Sitting of 2 May 1962

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  REGENT REFINING COMPANY BILL
    SHIP MORTGAGE FINANCE COMPANY BILL
    Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT DECADE
  Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Lord Privy Seal what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to further the objectives of the United Nations Development Decade.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): The main objective of the Development Decade is the achievement and acceleration of sound self-sustaining economic growth in the less developed countries. This continues to be the main aim of Her Majesty's Government in this field and the reason why we have substantially increased our development assistance in recent years.
  Mr. Thomson: What steps are the Government taking to further the resolution passed at the last meeting of the General Assembly? Will the Government undertake to play a leading rôle in trying to make this imaginative plan a reality? In particular, will they consider raising it with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in September and seeing whether we might not have a common Commonwealth approach to this problem?
  Mr. Thomas: We certainly are already playing a leading rôle. As to
  992
  the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, we will certainly consider what he has said. The concept of the Development Decade is one of an intensified aid effort by United Nations members through both bilateral and multilateral programmes. We already participate in various bilateral and multilateral programmes which are directed towards the aim of the Decade and we hope through these to assist less developed countries on a substantial scale.
  Mr. Gibson-Watt: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in this most important support of the Development Decade, in the improving of the standard of living of people in certain parts of the world, he should not disregard the aid which we could give as a great livestock country in upgrading the livestock of these areas? Will he co-operate with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
  Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We will certainly bear that suggestion very much in mind.
  Mr. Manuel: In connection with the long-term aim of the Development Decade, will the possibility of our joining the Common Market have any repercussions on the agreements or associations that we may have with underdeveloped countries?
  Mr. Thomas: That we may join the Common Market is a fact which may assist us in our economic strength and will be an important factor in the future.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in the course of his negotiations on the political aspects of Her Majesty's Government's association with the European Economic Community.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): The six member Governments of the European Economic Community held a further meeting in Paris on 17th April to discuss texts for a political treaty. At the meeting of Western

  993
  European Union in London on 10th April I stated that we expect to be consulted before any text becomes final and I suggested to them that it might now be useful for us to join them in discussing the political structure of an enlarged European Community.
  Mr. Shinwell: Have the right hon. Gentleman and the Government generally made up their minds about this political association? Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply indicate a loss of sovereignty by this House of Commons and the other place? Does that nebulous Answer indicate that, in addition to selling the Commonwealth down the river, the Government are selling Parliament down the river?
  Mr. Heath: The Answer is far from nebulous. It is quite explicit about what has been happening, which is the question that the right hon. Gentleman asked me. It is necessary to distinguish between the negotiations in Brussels, which are concerned with the Treaty of Rome, and the separate discussions which the members of the Community have been having about constructing a new treaty concerned with the political affairs of Europe as a whole. It was to the latter that I addressed my remarks to the Western European Union, which were quite explicit about it.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Recognising that there are two sets of negotiations and that two separate treaties will be required, does not the Lord Privy Seal recall that the Prime Minister last year, when announcing the Government's decision, said that this was a purely economic negotiation? In view of that, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why in his speech to the Western European Union he said, in effect, that the economic association would be meaningless without political union?
  Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister said quite clearly—I said it myself in the same debate; indeed, I said it in the first debate on the matter in the House on 17th May of last year—that the Treaty of Rome is an economic treaty. I pointed out also that it has political implications. [Interruption.] This has never been disguised from the House or the country. Indeed, after the declaration at Bonn in July this was also mentioned in the debate in the House. In
  994
  fact, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed the possible developments in Europe of confederation and federation and explained Her Majesty's Government's views about them.
  Mr. Turton: Has my right hon. Friend had a reply to his request? If not, does he anticipate one?
  Mr. Heath: The Ministers of the European Economic Community have not met again since 17th April. Therefore, there has not been the opportunity for them to deal with it. It was a suggestion that I made. It was not a request. I have no doubt at all that the suggestion will be acknowledged and answered.
  Mr. Shinwell: As the political implications and the negotiations associated with those implications may have very grave repercussions on this assembly and the sovereignty of this Parliament, may we have an assurance from the Lord Privy Seal here and now that he will make frequent progress reports to the House so that we can express our opinions on the subject?
  Mr. Heath: The Government are bound by the Resolution of the House of Commons of 3rd August, which dealt fully with sovereignty. The undertaking was given in that Resolution. I am always delighted to give information fully to the House on every possible occasion, but sometimes there appears to be too much for the House to assimilate.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend clear up one uncertainty to which his answers have given rise now? Is he drawing a distinction between Western European Union and the Fouchet Commission? Are we to take it that what he has suggested to Western European Union is passed on simultaneously to members of the Fouchet Commission?
  Mr. Heath: The Fouchet Commission, which has now become the Cattani Commission as a result of the change of chairmanship, is formed of members of the European Economic Community. We are not a member of the Community. Therefore, we are not a member of the Cattani Commission. I took the opportunity of the Western European Union meeting, in which the six governments

  995
  are represented in addition to ourselves, to express our views about the European political developments.
  Mr. Pentland: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us feel that a very important consideration involved in our acceptance of the Rome Treaty would be the constitutional changes Which would be necessary in British law and machinery of government if we accepted? Therefore, would the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that, before the negotiations which are taking place on our entry into the Common Market are finalised, he will come forward and explain to the House exactly what these constitutional changes will mean to the country and to the Commonwealth?
  Mr. Heath: Yes. We are bound to do that by the Resolution of the House of Commons of last August. Of course, we shall take the opportunity of fully explaining all the implications of any steps which we are proposing.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Is not the Lord Privy Seal aware that the Resolution carried by the House on a Division related purely to negotiations for economic association under the Treaty of Rome, with such derogations of sovereignty as are required by the Treaty of Rome? That was all that it carried. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when he or any other Minister came to the House for a mandate to embark on political negotiations which, as he has said, is an entirely separate matter leading to a separate treaty? At what stage has he or any other Minister reported to the House that this was their policy? When has he sought a Resolution of the House of Commons to empower him to undertake those negotiations?
  Mr. Heath: It was made perfectly plain in the debates in the House of Commons in August that these developments were taking place. Again on 17th May I explained the political discussions which were taking place amongst the Ministers of the Six and the political consultation which was developing. Therefore, it was necessary for us to consider entering into those negotiations. That has always been made quite clear from the beginning. As these matters proceed I am only too happy to report them to the House.

  GENEVA DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE (OUTER SPACE)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government supported the proposal put forward at Geneva by the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs, that all the members of the disarmament conference should make a formal declaration with the object of ensuring that outer space should be used for peaceful purposes only; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Heath: On 27th March at Geneva my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary said that Her Majesty's Government were in full agreement with the general purpose of the Canadian proposal.
  Mr. Driberg: While we welcome that statement by the Lord Privy Seal, can he say whether this proposal is not highly relevant to the latest American announcement of high-altitude tests? Since this proposal was welcomed at Geneva, will he make representations to the American Administration in the light of the protests yesterday by eminent scientists like Sir Bernard Lovell?
  Mr. Heath: The Western Powers have made it quite plain that they are prepared to discuss this Canadian proposal. Unfortunately, the Soviet delegate at Geneva has refused to allow a discussion.
  Mr. Paget: Can the Lord Privy Seal tell us why we are in favour of this, since if we are to have tests at all, and we are told that tests poison the atmosphere, is there not a case for having them out of the atmosphere, particularly as if they are out of the atmosphere they are of danger only to rockets which are also out of the atmosphere and the fall-out by the time it gets here is less radioactive than a luminous watch?
  Mr. Heath: These are part of the proposals concerned with general and complete disarmament. It is also the policy of Her Majesty's Government to obtain a proper testing agreement.
  Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer my supplementary question? He evaded it completely. Will he make approaches to the American Administration about these high-altitude

  997
  tests, in view of the support which he has announced for the Canadian proposal?
  Mr. Heath: No. Her Majesty's Government's position in relation to the American tests is perfectly well known.
  Mr. Driberg: No, it is not.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mr. Dribergasked the Lord Privy Seal what steps have been taken to supply delegates at Geneva with up-to-date information on the detection and identification of nuclear tests; whether this information includes reports on the immediate identification in the United States of the Soviet underground test of 2nd February, and on "Project Gnome," a small underground test conducted in the United States, in conditions supposed to muffle and conceal such explosions, which was nevertheless recorded and identified in Finland and Japan; and if, for the information of hon. Members, he will obtain and place in the Library of the House the first report on this test, already published, and others as they become available.
  Mr. Heath: Delegates at Geneva have access to extensive documentation on the possibility of detecting and identifying all nuclear tests, resulting from over three years of negotiation.
  Both the Soviet underground test of 2nd February and the "Project Gnome" explosion, which was carried out in conditions not entirely corresponding to the hon. Gentleman's description, have been the subject of discussion at Geneva.
  The first report on the "Project Gnome" explosion is unclassified. It is available in Geneva and I will arrange for a copy of it to be placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible. Whether subsequent reports on it can be placed in the Library will depend on their security classification.
  Mr. Driberg: Would the right hon. Gentleman say in what respect the report of "Project Gnome" does not correspond with the necessarily brief summary of it in this Question? Could he also say whether he has read this report? If not, will he do so? If he
  998
  has read it, does he agree that it makes nonsense of most of the theories of Dr. Teller?
  Mr. Heath: I cannot agree with the view the hon. Gentleman expressed in the last part of his supplementary question. Where I think his Question makes an implication from which I differ is that the fact that these tests were being carried out was known in advance and publicised. Therefore, it is not the same as if they took place suddenly or spontaneously and people had to detect them.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Since the Soviet Government claim that all tests can now be verified from outside the country where they take place, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Soviet scientists to be confronted by ours and challenged to give a list of all the American explosions which have occurred, whether those which have been announced or those which have not been announced? Then we can see whether they have in fact been able to detect all the American explosions. As the deadlock in Geneva revolves on that issue, would it not be a good idea to press the Russians on this matter?
  Mr. Heath: We have already suggested at Geneva that there should be a further meeting of the Western and Russian scientists in order that the Russian scientists could place their information before our own scientists and compare notes to see whether the Russian claims can be maintained. We have pressed that as hard as we can.
  Mr. A. Henderson: Can the Lord Privy Seal say whether any progress has been made at the test ban conference since the Prime Minister made his statement on 17th April? Could he also take this opportunity of clarifying the neutrals' proposals with regard to international verification? Are they consistent with a mandatory obligation? Could they be consistent with what is called an invitational undertaking? If so, can he say whether the Soviet delegation has clarified its position with regard to each of these interpretations of the neutrals' proposals?
  Mr. Heath: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question contains a very large number of questions. As I understand it, no

  999
  further progress has been made in that part of the conference at Geneva, although there was, of course, a recess for part of the time—over Easter. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will put down his remaining questions I will try to secure an answer in detail for him. There are important points about their proposals still to be clarified by the neutrals, and the Soviet representative has so far refused to specify an answer to the question as to whether or not he would accept verification.
  Mr. John Hall: Can my right hon. Friend say what answer has been received to the suggestion that Western scientists and Soviet scientists should meet?
  Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. The Soviet representative has not been able to agree to that.

  KATANGA
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Lord Privy Seal what representations the Government have received from the United Nations Association or any of its branches urging the holding of an impartial inquiry into allegations of atrocities during United Nations hostilities against Katanga.
  Mr. P. Thomas: A suggestion that an inquiry should be held into allegations against United Nations troops was received from the United Nations Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in October, 1961.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: What has resulted from those very welcome representations from the United Nations Association?
  Mr. Thomas: The troops primarily concerned at the time were those of the Indian contingent. The public statement of 27th September pointed out that we had no evidence to support the allegations that were being made at the time and that we were unwilling to give credence to those allegations, and we informed the United Nations Association that we therefore could not undertake to seek such an inquiry.
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in the investigations which the United
  1000
  Nations have been conducting into the allegations of misbehaviour by United Nations troops in Katanga, including the indiscriminate motar bombardment of hospitals and the killing, raping and assaulting of non-combatants.
  Mr. P. Thomas: The results of investigations made by certain United Nations units into charges of improper conduct by their troops have not been published. I am informed, however, that those found guilty of such conduct have been punished.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my hon. Friend and Her Majesty's Government press for full publication of and full publicity for the results of these investigations? Moreover, has my hon. Friend studied the very full and disturbing report by a noble Lord in another place who has great experience of sifting this kind of allegation? May I ask for an assurance from the Government that they will not lend countenance to the use of United Nations troops for any further police or military action in Katanga until some satisfaction has been secured in regard to those allegations?
  Mr. Thomas: As to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I do not think that any purpose would be served by the publication of and full publicity for the details of these reports for which he asks. As to the other part of his supplementary question, I am, of course, aware of the report by the noble Lord whom he mentioned.
  Mr. Mayhew: While giving every weight to the representations from the United Nations Association, as suggested in a previous Question, may I ask the the Minister to assure the House that he will not accept suggestions or campaigns by back benchers aimed at discrediting and undermining the United Nations?
  Mr. Thomas: I think that the House appreciates that there have been many and conflicting allegations coming out of this area; allegations of great brutality committed by both sides and, indeed, by people not officially connected with either side. It is difficult to sift this evidence, but I am informed that where allegations have been made against United Nations' troops those allegations have been investigated and where they

  1001
  have been proved the people responsible have been punished.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is the very fact that the truth is not allowed to come out that has disgraced the United Nations in the eyes of this country and of the civilised world?

  BERLIN
  Mr. Mayhewasked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has received from the United States Government concerning the resumption of talks between that Government and the Soviet Government on Berlin.
  Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the prospects of a negotiated agreement on the Berlin situation.
  Mr. Heath: The United States Secretary of State has had further discussions with the Soviet Ambassador in Washington, and Her Majesty's Government are being kept fully informed. The discussions are still in the exploratory stage and are likely to continue when the United States Secretary of State returns to Washington.
  Mr. Mayhew: Will the Lord Privy Seal say whether the reported American proposals have the support of the German Government? Will he take special steps to make quite clear to the German Government that in this country, where we carry a heavy burden in regard to Berlin, there is very wide support for the American proposals?
  Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. The German Government issued a statement to say that they had complete confidence in the way in which the Secretary of State of the United States was handling these talks.
  Sir G. Nicholson: Has my right hon. Friend nothing to report about access to Berlin? Has the proposal for an international access authority been dropped? Has it been made clear to the Soviet Government that nothing could so improve relations between the Soviet and the West as some assurance that access to Berlin would be guaranteed by international authority?
  Mr. Heath: The latter fact has been made abundantly clear to the Soviet Union on a very large number of occasions. I told the House on an earlier occasion that Her Majesty's Government were in agreement with the various proposals being discussed by the American Secretary of State with the Soviet Ambassador but, of course, the House will recognise that I cannot go further in public about the particular details of those proposals.

  LAOS
  Mr. Mayhewasked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has now been made towards a settlement in Laos.
  Mr. Heath: There have been no significant developments since my hon. Friend's reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South (Mr P. Noel-Baker) on 26th March.
  Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, meantime, the chances of a successful coalition Government have become less? Is it not time to put plainly to General Phoumi that, although there are dangers in forming this coalition Government, this alternative policy is a suicidal one Which will not get any support from the Western countries?
  Mr. Heath: The position is that the conference at Geneva about Laos has got as far as it can until there is a unified Loatian delegation present to confirm the arrangements being made there. We have done our utmost to impress on the three princes the need to form this Government of national union, and have made it quite plain to General Phoumi, in addition to Prince Boun Oum and Prince Souvanna Phouma. I would not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the chances of getting agreement are receding. I am hopeful that there are now signs that agreement may be possible.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Will the Lord Privy Seal say whether Prince Boun Oum and General Phoumi have carried out the undertaking they gave at the end of the Geneva conference about the constitution of the Government?
  Mr. Heath: I think that what one can say is quite plain. The three princes

  1003
  have not yet succeeded in forming a Government together, but I should not like to apportion blame between the individuals concerned.

  TRAWLER "BEN LUI" (ARREST)
  Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will protest to the Icelandic Government on the arrest of the m.t. "Ben Lui" for alleged illegal fishing, despite evidence given by the skipper and advisory skipper of the "Ben Lui" and officers of H.M.S. "Russell" that the trawler was outside the fishing limits line.
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware that on or about 19th April Icelandic authorities stopped and arrested off Iceland the Aberdeen trawler "Ben Lui"; if he will give details of this episode; if he will set up an authoritative commission of inquiry into it; and if he will take steps to prevent a repetition of such occurrences in future.
  Mr. P. Thomas: The trawler was arrested on 18th April. Officers of the fishery protection ship H.M.S. "Russell", who came to the scene of the arrest and took position fixes, gave evidence on the trawler skipper's behalf in court proceedings which began the same day. On 23rd April, the trawler was convicted of illegal fishing and fined£2,200, plus costs and forfeiture of her catch and gear. A financial guarantee was placed to cover the sums involved, and the owners have appealed against the verdict. The case is, therefore, still before the Icelandic courts and a commission of inquiry would not be appropriate. Nor would it be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to take any action at this stage, although we shall naturally keep a close watch on the case.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: Is my hon. Friend aware that this appeal may not be heard for six or nine months? In view of the conclusive evidence given by our own fishery protection vessel that our own ship was outside Icelandic territorial waters and, therefore, not subject to Icelandic jurisdiction, does he not agree that this case will cause very great concern, not only to skippers sailing from the port of Aberdeen but to all skippers
  1004
  sailing from all ports and fishing near Icelandic waters? Therefore, as my hon. Friend is answering this Question together with that put down by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) who, unfortunately, is ill, and as both hon. Members for Aberdeen feel unanimously on this subject, does my hon. Friend not think that, in those circumstances, either a protest should be made or a commission of inquiry established as, indeed, occurred in the "Red Crusader" incident?
  Mr. Thomas: Regarding the first part of that supplementary question, I certainly hope that the appeal will be heard sooner than my hon. Friend suggests. It is, of course, a very important case and I certainly accept that great concern is felt about the facts that I mentioned. I still think that, although the points my hon. Friend mentioned are important, it would be premature for me to comment on them pending the outcome of the appeal in the Icelandic courts.
  Dame Irene Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that the port of North Shields is interested in this case? I do not think that my hon. Friend's Answer was at all satisfactory. Will he kindly explain whether he has already made representations to the Icelandic Government against the treatment of the evidence that was given by the fishery protection vessel? Are we not Great Britain? Are we not entitled to have our evidence properly treated and proper consideration given to it? Cannot my hon. Friend stand up for Great Britain and our rights and not be quite so satisfied with the answers that have been given and which, I think, are not at all satisfactory?
  Mr. Thomas: I can assure my hon. Friend that we will certainly stand up for Great Britain and the fishing trawlers in this particular matter. I just suggested that we must bide our time until the outcome of the appeal. As soon as the appeal is known, I can assure my hon. Friend that we will make the fullest possible submissions to the Icelandic Government, should they be necessary.
  Mr. Hoy: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not good enough for

  1005
  the Foreign Office merely to say that we must wait for the outcome of the appeal? The House would like to know what steps the Foreign Office is taking to support the case of this particular vessel. Since on the two previous occasions it was found in the Court of Appeal that the offending Government was wrong—and in the most recent case of the "Red Crusader" that the British vessel was in the right—may I ask what steps his Department is taking to prevent incidents of this kind from arising? Will he persuade the Icelandic Government to do something?
  Mr. Thomas: Regarding the "Red Crusader", it would be wrong to say that it was found that the British vessel had been entirely in the right. Fault was found on both sides. Regarding the Foreign Office, our representative in Iceland is giving every possible assistance to the owners in the presentation of this case.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Fowl Pest
    Sir Richard Glynasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the Plant Committee's Report, he will consider abandoning the present slaughter policy in future outbreaks of fowl pest, and whether, as a first step, he will exempt from slaughter poultry on holdings adjoining each farm on which fowl pest has been confirmed when such poultry can be shown to have been vaccinated with a suitable vaccine in conditions laid down by his Department.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) on 12th April.
    Sir Richard Glyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when this policy of slaughter was undertaken the disease was invariably fatal to birds and it was hoped to prevent it becoming endemic? Since it has become endemic and has ceased to be fatal—birds recover if they are permitted to do so—and in view of the difficulties of equitably assessing
    1006
    compensation, will my right hon. Friend look at this matter again?
    Mr. Soames: This is an important aspect of the discussions we are having with the Joint Committee representing all the interests of the poultry industry.
    Mr. Peart: When will the Government make up their mind on policy? When will they decide either to implement or not to implement the Plant Committee's Report? Why the long delay?
    Mr. Soames: The Report was not published until March of this year.

    Poisonous Seed Dressings
    Sir Richard Glynasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has studied the Second Report of the Joint Committee of the British Trust for Ornithology and other bodies, a copy of which has been sent to him, on the widespread effect, both direct and indirect, of the use of poisonous seed dressings, including their effect on reproduction; if he is satisfied that their use can have no harmful effects upon the human population; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Soames: My Department is studying this Report and intends to discuss it with the wild life societies concerned. The advice of the Medical Research Council is that the use of these seed dressings presents no hazard to human health.
    Sir Richard Glyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is still considerable public concern about this? Will he ensure that the public, particularly members of county agricultural committees and their officers, know where dead carcasses of birds and beasts should be sent for analysis so that the full extent of this threat can be established?
    Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir. That has been done. The area of investigation has been very much wider this year than last and the results so far, with the voluntary ban which was imposed last year, are satisfactory.
    Mr. Lipton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not this activity is harmful to human beings? Is he aware that these dressings are having

    1007
    a deplorable effect on bird and insect life in the countryside, possibly altering the balance of nature in due course? How long are these studies to continue?
    Mr. Soames: It was because it was appreciated last year what effect this was having on bird life that this voluntary ban was imposed. It appears on the evidence so far available that the voluntary ban has been satisfactory, although it is too early to make an accurate estimate.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend really satisfied that what he calls this "voluntary ban"—which is, of course, a contradiction in terms—is likely to be effective? Has not the Ministry been a little slow on the uptake on this? Is it not perfectly clear that these major poisonous chemicals should be forbidden not by a voluntary ban, which is impossible, but by a ban?
    Mr. Soames: These chemicals are of great value in certain circumstances. It has been shown that their use in the autumn has done little harm to wild life and that the advantage to agriculture and food production has been considerable. It was in the spring that damage was done to wild life, and an agreement was reached—which carried with it the agreement of the wild life societies concerned and the like—that these should not be used in the spring but that they could be used in the autumn.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Peartasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now publish as a White Paper the text of the European Economic Community's decision on agriculture, together with details of agriculture support systems in the European Economic Community countries.
    Mr. Soames: The final texts of the agricultural regulations and decisions which were agreed by the Six on 14th January have now been published in the Journal Officiel of the European Communities and copies of the final texts in French have been placed in the Library of the House. English translations are being prepared as quickly as possible and translations of three of the regulations and decisions are already
    1008
    available to Members in the Vote Office. The others will be placed there as soon as possible.
    Information on agricultural policies in the Six is readily available in published form notably in a series of reports by the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation on agricultural policies in Europe and North America. It would not be appropriate for the Government to publish a White Paper on the domestic policies of other governments.
    Mr. Peart: Is the Minister aware that we have had to prod the Government continually for information? Last week, when I led a delegation to Brussels, I got more information from M. Mansholt and his officials than we have had from Government spokesmen in the House. Why are the Government so reticent? Is there to be a last-minute package deal?
    Mr. Soames: It has nothing to do with any last-iminute package deal. The agreements reached in January among the Six were published in the Journal Officiel of the European Communities on 20th April. Not until that had been done could we place them in the House.

    Beef Subsidy
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what annual rate the beef subsidy is now running.
    Mr. Soames: The published estimate for cattle for the year 1962–63 is£45 million for the United Kingdom. There will be some savings as a result of the Annual Review decisions, but I cannot at this stage give a revised figure.
    Mr. Ridley: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that a system of support which he estimated to cost£12 million last year, which has now reached a figure of£45 million and under which he cannot tell us what will be the actual cost this year, is a most unsatisfactory system? Will he consider the system of support which the Common Market countries are to bring in and start adapting our system of support to that end to meet it?
    Mr. Soames: No, Sir. As my hon. Friend knows, negotiations axe proceeding at the moment with the E.E.C. but at present we are continuing with our present system of support which has brought considerable benefit to consumers and farmers in this country.
    Mr. Turton: Have the Common Market countries in fact worked out their system of support for beef? I thought that they had not yet done so.
    Mr. Soames: That is correct. The Commission has put forward proposals but they have not yet been taken by the Ministers of the Six.
    Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing concern that despite the high subsidy bill for beef, the price drop is not being passed on to the housewife and the farmer is getting a falling price? Will he look at the activities of the French Minister of Agriculture, who has ruthlessly attacked butchers' rings? Will not he do the same in this country?
    Mr. Soames: There was a period—I am not sure whether it is still continuing—when price controls were put on meat in France. I am not sure whether they are continuing now, whether they were effective and for how long they were kept in operation. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that they carry many drawbacks with them.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Services (Officers)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Defence (1) what is the ratio, in each of the three Services, of general officer or equivalent to total strength, excluding the women's services and boys; and how this compares with ten years ago.
    (2) what will be the ratio of officers to other ranks in each of the three Services in 1962–63; and how this compares with 1952–53.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): I have been asked to reply.
    As the Answer consists of a number of figures, I will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Digby: While realising the importance of a stable career structure, may I ask whether it is not important that as the Services shrink the number of high-ranking officers should be kept under general review in order to maintain the prestige of those higher ranks? Can my hon. Friend say whether it is a fact that the admirals have been considerably reduced in number in recent years?
    With regard to Question No. 19, which is somewhat different, is it not a fact that the proportion of officers to other ranks has been increasing fairly rapidly in recent years? Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence to review this matter, as there are undesirable features, particularly in view of the fine tradition of some of the non-commissioned ranks who have played a very vital part in the Armed Forces in the past?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: My right hon. Friend is aware of the need to reduce the number of general officers and equivalent. This point is being watched in all three Services. On the question of the Admiralty, it is true that we have reduced our numbers from 112 to 73 admirals in post at the moment, two on terminal leave and five brigadiers and generals in the Royal Marines, making a total of 80.
    On the question of the ratio of officers to other ranks, I agree that there has been a change in the last ten years. There are more officers as compared with other ranks. But this is not untypical of the general organisation not only in the Armed Forces but also in industry where supervision has been found to be necessary as equipment gets ever more complicated and expensive.
    Captain Elliot: Is my hon. Friend aware that some figures on this subject were published in the Daily Express on 26th April, and if he has seen them can he say whether or not they are accurate?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Those figures were not accurate. I made arrangements to have the correct figures telephoned to the newspaper in question, but I am sorry that they have not yet been published.
    Following is the Answer:
    (a) Ratio of general officers or equivalent to total strength at present, excluding the women's Services and boys—compared with 10 vears ago—

    1952

    1962

    Royal Navy

    …

    1:1,238

    1:1,117

    Army

    …

    1:2,887

    1:2,586

    R.A.F.

    …

    1:2,492

    1:1,380

    (b) The officer/other rank ratio in 1962–63—compared with 1952–53—

    1952–53

    1962–63

    Royal Navy

    …

    1: 8·9

    1:7·7

    Army

    …

    1:11·8

    1:7·8

    R.A.F.

    …

    1: 8·8

    1:5·3

  ROYAL NAVY

    Nuclear Submarines and Aircraft Carriers
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to what extent Her Majesty's Government are committed to building new atomic submarines and aircraft carriers; and what is the estimated cost.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): Her Majesty's Government's commitments in these fields are shown in my noble Friend's Explanatory Statement on the Navy Estimates 1962–63. It is not the practice to reveal shipbuilding cost before completion.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that The Times published estimates of the likely cost of these vessels which show that we are committed to a colossal expenditure on ships which will be obsolete before they are completed? Is he further aware that a large amount of skilled labour and organisational capacity has been devoted to these ships when it is needed more for reorganising the shipbuilding industry?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am afraid that I cannot be responsible for reports in newspapers, nor can I comment on them. However, I would say on the second point that I should have thought the Admiralty shipbuilding programme, which is set out in considerable detail in last year's Estimates, was of considerable help to our shipbuilding industry and should be very welcome on the Clyde and the Tyne, in Northern Ireland and in other parts which look to us for orders.
    Mr. Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman says that he has communicated with the Daily Express, would he also communicate with The Times and find out whether the figures were accurate?
    Mr. Willis: As there seems to be some doubt as to whether or not a decision has been made about proceeding with the construction of aircraft carriers, could the hon. Gentleman tell us what the present position is?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: The present position is that we are spending some money on the design of a future aircraft carrier but there is no question of placing an order yet; nor is there any need to place an order for the successor to the "Victorious".
    Dame Irene Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware how many Members on this side of the House welcome the Admiralty programme? May I also ask whether this vast expenditure will be properly spread around all the rivers and not concentrated on one side of the country?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think the degree of spread will depend not on the pressure from individual Members in this House but on the degree of competitiveness of the different shipbuilding firms. Those which are most efficient will get the orders and thus help the Navy and the taxpayers.
    Mr. Shinwell: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the estimated cost could not be revealed until the completion of the vessel? If so, that is a very strange observation. Does it indicate that the estimates bear no relation to the actual cost?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: No. If I may put the right hon. Gentleman right, what happens is that we publish the estimated building cost in the Navy Estimates for the year following on the completion of the vessel. The actual costs when the full detailed accounts have been worked out are made available to the Public Accounts Committee. That is the arrangement which has always existed under successive Governments.

    Construction
    Commander Purseyasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement about recent decisions on new naval construction.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: There have been no decisions on naval new construction, since those already announced to the House at the time of the Navy Estimates. We are considering the submarine building programme, but I am not able at present to make any general statement about this.
    Commander Pursey: Are these decisions made after the Navy Estimates have been passed so that they are not debatable until the following year's Navy Estimates debate, or is all the expenditure required for new construction this year included in the current Navy Estimates?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, money needed for new construction this year is included in the current Navy Estimates. We have always been at some pains to try to announce new construction as ships are laid down, and to keep the House of Commons and the country fully informed on this issue.

    Nuclear Submarines (Depot Ship)
    Commander Purseyasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, if he will state the name of the depot ship for nuclear submarines, the date of launching, the original cost and also the cost of refits and modernisation of this ship; and when she will be berthed at Gareloch.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: H.M.S. "Maidstone", during her current refit and modernisation, is being equipped to support nuclear submarines. She was launched in August, 1938 and her original cost was£993,000. It is not customary to quote costs for refit and modernisation until the work and detailed accounts are completed. The ship is expected to be berthed at Gareloch on 21st May.
    Commander Pursey: Would it not have been cheaper in the long run to have built a new depot ship and thus obtain a modern hull with modern machinery and a longer life, instead of unnecessarily wasting money on this old ship?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: We are always anxious to get the best value for money expended in this way. We expect at least ten years' life from this ship. We believe that this is a wise investment and
    1014
    it is cheaper to do it this way than to start again.
    Mr. Burden: Does my hon. Friend realise, in connection with the submarine programme, that there is at the moment very serious concern among workers in Chatham Dockyard because of doubt about the future of submarine building? Will he give an undertaking that the moment it is possible to make an announcement, that announcement will be made?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I can readily give that undertaking and I shall try to find an opportunity of having an announcement made when a decision is taken.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: What is the reason for this customary practice of not publishing the costs until the completion of the vessel? What is the ground for it?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is a longstanding arrangement which happened under the right hon. Gentleman's Government as well as ours. When a new vessel is built nowadays, about one-third of the total cost comes from Admiralty supply items. Therefore, the complexity of assessing the full accounts and the detailed arrangements is considerable. That is why we wait until the business is over before producing an up-to-date estimate which we publish in the Navy Estimates. I do not think that it would be realistic to try to advance that date.
    Mr. Willis: Surely the hon. Gentleman's Department has to have approval for an estimated expenditure from the Treasury before proceeding with this work?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, we do.

    Pier, Holy Loch
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty why he has made it his custom to refuse to disclose the prices he pays for buildings and sites such as the price paid to Leeds Trail-ways Limited for the pier at Holy Loch.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The Admiralty follows the practice of successive Governments in this matter. I gave the hon. Member the reasons in a letter to him on 3rd April, 1962.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the reason he gave, that the price paid would considerably embarrass the owner, is no satisfactory answer at all? Why is he so reluctant to give the price of this pier? Surely, if the Scottish Office had bought it, we should have known the cost. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is an opinion in Dunoon that the selling of this pier by the Admiralty has been a bit of a racket? Why does he not dispose of this rumour? Why should he not disclose the price of this old pier?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: It would be contrary to established practice to disclose contract prices. That is a phrase which was used by the Labour Minister of Supply in 1950 when replying to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), and the arrangement has not been changed. It is perfectly standardised and has been approved by successive Governments. We are anxious to get the best value for the taxpayer, and, having had a look at the matter in detail, I think that the arrangement is the most satisfactory in that respect.

  SCOTLAND

    Educational Research
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the schemes of educational research for which he at present provides financial support.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): Exchequer assistance in this field in Scotland is normally channelled through the Scottish Council for Research in Education, an independent body with a distinguished record of work. The work which the Council currently has in hand includes continued research into intelligence and intelligence tests, the teaching of arithmetic and writing, Gaelic speaking in Highland schools and the influence of nursery schools on a child's subsequent educational performance. It has recently made a start to an important project, in co-operation with Edinburgh University, bearing on the educational requirements for success in higher education. In addition, the Scottish Education Department intends to give a measure of direct
    1016
    assistance to Aberdeen University for research into programmed teaching.
    Mr. Thomson: While thanking the Minister for that reply and joining him in the tribute to the Scottish Council for Research in Education, may I ask if he does not agree that the sums of money spent on research in education are very small indeed in relation to total public expenditure, that educational research does lag behind research in scientific and industrial matters, and that there are big benefits for the community from spending more money in this way?
    Mr. Brooman-White: I agree that the total sums are not large, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree that the cash yardstick is not a very accurate one in measuring the effects of educational research. The grant to the Council has been substantially increased, and the Scottish Office is at present working with the Council on an additional programme of practical research.

  ROADS

    M.5 (Compensation Payments)
    Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Transport in how many cases owners of land and property in Worcestershire have not yet received compensation payments in respect of such land and property taken for building the M.5 motorway.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): Compensation has not yet been fully paid in 63 out of a total of 192 cases, but in 15 of these, advances of 90 per cent. of the agreed or estimated compensation have been made.
    Mr. Dance: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of annoyance in the minds of many of my farmers in particular at this delay? Cannot he endeavour in some way to hurry up the payment of this compensation?
    Mr. Marples: If my hon. Friend will send me details of his farmers' annoyance, I will certainly look into them.

    M.1 (Extension)
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport, in view of the fact that some 50 miles of M.1 now in use were

    1017
    constructed by one contractor in nineteen months, why the completion of the motorway is to be split up into numerous small contracts to be spread over a period measured in years.
    Mr. Marples: The extension of M.1 is not one of the five major projects to which I am giving highest priority in my programme.
    We are however able to start on this work by stages as detailed preparation and funds permit. I hope to let contracts for the first 26 miles this summer. This length will be of considerable benefit to Leicester.
    I expect to start construction of further lengths next year. We are pressing on with this programme as fast as we can.
    Sir B. Janner: Is the Minister aware that it will come as a great shock to those who expected to have M.1 completed ten years ago to know that the right hon. Gentleman does not now consider it as a major project? Will he say why at this time he still feels that small contracts should be given, whereas it is a general and well-known economic practice that large contracts should be given for large stretches of road?
    Mr. Marples: No. The question of what contracts should be let depends entirely on different circumstances. For example, there are the statutory processes which this House imposes upon the Minister, which may mean that he can get only fourteen miles of road at a time. Then, there is the question for the civil engineering consultants, who look at the land underneath, the quality of the land and the difficulties of building. There is a whole heap of questions, and it is not so simple as the hon. Gentleman makes out. Furthermore, Leicester has been very slow in deciding on the line of the road.
    Sir C. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend say to what point in Leicestershire these 26 miles will take the road, and when he will complete them if he starts in a year?
    Mr. Marples: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Strauss: While the problem may not be simple, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it is far cheaper and a lesser burden on the Treasury if a road is completed in one stage by one contractor, rather than by slow stages and a number of contractors?
    Mr. Marples: No, that is not so, because we have got precisely the same consulting engineer as we had on M.1, and he decided, after looking at this lay-out, that it would be better done this way.
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport why tenders are being asked for only 7½miles out of the 86 miles required to complete M.1; and why three tenders are to be requested to build 18½miles of M.1 from Lutterworth to Markfield.
    Mr. Marples: This is to enable a start to be made as soon as possible. The size of each contract has been fixed to secure economic engineering planning and the keenest contract competition.
    Sir B. Janner: Is the Minister aware that this is a ridiculous position? He said a moment ago that this was due to the slowness of Leicester, but Leicester has been on his track for years, and he is at the present time playing about with the problem, which should be dealt with properly. Why does he not tackle it? Is he waiting for the next election to put in another 50 miles of road?
    Mr. Marples: No, I do not think so. I am not waiting for the next election at all.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Commonwealth Countries (Trade with United Kingdom and Europe)
    Sir C. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the complexity and volume of the statistics of exports and imports between the various Commonwealth countries, with the United Kingdom and with the European countries, respectively, published by the Commonwealth Economic Committee and in the statistical abstract, The Commonwealth and the Sterling Area, he will issue a White Paper giving

    1019
    these statistics in an abbreviated and easily read form; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I would refer my hon. Friend to the article in the Board of Trade Journal of 2nd March, which seems to give the information he requires.
    Sir C. Osborne: This will not do. I put this Question down to the Lord Privy Seal, who is responsible for the Common Market negotiations, and I really require an Answer from him. May I ask my hon. Friend why, since the people of this country are worried about what the effect of joining the Common Market may be on Commonwealth trade, we cannot have a small four-page summary of the figures of Commonwealth trade, so that they can easily see how it will affect Commonwealth trade if we do join the Common Market? Why are the Government frightened of giving this information?
    Mr. Macpherson: There is a large two-page summary in the Board of Trade Journal, which gives very adequate information, and which is probably quite as widely read as a White Paper would be.
    Sir C. Osborne: If my hon. Friend thinks that the Board of Trade Journal is widely read, he ought to think again. It is not widely read. Why does he not tell me the answer to the question which I have asked six times of different Ministers? Why cannot we have a summary in the form of a White Paper, which millions of people can easily read and understand, showing what the effect of joining the Common Market would be on Commonwealth trade? Why cannot we have it?
    Mr. Macpherson: I am not at all certain that millions of people do read White Papers. The information available is very fully used by the newspapers and by the journals of the banks and all the rest, which have wide circulations.
    Sir J. Duncan: Is there any reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) should not write this pamphlet himself?
    Sir C. Osborne: If I were given the chance, I should do it a lot better.

  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

    European Economic Community
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what assurances he has received from each of the Commonwealth Governments about safeguards for the rights of British exporters to their markets in return for Great Britain's demand to safeguard Commonwealth trade interests before the United Kingdom joins the European Common Market; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys): We rely on the Governments of other Commonwealth countries to show the same concern for the protection of Britain's trading interests as we show for the protection of theirs.
    Sir C. Osborne: May I ask my right hon. Friend from which of the countries which are objecting to our joining the Common Market he has received offers that they will increase their trade with this country if we do not join the Common Market?
    Mr. Sandys: Our talks with Commonwealth Governments are confidential, but if the facts were revealed I do not think they would give much satisfaction to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Wade: Will the subject of British exports to the Commonwealth countries be considered at the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference?
    Mr. Sandys: I should be very surprised if it was not.
    Sir C. Osborne: Does the Minister feel that the members of the Commonwealth have no right to object to our trying to increase our trade with the Common Market—and I am neither for nor against it—unless they themselves are prepared to help in increasing their trade with this country? Could I have an answer?
    Hon. Members: No.

DIVISION No. 156, 5th APRIL, 1962 (CORRECTION)
Mr. Weitzman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, as a result of a letter from a constituent, my attention was drawn to the fact that, by some extraordinary mischance, my name appeared in col. 782 of HANSARD of 5th April last, at the end of the debate on university grants and salaries, among the list of those who voted for the Government in the Division.
You will appreciate, Sir, what a serious reflection upon me that is. Apparently, my name was substituted in error for the name of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells). I should be very grateful if the mistake could be rectified. I have spoken to the hon. Member for Maidstone, and I should add that since, for some reason, he cannot be here today, he has asked me to request that his name should be substituted.
Mr. Speaker: I regret the mistake. The correction will be made. I feel confident that by raising the matter the hon. and learned Gentleman has done a service to both sides of the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  Transport (Rural Areas)
  Mr. G. Wilson: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 11th May, I shall call attention to the problems of transport in rural areas, and move a Resolution.
  Industrial Diseases
  Mr. Mendelson: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 11th May, I shall call attention to the need to widen the range of industrial diseases covered by existing legislation in order to include partial deafness, arthritis and other diseases acquired at work, and move a Resolution.
  Apprenticeships and Technical Training
  Mr. Marsh: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 11th May, I shall call attention to the inadequacy of provision for apprenticeships and technical training, and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [14TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1962–63
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum, not exceeding£40, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for the following services connected with Housing in England and Wales, namely:—

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1962–63

  £

  Class VI, Vote 1, Ministry of Housing and Local Government

  10

  Class VI, Vote 2, Housing, England and Wales

  10

  Class VI, Vote 4, General Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales

  10

  Class VI, Vote 6, Rate Deficiency, &c., Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales

  10

  £40

  HOUSING, ENGLAND AND WALES
  3.33 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: The Votes before us will enable hon. Members to discuss a wide range of topics, but I propose to concentrate on two, housing and local authority finance, and of those, as I think is right, I shall give pre-eminence to housing. We are, of course, concerned today with the affairs of England and Wales only. In Scotland, the citizens are already engaged in passing a verdict on Conservative housing and local government policies, a verdict which, no doubt, the Committee will take into consideration.
  It is reasonable now, after more than ten years of Conservative government, to review the nature and general effects of Conservative policy towards housing. We notice, first, that it is not a policy based
  1024
  on any consideration of real needs, but a policy based on an ideology, on the belief that one should seek continually to discourage public enterprise in the provision of housing and act in the faith and hope that private enterprise will somehow provide an answer to our problems. To that view the Tories have stuck year after year in the face of mounting evidence that they were not travelling along the right road.
  The objectives which the Government and their supporters had in mind in pursuing their policy were, I think, these. First, they sought to make owner-occupation more attractive. In this, they have failed. It is not that owner-occupation is decreasing. It is, indeed, increasing. But this is not because it has been made easier or more attractive, but because other aspects of Conservative policy have made owner-occupation obligatory on a growing number of people, often against what would in other circumstances have been their better judgment.
  If owner-occupation is a good thing to encourage, as it is, it is a bad thing to thrust down people's throats. In their aim of making it easier or more attractive, the Government have failed. We must note also that, whatever one succeeds or fails to do in this connection, owner-occupation still cannot be the answer to the housing problems of a very large number of people.
  Another of their objectives was to encourage the private landlord to build houses for rent. In this, they have notoriously failed. Next, it was their objective to encourage the private landlord if not to build for rent at least to make more of existing accommodation available for letting at reasonable rents. In this objective, also, they have failed. They sought also to encourage the private landlord to fulfil more adequately his responsibility to care for the condition of property. In this, too, they have failed.
  Their next objective was to discourage, save in the single case of one-bedroom dwellings, council building. Here, at last, we reach an objective in which they have succeeded, although even success in the provision of an increasing number of one-bedroom dwellings intended mainly for elderly people can be regarded as such only in comparison with the discouragement of

  1025
  municipal building of almost every other kind. We were told that this discouragement of the provision of houses for general needs was part of a policy—this was their last objective—designed to give us a slum clearance drive adequate to the size of the slum problem. In this also they have failed.
  I take, first, owner-occupation. It must be apparent to anyone who studies the problem that recent trends in this connection have been extremely disquieting. If the movement of house prices which has gone on during the past few years is continued, it will become increasingly difficult for young couples to set themselves up in what they hope will one day be their own house. Let us consider what has been happening to the prices of houses. I take, first, an example which was given some publicity in the Press, a house in Hendon which, before the war, cost£900. By 1951, it was changing hands for£3,275.
  When one considers what had happened to prices and incomes in general and the value of money during the intervening period, that may not be unreasonable. However, after reaching the figure of£3,275 in 1951, the price had gone up to£4,200 in 1960. That is a rise of about one-third. That this is not an isolated example is shown by the Ministry of Works index number for the price of new houses. Taking 1956 as 100, in 1961 that index number stood at 122, a rise of nearly a quarter in five years.
  What are the causes of this rise in the price of new houses? We are very familiar with them after a number of debates. One is the increasing rise in the price of the land on which houses are built. The Chairman of the Building Societies Association recently estimated that it is not uncommon for the cost of the land to be 40 per cent. of the cost of a new dwelling. I do not think that anyone can contend that that is a healthy situation.
  The other main cause is the high interest rates which spring from the Government's general policy. We have usually discussed that evil in the context of its effect on municipal building, but it also affects owner-occupiers. It is the cause of the letters which the person
  1026
  buying his house receives from time to time informing him regretfully that it will take him longer and will cost him more to complete the transaction than he had hoped when he started.
  Those are the two main causes of this rise in the price of new houses. What is the result? For that, we can consult a recent survey made by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research. The cost of a new two-bedroom dwelling was examined. Figures for dwellings of other sizes were given, but I take a two-bedroom dwelling, which is the most modest accommodation that a young family would be expected to require. To acquire a new two-bedroom dwelling by purchase would involve the payment of about£5 a week.
  If we assume that a man should be expected to spend a quarter of his income on house room, what result do we get? I think that the calculation that a man should be required to spend a quarter of his income on house room errs on the high side. I should have thought that one-fifth was plenty. When we considered these matters before the war we did not think in terms of a proportion as high as that. However, let me take that figure. Let us assume that we have moved into a state of society in which people should spend a quarter of their income on house room and set that against the cost of acquiring by purchase a new two-bedroom dwelling.
  The answer that we get is that only about one family in eight can hope to do it. That is why I say that, judging by the way things have been moving, owner-occupation is not being made easier. It certainly cannot be regarded as an answer to the housing problem of more than a small minority of the population.
  Not only can only one family in eight be reasonably expected to buy a two-bedroom dwelling, but only about one-third of the population could afford to rent such a dwelling unless it was subsidised. That is the situation in which we find ourselves. The great majority of the population cannot afford to buy or to rent a new house without a subsidy or some kind of outside aid. That is on the basis of a two-bedroom dwelling. Many families will require larger accommodation than that.

