who support the independent deterrent, that the vehicles which we have for delivering this weapon are becoming less viable in the course of days. This is no criticism of the officers and men or even of the vehicles, the aircraft in which they fly. I believe that the V-bomber is as fine an aircraft as is flying to-day. My personal fear on the viability of these aircraft lies in their vulnerability on the ground.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, say that in his view and in the Government's view the Royal Air Force will be capable of getting a reasonable percentage, I suppose, of its V-bomber force off the ground after a warning. I fully recognise that the Royal Air Force's capability to respond to an alert is infinitely better than that of the Americans. But the alert time is very short: it has been said to be four minutes.
LORD ST. OSWALD: That is against missiles.
LORD SHEPHERD: Against missiles. And, although the noble Lord would say it would be from manned aircraft, I am coming to the view that we should probably now find that the main attack on this country would be from missiles. However, that is a source of argument. If it is missiles—and it will become missiles in a matter of a year or so—I would ask the House to remember the Berlin crisis, and what happened on the radar screens over North America; that the communication from the radar control to Strategic Air Command became negligible in the sense that both the lines of communication became blank. The officer commanding was not sure whether this was a mere accident or whether this may have been the result of Soviet interference. My Lords, General Powers had no alternative—and this has been accepted as true—but to place the entire Strategic Air Command on the alert. In the circumstances, he had no alternative.
Now if this had been a missile warning, it is said there would have been four minutes; but, in actual fact, by the time the decision was made, you were down to about a minute. So far as this country is concerned, where we are so
238
closely concentrated, we may have had only a minute to get our V-bomber force off. I tell this story to illustrate my fear about the vulnerability of our aircraft on the ground. I should like to ask the Government if they are prepared to give us the answers to certain questions. When General Powers called for the alert, was a message sent to this country, to the Royal Air Force? Was it received in time for the Royal Air Force to be put on an alert, so that, if it had been a missile attack, our aircraft would in fact have been off the ground? I ask that question; and I ask the Government if they are still satisfied, after this experience, that their lines of communication are satisfactory. I ask them if they can give us some information, although I appreciate that they may not be able to go very far.
Now, my Lords, I want to say something about Transport Command, which has already been mentioned this afternoon. It is true that there has been a welcome increase in Transport Command, and that new aircraft will shortly be coming into service. But it is also true that our overseas bases are being reduced—and, if one reads the White Paper on Defence, there is every indication that these overseas bases are going to be further reduced. If that happens, is it not the case that the increase in Transport Command will not compensate for the loss of overseas bases? I therefore think that if, because of Army manpower shortage, the Government are going to reduce their overseas bases, it is absolutely essential that the heavy strategic airlift is increased. The only aircraft coming in that category, as I see it, will be the Belfast, with a heavy capability of airlift.
We have ordered ten of these, and my noble friend Lord Shackleton asked what will be the cost of these ten Belfast aircraft. My information—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will correct me if I am wrong—is that the anticipated cost of these ten aircraft is £25 million. I understand that if no further orders are placed, the loss to the company producing them will be in the region of £12 million. My Lords, the company is practically State-owned; and, therefore, if my arithmetic is correct, and my information is correct, these ten aircraft will have cost the State £37

239
million—in other words, one aircraft will have cost approximately £3½ million. I do not know whether these figures are correct, but they have been given me from a very good source. I should like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whether they are correct, because your Lordships will remember that in the Defence debate, referring to the losses that have been incurred in the production of so many missiles and equipment, I spoke about the "Rake's progress". If the figures I have given are correct, then the Belfast must be included in the "Rake's progress".
Now, my Lords, I want to say something about Fighter Command. When I was over in Germany seeing the Army, one of the things that struck me as being very different from the Army that I knew during the war was the absence—or not exactly the absence, but the shortage—of artillery, in relation to the number of men involved. It would seem to me that, if the Army were called upon to fight even a conventional war for only a few days, it would certainly need fighter aircraft to be used as a form of artillery, as they were used at the end of the Second World War. I should like to know whether the noble Lord can tell us something about Fighter Command and its co-operation with the Army.