  1027
  We know that some people meet the problem by spending, in effect, more than it is really wise for them to spend on house room. One effect of the Rent Act has been to drive a number of people into owner-occupation which eats a larger hole in their income than is socially or personally desirable. This is not something which applies only to new houses. It also applies if people are considering buying existing properties.
  I am indebted to Councillor Russell, of Romford, for a study which he made of houses advertised in the Romford, Dagenham and Hornchurch newspapers. It was the Minister's predecessor who advised us to go to the advertisement columns of the newspapers for evidence of the success of the Government's housing policy. Councillor Russell found that of the houses advertised only one in seven cost less than£3,000. Among that one-seventh were houses built even before 1914. What proportion of potential buyers could afford houses priced at above that figure? Probably, again, only one-seventh of the potential buyers. Six-sevenths would be competing for one-seventh of the houses offered for sale.
  When people think of becoming owner-occupiers, they look for help to a building society or to a local authority, but one of the results of the Government's financial policy towards local authorities has been to oblige one council after another regretfully to decide that it must suspend its service of help to house purchasers. Therefore, while we may hope that there will be families who will be able to solve their housing problem in this way, we must face the fact that it will be increasingly difficult for them to do so and that, in any case, it does not touch the main housing problem.
  Let me now deal with the next objective of Government policy, namely, to encourage private landlords—by higher rents, by improvement grants and by this, that and the other—to fulfil the duties which should belong to a private landlord. Let us see what has become of that. What was the private landlord supposed to do as the result of the sunshine of Conservative government pouring down upon him? He was supposed to build new houses for rent. I wonder
  1028
  whether the Minister will tell us to what extent he does that. There was a calculation, I think, in the Guardian, some time ago, that not 2 per cent. of new houses built by private enterprise were built for rent. It is a generally known fact that we do not look to this source for houses for rent.
  When we have raised this point we have usually been told that the reason why the private landlord will not build houses for rent is that he is terrified of what a future Labour Government would do to him. Will the private landlord build houses for rent only if he can have an assurance that everyone will vote Conservative until the end of time? If that is what he wants, as one looks round the country at the moment, it does not look as if he will have such an assurance. In view of that, the Government had better reconsider their faith in the ability of private landlords to build houses for rent.
  Secondly, the private landlord will not build houses either to rent or to sell in those places where the need is greatest. I take some comparisons from figures published by the Minister. First, let me deal with two towns each of which has a population of 50,000. In Harrogate, private enterprise has built 2,800 houses and in Merthyr Tydvil 250. I think that probably the need is greater in Merthyr Tydvil than it is in Harrogate. In two towns each with a population of 100,000, Twickenham and Gateshead, private enterprise has built 2,400 and 600 houses respectively. This only emphasises something which was brought out in a Ministry inquiry some time ago, when attention was drawn to the fact that private building was done generally in the more attractive parts of the country and not in those parts where the need was greatest.
  Quite apart from building, the private landlord has not come up to the Government's expectations and the faith in him in the task of making existing accommodation available for letting. The great instrument of the Government's policy to this end was the Rent Act. It was this, we were told, which would encourage private landlords to make more accommodation available for rent. A former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry was bold enough to suggest that after a year of operation

  1029
  of the Rent Act the housing problem would be solved in many parts of the country. He has now received promotion.
  With the Government's help, we are able to see how far that has been successful, because in 1960 the Government published the results of an inquiry into the effects of the Rent Act. It showed, among other things, that the Government's calculations about how many houses would be affected, either by the initial decontrol or by creeping decontrol, were wildly inaccurate. For the moment, however, I leave that aside. My concern is that from that inquiry we find what had happened by 1959 to the 320,000 dwellings examined by the Government which were rented unfurnished in 1957 and were decontrolled under the 1957 Act.
  We find that, of those 320,000 dwellings, by 1959 one-quarter of them were no longer rented unfurnished; they had vanished from that market. One-eighth of them had become owner-occupied. This is the kind of owner-occupation, not always in very happy circumstances, that this item of policy has encouraged. One in twelve of the houses were standing empty, presumably because the landlord thought that, if he waited a bit longer, in the conditions of the market he would be able to do very well indeed, a hope which is quite often fulfilled.
  It is evident from the information provided by the Government that the Rent Act has not brought more rented accommodation on to the market at reasonable rents. It has, I believe, brought some kinds of rented accommodation on to the market. I read recently an account by a student of these problems who had visited certain conversions that were being carried on in the neighbourhood of Sloane Square—tiny dwellings which were to be available for rent, but very unsatisfactory to live in. When he pointed out their undesirability, he was told, "Well, we do not regard these really as homes. These are pied-à-terre for people who have homes elsewhere". I agree that the Rent Act may be helping to bring that kind of rented accommodation on to the market, but it has no relevance to the housing needs of our people.
  Next, the Rent Act has not remedied under-occupation. The Ministry's sur-
  1030
  vey told us that, if anything, under-occupation has slightly increased since the Act was passed. It has actually increased the number of properties standing vacant and, of course, it has made it easier for the landlord to neglect the property. Take the position of the landlord whose tenant is in the house on a tenancy of, if he is lucky, three years, and often two years or twelve months. The house is notoriously in need of repair. It may even call for action by the public health authority. The tenant knows very well that if he requires the landlord to do what he ought to do under the lease, or if he invokes the public health authority, his chances of getting his agreement renewed are slender indeed.
  What the Government succeeded in doing is putting the landlord in so strong a bargaining position that it is remarkably easy for him simply to drop his obligation to care for the property and to hope that the tenant, if he is an active and diligent person, will do the job himself. But what if the tenant is not active? What if age or infirmity prevents him from using ladders and paint himself and doing the landlord's job? What becomes of the property then? Those are the results of the Government's convictions that if they encouraged the private landlord sufficiently, the problem would be solved.
  In what I have said I have used the expression "the private landlord" as if all private landlords were of a class. That I must correct. They are not. They vary a great deal in their humanity and in their sense of responsibility. What the Government have succeeded in doing, however, is creating a kind of society in which the good private landlord, the man who wants to fulfil his responsibilities, looks round at what the others are doing and decides that virtue and responsibility are a mug's game in the kind of society that the Government have created.
  Of the number of people who come to me with housing problems, who are tenants of private landlords, who are being asked for exorbitant rents, whose repairs are being neglected and who are told that when their agreement runs out in six months' time out they go, what impresses me is the number of times they tell me that the property has

  1031
  changed hands on two, three or four occasions since the Rent Act was passed.
  I have sometimes interviewed former landlords who sold the property believing that their tenants would be justly and humanely treated and who are deeply distressed at what has happened after the property has changed hands. The general drive in landlordism today is to encourage the landlord who regards the house as something to bring him in an income and nothing else and to discourage the one who has a sense of responsibility, is content with a reasonable rent and is prepared to keep the property in proper repair. That is the situation today.
  We are moving towards a position in which only one family in eight will be able to think of buying a new house and only one family in three can, unless they put an undue burden on themselves, even rent a new dwelling unless it is subsidised. For not new dwellings, but existing properties, the level of rents is now such that the majority of our people cannot unaided solve their own housing problem. Many of them solve it by living for as far ahead as they can see in accommodation that is patently too small for them.
  The moral of that is an important social and political one. It is that we have to accept the idea that housing should be regarded, as education is regarded, as a social service. Education is by its nature 100 per cent. subsidised. Nobody would suggest that housing should be treated in that way. We have, however, to say to ourselves that for a man to be ill-housed is an evil, not only to him, but for the whole community, and that for a man to be well-housed is an advantage, not only to his family, but to the whole community in which he lives, and that, therefore, this is a proper subject for some kind of subsidy, arranged through whatever channel or called by whatever name one wishes. The idea that we can solve the problem as a whole by reliance solely on private enterprise and the forces of the market is being repeatedly disproved. The rising figures of house prices and rents are disproving it all the time.
  We have already accepted that principle in certain directions. We accept the idea of helping, in effect, from the public purse the owner-occupier. We do that
  1032
  by the Income Tax rebate which he can get on his mortgage repayments. It is proposed to do it by the treatment of the Schedule A tax. Those are right developments. They recognise the principle which I have enunciated, that if a man desres to have a good home for himself and his family, that is, like educating his children, something in which he ought to be helped by the community as a whole. We recognise it also in the case of the council tenant who pays less, though not always so very much less, than the economic rent. We recognise, again, that in his case for him to be well housed is a social advantage and that the cost of it should, therefore, be partly met by subsidy.
  There remains the group for whom we have refused to recognise this principle, the tenants of the private landlords, and it is for that reason that more and more of the sharpest edges of the housing shortage and the housing problem are driving in upon them, and that is why it is wrong for the Government to regard private landlordism as the main way of solving the housing problem. Indeed, of the various ways of solving it it has become inevitably the least satisfactory.
  I can think of one other possible approach to the housing problem other than that general idea I have just enunciated, and that is this. Could we not consider whether the technical cost of building houses could be substantially brought down so that, therefore, the cost of a good home could be brought within the reach of all our citizens without the need of subsidy? I do not think that that is a matter to which we have given in our debates sufficient attention, and perhaps the Minister will have something to say about that.
  It is true that recently, during, I think, about the last twelve or eighteen months, there have been improvements in the productivity of the building industry, but it is a slow process, and I do not think it can be expected to continue for long at the rather exceptional rate of improvement of the last twelve or eighteen months. It will be a big problem. It will need the co-operation of the trade unions with regard to methods of building and what kind of worker is appropriate for what kind of job. It will need the consideration of this question: can we really build

  1033
  properly and efficiently when so many firms in the industry are such tiny firms?
  It will need also, I think, consideration of whether we could not make better progress if it were a more usual habit of local authorities to join together in the giving of orders for the purchase of materials. The Minister will find, though he will not like this, that a number of local authorities who have done the work by direct labour have done it very economically indeed. In considering the matter he should not, for ideological reasons, rule that out.
  A number of years ago, under the initiative of George Tomlinson, we made quite remarkable improvements in the cost of building of schools. Some people thought—and I think that I would agree with them—that perhaps we went a bit too far there and skimped on the buildings, but it would not be denied that many of the economies made as a result of that inquiry were real economies and got us something as good for substantially less money. I find it difficult to believe that something of what was done there could not be done in house building, and I think that it is up to the Ministry to take an initiative in this field; and if the Ministry does not like the idea of housing subsidies it must recognise that this is really the only other possible road, unless it is to be prepared to see millions of our people going on being ill-housed for years.
  Whatever is done in improving the techniques of the building industry is bound to be a slow remedy which could not yield fruits quickly. It will be true, therefore, for a good many years that the bulk of our citizens cannot, without some kind of subsidy or public help, be housed as, viewing the whole wealth of the country and the standards of civilisation which we expect, they ought to be housed at the present time.
  Now, subsidised housing means council housing, and that means, therefore, that unless and until we can produce very substantial reductions in building costs—and we do not know at all how much progress can be made in that field till we have examined the question further—but unless and until we can do that, if we hope to solve the housing problems of many of our people we have got to have more council houses, and
  1034
  there is really no escape from that conclusion. Yet this is the one field in the whole range of housing in which the Government have succeeded—in cutting down the number of council houses built.
  We know the causes of that decline and the amount of it, roughly 100,000 houses built in England and Wales in 1960, slightly more than 90,000 in 1961. It is too early to judge yet what the outturn at the end of this year will be. My guess would be that it will lie somewhere between those two figures for 1960 and 1961.
  What are the causes of that decline? They are mainly those I mentioned when I was speaking of the costs of houses for sale—land prices. If the Government are not prepared to do anything to control land prices, or to bring land into public ownership, will they at least do a little more to try to spread industry, and, therefore, the demand for land, rather more evenly over the country? That has been urged on them from many parts of the House in the past. We have never had any clear statement of the Government's intentions in this field, but if they go on as they are now in certain parts of the country the rises in the price of land we have been having in the last few years will look tiny compared with what will happen in the next few years.
  As I say, if the Government will not tackle the problem of the ownership and price of land they should at least consider the influence which location of industry has on the demand for land, because the shortage of land, of course, is not a shortage over the country as a whole. It is a shortage in certain regions, tied up with the flow of employment to certain regions.
  The other cause of the decline is the burden of interest rates which hangs round the necks of local authorities and troubles them not only in carrying out their housing programmes, but in performing all their other duties which Parliament lays upon them. Here again, we know that it is idle to ask the Minister to make money available to local authorities at favoured rates of interest. When he went into office somebody handed him a little chit of paper which no doubt his predecessor had had and which contained the stock answer to

  1035
  that one. It is, "You must not shield housing from the economic situation of the country. You must not regard housing as in any way more important than any other kind of enterprise." Which is, in my view, an imbecile proposition. But we know that the Minister has got to stick to it.
  But will he, at least, since he cannot solve the real problem, look at this? Local authorities are still excluded from the Public Works Loan Board. Last year, I think, only about 7 per cent. of their borrowing was from the Board. The result is that they compete with one another in the open market and that, I believe, is one reason why they are having to pay the rates they are. Would the Minister at least consider reopening to them the facilities of the Public Works Loan Board, so creating some kind of centralised agency which could do the borrowing for the local authorities as a whole, and put an end to the inter-authority competition, which is one of the causes of the high rates of interest they have to pay?
  Those are, I think, the causes of the decline in council building. As to the results, I mentioned that, in 1961, 93,000 houses were built in England and Wales. Of those, 24,000 were one-bedroom dwellings, and that is gratifying when one thinks of the number of old people who will be helped in that way, but it means this, that 69,000 council houses were built for people who require more than one bedroom, and in that same year slum clearance and other causes of demolition pulled down 74,000 houses, and we were left at the end with 5,000 fewer houses available for people on ordinary council waiting lists, and not living in clearance areas, and requiring more than one bedroom.
  In 1960, we added just 1,000 to the number of houses available for these people. In 1961, it was 5,000 on the wrong side. What we must have, and this is about the tenth time of asking in recent months, is an answer to one question from the Government. Do they regard this low and declining figure of council house building as satisfactory? They have always told us that if the councils would put up the rents more people would be squeezed out and would buy their own houses, which is so easy
  1036
  an occupation these days, and there would be lots more room. Or the Government say to the councils, "When you have old people whose families have dwindled, fling them out. Do not let them stay with their lifelong friends."
  Let us suppose that every local authority dutifully followed the strictest path of Conservative ideology in its treatment of tenants. Are the Government saying on that assumption that this figure of council house building is adequate? I do not believe that that can be maintained and I do not think that they will try to maintain it. What are the Government going to do to increase the figure again? One of the first remarks made to me by the Minister's predecessor, when we first began to have exchanges across the Floor of the House about housing some years ago, was that I should be glad to see the amount of council house building going up. The figures issued at that time gave some colour to that remark, but I have had no cause for gladness since.
  What do the Government think about the future of council house building? We shall be told that 74,000 houses were demolished last year, of which 60,000 were for slum clearance and 14,000 were demolitions for other reasons. What about the slum clearance drive? When we urged the Minister a few weeks ago to do something about urban renewal he said that he was delighted at the idea, but that slum clearance must come first. It is one of the characteristics of this Government that if we urge them to do A they explain that they cannot because they are eager to do B.
  Let us look at what they have been doing about slum clearance. The programme is running, says the Minister—because I know his speech almost by heart by now—at 60,000 a year. I see from a glint in the Minister's eye that it is a few thousand above 60,000.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Dr. Charles Hill): Sixty-four thousand.
  Mr. Stewart: Splendid. There are about 5 million houses in the country at present which are over sixty years old. In the next ten years a good many of them will become slums, or something very like it. This figure of 60,000, or

  1037
  even 64,000 a year, is barely keeping pace wish the rate of obsolescence at present.
  If that, rate is maintained it will take about nine years to get rid of the dwellings reckoned to be slums in that famous estimate made in 1955. That by itself might sound cheerful enough, but there are two things to be noticed. We cannot place much reliance on the estimate that there were 850,000 slum dwellings in 1955 because the way the estimating was done was so remarkably haphazard. I find it difficult to believe that the percentage of dwellings properly to be called slums is the same in Cardiff as in Sutton and Cheam, yet that is the kind of estimate on which this figure of 850,000 in 1955 is based.
  Even if we assume that that is correct and we go on as we have been going and get rid of those 850,000 in nine years' time, there will be in nine years' time at least that number which we shall be obliged to regard as slums when we look at the ages of houses at present. The Government have cut down the whole process of municipal building to a concentration on slum clearance, and even so, with the rest of the hopes of people who want to live in council houses in ruins, it is not adequate to the situation.
  I conclude, therefore, that when we review Conservative policy on housing we must decide that we are not on the right road. Here are some of the things to which the Minister might give attention if he wants to get on the right road. First, there is the land question. If he will not do anything about the ownership of land, or the control of the price of land, what are the Government doing to prevent the excessive and growing concentration of industry and the potential seekers of homes in certain areas of the kingdom that creates in those areas an almost intolerable land problem?
  Secondly, there are the interest rates. If the Minister will not consider favourable rates of interest, will he consider some form of centralised borrowing for the needs of local authorities, and that not only for housing, because these high interest rates affect all their work? Over the last nine years the amount of money paid in rates, averaged per head of the population, has doubled, but people's
  1038
  incomes have not doubled during the last nine years.
  Next, in the field of local authority responsibility generally, cannot the Minister do what a number of his hon. Friends have asked him, and we on this side have asked him even earlier, namely, consider alternative methods of local government finance? I do not believe that we can combine the desire to make local authorities our chief instruments for civilisation and amenity with our present rating system. The two things just do not add up.
  Will the Minister set in train concentrations in the building industry to see whether, if he does not like the idea of subsidising housing, he can make it physically less expensive? Until he can obtain some results in that field, will he accept the necessity that council house building ought to be increasing as the years go by and not decreasing? These are the kind of questions to which the Minister's energies ought to be directed. If he devotes to them half the energy which he devotes to dictating rent policies to the local authorities, or to distorting and dismantling the education services of London, we shall all be better off.
  One of the items which we are discussing today is an item for the Minister's salary—£5,000 a year, almost enough to provide two new two-bedroom dwellings. We look at the Minister, we look at the Government's policy, and we ask whether he is worth it. The right hon. Gentleman will have to consider whether he should not put his energies to things that would really matter, that would give some hope and some comfort to the millions of ill-housed and frustrated families throughout the country.
  4.19 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has made, as usual, a skilful and, indeed, a clever speech. I think that it was Sydney Smith who said:
  "There are some men who continue to please and astonish the world even in the support of a bad cause. They are mighty in their fallacies and beautiful in their errors".
  The hon. Member is one of those. He always sounds so moderate and so

  1039
  reasonable. Unfortunately, when he and the majority of his party deal with housing they always bring forward the same fallacies and errors. They have a very curious idea of what constitutes failure in a housing programme.
  I should like, at the end of my speech, to deal at some length with home ownership, because the hon. Gentleman concentrated on it. This is something which is fundamental to the Conservative philosophy, as the hon. Gentleman said, but I should like, first, to put in a broad perspective, some of the matters which he raised.
  It is unfortunate for the Opposition that they are completely stuck with the fundamental fallacy that we can in some way improve our existing stock of accommodation, or our use of it, by returning to the full rigours of rent control or interfering in some further way with the freedom of contract. But I think that many of our problems stem directly from the operation of the Rent Restriction Acts over the years. They have been a ferocious obstacle to better housing, so much so that our biggest housing liability at the present time lies in the millions of houses which are structurally sound, but which lack elementary amenities.
  I do not want to cover a lot of ground that we have covered many times before, but the truth is that the freezing of rents stifled investment in houses to let and created widespread and unnecessary decay which it has taken Conservative policies to arrest. The truth is that the only way in which we can provide better homes is not by imposing more controls, as the Opposition would like us to do, but by building more new houses and by improving and converting more existing ones.
  We have already done a great deal. We all know the basic figures—the hon. Gentleman was careful not to quote them himself—4 million new houses since the end of the war, 3 million under Conservative administration. This means that one house in every four is a new house conforming to modern standards. That is not failure, I should have thought. We sometimes overlook, although it is becoming of increasing importance, that over 250,000 houses
  1040
  have been modernised even since 1959. This is nothing to be complacent about, but it is not failure. This is a formidable achievement.
  So much have we done that what we are often considering now is a problem Which is not so much quantitative as qualitative. It stems from the rising standards and general prosperity that Conservative administration has created. We look now far beyond slum clearance and the rehabilitation of blighted areas. We are considering now meeting the increasing demand for self-contained accommodation that comes from an increasing number of separate households.
  The actual assessment of the long-term demand for new houses is inevitably speculative. The Alliance Building Society has put the figure at 400,000 a year over the next twenty years. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research, on which the hon. Gentleman relies for some of his information, has suggested only 225,000 a year. Maybe what we are doing at present, about 300,000 a year, will prove sufficient.
  The trouble with these statistics, especially if they are projected forward, is that they assume a vacuum with no motive power coming from any source. They cannot contemplate the changing pattern of events, and so they are almost invariably wrong. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman pointed out some occasions on which estimates have proved inaccurate, particularly when they are looking forward.
  The Government's policy, therefore, is to allow as many houses to be built and modernised as are required to meet the demands made by a nation with continually rising standards of life and labour. The actual rate of progress is limited solely and necessarily by the physical availability of resources, including particularly land and labour, and our ability to make the best use of them.
  There are two questions to which I would say the House has to address its mind. They are not so much those that the hon. Gentleman put, but there are two which are, clearly, relevant. First, are we devoting to building and improving houses as much as our resources permit? Secondly, are we allocating

  1041
  those resources sensibly between the various demands for private and public housing, housing for purchase and housing to rent, housing for slum clearance and all the other special needs?
  The hon. Gentleman really did not address himself to the first question at all. He was not able to say in any way how we could devote more of our resources to house building. The fact is that at present, as we all know, the level of construction shows the building industry still suffering from a measure of overstrain. The effect on public housing can be graphically illustrated by looking at the ratio between the number of dwellings under construction at the beginning of a year and the number completed. If we look at the figures for the last three years we find that, in 1959, 97 were completed out of 100 under construction at the beginning of the year. In 1960 it was 84 and in 1961 it was 72.
  I should have thought that with the pressure on the building industry being so great, with completions lagging and with prices consequently rising, it was quite sensible last July to say that we should be careful about putting further work into contract. There are already some signs—I am sure that the House and particularly hon. Members opposite will be glad to hear this—that results are beginning to appear. During the past six months local authority tender prices have ceased their abrupt rise and something like stability has been achieved. Moreover, we are finding that work is moving faster from the approval stage into the construction stage.
  I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that that is one of the ways in which we can bring prices down. The way the Opposition would like to bring prices down, as he indicated, would be by having lower interest rates. Certainly, everyone in every field of activity would rather have a lower interest rate. If the hon. Gentleman would lend me£1,000 at 2½per cent.—I think that that is the magic figure for bon. Members opposite—I should be very glad to accept it.
  It is, however, a fallacy to believe that low interest rates quite unrelated to the economic situation of the country would mean lower prices. As the
  1042
  International Monetary Fund said in one of its reports:
  "Countries which used monetary policy promptly and firmly were more successful than other countries in checking the rise in prices, credit and money supplies."
  If the Labour Party had understood that philosophy when it was in power we should not have been on the verge of bankruptcy in 1951.
  It is argued that housing should be treated, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, exceptionally by giving it a low rate of interest. The hon. Gentleman does not like the answer that he gets, but surely it is right to say that if one can make a special case for housing one can also make a special case for education, housing, or essential industrial development. The hon. Gentleman said that local authorities have to compete in the open market for their money; but so does everyone else. If we made a special arrangement for housing or some other service, it would clearly destroy the general economic policy, and the volume of housing investment is already very high.
  In any event, if we did it the difference between the market rate and the specially low rate would have to be met out of taxation. It would, in fact, be a concealed subsidy. I, for one, believe that if we are to have subsidies we should let them be direct and let them be distributed according to need. This is the fundamental basis of our housing subsidy policy.
  Local authority subsidies, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, cannot be related to a particular house, but must be related to the condition of the housing revenue account as a whole If the Exchequer subsidies, which now total about£70 million a year, are pooled, as they must be, and if all council tenants pay a reasonable rent, there is no financial consideration that should hold up essential local authority building. The subsidies themselves can be reviewed as the situation changes.
  That is What we have done from time to time since the end of the war. They can be reviewed to meet a special need or a new strategic requirement. But I believe that, however calculated, they should not be indiscriminately applied. If subsidies are distributed indiscriminately they not only inflate demand, but

  1043
  deflate the hopes of those in real need while wasting both national and local resources.
  Whatever view one takes of interest rates and subsidies, it is clear that juggling—which is what it would come to—with the real cost of house construction will not produce any land, labour, or material. In the short term, more houses can only be secured by accepting less of something else. It is up to the Opposition to suggest what the choice should be—houses or schools.
  We know what pressure the building industry is under. Of course, from time to time the Opposition have said that we should build fewer shops, offices and garages. But it is living in a fool's paradise to imagine that if we eliminated every unnecessary office or shop or garage we would see a decisive difference. No one, not even the Opposition, suggests that we should not replace slum offices or should not redevelop city centres or provide shops on housing estates. Planning considerations may affect where we put them, but no one doubts the need.
  Last year, the value of the new work undertaken by contractors in the building and civil engineering industry came to£1,881 million. Of this total, housing already accounts for 37 per cent. and other work for public authorities for 26 per cent. Industry takes only 22 per cent. and the rest—offices, shops, garages and miscellaneous buildings of every kind—total 15 per cent. There really is no reason to believe that a further diversion of resources to houses would be justified, much less that it would work miracles.
  In the long run, there are only two ways in which we can bring about a large-scale increase in house building. The first is by securing, as we are endeavouring to do through a sound national economic policy, a real growth in the national economy, because then we would have greater resources for housing and the other things we want. The second way, upon which the hon. Member for Fulham also touched, and which we must pursue vigorously, is to increase the productive efficiency of the building industry. No doubt he has studied the recent report by Sir Harold Emmerson, which highlights the pro- 1044
  blems to be tackled—better liaison between all concerned in the planning and creation of buildings, more standardisation of components and fittings, and a new look at methods of training.
  This is one of the roads forward, but we must always recognise that the potential of the building industry is only one factor in the story. Our capacity to pay for the things we want will depend on the rate of growth of the economy and on the savings available for investment. Given that we have about as much building work as the resources of the industry and nation can bear, the question remains: are we allocating these resources sensibly between the various demands for private and public building? The hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Opposition, says that we are not doing so because we are not allocating enough to council house building to let.
  The hon. Gentleman sought to prove this by taking the figures for one year, but that is another irrelevant statistic and a fallacy. We have to look at the total pool of local authority houses. Since the war, the local authorities have built almost two houses to every one built privately. I would not have called that failure, as is suggested by the hon. Gentleman. Local authorities now have 3½million houses, probably producing at least 70,000 relets a year.
  I reiterate what I did not think the hon. Gentleman liked to hear, although he must like it because he raises this matter time and time again. It is that if the rent policies of local authorities were such as to make houses available for people in the greatest need, no further public building at all would be wanted in a great many areas, except to meet a special social need, such as housing for old people.
  In congested areas like London, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool, and others of our older towns and cities, no one doubts that there remains a vast job to be done. In the Government's view, the public housing problems calling for the most urgent attention—as the hon. Gentleman suggested—are slum clearance, building for old people, the relief of overcrowding and other bad conditions, and overspill. The extent to which these tasks individually call for continued building of council houses

  1045
  varies from one authority to another. It is for this purpose that the new housing subsidy structure, under the Housing Act, 1961, enables local authorities to concentrate on those things which they consider most urgent in their own areas.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that we have not done much to clear the slums. Since 1955, over 348,000 slums have been been cleared in England and Wales. That has meant the rehousing of 900,000 people. The evidence is that the pace has grown as local authorities have gained experience. In the exchange between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend was able to point out how the figure had risen last year to 64,300. That is not failure. It is nothing to be complacent about, but it is a real achievement—much more real than a recent article in the New Left Review, from which I think the hon. Gentleman drew some information and which I was invited to read before the Easter Recess. The article had the curious title, "But Nothing Happens". But some people never understand what happens.
  Even so, I accept that the hon. Gentleman's estimate that over 500,000 slums remain and that other houses will become unfit with the passage of time. In the Conservative Party's 1959 General Election manifesto, we pledged ourselves to rehouse at least another 1 million slum dwellers by 1965. That is a minimum, not a maximum aim. Of course, some local authorities complain, especially around election time, that their allocation of houses has been cut. We certainly try to see that, in the allocation of local authority housing, the impetus is given to solving the problems in those areas which have the greatest difficulty. In such places, allocations must be related, for the reasons I have explained, to the amount of work which can reasonably be expected to be done.
  If we look at what the local authorities sometimes ask for, at what we give them, at what they did the year before, and at what they asked for the year before, the allocations often look generous. But if faster progress is made than anticipated, the Minister has always said that he is willing to reconsider the position.
  We all know the general nature of the obstacles that have to be overcome
  1046
  in these congested areas. The difficulty is not finance. It includes the shortage of technical staff, demands on building labour and the physical lack of land. It is our policy, often reiterated, to secure the most intensive use we can of urban land by encouraging building, wherever appropriate, at higher densities, and by better use of urban land not fully developed.
  We will shortly be publishing a booklet on residential densities which, I hope, will stimulate local authority interest in this topic. But however intensely we develop our cities, after we have made the proper provision for shops, parks and other amenities, there is always an overspill problem remaining—or almost always. This can be met by long-term allocation of land in development plans. Development procedure provides for periodic review, but we have already told local planning authorities that where additional allocations of land are needed they are to proceed without waiting for the quinquennial review.
  We also envisage—and this may be of more fundamental importance in the long run—the extension of town development schemes. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that, for these schemes are not part of the queer story of failure which he told. By December, 1961, agreements had been made to provide for 82,750 houses. Another eighteen schemes, which are expected to provide homes for over 250,000 people, are being negotiated. In addition, we are examining the possibility of expansion of a number of large towns, with a consequential bigger contribution to the solution of the overspill problem.
  Here, again, the new powers and the subsidy provisions in the Housing Act, 1961, provide a framework on which further progress may be made—as hon. Members will know, the provision of subsidy was substantially increased. It may well be that in the coming years town development schemes will play a much more important part in our efforts than hitherto.
  The scheme for the expansion of a certain number of small towns for the transfer of people out of the big centres of population has provided valuable experience, but the great cities continue to be a magnet to immigrants of every kind. We want to be sure in future that

  1047
  the towns which are to be expanded are of a size sufficient to attract people independently and to offer a wide range of careers to young people. They must be magnets themselves to immigrants and so really take some of the pressure off the big cities. In these circumstances, it seems to follow that town development schemes should provide the framework for releasing the positive energies of industrialists and private householders and developers and not just provide a means for shifting a number of people out of the big cities.
  Slum clearance and overspill are the overriding problems which now face the local authorities. That is not to say that they may not, in their own particular cases, feel that there is a higher claim for old people or the relief of overcrowding. There is certainly a widespread need, for example, for the small labour-saving houses in which old people can live their independent lives. As the hon. Member for Fulham acknowledged, housing authorities have been given every encouragement to build for this purpose and over the last four years about 100,000 such dwellings have been provided. That, I suggest to the hon. Member, is not failure.
  While local authorities have this important and continuing part to play, I believe that private enterprise is rightly catering to an increasing extent for general needs. In a prosperous society there is no reason why the vast majority of people should not be quite prepared —as I think many of them are—to pay the economic price for a better home. The Blue Book—amidst a wonderful collection of statistics—showed that consumer expenditure on alcohol and smoking was£2,140 million in 1960, 40 per cent. more than the entire amount spent on rent, including the imputed rent for owner-occupiers, rates, water charges, housing maintenance repairs and improvement.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Do those figures include the tax on cigarettes and pipe tobacco which goes back to the Treasury?
  Mr. Rippon: That is an interesting economic argument, but does not falsify my point, which was that if people choose to spend their money in that way
  1048
  they can also choose to spend it in others which they may believe to be less beneficial to Her Majesty's Treasury.
  For many people, including those who frequently move, home ownership is not the solution. I accept what the hon. Member for Fulham said about that. Those people are looking now to the existing pool of local authority and private accommodation available for renting. I think that they have a much better chance of finding a house to rent in most parts of the country today than they had a few years ago. One of the difficulties which was created by the Rent Acts was that they gave special protection to those who had accommodation at the expense of those who had not, including young married couples.
  We always hear about the people who move out, but we do not hear about the people who move in, although their claim may be as great. To strike a fair balance between the position of the two groups, we have to consider where such people had previously been living and how long they had been on a council's waiting list. We had a short debate on housing just before the Easter Recess, when it was argued that landlords frequently sell houses which come into their possession rather than let them again.
  The hon. Member for Fulham quoted the social survey prepared by the Central Office of Information, which showed that since the operation of the Rent Act and up to the point when the survey was made 12 per cent. of the houses becoming decontrolled through changes in the rateable value limit were sold to owner-occupiers. It is not a very high percentage, but I have no doubt that many people wished to buy and there is no reason why such houses should not be attractive to the tenants, although the hon. Member seemed to think that there was. What is certain is that if rent control had been continued, the percentage sold would certainly have increased.
  I do not believe that the Rent Act has done nothing to help those who want rented accommodation. With the enormous influx of population into London and south-east England in the last few years it is not surprising that demand outstrips supply here, but that

  1049
  is not true of many other places and this is a housing debate about England and Wales and not simply about the London problem. Many people are finding it possible to rent houses and rooms and flats, but I am sure that before the 1957 Act it was almost impossible for many young people to find anything to rent. They were entirely dependent on the housing waiting lists unless they happened to be some of those people who were in accommodation which was "frozen" both as to rent and as to occupation. As we know, before the operation of the Rent Act and up to 1957 we could not get any rental evidence on which to base a revaluation of housing. That is an indication of the state of the market before the 1957 Act.
  I accept that the only answer to the difficulties of tenants is not more controls, but more houses. I agree with the hon. Member that not enough new houses, certainly not as many as we would wish, have been built by private enterprise to rent. That is because investors are reluctant to put their money into that form of investment, and I am afraid that they will remain reluctant so long as the Labour Party threatens to impose rent restrictions. The hon. Member for Fulham may not like that answer, but I cannot change it. It is a fact.
  I hope that the£25 million fund made available to housing associations under the 1961 Act, will enable these bodies, who have been great pioneers in social housing, to extend their activities and will encourage them to build accommodation to let at cost rents at a level rather above those of local authority dwellings, thus making it easier for people who have not the wish, or perhaps the means, to own their own homes to get accommodation.
  I will conclude by dealing with what the hon. Member had to say at some length on the subject of home ownership. The desire for home ownership, which it is Conservative policy to promote, is widespread and very strong. The House will recall that the party opposite did nothing to encourage it. Only 22,000 new houses were purchased in 1951 and there was little or no alternative to the waiting list.
  Mr. A. Lewis: What about interest charges?
  Mr. Rippon: The hon. Members seems to think that low interest rates produce bricks, but they do not.
  We think that we have been right to free private developers to meet this demand for home ownership. The hon. Member says that home ownership is beyond the means of ordinary people, but that is not borne out by the facts. Last year, the building societies' advances amounted to about£545 million compared with£517 million in 1959. Indeed, one of their difficulties has been the pressure of demand upon their available funds. People are anxious to buy their houses. During 1961, local authorities alone lent£99 million compared with£66 million in 1960 and£55 million in 1959. I do not believe that the statistics which purport to show that a man must be able to earn about£20 a week before he can buy a house are correct.
  The hon. Member for Fulham obviously relied on the report by Mr. Needleman, of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. The figures which he gave assume that no house purchaser has any ready cash with which to pay the deposit or the costs of purchase—costs which, incidentally, have been reduced three times by a Conservative Government in a reduction in the Stamp Duty, and eliminated altogether on small houses. Under Conservative administration people have been able to save much more than was possible between 1945 and 1951. As the hon. Gentleman said, regard must also be paid to the tax allowance on mortgages, and ultimately to the inducement which will arise on the Chancellor's proposals on Schedule A.
  Mr. Albert Evans: What about the interest rates that owner-occupiers now have to pay? The hon. Gentleman is aware that in recent years the rates to be paid by purchasers have risen considerably. We have learnt in recent weeks that these high rates are to become stabilised and permanent. These rates of interest have risen due to Government policy.
  Mr. Rippon: I do not think that it is fair to say that they have become

  1051
  stabilised and permanent. The building societies say that the pressure of demand on resources is so great that they cannot meet the requirements of everybody, and they say also that whatever the Bank Rate may be the pressure on various important parts of the economy is so great that they cannot borrow money at a lower rate, and they cannot lend money until they have first borrowed it.
  Increases in interest rates have taken place for many reasons. Nobody does it just to be malicious to the community. It is necessary for the general strength of the economy. If one considers the position over a number of years it will be seen that it does not work out too badly. One has also to have regard to the effect of tax concessions on these repayments.
  I want to deal with the point put strongly by the hon. Member for Fulham, that people cannot afford to buy their own homes. This is the key issue. What I want to look at is not merely the rate of interest, but at the price of the house and the expense, If interest rates were reduced to an artificially low level, it may be that the price of houses would rise.
  Mr. A. Evans: The hon. Gentleman knows that during the last three or four years the Government's dear money policy has resulted in a crippling impost on owner-occupiers. We understand that the high rates of interest are to be permanent, despite a reduction in the Bank Rate.
  Mr. Rippon: It is untrue that the present interest rates are to be permanent, and the hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do.
  I want to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Fulham, that people of ordinary means cannot afford to buy homes. I commend to the hon. Gentleman and to the House an interesting article by Mr. Arthur Seldon, in the April issue of the Statist which gives striking evidence of the demand for home ownership and the way it is being met. The author points out that
  "House ownership is within the means of possibly millions of manual and wage paid workers. 9,545 mortgages to owner-occupiers were completed by the Co-operative Permanent Building Society between December 30, 1959
  1052
  and March 31, 1960…The Society believes the sample was large and varied enough to be representative. Of 2,462 new houses, 926 were bought by wage earners. Of 7,083 existing houses, 3,945 were bought by wage earners."
  Supporting figures from the Alliance Building Society show that of 4,253 mortgages completed between January and November, 1960, 2,644, or more than half the mortgagors, earned less than£800 a year, and 1,380, or nearly a third, earned less than£650.
  More recently—because I want to bring these matters as far up to date as I can—Mr. J. C. Dunham, the Chairman of the Co-operative Building Society, had this to say at the annual general meeting on 24th March of this year:
  "It has been stated that the recent rise in property prices has put home ownership beyond the means of all except those in higher income groups. This argument, however, does not stand up to close examination. Existing house prices it is true are now on average four times higher than in the immediate pre-war period."—
  I think that that is what the hon. Gentleman proved in his example from Hen-don—
  "But earnings have risen even more: the earnings of adult male workers in manufacturing industries are now reported to be 4½times higher than the comparable figure for 1939. Admittedly, the high and rising cost of accommodation in the London and the South-East areas is a matter for concern, but, taking the country as a whole, a wider section of the community can now afford house purchase than before the war."
  Mr. Dunham went on to say that
  "the closing weeks of 1961 showed a welcome increase in the flow of savings to building societies. I am pleased to report that this trend has continued into 1962 and is making possible a modest expansion in the volume of lending."
  This shows that an increasing number of people can, and are, buying their own homes.
  Mr. George Brown: Was not it Mr. Dunham who recently pointed out that at the rate things were going nobody with less than£20 a week would be able to get a mortgage?
  Mr. Rippon: I think that he made another statement. I am not sure that he was not torn somewhat out of context, and I think that he tried to put it right at the annual general meeting.
  I think that we can survey in this debate today steady progress in every

  1053
  part of the housing field. To listen to the hon. Member for Fulham, one would not imagine that the supply of new houses had risen by 300,000 every year. Slum clearance, housing for old people, and for urgent social needs are being given a high priority. Home ownership is rising, and the improvement of existing houses is gathering momentum.
  When all the evidence is weighed, and we vote at ten o'clock, we can only come to the conclusion that what the Opposition say about providing more housing accommodation by repealing the 1957 Act and by fiddling about with interest rates is not just plain nonsense—it is nonsense upon stilts.
  4.58 p.m.
  Mr. Clifford Kenyon: Having listened to the Parliamentary Secretary, I think he must live in a different world from that in which I live. I understand that his constituency is Norwich. Mine is Chorley, in the industrial part of Lancashire. There seems to be a vast difference between the resources of the citizens in these two constituencies.
  We have these debates from time to time, and similar arguments are used from both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman gave us a technical and somewhat academic statement. I want to look at this question from a different angle. Having had some experience of housing both as a minister and as a member of a local authority for over 20 years, I want to draw on my experience from the human angle. When I went on to the council in 1923 this was one of our major problems, and it is one of our major problems today. It is remarkable that today the number of applications for houses in that local authority area are little different from what they were in 1923. This housing problem has been with us for the full lifetime of the oldest Member of the House, and at the rate at which we are moving it will be with us for the full lifetime of the youngest Member. It will not be settled in that period.
  Yet it is a phase of human life which affects our whole existence and the whole strata of our society. It is not possible to estimate the effect of overcrowding or the lack of adequate housing upon disease, crime and a whole range of human relations. The cost to the nation
  1054
  in terms of disease, especially mental disease, and crime, especially juvenile crime, is totally unknown, but if the housing problem were solved and it was possible for every family to live in a separate house, the saving to the nation would be immense. I am glad that the Minister recently spoke out against the small houses that are being built. Overcrowding does not necessarily mean too many individuals living in a house. It can mean too small a house even for a small family. The need for individual privacy in the home is not often realised, and in the most closely-knit families the need for such privacy is often the key to family unity. Every house should be so built that each member of the family living in it can make it a home and not merely a dwelling place.
  I now turn to the problem of the house owner. I do not know why the Minister should claim house ownership as a purely Conservative principle. There is nothing in Socialist principles which is against anyone owning his own house, and there never has been. A family owning its own house is in a very good position, provided that such ownership does not become a burden. It becomes wrong when a family has to mortgage its whole future in order to live in a separate house. People just cannot obtain rented houses. It is an utter impossibility in my constituency. This is one of the overwhelming burdens of thousands of families. It is one of the causes of mental strain and breakdown, which often results in family strife and even separation.
  As a magistrate, I often come across cases in which, owing to difficulties and strain, separation is requested by the members of families. It is not a question of a family being able to afford to buy a house; thousands of families today have bought houses which they cannot afford. The cost of the mortgage is not the only cost which has to be borne; too often one finds that a family which is buying a house then has to buy furniture on hire purchase. This means a weekly payment for the house and another for the furniture, added to which there is the cost of running the home.
  So many different demands are made upon wages and salaries that conflicts of desire inevitably arise, often with unfortunate consequences to both

  1055
  parents and children. The affluent State or the prosperous State is an absolute myth when people own things merely by way of debt. This is the burden of the 1960s—the national debt, the municipal debt, the industrial debt and the individual debt. We are absolutely surrounded by debts, and we are living in a State which never faces that fact. I want to face the facts as they affect housing today.
  I am expressing entirely my own views. They have nothing to do with the Labour or Socialist movement; they are my own views, which I am putting forward because I have come across this problem so often in the various spheres in which I have had to work. Every decent council wishes to see its citizens properly housed, but it cannot do so when it is faced with the present system of borrowing money at high, or even so-called low rates of interest. We have reached a position in which we consider a Bank Rate of 4½per cent. as a low rate, but it is not a low rate. Local authorities have borrowed so much money in order to carry out so many different ventures that the rates have become far too high for them to undertake comprehensive housing schemes.
  The Minister has quoted the number of houses built, but he has not quoted the net figure. What is the net figure we get, year by year, after all the slum houses have been wiped out, and all the houses that are falling down have been pulled down? What is the net contribution being made by the resources of the Government and private resources towards improving housing conditions? There is no sense in either a council or a private owner building a house the final cost of Which, because of interest rates, will be twice its value, or even more than that. So long as it is necessary to borrow money on a twenty-, forty- or sixty-year term basis extortionate costs are inevitable.
  I want to put forward a suggestion for eliminating this interest burden. This is a national issue, and not one merely for the Government. The housing problem is an issue for the nation—Government, municipalities, societies, and individuals. Everyone is concerned in it. It will call for a great deal of effort from all parties to overcome this problem.
  1056
  Under the scheme that I am going to propose the main burden must fall upon local authorities. The authorities must build houses to rent. The Parliamentary Secretary said that private builders cannot do so under present circumstances, and the local authorities must bear the burden of building the houses and raising the money.
  I ask, first, that a Government grant be made for every house built by a local authority; not a loan, but a grant. Already this is done for the private owner who is willing to modernise his house. Anyone who proposes to save a building from becoming a slum, provided the local surveyor guarantees its life for a certain period, can receive a grant from the Government. Let the Government make an equivalent grant for a new house. There would be some saving, and in doing this the Government would give a lead.
  Secondly, I ask that each local authority taking up this scheme should set aside an annual contribution from the rate fund to be placed in a housing fund until such time as sufficient money became available to make building continuous. I say that the money should come from the rate fund because when the scheme became self-sufficient the authority could always repay the money. It would be free of interest, of course. Thirdly, thousands of people today are saving money so that when they marry they can put down a deposit on a house. With proper organisation the money saved by those people could be put into a council housing fund and be used to build houses to let to those who had placed their money with the council. People do not want houses all at the same time. Provided that there was an accumulation of money from the Government, from local authorities and from individuals, a start could be made, and the finance involved in building the houses would be interest-free.
  The amount of money in the country in the form of small sums is remarkable. If this money were pooled for this purpose it would meet the requirements of a large number of people and enable them to become, in turn, tenants of houses. When a couple or a family became house tenants, the council would have two choices. It could repay the money loaned by the tenant, or the tenant could be given a free tenancy up

  1057
  to the value of the money. I feel that this could be done. It has been estimated, even by the Minister, that it will take twenty years to fulfil the housing requirements, and, according to past experience, I do not think that we shall have succeeded even in that time.
  A council could start a savings scheme in which anyone expecting to require a house in the future could contribute money week by week. Appeals could be made for interest-free loans and gifts could be made from organisations, or from churches, in order to accumulate a fund with which to start. I was the mayor of a borough where for four years during the war we made periodic appeals to the citizens for money for the war effort. From the point of view of the nation this housing question is as urgent as was the need for funds at that time. I am confident that if the matter were put to the citizens of this country by the local authorities, and they were asked to make contributions, they would rise to the occasion and we should be able to get rid of the tremendous burden of debt which bears so hardly on so many families.
  What are the advantages? The first advantage would be that from the moment a house was tenanted the local authority would have an income which could be placed in the building fund. In time—it would take time, but, my word, this problem has itself lasted for some time—according to the amount accumulated in the fund, the scheme would become self-supporting. The rents from houses thus built would accumulate according to the number of houses. The scheme would become a credit to the borough concerned and there would not exist an everlasting debt.
  I have put this scheme forward in all sincerity because I am deeply concerned about the conditions under which thousands of families have to live and the burden of debt with which they are faced. Recently a visited a private housing estate not far from here and spoke to a number of people. I met a number of ministers associated with this estate, where thousands of people live, and I discussed with them the problems confronting the residents. I was told
  1058
  that the biggest problem for the people on this estate was the problem of debt. They are mortgaged up to the hilt for their houses. Many have borrowed money in order to put down a deposit. The house furniture is mortgaged and many of the children are not receiving the necessities of life. In an affluent State it is time that we moved as a nation, as a Government and Opposition, as municipalities and as individuals, in order to put right this tremendous and evergrowing evil.
  5.19 p.m.
  Sir Martin Lindsay: This is the fourth housing debate we have had within three months. I cannot recollect our having had four debates on one social subject within such a short period before. I think it reflects the great anxiety there is in all parts of the House on this subject. It is perhaps the most important, certainly the most intractable, problem in the domestic field. I do not believe that our relative success or failure with any other service, such as health or education, causes one-tenth of the human misery now being felt year after year by thousands upon thousands of our people who cannot get a home.
  In opening the debate from this side of the Committee my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary—I was going to say in his clever speech, but that word now has a sting which I should certainly not wish to use—in his able speech, kept referring to our prosperous society. I wish he had shown a much greater realisation of the fact that our prosperous society, with all its modern inventions and achievements in science, up to now has failed so abjectly in doing something which seems so elementary as the provision of enough homes for our people. Quite frankly, I did not feel that the Parliamentary Secretary's speech showed any realisation of the very serious position in which we are in this respect at present.
  In my constituency of Solihull there is a live waiting list of families, whose needs have been examined and accepted, of over 1,500. That represents about 3,000 adults, with perhaps another 2,000 children. Approximately it is 5 per cent. of the population of the borough. If in Britain we had 5 per cent. unemployed there would be an outcry. Surely it is