The other thing that I wanted to say in regard to the Army and the Air Force is on the question of helicopters. Can the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, indicate to us when the Belvederes will be available for operations in Germany? I understand that the B.A.O.R. are desperately short of helicopters, and when one goes over to Germany and sees the terrain in which the Army must operate and train, one realises that the helicopter becomes extremely important.
My Lords, we can well talk of what will be the future needs of the Air Force, whether they lie in missiles, or in manned bombers. But we shall have neither unless we have a first-class aircraft industry. It is easy to put oneself in the position of always complaining about things being inefficient; but the fact remains that there are certain signs in the aircraft industry that are not good. When the rationalisation programme was started by Her Majesty's Government, or encouraged by Her Majesty's Government, the number of
240
men employed was in the region of 250,000. One would have thought that, with rationalisation and reduction in overheads, there would be a reduction in manpower. Yet Flight magazine the other day gave the figure now employed as over 300.000.
We are still producing as big a variety of aircraft. Most of them do not appear to be making ends meet for the companies that are producing them. The Government have played their part. I believe that they have contributed by procurement in the last six years of nearly £1,000 million worth of equipment—excluding missiles. Yet, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Tedder, the attitude of overseas buyers, both military and civil, to our Farnborough Air Show, which is the shop window of our industry, certainly makes one feel that something very drastic must be done.
My Lords, only the other day I read that the Australian Government have just bought "Neptunes" for long-range reconnaissance work. This aircraft, I understand, is a development which has been in service for fifteen years, and the Australian Government have bought nearly £10 million worth. How is it that the Australians would rather go to America to buy this probably out-of-date aircraft, than come to this country? It may well be a question of credit. But if we are going to have an efficient and far-developing aircraft industry, we have not only to give the opportunities for production, but we have to see that our aircraft industry do not lose overseas orders owing to lack of finance.
There is a great deal more that could be said. I am glad to see that recruiting is very satisfactory. I am also glad to see that nearly 70 per cent. (I think it is) of the airmen have enlisted for nine years' service or more. There was one question which, just before I rose, I was asked to put to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. There is concern at the very high wastage in the training of aircrews. About 50 per cent. of those who undertake aircrew training do not finish the course. I wonder whether the noble Lord would give us some idea of the reasons for that.
The Royal Air Force, I think, like all our Services, has something to offer ou

241
young people. I personally take the view that terms of service, such as pay and allowances, are not the entire attraction to young men. I hope that the Government, in time, will try to put a greater emphasis in the Services on education, so that a young man, when he enters the Service, whether as an officer or other rank, will know that if he works hard and makes use of the facilities available, when he leaves the Service he will not be a misfit in civilian life, but will be able to have degrees and knowledge that will help him to play his part in life with persons of his own age who have remained civilians. I think we could do a great deal more than we are doing to-day, and I would recommend to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that he has an investigation made of such facilities offered in the United States. They are indeed remarkable.
My Lords, we on this side of the House put the security of our country in the front of our policy. There are some of us who believe that we must play a greater part, perhaps, than we play to-day. It is easy to say that those of us who believe in that would obligate our country to undertake conscription. I should hope that my noble friends, if the issue were to come and it were necessary to have conscription, would not flinch from the task. The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, regretted during the Defence debate that I moved an Amendment expressing our dissatisfaction with Government Defence policy. I was using constitutional, openhanded discussion. But I bitterly regret the statement which was made on Monday by the Prime Minister—a cheap, squalid, guttersnipe remark—that a vote for Labour or for the Liberals was a vote for conscription. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will dissociate himself from that remark.
6.18 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, on these occasions, when answering on behalf of the Royal Air Force for Her Majesty's Government, I feel rather like a cuckoo in the nest, because your Lordships know that I have the honour, for the time being, to be the political head of the Royal Navy, and I am an ex-Regular soldier to boot. So I have to tread rather delicately in this sort of
242
situation. My only comfort is that the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, who also spoke, is an even bigger cuckoo, as he was a much more senior officer in the Army than I was. Let me just say this: that I feel a great responsibility in speaking on behalf of the Government for the Royal Air Force, which, although it is the youngest of the Services by far, has won in so short a time such great glory.
I think I can truthfully say that we have had an interesting, if quite short, debate. I also think that everyone will agree with me, and will join with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when I say how greatly we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for the way he introduced this Motion, and for the very thoughtful and interesting speech which the noble Lord always makes on matters concerning defence, and, in particular, the Royal Air Force.
I also think that the debate has been notable for the contribution of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, who is so infrequently heard in your Lordships' House. He speaks with very great experience, and I listened, as I am sure all your Lordships did, with great care to what he said. I thought that what he said supported very much the Government's policy on the deterrent and greatly reinforced our arguments. I have already taken him up once on one thing that he said (and I hope that he will forgive me if I do it again) about the commando ship, "Bulwark". Then my noble friend Lord Gosford (who I know has had to leave the House for an important engagement), complained that aircraft carriers are rather slow. I should like only to point out that they are the only airfields I know that move at all. However, I do not want to develop this into an argument between aircraft carriers and airfields, because I think that this would be the worst possible thing that should happen in this country or between the Services. I believe that air bases and aircraft carriers are complementary one to the other, and both are essential if we are to deploy our military forces round the world.
I do not think that this debate has really brought with it a great deal of criticism of the Secretary of State's Estimates or of his Explanatory Memo-

243
randum. The sum of £552 million is a very large amount of money indeed, but the highly skilled men and women who make up the Royal Air Force are, very properly, well rewarded for the services they render to their country; and increasing complication adds formidably to the cost of the machines which they fly and service. Broadly speaking, there has been no criticism of the way in which the Air Force has been conducted over the past year, nor of the conditions in which its men and women serve.
As my noble friend Lord St. Oswald has reminded your Lordships, the primary task of the Royal Air Force is to provide the British contribution to the nuclear deterrent. This it does with skill and efficiency, and I hope that no one, after having listened to my noble friend or to the Secretary of State in another place the other day, will repeat that the V-Bomber force is ineffective and will not get through. I do not intend to follow the argument about the British contribution to the nuclear deterrent, much as I agree with what my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye said in the debate. We had a good debate on this in the Defence debate the other day.
Of course, many other duties have been performed by the Royal Air Force during the past year. For instance, there was the Kuwait operation, to which every noble Lord has referred; while a very impressive section of the Memorandum is devoted to errands of mercy, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred. All in all, I think that this has been a very good year for the Royal Air Force.
There have been one or two questions and criticisms to-day about the various components of Transport Command, around which this debate has largely centred. We rely on Transport Command in order to deploy our reserve of forces to any part of the world where they may be needed. Transport Command's airlift capacity has increased more than threefold in the last year, but it is still suggested that it is not big enough and that the plans for its expansion are inadequate. What are the facts?
To take the smaller aircraft first, we have the helicopters for the short-range lift of stores and men in support of the Army in forward areas. The build-up
244
of this force is continuing. A new version of the Whirlwind, which has been in service for some time, is now coming forward. This helicopter has a gas turbine engine and will have greatly improved performance over the older type. Production orders have been placed for the twin-engined Wessex. The twin-rotor Belvedere, a squadron of which has already been formed, will be joined by a second squadron this year.
For the short-range fixed-wing aircraft, at the moment we have the Twin Pioneer and the Valetta, the latter a rather elderly aircraft. This will be replaced by the Avro-748 which will be the workhorse of the Service, carrying supplies to outlying garrisons within the main command. The decision to order the Avro-748 rather than the Herald was a close thing. Both of them are excellent aircraft and each has its own good points; but taken all round the difference between them is very marginal. The final choice, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation has explained, was made on grounds of public policy, taking account of the undertakings given to the aircraft industry.