  1059
  just as important that this high proportion of no less than one family in twenty should be properly housed. The housing shortage is the cause not only of the greatest unhappiness in our society, but also, as the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) said, of much ill-health and nervous strain and the breaking up of families, as well as making a contribution to juvenile delinquency.
  As I have said, there are rather more than 1,500 families on the books in Solihull, which means a five or six years' building programme. Unhappily, the list is growing all the time as more young people get married and come into the housing market. It is terrible to think that young couples getting married have to wait for five or six years before they can get a home of their own. Yet I know that there are many constituencies, for example, in the City of Birmingham and also in London, which are far worse off than my constituency.
  As the Parliamentary Secretary said, we have built nearly 4 million new houses and flats in Britain since the war. Both sides of the Committee are entitled to take credit for that. It is unquestionably a great achievement. And it is good to know that one family in four is living in a post-war house. Nevertheless, we sometimes overlook the fact that the war has been over now for seventeen years, and the housing problem is still a long way from being solved. We have gone a great way towards solving it for those who can afford to buy their houses. The figures for owner-occupied houses have gone up steadily year after year, from 25,000 ten years ago to 180,000 last year. Let us be thankful for our success in that field, which certainly has benefited my constituency.
  Where we have relatively failed is in council house building. There the trend has been exactly the other way. Five years ago we built 170,000 council houses and flats, but each year since 1957 the figure has dropped, falling to 116,000 in 1961. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) quoted the figure of 90,000. I do not know where he got that. I looked up the figures last night in the Library and, according to my reading, the number was 116,000. If it was 90,000 that makes the point stronger. Whether it was 90,000 or
  1060
  116,000, it was the lowest figure since 1947, the second complete year after the war ended.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: Do those figures relate to the whole United Kingdom, or is the hon. Member talking about England and Wales alone?
  Sir M. Lindsay: No, my figure relates to the Whole of the United Kingdom. Perhaps the figure of the hon. Member for Fulham is for England and Wales only.
  Houses to purchase are, of course, fine for those who can afford them, and I do not want to decry our success in getting so many houses privately built. But it is our responsibility to make provision for those who need our help most; I take it that that is what most of us are sent here for. There are plenty of good, steady family men in responsible jobs earning£12 or£13 a week. At that level of income no building society will touch them. Nor, paying inflated rents, have they had any chance of saving£200 or£300 for the necessary deposit. For the great majority of our people nothing but a high rate of council house building can suffice. That is indisputable. I get annoyed by Ministers on our side of the Committee who keep boasting about our success in house building when they know that the rate of council house building is going down year after year.
  I have three suggestions to make. One is in regard to the shortage of land. What is being done to ensure that local authorities increase their density and by building upwards with blocks of flats where necessary, expensive though that is? Of course, these must be on suitable sites. How strict is the Ministry in comparing local authorities' development plans with their housing waiting lists? I should like the Minister to say quite firmly that if their proposed density is not sufficient to make a real onslaught on these long waiting lists, then he will not approve their development plans.
  The second and a minor suggestion is in regard to the provision of old people's dwellings. Local authorities on the average are building 25 per cent. for the elderly. We have a progressive council in Solihull and our percentage is 40 per cent. The provision of this type of

  1061
  accommodation often means the release of a three-bedroom house which goes on the market and is then bought by some stranger from far away, who often has less need for it than a family on the council's waiting list. Local authorities can obtain loan sanction and buy these houses as they come on to the market and let them to people on their waiting lists.
  A little while ago I asked the then Minister of Housing what he would do to encourage local authorities to do just this, but I am afraid I could not arouse much enthusiasm. He said that he would always be willing to give local authorities loan sanction for this purpose, but that he,
  "did not wish to encourage needless municipalisation through the back door."
  I do not like saying this about a respected and highly successful Minister, but it seems that that is carrying political prejudice altogether too far. Of course, proposals such as this can do no more than be of marginal assistance.
  The hon. Member for Fulham and the Parliamentary Secretary both mentioned a matter to which I am sure much greater attention must be devoted, and that is to get greater productivity out of the building industry by, perhaps, rationalisation and the use of more modern methods, and of other means for bringing down the cost of building. What is really necessary is to lighten the burden on the building industry so that contracts for more council house building can more easily be placed.
  The Parliamentary Secretary said that this was quite impossible. He told us how the allocation of building for the whole country was worked out and explained that it was impossible to give greater priority for house building. As far as council house building is concerned, I do not accept that. I am perfectly certain that greater priority must be given to building more council houses, if necessary by restricting other and less desirable forms of building. I hope that the Minister will examine this once again. One thing which is quite certain is that the present housing situation calls for a dynamic and altogether new approach.
  5.32 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: The speech which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Solihull (Sir M. Lindsay) has put the case for building more council houses so clearly and effectively that I hope the hon. Gentleman will cross to this side of the Committee in order to let the Government know fully his discontent with the results of their policy.
  I intend to show that not only is it true that one half of the world does not know how the other half lives, but that it is also true that one half of a city does not know how the other half lives. I am one of the 21 million viewers who watch "Coronation Street". It is the most popular programme on television, and deservedly so, because it shows working men and women in an honest way and deals so naturally with their lives that viewers come to know the characters as if they were real people. Harry Hewitt and his wife Concepta and Elsie Tanner and her son become people we know personally. But what many viewers do not realise is that these fine men and women are living in houses which are a disgrace to our society, in houses without a bath, hot water or an inside toilet.
  I happen to know this for one very good reason. The shots which open and close each episode of "Coronation Street" are taken in my constituency. I know the street very well. These terraced houses are typical of the great industrial areas of Lancashire, Yorkshire and the Midlands, of houses without a bath, without hot water and without an inside toilet. In these areas, particularly in Lancashire and Yorkshire, we find a Coronation Street in every town.
  After which coronation were they named? If we look at them we can see that it was clearly no recent coronation. It was the coronation of Queen Victoria in 1837. Indeed, we in Salford have just pulled down a slum called Waterloo Place which goes back, if my history is not mistaken, to just after 1815. It may have been considered good enough for working men and women to live in this type of houses in 1837 but it is certainly not good enough in 1962, in an age when we are constantly told of this wonder of the Welfare State. I do not believe that the Welfare State

  1063
  has even begun. There is a great deal of nonsense talked about it. Not to be able to provide families with a bath in an age of automation, atomic energy and space travel shows, I think, a wrong sense of values altogether.
  Some hon. Members and, if I may say so, some Ministers have no conception of what it means for parents to have to live in a house without a bath and to try in those circumstances to bring up their children healthily and properly. Take the case of the typical industrial worker who comes home from work covered with oil, dust or sweat and who has no bath to use. Take, too, the case of the building worker who comes home after a day on the job and who wants to wash his feet. His wife has to boil a kettle of water and to bring an enamel bowl from under the cupboard to enable him to do so.
  An engineering friend of mine said to me that when he feels a cold coming on or feels at all unwell he knows that if he could take a hot bath and go to bed he might in the morning be all right. But there is no bath available to him. We should realise what it means to have to bath children when every drop of water has to be ladled out of the saucepan off the gas stove and into the bath. This filling and emptying of the bath in some cases needs the strength of an athlete. I know of cases where children have been seriously scalded owing to the water having to be heated in this way in an overcrowded kitchen.
  Take another aspect of this matter, the serious health cases, and let us admit that the housing shortage is so acute and the council house list so long that in many areas unless one is practically dying of T.B. one has no chance at all of getting priority. I am indebted to a London social worker, Audrey Harvey, for supplying details of one or two cases, admittedly of a terrible nature. She tells about a London doctor, one of whose patients was suffering from a skin disease. The doctor said that the patient must take a daily bath, but she had no access to one. The doctor was so struck by this that he made a survey among 500 of his patients and found that 44 per cent. of them lived in houses in which there was no bath.
  Another case mentioned by Audrey Harvey was that of a woman who had
  1064
  had a major operation on the intestine through the abdominal wall and this required the constant changing of the dressings and her clothing. It is a very distressing state of affairs, but there are quite a number of people in this condition. The woman had to haul buckets of water up from the ground floor tap to the top floor in order to wash her dressings and clothes. Not unnaturally she was soon back in hospital.
  Another case was that of a man of 75 who had undergone a similar operation. When he came out of hospital his daughter took him into her house although she and her husband and four children were living in only two rooms. The poor old man had to change his dressings and wash himself at the kitchen sink. The daughter was so upset by this constant sight and the fear for her children's health that she developed a nervous skin disease which covered her arms, legs and face with festering sores.
  I have known cases of women being driven into nervous breakdowns through trying to cope with three or four young children in houses of this character. I had some correspondence recently on this subject. Although by no means everyone agrees with the point of view which I am putting forward, nevertheless no one so far has contested the fact that in 1962 there are 5 million houses or, roughly, 15 million men, women and children living in houses without a bath.
  The solution quite obviously is to replace these houses with modern houses. At the present rate of progress, however, it will take fifty years before some of these families have houses to go into. The alternative is the Government grant to install a bath, inside toilet and hot water. The Government have generously increased this grant recently, but, with a few honourable exceptions, landlords just will not be bothered to make use of it, although the owner-occupiers will. One out of every twenty-seven owner-occupiers in the country has used this grant, whereas only one out of every two hundred private landlords has made use of it.
  The recent change in the 1961 Act has enabled the landlord, apart from getting half the grant free from the Government, to raise his rent by 12½per cent. over twelve years, so that in twelve years he

  1065
  receives back 150 per cent. of his outlay. I know that there are certain expenses to put against it, but nevertheless the landlord is on to a good thing. What is the result? Strangely enough, the situation is often worse.
  Yesterday, the Minister gave me some figures. I admit that when one gets an answer from a Minister at Question Time one cannot always work it out on the spot, but I have since been studying his answer. It shows a remarkable state of affairs. In the year ended 31st March this year 24,687 grants were made for houses owned by private landlords. Since the more generous grant came in last year, only 7,073 such grants had been made in the last four months. So in a year the rate will be 21,000 grants, which is 4,000 fewer than the rate obtaining before the increased Government grant came in. This does not seem to be a very good way of encouraging the landlords. It seems to be encouraging them to go backwards. At this rate of installing baths, it will take about 170 years before each family has a bath in the house.
  Another remarkable feature of the Minister's answer is that, although private landlord-owned houses greatly outnumber owner-occupied houses, only one in three of the applications made for grants are coming from private landlords. Twice as many are coming from owner-occupiers, although there are fewer owner-occupied houses.
  What does the Minister propose? He proposes further publicity. This has been tried and failed. There has been national publicity on television. I saw it myself a year ago. There has been specialised publicity in certain areas, including my own, and greater public interest taken in this matter, but there has been no response by the landlords. So the public health inspectors, who are people who really know, and many local authorities have been driven to the conclusion that there must be some form of compulsion on the landlords to use the existing Government grants. This was proposed in a Motion, just before Easter, signed by 110 Labour Members of Parliament.
  I have recently received some very enlightening letters on this matter, mostly from landlords, and one or two from Conservative Members of Parliament.
  1066
  These letters fall into two categories. The first takes the line that it is the tenant's fault—that tenants do not want baths in their houses. Many of us remember the pre-war fairy story, "If you build council houses for working people, they will put coal in the baths". This story, while commonly told, was never substantiated.
  Today, the modern version is slightly different. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) has said that tenants do not want baths and are not prepared to pay a little extra rent for them. I challenge him to go to Manchester, Salford, Birmingham, Newcastle, Glasgow and parts of London and repeat the claim that he made about families living in these conditions. I warn him that they will scalp him.
  Mr. John Page: I based what I said in my letter on my particular knowledge of the East End of London, and I shall be very happy at any time to take the hon. Gentleman along and show him houses where three out of four of the families living there refuse to have improvements done by a housing association, with a charitable background, because they do not wish to pay extra rent for them. That is the case quite clearly.
  Mr. Allaun: All I can say is that it is absolutely in contradiction to my experience, not of three or four families, but of thousands of families living in the North. I would say that the dearest wish of many of those mothers is to have a bath in the house. I find it very hard to credit that kind of remark, because I do not think that the wishes of people in London are very different from those in the North.
  Mr. J. Page: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would like to come with me to visit those houses. I should be delighted to pay him a visit in his constituency to see if I could help there in the installation of baths or of any other appliances which are necessary.
  Mr. Allaun: I accept the hon. Member's offer with pleasure and I will go with him this week. But I challenge him also to repeat to a meeting of families in these circumstances what he has said on this matter.
  Mr. J. Page: I would rather see the families in their homes than at a meeting.
  Mr. Allaun: Certainly. I am sure that he will be welcome to see their homes.
  Some people think that opinion has changed in this country and that we have all become more civilised. But I have received letters of such a degree of snobbishness and spite that I begin to wonder if that is so. I have a letter here from a gentleman, whose name I shall not mention. He is an Army captain, writing from Salisbury. He writes:
  "A house without a bathroom is not necessarily a slum. In my lifetime I have lived in three houses without bathrooms but they were far, very far, from being slums. One was a modern vicarage in England, one was a flat in the fashionable Parc Monceau quarter in Paris and the third was in a perfectly good street in Cologne."
  I should like to wager that this gentleman has never had a dirty job in the whole of his life.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: Perhaps he never wanted a bath.
  Mr. Allaun: A doctor in Brighton writes as follows:
  "Mr. Page's letter to The Times today correctly sums up the situation. Having lived and worked in slums in the North of England and the Midlands, I know every word of his letter to be true. Many families I visit as their family doctor have three or four or more 'breadwinners' yet they are too shiftless to at least distemper their walls which often show bare plaster and well-holed also. When I suggest to them to brighten up the interiors, I am usually met with either a blank look or abuse. The popularity of the 'pub' is due to people resorting there to get away from their self-imposed miserable interiors."
  As a postscript, he adds,
  "There are no lazier people than the British working men and they are fortunate in having militant trade unions to help them in their laziness. But just wait for the Common Market!"
  The second argument—and this is a serious argument—is that it is said that some of the smaller landlords cannot afford even their half of the cost of installing baths. This certainly does not apply to the big property firms whose dividends have boomed ever since the Rent Act. It would be very interesting to have an investigation into the rise in property shares since the Rent Act was introduced. But I agree
  1068
  that there are some small landlords who would find difficulties even in raising, let us say,£100 as their half of the cost of putting in a bathroom. Until recently they could borrow from building societies, but the Government have put a stopper on this because the Government's policy since 1959 has been that the building societies are not allowed to lend on old property.
  There is another alternative, and that is being used in some area; councils will make 100 per cent. loans on old houses where they think that they are in reasonable condition and have at least fifteen years of life. I am glad to say that Salford is doing that.
  I was pleasantly surprised—in fact, amazed—to find this morning from the Order Paper that two Conservative hon. Members, both present this afternoon, had put down an Amendment to the Motion signed by 110 hon. Members accepting the general principle of compelling landlords to use the grant provided that they could obtain a loan from the council for their half of the costs. I appeal to the Minister, if he is genuinely concerned about the families living in those conditions, to accept this proposal.
  May I say a word about the Rent Act which, according to the Government, was supposed to solve the housing problem? Last week I was called to a street in Salford which was in turmoil. This was a street of typical Salford houses. They had two up and two down, no bath, no hot water and no inside toilet. The rent before the Rent Act was 9s. 6d. a week and the rent under the Rent Act was 16s. 6d. a week.
  But the serious point about the Rent Act, which we made at the time it was being forced through Parliament, was that as houses change tenants they became completely decontrolled. Four of these houses had changed tenants. About three years ago four young couples came into this street, each with young babies. They were all working people on very modest incomes. The rents were raised by the landlord to 20s. 6d. That is only the beginning.
  The House should know that at the moment there are men representing property companies going round the back streets of our land buying up old houses. This happened in the case

  1069
  which I have mentioned. A new landlord took over. He bought thirty houses at£200 each. A few days after he had taken over he sent a letter, which I have here, to those four families telling them that from now on their rent would be not 9s. 6d., not 16s. 6d. not 20s. 6d., but£2 10s. a week. These families could not afford it. They knew that identical houses on the opposite side of the road, owned by another landlord, were let at the old rent of 9s. 6d. a week. Hon. Members can imagine the feeling.
  I went to see the landlord, and in this case there was a happy ending because he turned out to be a man of principle. He withdrew the letters to these four families. But I put it to hon. Members that he is a very unusual man and that very few landlords would do that. Most of them will take what the market will give. There is such a terrible housing shortage that they will naturally exploit this situation.
  One case which is even worse came to light, again in Salford, this week-end. It was near the docks. It is the same kind of house. There are a mother, father and eight children and the house has two bedrooms. Hon. Members can imagine what family life is like in those circumstances. It is a decontrolled house. They paid£14 to go into the house and their rent is no less than£4 a week. These are things which are happening in our cities. A rent of£4 a week may not sound much to hon. Members who live in luxury flats in London, but it is a monstrous rent for this type of house and for this type of wage earner.
  The Government have agreed that 320,000 houses a year are becoming affected by creeping decontrol, which is decontrol when there is change of tenant. This is three times as many as they said they expected when they were pushing the Rent Act through the House. It means that shortly nearly all tenants in this country, for the first time since 1915, will be faced with an almost complete absence of defence against rent exploitation. That will be the first time since 1915, when Lloyd George had to catch the night train up to Glasgow because there was a threat of strike action throughout the Clyde. He was forced to introduce the first rent restriction Act. For the first time since 1915 the British people will be faced with
  1070
  almost complete absence of defence against rent exploitation.
  Lastly, may I say a word about slum clearance? From 1953 onwards successive Ministers of Housing have made speeches to the effect that there would be a great drive to cure the slum clearance problem and that the slums would soon be ended. Speaking on 3rd December, 1960, the former Minister of Housing said,
  "In two or three years time there will be no slums left in Britain".
  But four months later, on 18th April, 1961, he said.
  "The wonderful fact is that if we continue the slum clearance drive for another twenty years the slum disgrace will be almost unknown".
  That was quite different from his earlier statement.
  But nothing happens—and I use those words because "But Nothing Happens" is the title of the article referred to a few minutes ago by the Parliamentary Secretary, written by Ralph Samuels, James Kincaid and Elizabeth Slater in the New Left Review. I am indebted to them for that article. In 1955 there were reported by the local authorities to be 847,112 houses in England and Wales unfit for human habitation. That figure excludes Scotland, and if Scotland were included the total would be well over a million. But this was a gross underestimate. There are startling disparities, as these three authors prove. between the estimates supplied by local authorities with similar problems. Indeed, many of the authorities put down only the same number of houses unfit for human habitation as the number with which they could cope within the first five years. For example, Swindon reported 0·8 per cent. as being unfit for human habitation, exactly the same percentage as Cheltenham. The Rhondda reported 1 per cent., which is the same percentage as Hemel Hempstead, which is obviously nonsense.
  There were further implausibilities. By 1961, a number of towns said, there would be no unfit houses to clear, and yet all those towns had over 35 per cent. of their houses without a bathroom. These towns include Barnsley, Middlesbrough, Cardiff, Barrow-in-Furness and Crewe. At the present snail's pace it will take ninety-four years to remove the 88,000 houses unfit for human habitation

  1071
  in Liverpool, and in Manchester, where I live, it will take forty-six years to remove the 46,000 houses unfit for human habitation if the present rate is maintained.
  Last week I was in Germany. I spent three days marching across that country in a demonstration against nuclear weapons. I was deeply impressed by the housing that I saw there. The people of my city would go green with envy if they could see those houses and flats. I say, "Good luck to the Germans". They are hard-working, intelligent people. They are entitled to decent housing, but our people are also entitled to it.
  What is needed? I believe that a programme, not of the present size, but of 400,000 houses a year, is necessary. Sir Richard Coppock, until recently the General Secretary of the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives, once told me that this was a practicable figure for this country. What is holding it back is undoubtedly the doubling of interest rates by the Government, which has halved the number of council houses built since 1954.
  At Question Time yesterday we again heard the excuse that the Government cannot insulate housing from the general interest rate. Why not? The Government are responsible for the interest rates. Furthermore, they insulate Fords, Colvilles and other people from the general interest rate, because they allow them to build at cheap interest rates.
  As for the new subsidies, the subsidy rate of£22 1s. a year per house is going down to£8 a year under the new Act for Manchester and Liverpool. Yet for Bournemouth it is rising to£24 a year. This is a crazy way in which to solve the housing problem. France, which is a capitalist country, can provide interest rates of 1 per cent. for house building. In England we can build roads entirely free of interest charges. Therefore, why cannot something better than what we are now suffering be done for housing?
  Equally, owner-occupiers are being squeezed by the Government's high interest rates. I hope that the people of this country will not be divided and that they will not allow a wedge to be driven between the owner-occupier and
  1072
  the council tenant, because they are both being hit equally by the high interest rates imposed by the Government. The people should force this Government either to ease their lot in housing or give way to a Government who will.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: In the early part of his speech the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) did a great service to the Committee by drawing attention to the older type of house which has not got the amenities which it ought to have and to the conditions of life in such houses. Any of us who represent northern constituencies know these conditions only too well and do all we can to encourage not only owner-occupiers but landlords to install bathrooms, larders, inside lavatories and hot water systems. The hon. Member poured a little scorn on the difficulties landlords experienced in installing these amenities. However, there are real difficulties. There are oases in which the landlord owns perhaps a row of houses where it would be economical for him to install the standard amenities in the whole row but where perhaps there are one or two tenants in the row who are not prepared to give up the space in order to have a bathroom. I can sympathise with such tenants in those circumstances. It is often necessary to give up one whole room to install a bathroom and the tenant may not be prepared to give up the space.
  Another difficulty which landlords face is that some local authorities deliberately obstruct a landlord in his applications for the standard grant and are much more generous in letting applications through for owner-occupiers. If my right hon. Friend can do anything to persuade those local authorities to be a little more generous when dealing with landlords' applications and not require so much decoration to the house as part and parcel of making the standard grant, many more applications would be granted and more standard amenities installed. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the circular which he sent out on this subject only yesterday. It is a very comprehensive circular. It will be very useful. It makes good reading.
  In opening the debate the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said that the Votes which he had chosen to

  1073
  put down opened up a possibility of a very wide debate. In fact there is the opportunity, within the rules of order, of discussing where we are going in the division of financial responsibility between the taxpayer and the ratepayer. I believe that is one of the subjects which we ought to discuss when considering the housing problem. It may be a paradox to say that while housing is a national problem it could be a local service, but that now that it has become more of a problem of certain localities it should be more of a national service. I will explain what I mean by that paradox. For ten to fifteen years after the war houses were needed everywhere and for almost everybody. Therefore, the burden was fairly evenly spread over the local authorities. Now the need is concentrated in some of the large towns, but it is even more a national need, though it is a local problem.
  For example, the rebuilding of houses in Liverpool and Manchester is not merely the concern of the councillors and ratepayers of Liverpool and Manchester; it is the concern of Members of Parliament and of the taxpayer. It is just as much a national problem as the housing situation of the whole country. I fear that in large towns, where the problem is very great, if it is left to local effort it will not get done within a reasonable time, with the best will in the world. It will not get done merely by increasing the number of subsidies for general needs.
  I am not decrying in any way what has been done in the past in partnership between central Government and local authorities. However hon. Members opposite juggle with the figures, they cannot deny that 300,000 houses a year have been built for the last ten years; that is 3 million houses in ten years. I am speaking of Great Britain as a whole, within which what we are discussing today—housing in England and Wales—is comprised. It means that successive Conservative Governments have carried out a promise made, before a Conservative Government took office, to build that number of houses. It is also some consolation to know that so many small old type houses are being improved. From 130,000 to 140,000 a year are receiving the improvement grants. We cannot tell how many more which might
  1074
  have become derelict are being improved without grants.
  Without being complacent, I think this is a record of creation and re-creation of homes of which the Government need not be ashamed. It appears even more impressive when one uses such figures as these: one in four are in new homes since the war; one family in six has moved into a new home in the last ten years. Furthermore, by variation of the subsidies from time to time the Government have ensured that, generally speaking, houses have been built in the right places and for the right people.
  All this is costing the nation some£720 million a year in public and private money—£300 million a year in public money Anyone who advocates a greater expenditure and a greater effort on housing must justify the need for that increase. I do not think that that is a difficult task, particularly for those of us who usually attend housing debates. There is no difficulty in justifying the fact that there should be a greater housing effort and that more money should be provided to enable more houses to be built.
  First, there is an absolute insufficiency of homes for the existing number of households requiring them. Secondly, there is the immense task of slum clearance and of replacing old and derelict houses with new ones. Thirdly, there is the increasing number of separate households in comparison with our total population. It is probable that over the last ten or fifteen years the total population has increased by 5 million. In addition to that. however, the number of households within the population has increased. The number of those who wish to live in separate homes has increased, so that the demand for homes is far greater than the substantial figure of 300,000 new houses a year.
  I have for long adhered to the view that the figure of need is half a million new homes a year for the next ten years. With that figure, I think that we could just about meet the demand. The fact is that the more successful we are in slum clearance the less successful we are in adding to our housing stock. We fixed the target at 300,000 new homes a year twelve years ago, and that figure is now a little out of date. Apart from that, when we started with that figure we

  1075
  were adding that number to the housing stock. Now that we have a good slum-clearance programme going and are demolishing 70,000 houses a year we are adding to the housing stock only 230,000 houses a year. That is very simple arithmetic, and I must ask the Commititee to forgive me for putting it so simply. We are not adding to the housing stock at the rapid rate of ten years ago.
  Anyone who advocates a greater effort has some obligation to say where the money for it is to come from; whence should come the public money, or how we are to encourage private money into that greater development. If we succeed in introducing that extra finance into a greater effort, where do we get the labour and material to carry out that task? I only pose those questions, of course, because I think that I have the solution.
  I suggest that my right hon. Friend must be specific about the methods to be used in a greater housing effort. General exhortations and general subsidies are now quite inadequate. The problem should be tackled town by town. We must say, "This town has a housing waiting list of X, and its number of derelict houses is Y. That number of new homes can be supplied in such and such an area of the town and a development corporation shall undertake that redevelopment." In some areas, that type of corporation might be almost entirely the local authority; in others, almost entirely private enterprise. In yet others, a consortium of the two—but always with the Government as the third partner, and all on the new towns model.
  It should be financially backed as far as necessary by the taxpayer and not by the ratepayer. We have now reached the stage where the ratepayer cannot be called upon to contribute any more towards the solving of this national housing problem, although it is so great in the local areas rather than generally over the country. We shall succeed in an urban housing redevelopment, as in urban commercial redevelopment, only by a policy of new towns within the old cities, and developing on the same sort of principle as has been successful in developing the new towns.
  1076
  Hon. Members representing constituencies in the North will know of the acres of derelict land within the towns themselves, with a few houses sticking up like decayed teeth in shrivelled gums. There is this waste of land within and between the towns, and it is a great and challenging opportunity for development. All can be done within my right hon. Friend's existing powers. By a stroke of the pen in these present Civil Estimates he can say, "I shall so adjust these grants and subsidies, which it is within my power to adjust, as to make them available for a form of new-within-old-town development."
  He will have to be a little more dictatorial than that. I was highly flattered by the hon. Member for Fulham who stole two articles of clothing of mine; one, the rates review and review of local government finance, and the other the necessity for a reform in the building industry and in building techniques and methods.
  I should like my right hon. Friend to take this rather dictatorial attitude over the use of non-traditional building. Building resources—that is, labour and materials—are at present stretched to the limit of the industry's present restrictive practices. I do not doubt that even within purely traditional building the building employees could, without any hardship to themselves, increase their output by about one-third. Building employers, too, could, by more efficient organisation in place of small-firm muddle, make a very substantial increase in building output. But that is not enough; it is essential that we should adopt modern techniques. In all other major industries, we have seen advancement in techniques and production. A small contribution to house building might be obtained by switching from commercial building, but I have not much hope of substantially increasing housing output by that means.
  The only major contribution can be made by breaking away from tradition and prejudice in our methods of building. The Minister has all the powers for farcing those to whom the taxpayer makes a grant by way of housing subsidy to adopt types and methods of building that will increase output. He can say, "I shall not give these grants, I shall

  1077
  not approve local authority schemes unless they show me that houses can be built in X weeks instead of X months, or unless they are prepared to adopt a system completely devoid of wet construction "—and that type of traditional building.
  My right hon. Friend may think that I am advocating Ministerial control of the building industry, but it is nothing of the sort. Merely to say that the man who pays for the goods—the taxpayer—is entitled to order what he wants, is not controlling industry, and a really firm attitude could be taken at Ministerial level to force the building industry to adopt modern techniques. I urge my right hon. Friend to adopt this simple policy; five million houses over ten years by organising and sponsoring local development corporations, Exchequer-supported where necessary, which are prepared to adopt speedy methods of building.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: In thirteen years' time we shall reach the centenary of the Public Health Act, 1875. That Act enabled local authorities to pass byelaws regulating the structure of walls and foundations of new buildings on health grounds and not merely on grounds of stability and fire prevention. It was followed by a series of model byelaws in the late 1870s, and the houses that were erected after 1880 conformed to a higher standard than those built before that date.
  For this reason most experts look upon the year 1980 as a sort of watershed, because it is generally considered that houses have a useful life of about a hundred years The Minister has said that himself—although there is no overriding reason for taking a hundred years as being the figure for the life of a house any more than 80 or 60 years. Taking these two factors together, this has been treated as a kind of watershed.
  Mr. Needleman has been quoted widely already. In his article he said that by 1980 we shall need 5·7 million new houses. Other experts have given different estimates and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), whose opinion is valuable, referred to 10 million, for if I
  1078
  understood his comments aright and if my arithmetic is correct he said that we should need 500,000 houses a year, and I have simply multiplied that figure by twenty. The Town and Country Planning Association has said 6 million, while the Alliance Building Society has put forward the figure of 8 million.
  There are two points one should notice about these estimates. One is that they differ widely and the other is that the Government are apparently content to leave the assessment of our housing needs over the long term to private organisations and individuals, none of whom can possibly have resources equal to such a task. If the Government are to pay more than lip-service to the idea of planning, surely this is one of the problems that should be tackled first. Or are the leaders of the Tory Party still engaged in trying to combat the belief which they encouraged for so long that planning must be equated with Socialism?
  Top priority should be given to a definitive survey of the long-term housing needs of the nation. That is the only way to set targets for the building industry—something which has already been stated as being necessary by all hon. Members who have spoken—and to avoid a repetition of the situation which arose last year when arbitrary restrictions were placed on building by local authorities, while at the same time the activities of the speculators were allowed to continue unhindered.
  The resources of the Registrar-General could be used to make an estimate of the number of households and occupied dwellings twenty years hence and local authorities should be invited to cooperate by compiling housing lists on a common basis and by making housing returns which could be collated centrally. The Minister could then announce his policy for the replacement of obsolete dwellings, bearing in mind that, with a rising standard of living, older houses are likely to be considered to be obsolete, even if structually sound. The problem facing us is not so much a matter of how many houses are needed. It is also a question of where they are to be situated. We have not even begun to tackle the problem of urban sprawl and the Government's

  1079
  laissez faire attitude to this will be regretted by future generations.
  If present trends are maintained there will be another 200,000 jobs in the Greater London area in the next ten years. Where are these people to live? The shortage of houses is already acutely embarrassing in the Greater London area and in my constituency alone the population has risen from 61,000 in 1951 to 80,000 in 1961. In the next ten years, at this rate, it will rise to 100,000. Where are these people to be housed?
  An undertaking has been given that the Green Belt will not be violated. How is this to be done if we are to abide by the Third Schedule of the 1947 Planning Act under which owners can enlarge existing buildings by 10 per cent. or increase cubic content by 10 per cent. upon rebuilding? More and more people will be attracted to the magnet towns—and London is the biggest magnet of the lot—and these people must be given somewhere to live. Direct control should be exercised by the Board of Trade over new office building projects. The Town and Country Planning Association's plan for financial disincentives for people to build in these magnet towns merits careful study.
  Even if no additional employment is created over the next few years in the large cities, a great job will remain to be done in redeveloping congested city centres at density levels acceptable to today's standards. In 1956 the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government stated that, taking a fairly conservative view, the number of people to move out might be approaching 500,000 from the congested areas of Greater London, 240,000 from Manchester, 200,000 from Birmingham, 150,000 from Liverpool, 70,000 from Leeds and nearly as many from Sheffield.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing stated on 7th March last that strap-hangers to and from work in London should regard new towns as the "commuters' dream". They do, but since the Tories came to power only one new town has been designated in England and Wales, let alone built. In their place we have the
  1080
  policy for expanded towns, which has been singularly unsuccessful.
  There are, of course, economic advantages which accrue to firms willing to move out into the expanded towns, as well as amenity advantages to their employees. But the inertia of most employers when faced with a decision of this kind has not been sufficiently appreciated and new means of persuading them must be found if major cities, London in particular, are to avoid slow strangulation. I am talking about the long-term solutions of our housing problems first, because I freely admit that no complete solution can be found in the short-term. We could not suddenly double the capacity of the building industry, even if it were economically desirable to do so. There are, however, one or two measures which could be taken at once which would alleviate the shortage—although they would not cure it.
  I agree with the contention of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) that anyone who has served as a member of a local authority cannot view this situation merely as a set of figures showing a tiresome imbalance between demand and supply. The harmful and sometimes tragic effects on the lives of individuals one has tried to help impresses one with the reality of the crisis in a way which no statistics could possibly do. I could quote many cases similar to those about which we have already heard; about a family with four children living in a caravan and about evictions of old-age pensioners who must go into council homes. There are many cases one could quote. In fact, I could quote them all day.
  Clearly, under these circumstances, we should not tolerate more vacancies than are absolutely necessary to cater for movements of population. One obvious means of discouraging landlords from allowing their houses to remain untenanted would be to levy rates on vacant property. Apart from increasing the availability of houses, this would also help to stem the rise in property values, which is the delight of the speculator. Landlords would not be so likely to hang on in the hope of securing higher rents if they were paying rates all the time. The same applies to those who are trying to sell their property. Furthermore, if rates were levied on vacant

  1081
  property the burden falling on the genuine occupier would be eased to that extent.
  As has been pointed out, the shortage of houses falls entirely on those who are having to live in rented accommodation. In recent years the expenditure on private housing has accounted for a steadily increasing proportion of the total. As we have heard, very little of this private housing is for renting, and the Rent Act has failed to achieve, as one of its declared objects, an increase in the supply of private rented accommodation at economic rents.
  Therefore, the position should not have been aggravated last year when restrictions were imposed on house building by local authorities as part of the Government's measures to meet the economic crisis. I suppose that is an example of the Tory freedom that we used to hear so much about. If there were valid arguments in favour of these restrictions, why were they not applied to private developers as well as to local authorities? Can it be that such a measure would have lost them even more votes than the measures which were actually taken?
  Bearing in mind that private developers account for nearly two-thirds of the expenditure on housing, the application of restrictions in this sector would have been a far more effective means of relieving the pressure on the building industry.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: Surely the hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that the credit restrictions stopped the private developer?
  Mr. Lubbock: I have not overlooked that fact. The local authorities were subject to the same high interest rates as the private developers. This was an adequate disincentive to them, without these additional restrictions which were imposed by the Ministry's circular 37/61. I was not suggesting that these restrictions should have been imposed. I was saying that I would have liked to see these restrictions on local authority building removed altogether because they should never have been imposed in the first place.
  Indeed, can the pressure on the building industry ever have been so severe as it was made out to be? If so, it
  1082
  certainly was not due to housing, because the value of constructional work other than housing was nearly twice as great as that of housing. We are only just building today the 300,000 houses which the Tories promised us when they took office in 1951, although since then there has been an unforeseen increase in the population and a trend towards younger marriage which has made the problem more acute. I think that this is one symptom of the Government's failure to plan, which has had such disastrous results in every facet of the economy.
  The last comprehensive survey of housing needs was that of the Royal Commission of 1884–85—under a Liberal Government, be it noted. Since then there have been far-reaching changes in the standard of housing inspected and in the agencies through which housing is provided. A new survey is urgently needed as a basis for the planning which we hope to see in the future, so that we can redress the mistakes of the past before it is too late.
  6.34 p.m.
  Mr. John Page: When the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) opened the debate this afternoon his two main suggestions for meeting the housing situation were, first, that a larger percentage of houses built should be council houses and, second, that the building industry should streamline its methods. I wholly agree with him on the second point, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give some attention to suggestions for more prefabrication of interior parts for houses which are to be newly built.
  As to the first point which the hon. Member made, and which was echoed by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), I do not see why the total number of those without houses would be lessened if there were a larger proportion of council houses compared with other houses. I do not believe that a large number of these privately built houses are exclusively for those who already have one house and who regard the second house as a pied à terre. I should have thought there was every reason to expect that these new houses would be occupied by people who previously had been council house

  1083
  tenants. I should have thought that would be an admirable move for those who can afford to support their own housing, and that they should be encouraged to do so.
  I feel that I must deal more with the challenge made by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) whose letter in The Times on Easter Monday ruined my Easter holiday. I was so fired with enthusiasm when I read it at breakfast time that I immediately wrote a reply, and for the past ten days the telephone in my home has hardly stopped ringing, so many people wishing to make suggestions about the letter which I wrote.
  He and his 101 hon. Friends who signed the Motion relating to improvements to old properties were working on the right lines, for it is extremely disappointing that private landlords, as opposed to private owners, have not taken advantage of the improvement grant scheme. It was with pleasure, therefore, that yesterday I supported the Amendment to the Motion, in the name for my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), some of whose admirable speeches I am always delighted to have attributed to me. Those are the ones which always receive the most favourable comments from my well-informed friends. In supporting that Amendment, we have put to the Minister a suggestion that not only should the 50 per cent. grant be made but also that local authorities should be empowered to make a loan for the other half. I have not discussed this matter with my hon. Friend, but I wonder whether it would be possible for the increased rent which would have been paid to the landlord to be paid direct to the local authority with the rates when they are paid.
  I also read in The Times a further letter inspired by the hon. Gentleman's original letter, stating:
  "It is not, perhaps, generally known that in addition to offering a grant of 50 per cent. of the cost (to a maximum of£155), the Government had made arrangements through building societies to lend the other half on favourable terms."
  That is another aspect of this improvement grant proposition which I did not know about and which I think should be publicised as much as possible.
  1084
  Before the standard grant can be applied for, there must be a bath, a hot water system, a basin, an inside lavatory and a hygienic food storage unit. Such improvements constitute a major alteration to old premises. It is, therefore, something that not all landlords are prepared to tackle, because they cannot finance it, and not all tenants wish to pay the increased rents. Further, the grant can only be allowed if the house can be said to have a minimum fifteen years of further life.
  What worried me in the original letter which the hon. Gentleman wrote to The Times was what was going to happen to many of these houses—he seemed to think that there will be an increasing number of them, though I personally think that there will be a decreasing number—which will have less than fifteen years of useful life left. Are the people in these houses merely to be left without proper modern facilities during the rest of that time? Whoever the occupants may be, are they to be without these modern facilities for the rest of the time the house is occupied? I do not think that they should.
  I think that the people who are best able to put this situation right are the tenants themselves, and this is where the hon. Member for Salford, East and I cross swords. He and many of his hon. Friends feel that any improvements to a house of which the occupier is the tenant should only be done by the landlord. I should like to say that I and many of my hon. Friends, as well as those who answered my letter, take a different view. Though the house may be the property of the landlord, surely it is the home of the tenant. My experience—and in this matter I speak from eight or nine years' work with a housing association in the East End of London and in constituencies other than my own—is that the people who occupy sub-standard houses do not make nearly enough effort to improve those houses themselves.
  Mrs. Harriet Slater: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that many people have done a great deal to improve their houses, but that When the Rent Act was introduced the landlords immediately put up the rents of those houses, and got away with it? Most people did not know that

  1085
  during the first few months they could have got their rateable value altered. It is most unfair to say that the majority of people have not made improvements in rented houses so that they could live in them more comfortably.
  Mr. Page: The hon. Lady, whose intervention I welcome, is at variance with her hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East, who tells me that in his constituency 50 per cent. of the houses are without baths. What I am saying is that these houses without baths are very often without baths due to the fault of the occupiers of the houses. I would say that any occupant of a house who can afford a television set should be able easily to afford a bath and a modern hot water system. [Interruption.] If I may develop the argument, after reading the hon. Gentleman's letter I took it upon myself to consider what I should do if I lived in a house without a bath, and to find out how cheaply a bath and a modern hot water and heating system could be installed.
  Mr. George Thomas: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he thinks that the landlord should compensate the tenant for having installed these improvements in his property, and, if the landlord wishes to sell the property at a greatly enhanced price, who should get the profit, the landlord or the tenant?
  Mr. Page: If the hon. Gentleman will wait a few moments he will get all the answers to the questions which his active mind is suggesting.
  My investigations—and I am not a lawyer, though I have taken some advice on this matter—is that a modern gas or electric water heater which could be installed in a house would remain the property of the tenant, in the same way that a washing machine or a kitchen stove would do. Therefore, from that point of view, and this is the major expense in this operation, the tenant can either remove it or sell it to any incoming tenant if he leaves the house.
  Mr. Richard Marsh Mr. Richard Marsh (Greenwich) rose—
  Mr. Page: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I should like to go on for a few moments.
  1086
  With regard to a bath, although I believe it is not necessary for this to be considered as a fixture, it might have to be, and that is why I suggested that the people in Salford, East and other constituencies who are at the moment bathless should try to buy themselves second-hand baths, which they can get for£5 or less, and put them in their houses. With such a bath and their own modern water heater, they would then have a decent system.
  Mr. Allaun: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that these houses can be improved so cheaply, why does not the landlord do it? It is his property, and these houses have been paid for over and over again in rent. Furthermore, many of these tenants, I can assure him, have wall-papered their houses, but the walls are so damp that the paper peels off, so that they are no better off than when they started.
  Mr. Page: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. What I said was that the major standard improvements are costly, costing something like£300. One cannot get a grant for these houses which have not got a long life, but if I had to occupy one of these houses which had not got a modern hot water system, whether it was the fault of the landlord or anybody else, and I could afford a television set, I would jolly well put one in. This seems to me to be a perfectly sensible way of approaching the problem.
  The hon. Member for Salford, East mentioned the tragic story of one of his constituents who had had her children scalded because all the hot water needed in that house had to be boiled in a saucepan on a gas stove. Though I am extremely sorry for that family, I do not think they need the sympathy of others, because they could easily afford to put in a hot water system. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman how they could do it.
  A second-hand bath would cost under£5 The down payment needed for a bathroom or sink water heater is£3, and the instalment charge over four years would be 4s. a week. For that sum one can have a modern, safe, efficient and economical hot water system in a house, and I think it is very surprising indeed that people have not bothered to put them in.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Page: I have said that I think that a lot of these bad conditions are self-imposed, and I believe that there is a kind of masochistic martyrdom in some parts of the country where people, in order not to appear to their friends to be surrendering to the brutal landlords, continue positively to live in squalid conditions which they need not tolerate. It is the philosophy of "Keeping down with the Jones'", if I may call it that. As the hon. Member for Salford, East has made me a challenge to meet his constituents, I should like to say that I previously made a challenge to some of my own constituents. I said that I would help any of them who had not got a bath by seeing if I could influence the provision of a bath in their houses. Secondly, I have said that if any of them would like to do it on a "do-it-yourself" basis, I would help them do it and provide the bath.
  So far, after a week, none of my constituents has been brave enough to accept this offer. I am glad to say now that I should be happy to transfer the offer to the constituents of the hon. Member for Salford, East should he wish to take it up. Not only would his constituents avoid having to have the inferior second-hand bath which I was proposing to provide but they would, in fact, become the delighted owners of a brand-new bath with which I have been presented for this particular purpose by a bath manufacturer. That offer stands.
  Perhaps I have been dwelling for too long upon the subject of baths. [Laughter.] As hon. Members opposite are taking such a happy and uncontroversial view of what I have been saying, I will quickly put some other suggestions which may spark them off a bit more. Here are eight points which would, if acted upon, greatly improve within a period of months the housing conditions of the people of this country. They require Government action, action by Members of the House, action by local government and action by occupiers and tenants of property.
  Firstly—I am sure that this will receive universal approbation—when anyone is given a council house he should be given it for the term of a five-year or seven-year lease. At the end of that period his
  1088
  need should be reassessed in the light of the need of others on the housing list. After being given proper notice he should be asked to provide his own accommodation should he be able financially to do so.
  Next, there is the extraordinary situation, particularly in the London County Council area, where some council houses are under-occupied and others are overcrowded. I made a rather brilliant speech on this subject some months ago, though, unfortunately, I could not find it in HANSARD in order to quote the figures, but I believe that there are about 70,000 families who are overcrowded in London and there are 70,000 families under-occupying their houses, with, in those under-occupied houses, a spare room still not being taken into account in the assessment. I should have thought that the pack of those houses could be reshuffled. It is a sensible suggestion, if I may say so, and I am surprised that the London County Council has not taken it up.
  Thirdly, I hope that hon. Members who take the housing situation seriously will give much greater support than they have hitherto to the implementation of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. It is quite absurd to allow large numbers of people to pour into our already overcrowded towns and cities and then complain, on the other hand, that there is a housing shortage. The two just do not add up.
  Fourthly, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider again the suggestion that half the improvement grant should be advanced as a grant and that the other half should be a loan by the local authority.
  Fifthly, I wonder whether the gas and electricity authorities could, for a time, have displays in their showrooms of modern systems for the provision of hot water which any tenant, for£3 down and 4s. a week, can have installed in his house within about a week.
  My next point is a little difficult. Perhaps hon. Ladies opposite will be able to give advice about it.
  Mr. A. Lewis: What about hon. Ladies opposite?
  Mr. Page: It happens that they are not here at present.
  Mr. Lewis: That is the point.
  Mr. Page: As the Marriage Guidance Council and other social workers know, the incidence of marital difficulties among younger married couples is far greater than it is among those who marry at slightly more mature ages. I entirely agree that a large part of the cause of the trouble is housing difficulties. I should have thought, there-fore, that it was incumbent on young people, before they got married, to see whether they could save some money, before the day came, to provide themselves with a house of their own.
  Lastly, I ask the Government to continue with their excellent record and excellent progress in the building of new houses. By the eight-pronged attack which I have outlined, a great improvement could be made in the housing conditions of our people.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Mapp: With the exception of two, the speeches we have heard today, including those from the benches opposite, have been helpful. One exception is the speech of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) to which we have just listened. It was an intensely disappointing speech. What he said was clearly quite impossible, and one could not, if one were thinking of the subject seriously, go with the hon. Gentleman even one foot of the way. More disappointing still was the contribution of the Parliamentary Secretary in which he gave a halting account of halting progress. One hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of the need for a dynamic Ministry in this problem. In effect, that will be the theme of my remarks.
  First, I quote from a document which I read a little while ago:
  "It is a striking condemnation of present housing policy (and the Government's social priorities) that with far greater material, financial and technical resources than before the war and a larger building labour force we are plodding along at a rate of slum clearance which has only in the past year"—
  that was 1960—
  "reached two-thirds of the 1938 level".
  I shall concentrate on slum clearance land the modernisation of older properties.
  1090
  In the main, we find the slum clearance problem in our older towns, and it is in the North where we meet it in its most acute form. Unfortunately, it is in those areas that the housing problem is linked with the problem of the gradual erosion of population. The young and adventurous working people are moving to other areas, principally in the South. The civic authorities in our older towns, in tackling the great task of slum clearance and rebuilding, have to face at the same time the fact that there is a loss of confidence in the areas with which they are concerned. The cradle areas of the Industrial Revolution are now meeting the consequences of earlier mistakes. The old industries are losing in the race with the new industries and, in consequence, depopulation to a serious extent is gradually taking place.
  The older towns, of which I represent one, are faced with a legacy of thousands of houses, many built over a hundred years ago, which still have many of the facilities originally installed. In many cases they have the civic furniture which was there when they were constructed well before the turn of the century. Since then, the appeal of industrial expansion has drifted to the South and the old tag that "where there is muck there is money" does not appeal these days to the modern finance houses. It may be that our affluent society has forgotten the patent and basic link that prosperity must be tied ultimately with the basic truth of honest labour.
  The problem of migration from the older areas has engaged the minds of many people over many years and the Minister must be acutely aware of informed opinion which places on him the responsibility of constructive action for rejuvenating the older areas. So far, we have had no action, and, although the problem has been evident for many years, the Government and their predecessors have not yet departed from the principle that the market forces will finally determine the industrial and housing pattern of our country. It is exactly that fallacy which prevailed in past centuries which we face today. We do not want either industry or people to be regimented, but, nevertheless, it is the duty of the Government to shape the general pattern of industrial and social development. To neglect that