For what one might call medium-range tasks—that is to say, to carry the necessary equipment from our bases in Singapore, Aden and Cyprus, to wherever they are needed in the theatre of operations—we have the Beverley and Argosy squadrons. The first Argosy squadron is now forming in the United Kingdom and there should be another operating in Aden by the summer. For the strategic task of Transport Command, we rely at present on the 23 Britannia aircraft with which Transport Command is equipped, an excellent and versatile aircraft which will be operational for some time to come. And, of course, there are the Comet 2s, which have given valuable service in this Command. For the future, we plan to have five Comet 4's in service by the middle of the year, and five V.C. 10's have been ordered for delivery by the mid-1960's. The V.C. 10 can carry 100 troops over 4,000 miles and will be a very valuable addition to the force.
Then, of course, there are the ten Belfasts, about which there has been a good deal of talk this afternoon, which are on order as freighters and which we expect to start entering service in 1964.

245
There has been a certain amount of controversy about this aircraft and perhaps I should say a few words about it—although I was cheered by what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said about this aircraft. It has been suggested that the Belfast is going to be too late and that we ought to buy some other aircraft, such as the American Lockheed C.130, or the Canadian equivalent, either instead or to bridge the gap between now and the time when the Belfast is available. I do not believe that it would be sensible to do this. It is important to bear in mind the time scale and the task for which we require the Belfast freighter.
At the present time, there is no great difficulty about the deployment of heavy equipment. There are extensive stock piles at our main bases in Singapore, Aden and Cyprus, and these will be carried, as I have said, to the theatre of operations by the Beverleys and Argosies. We believe that we can meet our commitments until the middle of this decade without a strategic freighter. By that time, however, we shall need to be able to lift quickly over strategic distances some bulky weapons and equipment, such as the Bloodhound 2 and certain heavy Army equipment which it would be unnecessarily costly to stockpile. That is this aircraft's task and it will arrive at the right time to carry it out.
I have no doubt that the Belfast is the right aircraft for the job. It will be, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, the largest aircraft ever to enter service in the Royal Air Force. Its top payload will be nearly 40 tons and it will be able to accommodate the bulkiest load. It is most important to bear this in mind when comparing it with other aircraft. For example, the Belfast will be able to move Bloodhound 2 or Thunderbird by air, whereas the American C.130 could not. It can also carry over 10 tons, or 75 troops, for 4,000 miles, whereas the C.130's range for the same load is 3,300 miles. I do not think that my figures tally with those of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I think that he is a good deal more optimistic than I am, but in any event I think we both agree that this is a very good aircraft.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the only difference between the noble Lord and me is that he is talking about the
246
ten aircraft which have now been ordered. The figures I gave were for the developed type, which would allow the carriage not of 75 but of 250 troops at a time in one aircraft.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sorry that I misunderstood the noble Lord. He also asked me about ordering some more Belfasts. Of course, if we had unlimited resources we should want to order more aircraft, but, within our all-over Defence budget, we believe that we are providing the right quantity of strategic aircraft by our order of ten Belfasts. I do not know whether the noble Lord saw it, but the Under-Secretary of State for Air said in another place that at the moment there is no prospect of this order being increased, and I must, I am afraid, repeat this now.
As my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence has said, the three Services must learn to combine even more closely in the kind of operations which we envisage in the future. This we are now doing by means of joint training and exercises. There were somethink like a hundred of these last year alone, ranging from simple transport exercises to full-scale practical and strategic airlifts. We have greatly improved the co-operation between the Army and Transport Command, and we are satisfied that we are providing enough aircraft to meet the Army's needs. It is perhaps worth pointing out to those who ask why Transport Command is not used exclusively for freighting or for the transporting of troops and families, that Transport Command is always at a high state of readiness in case of emergency, and for that reason cannot be used for routine and regular services.
The Royal Air Force also co-operate in another field very closely with the Royal Navy. We are tackling the enemy submarine threat from a number of different angles—from the surface, underwater and from the air—and all these measures are complementary to one another. The long-range maritime patrol aircraft of Coastal Command are an essential part of our anti-submarine defence forces, and the Shackleton, equipped with sonobuoys, depth charges and homing torpedoes, is an extremely effective anti-submarine weapon, whether operating alone or together

247
with naval forces. In the past year detachments of Coastal Command have operated from airfields as far apart as Northern Norway, Cape Town, Vancouver and Malaya. The results they achieved showed that they are a very effective anti-submarine and reconnaissance force. I had a personal experience of this only last week when I was taking part in H.M.S. "Victorious" in Exercise Dawn Breeze in the Atlantic. We had Shackletons of Coastal Command with us, and it was their reconnaissance reports which enabled us to find and sink a force of enemy ships at a very considerable distance from ourselves with our own carrier-borne strike aircraft. I thought that this was an excellent example at sea of the kind of joint operations which the Minister of Defence had in mind.