  1091
  duty now is to leave the older and perhaps the greyer areas to their own resources and inevitable decay.
  The problem has been sharply pinpointed this last few weeks by the work of the Lancashire and Merseyside Industrial Development Association, a body representative of all shades of opinion. In a report made to it by its Director which deals in the main with the industrial prospects of the county and with which the question of housing is closely linked, it is stated:
  "The North-West has shown a consistent loss of population over a long period. The 1961 Census statistics show that during the period from 1951 to 1961 the loss was 124,000 people. Of that total, 40,000 were workers. During the same period the rate of growth of the insured population of the region was the lowest of all standard regions and in 1960 alone employment opportunities fell by 20,000 due in the main to the further contraction of the cotton industry".
  On the question of urban renewal, an associated problem, the Director goes on to say:
  "In considering this question, it should also be borne in mind that much of the country's wealth was created in the industrial North and it therefore seems reasonable to expect some additional financial aid from the Government towards the cost of improving the environment in many of our industrial areas. Local authorities are doing whatever they can but they are quite unable to undertake remedial works on a scale sufficient to match the problem."
  I gather that at a meeting last week the Association decided, in the light of what is at stake, to seek an interview with the Minister and with the President of the Board of Trade to pinpoint these acute difficulties in the hope that, perhaps after discussion, some policy might evolve.
  I return to the problem of slum clearance. In Oldham, despite a long haul over the last few years and more recently a marked leap forward in our efforts, one house in every four still remains unfit for human habitation. Even at an accelerated rate of improvement, it is likely that it will be nearly 1980 before this problem is overcome. Experience in Oldham is reflected in the list of fifty areas incorporated in the White Paper of some months ago.
  While sitting on the Committee considering the Housing Bill last year, it because apparent to me that the former Minister of Housing and Local Gover-
  1092
  nment had made up his mind that the market yardstick was, in his view, the ultimate weapon which must prevail in general housing and that municipal efforts to meet the needs of those not able to buy or rent houses at competitive prices were to be helped only to the extent that the existing Governmental financial commitment would be redesigned so that a form of Whitehall rent discipline would be introduced. In the light of that, the subsidy for slum clearance was withdrawn and new subsidies of£8 or£24, subject to a valuation test, were introduced. In spite of the energy of those authorities about which I can speak from experience, authorities in which this great problem is centred, the financial inducement and obstacles are such that it is impossible with the present policy to overcome the problem as I should like, and as I think the country expects, this side of 1970.
  In reading a debate which took place in February, I thought that I detected a spark of hope. In talking about this problem, this ulcer of the bad housing spots in the older towns, the Minister himself said:
  "I aim not only to maintain the present rate of slum clearance over the country as a whole, but, as soon as circumstances permit, to start a special drive on the worst slums in the big cities and towns, particularly those in the North and in the Midlands. Those who see this problem only in the South and from the South often have no idea of the extent of the slum problem in some of our older cities.…It will need to be a long and sustained drive, but it must be undertaken.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1962; Vol. 652, c. 1509.]
  The right hon. Gentleman continued in that vein. I thought that perhaps here was the forerunner of some dynamic policy, some Departmental drive to deal with this problem which is largely confined to forty to sixty areas about which the country is so perturbed. The Minister might have announced such a policy today, but we heard not one constructive suggestion to deal with the problem.
  I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) with the greatest interest. He said that what seemed to be a local burning problem which outraged the minds of most men and women is now a national responsibility. Authorities in the older areas which bore the brunt of the Industrial Revolution rightly look to the

  1093
  Government to help them in this new era. If we think it right that financial assistance should be given in the building of a new "Queen" liner, if it is thought right to give financial inducements under the Local Employment Act to bring labour to those areas where it is needed, and if it is right that financial assistance should be given to the agricultural industry, why should not something be done for the older areas of the country?
  If this House feels that the cotton industry, because of its special circumstances, needs a big shot in the arm and that public money should be used for that purpose—it is uncertain as yet whether it will succeed—if injections of public money are right in that direction, surely they would be right in the area of the bad housing spots, where the existing implements used by the Minister for housing purposes are hardly applicable. At least, they do not measure up to the problem which faces those areas.
  The Minister is disappointing those men and women in public life in all parties who have the tremendous task of trying to reface the old towns to modern conditions. They need encouragement. Instead they find that when they try to get technical people they are in many cases unable to do so, because the more affluent parts of the country take them as well as competing for the labour resources. This is what happens in the area within 15 or 20 miles of Manchester, where the labour frequently moves instead to office and marginal building of that kind. The prosaic job of building ordinary houses for ordinary people does not win the inspiration of many building firms.
  At the same time, the same financial implements are applied in Oldham, Liverpool, Batley and Manchester as in Torquay or Bournemouth. If we are at the stage of having overcome the main hump of the national housing problem and are faced now with the remaining crux, surely it is time that the Minister was able to discern that something special—a real surgical operation—to deal with this problem is necessary.
  I should like to put to the Minister three propositions concerning the kind of action of which I should like him to be thinking. First, even in Lancashire, even in Oldham, the land problem is a
  1094
  difficult one. It should be dealt with on the basis of priority for slum clearance first. The policy of land acquisition should have regard, not to this year or to next year, which is the question which has faced Manchester Corporation, for example, but should have regard to the complete task of slum clearance.
  Secondly, the available physical building resources should be properly disciplined to ensure that slum clearance requirements are fully catered for. Industrial buildings should rank nearly on a par with slum clearance building, but other marginal building should definitely be discouraged. These twin problems should take first place. The technical and building labour that is required should be channelled to the slum projects as may be necessary. In this connection, it seems to me that the only lever that can be used is one of financial inducement.
  Then, I come to the last problem of finance. Concerning the case for the£8 or the£24 subsidy, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) confirmed that the great city of Liverpool will be trying to face its slum clearance problem on a subsidy of£8 whereas two years ago it was over£20. Fortunately, Oldham, in which I am interested, qualifies, but it equally might not have qualified. This is not the kind of implement that will save the industrial towns.
  The Minister should consider making strong subsidy improvement representations to his predecessor, who doubtless would discourage him. Whatever may be the general housing subsidies as we now know them for general housing purposes, whatever may be the merits of subsidies for slum clearance in areas which can foresee completion of the task, there is a powerful case for special slum clearance subsidies—I suggest 50 per cent. more than now—in respect of the older areas. In many ways, the case has by inference been made by the Minister.
  I am prepared to vary my argument for additional subsidy. The Minister can use either one or other subsidy or both. The Parliamentary Secretary made great play this afternoon with market rates and the borrowing of money. The time is coming, as we on this side have

  1095
  for many years believed, when the Government will be facing a political dilemma and it is not unlikely that in the next two or three years, not out of conviction, but for political convenience, they will begin to change their minds to the idea that for prior social obligations of this kind there should be modified rates of interest. People believe that money or capital should be for their convenience and that it should not be their master. This is one way in which, by using the right priorities and the right judgment, even the use of money can be dovetailed to fit the main problem of the priorities of our time.
  I will close with one or two words on an equally absorbing problem, again affecting the old towns, although it is to be found elsewhere also. The hon. Member for Harrow, West tried to touch upon it but not in a way that appealed to me. What disturbs me about the older houses is that in 15, 20 or 30 years' time, they are likely to be in the slum class. Many of us know that there is much to be said for these houses in terms of structure and substance.
  In the main, however, those houses are without baths, proper toilet facilities, hot water, and so on. Despite what the hon. Member said, those of us who face the problem realistically know that where these rented houses are in professional management or ownership, often something is done. We are faced with the fact that the residue of landlordism is disappearing. Unfortunately, too many houses are in the hands of landlords who have only half a dozen, ten or twenty. One or two may be awkward. Many of them have a disposition to help, but they are unable to do so because of lack of financial resources or of technical advice, or because they are themselves in the late period of life and do not wish to be troubled with the responsibilities of this sort of thing.
  When tenants want a tangible improvement in their house, I have always been able to get them to accept willingly and happily the consequences of additional rent for a facility that they can enjoy. At present, however, there is a vacuum. A landlord might be unable or, possibly, unwilling to put in the facilities that people desire.
  I beg the Minister to be a little more flexible about the provision of these
  1096
  amenities. It was all right to write into the Bill last year what these amenities should be, but it is not always the case that a house can be so rearranged to enable all the amenities to be provided. Nevertheless, in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred the local health inspector, acting in concert with the owner and the tenant, could probably find ways of making a 90 per cent. improvement, and this would be preferable to the old arrangement.
  I suggest that we should bring local authorities into the existing vacuum so that with the goodwill of the landlord they will be able to carry out these improvements, not merely house by house, but in areas such as mine, street by street, and use their influence with the tenants to make them see that the improvements are necessary not only for them but for those who may next occupy the houses, and in this way get the improvements carried out and then decide what would be the right rent to charge. The figures suggest that the people most interested in this idea are owner-occupiers and professional managers of estates.
  These, then, are the two outstanding problems. First, slum clearance in these old areas. Secondly, alongside these old unfit houses are houses which in a few years will themselves become slums. Unless the Minister discards his complacent attitude and injects some realism and dynamism into dealing with the problem, it will never be solved. Only the Minister is in a position to provide this realism and dynamism, and I hope he will do so.
  Sir Eric Errington: I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about the problem of improving houses, but does he realise that in a number of cases there are tenants with large families and there is no opportunity for them to give up the necessary accommodation to make the kind of improvements that the hon. Gentleman has in mind?
  Mr. Mapp: My experience is that older people tend to resist these improvements being made, but with families with one or two children there is no difficulty in getting this point accepted. If there is a chance of succeeding in nine cases out of ten,

  1097
  surely we should go ahead with our efforts to improve these places? If one case in ten decides to be awkward, perhaps the local authority concerned could use its good offices to try to find a way out of the impasse.
  7.23 p.m.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) said that it would take until about 1980 to solve the present housing problem. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the problem really exists in forty to fifty areas in England. I think that we must give the Government a certain amount of credit for what they have done in other areas, but there remains this bulk of hard-core areas where the problem is very real indeed. In these areas one cannot tackle the problem in the same way as it would be tackled in the central parts of London or any other great city.
  The horn. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) referred to the human miseries and gave details of hardship suffered by tenants. He referred to houses with no baths, no inside sanitation, families being separated, and so on. It is not necessary to go north to meet these problems. I have said repeatedly that a journey of only seven minutes across the river brings one to housing conditions which are so appalling that it is hard to believe that one is in England. They axe the sort of conditions more likely to be found in the Middle East.
  We have many problems in these central areas, but I think that we have a duty to tackle the problem nationally because it is no longer a local one. It is so big that it has become impossible for local authorities to tackle it single-handed. It is now necessary to provide from some central source not only for guidance but finance to help them deal with this problem. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for what has been done, but there is still a lot to be done in these special areas.
  London has a population of roughly one-fifth or one-sixth of England, and in almost every area of London, apart from the very centre, we have these real human problems. After all, housing is something which is vitally important to us all As has been said—and one cannot deny this—there are cases in which tenants do not do what they should to
  1098
  maintain the property in good repair, but this is not the basis of the problem. The basis of the problem is that property which tenants are incapable of improving and which cannot be improved without a major reform, and in many cases without being pulled down and rebuilt.
  When rent control was first instituted in my area, it did a certain amount of good. For about two years accommodation was freed, but now we are back to the same freezing of accommodation that we had before the Rent Act began to operate. The difficulties of finding accommodation are very much the same as they were before the Act was brought into operation.
  Reference has been made to the possibility of reducing office building and the amount of private building, but I am not sure that this is the answer to the problem. I was most interested in what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his speech. I was not sure whether it was really the case that there was not sufficient labour to carry out any greater building programme than we are conducting at the moment, but this is a point to which I shall return.
  One of the problems mentioned is the cost of land. It is not a major problem, because the cost of land is not important if one builds upwards. It was said that the cost of land represented 40 per cent. of the cost of building. It may be 40 per cent. if houses of one, two or three storeys are built, but if one builds higher the cost of the site versus building is proportionately reduced. I have always advocated that in the centre of London we cannot afford to under-develop the sites still at our disposal. In central London there are very few sites available for development, and it is up to the Minister to make sure that these sites are fully used even if it means compelling local authorities to adopt a slightly higher density rate. I know that some hon. Gentlemen opposite will not agree with this suggestion, but if land is expensive and limited it is obviously far better to use such land in the most economical way possible.
  Reference has also been made to building houses to let. Costs are high, and private developers are genuinely afraid of investing their money in property to let, because a change in legislation might cause them to lose the

  1099
  money they have invested. All landlords are not bad, and many property owners have been very badly hit by the fact that the property they bought bona fide in reasonable conditions before the war has involved them in a loss of money because of events that have happened since. They are, therefore, the willing to hazard the chance of losing their money again. One cannot blame them. It is far easier to sell property for cash and make a fairly reasonable profit rather than to wait for a number of years and then possibly be caught very badly at the end of their period of tenure.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, East referred to the question of the change of ownership. We all know that many properties which were formerly owned by extremely good landlords have passed to what one can only describe as spiv owners, whose wish is to get the tenants out of the property as quickly as possible in order to sell at a profit. Those bad owners are giving an extraordinarily bad name to the many good landlords in London.
  Mr. Marsh: Does not the hon. Member agree that those landlords could not have done that without the Rent Act?
  Dr. Glyn: In many cases they could have. The hon. Member is a Londoner, and he knows what can be done. There are many ways of getting round the difficulties. I am only saying that this proportion of extremely bad landlords is setting a bad example and is giving landlords in general an extremely bad name.
  In the last housing debate I referred to the possible purchase of municipal property by private purchasers, but I received no answer to the point I made. It seems advisable that where a prospective house owner has£500 or£600 to put down but cannot find a suitable house he should be able to purchase a unit—a flat—in a local authority block. Everybody would benefit. If the unit cost£2,000 or£2,500, the local authority would have the£500 and repayment coming in weekly. This would free money which could be used to build other properties.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: Is the hon. Member including the sitting tenants in municipal houses?
  Dr. Glyn: The system should apply to sitting tenants, if they wish to take advantage of it. I see no objection. This system is often adopted on the Continent. In France there is a system of co-proprietaire, under which blocks of flats are owned individually by the people living in them. The cost of all repairs is shared. This is a good method of making capital available for building other property. I am grateful for the hon. Member's intervention, because I see no reason why that system should not be applied to sitting tenants.
  Mr. J. Silverman: I must make it clear to the hon. Member that I am not supporting his suggestion; quite the opposite.
  Dr. Glyn: I am sorry. I am all for a property-owning democracy. I do not mind whether the property owner owns a small house in Wandsworth or owns merely one unit; he still has his own front door and the pride of ownership. He has security behind him. I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will consider this point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), in a very interesting speech, referred to tenants helping themselves. Few tenants do not want to help themselves, but the large majority are afraid of doing so because they know that at the end of their tenure they may lose the value of the improvements that they have made. I would remind these tenants that What my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West said has a great deal of truth in it. A second-hand bath costs about£5, and if a tenant goes to the local gas or electricity board he can get the bath heater fitted very cheaply, and the initial payment on a multipoint is only about£3 15s. Tenants could do more to help themselves. I am sure that if they went to their landlords and said, "We are going to put in these improvements. Will you give us some security of tenure?" in many cases the landlords would be agreeable.
  My hon. Friend's point is that many tenants do not realise that these facilities are available from the electricity and gas companies. There is, of course, some difficulty with older houses which were built fifty or sixty years ago, in that

  1101
  they do not have sufficiently large gas or electricity mains to take these appliances. But there are many cases in which, if tenants knew what they could have installed by the supply companies, they would avail themselves of the service.
  In the earlier part of the debate mention was made of the rents of council houses. I have always said that where there is a shortage of accommodation in London tenants should be charged the rack rent, unless they can prove that they cannot afford to pay it. The additional amount of money would provide a further form of finance, which could be used by local authorities in building and improving property, thereby helping other tenants whose need is greater than that of those Who are comfortably installed in a corporation block. I see no social injustice in asking people to pay a reasonable rent in order to help other less fortunate members of the community to get a decent home.
  I know that my hon. Friend will agree that it is ridiculous to have two housing authorities for the same area—the borough authority and the L.C.C. In my area many very good sites have been taken by the L.C.C., leaving the borough with very few sites which are capable of development. This has made development extremely difficult. I know that my hon. Friend will say that when the new Act comes in there will be only one authority. I hope that will be the case, because I am sure that boroughs are capable of dealing with their housing needs. I look forward to the day when Wandsworth is responsible for housing the people of Wandsworth.
  Many hon. Members on this side of the House have raised the question of density. I will not enlarge on this point. I have often stressed the importance of an alteration in density in central London. My right hon. Friend should decide, taking into account questions of transport and sites, whether the density which a municipal authority has adopted is correct, in the existing circumstances. I go further. Even within a borough, densities in one area can be much greater than in another, if one area has a better transport system, so that the people living in it can be brought easily to work in the centre of London. I hope
  1102
  that that point will be considered carefully.
  There must be a completely new approach to this problem. We must give credit to the Government for what they have done, but they must be pushed much harder. I do not agree that we are doing enough. The substance of my hon. Friend's argument on the availability of building labour and materials—if I have got it correctly—was that we could not do much more because the building industry is fully stretched. I am not sure whether that is correct. If the Exchequer were prepared to advance larger sums of money, would the block still be the availability of labour, and the general building situation?
  I was also interested in the point raised by many hon. Members on this side of the House concerning the possibility of ensuring that those builders who receive contracts are extremely efficient and economise in building labour. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with this point. He made great play with it. He said that the building industry was fully stretched. But I think that something must be done, and if that is what is blocking progress, somehow we must get round it. We cannot leave conditions which—
  Mr. Rippon: I should like to explain that I was saying that the building industry was under a serious strain. I explained how that was brought about by pressure on land, labour and materials. If the money were provided, it would not enable more houses to be built at the present time. That was why I said, taking a long-term view, that so much importance attached to the Emmerson Report and increased productivity in the building industry.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. This seems to me the crux of the whole situation. If we cannot get an efficient industry and increase the amount of building, as I see it, we are left with a situation in which the only possible way of increasing housebuilding would be by cutting down on other private building or on the building of office blocks and shop premises. To me this is an alarming situation. We must all be extremely

  1103
  alarmed that progress in housebuilding has not proceeded at the speed we should like.
  Other hon. Members have made suggestions for improving the situation. But if what I suspect is the case we are in a serious position. I do not know what improvement my hon. Friend expects to take place in the efficiency of the building industry or whether it will amount to 5 per cent., 10 per cent., 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. in the next five years. I do not think that the argument is completely correct. I think that we could improve the situation by a more efficient use of building sites. By increasing the density figures we could increase the amount of building, which is something that must be done.
  The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) read us a delightful and a long speech, but I found it difficult to interpret from it how he proposed to meet the immediate needs in congested areas except by levying rates on unoccupied property. I do not detect any way in which the Liberal Party proposes to deal with the existing serious housing conditions.
  7.42 p.m.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: The hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) referred to the selling of municipal houses. I would oppose such sales. There were one or two matters which the hon. Gentleman did not make clear. He was suggesting, apparently, that not only should sitting tenants be allowed to buy municipal houses but that anyone else who had£500 or£600 available should be able to buy them. This would result in the abominable situation that houses would be allocated not according to the need of the applicant but because someone had£500 to lay down. I do not think any local authority would be prepared to tolerate such a situation.
  The hon. Member for Clapham did not say at what price municipal houses should be offered to sitting tenants. There are obvious objections to the sale of flats where a whole block could not be disposed of if some tenants were municipal tenants and some were purchasers. There would be similar objections to selling municipal houses on an estate where the tenants included owner-
  1104
  occupiers. One question is, however, at what price should municipal houses be offered for sale? Supposing that offers were confined to sitting tenants of municipal property as has been suggested by the Minister. Would the houses be offered at the market price? Is that what the hon. Member for Clapham is suggesting?
  Dr. Alan Glyn: I should not be in favour of municipal houses being purchased in advance of the housing queue, so to speak. One hon. Member opposite suggested the figure of£500 and I did not interrupt him at the time, although that figure sounded to me rather like a premium. I should propose that a tenant be allowed to buy a house if, for example, he was the next on the waiting list. In that case he would be in almost the same position as someone who had moved into a house. I think that the houses should be offered at the market price.
  Mr. Silverman: If municipal houses were offered to tenants at the market price, I do not think that there would be many purchasers. The majority of municipal tenants and applicants on the housing list, as well as a large number of people who actually buy houses, would much prefer to rent their houses.
  Young married couples buy houses not because they desire to be owner-occupiers but because they have little prospect of obtaining rented accommodation for a long time. Their only method of getting a house is to buy one. They do so because they have no other choice and not because of a desire to become part of a property-owning democracy. If people on the housing lists of local authorities were told that if they wished they could have a house to let or that if they cared to put down£500 they could buy a house, I know from experience—as would anyone else with knowledge of housing registers—that there would be little response to the opportunity to buy.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: Would not the hon. Member agree that many council house tenants earn a fair wage and would welcome the opportunity of buying a home for themselves?
  Mr. Silverman: Some people who live on council housing estates may earn good wages, although often the pros-

  1105
  perity and incomes of such people are greatly exaggerated. There are a number of municipal housing estates in my constituency, and what is true of Birmingham is true of the rest of the country. Suppose a man earns£15 or£16 a week. If he has a family of two or three small children, there is not much left over to be used to pay a deposit on a house or even, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Clapham, to pay a rack rent, which means the market rent, and that is another point I wish to discuss.
  The suggestion that tenants should buy their houses has been made by Conservatives on local authorities, but it is obvious that this practice would make no contribution to solving the housing problem. If a house is sold to a sitting tenant or anyone else it must be replaced. An authority would find that if a house were sold at less than the market price, or at such a figure as is suggested in the Ministry circular of about£1,200, the sitting tenant might benefit and might jump at the offer to buy a house at less than the market value. But when the authority wished to replace the house, say, by flats as in Birmingham where 85 per cent. of the building is flats, it would find that it costs more than twice the price at which the house was sold to provide another dwelling. So the authority would not be better off but worse off.
  I come to another point raised by the hon. Member. That is the question of rack rents. I deal with that now because it relates to a particular point which I want to raise. What is meant by rack rents? So far as I understand, it means the rent which one can get in the market in a situation in which houses are very scarce. I know some of the rack rents being charged where rent decontrol has come into operation. Houses in my area which used to be rented at about£1 a week are being rack-rented at£4 or£5 a week. Is it suggested that that sort of rent should apply to local authority houses? Is that what the hon. Member suggests?
  Dr. Alan Glyn: I was not suggesting that a rack rent was something which could be obtained, as it were, by putting someone on the rack. What I meant was a rent not including a premium. Before the war one paid a small rent or
  1106
  what was called a rack rent. I think tenants ought to pay the cost—in other words, what the building cost and what it is worth per year. I would not agree that the house should be sold for less than it is worth.
  Mr. Silverman: A rack rent has nothing to do with an instrument of torture, although in many cases it amounts to that. It means the rent which can be obtained in the free market. When there is a scarcity situation in the open market that has to be taken into consideration. That is the situation created by the legislation brought in by the Government, rent control, land speculation and the rest, so that rack rents amount almost to an instrument of torture, such as the hon. Member described, for putting people on the rack. If local authorities have to charge rack rents, 90 per cent. and probably more, of the tenants would certainly not be able to afford those rents at present.
  Dr. Alan Glyn Dr. Alan Glyn rose—
  Mr. Silverman: I do not want to have a duologue with the hon. Member all the time. I wish to come to another matter.
  Dwellings which are being put up at present are very expensive. This is something causing great concern to local authorities. Because of the shortage of building land we find that to a greater and greater extent most of the dwellings erected by local authorities have to be in the form of flats. The average cost of erecting a flat is somewhere between£2,500 and£3,000. The economic rent—I am not now talking about rack rents—which would need to be charged would be in excess of£5 a week. There is not the slightest doubt that the overwhelming majority of tenants could not contemplate paying a rent such as that.
  I hope the Minister is listening, because this is a very important point in the financing of housing. Even allowing for the special subsidy for high flats, plus the ordinary subsidy, every flat put up in the City of Birmingham costs the city, after it has met the equivalent of the old statutory local Government subsidy and made its normal contribution to the flat,£60 per annum. This means that every time we put up new houses—say

  1107
  2,500 a year—there is this additional cost on the housing revenue account of something like£200,000 a year. This is accumulating year by year.
  How are local authorities meeting these charges? When there is an additional charge on the housing revenue account it goes on to all existing tenants, especially those tenants who have been paying less. The authority says, "We will put up your rents," and there is a general increase of rents, especially those of pre-war tenants. So far as I know, most tenants of pre-war houses are now paying an economic rent without allowing for any question of subsidy, that is, they are meeting the cost of those houses, but every time this charge goes on to the housing revenue account the authority must put up the same people's rents.
  In a recent speech the Parliamentary Secretary said he thought that these tenants should pay a higher rent. Even assuming that he was right—and I do not think he was right—that cannot go on indefinitely. Birmingham's problem is the problem of all local authorities. It is the problem of the finance of local authorities, which will come to a head in the next few years. They will have the intolerable situation of increasing rents beyond the level which tenants can be expected to pay, or, alternatively, of asking the ratepayers for increased rates.
  Mr. Victor Yates: My hon. Friend mentioned the Parliamentary Secretary having said that more could be done by Birmingham. The Parliamentary Secretary quoted a figure which was quoted in an earlier debate, but since then all the municipal rents of Birmingham have been increased. The Minister did not take that into consideration.
  Mr. Silverman: That is correct. In the recent debate the Minister said that he thought the rents, especially those of pre-war tenants, could be further increased. It is obvious, even taking the most Ministerial view of the matter, that these increases cannot go on and on. There must be some limit. This is not merely a problem for Birmingham. There is the problem of increased housing costs which have to be borne either by pre-war tenants and other
  1108
  tenants of houses for which the rents at present are not too high, or by the rates. This will lead to an intolerable situation. It will put a burden on tenants which they cannot be expected to bear.
  I do not agree that there are large numbers of wealthy municipal tenants. In the nature of things, those coming on to the register now have families, usually of two or three children. Otherwise they would not get houses. Usually there is one wage-earner. Even with a reasonably good wage—which is not uncommon in the City of Birmingham—there is a limit to what the wage-earner can be expected to pay in rent if he has three or four children. This applies to the great majority. Here and there one may find one or two municipal tenants who are comfortably off. Sometimes there is an old municipal tenant who has been living in a house for many years and whose family has grown up or left. It may be that such a tenant has been in the house for a year or two with a reasonably good wage coming in. There are such cases in which for a period some people who are reasonably well off are tenants, but for the great majority there is not the capacity to pay big rents.
  Mr. A. Evans: Am I right in understanding that my hon. Friend is saying that the cost of building today, including the cost of land, results in an economic rent which is beyond the purse of large numbers of wage earners?
  Mr. Silverman: I think my hon. Friend may put it like that. This is due not merely to the cost of building. We must not forget that two-thirds of the cost of building a house consists of the cost of building materials, and that has risen enormously. Then there is the cost of building land and, an extremely important part, the cost of interest. The cost of interest forms by far the greatest part of the rent people pay. We know that there has been a reduction in the Bank Rate recently, but that has not seriously affected the conditions under which local authorities are able to borrow at the present time. They have still to borrow for long-term loans on much the same basis as they borrowed some time ago.
  All these factors have made the economic rent far in excess of what

  1109
  most tenants should be expected to pay. The difference must come from somewhere. If it does not come from the payer of rent to the local authority, it has to come from the ratepayers, which is politically difficult. It seems quite clear that the Government will have to do something about this or its natural effect in a good many cities will be to inhibit the building of new houses. This problem does not only affect the building of new houses for people on the register. It affects the building of housing especially for slum clearance, because almost always flats are used for rehousing.
  This problem will come to a head in the next two or three years and the Government must do something about it. Whether it will be done by means of increased subsidies, or in the way that we have pressed for on this side of the Committee—that is, to reduce the rates of interest for local authorities—or whether it can be done by reducing building costs, I do not know. First and foremost, I think that the question of interest rates should be looked at urgently. In the absence of this, there is likely to be an impasse in the housing finances of local authorities, which will have extremely serious effects upon the construction of houses. I hope that we shall hear something from the Minister about this when he replies. This accumulating burden upon housing revenue accounts cannot go on. It must come to a head unless the Government do something about this very quickly.
  I do not know whether this is an occasion when we can expect something to be said by the Minister about Birmingham's special overspill problem.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: And other cities.
  Mr. Silverman: I am not suggesting that my constituency problem is unique, but this was a matter that the Minister was dealing with. I do not know whether he would be willing to say anything tonight on the general question of Birmingham's overspill. That matter has been raised before. It is a matter which obviously affects the question of pressure on land. I hope that the Minister will say something tonight on these points, particularly on the question of the future financing of local government.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. Victor Goodhew: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) has dwelt on the subject of rents and whether there is any source of increased revenue for local authorities by bringing these up to market rents, rack rents, or economic rents if the tenants can afford to pay them. There is a divergence of opinion between the two sides of the Committee as to how much money is available from these sources. I should like to pursue the question of what rents should be charged from the point of view of seeing justice as between tenants.
  The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the fact that the Government do not like indiscriminate subsidies, but in fact this is what the individual tenant is getting. I have made my pleas about this in the past without success. I intend again this evening to beg my right hon. Friend to have another look at this question. When we look at the position throughout the country today we find no logic and no justice as between tenants who are living in local authority houses. We have the position in which some people are living in subsidised accommodation because they happen to have applied for it earlier, and of others, who are in equal difficulties financially, receiving no subsidy at all. This seems unfair to those who are not receiving a subsidy.
  Among those who are living in local authority houses we find that there is great inequality. Varying rent schemes are adopted by local authorities. Some local authorities have a flat rent charge for all property, regardless of the income or finances of the tenant. There are others which have some sort of rent rebate scheme, or differential rent scheme, and they attempt to charge a rent according to the income of the tenant. There again we find that there are considerable differences. For instance, some authorities charge an economic rent to those who can afford it. Others charge an economic rent, less the Government subsidy, and some will allow a rate subsidy as well. This means that we have people throughout the country who are getting the benefit of subsidised housing but who feel, as between themselves even, that there is no fairness as to the rents that they have to pay.

  1111
  We have heard in the House in recent months of cases in Scotland where people have been paying under 10s. a week rent for their homes. This scale rises in different areas to 15s. a week and so on, and we get up to£2 a week or more. That is being charged in most cases quite regardless of the tenant's income. We must decide that it is the Government's task to say that where people can afford it they should pay a standard rent throughout the country, and that they should pay a standard proportion of their income if they cannot afford that rent.
  The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) discussed the question of how much of a person's earnings should be spent on the provision of his home. He suggested that one-quarter was very high and that one-fifth was plenty. I have served on a local authority, which was 100 per cent. Conservative at the time, which had a rent rebate scheme and charged only one-seventh. Other authorities charge one-sixth. Even where there is a rent rebate scheme, people are not being charged the same proportion of their income for their homes.
  It is high time that the Government took a firm line to see that there is some sort of justice. In London one sees that the London County Council has no differential rents scheme at all. The result of this is very serious, because recent buildings are more expensive and very modern flats are much more expensive than those pre-war. The unfortunate person living on a low income today probably cannot afford the highly-rented property of the L.C.C. Perhaps he has to wait for somebody to die in one of the pre-war properties before he can be housed, and yet he may be the person most in need of help.
  I saw cases in London in which, for example, someone in the lower income groups, such as a railway porter, with two or three children, was living in rather cramped basement accommodation of two rooms when one could walk down the road and see outside a modern council housing block Jaguar oars and Zodiac cars. This is quite wrong. We have reached a stage in which people are being housed at the expense of their fellows and in which the porter of whom I am speaking, living in the damp basement, is contributing by rates towards
  1112
  the rent of the people with the Jaguars. This is absolute nonsense.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the name of the road?
  Mr. Goodhew: I am asked the name of the road in which I have seen the Jaguars. I saw some when I was on the housing committee of the City of Westminster. This is a case in which a rent rebate scheme was being applied, but my complaint is that it still resulted in people paying nothing like the true value of that property.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Tell us the name of the road.
  Mr. Goodhew: I do not see why people should not pay the proper rent if they can afford it. Let us look at the example mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Aston of young people struggling to buy a house of their own because they could not get accommodation in any other way. How do they feel when they are struggling to buy their own homes and they see someone down the road living in a subsidised house and able to enjoy a motor car and other amenities which they themselves cannot afford? We must realise that this is a source of great discontent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] It causes a feeling that one section of the community is doing very nicely at the expense of others.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Nonsense.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson): I hope that hon. Members will not interrupt without rising to do so.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Surely reasonable interjections are good Parliamentary practice.
  The Temporary Chairman: I thought that the number of interjections from a seated position which I had heard in the last few minutes was not quite reasonable, and that is why I rose.
  Mr. Goodhew: I apologise to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) if I have been rather too provocative for him, but this is a matter on which I feel strongly, as I know he does. We have to face it sooner or later, and my view is that it should be sooner and not later.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. Member need not apologise. Previous speakers have appealed for good Parliamentary cut and thrust, and this is Parliamentary debate.
  Mr. Goodhew: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his kindness in telling me that I need not apologise. I accept his advice.
  If we look at the matter further we see that the question of rents is colouring the attitude of the people towards housing. We have long passed the position in which people felt that they should pay the actual cost of the home. The hon. Member for Fulham suggested that a fifth of a person's income should be spent on housing, but how many people consider spending as much as that on their homes? Most of them feel that they should have the benefit of a motor car or a television, or a refrigerator, and many other things before they pay the full rent of their house. This means that the private developer who might build houses or flats to rent in many cases will not do so simply because people would not pay the market rent for those properties as long as they could put themselves on a waiting list and hope later to be subsidised by their fellows—and who can blame them as long as they are allowed to get away with it? My right hon. Friend has a perfect opportunity to do something about this when revaluation takes place.
  Mr. J. Silverman: The hon. Member said that he was on a housing committee. Does he know of any cases in which houses were provided by that committee for people with substantial means who could afford to buy homes?
  Mr. Goodhew: I was coming to that point. There were many people who managed to run large cars. Probably some of them were paying the so-called economic rent. But in fact they were not paying the rent which the flat was worth. They were getting a benefit at the expense of ratepayers in the area who were helping to keep the housing account in balance
  Mr. Silverman: In the City of Birmingham, as in all large cities, there are people who have been on the housing list for ten years and who are living, with children, in cramped conditions.
  1114
  Does the hon. Member believe that people like these would wait on the housing list if they could afford to buy a house?
  Mr. Goodhew: The hon. Member misunderstood me entirely on this point the last time I spoke in the debate. I am not saying that. I am saying that a large number of people who could afford to buy accommodation or to pay the market rent prefer to wait on the housing list because they know that they will have the benefit of a subsidy. I could show the hon. Member plenty of those cases in the area in which I served on a local authority.
  Mr. A. Lewis: Would the hon. Member extend that principle to the farmers? We know many farmers who are getting subsidies but are doing very well and are living in farm houses which are completely derated.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. This debate does not extend to the question of farmers.
  Mr. Goodhew: I am sorry, Mr. MacPherson, that you prevent me from following that point because I have a very good answer. Clearly I should be out of order to give it.
  My right hon. Friend has an opportunity when all private property is revalued and when there is a standard rateable value assessed on modern market rents, for this value could be the standard rent to be charged for all local authority housing, provided that the person could afford it. The Government could then impose a standard rent rebate scheme so that everybody throughout the country in local authority housing paid a fifth or a sixth or a seventh of his income for housing, whichever figure was chosen, and everyone paid a fair amount and knew that there was justice in it.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright Mr. Edwin Wainwright (Dearne Valley) rose—
  Mr. Goodhew: I will give way to the hon. Member, but interruptions are taking a long time.
  Mr. Wainwright: I appreciate the point which the hon. Member has put, but has he taken into account the fact that millions of workers in the country

  1115
  who are living in the kind of accommodation which he described have weekly wages which are not guaranteed for any length of time? It is a great risk for such people to undertake the heavy burden of purchasing a house.
  Mr. Goodhew: I am still being badly misunderstood. I do not insist that these people should buy their houses. I think that they should be allowed to have local authority houses but that while they can afford to do so they should pay the proper market rent. The hon. Member mentioned people whose earnings suddenly fall. In the local authority on which I served, if a person's income went up it was not reassessed until the following year, but if his income went down he could go straight to the council and get an immediate reduction in rent.
  Again, in many cases a council which is applying a rent rebate scheme assesses the rent only on the income of the tenant. In some cases there are two or three grown-up people in the house, also earning. I have known cases of£30,£40 or£50 going into the household. While these other pepole are also bringing money into the house, the rent should be assessed on the income of the household and not just on that of the tenant. When the sons or daughters marry, they leave the household, and the rent can be adjusted downwards
  It is high time that the Government awakened to the fact that this matter is causing a great deal of unease throughout the country and that there is unfairness in the whole housing position. If we cannot build all the houses we want, and as long as there are limited resources for building and a shortage of accommodation, the one thing that we should try to do is to see that there is justice among those who need to be housed.
  8.18 p.m.
  Mr. George Thomas: I am glad to have the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) who advanced the Conservative case on housing, as did the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) earlier. I want to refer to both their speeches and to that of the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn).
  1116
  It is already clear that there is a great gulf between the two sides of the Committee, and it is not a gulf of how much money should be spent on local authority housing but a gulf in philosophical approach to the rehousing of our people. It is a matter of party conviction and attitudes of mind towards those who live in council house estates. Clearly hon. Members opposite do not like council house estates. They have made that clear time and time again.
  We heard the hon. Member for Harrow, West say that people who live in council house estates should be allowed to stay there for only five to seven years and should then have their personal affairs reviewed to see how much money they are earning. If they were over a certain level they would be sent marching. I gave the hon. Member notice that I should refer to him. Everyone with any knowledge of working-class families knows that there is a time in the affairs of a working-class family when it is riding on prosperity because the youngsters in their early twenties are home and working, but that is a short period in the life of any working-class family. Soon the youngsters leave the nest. What is to happen to the people Whom the hon. Member for Harrow, West would turn out of a council house because their income is too high at a given period?
  This attitude that only the poor who stay poor shall live in council houses is resented by the people who live there. There are two very large housing estates in my division. I should be appalled if the word went out in Cardiff that only people who can guarantee that they will never go above a certain income level will be allowed to have a council house.
  Mr. Goodhew: I hope that I did not give the impression that I thought that only the poor should live in council houses. I said that I was concerned that in some cases those who were poor and needed it were not being housed, whereas those who were better off were being housed in their place, which is wrong and unjust. I also said that once they were housed if they could afford to do so and whilst they could afford to do so they should pay the economic rent rather than be subsidised by their

  1117
  fellows who might not be earning as much as they are.
  Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member has a guilt complex. I was dealing with the hon. Member for Harrow, West, who addressed us earlier tonight and made the most remarkable Tory speech that I have heard for a long time. I only hope that the Press will do justice to it. I shall seek his permission to circulate it in my division.
  Our charge against the Minister is a very serious one. The housing problem is a major problem, if not the major problem, on the home front. It is a problem which is bound to grow in the coming years. A glance at our population statistics is enough to tell us that whoever occupies the position of Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs will have on his plate for the next quarter of a century or more a major housing problem. Our charge against the Minister is that he is too complacent and has no sense of urgency. This problem should be tackled with the drive and precision of a military operation. The country ought to be mobilising its resources for the homeless. Hon. Members know of the demonstration in London with the bishop and the churchpeople leading the homeless in a procession. How long is it since we were reduced to that level in our national life?
  In the City of Cardiff during the past week the South Wales Echo—a Thomson newspaper—had a banner headline concerning the hundreds of families in Cardiff living in one room with inadequate sanitation. I know of a family in Grangetown Ward, Cardiff, where the mother of 52, a girl of 21, a lad of 17½and a boy of 14½all live and sleep in one little room. In 1962 the Minister ought to be ashamed if he cannot tell us that he is going to use a greater proportion of our national resources to tackle this problem. The mother of whom I speak has not been able to go to bed for months. She has to sleep in the armchair. The girl of 21 sleeps across two chairs. The two lads of 17½and 14½press together in a little camp bed. No one here would like that for his children. None of us would—of course not. It is appalling. The tragedy is that every hon. Member, whether he represents Harrow, West or
  1118
  an urban industrial area, can give the same sort of tragic stories.
  These people have never had it so bad in their life. These people are without hope, because the council house lists of people waiting their turn are not getting shorter. They are getting longer. It is no good telling these people, "Look at the way private houses are going up". It is no good telling these poor creatures that. That is not giving them hope. It is smacking them in the mouth. The Minister stands condemned because he gives no evidence of a willingness to treat this as a top priority.
  Questions of subsidies, greater subsidies to help local authorities, and loans at lower rates of interest, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) referred, should be commanding the Minister's urgent attention, but he does not give any indication that they are. The hon. Member for St. Albans referred to the Jaguar question. This Jaguar keeps cropping up in our debates, like the poor widow who used to crop up whenever we were going to nationalise an industry. Now it is the council house tenant with a Jaguar. The spleen of the other side of the Committee towards council house tenants is shown by the way in which they repeat this silly sort of story. People can be very rich and have Jaguars. A farmer can collect as much subsidy as he likes if he only tills his field. Hon. Members opposite have their priorities. They are pouring public money into the pockets of rich people who own land, but they resent subsidy for working-class people if they earn more than£15 a week.
  Mr. Goodhew: The hon. Member must not say that it is silly to talk about council house tenants with Jaguars, because it happens to be true. Perhaps he has not seen them, but it does not lie within his power to say to those of us who have seen them that it is not true. It is true. If he intends to pursue this point about farmers' subsidies, let him remember that the ultimate beneficiary is the housewife.
  Mr. Thomas: Who is the ultimate beneficiary of a subsidy for a family that is growing up? Is not the whole of the community the beneficiary if these people have a satisfactory home life? I

  1119
  am astounded at the hon. Gentleman's mixed-up view on what should be done to re-house the people of this country.
  There is the problem of overcrowding. Any hon. Member interviewing constituents must feel appalled at what he hears. I confess that when I meet my constituents at these interviews the hardest thing of all is to tell them that I can do nothing. The one who has tied my hands behind my back is sitting facing me—the Minister of Housing and Local Government—and he must accept responsibility for the fact that there is no scope for local authorities to go ahead as they should.
  The right hon. Gentleman may say to me that the building industry cannot do this, and ask, "Where will it get the men?"—[HON. MEMBERS: "And the previous Minister."]—I always refer to the Minister. The present Minister is used to giving medicine, and I hope that he is used to taking it. There is no malice in what I say, but I mean what I am saying.
  Of course the building industry is strained. Of course it is at full stretch. Every time we see these luxury offices and all sorts of other things going up we realise that they have priority over house building. That is where the building manpower is going, because that side of the Committee is unwilling to accept power to control our resources. What is morally wrong in a democracy about a Government elected by the people using their powers to see that our national resources are used in the national interest and not in the interests of the privileged few who can buy their privilege?
  It is a scandal that people living in the way I have described can see those luxury buildings going up in Cardiff, as in other great cities in the land. The reason for that is that we have a Government that threw away the power to control building, gave unlimited rein to people to look after themselves, and never minded other priorities.
  On this matter of building labour, is the Minister taking steps to ensure that an adequate supply of building apprentices is coming forward? Is he building for tomorrow? Is he looking after the awful and mounting problem of providing houses for the next twenty-five years? It is his responsibility; he must
  1120
  show some initiative in that direction, and not just leave it to the industry—
  Mr. Graham Page: But, surely, it is the industry itself that was stopping the apprentices coming. There has recently been a reduction in the period of apprenticeship, and that is very welcome but, up to then, the building industry was stopping apprentices coming in.
  Mr. Thomas: I know about the industry, but I want to know what the Minister is doing. It is he whom I want to tackle. He is there to answer publicly for the Government's policy for building trade apprentices. No hon. Member has the right to shrug his shoulders and say that it is the fault of the industry. If the industry is not meeting the demand, the Minister must do something about it and tell us what his plans are—not just shrug his shoulders and blame the industry, as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) does.
  With slum clearance there must be social justice. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is a great problem in Cardiff, where the local authority has got itself into the most astonishing mess over slum clearance. Having granted ten- and twelve-year mortgages three years ago, it moves in now and condemns those houses as being unfit for human habitation. It will give only site value for those properties and allow nothing for the bricks and mortar. As a consequence, those of my constituents who are affected will have to pay off those mortgages ad infinitum. There is also the problem of those who paid outright for their houses.
  Since I did not receive an adequate reply in the Adjournment debate on this subject, I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has any plans for providing greater social justice for people caught in the claws of a local authority as my constituents in Riverside have been caught. Has he any hope to hold out to those whose houses are to be pulled down? The houses I have in mind are acknowledged to be in a reasonably good state of repair. Under the 1957 Act my constituents will get£200—perhaps£250—but that is not enough for the deposit on a house in Cardiff at present prices. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give attention to that matter.

  1121
  The Minister knows that I crossed swords with him on the Floor of the House yesterday at Question Time about his dilatory approach to the leasehold problem. I do not want to go into this matter again tonight, for other hon. Members wish to speak, but every week that he postpones a decision he is making the housing problem in Cardiff and in other leasehold areas worse. If people do not know where they stand with regard to the renewal of their leases or whether they will lose their homes in five years' time, the question of repairing the property is put on one side. The Minister is making slums by his policy of delay. This inactivity, this pushing us off, this dilly-dallying, has gone on for too long. The time has come for action and not for words.
  8.36 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Slum clearance affects parts of my constituency, and I expect that it affects parts of the constituencies of most hon. Members. First there is the question of compensation, particularly when a person, possibly an elderly person possessed of a small shop, has that shop demolished in the course of slum clearance and is left without a livelihood after its demolition. It is true that in some cases new shops are erected by the local authority and the lease is put out to tender.
  However, many of these are large shops. The cost of erecting them is high and the cost of the lease is beyond the reach of the people who have been displaced by the development. Naturally this means two things. First, the people who are displaced are not able to recommence their business activities, and, secondly, in many cases the only people who can afford to take up the new leases are people or firms from outside the district.
  Regarding the proportion of building effort which should be put into housing and that which should be put into offices, unless my recollection is at fault I do not think it is very long ago that many hon. Members, particularly those opposite, were pressing the merits of legislation for office workers to ensure that the standards laid down to protect the conditions under which they work should be as stringent as the Factory Acts. Certainly we cannot both increase the proportion of office building in order to
  1122
  carry out this excellent motive at the expense of house building, and increase house building at the expense of office building in order to deal with the housing shortage. To endeavour to do both is self-contradictory.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I am somewhat amazed that the hon. Gentleman should have introduced this argument. Surely the motives of the speculators who put up the magnificent office blocks in practically every large city have nothing to do with rehousing the people working in the offices. The Government have neglected to implement the Gowers Report for many years, despite the repeated pledges that have been given. These blocks have nothing to do with better conditions for office workers but are merely to give the owners better profits.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That is absolute nonsense, unless the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the people working in the new office blocks are able suddenly to go in for office work from outside. They must have been moved from somewhere else to the new block. I do not follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
  While on the subject of offices, my mind goes back to the situation in the Borough of Derby where for many years, I think even now, a Labour council has been in control. Unless my recollection is at fault—and it would surprise me if it were on this issue—I seem to remember that for many years the Labour council which controlled Derby refused to pay out improvement grants for privately-owned property. It was, I believe, one of the few councils in the country to refuse to do this. I thought this information worth imparting to the Committee because it surprised many of us at the time as being somewhat inconsistent with some of the representations made by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. George Brown: When was this?
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: To the best of my recollection, at the end of 1958 or the beginning of 1959. If that is inaccurate, perhaps my right hon. Friend will correct me.
  As we know, improvement grants on property can be paid only if a number of conditions are met. That is to say,

  1123
  one cannot get an improvement grant merely for bringing the lavatory up to reasonable standards. It is also necessary to have a bathroom of acceptable standards, and, I believe, a hot water system and a larder. There are parts of the country, for instance in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) and in my own constituency, where there are cottages in which it may not be possible to put a bathroom but where it is possible to improve one or more of the individual items. Yet under the existing system these improvements cannot benefit from the improvement grant unless they are all considered together.
  On the basis of spending the very modest period of about 6½minutes a day in a lavatory, a person with an average expectation of life will spend about four months of his lifetime in the lavatory. I therefore think that my right hon. Friend should give some attention, not to the case of the landlord who does not wish to spend sufficient money to bring the whole of the premises up to standard, but to the situation where, because of some structural reason—possibly because the cottage is built into a cutting in the side of a hill or because of the configuration of roads—it is not possible to extend the building and to meet all the requirements, but where there is every possibility that the premises concerned will still be in use in fifteen years' time.
  When we talk of slum clearance most of us think of privately-owned property, although in many cases there is council property which one could call slum property, not necessarily because it is derelict but because of the inadequate facilities offered. For instance, in my constituency there is a block of four council houses which I am informed were constructed in 1919. They have one pump and one drain between them. None of them has a bathroom, and indeed there is nowhere for a bath to be installed except temporarily in the kitchen. Outside there are four buckets in a wooden shed, these being the four lavatories. The buckets are subsequently tipped at the end of the garden.
  That is an example of what one could call slum council house property, but in this case there is no reason why the
  1124
  premises should not be extended to enable the provision of facilities which are so obviously required, and in other respect the situation of the houses is much more pleasant than some. They are in a pleasant locality, with a pleasant view. But we should bear in mind that to think in terms of 100 years, or 60 years or even 40 years in specific cases must be misleading, and we must apply the standard of specific investigation rather than generalisation by the age of the buildings concerned.
  Many people have rather strong views about urban redevelopment, when through traffic is taken through the centre of a town rather than round the outside of it. This involves a fairly massive loss of rateable value to the town, even if the scheme is sponsored by the county council and the Ministry of Transport rather than by local authorities. Certainly, in my own constituency in Teignmouth, there is a considerable number of people who feel that the convenience of the traffic which has no intention of stopping either in that town or in any other in the locality is being catered for literally at the expense of the ratepayers of the town concerned.
  I should like to hear from my right hon. Friend tonight in his winding-up speech some indication of what hope there is for people who lose their livelihood as a result of redevelopment. I do not just mean a capital sum which represents the value of the premises, even at their existing use, but a capital sum which, if invested—and it may be necessary to invest it, if they cannot purchase any similar premises anywhere else—would leave them no worse off from the point of view of income than they would have been if they had been left to continue their livelihood until the end of their natural lives.
  I wish to make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend on the following lines. When a local authority, for very good reasons indeed, decides to clear the centre of a town or some portion of a town on redevelopment, and reduces the number of shops and businesses there, again, possibly, for very good reasons, and has to charge an economic rent that may well be outside the reach of the people who have been displaced, one way of meeting this problem in equity—and, with the passage of time, it would

  1125
  cease to be a problem at all—would be to grant leases at a reduced rate to the people who have been displaced until they come either to the end of their natural lives or until they come to retire, at which time the lease could be let by the local authority at whatever rate the market would bear.
  If, during the temporary period when the people displaced are still in business, these leases could be given, I think that many of the people now feeling a sense of injustice, which is experienced by people who suffer personal inconvenience, and, in some cases, unhappiness, in having their life's business taken away from them, would nevertheless feel that they had been justly treated, and that the greater benefit of the community in which they live had not been imposed upon them at an expense which is unreasonably great. If my right hon. Friend could give me some indication that he is thinking on these lines, I should welcome it. I suggest that probably many other hon. Members in this Committee would do so, if they have constituents who are perhaps facing problems of this kind.
  Lastly, on the subject of slum clearance, I should like to stress to my right hon. Friend the importance not only of the quality of the buildings provided for the people who have been displaced but also of their location, particularly in the case of elderly people. The latter have a very tight circle of friends, in many cases, and do not very easily make new ones. If these people are moved, for fairly sound economic reasons, from the centre of the town to some outlying areas, they are faced with two problems. First, they are removed from the personal associations with which they have grown up, and, secondly, they are put to considerable expense when they want to go back, for shopping or any other reasons, to the location from which they have been moved. I think that this is a consideration which one ought to bear in mind when areas are declared as slum clearance areas. We ought to endeavour to maintain a cohesive pattern for the redevelopment of the population rather than move individual sections of the community like draughts to different parts of the board. I hope that I shall hear that my right hon. Friend's thinking on this subject gives ground for encouragement.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mrs. E. M. Braddock: It is unfortunate that the women Members of the House of Commons have not had more time to put a point of view during this housing debate. I have sat in the Chamber ever since half-past two, except for about half an hour, and I have heard every speech but one. I am very disturbed that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater), the only other woman Member in the Chamber, has not, although she has tried to do so, been able to get into the debate. Now, since I have only about five minutes, I cannot possibly say all I want to say, and I shall draw particular attention to the special problem facing Liverpool.
  Liverpool has on its housing register 46,406 families waiting for accommodation. It is a list recently prepared and checked so that there is no duplication. It is composed of five different categories. In group 1, those who should have housing at once, there are 2,410. In group 2, those who can wait perhaps a little longer, there are 3,500. In group 3, those who have to wait very much longer but should not have to wait so long, there axe 5,000. In group 4 there are those for whom there is no possibility in the present situation of providing accommodation within the next ten, twelve or fifteen years, and they total 33,038. In addition, there is a special register of aged persons totalling 2,458.
  It is a formidable problem, and it is not being tackled as it ought to be. When any industrial city such as Liverpool has a problem like that, special arrangements ought to be made. The Government should take special action to ascertain to what extent the local authority is able to meet the problem and to what extent it is prepared to meet it. If it means that extra and special methods and special Government action are required, the necessary steps should be undertaken. Liverpool is not the only city in this position, but Liverpool and Glasgow are two of the worst.
  The ordinary regulations apply in Liverpool just as they apply throughout the country where the problem is nowhere near the same. Confronted by a situation like this, any Government calling themselves a progressive Government

  1127
  ought to want to know exactly what the position is, what the plans are, how they will be achieved and how long it will take to deal with the situation. If they find that there are special needs to be met, they should act accordingly and help in seeing that they are met.
  Liverpool people who are waiting for housing are often very disturbed to find that all sorts of luxury building, notably in areas scheduled for special development, is going on. I shall refer to one example in Liverpool. I am not grumbling about it. I put it as an individual illustration of a serious problem. Liverpool has been requested to extend its university. The local authority produced and agreed with the university authorities a plan providing for a university precinct in the central area of the city. In this area of very bad and overcrowded slum houses, special facilities were given to the university so that, so soon as they could be emptied, houses were handed over to the university for demolition, new buildings being put up.
  In an area of very bad housing, houses are being emptied and demolished for the university precinct and, in the wake of demolition, new university buildings are going up. People do not understand that sort of thing when they have to live in shocking conditions such as those in Which people in the immediate areas live. We realise that additional facilities must be made available for education, but since it is possible to take special steps and make special arrangements for university building, surely there is a way to make special arrangements for people who desperately need housing accommodation, and this should be done more quickly than Liverpool seems to be able to do it at the moment. When people in Liverpool see a bowling alley built in a very short time at a cost of£150,000, involving any amount of building labour, with a huge opening ceremony and all the people of some importance present—I was invited, but I considered that I was not important enough to go—they wonder why they have to wait so long on housing lists. Building labour can be found for everything in Liverpool but not for providing housing accommodation.
  When it comes to slum clearance in Liverpool, the number of houses which
  1128
  need major repairs and amenities or which should be demolished because they are no use for housing purposes is over 88,000. An extra effort should be made to deal with problems of this sort. Although the housing department in Liverpool is doing all that it can in face of financial difficulty, something more needs to be done. I hope that the Minister will take special notice not only of Liverpool but of other areas with similar difficulties to see Whether it is necessary to introduce special legislation to the effect that the building of luxury buildings will be restricted until people have decent accommodation in which to live.
  I could speak for much longer, but I know that my right hon. Friend on the Opposition Front Bench has to get up at a certain time. I am sorry that I have had to curtail what I wished to say. I leave the matter there, having drawn attention to the position I hope that when he replies the Minister will say that, in view of the difficult circumstances in Liverpool, he will have another look at the problem in Liverpool and in other areas to see whether "hurry-up" legislation is needed to solve a problem which will otherwise take the next ten to twenty years to solve, when many people will be past wanting a house.
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. George Brown: I am sure we are all glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) was able to say a few words. It is no idle courtesy to say that we wish she had been able to speak much longer. However, I have promised the Minister that I would leave him ample time in which to reply to what has been said.
  One thing struck me while my hon. Friend was speaking which reflects the character of this debate. In every speech from this side of the Committee there has been an assumption that there is a grave human problem about which we should be doing more than we are doing. I do not think it is unfair to say that, with the exception of one and possibly two speeches, there has been an assumption in every speech by hon. Members opposite, not that there was a human problem to deal with, but that there was something the matter with

  1129
  rent arrangements or some other detailed point of that kind. The two sides of the Committee have been preoccupied with two totally different things.
  This has been the pattern of the debate, and it was set by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. In his opening words he referred to people who were "mighty in their fallacies" and in his closing words he said that it was "all nonsense on stilts". I have seldom if ever heard a speech which more lived up to its opening phrase and its peroration. Throughout he demonstrated what seemed to me, if not nonsense, a good deal of self-delusion. His brief was delivered very competently and with great charm. I am not attacking the hon. Gentleman in that sense. It was a complacent brief. It affected to be scornful of the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) in what, I should have thought, everybody, whether agreeing with it or not, would regard as a thoughtful, well-informed and impressive speech. Every proposal made by my hon. Friend was scornfully tossed aside. When the Parliamentary Secretary sat down, I had the feeling that he would have been a perfect subject for a Bateman cartoon which might have been headed "The man who did not know there was a housing problem", because his speech seemed to be so out of keeping with the situation.
  I say this to the Minister, and it applies to what I have heard in previous housing debates. It is useless arguing about producing a large number of statistics, even if they are right, of houses built in a given period of years if in giving those statistics one ignores the kind of house that is built, the price for which it is built, those who are therefore able to live in the houses, the areas in which they are built, whether they add to the existing stock of the total number of houses at the same rate as the increasing need and the increasing number of separate households which are required in our growing population. If one ignores all those things, it does not matter whether one proves that 3 million or 30 million houses have been built or whether the number is more than any other party has built. The point is that if it does not match the need in the right places it is failure.
  1130
  One of the things that the Parliamentary Secretary kept saying to my hon. Friend was, "We have done X. You cannot call that failure." Is that up to what is required? If it is not, it is by definition failure. It fails to match the problem. It is largely this that leads Ministers and others on the benches opposite to seem so complacent about a problem which to us appears so urgent.
  Several times the Parliamentary Secretary, when telling us that over the country the situation was not all that bad, dropped in a reference to London or Birmingham and then said that these places had a special problem and could be left on one side. It is no use proving that everything is all right on the moors of Derbyshire if the houses are not where people have to live; they have to live where the work is. It is no good saying that that is a special problem and then proceeding to ignore it as though it did not matter. The point is that that is the problem. There is a nation-wide problem about housing, but the terrible problem is where most of the nation unfortunately live. That is the problem that we ought to be discussing.
  The Parliamentary Secretary attempted to deal with the level of rents, mortgage rates, their level and their influence on the Whole problem. I will endeavour to pick up these things as I go through What I want to say. I begin by asking the Minister whether he really considers it necessary at this stage for us to prove the problem. My hon. Friend asked him at the beginning of the debate to say whether he was satisfied with the rate of communal, municipal building of houses to let.
  I ask the Minister in the same sense whether he needs the problem to be proved. Does not he know, do not we all know, can any of us visit our constituencies without knowing, that there is not only the sort of problem that my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool has just described in Liverpool, but a growing problem? It is growing because young people are growing up, because people get married earlier. It is no use telling the young people not to marry until they have saved enough money. I have told both my daughters that, and so far they appear to be taking this good advice. There are, however, many people to

  1131
  whom that will not be an effective contribution to solve their housing problem.
  The problem is growing in the towns and in the country districts. I represent a vast area in the middle of England. It has two great rural districts and two urban districts. We are not building one house for general need—that is to say, because people want a house and, for one reason or another, their needs cannot be satisfied by what is being built to sell. I will explain why that is so. If we are not building anything except for miners who are being moved out from Scotland, or for a few old people, or for a few other special cases, clearly the problem is getting worse, and I would have thought that the Minister would not wish us to emphasise this.
  It is possible to get evidence in statistical form if it is wanted. We made inquiries in many towns—Bolton, Bradford, Hull, Leeds, Liverpool, London, Rochdale, Salford, Sheffield, and so on. The story is the same in them all. For a long time all, or nearly all, the houses being built to let have been built for slum clearance only, with the exception of a few special cases. This cannot meet the general problem. If we concentrate on building for slum clearance, in one sense we must make the position worse because of what is called the decanting problem. We are dealing with the most overcrowded areas of our cities, areas in which there are few or no open spaces, and as provision is made for more amenities more space is used to provide them, and thus there is space for fewer buildings than were on the site before. Therefore, in a sense we are not only making no contribution to the general problem, but making it worse.
  Nothing has been done in many of these areas for a number of years to try to deal with the general problem. This is apparent from studying the periods that people have to wait on the housing lists for a house to rent. These figures are a little out of date, but I am sure that they have not improved. I am told that in London there are more than 53,000 families on the waiting list, many of whom have been on it for twelve years. In Birmingham there are
  1132
  50,000 on the waiting list and the average waiting time is eight years.
  Mr. V. Yates: Nine years.
  Mr. Brown: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I am told that in Leeds there are 21,000 families on the waiting list, some of whom have been on it since 1943 when it was opened. In Liverpool there are 46,000 families on the waiting list, some of whom have been on it since the end of the war. Most families there have to wait ten years for the offer of accommodation, and a similar position exists in Sheffield.
  Either way the problem exists, and let us remember what the problem is. It is not a statistical one. It is not a marginal one. It is the greatest human problem that exists. Those who have had personal experience of it know that there is nothing more undignified and nothing more humiliating than being without a decent home. These 50,000 people who have been on the waiting list for ten years have been without the fundamental human requirement to enable them to lead decent civilised lives. Without overdoing it, for heaven's sake let us approach the problem in that sense, and not merely as something marginal that we can afford to leave for a minute or two.
  There are other aspects of the problem. Not much has been said about homeless families. If somebody put it to me in this way I would be shocked. Last year, in London and Birmingham alone, the number of families made homeless as a result of the Rent Act equalled the population of Belper. Just imagine a whole town being made homeless in one year. These were not the shiftless ones about which we have heard so much. These were not the idle ones. These were not those who would not take a pot of paint and do some work. These were not the ne'er do wells. These were ordinary decent people who were overtaken by problems that they could not solve, problems which arose largely as a result of deliberate Government policy.
  It is no use saying that this is a special problem. It is a problem that we must deal with—and we are not dealing with it. It is no use sending silly letters like the letter sent by the Minister to a constituent in the borough where I live,

  1133
  advising him to put his name down on the books of four or five estate agents, and to read the advertisements in the Evening Standard, when, no doubt, some day he would find what he wanted. This is a tremendous problem, and we say that the Government are not doing anything about it.
  The Parliamentary Secretary's oblique reference to it was to say, "There is no reason why people should not be willing to pay the economic price of a better home." He went on rather charmingly to indicate that he thought that some people were spending too much on smoking and drinking, and that if they switched some part of their pattern of spending to satisfying their housing requirements they would be able to buy their houses. He will be in trouble the moment the Chancellor reads what he has said. That is no answer. He merited the rebuke he received from his hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Sir M. Lindsay).
  There are many reasons why buying a house is not the answer for lots of people—and quite properly not the answer. We must be a little careful about this passion for buying and spending more on houses. I am fortunate enough to be an owner-occupier, with the aid of a building society. Provided that it does not keep on putting my mortgage back, as it has done because of Government policy ever since I took it, some day I shall own the house. I am in favour of the principle of property owning, but some people show too great a passion for it. The Minister made a lot of Mr. Seldon's article in the Statist. I noticed that in his article he says that it would not be at all a bad thing if the percentage of income spent on housing were to rise not from the 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. that we have been talking about but to 30 or even 33 per cent. of a man's income. If we start encouraging people to spend that percentage of their income on rents they will be in arrears with their rents and mortgages very soon. A person has to be ignorant of the economics of working-class life to talk in those terms. Let us go easy with it.
  There are many reasons why it is impossible for some people to own their homes. It is not only the question of
  1134
  costs, or the level of their incomes. The degree of security in certain jobs has to be considered. It has a bearing on the ability to buy a house on a twenty or twenty-five year basis. Hon. Members have often referred to the need for labour to be mobile. In other debates we are lectured about the need for labour not tying itself down. That argument does not go very well with the idea that everybody should become an owner-occupier.
  Many other factors must be taken into account. As the hon. Member for Solihull pointed out, there is no sign of houses to let at rents that people can pay coming forward as a result of private investment on anything like the required scale. They are hardly coming forward at all. So whatever we say about the merits of owner-occupation and however much we encourage people to go in for it—and I am all for encouraging those who want to do so—in the end it all comes back to the need for more municipal or housing association building if we are to have a sufficient number of houses to let in the places which need them and for the people who need them.
  The Government are not encouraging would-be owner-occupiers. The other day I read a report that the leader of the Conservative Party has had a market research job done in a certain unmentionable division—since neither he nor I have any great reason to mention it. At any rate we shared our wounds that night. There is one thing that he does not need a market research team to tell him. If Ministers in a debate like this do not seem to know what the problem is, or where the shoe is pinching, the public will conclude that they are so far out of touch that they are not worth bothering about.
  There was an assumption that the present owner-occupiers—not those people that we wish to encourage to become owner-occupiers and to come off the housing waiting lists but even the present owner-occupiers—were having life nice and easy and that for them everything was honey. There was no recognition of what rising mortgage rates mean to them, or what it means when one is being pushed back and back instead of being able to repay the mortgage.

  1135
  I asked the Library staff to prepare some figures for me. I take responsibility for these figures; they are not the responsibility of the Library staff, but I have every reason to believe that they are accurate. A mortgagee of£2,000 repayable over twenty years—not an unusual form of borrowing—would make monthly repayments which have risen since 1951 from£12 to£15. It is all very well to talk about the way in which personal incomes have risen—this is an average figure. The people who live in houses on the outskirts of our cities are not usually those who have enjoyed large increases in their wages. They are not usually piece-workers and they do not have other opportunities to earn. Usually, their families are too young to be earning to augment the family income.
  The total repayment for the loan in such a case will have risen from a sum of£2,960, which was the figure when the loan was made, to£3,640. So that people are not encouraged to follow the example of such a borrower by having conditions made easier for them. Conditions have been made more difficult. One does not need to quote statistics to prove this. It can be seen. I have quoted this argument in this Chamber before, but it will repay quoting again because, apparently, the Parliamentary Secretary does not appreciate the point. It is no use saying in respect of an area like Camberwell, where I live, that it does not matter that we are not building for general need through the council because this is an area where there is a lot of owner-occupier development going on. That is true. But almost all of that development is in Dulwich and nearly all the houses are in the£5,000 to£15,000 range. No matter, therefore, how many such houses are put up, it makes no contribution to the problem in Camberwell.
  In my constituency, in the Belper rural district, at Duffield and Allestree, and at Mickleover which is adjoining, a tremendous number of houses have been built for owner occupation. But that does not help to solve the problem facing the people in Belper, ten miles away, who want accommodation to rent, or who might even buy a cheap house. That sort of accommodation is not being provided. I am not saying that the
  1136
  people who get the houses are not worthy people; they are. I am not complaining that they get these houses. We want to see everyone occupying the housing accommodation of his choice. But I wish to make the point that this is no answer to the problems confronting other people who are in trouble, and that is where the Parliamentary Secretary became mixed up.
  Rising interest rates and rising land prices make the situation worse. It is interesting to contemplate the total price of a house. I think the Parliamentary Secretary said that interest rates did not produce bricks. No they do not, but they can stop one turning bricks into houses, or cripple one in attempting to build them.
  I hope we have got this over because, until we do so, I do not see the Minister tackling the job. Either the Government have to get the price of money down and face all the economic and industrial consequences of that—which I understand—or to be revolutionary and face the prospect of a two-tier credit system whereby we choose the socially desirable things and make credit arrangements for them just because we do choose them and not allow to be provided the same privileges and the same ease of raising money, the same low rates of interest, for the things we decide are not so socially desirable.
  There are problems and difficulties about that, but unless we do one of those things we shall be faced with an insuperable problem of house building too dear for people to pay an economic rent which is crippling many other ratepayers, many of whom may not be so well off because of the need to provide an almighty subsidy. This has to be faced and I ask the Minister tonight to do rather better than the Parliamentary Secretary did in facing it.
  All the Parliamentary Secretary could do was to ask my hon. Friend if he would give him£1,000 at low interest rates. That was no answer to the problem. I have from the treasurer of a London borough a whole series of actual payments, for example, for conversions. This borough is doing a lot of converting of houses into flats. At the rate of interest prevailing in 1951 there is an annual deficit of about£60 per unit for conversion. On a big block

  1137
  of flats one would break even, but on the present interest rates one would have an annual deficiency per unit per dwelling, per flat, per house, of£132,£242,£110, and£142 against what in the other case would have ranged from nothing to a maximum of£80.
  When trying to meet this problem one either gives up housing people or breaks the backs of the people who have to pay. It is no use acting as if this is another "little local problem". It is fundamental. This has to be faced and the Government ought to be brought to face it. There are other things the Government should do. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, who was kind to the Minister and said that we understand he cannot do these things because of the nature of the Government, I say that the first thing he must do is to tackle the land problem, the misuse of land and the way in which socially desirable things when publicly done are being soaked because of competition by speculators who have more money to throw about in that way.
  This is terribly important. We should make more favourable grants, especially for conversion. I am told that there are silly comparisons between what one can do under Section 11 of the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act and under other housing Acts. This makes a tremendous difference to the economics of the whole thing. The Minister could, and I think should, bring back a subsidy for housing for general need. He could do something about productivity in the industry. The Parliamentary Secretary tossed off a reference to the Emmerson Committee's Report. I do not know whether it has yet been published, but I shall have pleasure in reading it because I spent a happy twelve months working with Sir Harold Emmerson. I hold the view, as an old trade union organiser who knew the industry on that side and who for a short time was at the Ministry of Works, that there is hardly an industry which has more scope for improvement and rationalisation than this one.
  When I was there there was a whole series of information about the way in which we were trying to do it. There were building advisory committees, standards of all kinds, joint apprenticeships, priorities and training schemes, by which
  1138
  we were trying to break down some of the old routines. I am told that most of these have been dismantled and that most of the committees that we had have disappeared. I should like to know if that is true. It is not much use talking about productivity improvements and making reports unless something is actually going on in the industry. I remember that we examined every action of the electrical contracting industry, as well as the physical laying of bricks and so on, and I think that today we have to do a lot more about that than we are doing.
  Finally, we have to choose the priorities. Of course, we cannot do everything. We talk about the overstrain on the industry, but why solve that overstrain by allowing it to fall on housing for the people whose need is greatest? That is allowing the problem to sort itself out. The business of modern governments is not to do that. It is to choose their priorities, choose the ones which they want to go for, and face the consequences, which means economising on other things. It is no use saying that if they stop other things that does not amount to much. It would be better for them to fold up than that there should be shortage of housing.
  I will sit down and keep my bargain. I say, in conclusion, that this debate is really not about just these details, but about the fundamental difference in philosophy which has come out all through it. Do we regard the provision of housing as a social obligation, as a social service, which we have an obligation as a society to see is provided, or do we regard it as something charitable, which we will provide if we really have to because there is some really horrible tragedy otherwise; in other words, do the minimum? The party opposite regard it as the latter. It does not regard it as a service and as something good in itself.
  In my view, and in the view of those of us on this side of the Committee, we have a totally fundamentally different approach. This is one of the social services that we are charged with the duty to provide. This should be the prime charge on our production and on our wealth. It does not mean that we have to provide the lot in one fell swoop, and it does not mean that it has all to be

  1139
  centrally or municipally owned. There are a variety of ways in which it can be provided but provided it has to be. Provided it would be were we on the benches opposite. The reason is that financial policy would be changed, the land problem would be tackled, and we would choose our social priorities and tell people frankly why there were some things that we had to hold back while others went ahead. If we give people that kind of philosophy, they will stand up to it. People have to be convinced that it is inhuman and unsocial to have people living in the conditions in which millions of our citizens are living today.
  9.29 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Dr. Charles Hill): I think that it will be agreed by all hon. Members who have been here that this has been a frank and valuable debate, and nothing that I say in winding it up will minimise the formidable and massive character of the housing problem which confronts this country. To use the words of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), a grave human problem is involved, and I agree with him that there is no necessity for more statistics to prove the situation.
  It is true, as was said by my hon. Friend, that this country's achievements since the war have been very considerable. I will not recite the figures which hon. Members have heard very often, perhaps too often, of the number of post-war houses—4 million; but that represents more than 10 million people who have been rehoused. There is no need to repeat the figures given by my hon. Friend. The fact is that if we take into account the number of slums remaining—even though the estimates of local authorities may have been inaccurate one way or another in 1955—which must be about half a million; if we recall the number of houses which are eighty years old and more—4 million at least of such houses; if we take into account the new post-war factor of the annual increase of 100,000 families, apart from the rising population—an increase which derives from the lower age of marriage and the increased average size of families; and if we take into account the existing backlog of shortage
  1140
  of accommodation—if we take into account all these things, it is probably true that over the next twenty years we need, to give the two extremes, between 4 million and 8 million houses—probably about 6 million houses in the next twenty years.
  This is a formidable problem, and the Committee is fully entitled to submit the Government's actions and ideas to the closest scrutiny. Before dealing with the main issues, I will say a word or two about some of the more detailed points which have been raised in the debate. In his thoughtful opening speech the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) laid stress on the need for greater productivity, a theme to which I shall later return. There is one general observation which I should like to make on what he and other hon. Members said. It is no use pretending that only council houses are a contribution to the general housing of all classes. Every new house built and occupied meets a housing need. Many of these houses release houses for others to move into.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Sir M. Lindsay) raised the question of greater density. Density is rising steeply. We are pressing this more and more on planning authorities, and we hope in a few months' time in the form of a bulletin to bring further advice to local authorities on that subject.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) raised the question of a development corporation being brought in, modelled on new town experience. I am not convinced that such a rival body would do better than the major local authorities or consortia of smaller authorities. What we need, I suggest, is not a rival organisation competing for staff but greater productivity and more efficient methods of getting more houses for the same labour. It is modern techniques, I suggest, not new administrative machinery, Which is the prime requirement.
  Some hon. Members pointed out that slum clearance is not an addition, and the right hon. Member for Belper said that it presented additional problems. But if it is not a mathematical addition, that is no reason for not giving slum

  1141
  clearance a very real priority. It may not be an addition to the statistics, but the House will agree that it is an addition to human happiness even though the stock of houses remains the same.
  The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said that we should give top priority to a definitive survey of the housing needs of the nation. He went on to suggest that the Registrar-General should tell us the needs of twenty years ahead. I say nothing about the capacity of the Registrar-General to determine what is going to happen to the marriage age or to the average size of a family. Although we need more information, it is not my idea of a top priority that it should be given to statistics and definitive surveys. Rather should the top priority be the immediate problem of housing.
  The hon. Member also referred to the restriction, as he called it, on council house building last year. He seems not to have heard what my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said in relation to the over-load on the building industry and the delays in completion which were resulting last year. The hon. Member will recall that my hon. Friend pointed out that, whereas in 1959 for every 100 houses already started 97 houses were completed, in 1960 the figure was 84 and in 1961 it was down to 72.
  Mr. Lubbock: I did indeed realise this, but I pointed out that the overload caused by the needs of private building was very much more extensive than that caused by local authority building.
  Dr. Hill: If the hon. Member will be a little more patient, I am going to add a sentence about that. The hon. Member having criticised us for having, as it were, steadied new starts in the council field to get a bigger number of completed houses, went on to chastise us for not having at the same time imposed building controls on private buildings. That was the essence of what he said—a strange Liberal doctrine.
  The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and other hon. Members raised the question of subsidy. I will refer in particular to the hon. Member's reference to the position in Manchester, with the£8 subsidy on the basis of the present arrangement. I am glad to say that Manchester is going—it has
  1142
  just so decided—to raise its slum clearance target to 4,000 over the next two years—or to reach a target of 4,000 in the next two years—from a figure of little over 1,000. That will carry Manchester from the£8 subsidy to the£24 subsidy.
  It is important for it to be understood that where an£8 authority is confronted by a massive slum clearance problem, the fact of tackling the problem will almost certainly take the authority from the one category to the other, and so lead it to the position of the£24 subsidy—and indeed a possible increase to£40.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) raised the general question of subsidy in a thoughtful speech on a very important topic. Bearing in mind the supplementary subsidies for authorities whose difficulties are really great and whose resources are inadequate, I think that the arrangements are about right for the present, but they are not immovable. They are not unchangeable. Conditions may well change in general costs and in the scale of slum clearance. There may be a change in the variation between local needs and efforts. If necessary, the subsidy arrangements must also change. As the hon. Member suggested, we must move with the times, and if necessary on this matter of subsidy we shall move further still.
  I will not go into the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) about the level of compensation for the redevelopment of central areas, except to say that I will consider what he said. I agree, as I am sure the whole Committee does, with what he said about the location of houses for older people.
  As to the future, I made plain my view—and there is no complacency in my approach to this housing problem—that despite what has been done in the last ten years there are, as every hon. Member knows, hundreds of thousands of people who are abominably housed. This is a social disease which we have to cure, and which we intend to cure. [HON. MEMBERS: "When."] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to develop my speech. The hon. Member for Oldham, East raised the question

  1143
  similarly, but I want to make it perfectly clear that the Government intend to see that every family has its home, and a decent home. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] That is the pledge.
  How can we speed up the process? How can we build faster? The Committee would not want to achieve results by reducing the school programme, the hospital programme or the roads programme, or by introducing—this applies to this side of the Committee, at least—a licensing system to hold back shop and factory building. That would be economic madness.
  We have to look first and foremost to better productivity in the building industry. That means—and I invite hon. Members to read the Emmerson Report, published about ten days ago—a number of things: better co-ordination between the different elements in the industry; fuller technical research; more effective dissemination of information; and more standardisation of components and fittings; as well as improved methods of training and a review of apprenticeships.
  These matters are being urgently pursued, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works will have something to say to the House about them. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I do suggest, having sat throughout the day without the assistance of some hon. Members, that I might be allowed to reply to the debate.
  Several of the larger local authorities are working on these lines, but it is essential for improved productivity that local authorities with the worst housing problems should be allowed to plan their housing programmes for several years ahead. That I intend to arrange. In my view, the most urgent task, for all that has been said about general need—and I would remind the right hon. Member for Belper that the subsidy for general need has already been restored—is the clearance of the slums. I propose, as the Committee knows, to concentrate, first of all, on the older towns of the Midlands and the North, where three-quarters of the remaining slums are to be found; 190,000 of them, as has been said, in Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool.
  For a start, we have to ascertain the particular difficulties of a particular area,
  1144
  whether of land, overspill, resources, staff, or the like. That, we are in the process of doing now. Before Easter, as the first step, I approached about forty local authorites with some of the worst slums for a statement of their immediate difficulties. Officials of my Ministry will go to the towns with the most intractable problems to study their difficulties and to help them to find solutions, and the authorites will be encouraged to make long-term programmes three, four and five years ahead. Where appropriate, they will be urged to join together with other local authorities in organising forward programmes and trying out new methods of construction.
  No limit will be placed by me on their slum clearance programmes; the only limit will be what is physically practicable. That may mean holding back other authorities whose housing needs are less acute or where the private builders are more active, but that is what priority means. What I am determined on, and I pledge the Government to it, is a consistent slum clearance drive, never relaxing until these shameful conditions are a thing of the past. All the time, as has been pointed out, more houses are slipping into obsolescence—into potential slums.
  The hon. Member for Salford, East has put down many Questions on this subject, and I repeat what I said to him yesterday; that I am not satified with the use that is being made of grants for improvement and conversion. True that I gave him the figures and that the numbers are up, but there is need for, and I agree with him, many, many more. The number of dwellings capable of improvement—and there must be this improvement—is very large. I know that some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Salford, East, have suggested compulsion, but that is more difficult than it sounds. It entails a house-to-house survey by the local authority, it affects tenants as well as landlords, and there is the question of some of them not wishing to give up their room, and so on. [Interruption.] And some landlords are not interested.
  I believe, as I hinted yesterday, that more good can be done in the next phase if authorities could select particular areas of their towns to demonstrate to landlords and tenants alike

  1145
  what can be done, picking out streets where improvement or conversion is worth tackling and approaching landlords and tenants to enlist their interest. If they can get improvement agreed for most of the houses they can exercise their powers of acquisition for any unimproved islands of property where the landlords cannot—or will not—join in.
  I do not altogether exclude the idea of compulsory improvement, but I am sure that for the time being the job can be more effectively done, if we can so succeed, by enlisting the co-operation of landlords and tenants. At all events, bearing in mind the number of houses that are of a considerable age, improvement and conversion must, in many towns, play a substantial part in the next few years.
  Reference has been made to the shortage of houses to let. Of course that is true, and I do not for a moment deny it. It is true, too, that one cannot expect development in this field while there are threats of municipalisation and reimposition of rent control. Again, the houses now being built can all be sold. There are a quarter of a million more owner-occupiers a year. Yet something more is needed, and I doubt whether it is council accommodation which most of these people, or many of them, really want.
  The right hon. Member for Belper referred to housing association schemes. The recent scheme, with the loan of£25 million for the building of houses and flats at economic rents, will, I believe, show the way. I hope that it will be demonstrated that there is a demand for rented property at economic rents, and I hope that housing associations—existing and new ones—will greatly increase and extend their activities in the provision of rented accommodation at economic rents. I believe that they can. particularly with the good-will of local authorities.
  I believe, too, that there is room for a new wave of activity in a movement where so much good has been done in the past. It could lead to a new development in the field of ownership and management of houses—something which is much needed today. House management is a skilled job, needing a sense of responsibility, and both can be pro- 1146
  vide by non-profit housing associations. Great effort is needed to launch them, but there are public-spirited people in every town, and if some of them would take on the job of launching housing associations the movement would spread fast.
  For myself, I do not want local authorities to become the monopoly owners of rented property. I do not believe that the people looking for houses want that either. Indeed, in some towns the local authorities already own too high a proportion of the property. Some of them might do well to consider whether they could not create housing associations to manage some of the houses that they have built. Or, when they have a problem in getting houses improved, they might buy the houses and create associations to improve and manage them—co-operative associations in which tenants are represented and have a stake in the estate. We want every family to have its own house and, within the limits of its means, the freedom of choice, for freedom of choice is as important in housing as in anything.
  We have to face the cost. For too long has the real cost of housing been obscured and distorted. We must put it on a par with food and clothes and the other necessities of life. It is essential to a healthy housing position that the family that can afford it should pay for the house of its choice, and today many are able to do so. Those who cannot must be helped. It is to that end that our subsidy arrangements must be directed, and this means a realistic rent system with a distribution of the rate of subsidy according to individual need for it, as has been suggested by my hon. Friends today.
  If we can achieve all this and maintain it, we shall go a long way to solve our housing problem. We have a long way still to go, but we are going there.
  After all, in the confrontation of this massive and long-term problem it is right that a party should be judged by the resolve that it has shown in office rather than by the resolutions which it has passed in opposition. I know that members of the party opposite rely on the fading of the public's recollection of their own record in office—and on their vocal capacity to shut down any references to it. But at least they were frank. They said that

  1147
  they could not manage more than 200,000 houses, and except in one year they did not. And that despite low interest rates, despite the fact that they built no hospitals, that they built schools at only half the present rate, and few roads, and that they clamped down the whole complex of controls on building, and made no effort to tackle the slums—indeed, there has been no slum clearance drive from them ever.
  Then, just before the General Election they hatched out their policy, which has not been mentioned today, for the municipalisation of all rented property. They seem to have dropped that idea. They discovered it was a bad idea. But if they had won the last General Election that bad idea would have been fastened on the Statute Book. We have had a new one from them now, the land commission proposal. The first thing it would do would be to build a big administrative apparatus. Then no development of land unless the commission had first bought it and leased it to the developers. If the commission bought for less than market value, less land, not more, would be offered for development. If it bought at market price, what would be the use of the commission? Having bought it, if they sold it at the market price, land prices would remain unchanged, and if they sold it at less they would have the invidious task of choosing between one builder and another as to who should have it. The truth is that the land commission notion will go the way of the municipalisation of rented property.
  But of course the party opposite, before they entered office, no doubt honestly had great hopes and ideas to
  "build four or five million houses and knock down any amount of slums and rebuild our country in a very quick time."
  Another phrase was,
  "We will get the houses as we got the guns, by planning and control."
  The right hon. Member for Belper said:
  "Labour will organise a new approach to housing and organise the industry as a national service."
  In 1950 they answered themselves. One hon. Member summed it up at the Margate conference as follows:
  "We cheer, we vote, but when we get outside we wonder exactly what progress we have made and how we are to face the people throughout the country who have claims for accommodation.
  Since that date, 10 million people have had their claims satisfied.
  Another hon. Member, in a moment of final revelation in 1950, said in his constituency:
  "The housing problem cannot be solved by any Government within the next twenty years. It is no good for Socialists to try and delude themselves otherwise. It just cannot be done."
  The Opposition's purpose in selecting this subject for debate is obvious. They hope to obscure from the voters at the council elections their own abysmal failure when they were in office. So, massive though the remaining problem is, the Government's record of 3 million houses in ten years, moving 200,000 persons a year from slums, an annual increase in owner-occupiers of a quarter of a million, and their resolve to intensify slum clearance to a major exercise in slum clearance—these are of more significance than all the brotherly protestations of the right hon. Member for Belper.
  Mr. M. Stewart: In view of the mountebank performance of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to move, That Item Class VI, Vote I, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, be reduced by£5.
  Question put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 192, Noes 268.

  Division No. 172.]

  AYES

  [9.57 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Blyton, William

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Ainsley, William

  Boardman, H.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Albu, Austen

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Callagnan, James

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

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

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Awbery, Stan

  Bowles, Frank

  Chapman, Donald

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Boyden, James

  Cliffe, Michael

  Baird, John

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Bence, Cyrll

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Crosland, Anthony

  Benson, Sir George

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Darling, George

  Blackburn, F.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kelley, Richard

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Deer, George

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lawson, George

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

  Dempsey, James

  Ledger, Ron

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Diamond, John

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

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

  Dodds, Norman

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Ross, William

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Driberg, Tom

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Short, Edward

  Edwarde, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Evans, Albert

  MacDermot, Niall

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Fitch, Alan

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Small, William

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Snow, Julian

  Forman, J. C.

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

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Manuel, Archie

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Mapp, Charles

  Spriggs, Leslle

  Ginsburg, David

  Marsh, Richard

  Steele, Thomas

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Mason, Roy

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Stones, William

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Mellish, R. J.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mendelson, J. J.

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

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Millan, Bruce

  Swain, Thomas

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Milne, Edward

  Swingler, Stephen

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Gunter, Ray

  Monslow, Walter

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Moody, A. S.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Moyle, Arthur

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Mulley, Frederick

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

  Harper, Joseph

  Oliver, G. H.

  Thornton, Ernest

  Hayman, F. H.

  Oram, A. E.

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Tomney, Frank

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Wade, Donald

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Holman, Percy

  Parkin, B. T.

  Warbey, William

  Holt, Arthur

  Paton, John

  Weitzman, David

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pavltt, Laurence

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Hoy, James H.

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Peart, Frederick

  Willey, Frederick

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Pentland, Norman

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Prentice, R. E.

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

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Probert, Arthur

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Jeger, George

  Proctor, W. T.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Woof, Robert

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Randall, Harry

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

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

  Rankin, John

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Redhead, E. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Reid, William

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

  Mr. Grey.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Bryan, Paul

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Buck, Antony

  Crowder, F. P.

  Allason, James

  Bullard, Denys

  Cunningham, Knox

  Arbuthnot, John

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Curran, Charles

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Burden, F. A.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Dance, James

  Barber, Anthony

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

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Barlow, Sir John

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Barter, John

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Batsford, Brian

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Doughty, Charles

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Chataway, Christopher

  du Cann, Edward

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Bidgood, John C.

  Collard, Richard

  Elliot, Capter Walter (Carshalton)

  Biffen, John

  Cooke, Robert

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

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Cooper, A. E.

  Emery, Peter

  Bishop, F. P.

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Bossom, Clive

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Errington, Sir Erlc

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Cordle, John

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Costain, A. P.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Braine, Bernard

  Coulson, Michael

  Foster, John

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Fraser, Hn. Hug (Stafford & Stone)

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Critchley, Julian

  Gammans, Lady

  1150

  1151

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Roberta, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Gilmour, Sir John

  Litchfield, Capt. John

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

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Russell, Ronald

  Gough, Frederick

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  St. Clair, M.

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  McAdden, Stephen

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Sharples, Richard

  Green, Alan

  McLaren, Martin

  Shaw, M.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

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

  Shepherd, William

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

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

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

  Smithers, Peter

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Speir, Rupert

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Maddan, Martin

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Hastings, Stephen

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Stodart, J. A.

  Hay, John

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Hendry, Forbes

  Marshall, Douglas

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Marten, Nell

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Hlley, Joseph

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Tapsell, Peter

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

  Maxwell-Hyalop, R. J.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

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

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

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

  Mills, Stratton

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Miscampbell, Norman

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

  Hobson, Sir John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Teeling, Sir William

  Hocking, Philip N.

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Temple, John M.

  Holland, Philip

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Hollingworth, John

  Neave, Airey

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Hopkins, Alan

  Noble, Michael

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Hornby, R. P.

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Homsby-Smlth, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

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

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Turner, Colin

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Partridge, E.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  James, David

  Peel, John

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Peyton, John

  Walder, David

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Walker, Peter

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Pott, Percivall

  Whitelaw, William

  Kerby, Capt, Henry

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Kirk, Peter

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Pym, Francis

  Wise, A. R.

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Ramsden, James

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Rees, Hugh

  Worsley, Marcus

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Renton, David

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Lewie, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Mr. Chichester-Clark and

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Rippon, Geoffrey

  Mr. Finlay.

  Original Question again proposed.
  Mr. John H. Temple Mr. John H. Temple (City of Chester) rose—
  It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  NORTHERN IRELAND [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend with regard to certain matters, and empower Her Majesty in Council to amend with regard to others, the law concerning the administration of justice in Northern Ireland, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of—

  (i) remuneration and allowances to a person who sits and acts as a judge of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal or High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland for an absent judge or in the place of one whose place has become vacant or sits and acts as an additional judge of either of those Courts;

  (ii) remuneration and allowances to a person (other than a judge of either of those Courts) who sits and acts as a judge of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Northern Ireland;

  (iii) remuneration to a person appointed to act as secretary to the committee constituted by the said Act of the present Session for the purpose of making rules for the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland;

  (iv) any expenses incurred by the said committee; and

  (v) any increase attributable to any provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable by way of pensions and other benefits under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1960, compensation under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to existing Irish officers, or terminable annuities under section eight of the Pensions Commutation Act, 1871;

  (b) the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of any increase attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable thereout under section eleven of the said Act of 1871.

  Resolution agreed to.

  SUGAR BEET (RESEARCH AND EDUCATION)
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Peart: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Sugar Beet (Research and Education) Order, 1962 (S.I., 1962, No. 618), dated 26th March, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th March, be annulled.
  Our purpose tonight is to obtain information from the Government about the Order, which is important, because it deals with research and education in
  1154
  the industry. The industry occupies an important place in our economy. I have looked at the official statistics and I understand that one-quarter of the sugar consumed in Britain is produced in this country. Sugar beet growing extends to about 400,000 acres, and approximately 36,000 farmers are engaged in growing it.
  Sugar beet is a dual-purpose crop, providing a cash return and also feed for livestock. If I may weary the House for a short time, each acre of sugar beet produces 30 cwt. of sugar, 12 tons of leaves and crowns, 15 cwt. of plain sugar beet pulp and 10¾ cwt. of mollasses. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. It is almost impossible to hear the hon. Member.
  Mr. Peart: I do not wish to weary the House by repeating all I have said. I merely emphasise that the industry is an important one and provides a livelihood directly and indirectly for 36,000 of our farmers over approximately 400,000 acres.
  The Order, which deals with the provision of research and education in the sugar beet industry, is, therefore, important. Its Explanatory Note gives the general purpose of the Order as providing
  "for the assessment and collection of contributions in 1962 from the British Sugar Corporation Ltd. and growers of home grown beet".
  The purpose of this revenue is to provide over a period for a programme of research and education. Details are given in the Schedule to the Order of the various matters of research, which include plant breeding, variety trials, pests investigations, crop husbandry, and so on. There are numerous details affecting education to a total of£152,000.
  The programme also provides, however, for a further stage in capital development. This development is now to be undertaken by the Rothamsted Experimental Station at a new field station at Broom's Barn, Higham, near Bury St. Edmunds. A total of£35,000 is included in the Schedule to the Order for capital development. I understand that disease and fertiliser experiments previously carried out by the Dunholme Field Station, in Lincolnshire, are to be carried out at Broom's Barn.