We are very closely associated with the Royal Air Force at the Joint Anti-submarine School at Londonderry, which I visited some six months ago. Here new tactics for submarine detection and defence are worked out; and there is a good deal of co-operation between ourselves and the United States Navy. I may say that these two experiences—the NATO exercise and my visit to Londonderry—have left me very impressed with the co-operation which exists between the Royal Air Force and ourselves in this field.
The noble Lord suggested that the Shackleton aircraft is old and obsolete, or would be soon. I do not think he ought to be misled by the fact that it still bears the same name as the original Shackleton aircraft. In fact, the Shackle-ton Mark 3—with which a considerable part of the Force is now equipped—has undergone such improvements as to make it virtually a new aircraft: indeed, it came into service only very recently; and the Mark 2 has also been modernised to almost the same standard. I would venture to say that if the noble Lord whose name the aircraft bears had been so extensively modernised and reconstructed, he would be even younger and more energetic than he is at the present time. Of course it will need to be replaced in due course, but it would be foolish to rush into a new aircraft just at a time when so much basic research is being carried out into new detection systems, which we hope will
248
lead to significant advances that can be embodied in a successor. Probably the aircraft will have to be designed round the black boxes rather than the black boxes round the aircraft. Meanwhile, the Shackleton performance still meets virtually the whole of our present requirements. It is, as I have said, one of the most efficient maritime aircraft in the world; but naturally we are examining the problem of its successor.
I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said about the diversity of aircraft in the present Royal Air Force and the plans to reduce the variety. I very much agree with what he said. Not only will this greatly simplify the maintenance and servicing problems throughout the Royal Air Force and reduce the number of spares and different sorts of equipment which have to be stocked, but it would also mean a great reduction in the research and development effort. Here I would mention also our aim, which is to develop aircraft capable of use by both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Here again, not only would one have the advantage of cross-operation by the two Services, but a great saving of research and development and general economy in the purchase of what must necessarily be a fairly small number of all these expensive aircraft.
I was interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Waleran, and also the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said about the Meteorological Office. I imagine the Meteorological Office will be surprised at the praise they have received, because they usually get more kicks than ha'pence from the general public, who are disappointed in our rather uncertain weather and are perhaps rather apt to take it out on the "Met." men. The difficulty of forecasting is very largely, as your Lordships have said, because our weather comes primarily from the Atlantic, where observations are inadequate. But I do not think we have anything to be ashamed of in the standard of our forecasts: and, indeed, we should be exceedingly grateful to those who live this uncomfortable life in weather ships in the Atlantic for the service which they help to provide us. The improved facilities at the Meteorological Office at Bracknell should, I think, lead to an increasingly effective

249
research effort. I believe that there has been in the past some difficulty in recruiting enough new entrants with university degrees. Your Lordships will no doubt be pleased to learn that last year, after rather a lean period, there were enough candidates with honour degrees to fill all the vacancies for scientific officers in the Office.
The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, paid a well-deserved tribute to the Royal Air Force Regiment and its officers and men. The Regiment, as he knows, is unique in that it was formed by Royal Warrant as an integral part of the Royal Air Force, which, as your Lordships know, is itself a product of an Act of Parliament. In the twenty years since it came into being the Regiment has earned a reputation for smartness, efficiency and flexibility. Its main rôle is still to defend Royal Air Force bases, both permanent and in the field, against ground and air attack. Part of the Regiment is maintained as a strategic reserve in the United Kingdom, ready to go anywhere at short notice. During the past year squadrons from this reserve have taken part in exercises in Cyprus, Libya, Malta and Germany, and in security operations in the Persian Gulf. In January of this year the Regiment took on a new responsibility. It was decided that one squadron of the strategic reserve should be trained in the parachute rôle. This will give increased mobility and flexibility to the Regiment when deploying to carry out its tasks in limited war and internal security operations.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked me a number of questions about aircraft. He asked me how the T.S.R. 2 is going along. The T.S.R. 2 is going along well, and the prototype will be flying next year. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, asked me about the variable geometry aircraft, which he described as the Swallow aircraft. The Minister of Aviation announced in another place about a fortnight ago that the Government are going to place a design study contract with the British Aircraft Corporation for a variable geometry aircraft. But I think I ought to make it plain that the placing of this contract does not mean that we shall build or are committed to build. What we aim to do is to identify the problems which are involved, so that when a decision
250
has to be taken whether or not we build this interesting type of aircraft, which has great possibilities, we shall have full knowledge of all the facts.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, also asked about the hovercraft. There was for some time a little doubt as to whether the hovercraft was to be regarded as a ship or an aircraft. Well, my Lords, the experts have now definitely decided that it swims rather than flies. At all events it is now an Admiralty responsibility so far as co-ordination between the three Services is concerned. Of course, the Ministry of Aviation are responsible for the research and development, and with their co-operation we have arranged for the S.R.N.1 to start a programme of sea-keeping and other trials at Lee very shortly. The S.R.N.2 is now undergoing contractor's trials. These are very interesting developments, and we in the Admiralty are keeping a very interested eye upon them.
The noble Lord also asked me about the progress of V.T.O.L. aircraft. He will know that the Royal Air Force and the Germans and the Americans have all ordered the P.1127, and also there is the other vertical take-off aircraft; that is, the S.C.1. I think the R.A.F. will keep a very sharp eye on the development of both these aircraft and decide which of these two possibilities is the better for any future aircraft which they may need.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, made a most interesting and, I should imagine, from the Royal Air Force's point of view, a most controversial speech—at least the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, thought so. I do not think that this evening I can follow him down the path of the long-term future of the Royal Air Force, but he said some really hard things about the Prime Minister's speech at Stockton when he said that a vote for the Liberal Party or the Labour Party meant a vote for conscription. I will leave the Labour Party's defence policy out of this at the moment, but, as I understand the Liberal Party's defence policy—if I do understand it after the noble Lord has explained it—it is that they will do away with the British contribution to the nuclear deterrent, and with the money thereby saved they will make a bigger contribution to our conventional forces. I hope I have that right.

251
It is fairly obvious that, if you are going to make a bigger contribution to our conventional forces, you are going to need more men than the 390,000 to 400,000 which the Government have laid down as the number of men necessary to meet our commitments. If you are going to need more men than that—and it has been shown that that is about the limit we can get from voluntary recruitment—you are going to need conscription, and that is what the Liberal Party policy means. If it does not mean that, then it means nothing at all.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the point is that it was a gibe—in other words, "a vote for the Conservatives does not mean conscription". This is a most iniquitous gibe, because the Conservative Party have just brought in a Bill to impose conscription. That is the whole point. The Liberal Party supported the Government in that. If that cannot sink in, I am sorry, but the noble Lord will see on reflection that this was the most iniquitous and scandalous gibe at the other two Parties. How he can say that when he has just brought in a conscription Bill, I do not know.
LORD CARRINGTON: The noble Lord has it all wrong. The Government have made it perfectly plain that they stand for all-voluntary Regular forces. The only reason that the Army Reserve Bill was brought in (and it lasts for only two years so far as the National Service men are concerned) was to tide over a temporary gap which was caused by the Berlin crisis. The Government do not stand for conscription. The noble Lord's policy, as he has explained it to your Lordships this afternoon, made it abundantly clear that conscription would be the result.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, also drew attention to the apparent fall in the Regular male strength of the Royal Air Force, I am afraid that once again I have not in front of me the same figures as the noble Lord, but in the Defence White Paper the adult male strength is also shown as falling between April, 1961, and April, 1962. I am not quarrelling about his figures, but it is estimated that they will rise again in the following year. I think the fall is due to the temporary rapid run-out of short-service men as the Air Force
252
turns over to long service. It is not in any way a symptom of poor recruiting; on the contrary, recruiting is going very well.