  1155
  I should like to know why Rothamsted has been chosen. Many years ago, I had the pleasure of visiting Rothamsted Experimental Station. I believe it to be one of the finest stations in the world. Every hon Member connected with agriculture, even indirectly, should visit it. I should like to know the reason for the change and what is happening to Dunholme Field Station. Obviously, there are policy reasons for this change.
  There will be a transfer of manpower. What about the scientists who have been engaged on important work in the Dunholme Field Station? What is the need for this change? There may, of course, be a scientific reason for it. Rothamsted is a wonderful centre, and I pay tribute to the work it has done and perhaps from the point of view of scientific research it is considered that it would be better to carry it out in this main centre.
  The Minister is making this Order under powers conferred by Section 18 of the Sugar Act, 1956. It is laid down in that Act that there must be consultation with the British Sugar Corporation Ltd. and representatives of growers of home-grown beet. It is laid down that there must be consultation between those two bodies. Has there been proper consultation? At what level has this consultation taken place? Has this consultation involved purely the financial aspects of this Order, or has it included the scientific policy behind it?
  In all our legislation we have laid down that consultation must take place between the Corporation and the growers, and this is a happy marriage. I will not weary the House with the details, except to point out that Section 18 of the Sugar Industry (Reorganisation) Act, 1936, and Section 6 of the wartime Sugar Industry Act, 1942, clearly lay down that there must be this consultation. In other words, there must be a combined effort between the Corporation, the producers and, of course, the Ministry, which is responsible for preparing the Order. What consultation has taken place, and at What level?
  It may be that we are creating a precedent by praying against this Order, but these are matters affecting an important industry. The Order affects scientific
  1156
  policy. It also affects the manpower engaged in research. For these reasons, therefore, we should be given the information for which I have asked.
  Paragraph 4 (1) of the Order deals with contracts, and says:
  "All contracts made between the Corporation and any grower for the sale of homegrown beet for delivery to the Corporation during the year beginning on the first day of April, 1962, shall specify the aforesaid rate of contribution and provide that the total amount of the contribution shall be payable by the grower to the Corporation out of any sums standing to the credit of that grower "
  and so on. I will not weary the House with the details, but here again we are dealing with contracts made between the growers and the Corporation which in the end will affect the revenue for essential research required by the industry. I should therefore like to know what consultation has taken place about contracts.
  I omitted any reference to paragraph 3, which merely confirms what is laid down in Section 18 of the 1956 Act, to which I referred. This Order merely confirms the provisions laid down in that legislation.
  I am in no way criticising the work of the British Sugar Corporation. It is an excellent institution and has done a good job for the producers and the growers. I want this happy partnership to continue. Hon. Members on this side of the House are very pleased that not only under the Order but under previous legislation part of the revenue collected, by whatever means, is to be devoted to both fundamental and applied research into the various aspects of the sugar growing industry. Anything which encourages more home production is a good thing. This point will be argued at a later stage in our Parliamentary life, when we discuss the Common Market. I fully support anything which improves home production, if it is in the interests of our country.
  I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to supply the information for which I have asked.
  10.21 p.m.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bonrke: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has referred to the major item of expenditure of£38,462 arising in respect of disease investigation at Rothamsted. I do not want to deal with that point,

  1157
  beyond endorsing what he said by referring to the latest Report of the Agricultural Research Council, which points out that
  "In 1959 it was estimated that the average yield of sugar beet was increased by 25 per cent. as a result of spraying to control aphids carrying 'yellows'."
  The Institute at Rothamsted has done excellent work, and we would be unwise in any way to attempt to curtail expenditure by that station, and especially the Plant Pathology Division.
  I wish to raise the question of plant breeding. Under Item A.1 (a) Research, an expenditure of£14,372 is shown for the Plant Breeding Institute, Cambridge. It is becoming increasingly difficult to discover exactly where the finances of these bodies come from. A document called Agricultural Research Fund Accounts, 1960–61—House of Commons Paper No. 63—published on 23rd January this year, states that the Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge received a maintenance grant of£88,406 under Subhead C, and capital grants of£4,725 under Subhead H, making a total of£93,131. We see that under the Order the amount to be allocated in respect of sugar beet research will be£14,372. There is no way of telling whether the sum of£93,131 includes the£14,372. It is almost impossible to discover this from the Annual Report of the Agricultural Research Council.
  Strangely enough, this is the first year in which the Report has been presented in a slightly different form. After all, the Agricultural Research Council is largely responsible for what goes on at Rothamsted but one can hardly discover what is the amount devoted to any particular type of research. All that one can get from the 1959–60 accounts is that current expenditure on research institutes and units of the Council amounts to£1,147,217 and capital expenditure to£169,719. It is impossible to find out anywhere else in the Report how much has been spent on any particular type of research.
  Now we come to the latest Report of the Council where even these figures have been eliminated on the ground that each branch of agricultural research publishes so many reports periodically, which give accounts of the work in much greater detail, that it has been decided to
  1158
  limit the Report to what is almost a cursory review of the general picture. We are all anxious to safeguard the money of the taxpayer and to prevent expenditure which has not been properly examined. Yet when one tries to find out what is the expenditure, despite these copious reports made year by year, it is practically impossible to discover how much money is being spent and from where it is obtained.
  The Council spends about£6 million a year which I consider is money well spent. The fact that only£14,372 is spent on sugar beet may prompt us to ask whether that is enough. I hope that my hon. Friend may clarify our minds on this matter. I hope that he will not regard what I have said as carping criticism, because it is not. I am genuinely anxious to ensure that more attention is drawn to the excellent work done on agricultural research particularly in connection with sugar beet.
  For a number of years, including the lean years between the wars, growers in my constituency have relied on the sugar beet crops for a great proportion of their income. Had it not been for the Sugar Beet Act I do not know what might have happened. There are, of course, serious diseases and viruses which affect the crops, of which eel worm is a major factor. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will be able to tell us that these matters are receiving the attention they deserve and that the amounts spent approximate to what is required.
  10.28 p.m.
  Sir James Duncan: I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) on raising this matter. His action has called attention to something which otherwise we might have passed over in silence. The Order refers to various aspects of the agricultural problems in Scotland and the problems created by the diseases of virus yellows and eel worm which are fairly well understood in Scotland.
  There are other problems arising out of the Price Review. For the first time the Review has stated that in future the price may well be determined by the sugar content of the beet instead of the tonnage. All the advice from the Sugar Corporation factory at Cupar, Fife, in the past has been devoted to tonnage rather than sugar content. But now, for

  1159
  the first time, there is something new. I do not see any evidence of research, at any rate in Scotland, specifically into the question of increasing the sugar content of sugar beet rather than the tonnage. I would ask my hon. Friend to tell us when replying what research is being done into the growing of plants which will be higher in sugar content even if the yield is less in the future than it has been in the past.
  There is one point in the Explanatory Note on which I should like an answer. It is that the British Sugar Corporation and the growers will be subject to this new levy after 1st April, 1962. But long before that date we have in the past signed contracts at a fixed price for sugar to be delivered to the factory during 1962. Is this to be an alteration of the contract by Statute or is it not? I should have thought that if we are going to amend these things we should at least be given a year's notice so that we may know that there has been an increase from 2d. to 3d. in the deduction made for research purposes.
  I do not object to the Order in the least, but I just want to understand what we sugar beet growers—and I declare an interest—are to be faced with in the future and what help we are to get from the additional expense which is going to arise, particularly in view of the statement in the Price Review that in the future we are to be paid more on the sugar content than on tonnage. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to satisfy me on those two points.
  10.32 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): I believe that this is the first time in the twenty or so years of the existence of this fund that it has been discussed in the House. I think it is a good thing that it should be discussed, not least because it gives us an opportunity of paying tribute to a very good record achieved by this industry on many sides and not least in this question of research, a practical approach to the value of research and a willingness to pay for it.
  The record, as I say, is most successful and it covers diseases and sugar content. There are a number of research stations concerned in this, I can tell my hon.
  1160
  Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), not least Rothamsted, the Imperial College of Science and Technology and Nottingham University. By and large, the general problems concerned with sugar beet are really the same—not all—whether it is grown north or south of the Border. Of course, by far the greater part of our sugar beat acreage in Great Britain is south of the Border.
  We are also concerned with diseases of sugar beet and with engineering questions, which have not been mentioned, because the harvesting of beet is important in keeping down costs, and also with the question of fertilisation. Throughout all the years the industry has taken the initiative and co-operated very closely with national research institutes, and particularly Rothamsted, which has played a remarkable part.
  The Order which we are discussing is in the same general form as previous years, and the levy of 3d. per ton which is to be paid by both growers and processors is exactly the same as last year. I am not sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that. The work done by these various research institutes and by the industry itself has been remarkably free from criticism both inside and outside the industry, and in many ways I think it could serve as a model of what could be done in other fields.
  The question of the yield of sugar beet has been mentioned. The yield showed a remarkable increase over recent years. I think that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure which covered quite a short period. Between 1942 and 1961 the average yield of beet per acre—that is, the total yield not the sugar content—as a result of improved varieties and better methods of husbandry went up from 9·4 to 134 tons. That is a very considerable rise.
  Virus yellows, which perhaps is the principal menace, has also been mentioned by several hon. Members. I am glad to say that as a result of the work of the research institutes, it is much less of a menace and the methods of control have been getting better. It has been estimated that a bad attack could cost us up to 1 million tons of the crop.
  The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) asked me several questions

  1161
  and I shall do my best to answer them. First, why are we leaving this out-station at Rothamsted and moving to Broom's Barn? There are two reasons. First, the Air Ministry are the owners of the Dunholme Station and might well want it back. Broom's Barn will be a permanent station and will give more opportunity for research without interruption on a bigger scale and it is in a good area. In regard to the scientists, I cannot guarantee that every single man at Rothamsted will be re-employed, but the great majority will.
  The hon. Member asked what main lines of research are to be carried on at Broom's Barn. Broom's Barn will be mainly concerned with sugar beet. Many of these stations do research on a whole number of different crops and problems. I admit that it is difficult to break down the various figures we get in the reports as among different problems and it may be that some of the work is important in more than one field, but Broom's Barn intends to concentrate on sugar beet problems. We hope that this is the last time it will appear in the schedule as a big capital sum in connection with building. My right hon. Friend hopes that the station will be fully open before the end of the year.
  The hon. Member also spoke about consultation. There are statutory obligations on my right hon. Friend. Before framing the research programme and laying an Order, my right hon. Friend, with the Secretary of State for Scotland, is bound to consult, in the words of the 1956 Sugar Act:
  "any body which in his opinion is substantially representative of growers of home-grown sugar beet."
  Since 1942 this consultative body has been known as the Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee and it is under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Greenwell. It has worked extremely well over the years. Growers' contracts are negotiated between the National Farmers' Union and the British Sugar Growers Association and they are
  1162
  always shown to my right hon. Friend before they are put into circulation. There is reference to this in the 1960 White Paper.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely asked about increases in yield. I have referred already to that and have echoed what he said. He asked about the item of£14,000 going to the plant breeding station at Cambridge. I can assure him that all the items in the Schedule are in fact financed by the levy for which we are seeking authority tonight. Others are financed in other directions. If I have not answered exactly the point made by my hon. Friend I am sorry, and perhaps if he has a word with me later I may be able to find the further detail for which he wishes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) asked about research in Scotland and about eel worm. Generally it is true to say that research concerning sugar beet in Great Britain does not break down into quite separate lines of research appropriate to the country north or south of the Border. He spoke about contracts which had already been entered into being, apparently, breached because of the effect of the levy. I think that I answered his point. The levy we are asking the House to approve tonight is exactly the same figure as last year, and, therefore, there ought to be no change.
  I hope that I have been able to show that this Order, which is one of a long series, does not depart in any material way from its predecessors. It reflects, in fact, a remarkable record of research within the industry. I feel sure, therefore, that the hon. Member for Workington will not press his Prayer but will ask leave to withdraw it.
  Mr. Peart: I think that we have had a good reply. The Minister has gone into the details which we raised. In view of what he has said, I have pleasure in doing what he suggests. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  A.2 ROAD, DARTFORD (GYPSIES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
  10.41 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Dodds: On 20th January this year, the Dartford Rural District Council evicted from the Darenth Woods at Dartford nearly 300 gypsies and other travellers, with about 80 caravans, 26 horses, one donkey, and sundry other things. With few exceptions, those 300 people are still living now, three-and-a-half months later, with their caravans parked on the grass verge of one of Britain's busiest roads, the A.2. On their way to London, visitors arriving at Dover from the Continent see one of the most appalling sights which anyone could ever see in any country of Europe. Indeed, I doubt that such a sight can be seen in any other European country.
  For three-and-a-half months, these people have been without lavatories, dustbins or litter bins. There is one water pipe for most of them about a mile away. During the Easter weekend, I saw the amount of litter left at a beauty spot by visitors during a few short days. Is it beyond imagination to appreciate what must be the state of the district when 300 people are living in these conditions day after day? Early-morning workers have told me that they have seen these human beings moving half a mile or a mile away from their caravans in order to attend to the requirements of nature. Many of them, of course, cannot do even that.
  It seems as though the authorities in this country are paralysed and unable to do anything about this problem. Indeed, it seems that anything which could be done would only make matters worse. There is, in fact, no sign of anything being done to improve the situation. If we cannot solve this problem, I feel that we should give up all idea of overcoming the difficulties facing us in joining the European Common Market.
  On the Monday following the Saturday when the evictions took place, The Times quoted Mr. Leslie Reeves, the chairman of the Town and Country Planning
  1164
  Committee of the Dartford Rural District Council, as saying:
  "Once we get them on the main road, they become the police's problem, not ours".
  It seems that, like Mr. Micawber, someone is waiting for something to turn up.
  On 14th February last, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport said:
  "We have drawn the attention of the council, whom we regard as primarily responsible in this matter, to the fact that these people have been put on the verge of a trunk road without any authority. We must go through the normal processes here, and we have asked the council to deal with the matter urgently."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1962; Vol. 653. c. 1311.]
  That was in the middle of February, and we are now in the month of May.
  The Times, in an editorial about the evictions, said:
  "The eviction of about a hundred gypsy families from Darenth Woods, in Kent, savours too much of parish pumpery at its worst. A bureaucratic machine has been marshalled against victims whose helplessness merits sympathy.…Vague talk earlier about finding alternative sites for at least some of them has evidently come to nothing."
  This morning, I received a letter dated 1st May from the Minister in which he refers to his Department's letter of 30th January and also gives me information about a reply from the council of 6th March in which two resolutions referring to sites were mentioned. There are no sites in sight yet, and this is making matters very much more difficult. I have to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that that letter is a long way behind the times. He might as well know the worst now, and I shall quote from two of last week's newspapers in order to bring him and his Department up to date.
  In the Dartford Chronicle of Friday, 27th April, there is the headline:
  "Minister tells R.D.C. Gypsy Problem 'is now up to you'."
  There is nothing in the Minister's letter about having written to the local council. The report says:
  "By evicting the Darenth Wood gypsies, Dartford Rural Council caused the new problem of the A2 encampment, and it was up to them to do something about it.
  "That is, in effect, what the Minister of Transport has told the Council, and when his letter was read at the Town and Country Planning Committee meeting on Tuesday, Mr. Leslie Reeves (the chairman) said, 'I cannot accept this'".

  1165
  Mr. Reeves is reported as having proposed
  "that the Minister be told that, as the gypsies were on his land, they were his responsibility"
  and this proposal was carried by fourteen votes to five. That was last week.
  In the Dartford Reporter of Friday, 27th April, I find this:
  "In his letter the council, the Minister put the blame on the shoulders of the council…Mr. Reeves said that because the council had removed the gypsies from the woods—in the interests of good planning and health—it was being suggested that it now has a responsibility towards them.
  "'People are trying to make us the whipping boys over this', he said. "They want us to create a policy and then they can tell other authorities, 'Do what Dartford Rural Council have done'.
  "'No. This is a matter which must be resolved in Parliament, where the power lies'."
  I urge the Minister of Transport to realise that this is only one aspect of this matter. Will he at least convey to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government the fact that we cannot depend on the local council? In view of this, what do the Government propose to do; if not the Minister of Transport, then the Minister of Housing and Local Government?
  I was surprised to read in the Ministry's letter this morning—and this is three-and-a-half months after the events I have described took place—that the Minister has no power to proceed against the local council. I shall be replying to that letter with some further details. Meanwhile, cannot the Minister of Transport do something now? It seems that when Parliament was considering the Highways Act, 1959, it did not visualise that a responsible local authority would do this sort of thing. As a consequence, there is no penalty for local authorities. Section 128 (1) of the Act states:
  "If anything is so deposited on a highway as to constitute a nuisance, the highway authority for the highway may by notice require the person who deposited it there to remove it forthwith.…"
  Yet in this case it was the local authority which deposited it there and I understand that in doing so the authority took an action under circumstances that Parliament never visualised. Parliament did not visualise that a public authority could do such a thing.
  1166
  It is obvious from this case that people, not of their own volition, can have their homes taken from them and sold. Where will it lead to? I urge the Minister to look at this again because in the Guardian on 17 th April last, under the headline "Council clears gypsy camp", and the subheading, "Hundred moved on by police", appeared the paragraph:
  "Police and bailiffs stood by at an encampment on Eastern Avenue, Ilford, yesterday, when more than a hundred gypsies were moved from the site. An Essex County Council solicitor, Mr. E. Peel, told the gypsies at 9 a.m. that they had to leave immediately, but three hours later several families were still there. Among them was a man who was lying seriously ill in his caravan, but in spite of pleas by his wife to let him stay, the vehicle was moved to a lay-by on the main London to Southend road."
  From the backwoods, where they were not required, they were moved—and this seems to be becoming the policy—to the main road. The article continued:
  "In another caravan there was a woman expecting a baby. A doctor visited her and told officials that she was due to be in labour at any time and should not be moved far. She and her family were also transferred to the lay-by."
  Can the Minister say whether it is true that any local authority can now get rid of something unpleasant existing in some backwoods and deposit it on a main trunk road—which is, after all, the responsibility of the Minister? Should not this be seriously considered lest it develop into a regular occurrence? A tragedy might easily happen. On this main A.2 road no restriction is placed on the speed of vehicles. Some of them travel past this spot at 80 miles an hour and more. Four dogs have already been killed and on Easter Sunday a donkey was killed. I am amazed that a real tragedy has not yet occurred, but great responsibility will fall on someone if anyone is killed.
  Already mothers are scared as their children run wild in the woods. There they live, a few feet from the main road. As I say, there is no restriction on speed—not even a temporary one—and only an A.A. sign appears to warn motorists. Should not drivers be given a warning? Many people on holiday from the Continent do not know of these people's existence and they should be warned about them.

  1167
  Regarding litter bins, the Parliamentary Secretary said on 24th February last that they were provided only at lay-bys. Is not this a lay-by? Is not this the responsibility of the Minister? Since the local authority will not live up to its responsibility, litter bins are not provided. Is it not monstrous that while proceedings cannot be taken against the local authority which caused this trouble last January, proceedings have been taken against one of the people on the site because he got another little caravan? I refer to the case of the Bignall family. Since there was a husband, wife and five children living in the existing caravan he wanted to get another because the woman was having another child and could not lie in the caravan without being cramped up. As a result, they got another caravan but within a few hours the police arrived and nine summonses were issued. They had to get rid of the caravan. The woman had the baby after a lot of trouble, but it was born a cripple and died within four days. The chances are that if she had had a bed in which to lie longer the child would never have died. This, in England in 1962—and the authorities are paralysed.
  We hear from the Kent County Council a lot of pious hopes about somebody doing something. It could do something. The Kent County Council has got land, but it is always preaching to someone else. There is a farmer called Barden who lives at Lone Barn Farm, Charing, near Ashford. For many years until 1956 he had a place where thirty to fifty caravans were kept. The place was closed down by an application of the Kent County Council. It has a hard-standing, water and so on. Why cannot it be used in an emergency?
  The farmer, at my request, has made another application for permission to have twelve caravans there, and it has been turned down on the ground that this land
  "is conspicuously situated in an area of great landscape value "
  and that the stationing of caravans upon it
  "would be injurious to the amenities of the locality."
  Is it injurious to put these caravans on this main road in Kent? The Ministry
  1168
  of Transport and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government should ask the local authority to reopen this matter. These people are not welcome when they are near built-up areas, and they are not welcome in the wide open spaces. One must come to the conclusion that the only possible solution would be that which Hitler used, namely, that they should be put into gas chambers.
  I ask the Minister of Transport to recognise that he has a big stake in this business of gypsies and other travellers. I am not weakening. This thing is going to be won in the next few months, and there is only one way in which it can be done, and that is by pressure. If I am blamed for being emotional it is because I have seen so much. I am disgusted at this country, that this sort of thing can happen here. This cannot be seen in any other country in Europe—only in England and Wales, and nowhere else. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
  I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has got this problem, but I ask him to believe that I am sincere. I am determined that something shall be done even if in some cases it means going against the law to bring attention to this matter.
  10.57 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I certainly do not dispute the sincerity of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds), in bringing this matter forward on a number of occasions. Indeed, when he was speaking I found myself in complete agreement with him on several of the things that he said. I agree that this is a disgraceful situation. But, as I hope to show before I conclude, this is not a matter which is capable of a simple or a quick solution. Nevertheless, I hope I shall be able to persuade him that there are many of us who are concerned with this matter and, although not perhaps directly responsible, are only too anxious to try to do something about the problem.
  This is a problem at the moment localised at this place on the A.2. As the hon. Member rightly said, there is some evidence emerging that the example set by this rural district council, this bad example, is one that might be

  1169
  followed by others, and that is, of course, very disquieting to my right hon. Friend.
  I think I can best deal with this matter be briefly summarising so that they can be on the record what are the basic facts so far as we in the Ministry of Transport see them. As the hon. Gentleman said, we are concerned with a colony of caravan dwellers who were originally settled in the Darenth Woods at Dartford, on land which originally belonged to the Ecclesiastical Commission. The colony seems to have been tolerated by the Commissioners for some time, and I am told that the local police estimate that not more than about 10 per cent. of the people living there are genuine nomads. Many of them are people who have lived on that site in Darenth Woods permanently in caravans.
  The local residents disliked this encampment intensely and the parish council finally bought the land from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and served notice to quit on the caravan dwellers. The Dartford Rural District Council actively supported the parish council in its campaign, and, as the House will recollect, there was a good deal of publicity about this event. As the hon. Gentleman said, on 20th January last the Dartford R.D.C. assisted in the removal of these caravans from the site in Darenth Woods on to the verge of the A.2 trunk road. I understand that the council provided vehicles and drivers to tow away those of the caravans which were not mobile, and local farmers also helped with tractors.
  The council's engineer directed the operations, and the clerk to the R.D.C. was present. The police were on the scene in case a breach of the peace occurred—in fact, none did—and the owners of the caravans, or at least of those caravans which could move under their own power, were told that they would be treated on the same footing as those of the dwellings which were towed away. The consequence was that they all went to this verge of the trunk road, the A.2.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, we are faced with a very undesirable situation. I am told that there are about 80 vehicles and about 60 to 70 families at present situated at this place. That amounts to about 300 people, including children, and they are accompanied by a let of animals. There is no sanitation. The
  1170
  verge is cluttered with vehicles, with miscellaneous belongings, scrap metal, and rubbish. The footpath is obstructed. The stretch of road is wide and fast and it is a clearway. There is, as the hon. Gentleman said, no speed limit, and some of the traffic signs are being obscured by the caravans and other things on the verge.
  I think that it is only right, to put the matter into perspective, to say that I am advised that quite a number of the people living in these caravans do not appear to be in any way destitute, or to be genuine gypsies as we always understand the traditional term. I am told that some of them have very well equipped caravans—even equipped with television sets—and that some of them apparently have quite expensive cars. We are not, therefore, dealing with a group of people all of whom are destitute.
  Mr. Dodds: I agree with that. It is not a question of money, but of finding a place in which to live. Irrespective of how much money they have, no one wants them. Even if they are not all gypsies, they are travellers who have lived all their lives in caravans.
  Mr. Hay: I was not going to argue that point. I was merely trying to put the matter into perspective. I am trying to put on record the facts as we understand them. Some of these people conduct something of a business in breaking up scrap metal and selling it, and this is all going on on the verge of the trunk road. It is a highly undesirable situation.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is more sinned against than sinner in this matter. He has had this encampment of people put on a road for which he is the highway authority, on land which belongs to him. This has been done without his authority, without his permission, and certainly without his approval. Nevertheless there is the problem, and we have to see what we can do to help.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, it is possible for legal action to be taken. Some legal action is open to my right hon. Friend to take. But I must make it clear that any action of that kind would have to be against the people who are there. I am advised that there is no action—at any rate, nothing

  1171
  which would be effective—which my right hon. Friend could take in law against the Dartford Rural District Council. Obviously, in present circumstances, at any rate, we should not want to take action against the people who are living on the verge unless we were absolutely forced to take it, and in the present situation we shall try to avoid that, but I must make it clear that if this situation degenerated even further and serious danger was being caused to traffic, we might have to consider it. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is concerned with traffic. This is a problem Which has been wished on him through no fault of his own. By Statute he has to look after the interests of traffic.
  Let me pass from the legal complications to the practical realities of the situation. What is needed is a site or a number of sites on to which these people could move. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has no power to provide caravan sites. He is concerned with transport and with highways; he is not concerned with the provision of sites for caravans. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has no power to provide a site or sites. The rural district council has the power; powers are conferred on it under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1961.
  When the hon. Member asked the House in a somewhat rhetorical way, "Is it not true that the power resides in Parliament?", the answer, strictly speaking, is that it does not. At any rate, it does not reside with Ministers. It resides with the local council, and so far the Dartford R.D.C. has shown very little evidence of any desire to exercise the powers which it undoubtedly has. I hope that wiser counsels will prevail and that in the course of the next few weeks the council will come to the conclusion that it should be a little more forthcoming about this.
  We in the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Kent County Council together are looking for sites, whether they be publicly or privately owned, away from the road, where these caravans could be put temporarily until some permanent arrangements could
  1172
  be made. So far, I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House, we have not had much success. We shall certainly go on looking, but there is one thing about which he knows—he ought to know about it because he signed the document—where we have been able to help; and that is to make available a field for the grazing of the horses. It is a field which the Ministry of Transport owns and which will be required within a very short time, I am afraid, for road widening purposes. But we were prepared to give a licence for the temporary use of that field for grazing, and the hon. Member was kind enough to sign a licence on behalf of these people. It is a little thing, but it is at least something that we have done to try to help.
  The Kent County Council is trying to persuade other rural district councils in its area to act and to provide a number of permanent sites each accommodating about twelve vehicles. One of the difficulties, which I am sure the hon. Member appreciates, although perhaps he does not sympathise with it, is that there is a great deal of local feeling about and objection to these people in the area. Perhaps—I do not know—their situation might be improved if they were to make a little more of an effort to be a bit more tidy. I have not seen the site but I have seen a number of photographs, and although I realise the difficulties under which they are living, perhaps they might—I do not know—do a little more to make the public criticism of them in that area a little less acute.
  It is along the lines of trying to provide, first, a temporary resting place off the road and then more permanent sites for them that the correct solution lies. It is in that direction that we have the most hope. Although I must tell the hon. Member frankly that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has no powers in this case, he will certainly do all that he can to use his influence and to bring what pressure he can to bear on those who have the powers to try to deal with this very difficult problem, which is certainly not there of our choosing.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.

  UNITED NATIONS (MR. KAUNDA)
  UNITED NATIONS (MR. KAUNDA)
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  FAROE ISLANDS FISHERIES
  FAROE ISLANDS FISHERIES
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  South Africa
  South Africa
TRANSPORT
  Channel Crossing (Hovercraft)
  Channel Crossing (Hovercraft)
  Vehicle Test Certificate (Birmingham)
  Vehicle Test Certificate (Birmingham)
SARAWAK
  Greater Malaysia
  Greater Malaysia
NORTH BORNEO
  Greater Malaysia
  Greater Malaysia
HOME DEPARTMENT
  School Crossing Patrols
  School Crossing Patrols
EMPLOYMENT
  Building Trade Workers, Scotland
  Building Trade Workers, Scotland
  Scotland
  Scotland
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Charges
  Charges
SCOTLAND
  Western Isles
  Western Isles
  Development Districts
  Development Districts
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Overseas Investment
  Overseas Investment
EDUCATION
  U.N.E.S.C.O. (United Kingdom Commission)
  U.N.E.S.C.O. (United Kingdom Commission)

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester

LORD PEARCE
The Right Honourable Sir Edward Holroyd Pearce, Knight, a Lord Justice of Appeal, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, under the provisions of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, as amended by subsequent enactments, with the dignity of a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Pearce, of Sweethaws in the County of Sussex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

WELSH AFFAIRS
2.16 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE rose to call attention to the Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire for 1961 (Cmnd. 1643); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this United Kingdom Parliament is also, as we know, the Parliament for Wales, and in my view it is meet and proper that occasionally we should discuss the general problems of Wales—and indeed of Scotland and Northern Ireland—so far as they come within our purview. The discussions on Wales in your Lordships' House are not particularly frequent. In fact, the last general debate on Wales was on my Motion on May 5, 1954, so I am sure your Lordships will not think that, after eight years, I am unduly encroaching upon your Lordships' time in putting this Motion before the House this afternoon. It is true that there was a Motion introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, on November 26, 1958, but that was on a more specialised topic, the teaching of Welsh in Wales.
The main subject of our consideration will be, I am sure, the Government's Report for 1961, Wales and Monmouthshire. I have tried to look at it in a purely objective way, in the way in which I should look at it if I were not personally interested in the country. I have tried to put aside any personal feelings and to treat the Report in the same way as I should treat a Report on one of the Colonies; that is, as I say, from an objective point of view. And I am bound to say that I consider the Report to be "a thing of shreds and patches". There is a great amount of disconnected details, but no overall picture. I am certain that this is not the fault of the various Government Departments who look after the bits and pieces, but is due to the fact that there is no Secretary of State responsible for Wales, no Secretary of State for Wales with a seat in the Cabinet, and no Department for Wales.
If the Report had been a comprehensive one, giving an overall picture of Wales, what would have been seen? In my view, it would have picked out two major problems. The first is the problem of mid-Wales. Mid-Wales is geographically, though not in population, the major part of Wales. I do not think that there is any doubt at all that mid-Wales is dying. There is a fair prosperity in the coastal strips, but the major part of country within those strips is dying. Neither the Government nor the Labour Opposition propose remedies, or even, so far as I can see, recognise the disease. It is rather as if a patient dying of consumption were being treated as though he were fit for work, to work until he dropped
Your Lordships will want some proof. I know what I say to be so. Among other things, I have spent Easter in mid- Wales, and I have talked with many people who are very much concerned with this problem, as well as speaking at public meetings on it. But I take proof from the 1961 Census, which gives us some remarkable figures. Broadly speaking, Merionethshire and Breconshire are the same size as Glamorgan, in the industrial South. Glamorgan has a population of 1,227,828, while Breconshire has 55,544 and Merionethshire only 39,007. The Census figures showed that Glamorgan had increased in population

1021
by 2·1 per cent. while Breconshire had decreased by 1·7 per cent. and Merionethshire by 5·9 per cent. In two other counties of similar size, the one in the industrial South, Monmouthsthire—whose Lord Lieutenant, the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, I see here to-day—has a population of 443,689 and Radnorshire 18,431. Monmouthshire went up in the inter-Census period by 4·4 per cent., and Radnorshire declined by 7·8 per cent.
A Blue Book produced by the Government a few years ago gives further interesting figures. Whether you are interested in Wales or not, it is a most remarkable document—I refer to the Mid-Wales Investigation Report of the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission, which was produced in December. 1955. It shows that in the rather narrower portion, the "waist", of Wales the Sub-Commission counted nearly 800 abandoned homesteads. I am quite sure that most of your Lordships who are used to rural conditions will realise the significance of the figures I have given. In my view, the Government action is actually accelerating the decay I have mentioned, first by a farm prices policy which favours the prosperous farmers on rich land and penalises the smaller farmers and the farmers of marginal land. This point was brought out on April 11 by the noble Lord, Lord Walston. I shall quote his comments on this point with approbation—that he gave the right figures, I mean—but I shall be criticising something he said later.
Secondly, the Government are responsible for, or, at least, are assisting, the decline by removing, or permitting the removal of, the railway services. Your Lordships will, I am sure, be concerned to hear that soon there will be no railways at all in the middle part of Wales; the only railways will be in the coastal stretch in the North and South. If the present policy of Dr. Beeching obtains, that will be the position. Thirdly, there is the Government's failure to attract new light industries to the area. They mention in paragraph 71 of the 1961 Report the fact that they failed even to maintain the ones they had. They say:
"The year brought three disappointments, the largest being the decision of Raleigh Industries Limited that in view of trading conditions in the British cycle industry they could no longer operate their component factory at
1022
Newtown. Next in significance was the decision of Carmichael & Sons (Worcester) Limited that trading conditions in their industry too would prevent them going ahead with the new factory at Rhayader announced in last year's Report."
Then there was the closure of two ventures after a few months' existence; that is, an electrical engineering unit in Builth Wells, and the production of dart flights at Llanfair Caereinion. Those come in the area with which I am concerned.
Finally, there is the Government's failure to assist on adequate apprenticeship schemes. This is mentioned in several places, but in particular in paragraphs 27, 28 and 30 of the Report. It says in paragraph 27:
"There was still a lack of variety of work in rural Wales where boys and girls had a restricted choice of employment. A third of all the vacancies available were in the county boroughs of Newport. Cardiff and Swansea and these areas offered a much greater variety of opportunity than any others."
The Report further says in paragraph 30:
"It is disappointing that public spirited efforts to establish such schemes in Wales have so far met with little success. The only Welsh scheme in being is at Treforest Industrial Estate and even that is not receiving the support it deserves."
I would also say that the Labour Opposition shows a similar lack of appreciation and feeling.
I should like to refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, on April 11. I have given the noble Lord notice that I am going to refer to him—not in any sense in a personal criticism, of course, but merely in a criticism of the ideas which he expressed. He is here to-day, but he informs me that owing to an important engagement he will not be able to take part in our proceedings. I should explain that he was not referring specifically to Wales; he was referring to all areas similar to the one to which I am referring here—that is, to rural areas of the type we have in mid-Wales. The same applies, I imagine, to the Highlands of Scotland and to same parts of England, but not many. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, advocated—and I am not using his exact words; I am paraphrasing them—that farmers of marginal land should leave the land and make it available for public parks, recreation, afforestation and other non-food-producing uses. He suggested that small farmers should lose

1023
their milk subsidy and turn their farm houses into boarding houses.
We all know that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, is a very large farmer himself. In fact, in that debate he called himself a "barley baron ". He is regarded by his Party, and properly so, as one of their foremost agricultural experts. If this is the Labour Party policy—and we are entitled to believe it is, coming from Lord Walston—then it is a policy of cynicism and despair. It would keep the rural Welsh, and the Scottish Highlanders for that matter, like Red Indians on a reservation. We on these Benches, the Liberal Party, believe in Welsh farms and Welsh farmers. It is part of our homeland. To us it is our heart land, and if it dies out then Wales will die out, too.
I have been thinking in the last few weeks, particularly after my recent visit to that part, that if only Wales were a Colony, what assistance there would be! It would come from the Colonial Office and, in some cases, from the Commonwealth Relations Office and the new Ministry of Technical Assistance. There would be working parties, blue prints, and plans, financial, technical and managerial assistance; all would be made available. But for Wales, nothing. I am not suggesting that Wales should be a Colony; I do not think that for one moment. I am only comparing what we do, and do rightly, for our dependent territories overseas with what we do for our own people, for the ancient race of which I am a member, and from which so many of your Lordships, I may say, are also descended.
The second major problem is that of industrial Wales. That is mainly Glamorgan, Monmouthshire and a small part of Carmarthenshire. So far as I can see—that is my part of the world; I come from there, and I am very closely in touch with people who live and work there—there is complete anarchy and chaos in industrial South Wales. This is another problem which is not, so far as I am aware, recognised by the Government or the Labour Opposition.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Do not talk nonsense.
LORD OGMORE: The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, can
1024
speak later. There is plenty of time; we have all the afternoon. If I am wrong, he can get up and prove in what way I am wrong. So far as I am aware, the noble Viscount himself has not paid a visit to Wales to look at the conditions but we shall always be very happy to see him there. Then we shall be able to tell him what we think of the situation and his Party's tackling or not tackling of it.
In my view, capital and labour under the present system is being cannibalised; old industrial areas are being jettisoned or abandoned while new ones are erected at vast expense only a few miles away. For instance, take the new steel works at Llanwern, near Newport. Any of your Lordships who has tried to go through Newport in the last few years by motor car will known of the congestion that has been caused on the roads there. Good agricultural land has been broken up to make room for steel works; new housing estates have had to be prepared; new schools and new churches constructed—all at vast expense. Yet only a few miles away the older industrial areas are dying and being deserted. For instance, in the Rhondda unemployment is 4·4 per cent. Blaenavon, at the head of one of the Monmouthshire valleys, has lost 13·9 per cent. of its population in the last ten years. Ebbw Vale, as its Member for Parliament, Mr. Michael Foot, said in my hearing only a few weeks ago on Welsh Television, which we were on together, faces redundancy and unemployment because of the nationalised steel industry of Richard Thomas & Baldwin, and he feels that industry there will close down because of this nationalised industry which is opening up on good farm land near Newport. This process may be inevitable; I do not know. I should rather have doubted it, but I am not an expert on this subject.
LORD LINDGREN: That is obvious.
LORD OGMORE: It may be obvious, but this House is not a House of experts; it is a House of ordinary people like myself who are entitled to come here and speak for ordinary people. If this House ever becomes a House for experts, like the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, then it will largely fail to meet its requirements and to serve the public.

1025
This process has been accompanied by a complete lack of planning and by a sort of gold-rush mentality; and one of the results is that last year the Coal Board in South Wales lost £l2 million. Some of the officials of the Coal Board say that a great deal of this loss was due to the fact that their best men have been inveigled away from the Coal Board to the new nationalised steel works at Llanwern and other works in the South. So here we have the extraordinary position of the nationalised industry of Richard Thomas & Baldwin stealing the best men from the nationalised industry of the South Wales Coal Board, who, as a result, find themselves without skilled labour and consequently run into this tremendous loss.
Even so, Llanwern can never be completely successful because, as your Lordships will remember—some of us, including myself, protested very strongly about this at the time—one-third of the plant which was to go to Llanwern was instead switched to Scotland, not from any point of view on a steel or economic basis but purely on political grounds. There was a lot of trouble at the time. Mr. James Griffiths protested very strongly about putting the steel works at Llanwern, and others did, too, but the Government went on with it and, therefore, the consequences must be their responsibility: they must accept the consequences which are now happening in South Wales.
I think the difficulties of the situation are accentuated because neither the Government nor the official Opposition, the Labour Party, recognise Wales as a country and the Welsh as a nation entitled and able to run their own affairs in their own way, and what they freely yield to Bechuanaland or Sarawak is denied to Wales. Even in aviation, although Cardiff (Rhoose) Airport, which I started from nothing a few years ago. handled 83,000 passengers last year, many from abroad, when I tackled the noble Lord, Lord Mills, about it he refused to acknowledge it as an international airport. Why? Because it is in Wales, and Wales is not regarded as a nation. There are many more important consequences, legislative and administrative. Your Lordships are entitled to ask, and, judging by the
1026
murmurings and disorder on the Benches to my left, will ask—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me, but I was just asking whether the situation was better when the noble Lord was a member of the Labour Party.
LORD OGMORE: Certainly it was. I am very proud of what the Labour Party did. I never denied the good work done when I was a Minister of a Labour Government. I am only sorry that they have departed from the high standard that they had then. I did not leave the Labour Party to be less radical, but to be more radical, because they were becoming so engrossed with the past.
My Lords, at any rate your Lordships on the Benches opposite will no doubt say that it is all very well to make these criticisms and will ask me what I would do. You are perfectly entitled to ask, otherwise the criticism I am offering is solely destructive and you want constructive criticism. I will give it. This is what I should do. First of all, so far as mid-Wales is concerned, the rural areas of which I have spoken, I would have a full-scale, all-out attack on its problems. I would create a statutory corporation to provide the necessary financial and technical assistance and managerial skills; and I ant not ashamed or afraid to point to a Colonial development corporation, the Uganda Development Corporation, with which I have been connected since it started in 1952, under the inspired leadership of Mr. J. T. Simpson, who has done, and is now doing, for Uganda what I think we require to have done for rural mid-Wales. I am very glad to see that Mr. Simpson has just been made a Minister in Mr. Obote's new Government.
Secondly, I would create a financial climate by which the small farmer and the farmer on marginal land gets a square deal in the Price Review. Thirdly, I would preserve essential rural railways as a social service and make British Railways an allowance for them as a social service; replace railways where they were not essential by adequate road communications and a rural bus service, and ensure that the public were served in the manner they need in these areas—that is to say, by maintaining essential rural railway services and by providing adequate road services where those are

1027
not essential and are removed. Fourthly, I would set up an inquiry into the South Wales industrial and commercial complex to obtain a clear picture upon which a sensible and imaginative economic and social plan could be based. Fifthly, I would suggest a sensible plan of legislative devolution for Wales, through a Secretary of State with a seat in the Cabinet; a Welsh department and secretariat; and an elected Council for Wales to be responsible for the matters peculiar to Wales and for questions appertaining to the region. Subordinate to it would be county councils on the existing basis, with minor adjustments and with streamlining of other local authorities.
Your Lordships may remember that a moment or two ago I instanced the population of Radnorshire, a large county roughly the size of Monmouthshire, with 18,000 people—the size of my little market town in Glamorgan. How on earth can they provide local government services, a county council, urban councils, urban district councils, rural district councils and parish councils out of 18,000 people? They have 22 local authorities in Radnorshire and could have, if they were so minded, 44. Luckily, they are not so minded. Your Lordships can see the situation. There is no other way of dealing with this problem, in my view, than by having an elected council to handle those common services such as the police and the other services which would be put under it.
Then I believe in a proper education plan for Wales, including technical education and education in management, as well as far more higher education. In the United Kingdom as a whole, 9 per cent. of our schoolchildren go to the universities, as compared with 30 per cent. in the United States, and many more than that in Russia. We cannot survive as a leading country unless far more of our children have an opportunity of higher education. I should like to see a great drive in Wales. I have always said that education is the life-blood of Wales and the roads and communications are its arteries; and I am sure that is true.
Then I would have a water policy and a water authority for Wales which would stop the grab and catch-as-catch-can that now applies. At the moment, any
1028
authority in Wales or England can come in and try to push a Bill through Parliament; and, if it succeeds, can take the water. I am not asking for Welsh water for Wales: I am asking that the water supplies of Wales, one of our few remaining national assets which have not been completely tapped, should be organised on a proper basis. I should imagine that even the noble Lords and Ladies on my left would not disagree with that request, even if I have left the Labour Party.
As to tourism, there is not a word in the Report about it. This strikes me as intensely curious. Why, with a big industry like tourism in Wales, should there not be one word in this Report about it? The reason, of course, is that it is not recognised as an industry. Yet I believe that, with the beauty of the country, with the hospitality of its inhabitants, with the many amenities it has to provide for visitors, tourism should flourish. It is a lovely country; every time I go there, to mid-Wales, North Wales and my own South Wales, I am amazed at the beauty of the country. Yet the Report contains not a word about tourism. I should like to see very many people coming from England and Scotland, and from overseas, to Wales. What I would do, if I had the opportunity, is to treat the Welsh Tourist Board as the Irish Republican Government treat their Tourist Board. When I was talking with the Director General of the Irish Tourist Board he told me that he had close on half a million pounds to spend. Last year the income of the Welsh Tourist Board was £24,000. Your Lordships will see that there is a slight difference between those two figures.
I have not dealt with cultural matters this afternoon, because I think that a separate debate is needed for cultural matters and for the preservation of the Welsh language. I would just say, however, that I would urge the local authorities to spend far more of their 6d. rate than they do. The amount of money they spend in Wales, as in England, on arts and amenities is quite inadequate. They have authority to spend up to a 6d. rate, and I think they should do so. Broadly speaking, most of what I have said—not all but the main parts of it—was contained in resolutions of the

1029
Liberal Party of Wales at its recent Easter Conference at Borth or at previous Conferences.
There is just one other point, and that is about the Common Market. I believe that there will be great opportunities for Wales, as indeed for the rest of the United Kingdom, in the Common Market. There is an opportunity, as Lord Robens has already reminded us, for increased coal exports—and certainly we need them; and also for exports of the many light industries which are to be found in South Wales and, to a lesser extent, in North Wales. There is, too, I believe, the chance for Wales, as a Celtic nation, to return to cultural, social and economic association with other European nations from which she has so long been cut off owing to the insularity of this island.
In conclusion, my Lords, I would say this. Those of us who are true Welshmen, to whatever Party we belong, on whichever side of whichever House we sit, or if we belong to no Party at all, know that we come of an ancient race which has preserved its identity in spite of many and grievous trials and tribulations throughout the ages. We see that through neglect, sloth and materialism—the curse of this age—our nation is in grave danger. It should be the resolution of all of us to meet and overcome these perils before it is too late. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
2.45 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF
GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, we have been informed by the noble Lord that he has been looking back to 1954 when we had our last debate. I had a peep at the debate in 1954, and I found some words of the noble Lord which I should like to make known to the House at the beginning of my remarks. He said: [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 187, col. 360]:
"The guaranteed prices and assured markets of the Agriculture Act, 1947, and the help given under the Hill Farming Act, 1946, and the Livestock Rearing Act, 1951, were of great assistance to farmers and farm workers in Wales, as well as in other parts of the country, hut, of course, with the policy of this Government that has been thrown into confusion."
Here is another sentence [col. 362]:
"I would say that some of this great improvement is undoubtedly due to the nationalisation of coal, to the steel and tin-
1030
plate developments in Wales—for which we …"
" we ", do not forget …
"…were largely responsible—and the introduction of new industries under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945."
I do not know whether the noble Lord would be prepared to repeat those words to-day or whether he would refuse.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I see nothing at all which cannot be reconciled in every way with what I have said. I was not talking about the question of nationalisation; it never entered into it. As to the farming, in certain parts of Wales those particular Acts have done good work, but there are other areas, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, himself pointed out on April 11, where, as administered by this Government, they have not had the effect they should have had.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I take it from that reply that the noble Lord goes back on what he said in 1954 and does not believe that these Acts passed by the Labour Government have benefited Wales. From my own point of view, I am rather amazed that the noble Lord should have what is, in my view, the impudence to make this speech to-day in the way he has done, solely because there is a by-election in Montgomery. We have had these sentiments expressed by the noble Lord in Montgomery.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I think I should explain that this debate was put down and the general basis agreed long before I knew there was going to be a by-election in Montgomery at all.
LORD MACDONALD or GWAENYSGOR: That may well be. But that does not prevent the noble Lord from using it for by-election purposes. He referred to "shreds and patches" and "bits and pieces" of the Report. If there were more shreds and patches and bits and pieces than there were in his speech, quite frankly the Report is not much good to us. I have read this Report from beginning to end—every word, and that wants a bit of doing. There are 666 paragraphs. If one spent one minute on each, we should be here until 2 o'clock tomorrow

1031
morning. I do not want noble Lords to get worried; I have no intention of referring to all 666. I may refer to six, but not to 666.
I am sure that the House will not be surprised if in pride of place I put coal. Coal has meant much to Wales for years gone by. Coal is a diminishing asset. That is not always appreciated. In the lunch hour I calculated the amount of coal that has been extracted from the earth of Great Britain since I entered the mines in 1901, 61 years ago. On an average of one million tons a day 200 days a year, 200 million tons every year multiplied by 60 comes to 12,000 million tons of coal already extracted. There is not that amount in the earth now. There is less than that amount in the earth now. Therefore we have to keep in mind this diminishing asset, and we have to give some consideration to those employed in it.
The Report makes one or two references, mainly to manpower—to the fall in manpower and to its being not possible to get miners. How many sons of noble Lords opposite have entered the mining industry? Why have they kept all their sons out of the industry? Why should a certain section be expected to provide miners all the time? I have two sons. I never intended that they should enter the mines, no matter what it cost me, and they have not done so. Why do the wives of miners prevent their sons from entering the mines? I will tell your Lordships why. It is because of the dangers and perils of the mines in South Wales referred to in this Report. When an explosion takes away 39 miners one would think that would be a lesson. Not very long ago nine more miners were taken away by explosion. You would not expect an industry liable to explosions to that extent, one each year, to attract young men.
No, the miners of this country know what mining is, and they are reluctant to send their boys down the mines. We must make mining most attractive. The only industry in this country in which there is a shortage of workers is the coal industry. That fact speaks for itself. I do not see much in this Report as regards the method of avoiding that. On Monday the president of the Miners' Federation of South Wales outlined the
1032
position. The possibility of explosions was emphasised; but he also emphasised the closing of mines.
It is all very well for us in this House to talk about the closing of mines as an economic necessity, but what does this mean to a miner's family? What are the possibilities of closing? It may be that your mine has not been closed, but that the one down the street has been closed and you know that the days are numbered for your own mine. Do you expect young men to join an industry which cannot guarantee them work for the whole of their working lives? The coal industry will attract labour when you reduce the causes of accidents and when, at the same time, you give some guarantee that that labour will continue in the mine, if they so desire, for the whole of their working, lives.
But manpower is not referred to in this Report only in relation to the coal industry. Agriculture is referred to, but I am rather given the impression that the manpower shortage is not too severe there. I agree that it is not so severe as in the coal industry; nevertheless, the problem is very much there. What is happening? The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, talks about visiting Wales. I live there. I spend all my time there when I am not in this House. This year I have been in North Wales, mid-Wales and South Wales, meeting those engaged in different industries. What do they say about the farming industry? Other big industries and concerns are set up which pay much bigger wages than can the farmer. Farm labourers are attracted to these industries. Many of these people are skilled or semi-skilled. Not only are the farmers short of workers, but they are short of the right type of workers.
The noble Lord referred to the position regarding milk prices. I was speaking to a farmer who farms on not too big a scale. He assured me that things were not too good regarding farm labourers because the small farmer was unable to pay adequate wages. He said that variation in prices will not prevent the surtax payer from paying surtax provided the level is not increased, but that the variation in price of milk will prevent many small farmers from reaching the income tax level. He himself had a couple of

1033
farms of a decent size and was not worrying with regard to his own plight, but he was quite worried, in regard to some parts of Wales especially, about thousands of small farmers who are unable to make their farms pay—not for lack of work, not for lack of knowledge or experience, but simply because prices prevent them.
Other questions were also referred to by the noble Lord. As he said, there is no need for those matters to be repeated to-day, but I want to mention one or two which, though small, are irritating to those people who live in these regions. I do not know how many of your Lordships have been to South Wales recently and have gone down in the small valleys, into a sheep rearing area. Talk about 99 were in the fold and one was astray! In South Wales there is one in the fold and 99 astray on the roads. Little has been done by this Government to solve that problem. It needs to be solved; it is a serious problem to the people concerned. It is all very well for those who never see a sheep except in the form in which it is eaten, but, especially to the people in the villages, hundreds of sheep moving hither and thither present a grave difficulty. There is not much about that in this Report except a reference to there being 21 grids. We need nearer 2,000 grids to deal with this situation in South Wales. That is an indication of what is being done with regard to the movement of sheep. Another matter which I ought to mention and which has been brought to my notice by the people concerned, is afforestation. In afforestation we are supposed to have pest inspectors. But they are young boys. There is not one experienced, trained man for the purpose. That is just playing with the question of pests on farm land.
As to the Report in its entirety, it is a detailed account of what has been done. One could not expect more in a Report covering a certain period except a detailed account of what has been done. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that not enough, by any means, is being done, and that more could and ought to have been done. If this debate results in more being done in the year to come than is disclosed in this Report, then the debate will have served a useful purpose.
1034
But there are varying opinions regarding this Report. I have had one or two cuttings sent to me, which show the views that have been expressed by various individuals on the Report. One cutting sent to me—from whom I do not know—contains a piece of correspondence from a man who says that he read the Report on "All Fools' Day", April 1. I will read the portion of his letter Which is relevant to this debate:
"Sir, Appropriately enough, I finished reading the Annual Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales on April Fools' Day!
"The Report contains the same old mixture of effusion, reticence and downright dishonesty. For example, we are told how many people visited Craig y Ciliau Caves in Breconshire during the year and that 12,000 items posted in Wales each week for all parts of the United Kingdom reached their destination at least one post earlier than they would have done in the previous year.
"But the fact that passenger rail services in Monmouthshire are to be withdrawn almost completely gets a very slight mention and no reasons are given."
Then the letter goes on:
"The main findings of the Welsh Advisory Water Committee are summarised, but no mention at all is made of one of the chief recommendations of that body, namely, that areas from which water is abstracted should receive material benefit from these natural resources."
The writer concludes with this sentence:
"Half the developments listed in the Report were not due to Government action at all. Altogether the report is just a useless bit of Government propaganda, and anyone taken in by it would he a real April fool."
That is his view, which we may not share. But there is another view expressed in the same paper, the Western Mail, in an article by a well-known journalist in South Wales. David G. Rosser. I quote one sentence, to show the variation in view:
"Although the White Paper presents no sensational features"—
it certainly does not, my Lords!—
"its optimistic outlook over a wide range of Welsh activities has been welcomed by Welsh Members on all sides."
What is the purpose of all these activities in Wales?—to develop the resources of Wales. And Wales certainly has resources—resources of a material kind, of an intellectual kind, and also of a moral kind. All the activities in Wales should go towards helping to develop all these resources—

1035
physical, intellectual and moral. These very important activities ought to be helped by this Government. Reference has been made to water. Wales was never more united than when discussing Tryweryn. The only other occasion she came near being united to the same extent was when we were discussing drink. That is Wales for you—water and drink rouses the whole country! England can have her full share of the resources we can afford to give—all of them. What we ask is that we should he allowed to retain sufficient resources to enable every man, woman and child in Wales to develop to the fullest capacity, physically, intellectually and
morally. The Government are not pursuing a policy to give us that. I am sorry that they have not been able to produce a Report showing more work being done, and more in anticipation. But I hope that this debate will cause them to be more enthusiastic in regard to Wales in the future than they have been in the past.
3.6 p.m.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I think we should be grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Ogmore, for putting down this Motion for discussion to-day, but I am just wondering how grateful Wales will be to the noble Lord who has just sat down for the gloomy picture he has painted of Wales. I would rather this afternoon endeavour to put to your Lordships a different picture—not entirely one of Government action, but one of self-help. I disagree with the view that the Government must do everything for Wales. I think that individuals should go out and help themselves, with the Government perhaps holding the ring and making the conditions possible. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will forgive me when I say that I think one should regret the sort of interview that he gave to the local Press on March 26. The South Wales Evening Post had a banner headline right across its columns saying," ' The Principality is Dying ', says Peer "—the Peer being the noble Lord opposite. What encouragement is that to outside manufacturers to come in and start fresh works in the country, when the picture being painted all the time by the two Parties on the other side of the House is one of despair and denigration?
LORD OGMORE: On a question of fact, my Lords, I did not give any interview to the Press: I made that statement in a series of public meetings in the area concerned, at two of which some hundreds of people were present.
LORD DYNEVOR: I apologise to the noble Lord for saying that this was an interview rather than a report of a speech. But the effect on the outside world would be much the same.
Before I go any further, I should like to pay a tribute to the work done by my right honourable friend, Mr. Henry Brooke, when he was Minister for Welsh Affairs. I believe that in retrospect it will be found that his tenure of that office was honest, dispassionate and of great benefit to the Principality. I believe that the development of Wales as a whole is a question of a combination of the rural areas and industry. Those people who are interested would do wall to read a very remarkable book, which has been published in the last few weeks, by Professor Brinley Thomas, of University College, Cardiff, called, The Welsh Economy with the rather startling subtitle of, "Studies in Expansion". This, I believe, is the theme that all of us who have an interest in Wales have at heart, whether we are Members of this House or of another place; that is the theme we should be repeating—" Studies in Expansion ".
One of the difficulties in making this sort of speech is to get at the true statistics. Here I would join with the noble Lord opposite in agreeing that very often statistics are" lumped in "with England. There are certain admirable exceptions in the Ministry of Agriculture, but on the whole it is difficult, without a good deal of work, to disentangle the separate statistics of Wales on whatever the subject matter may be. But I believe that in the last ten years the country has in fact made very remarkable progress in regard to steel, oil-refining, coal (about which the noble Lord opposite spoke) and engineering. All of these have expanded enormously in the industrial area of Wales.
The rural areas, which have been touched on considerably to-day, embrace sheep, forestry and rural industries. In this connection I should like to mention paragraph 159 of the Report, which

1037
I think is worth quoting when we hear about the decline of Welsh agriculture. Paragraph 159 says that the Census in June, 1961, showed cattle, at 1,170,000, to be slightly up compared with June, 1960. Sheep increased by 3·7 per cent. to 5½ million, and the number of pigs rose by 9·7 per cent. That does not seem to me to be altogether a dying industry. The part of the country which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was talking about, central Wales, is of course, by the very nature of the country, rather difficult to compare with the industrial area. It is the mountainous centre of Wales sand you cannot possibly expect to have such a density of population up there. But paragraph 222 of this very Report states that the continuing prosperity of hill sheep farming goes on. It does not look like reverting to desert.
Modern methods are taking the place of the old. The Landrover is now beginning to take the place of the pony on the high hills. Of course, a Landrover cannot be used in a bog, and may not be able to go up some narrow paths, but the more modern progressive farmers are taking to the Landrover and that means they do not have to live so hard. It .is not now necessary to live in the high hill farmhouses; one can travel quite quickly by motor car. I would also say that one of the factors that militate against residing in these remote areas, Whether we like it or not, is the modern system of education. Nobody wishes to Change it, but the system of shutting the village schools and taking the children by bus to the larger centres brings about a dissatisfaction with the undoubtedly rougher conditions of living in the mountainous areas. Let us accept that, and let us accept that modern transport helps.
However, my Lords, I reckon that the prosperity of a country as a whole is what matters. The richer a country, the less the proportion of its population who live by agriculture. The agricultural output becomes higher by the use of modern methods. I suppose that the great examples of that in the world to-day are the industrialisation of Russia and of China. They wish to become richer countries and they turn themselves into industrial nations. Nearer at home there is Ireland, an entirely agricultural country except for
1038
the small industrial belt on the North-East coast. Between 1845 and 1945 the population of Ireland fell from 8 million to 4 million because it is entirely an agricultural country. No, my Lords, people do not leave rural Wales because of misery or poverty; they go because they can get higher wages somewhere else. Just lately I heard of a big farmer in Merioneth, most of whose men had recently left him to go to the nuclear power station being built at Trawsfynydd. In fact, the last to go was an old man of 70, who left to get £12 10s. a week for making tea. Only this morning the agricultural workers' union was asking for only £10 for the agricultural worker. I personally very much hope that they may get it and that the industry can afford to pay it. In fact, the prosperity of Wales as a whole, the rapid development of the coalfields in the fifty years before 1914, gave the Welsh language a great fillip, and Welsh nonconformity a new lease of life.
May I epitomise the remarks I have just been making by quoting two paragraphs from Professor Brinley Thomas's book, to which I have referred? He says this:
"Instead of bemoaning the rural exodus the Welsh Patriot should sing the praises of the industrial development. In that tremendous half-century before the first world war, economic growth in Wales was so vigorous that her net loss of people by emigration was a mere 4 per cent. of her bountiful natural increase over the period. Few countries in Europe came anywhere near to that. The unrighteous Mammon in opening up the coalfields at such a pace unwittingly gave the Welsh language a new lease of life, and Welsh nonconformity a glorious high noon."
The last paragraph in the last chapter of the book is as follows:
"The problems of agriculture and the depopulation of the countryside are frequently misunderstood. This book has tried to interpret them in terms of the process of economic growth. An individual does not bemoan the fact that as he gets richer he spends a smaller fraction of his family budget on bread and potatoes. As the standard of living of a community rises we must expect the proportion who earn their living on the land to decline. Welsh farmers have not been backward in applying mechanised methods. They had one tractor for every 20 acres of arable area, as against one for every 33 in England. They have also found that agricultural co-operation pays. Wales has one-fifth of the membership of the Agricultural Co-operative Societies in the United Kingdom. The rise in farming

1039
productivity per head and the progress of the industrial sector entail an exodus from the land".
He then goes on to say that, where the small farmers have been encouraged to stay on the land, there is no reason why the Government should not give them reasonable assistance.
I am bound to say, my Lords, that when I visit farms in Wales I notice no lack of radio, television and motor cars. In 1961 Welsh agriculture received £14 million in agricultural subsidies. It is quite true that the new Price Review will hit the small man to some extent, but with £370 million of subsidies given to farming by the, Government last year, a total cut of £11 million ought really to be within the capacity of the industry to bear. Things must devolve, farms must go into larger units and so on; nothing must stand still.
Now listen to this, my Lords, about the rural areas. In May, 1959, there were 85 firms in rural Wales that were not there before 1945, and these firms employed 7,717 workers of whom 39 per cent. were women. I do not mean to imply that they are all in the rural centre of Wales which is, perhaps, what is particularly under discussion. But genuine achievement is not really as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, suggested when he said, "It is quite easy; you must bring real industry". It must not go bankrupt; it has to have raw materials and a supply of labour. These things are not really quite so simple as they sometimes appear.
Forestry in the rural areas is sometimes held out as a remedy for arresting rural depopulation, but I do not think that when we study the figures we find that that is indeed the case. Paragraphs 234, 235 and 239, of this Report make particular reference to the subject of forestry, and there does appear to be a certain difficulty in getting hold of the true figures. The Forestry Commission's Annual Report showed that in 1956 there were 3,290 workers employed, and in 1961 only 2,982; whereas this Report says that 3,500 were employed in 1961. There is some discrepancy, which no doubt can be accounted for. This is perhaps a case of figures being able to mean almost anything. I just wanted to make clear the point that paragraph 239 states
1040
that, of 18 graduates—if I may so call them—who graduated from the Forestry Commission, only 3 were Welsh. It is a known fact in mid-Wales that the young Welshmen are not taking up that industry which is available to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, referred to the populations of the different counties, and my last word on this is to see whether the position is so tremendously serious, given the background I have tried to outline, as we may have been led to believe. The population of Cardiganshire went up between 1951 and 1961 by 286 persons. That of Carmarthenshire—which is half industrial—went down in ten years by 4,298; Merioneth went down by 2,400, in round figures; Montgomery went down by 1,760; and Radnorshire went down by 1,500 in that same period of ten years. It is true that they are slowly going down, but I have endeavoured to give your Lordships the kind of general background of the prosperity of Wales which may account in some degree for these figures.
As regards transport, I have a great deal of sympathy with the complaint that Dr. Beeching is to close some railways—in four counties in South West Wales virtually all except for the main lines to Fishguard and Milford Haven. In South Wales the other day I was talking to a signalman whom I know very well, and I am bound to say that I was considerably "cut down to size". I told him (paraphrasing the conversation) that he might soon be out of a job if Dr. Beeching continued on this policy. His reply was "I cannot understand the man at all. I cannot understand what he is doing. Anybody can take a pencil and draw it through this railway line or that railway line and say that he has saved money. Any fool could do that. Why! Even you could do it!" I tried not to have a flicker, and remembered that I was addressing your Lordships the following week.
Now the cutting of the services makes one reflect upon the value of nationalisation. I had always understood that the value of nationalisation was that the good would carry the bad, and so provide a national service all over the country. I suppose it is a little difficult if there is not much good; but that

1041
was always the theory of nationalisation. A good example of nationalisation is, of course, the Post Office. It has been calculated that in the mountains in the north-east part of my county, Carmarthenshire, it costs 2s. to deliver a letter to the remote farmhouses and to provide the service—which, in this case, means that the postman calls twice a week in case there are any letters for the post. But your Lordships may despatch a letter to there from your Lordships' House for 3d.—no more than if you posted one to the other place along the corridor. That is a supreme example of the good carrying the bad. I only wish that it could be applied to some extent to the transport facilities of Wales, although I am afraid it is only too true to say that very few people use the railways today.
The last point that I should like to make is not particular to Wales; it is of general application. I come to sea transport, and I move down to Pembrokeshire, where the great oil port of Milford Haven is being developed. What I am about to say is no particular criticism of Her Majesty's Government, and I believe that it is probably the price of democracy. We have to try to preserve the amenities of our small island, and we all accept planning as an essential part of life to-day; but this planning has now got to such a pitch that it may surprise your Lordships to know what obstacles have to be surmounted. In fact, it is probably only the biggest developer, when he gets down to brass tacks, who can face the formidable list with which he is confronted—although I am happy to say that the Regent Oil Company have surmounted these obstacles and are proceeding with their new refinery. But it may be that, as the Common Market comes into being, there will be manufacturers who may look around for places to develop in this country.
Here is the list of obstacles that has to be overcome by a would-be developer. It is not sufficient just to get the consent of the planning authority and the harbour authority; that is only the very beginning. First of all, he requires planning permission, under the General Development Order, 1950, and the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Under that procedure, any
1042
aggrieved person or body can force a public inquiry, at which the developer can be cross-examined about his affairs; and that may easily set him back nine months. If the development is in a national park, as is happening, there must be special arrangements for the proposed development to be considered by the National Parks Committee. If the development includes an area with an ancient monument, the developer must give the requisite three months' notice and consult with the Minister of Works to obtain his approval under the Ancient Monuments Act, 1931. If the development includes a building scheduled under Section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, then he must give the necessary three months' notice and obtain the approval of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
I will not weary your Lordships any further, but there are other obstacles to be surmounted, especially in dealing with the Crown Commissioners, who, of course, own the foreshore, and are apparently expected by law to extort the highest possible rent that the project will bear. I should like your Lordships to remember that if the development is a jetty, the developer rents only the part of the seabed on which the pile actually stands: the sea in between is not part of the let. I do not know whether it would be possible for Her Majesty's Government to consider some form of central clearing house, by means of which foreign developers need not be intimidated (if they so are) by the very formidable list which I have sketched very lightly—and I have left out the very small details, with which I do not wish to weary your Lordships. I am given to understand that in the Port of Rotterdam, only one certificate of permission is needed.
As regards education, I have no time now (because I do not want to speak too long) to say very much. But I would just say, as President of the University College of South Wales, that our problems are no less pressing than those of any other university. While one sympathises with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the endless demands for more money coupled with a demand for Government economy, we can but hope that he will get his priorities right for whatever money is available. Before

1043
I sit down, I should like to welcome my noble friend Lord Leighton of St. Melions, who I understand is to follow me in this debate. As a result of his adornment of South Wales, Her Majesty's Government have advised Her Majesty to bring him into our deliberations, and I should like to offer him a very warm welcome here this afternoon.
3.29 p.m.
LORD LEIGHTON OF ST. MELLONS: My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships' House for the first time, and I would crave that indulgence which your Lordships are always so ready and willing to give to one who is faced with this ordeal. Many of your Lordships—indeed, all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate so far: the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, and the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor—have, I know, made maiden speeches in the past, not only in this House but in another place also. Although my father was a Member of another place, I never had that privilege, so this must be, in the truest sense, my maiden speech.
Having lived in Wales and Monmouthshire all my life, it is perhaps for me to declare at the outset that I have a very real and live interest in the affairs of the Principality, and in the well-being and welfare of the people of Monmouthshire and of South Wales in particular. I would pay my tribute to Dr. Charles Hill, the Minister for Welsh Affairs in another place, for his untiring labours on behalf of the Welsh people. I would pay my tribute, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, the Minister of State for Welsh Affairs, for his unceasing endeavours and his constant efforts on behalf of the interests of the people of his native land.
Having spent many years in association with the shipping. industry, I have possibly acquired some knowledge that enables me to speak from experience regarding the usefulness and the importance of the ports of South Wales. In paragraph 610 of this Report there is the factual statement that:
"During the year the number of vessels arriving at the ports decreased by 625 … and the net register tonnage decreased by 1,259,311 tons …"
But, my Lords, this is a continuing tendency. During the last four years
1044
the decrease each year has averaged 500 ships; and the loss of over 2,000 ships arriving at these ports has had a very adverse effect upon the local economy. It must be remembered that each ship employs agents, pilots, boatmen, dockers and riggers. Many of these ships would have used the dry docks, the ship-repairing facilities and the other auxiliary services.
The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, made a very moving reference to the mining industry, and to the diminishing supply of coal, particularly for export. Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor will recollect when Cardiff was the greatest coal exporting port in the world. In the year 1913 these South Wales ports exported over 30 million tons of Welsh coal. Last year it was but a trickle—5 per cent. of that quantity, or 1·5 million tons. To-day there are quays which are derelict, the hoists, the coal tips, are being dismantled and removed, and other appliances are lying idle. If these ports are to remain under the ownership and control of the British Transport Commission, the nationalised authority, with group management centred at Cardiff, then I would suggest to the Minister that consideration should be given to the desirability of setting up regional port boards, on the lines of the Port of London Authority, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and the recently established Milford Haven Conservancy Board in West Wales, over which the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, who has just sat down, so ably presides. I personally believe that if these port boards were appointed by the Minister of Transport, considerable benefits would accrue. These ports are at the stage when they either grow, develop and expand, or they shrink, decline and die.
My Lords, I am an optimist. I believe that we are on the eve of great opportunities. But with these opportunities, new and serious problems will arise. They will arise from the construction of that vast, gigantic steelworks which is being erected, at a cost of over £100 million, adjacent to Newport, and from the Rover motor car works which is being constructed at Cardiff. Problems will arise from the developments which will accrue, and must ultimately accrue, when the Severn Bridge has been

1045
completed. I believe that it is the shipowners, the shippers, the men engaged in commerce and industry in the areas, who are best able to assess the future prospects of these individual ports and to advise and recommend on the reconstruction, and reconditioning and the modernisation which is required to meet present-day and future local and national needs.
The Rochdale Committee, which Her Majesty's Government set up to examine all the ports of the country, will no doubt, in due time, examine some such proposal. But this Rochdale Committee was appointed in March, 1961, and ever since its appointment there has been a lack of confidence, an uncertainty and an anxiety in these South Wales ports as to the future. That has retarded and frustrated, and indeed stifled, many capital developments. I hope that when the Minister comes to wind up this debate, he will be able to indicate when the Rochdale Committee will complete its labours and when its Report will be made public.
I should not wish to presume upon your Lordships' patience by discussing the very comprehensive contents of this Report, but I would offer some observations on paragraphs 432, 437, and 441, although not necessarily in that order. All these paragraphs appertain to the operation of the National Health Service in Wales and Monmouthshire. These paragraphs have impressed me very much indeed. They are, as it were, extracts from a book of revelations, revelations to me of a very extraordinary character. I have always been convinced that Welsh people were a healthy people; that Wales was a healthy nation. I have memories of the vigour and vitality of the farming communities of North Wales, mid-Wales and West Wales. I know from personal knowledge of the health and strength of the workers in Monmouthshire and the valleys of South Wales—the miners, the colliers, the steel-workers, the boilermakers, the men who work at the pits and at the ports. Their womenfolk are cheerful, and have evidence of physical wellbeing and stamina; and the children are of the kind which makes the future bright with hope.
I think also of those Welsh regiments—the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the Welch Regiment, and the South Wales
1046
Borderers. I think, too, of the fine rugby players which Wales has produced, and remember that the Welsh defeated France at Cardiff Arms Park recently, while England failed in Paris. I am sure that noble Lords who are familiar with the Welsh people would share my conviction about their health. But that is why I am so concerned and why these paragraphs in the Report are to me so disturbing, even alarming. The impression they leave upon one's mind is that Wales is not a healthy nation; it is a sick nation. And the "Land of My Fathers" has truly become a land of hypochondriacs.
The total population of Wales, as disclosed in the 1961 Census, is 2,640,362: that is, a little over 2½ million people. Paragraph 437 of the Report states that there are 1,296 doctors resident in Wales, having on an average 2,032 patients each. Then we come to the statistical table in paragraph 443, which shows that in the course of the year all these doctors issue between them no fewer than 13,904,846 prescriptions, nearly six for every man, woman and child in the country. On an average, every doctor in one year writes out 14.000 prescriptions; 280 a week; 40 for every day of a seven day week. Your Lordships may have noticed that this shows a substantial improvement on the previous year, in which the doctors wrote out nearly 15 million prescriptions.
Between the two years the individual cost of prescriptions to patients went from 1s. to 2s. The full cost of prescriptions went from 7s. 7d. to just over 8s. 8d. But, with fewer than 1,300 doctors writing out in two years 29 million prescriptions, one would not be surprised if some doctors developed writer's cramp, and whatever the conclusions may be about the health of the Welsh people, the doctors must be a very hardy and healthy body of men and women. The total cost of all these 29 million prescriptions to the National Health Service was in the order of £10 million, after giving credit for what the patients paid themselves.
But your Lordships may think the really alarming figures are those in the Report that refer to the ambulance service. I draw your Lordship's attention to paragraph 432, which shows that in

1047
1961, at a cost of more than £830,000, no fewer than 997,665 patients were conveyed by ambulance over a distance of 7,621,531 miles. Each of these patients travels on an average 7½ miles at a cost of 2s. 2d. a mile. For 1960, the previous year, the figures reveal that, at a cost of £799,899, a total of 955,688 patients were conveyed by ambulance over 7,342,327 miles. These ambulance journeys work out at 11½ miles each at a cost of 2s. a mile. Over the two consecutive years, 2 million patients were conveyed over 15 million miles at a cost of £1,600,000. Even allowing for the rural character of much of Wales, I think that these distances are rather surprising, and so is the cost involved. One is tempted to suggest that this is a matter that might be inquired into, to see whether some equally comfortable and equally efficient mode of transport could not be made available at a cheaper cost. Even minicabs have their uses.
The figure that is really staggering refers to the total number of patients. It really does stagger me, and I am not without some experience of these hospital statistics, for I was chairman of the governing body of a hospital for 25 years. The evidence before your Lordships' House is that over a brief period of two years, out of a total population of 2½ million, nearly 2 million patients were conveyed to hospital by ambulance. It is true that on the roads and rivers, in the mines and factories, the people of Wales are no more immune from accidents than any others. There may be patients who have to have several treatments. There may be a percentage of chronic sick, who have to return to hospital repeatedly. But, allowing for all these, for visitors who become ill and every conceivable circumstance, I find it difficult to reconcile my mind to the fact that, out of a population of 2½ million people, four-fifths of the total population should require conveyance by ambulance. We must accept the facts, but to me they are truly staggering.
If the health of the Welsh people is such as these various statistical tables suggest, it is reasonable to suppose that the teeth of the whole nation are in a deplorable state, for poor health and bad teeth so often go together. And paragraph 441 makes the statement that Wales has one dentist for every 6,353
1048
people. The inference is that dentists in Wales are very much overworked. Of course, statistics are not always a reliable guide; they do not tell the whole of the story. On occasion they are cited to support preconceived ideas, but I am not seeking to prove anything to-day. I am simply expressing my astonishment and my concern about what, on the surface, seems to be a most extraordinary situation. But perhaps there is some reasonable explanation that the Report itself does not disclose.
Finally, having referred to some of the matters in the Report, may I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that there is nothing in this Report about the presence of Borstal institutions and approved schools in Wales and Monmouthshire? Unhappily, Wales is no exception: there is no slump in crime. I feel that if the conditions existing in some of our prisons were more widely known, they would call for comment, for criticism and for action. The prison in Cardiff was built over 100 years ago. It has a normal capacity for 250 inmates. The average daily population last year exceeded 400. To-day it is 450. It means that in 150 cells there is one occupant in each, but in the other 100 there are three prisoners in each. I think that is a deplorable situation. Another disturbing factor to me is that from the prison to which I have referred there were discharged last year 900 civil prisoners. Those, too, experienced the same measure of hospitality, in many cases three in a cell. Many of them were debtor prisoners there on short sentences, many of them because their wives had committed them to hire purchase agreements which they found it quite impossible to fulfil, and many of them having themselves irresponsibly entered into contracts for the purchase of goods which they could never possibly afford.
I am not stressing that Wales is different from any other country in this matter, or in regard to the pressure on the prisons, but I would ask the Minister to consult with the Home Secretary in another place, particularly regarding this prison in the capital city, Cardiff. It stands there, almost in the centre of the city, occupying acres of valuable land. It is land of increasing value, and if this prison were demolished and the land sold for development for the benefit of the community, the proceeds

1049
would go a long way towards the cost of another modern, up-to-date establishment, out in the country and away from the city, adequate to the needs of our time. I have no intention of pursuing this matter further to-day, but I hope that, if other Reports of this nature are to be submitted to your Lordships' House, they will contain some reference to prisons, borstal institutions and approved schools, with some statistical data regarding crime and juvenile delinquency, about which we are deeply concerned. It only remains for me to express my gratitude to your Lordships for the kind and courteous way in which you have heard what I have had to say.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I comfort the noble Lord before he sits down? I do not think his analysis of these figures, that four-fifths of the people of Wales go to hospital, is quite correct. He will find that the total mileage covers the carriage of the same person a number of times, and does not refer to new patients.
LORD LEIGHTON OF ST. MELLONS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lady whether she is making reference to the fact that the same patient makes several journeys?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Yes. He might go to the same hospital several times.
LORD LEIGHTON OF ST. MELLONS: I made reference to the fact that it includes the chronic sick, who may make repeated visits to hospital. I have no wish to confuse your Lordships. It is not four-fifths of the population who go; it is only a total number equal to four-fifths of the population. It is not necessarily 2 million of the population of Wales who have gone by ambulance to hospital; the number of journeys comes to 2 million, although some patients may have gone several times.
3.54 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I know it will be your Lordships' unanimous wish that I should congratulate my noble friend Lord Leighton of St. Mellons on his maiden speech, which was both eloquent and informative. He spoke to us from considerable experience of the shipping industry, and revealed himself as a very expert statis-
1050
tician. I am sure your Lordships hope that he will return often to this House to give us the benefit of his wise words. I have the privilege of wishing him well because, unfortunately, the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, has not been able to speak at this point in the debate. As the noble Viscount is a good friend of mine, and we both come from the same town of Mountain Ash, I should like to say how sorry I am he is not here, and hope that we shall see him again very soon in his place in this House.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, as other noble Lords have done, for initiating this debate. I must say that I could not agree with him in almost anything he said, but particularly in his opening remark that he was going to be objective in considering this Report. Objectively, I find it a most comprehensive Report. He tended, to my mind, to single out certain very difficult problems of which the Government, I know, are fully aware, but he gave no credit for the achievements that have been recorded in this Report. He spoke, for example, of the problem of Central Wales, and he quoted paragraph 71 of the Report, but he did not go on and quote paragraphs 72 or 73. It hardly seems to me to be objective to quote the one paragraph which admits three disappointments and not to quote the two following paragraphs which give some good news and some reason for satisfaction.
I would refer, first of all, to the opening paragraph of the chapter on "Employment and Industrial Development", which states:
"Taken as a whole the year 1961 presents a picture of more jobs, increased demand for labour and fewer people out of work."
I feel sure that every Welshman, to whatever Party he may belong, cannot help but welcome that statement, especially in view of the past history of Welsh employment. An equally satisfactory statement follows, to the effect that almost all the young people entering the employment field were absorbed, even though in that particular year, 1961, there was a substantial increase in the number of young people leaving school. This satisfactory position in the employment field stems, it seems to me, from the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and I cannot agree at all with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who

1051
seemed to disparage the efforts of the Government to attract new industry to Wales. For example, he was critical of the land development, which I should have thought was an outstanding contribution to Welsh economic development.
It seems clear to me also that the Local Employment Act has been a success in Wales. New industry has continued to be attracted, and it is satisfactory that some of it has gone to areas of North and Central Wales rather than all of it to the highly industrialised South. It is indicative of the success of the Act that already it has been possible to remove certain districts from the list of development districts. When my noble friend Lord Brecon recently visited Aberdare, he was able to state that since the war some 400 new firms have settled in Wales, and that the number of people engaged in manufacturing industry there is more than double the pre-war figure. It seems to me that Wales, from being a predominantly coalmining area, has now become an industrial centre, and I think a real tribute is due to the Minister for Welsh Affairs who was responsible for most of the period covered by this Report, my right honourable friend Mr. Henry Brooke, and my noble friend Lord Brecon, for their efforts. They have stood out sturdily to support Welsh interests and they have, in my opinion, shown great courage on many occasions in taking decisions which were often not popular even in Wales but which have all, or the majority of them, in my opinion, proved wise.
In this what I consider generally satisfactory picture of industrial development I should like to make just one plea to my noble friend, although I know he already has it in mind: it is a plea for a diversification of industry in the Welsh mining valleys, which are still very heavily dependent upon the coal industry. There have grown up in these valleys over many years small communities who are proud of their local traditions and who foster a true community spirit among their members. As many of your Lordships know, life is not always pleasant in a mining valley. It is often remote, often there are scars left by the industry on once beautiful natural scenery, and, if I may offer one instance from my own valley, we have to
1052
put up with a factory belonging to the National Coal Board which makes "Phurnacite". It is a plant providing some of the best smokeless fuel in the country and if you ask anybody locally they will tell you the reason for its being such a fine smokeless fuel; it is because it pumps out all its smelly and vile fumes in our valley.
Those who live in these valleys are hardworking people, proud of their local traditions and proud of their local countryside, such as remains of it, and they show a truly democratic spirit in their own efforts at local self-government. It would be a tragedy if these areas were to become merely pools of employment to be drawn off to major factories in South Wales. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government have the problem in mind and will do all that they can to encourage other light industries to settle in the Welsh mining valleys. My noble friend will no doubt agree with me that those firms which are already settled in the valleys have never regretted it.
Having said those few words about what I might call the top of the Report, I should like to say a few words on the tail of the Report, which deals with cultural activities. This part does not seem to me to be logical, for, in my opinion, cultural activities should move hand in hand and develop alongside increasing industrialisation. I think it most important that Wales, besides developing as an industrial nation, should not neglect her cultural heritage. Wales has always been renowned for singing, poetry, music and the dramatic arts, and all over the country to this day there are the activities of amateur dramatic societies, choral societies and male voice choirs, all culminating in the annual National Eisteddfod.
But although there is no lack of amateur talent, Wales has hitherto neglected her professional artists, actors, poets sand musicians. Increased travel and, particularly, the coming of television have brought about increased interest in professional performance, and, if anything, a decrease in the activities of amateur societies. It is important that steps should be taken at once to establish Welsh professional institutions in the main branches of the arts.

1053
Something has already been done in this field. I need instance only the Welsh National Opera Company, which, against great odds, has overcome a critical period and now has a season at Sadler's Wells, and which plans a school of opera in Cardiff. However, even the Welsh National Opera Company would not have been able to continue in existence without the aid of the Arts Council, and it is satisfactory to know that the Arts Council grant for Wales has increased from just under £44,000 in 1959–60 to over £78,000 in 1961–62.
However, there are still major gaps in the field of the arts in Wales, such as the absence of a Welsh national orchestra, a concert hall and a Welsh national theatre. If I may declare an interest at this point, I would inform your Lordships that I am chairman of the St. David's Theatre Trust Company and we are endeavouring to provide Wales with a Welsh national theatre. We have so far enjoyed the great support of the Cardiff City Council. I hope that we may also look for support to Her Majesty's Government and that all Welshmen everywhere will support us when we come to try to raise funds for this enterprise. I believe that we can succeed in giving Wales a theatre worthy of her position in the forefront of modern industrial progress built on ancient cultural traditions.
4.6 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating my noble friend and Vice-Lieutenant on an excellent maiden speech. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, afforded me same surprise when he said he had found the industry of South Wales in a state of chaos. Monmouthshire is not technically part of South Wales and I have never visited any factory in South Wales, but I have had occasion in the course of my duties to visit most of the leading factories in Monmouthshire and I certainly have observed no signs of chaos. The older factories such as Girling's, at Cwmbran, and the great nylon factory at Pontypool continue to flourish; the magnificent new aluminium works at Rogerstone is going Strong and there is no sign of chaos there. Also I should like just to mention the steel works at Llanwern, which I had the privilege of inspecting a fortnight ago and which
1054
really is a staggering sight. Maybe it is two-thirds smaller than it might heave been but it is still 3½ miles long. Clearly it is a most magnificent example of enterprise. It is the largest and most up-to-date strip mill in the world and if it only goes on as it is now starting it will reflect very great credit on all who have anything to do with its development.
The noble Lord also mentioned Blaenavon, which I had occasion to visit quite recently. It is not as derelict as the noble Lord suggested. Two flourishing factories have recently been erected there by the Doncaster firm, which I have had the privilege of inspecting. It is true there is a large derelict area of what used to be the works of the Blaenavon Company, but it has been derelict for over 40 years and no blame can be attached to anyone now living because it has remained derelict, but it is hoped very much that somebody else will start sufficient factories in that area.
So far as our railways are concerned, the Government have shut them down, but in my view they were perfectly justified in doing so. There were few people travelling by them and quite adequate bus services are replacing them. As regards roads, we are going to do very well. The Severn Bridge is well started and when it is completed it will be of very great benefit to Monmouthshire, linking it more closely with England. There is also the northern road, which has hardly reached into Monmouthshire yet, but work will start there very soon and it will be of enormous advantage in the way of communications. There is very little unemployment in Monmouthshire and I think I can say on behalf of the people there that they are, or ought to be, very grateful for all that is being done, and has been done, in recent years.
I also listened with some surprise to what the noble Lord had to say. So far as I can make out, he thinks that Wales should be maintained as a kind of museum piece by the English taxpayer; it should he preserved as an area of rustic Celticism. Why should the English taxpayer do that? It is obvious the noble Lord thinks it has got to be done by the English taxpayer; he realises the Welsh taxpayer cannot afford to do it. Why should it be done

1055
at all? Why should the English taxpayer preserve the Welsh small farmer? No small farmers are worth preserving. Small farming is dead, or ought to be dead; at any rate it is dying. The proper way to farm is with tractors. People who cannot afford to farm with tractors should not farm at all, and verysoon they will not be farming, at all. The noble Lord speaks of derelict farmhouses. I have got rid of a derelict farmhouse. It was a miserable substandard house; when the man got out of it—of his own accord; he obtained a better place—I let it go. That is what people are doing all over Wales, quite rightly. Places become unfit for habitation, if not on the grounds of the houses themselves, then on the grounds of being quite inaccessible to civilisation.
I am not going to say any more than that, but there is one other subject to which the noble Lord briefly alluded. It is not in the Report but I trust I shall not be too far out of order in referring to it. That is the question of county boundaries. The Commission have not yet made their final report, so this is perhaps one of the few occasions when something that one says might influence the final decision. When things go into a Bill and are Government policy, we may stand up and talk and express disapproval but we know very well that nothing more than minor amendments will go through. This is a case which has not yet come before Parliament and I hope that before it does the Government will think very hard.
As has been said in this debate, there is a large area of central Wales, three or four thousand square miles, extremely mountainous, of which the population is about 65 to the square mile. The Commission in their findings have devoted their attention almost entirely to the wellbeing of this area or to what they think should be the wellbeing of this area. What they are proposing to do is to take the thirteen counties of Wales and Monmouthshire and unite them into five. So far as Monmouthshire is concerned, they propose to add Radnorshire and Breconshire and to make them one administrative county. I do not think they really appreciate the complexity of modern local government. I have here the county diary, from which I see that the Monmouthshire County
1056
Council now has 47 committees; not only that, but it has 81 other bodies of which a varying number of the county council form part.
The Commission say, and no doubt it is true, that the committee structure might be rationalised. I dare say it might be rationalised to some extent; probably some of these committees could be done away with and perhaps some could have fewer members. But the whole system of local government in this country is government by committee. There have to be large numbers of committees, even if not so many. If there are large numbers of committees, that means members of county councils must pay frequent visits to the county hall. I have had time to look at a map and I have found that the greatest distance that any county councillor now has to go to reach his county hall is that in North Devon, Lynton and such places, where he may live 55 miles from the county hall. I cannot think how they get anybody to serve on the county council. I was a county councillor for a great many years, and if anybody had suggested that I should go 55 miles to the meetings I should not have stood for election. That is nothing, however, to what these people are now proposing. The North of Radnorshire is 80 miles from Newport. The journey is through a series of winding roads. They have another method of approach; the railway from Newport to Hereford is still running and in order to attend meetings they could conceivably motor 40 miles to Hereford and then go 40 miles by train to Newport. I think it is very unlikely they would do that. It seems to me quite absurd to expect them to travel so far.
Of course what applies to the county council applies equally to the county officials the other way round. The Monmouthshire county officials have plenty of work to do and if this so-called improvement comes into being they will either have to neglect their duties in Monmouthshire or appoint deputies for Breconshire and Radnorshire. If they appoint deputies things will be no different. If they do not, they will have to spend half their time wandering about the mountains in Breconshire and Radnorshire or give a report and advice to the committee on matters of which

1057
they know nothing. What do the Commission say to that? They say that the county councils should be sited at suitable administrative centres. In other words, what they suggest, I gather, is that the capitals of the counties should be moved from the populous parts of North Wales and South Wales in which they are now situated, to the central wilderness.
Surely they must realise that those councils not only themselves have a very complex existence with a great many buildings, vast quantities of archives and offices of all kinds, but employ a great many people, and it would be quite impossible to rehouse those people in the wilds of central Wales. It is extraordinary to me that they should have any such idea.
Their ideas about roads seem to me a bit odd. They say that each county—that is to say, each of these composite counties—would be able to have a range of modern road-building equipment. What they apparently seem to suppose is that in some central spot in each of these four vast counties there would be a set of road-making equipment, which would be able to be transported 50 or 60 miles at short notice to wherever it was wanted. They do not seem to realise that this road-making equipment has technical people to operate it and they would have to be transported 40 or 50 miles daily to their work. The whole idea that you can save money in this way seems to me to be quite absurd.
These areas of central Wales must be extremely expensive to administer whatever system of administration is adopted; that cannot be avoided. As the noble Lord said with regard to the Post Office, that applies to everything else; it must apply to everything else. The people who live in these areas are entitled to proper administration and if they cannot pay for it themselves somebody else must pay it for them, and that person should be the British taxpayer as a whole. There is no reason why the ratepayers in Monmouthshire should pay for Radnorshire. The whole idea that you can cheapen administration and the cost of roads by juggling with county boundaries, seems to me to be totally unfounded.
4.20 p.m
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, we have had quite a good debate this afternoon and I do not intend to prolong it unduly. I am a resident of that wilderness in mid-Wales to which my noble friend Lord Raglan has just referred, North Brecon. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if my remarks tend to deal more particularly with that part of Wales, which I have known and loved all my life. I think it is fairly representative of rural Wales.
I must support my noble friend Lord Raglan in what he has said about the proposals of the Local Government Commission, particularly as I am a member of a local authority in a county which, if the proposals of this Commission are implemented, will become absorbed by my noble friend's county. I say "absorbed" advisedly, because the bulk of the representation on the council of that super county, if I may call it such, is bound to come from Monmouthshire, from the more populated areas, while the representation from Breconshire and Radnorshire is surely going to be greatly outnumbered, and, in consequence, the interests of the rural areas will be bound to suffer. The representatives from these rural areas will have to travel extremely long distances. I think my noble friend made a slight slip when he said that from the north of Breconshire to Newport is 80 miles.
LORD RAGLAN: The north of Radnorshire.
LORD SWANSEA: I took it that that is what my noble friend meant. But 80 miles is a long way to go for a county council meeting. One can see that it will place an extremely heavy burden on those representatives who go into local government of their own accord, of their own free will, on a voluntary basis. They are worked pretty hard as it is, even if they have to travel only twenty miles or so to the local seat of government. If they have to go 80 miles each way a heavy burden is placed upon them. Travelling will involve a considerable waste of time, which could be better spent either at the local seat of government or in their own occupations. Centralisation of administration can be carried too far, to the extent when it will defeat its own ends, and

1059
I think we must retain the measure of de-centralisation which we have at present.
Some of the existing councils are admittedly small in terms of population. They could be said to be uneconomic units, but they have an intense local pride in and loyalty to their own area, combined with an intimate knowledge of each other, of their officers and of the local conditions, which would be entirely lost if that county were amalgamated with a larger one. The longer the range from which government is carried on, the more impersonal it must become. If the proposals are carried out they may well create major difficulties in the organisation of local government which may result in the creation of extremely large district and parish council areas. Most district council areas are fairly compact and efficient units. I think that if the administration of two or three counties were amalgamated, inevitably the same thing would happen with the district councils, which I think would be a bad thing. I think they ought to stay on their present basis.
Then there is the question of finance. I will give your Lordships an example, which has been agreed to by the respective county treasurers of Breconshire, Radnorshire and Monmouthshire, of what the rate poundage would be, based on the estimates of the amount spent in 1961–62. The result would be an increase in the rate poundage for all three counties, ranging from 8d. in Monmouthshire, to 1s. 1d. in Breconshire, and an increase of 4s. 8d. in Radnorshire. This would be due mainly to the loss of over £400,000 in general and rate deficiency grants which would be incurred by the proposed new super county.
The proposed changes to the southern boundary of Breconshire—it is proposed to transfer certain areas to Glamorgan—would result in Breconshire itself being broken up, dismembered, to such an extent as to have the gravest effects on the voluntary organisations which are at present based on existing county council areas. A very good working partnership exists at present between the local authorities and all the voluntary organisations. That partnership is of great benefit to the local authorities and
1060
to the voluntary organisations themselves. Many of these voluntary organisations depend on the intimate personal contact that they have with the officers of the local authorities, which would be lost to them if they were part of an enlarged administrative area.
The regulations under which the Local Government Commission were set up include certain factors which should be taken into account. They are given in these regulations in alphabetical order. I am just wondering whether it is only a coincidence that the last one on the list happens to relate to the wishes of the inhabitants. Your Lordships may no doubt know that some of the other factors are community of interest, economic and other characteristics, financial resources, physical features, the size and distribution of the population and the record of administration of the local authorities concerned. I defy anybody to prove that the existing county councils and district councils have in any way failed in their duty to the inhabitants of their areas. I think every county council in Wales can be proud of its record of administration. With my noble friend Lord Raglan, I sincerely hope that, as the deliberations of the Local Government Commission are still continuing, any representations which may be made during that time will be considered and noted when the Commission present their final Report.
The other subject that I wish to mention is the proposed closure of certain railway facilities in mid-Wales. The British Transport Commission have proposed to withdraw entirely the passenger facilities, and certain freight facilities, from the whole of mid-Wales, from Brecon up to Montgomeryshire, leaving, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore said, only the railways in the coastal strip. The immediate proposals are for the closure of the line serving Brecon from all directions, including the Brecon-Newport, Brecon-Neath and Brecon-Hereford lines. Proposals for the future, I understand, include closing the line from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth. Another line which is also under review is that from Swansea to Shrewsbury—which one can hardly call a branch line. These closure proposals in regard to these branch lines have caused considerable concern in mid-Wales; and

1061
the opinion of most, if not all, of the local authorities, including the one of which I am a member, is that to withdraw the passenger facilities from these lines without ensuring adequate alternative means of transport could be a major disaster to the area.
I do not intend to give the impression that these lines are used by many passengers; because they are not. The figures are there for all to see; the number of passengers is admittedly small, but the demand is there. These people travel by railway either because they have no transport of their own (and, my Lords, in spite of this affluent society, there are still such people in this country) or because in nearly every case the bus services are totally inadequate, and in some cases non-existent, perhaps running on one or two days of the week. What is going to happen to these people who are in the habit of travelling by train? Because it is clear that the bus services will not take them—they are completely inadequate. The withdrawal of these rail services is bound to inflict considerable hardship on the local residents, particularly the elderly people who have to make regular visits down from the villages in order to visit a doctor, or for any other reason.
The branch lines should be regarded not as an isolated part of the railway system, but as tributaries of the main line. My noble friend Lord Dynevor mentioned a very good parallel, the Post Office. The postal charges are the same in all parts of the country, whether in the towns or in the country areas, and there is no question of withdrawing postal services in rural areas simply because they are not an economic proposition. They are a public service, and I would submit that the railways, too, are a public service, and should be retained as such. Closing the branch lines may well affect traffic on the main lines, and any saving that might be effected through the closure of the branch lines would be largely offset by a loss of revenue that might be suffered by the main lines.
Industrial development in mid-Wales is vital to the prosperity of the region, and the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association, in conjunction with the local authorities, is endeavouring to attract industries to mid-Wales. That
1062
is a very praiseworthy object, and will do much to increase the prosperity of those areas and to stop the drift of population into the larger towns. But there is a great danger that all these efforts may be fruitless if the closure of these lines (I am referring now not only to passenger services but also to freight services) is brought about; for the industrialists are hardly likely to be attracted to an area which has no railway facilities. The roads in mid-Wales are barely adequate for the amount of traffic they have to carry, certainly in the holiday season, and, if large amounts of heavy industrial traffic were suddenly to appear on the roads, I think the situation would be chaotic. There is no proposal, so far as I know, for trunk roads or motorways in mid-Wales. They are coming along very nicely in South Wales, where they are needed most, but the roads in mid-Wales will have to wait a long time, and at present, as I say, they are quite inadequate for any large increase in the volume of traffic.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that it would be a tragedy of the first magnitude if, in order to effect a trifling economy in a public service, a crippling blow were dealt to the prosperity of mid-Wales. The savings effected by these closures would be negligible in comparison with the saving which could be effected in other regions. In particular they would be a drop in the ocean compared to the British Transport Commission's colossal deficit; they would make hardly any difference to it. The railways are a public service and should be treated as a whole. Small losses on these branch lines should be accepted. As I say, it is a small loss by comparison with the overall losses of the Commission. Closing these lines and cutting the losses would only transfer those losses to private industry, which would be far less able to bear them.
Instead of closing these lines, considerable economies could be made by replacing the present steam trains by small one-car or two-car diesel units, which would be much more economical to run. Further economies could be brought about by issuing tickets on the trains, thus reducing station staff. Above all, I think that rail transport is the safest means of transport in the country, much safer than road transport and much safer than air transport. A regular

1063
service of rail buses, shall we say—I can think of no better term for them—would keep these lines open. It would relieve the pressure of traffic on the roads and provide an efficient means of transport in the greatest possible safety.
What is to happen to the railway workers on these lines when they are closed? They will, presumably, become redundant or be moved to other regions. Many of them are at present housed by the Transport Commission. If they are transferred to other areas, many of them may have to face down-grading. I hope that the departments of the Commission concerned are bearing that point in mind. When these freight services are reduced and in some cases withdrawn, it is proposed to convey freight from a convenient railhead by road transport, although the railhead may be some considerable distance away. I know that local traders in many towns are very apprehensive about the kind of service they are likely to get from such an arrangement, particularly as regards bulky and heavy goods such as fertilisers and coal.
Then there is the question of the Royal Welsh Show which from next year will have a permanent site at Builth Wells, only 200 yards from Builth Wells station which is due to be closed. The Show authority would then have to rely for their rail services on Llandrindod Wells, which is a round trip of 15 miles. Many of the things in the Royal Welsh Show must go by rail, and I know that the Royal Welsh Agricultural Society are very concerned about this position. There is also the timber trade to be considered. Forestry is one of the major industries of mid-Wales, and is growing year by year. In a few years the area around North Breconshire and Radnorshire should be able to produce large quantities of timber for conversion and drying; and at Builth Wells there is a large goods yard with plenty of room for such a plant and very good sidings and loading, facilities. A serious blow might be dealt to the forestry industry if these railway facilities were curtailed or withdrawn.
Finally, my Lords, one cannot exclude the possibility at some time of a national emergency of some sort or another. In such an eventuality it is conceivable that
1064
central Wales will be considered a safe area, so to speak, for the purpose of evacuation. If we were to pull up all our railway lines in mid-Wales now, I tremble to think what might happen on the roads. That is all I have to say, my Lords, and I thank you for your attention.
4.46 p.m.
LORD BOSTON: My Lords, so often do we consider matters connected with Scotland that it is frequently forgotten that the people of Wales have equal feelings of loyalty to their country. We have already heard a good deal about that to-day, but I still have a few points to bring forward which have not so far been touched on. However, I will not go at any length into the question of railways and so on, about which we have already heard sufficient. I must confess at the start that I am not a Welshman nor do I speak their ancient language, but my family have owned land there since 1750. I think I can safely say that I am to-day the only speaker from North Wales, so I hope that your Lordships will bear with me for a few minutes in order that I can say something about that part. Other speakers have included true Welshmen, who speak far more eloquently than I, but it is sometimes helpful if the impressions of an observer who lives in Wales are stated openly, even if they may appear to border on the controversial, and even if they appear to depart from the subject of the Motion. I would ask for the indulgence of the House and I can promise brevity.
Now, my Lords, who are the Welsh people? Their history is full of incident, colour, courage and renown. Dramatic events influenced down the ages by staunch determination to hold the frontiers of their land of mountains and valleys, reveal deep attachment to an ancient heritage that it is still their privilege to enjoy and to guard. Tribally sub-divided from the dawn of history, the diversities in their national life were perpetuated by topographical and other considerations, so that the Welsh were only at one when their heritage was threatened. Recognition as a national entity under the Tudor dynasty ushered in more settled conditions, but it has never brought acknowledgement of nationhood from across the border.