LORD OGMORE: Would the noble Lord like to say something about boys, because that cannot apply to boys and apprentices. I mentioned the rather alarming fall in boys and apprentices.
LORD CARRINGTON: I have not the figures for apprentices, but I will write to the noble Lord, or he can put down a Question if he wants publicity given to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked me about the Strategic Air Command false alarm. I have, of course, seen the newspaper reports to which the noble Lord refers. No Bomber Command aircraft were alerted on this occasion, and I am afraid, as the noble Lord rather suspected, that I cannot give any further information. I do not think it would be in the public interest for me to say anything that would disclose the nature of the alert arrangements.
I think I have answered almost all the questions which have been asked me. If not, I will most certainly write to noble Lords. Although I said at the beginning that we had had an interesting debate, and that we were grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for making it possible, I think that I can fairly claim that, as compared with previous years, we have not had a great number of speakers. I do not for one moment think that this is because there is no interest in the Royal Air Force in your Lordships' House. I think it is much more likely that, generally speaking, your Lordships are satisfied that the Royal Air Force is developing upon the right lines; that we are able with the Royal Air Force to make a significant contribution—both nuclear and conventional—to the various Alliances to which we belong; and that we provide a good contribution—about 50 per cent.—of all our front-line aircraft to NATO. I think your Lordships are satisfied, in fact, that we have a very good Air Force and that, with the new weapons and aircraft coming into service in the next two or three years, it will be an even better one; that the Royal Air Force works in ever closer co-operation with the Royal Navy and the Army; and that it will, I am convinced, fulfil our

253
commitments and responsibilities over the world during the next five years as it has during the last.
6.47 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the only thing with which I would disagree in the final remarks of the noble Lord was his reason for there being fewer speakers. I am not sure that there were fewer speakers. The real reason, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, said, is that we are getting older and more out of touch. I think his suggestion that we should have some reinforcement is a good one.
We are grateful to the First Lord for venturing into a field which touches so closely all three Services, and it is quite clear that there is an understanding between the three Services which is growing all the time. I can certainly confirm that that is true of Coastal Command. Whether it was my remark or the thoroughly reckless statement of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about splitting the Air Force, I am glad that we were able to draw the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, to his feet. But it is precisely at this moment, as in the past, when the future pattern is obscure, that it is necessary to preserve the unity of air power. This is the whole nub of the Trenchard policy which has been so successfully justified in war.
I wish I shared the enthusiasm of my noble friend Lord Stonham about the Belfast. I think he is on to a really important point—namely, this question of the ordering of replacements. It is the tremendous time that is taken to bring new aircraft into service that makes it so important that further developments of the Belfast shall be available; and it really is absurd for the Government to say that the Belfast, by splendid planning, will just arrive at the right time to carry the right equipment. For several years people have been saying that we want an aircraft like the Belfast now; and the same
254
argument applies to the long-range maritime aircraft. That must be ordered this year. There is no question about this, and if the noble Lord wishes to pursue it further, I am sure that on his next visit to Coastal Command he will find that they will be delighted to discuss his points with him.
I am very grateful, as we all are, to those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Clearly, the debate on the deterrent will go on, but I think our discussion had a merit on this occasion (I will not now pursue the question of the Prime Minister's speech, on which we could go on arguing, and on which some of us feel rather bitterly), in that at least we argued about the deterrent in a less emotional way than it is sometimes argued. There is a valid issue here as to what the future will be. It is extremely difficult, we all know, and we know that the Government try very hard. I am very grateful that I personally do not have to take this decision, but I do not think we can consider a debate on the deterrent without including the future pattern of the Royal Air Force. I am very grateful to noble Lords, and I now beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUILDING SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

UNIVERSITY OF KEELE BILL [H.L.]
Reported with an Amendment.
House adjourned at nine minutes before seven o'clock.