1065
Unfortunately, rival claims for recognition and forms of assistance desired between North, South and mid-Wales still exist, and although the present Government have done much to encourage unity in recent years and have appointed a Minister for Welsh Affairs with a seat in the Cabinet, and a Minister of State for Welsh Affairs who is a Member of your Lordships' House and will be replying for the Government on this Motion, disunity still appears to me to exist. May I take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the work done for Wales by this team, and for the full-time work of the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, in his relentless efforts to encourage progress and unity in the Principality. My only comment is on our failure in not requiring his presence here more often to listen and reply to our criticisms, suggestions or praise.
In order that Members of another place can spend more time over problems peculiar to Wales, a Welsh Grand Committee have been appointed and, as can he seen in the Report under review, they have discussed health, education, Welsh water resources and Welsh radio and television. That, at least, reduces the length of debates in the other place and will, one hopes, quite often enable the united result of their deliberations to be placed before the House. The Committee have not been in existence long enough to prove their value in the production of positive results.
In addition, the Government have set up the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire which met five times in Wales in 1961. They investigated matters such as the tourist industry, the state of rural communications and the situation regarding the Welsh language, and also specific matters in the agricultural sphere. My personal opinion, based, I admit, solely on brief Press reports, is that their deliberations appear to have been devoted too much to matters of a nation which they would like to create rather than to the pressing, needs of a Principality which actually exists. Too many members appear to resign when they cannot persuade the majority of the Council to adopt their views; and some of their objectives, although applicable to Wales, appear to be equally pressing in Scotland and other hilly and sparsely-populated areas of the United Kingdom.
1066
The Report also deals with numerous other Councils and Committees for Wales. There is no need for me to draw your Lordships' attention to them, but I should like to make a brief reference to the Local Government Commission for Wales, about which we have heard from the last two speakers. To my mind, this is a bold and controversial attempt to reorganise local government which can be attempted only by a Government which has confidence in its necessity, whether the plan will be popular or not. The suggestion for re-grouping into five regions (I think that is the right word) instead of the present thirteen counties is, to my mind, interesting, and would at least be an economic improvement in the case of small counties who try, to use a popular phrase, to "keep up with the Joneses" by spending more than they can afford. This is a cry from my own heart, since the rates of my own county have increased 5s. in the pound this year and 2s. 6d. in the pound last year, making a total, with the district and parish rate, of 30s. 1d. in the pound.
Under the present system, high rates appear inevitable in agricultural counties which have little industry to pay the increased requirement, but re-grouping should help to effect a reduction. I would remind your Lordships that in South Wales industry can pay something towards rates, but in the north we are only just beginning to get it. It is only natural that the re-grouping will be strongly opposed by existing councils, who object to loss of independence and possible redundancy of staff. However, this is not the time or place to develop this theme further. I merely felt it fair to remind your Lordships of these points before passing on to what the Welsh people want and what the Government have contributed towards their needs and wishes.
It may be news to some of your Lordships that at the 1959 General Election 77,500 electors cast their votes on behalf of twenty candidates who represented the Welsh National Party—an increase of 32,500 on the previous Election—and I fully expect that figure to increase again next time. It is difficult to say exactly what they want, but only the extremists appear to want independent home rule for Wales; the majority would probably be satisfied with the pre-

1067
servation of their culture and way of life, and with more responsibility for local affairs, especially education and agriculture. They are unanimous over the necessity to preserve the Welsh language, but I would rather deal with that problem separately in a moment.
Next, I will deal briefly with what has been done in Anglesey and Caernarvonshire to reduce unemployment in those two counties, which I know best. The noble Lord, in his reply, will, I am sure, give your Lordships further details covering the whole Principality. In the past, both counties were predominently agricultural, and a considerable number of men depended upon the slate quarries. But private enterprise, with Government support and initiative, has gone far to introduce industry which will assist greatly the rates, as well as reduce the number of unemployed. They even went so far as to build an advance factory in Holyhead costing £94,000 before finding a firm to occupy it. This bold experiment was a success, as a firm manufacturing light circuit switchgear soon took it over, and they hope to employ 300 to 350 people within three or four years. The reason it will take that time is, of course, the need to build up a trained labour force from scratch.
Other new industry in Anglesey includes Octel anti-knock compounds for aero and motor fuels, which, strange to say, depend entirely on a vast amount of clean sea water from which to extract bromine. Other industries include the production of overalls, which requires mainly female labour; engraving of printed cylinders for textile industries; manufacture of pressure gauges and other light engineering. Altogether, these factories will, it is hoped, provide about 800 jobs where previously industry was almost unknown. In Caernarvonshire, by far the greatest "catch" has been the new factory, just outside the town of Caernarvon, for Messrs. Ferrodo, Limited, who hope to employ about 500 people in the near future, rising to about 1,000 in time. Altogether, in Caernarvonshire it is hoped that the total number of jobs available will be increased by 2,500. Slate quarrying has been through a difficult time, but private enterprise is developing a new and up-to-date quarry to supplement the vast excava-
1068
tions which are becoming difficult to work.
What is described as the tourist industry continues to be a great stand-by, but the season is all too short, though, from a climatic point of view, it could easily be extended. The only suggestion that I have to make is the need to encourage more attraction for those who want outdoor activity during their holiday, and those who come most weekends as well. I have in mind the local council who at first refused to allow a yacht club building because they suspected that the word "club" was the same as "pub" and would lead to drinking on Sundays. It took some months to persuade them that the last thing the club wanted was a licence, owing to the number of young members; but in the end all was well, and the club now attracts many members every weekend, from Easter to the end of September, who we hope spend money in the district, even if they occupy only caravans.
With regard to the establishment of new industries to provide work where the numbers of unemployed are above the national average, I suggest that wishful thinking serves no useful purpose and that what is needed is practical suggestions from the local councils and Press. It has always been a mystery to me to know who is primarily responsible—the local councils, with the aid of the Minister, or the Minister, with the aid of the councils, the chambers of commerce, and so on. Perhaps the noble Lord wil enlighten me in his reply. The easy answer is co-operation, but the position is that when the Minister brings off a success, even on a small scale, all is jubilation; but when he is unable to bring full-time work to some isolated or unsuitable area the Government are held entirely responsible, and Opposition Members of the other place take full advantage of the Chance to call attention to the alleged shortcomings of the Government.
I have in mind one instance, not long ago, in which the Press stated in high jubilation that a firm was about to open a new branch in Wales. When it appeared that this was entirely wishful thinking, the Government were blamed. The firm then wrote to the Press stating that they had never taken a final decision to open a factory, as it appeared unlikely

1069
that sufficient suitable labour would be forthcoming, and that they had only been encouraged by the Minister to consider the site. In spite of this denial, the Press went down fighting and still saying that the Government were to blame for the cancellation. I halve read that one of the solutions offered by the Leader of the Opposition Party, if and when they were returned to power, would be to open Government-operated industry in these black spots. My Lords, I do not think I need develop that point. I do not think that such schemes would work economically.
Attention has been drawn to the lack of What is called "Welsh enterprise" and money to start industry in fresh areas. The Minister himself has, I believe, referred to it from time to time. From a proud race who rightly pride themselves on their independence from the foreign English, it seems a pity that nearly all new enterprises appear to originate from across the border. Apart from a few Welsh woollen factories which offer for sale goods of a quality equal to, if not better than, those from Scotland, there appear to be few, if any, rural industries except those producing small articles of little value for the tourist trade. Even in the woollen mills I understand that there are few young recruits learning the craft.
One word about rural depopulation. Let me say quite briefly that, whilst one is naturally sympathetic, it would be far more practical and helpful if the education authorities, together with the Press and television, did more to draw attention to the advantages and possibilities of emigration in these days of work for the United Nations, et cetera, and in the under-developed areas for those who are prepared to take on the work, rather than dead-end jobs in a small factory near home, or temporary road work for the local council. With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, I suggest that there are times in certain areas when he could to advantage harden his heart, and encourage this emigration from areas where there is no real hope of progress for the younger generation.
One last mild criticism. Paragraph 291 of the Government Report records that:
"Significant progress was made during the year in regard to the provision of additional
1070
facilities for youth activities resulting from the issue in 1960 of the Albemarle Report."
Perhaps it is too soon to expect universal support or result, but I find the following letter dated April 27, 1962, from the Provincial Youth Council of the Church in Wales to be disappointing, to say the least. Perhaps I may be permitted to read an extract from the letter. It is as follows:
"We have had excellent co-operation from the Welsh Department of the Ministry of Education, and they have given us every help since the Albemarle Report. This is also true of some of the local education authorities. Our criticism is of those authorities who, as I said yesterday, have been ' slow off the mark '. One hesitates to use the term ' delaying action ', but continued refusal of our applications for grant aid for leadership training courses, projects, and local development, means they are delaying the implementation of the Albemarle Report.
"In the case of one county, we sent in an application following the acceptance in principle of the Report by the Minister of Education two years ago, and it has been deferred and we still await a reply. Another example is a county borough which has indicated that this year it will not give grant-aid to voluntary organisations. One of our groups in another county planned an imaginative project—an expedition with a purpose. A matter of days before they were due to leave, a letter arrived from the authority to the effect that it could not give a definite answer, and would consider it some time in the future. If it was decided to help, it would be made retrospective. This was useless and almost wrecked the whole scheme. It was saved by the fact that the whole community rallied around so that the young people should not be disappointed (they could not have gone without help) and made a collection. Otherwise, it would have been a tremendous setback to voluntary youth work in that district."
I do not think that is altogether satisfactory, my Lords. One can appreciate the need to economise and the difficulty of giving support to all voluntary organisations; but, in view of the great importance attached to personal training and leadership above all other forms of teaching, I can only hope that those local authorities who have not done so will do their best in the near future, or at least give a convincing reply for not being able to give financial help for the time being.
I cannot refrain from mentioning in brief the problem of the Welsh language, as, to my mind, that is the main problem with which Wales is faced, and it is one which is liable to delay progress as well as the unity of all people living in Wales. I know that I

1071
am on dangerous ground, but the matter is referred to in paragraphs 297 to 300 of the Report, so I am not departing altogether from the subject of the Motion. Of course the Welsh language must be preserved; no one will dispute that. But it has been allowed to merge far too much with political issues. If only the Welsh Nationalists would confine their activities to the support of their ancient heritage, rather than unrealistic aims which they are never likely to achieve, how much easier it would be to present a far stronger united front in protection of their other ideals than they can possibly hope for under their present organization! How much easier it would be to develop their agriculture under one Farmers' Union and industry! How much easier it would be for the Ministers concerned! Cut out the political aims, and they would, I believe, get the support of all Welsh men and women, and of the English people who have made their home in Wales. This may be asking a lot of them, but as an Englishman I cannot support Welsh politics as they stand at present; but I can, and I do, support their cultural ideals, with certain reservations over the Welsh language.
Welsh literature goes back to the 8th, if not the 6th, century. And it is not only a language of literature; it has an oral tradition which goes back to the days long before men ever learned to write. Even to-day the Welsh language can be understood by the inhabitants of Brittany, proving a common origin. But it is time that the Welsh people considered seriously whether it should be preserved in its original form, or modernised by the adoption and invention of new words required for these days of progress. Is it any good to force a child whose parents are only in Wales by reason of employment to learn Welsh? Is it an attraction or a deterrent to a firm which is thinking of starting a branch? How will key workers who are needed to instruct recruits to industry react to their children being forced to learn and to pass exams in the Welsh language? Even if a Welsh speaking instructor can be found, does the language lend itself to modern phrases?
1072
Those are questions which the Welsh people must decide for themselves; and I would add there that that difficulty would be far more prevalent in North Wales, which is still the home of the Welsh language, than it would in the South. Whether a child attending Yr Ysgol Cymraeg(the all-Welsh school) can also pick up sufficient English, or other language, if he or she wishes to enter a profession, such as the law, medicine, or nursing, is, to my mind, doubtful in every case. If one is brought up to think in one language, it is very difficult to express oneself equally well in another. To some this accomplishment is a gift, but it is hard to acquire. A Welsh lay reader speaking in Welsh does so eloquently and fluently; but speaking in English he becomes disjointed and difficult to follow. It is only natural, because he has to translate what is in his mind from a language which has changed little during the centuries and which has no literal translation, into modern English. I am the vicar's warden in my parish, but the proceedings are recorded and carried on in Welsh. Only a brief summary is from time to time translated for my benefit.
My last point on this problem is the use of the Welsh language in local government, official tribunals, et cetera. In North Wales all parish councils and most district councils conduct their affairs in Welsh, making it almost impossible for an Englishman to seek election. In one case an Englishman was elected to a rural district council but the other councillors refused to translate for his benefit. He attended for about two years, and then resigned and left the district. It would be interesting to know the legal position. My Lords, I have been wandering too far from the original Motion, but I hope that the future preservation of this language will not become a political issue at the expense of the younger generation, who may be called upon to travel abroad more and more if and when entry into the Common Market becomes a reality.
In conclusion, although some of my remarks may have appeared over-critical or uncalled for from an Englishman, may I say that I hold the greatest respect for the people of Wales and

1073
their loyalty, and should like to quote the saying of an aged Welshman of Carmarthen who, when he was brought before King Henry II in the 12th century, told the King:
"No other nation than this Wales, or any other language, whatever hereafter may come to pass, shall, in the Day of Judgment before the Supreme Judge, answer for this corner of the earth".
That is still the spirit of many people in Wales to-day, and it should be respected as far as possible.
5.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I just say to the noble Lord that I have no doubt at all that when I read his speech to-morrow I shall find it most interesting and covering a great variety of Welsh subjects, but it has been quite impossible, at the speed at which he read his speech, for us to be able to absorb the very important propositions which he has made to your Lordships' House. I hope he does not mind my mentioning that. Perhaps he had better look up the Standing Order which governs practice in that matter. But I will look at his speech, because obviously he was enthused with his subject.
May I next say that I regret that I have to appear before your Lordships to-day as something of a stop-gap? The noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, both regretted the absence of my noble friend Lord Hall. I want to apologise that I am a stop-gap to-day for Viscount Hall, who is unable, because of very severe broncial trouble this week, to be here, because I am quite sure that he would have dealt, if not more kindly, at least more thoroughly, with the propositions which were made by Lord Ogmore as a sort of basis of attack against both the Conservative Government and the Labour Opposition at the same time.
As he went on, he seemed to emphasise what a terrible mistake he had made when he left the Labour Party in 1959. It was an extraordinary event to me at the time. He had supported my Party at the polls right through the General Election campaign in 1959. He had had my trust and confidence in doing so. He had been nominated by me to important posts—in the Colonial Development Corporation, a post which, by the way, he still holds—and to represent our
1074
point of view at N.A.T.O. and on other bodies, where he could be active in really representing a large body of political opinion and representation in this country. Two days after the Election, the votes not having gone so much in the Labour direction as he had hoped during the Election, he left the Party.
To-day, When dealing with this vastly important question of the state of Wales, he sees fit to attack both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. More than once during his speech he said that neither had any interest in Wales. Is that the view of Wales? He knows that it is not. There are 36 Members of Parliament for Wales and 27 of them are Labour Members, as much Welsh as he is and rather more so. There are as many Labour Members of Parliament to-day as there were in our great majority of 1945.
What is wrong with our interest in Wales? Does the noble Lord remember the proposals he made to me, as Leader of the Opposition in this House, about what we should do about Wales? We had no quarrel about these. The noble Lord was never against the policy which we were supporting. But now he gets hold of the policy of planning and is willing to prosecute it to the furthest. I suppose that he had never heard of planning in the Labour Party up to the time he left it! If the noble Lord knows anything about planning to-day, he learned it from the Labour Party. I wish that we did not approach these matters with quite so much political humbug. It is a great pity, because Wales is an important question.
I listened with great interest to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Leighton of St. Mellons. It brought back memories of the great family of shipbuilders to which he belongs. It made me think of what the nation as a whole owed to the Welsh shipbuilders and Welsh repairers, especially at the yard at Newport, during the war. Does the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, think that any West Countryman like myself has any doubt about what he thinks about Welshmen and Wales? During my boyhood days in Bristol I can remember our Welsh miners, during the time of "prosperity" under Liberal control, coming up to the town of Bristol with drum and

1075
cornet to collect for the unemployed. Does the noble Lord think that we never had any interest in them? Ernest Bevin used to live in Bristol then with me, and he used to go to South Wales regularly to organise Labour to turn out the fatuous representatives of so-called liberalism—and did it very successfully, indeed. Now there are 36 Members in the House of Commons, with one Liberal. And there is one vacancy. And the noble Lord, who saw fit to leave the Labour Party, thinks he can go down to Wales and save one of those twin lambs of Liberalism by making speeches of the kind he has made here to-day, which is largely a repetition of the speeches he made down in Wales!
I want to say this to him. The more I listened to him, as he attacked us stage by stage, and then in his summary of what he would like to see done in Wales, the more I saw that what he had learned about the kind of political action required in Wales was learned from his association with the Labour Party, and from no other source. If the noble Lord does not believe that, then he should go back to this document—the Labour Party Programme for Wales, published in 1959. It was for this programme that he pursued his campaign during the election. The majority of the main proposals the noble Lord has put up to-day are in this book of Labour's policy. It is complete humbug for him to come to your Lordships' House and make the sort of speech he has made here to-day. I am bound to say that I felt very concerned at having to talk like this, but the facts had to be put on record, and that has been done.
Wales is a great country. Her people are small in number but they are a fine independent people, skilled in the arts and naturally fond of music. No one could have listened last Sunday, at twenty past six, to that magnificent choral singing an television from Port Talbot, from the Welsh Presbyterian Church at Cwmafan, without realising the Welsh people's love of music. I remember, too, the time when, at the request of David Lloyd George, I preached on a sunny Sunday morning at the Baptist Chapel at Criccieth and met the people there, teeming with enthusiasm for their Liberal Leader but also with enthusiasm for justice and righteousness, which the
1076
working people of this country never obtained from the organised Liberal Party. They had to go and fight for these themselves.
When the 1914 war came, who will ever forget the service of the Royal Welch Fusiliers? I remember, as a youngish man, waiting for the county council to release me to serve. The Fusiliers were at Weston-super-Mare for training: they were magnificent material, and the records they made afterwards supported the impression one got at that time. In the Second World War, Wales again had a magnificent record. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, seems to think that I do not know much about conditions in Wales. I was in Wales a great deal during the last war. I remember visiting the Royal Marines Brigade in training down in West Wales. The noble Lord, as an old lieutenant-colonel, wanted to see what can be done by Welshmen. He should have been there. I saw them climbing the cliffs at Tenby; but what I enjoyed most of all was to see them, with their rubber ground sheets wrapped around their shoulders, marching on the Welsh hillsides on a wet night with the accuracy and skill of a battalion of Guards on parade.
I know Wales. I knew every shipyard in Wales. I also knew what we needed in the way of supplies. We had Ordnance factories there. I visited them. When Labour came into office in 1945, they speedily turned those factories over to light industries. I have had experience of Wales in education. I spent 20 years in educational administration with the Somerset County Council. We frequently interchanged with them. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that a great deal more could be done by way of education, and particularly technical education, for Wales than has been done. But that is all in the programme of the Labour Party which he supported in 1959—what had been done, and what was hoped to be done.
I know perfectly well that there is no body or section of the British community more capable of absorbing and using the results of a modern education than the Welsh people. You only need to see their native talent developed in the Eisteddfods to prove that to be the case. Do you think that we in the

1077
Labour Party are not concerned with them? When the noble Lord said to me in the House to-day that the Labour Party are not concerned with what he referred to as the chaos in the industrial section of Wales, I think he is stretching himself a bit too far. What are the facts about that? There is not a single industrial constituency in Wales held in Parliament to-day except by Labour—or possibly there may be one. There are 2 Liberal, 5 Tory and 27 Labour constituencies. And yet this was the Election in which the noble Lord says we did not do as well as we should have done in 1959. What are the real conditions the noble Lord has been talking about? They are the heritage left by Liberal and Tory in South Wales—the sort of spirit of administration about which the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, said, in his Report on Reconstruction, that we had the means but not the will to do what was required.
Then we had the coal industry; and year after year 35 million tons of Welsh coal a year being exported. The noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, was quite just in his remarks about the early build-up. He said this afternoon that there were some good results of that which redounded to this or that section, but that the working class of Wales did not get much share of it. The men were working at the coal face in those days for 15s. to 26s. 6d. a week. Not much margin there to cover up the risks—and even greater than they run to-day because of the lack of proper safety precautions at that time. There were 35 million tons of coal exported, and that shows that they took the best coal first. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, were here, because I would have had another word with him about pipe-lines. What a difference there might have been if we had had national ownership of coal then, in the days of its prosperity, instead of, as you are going to do again in the case of pipe-lines, taking the cream off the milk before starting a new vastly important branch of transportation system in this country.
Take what happened after the First War. What a dreadful state Wales was in then! When we came into office, still in a minority, in 1929, I remember with great clearness that one night the Prince of Wales (as he then was) asked me to dine with him at York House.
1078
After dinner, at which there were several other guests, he took me in front of the fire at the other end of the room and talked to me about South Wales and what could be done. I could see his heart bled for them. What were the Tories and the Liberals doing about it then? They seemed to have no idea at all what could be done; and the thought of the misery, the poverty and the anxiety must have been building up in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and perhaps, later on, was part of the urge which made him join the Labour Party. Certainly, nothing was being done for them from any other source.
Now we have a different story. If we wish, we can have a debate every year on the annual Report on Wales which is produced. How did that come to be produced? Was it because of a request of Lord Ogmore? Was it because of a piece of new genius by the Conservative Party in office? Not at all. This Report is being produced because it was requested by the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire, set up by a Labour Government. That is why it is being produced. Nobody ever thought of it before. That only goes to strengthen my view that as soon as possible we should expand the usefulness of the Council of Wales by giving it more electoral representation. To listen to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, this afternoon, anybody would think that he thought out the idea for the Labour Party that what Wales wants is a Secretary of State for Wales. He got it out of this document.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I do not object to the noble Viscount's enjoying himself. My experience is that if you "give it out" you must expect to get it back. I am enjoying it. But this is a question of fact. The Western Mail and I were the only people for years to advocate a Secretary of State for Wales, and it was only just before the 1959 Election that I got the Labour Party to put that in their Electoral propaganda. The noble Viscount cannot deny that.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That seems to me to suggest that the noble Lord was one of the contributors. Hallelujah! There you are. That means that all I have been slaying was completely justified and why

1079
it is such humbug for the noble Lord to put all this up, as he has done to-day, as something in which Labour is not interested. He said that neither the Conservative Government nor the Labour Opposition were interested in developments such as tourism. It is here in this Programme. Is he suggesting that he was the only one who thought about that?
Or can we take some of the other passages in this Programme? The noble Lord says we were not interested in the industrial position of Wales—I will give way in a moment. He was a Member of the Government, but not of the Cabinet, as I was, from 1945 to 1950, until the first Election after the War. What do we find? What we find is that one of the great monuments to the memory of Hugh Dalton was his devising and his complete support of development areas under the Redistribution of Industry Act. Here he can see—if the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will look at the document which he says he helped to draw up—a record of what was accomplished by that Act and by that Administration: 25 million square feet of new factory space, tens of thousands of new jobs created by this wicked Labour Government that was not interested in the industry of Wales.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, so that we can get the debate back on to what I actually said, it was that I considered that neither the Government nor the Labour Opposition recognised the problem of rural mid-Wales. I also said that I did not consider that either the Government or the Labour Opposition really recognised the industrial anarchy in South Wales. I did not refer to all the things in that document, many of which are perfectly sound, and I say I believe I had some effect in getting those put into it. That might be denied, of course. With regard to tourism, I said it was not dealt with in the Report but it should have been.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords. I will read the report of the noble Lord's speech very carefully, but I should think I could hardly be severely blamed if tourism was not mentioned in his particular condemnation of the Labour Party; nearly everything else was. I will have a look at it in the morning.
1080
With regard to agriculture, does the noble Lord think that, right the way through, the Labour Party has not been concerned about the depopulation of central Wales? It has been concerned the whole time. Can the noble Lord find me anything else in the administration in the last quarter of a century which contributed so much to preventing its depopulation as the Hill Farms Act, 1946, the Forestry Act, 1947, or the Agriculture Act, 1947? Can he tell us—I expect he can—about the forestry experiments at Llangollen? Anybody who is interested in the agriculture of central Wales would have to admit that the afforestation carried out there under different Governments is one of the principal reasons why the depopulation has not been more rapid than it has. Any reports will show him what has been provided in the way of work for the agricultural population.
What a case we have listened to this afternoon! If I had the time at my disposal—and, of course, I am measuring the time only by your Lordships' convenience—I could go on for a long time. I could go through every item which I took down here. I say, without a shadow of doubt, that the noble Lord's speech was to-day made in the terms he used simply to bolster by every possible means the fate of the Liberal Party in the Montgomeryshire by-election. That is what it is for; and perhaps in that way something may be accomplished for the Liberal Party. But, really, with all the experience in Labour administration and history that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has, he ought to be going down there and asking what good has Liberal representation in Montgomeryshire done for us over 40 years? That is what he ought to be asking. He ought to he saying to them that every vote which is given to a Tory or a Liberal will be wasted in respect of achieving all the things that he has been advocating this afternoon. The noble Lord might think that one out.
May I just say a word for my noble friend Lord Walston, whom the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, included in his comments? The noble Lord, Lord Walston, is giving me and the Party here very great assistance in agriculture. He is a very experienced agriculturist, but he was very careful to say in February, when he was going to make a particular

1081
comment, Which he repeated on April 11—the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, can look both these speeches up—that he was speaking entirely for himself and not for his Party. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, overlooked it and, if so, we will call it "quits". But I wanted to be fair to my noble friend.
May I just say a word of congratulation to the noble Lord who made his maiden speech? I have already referred to it, but I should like to say a word of congratulation to him and especially to congratulate him on that section of his speech on which he dealt with the need for the improvement of port facilities. It always does me a lot of good when a Conservative businessman gets up and frankly says that what he wants is something from the Government. I like to hear that. I hear so much of the idea that only private enterprise can do anything that it is quite refreshing to hear somebody admit the sort of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, no doubt had in mind. I agreed with him on that occasion when he talked about the switching of steel support to Scotland when it was perhaps more needed in South Wales, and which he admitted that Mr. James Griffiths opposed at the time. Then we had Colville's receiving £50 million of Government money at the cheapest possible borrowing rates, which I do not think did Wales any good, either. Perhaps we are agreed on that. It is a little way back for him, but he can always come back on that way if he likes. The noble Lord can look at the Benches behind him and he will find that the words "nationalisation" and "national ownership" are dirty words. Let us have these things straight, anyway.
Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Leighton of St. Mellons, that in this document of 1959 there is a special paragraph about the urgent need for improving port facilities in Wales, and I can support that this is necessary. I remember one great job done by Bailey's yard in Newport. How they managed it I do not know. It was an 18,000-ton tanker, which was bombed or mined (I forget which) and broken completely in two halves. If they had wanted to take that tanker into that yard in one piece I do not think they would have been able to do so, but they hauled it miles
1082
and miles in two separate halves and got it into port. They did all the work with one piece of the tanker sticking out from the other end of the yard. They joined the two parts together and it sailed for all the rest of the war. It was a wonderful job. But the port facilities should be improved and I hope that they will be so improved.
May I say to the Minister of State for Welsh Affairs, Lord Brecon, that from the reports I hear he is exceedingly popular? He is well known as a good, loyal Welshman. I have a housekeeper who comes from Brecon and—this may surprise the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—I sometimes visit Brecon with my wife. We have been right up through Radnorshire, where I asked many questions. I go to church where Mr. Richards preaches in Brecon on a Sunday—and I ask many questions. I have been right up through Radnorshire into Montgomeryshire and I would not mind undergoing a little cross-questioning on Montgomeryshire after a very little time to "rub it up" with my knowledge of Newtown. I might recall to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that in Newtown was born Robert Owen, who was father not only of British Socialism but also of British Cooperatives. Yes, the noble Lord will be a good Welshman one of these days. I enjoy hearing what the people say about Lord Brecon because obviously he is paying great attention to his job, but he is handicapped and limited by the background policy of his Government. That is what is the matter with him.
I have been reading very carefully the report of the Welsh Committee in another place. They have been sitting time after time, and one of my great stand-bys for finding out what is being thought about Wales, and especially Central Wales, is the speeches of Mr. Tudor Watkins. I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that I think Mr. Tudor Watkins, the honourable Member for Brecon, knows even more about Montgomeryshire than the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, himself. When I see his pleas they are really worth pursuing. Have a look at his speeches this last year in Committee on the water resources of Wales. Here there is, I suppose, for its area and square mileage, the best watershed in the whole of the United Kingdom, and the water is being tapped,

1083
taken away and used for industry as well as ordinary requirements in the rest of England, often without real provision being made for those resources to be used for Wales. We believe—I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, would believe—that what is required is a national water board for the whole country to organise the product of the watersheds of the whole nation, because with our growth of population and growth of industry we shall certainly need to have that organisation unless our resources are to be run to waste.
Then, too, we should have another look at the educational system. I do not know what you are going to do with your children on the present standards required, not only for great human reasons of education but for the future prosperity of the nation, if you continue to be faced with the shortage of teachers that you have to-day—teachers in the ordinary schools, teachers in the secondary modern schools and in the grammar schools, and masters in the technical colleges. Reading the Report, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, himself would be quite satisfied with what has been achieved so far. And so I might go on through the Report. I obviously have not had the time some noble Lords have had to read the Report. I have scanned it. I think there are reports of progress being made here and there, and nobody is going to grumble about that; the only thing we grumble about is that it is not more intensive and rapid. Therefore, having made my position with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, pretty clear, and having said a proper word for Wales, for its industry, for its agriculture and for its general life, I think we can say "Thank you" to the noble Lord for the presentation to the House of the Report which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has now brought to our attention. But we hope Her Majesty's Government will put in far more intensive and rapid work than they have done yet for the good of the people of Wales.
5.45 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR WELSH AFFAIRS (LORD BRECON): My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate, and I should like, in spite of all
1084
that has been said, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for having brought this Report to our notice and given us this opportunity of having the debate this afternoon. At one time I thought perhaps we might have sent for Mr. Woodrow Wyatt; I thought he might have enjoyed it. I should like to say "Thank you" for the interest that the House has taken in this Welsh debate and also to the many noble Lords who have paid tribute to Welshmen and to Wales altogether; we appreciate it when at times outside the Principality people say rather kind things about us. May I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Leighton of St. Mellons, on his maiden speech, which was extremely good in every way. I am sure he brought to our attention most important matters that will take some time, perhaps, to look at again. I know that the noble Lord will seek the opportunity whenever it occurs to speak in this House on behalf of Wales, and I will certainly welcome that on every occasion. I am very sorry indeed that the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, is not here, because for a long time he was connected with Wales, like the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in the Mountain Ash Valley. I am sorry he is not here, because he had a good deal to do with that part of Wales and has done a considerable amount for it.
I took the trouble to look at the last Welsh debate we had in the House, which was in 1954, and I found it very interesting. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, had to reply for the Government. I found that generally the questions that were being discussed at the time were very much what they are to-day; this is almost a repetition. I was going to say that I enjoyed what the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, said: that it is true that things have never been so good in Wales as they are to-day. I did not know he had said that first, but I was very glad to see he said Wales had "never had it so good". We are delighted to say that perhaps things are better to-day than they were in 1954.
I was also delighted to hear the references to the former Minister, my right honourable friend Mr. Henry Brooke, who was Minister for nearly five years. I can say this: that the people of Wales

1085
of all Parties recognise his real, sincere and keen interest in Wales, and I can assure your Lordships that he would surprise many Welshmen even to-day with his knowledge of Wales. We know how much he did for us during those years. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said something about the date of to-day's debate. I think I had something to do with that, but I was a little surprised when the Western Mail carried a heading yesterday which said, "Lords' debate on Welsh affairs a lucky break for Liberals". I thought that as I had something to do with the debate it would have been much better if they had said, "Lords' debate on Welsh affairs is a lucky break for Conservatives", because we, too, have a very good candidate in Montgomeryshire.
Furthermore, that enables me to state the case for the Government, which has been one of very solid achievement over the last ten years, particularly in mid-Wales. However much our two friends on the other side disagree, we have been getting on with the job. I think it is for me to say what we have been doing with particular reference to mid-Wales, and also on technical training, during the last ten years. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, brought up a plan that he had for administration in Wales. I have seen this before and I do not think there is very much new in it. Noble Lords may disagree as to who thought of it first, but if there is to be a new Council for Wales and it is to be an elected one I think we ought to know how it is to be elected, on a population basis or a geographical basis, because I think Wales would be much concerned about that.
Another point that was raised was with regard to television and broadcasting. I am sure we must wait for the Pilkington Committee to produce their Report, which will come shortly, and perhaps some of the questions will he answered and some will be solved by that time. Another point that has been raised—I saw it in my Western Mail—by Lord Ogmore and the Liberals is that something should be done for the printing of Welsh books. I should like to remind your Lordships that as long ago as 1952, when the noble and learned Viscount was then the first Minister for Welsh Affairs, the Government accepted
1086
the recommendations of the Ready Committee on Welsh books, and thereafter instituted a scheme for the provision of Welsh books for schools. This has proceeded satisfactorily and a further scheme for providing books for adults is now under way; in fact the latter started off with a £1,000-a-year basis in 1956, and in 1960 was increased to £3,500, and will increase again to £5,000 by 1964. This is something that the Government have already done.
The noble Lord talked about the Economic Development Corporation. So far as mid-Wales is concerned, does it mean that he is going to get rid of the county councils and all other local authorities and tell them that they have absolutely failed in their job of looking after this part of Wales? I think that you do not find local government existing in Uganda.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the noble Lord will excuse my interrupting, but a high standard of local government exists in Uganda. The noble Lord will find that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has just been in close communication with a number of distinguished representatives, all of whom came over here on this question of State rights and local government rights. I can assure him that Uganda is by no means backward; it is a most progressive State.
LORD BRECON: I accept what the noble Lord says. Unfortunately, I have not been able to travel to Uganda. I find at present that my travelling is limited to going as far as Anglesey, but it is most enjoyable. But we still should like to know whether it is the intention to get rid of local authorities and to hand over to this Economic Development Corporation which has been suggested.
I should like quickly, as time is getting on, to speak on mid-Wales, in regard to which we have come in for a fair amount of attack in one way or another. I think it only right and proper that I should state on behalf of the Government what has been done, and certainly with what results, in the last ten years. The Government have been accused of showing scant interest in that area—this is quite untrue—and of making no attempt to frame or express their policy towards

1087
this area. The Government have done this. As long ago as June, 1951, the Minister for Welsh Affairs, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, asked the Council for Wales to make a special study of this part of rural Wales in order to assist the Government in their policy deliberations, and the Council for Wales presented in its second memorandum its own assessment of the situation at that time. In the result, in 1953, the Government published a White Paper on Rural Wales, in which it accepted and endorsed the broad aims set forth by the Council for Wales. These were to establish a stable rural economy, to safeguard the position of agriculture and to encourage the full development of local resources so as to ensure a reasonable standard of life there.
As a final consequence the Welsh Sub-Commission of the Agricultural Land Commission was asked to make a full investigation into the agricultural economy of this area, and its Report to the Government was published in 1955. Following that Report, the Government White Paper on the Mid-Wales Investigation Report was published in 1956. The Government generally agreed with the recommendations of the Report, and accepted that prosperity and stable employment in rural Wales could best be promoted by the development of agriculture on an economic basis, together with an expansion of forestry. They indicated at the same time an improvement of basic services in the area; that these should be encouraged, and that the Minister for Welsh Affairs would continue to keep a close watch on all aspects of Government policy affecting this area.
I have mentioned these documents and their contents at some length in order to illustrate the Government's profound and continuing concern for the welfare of mid-Wales and its inhabitants. The Government have all along taken the view that due regard should be had to the strengthening of the economy by various means and the improvement of basic services, so that the people of mid-Wales might enjoy better prospects of stable employment and a higher standard of living. I should like in a little more detail to say what the Government have done to help mid-
1088
Wales in recent years. We all know that a high percentage of the farms in Wales as a whole are small farms. I was rather sorry to hear people say to-day that the small farms should go. I think that to a certain extent we should retain all we can, although those that are completely uneconomic may have to go. I should not like to see them go. Under the Small Farmer Scheme which was introduced in April, 1959, the Government have deliberately set out to give help to these units to become more efficient. Over 6,000 small farms in Wales have been approved, and of these nearly 1,500 are in the mid-Wales area; and as the upper labour limit is to be increased to 500 man-days, many more small Welsh farms will be eligible for assistance.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask how many of the farms mentioned by the noble Lord include dairying in their operations?
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I could not immediately give the answer to that, but if the noble Viscount would care to have it I will obtain it for him. I think that quite a number of them do; they probably have sheep and undertake some dairying. But with this increase to 500 man-days—it was raised I think from 450 man-days—2,000 more small farms will come within the scheme and will be eligible for assistance. So far over £500,000 has been provided under this scheme for mid-Wales alone, and under the Farm Improvements Scheme, which was introduced in 1957 to enable farmers to modernise, 3,400 applications have been approved in mid-Wales at an estimated expenditure of £1,800,000, for the improvement and making up to date of farm buildings, and grants of £400,000 have already been paid on them. The Livestock Rearing and Improvement Schemes, which began as long ago as 1946 to help hill farmers to improve production, clearly become of special importance for mid-Wales, and so far nearly 3,000 schemes have been approved in the five counties at an estimated cost of almost £10 million.
I do not wish to trouble noble Lords with further statistics, but I feel it is absolutely necessary to point out that many other Government schemes for

1089
agricultural support continue to have a specially beneficial effect in this area. They include the fertiliser subsidy, the lime subsidy, the hill sheep and the hill cow subsidies. They are all of great benefit in every way. The effect of this Government help is reflected particularly in the White Paper under discussion, because Welsh agriculture has been very prosperous, showing record livestock production, a high rate of investment in modern equipment and an increasing expenditure by the farmers themselves on advanced techniques and low cost production.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, may I ask one question concerning roads? I overheard that in Anglesey a number of roads are excluded. Would the noble Lord care to comment on that?
LORD BRECON: Yes, I will refer to roads. There was, I think, a special reason why Anglesey did not come under the scheme for agricultural roads. I think it was because they have no hill farms in Anglesey.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Is it intended to extend the timing and the scope of the Act?
LORD BRECON: That will be for my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture to say in another place on another occasion. But with the increase in production that we have had since 1951, the regular whole-time labour force in mid-Wales agriculture has decreased from 10,000 to 7,000—a reduction of 3,000 farm workers—yet the milk output has increased from 36 million gallons to 56 million gallons. Cattle have gone up in numbers by 25 per cent.; sheep have gone up by 37 per cent., and wheat and barley by over 60 per cent.
It is also interesting to note, when we talk of mid-Wales—I am speaking of the five counties of Brecon, leaving out the industrial part, Radnor, Montgomery, Merioneth and Cardigan—that while we have had a decline of 3,000 farm workers since 1957, the insured population in that same area has gone up by about 4,750. I think that these are facts which are not generally appreciated, and I cannot accept the noble Lord's assertion that the place is dying and derelict; it is far from it.
1090
This provides real evidence of what is going on at the present moment. The appropriate development of forestry in mid-Wales (I think we must recognise that it must be carried out hand in hand with agriculture; and it is working extremely well to the ultimate benefit of both) is continuing steadily. At present, over 1,000 people are employed by the Commission in that area. The output of timber has increased from over 26,000 tons in 1951 to 78,000 tons in 1961. During that period, also, 500 miles of metal roads were completed by the Forestry Commission alone—roads which had nothing at all to do with agriculture. The Commission have thus provided and improved means of communication between and into the forests; and, of course, the local farmers also have the benefit of this. These indications which I have given as to the state of agriculture and forestry demonstrate conclusively, in the Government's view, how much has been done to strengthen and stabilise the basic economy in mid-Wales.
May I now say something about the basic services? I think these are very important, and a great deal has been done in this connection. Capital expenditure on water schemes in the rural areas of mid-Wales since 1945 has amounted to £4,750,000. The percentage of houses without piped water supply has been reduced from 47·5 in 1951 to 21·5 in 1961. I am absolutely certain that in due time, as the scheme develops, all the people who can possibly get it will have piped water, and we shall have sufficient—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very glad to know about that percentage reduction, but my recollection of the documents is that there are one or two places where the percentage of houses which remain without piped water is very high. I think that in Montgomeryshire the figure is 48 or 49 per cent. Therefore, I hope that the Government will not rest upon their laurels on this matter.
LORD BRECON: The point made by the noble Viscount is quite true: improvements have not gone ahead at the same speed in every place. There has been a joining up of various water

1091
undertakings, and in fact Montgomeryshire now has one Water Board, instead of six or seven councils looking after small, separate supplies. Once the thing becomes a comprehensive scheme run by the Montgomeryshire Water Board, I think we shall see those figures drop very quickly in every way. Most of these schemes have been grant-aided by the Government, and the grant payments have been higher, in proportion, than the corresponding figures for England, amounting to more than half the total figure I have already given. In the matter of sewerage and sewage disposal, work to the value of nearly £1½ million has been carried out, with Government aid amounting to almost 50 per cent. of the total expenditure. And, after all, although one lives in the country one still requires piped water, sanitation and electricity.
I should like now to come to housing, which is of course, a very important matter in the rural areas. It gives me much satisfaction to inform the House that over 10,000 new houses have been actually completed in the mid-Wales area since 1945, a large proportion by local authorities—and this despite the great difficulties over contracting which inevitably arise in rural areas. In fact, the Panel of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire in 1952, in their second Memorandum, said that 3,000 houses were needed for the decent maintenance of the existing population. The number of new houses built since 1945, is, as I have said, 10,000, most of which have been built since 1951. There are several hundred other houses under construction, and a further number which have been approved but not yet started by local authorities.
So far as the slum clearance programme is concerned, this has been embarked upon by local authorities, and this, together with the use of housing improvement grants, has done much to accelerate the provision of acceptable houses. The discretionary grant and the standard grant which the Government have introduced have made a great difference to rural housing, particularly in this area. The figures that I have at the present moment for the five Counties show that 3,753 have had the discretionary grant—that means that the local authority has made a contribution
1092
to this, and the owner of the house has had to do likewise—and 722 have received the standard grant. I think the standard grant schemes cost, on average, about £150 and the discretionary grant schemes about £220. So I think that if you go to these areas, or live in mid-Wales, as I do, and travel about and see what has been done you just cannot say that the place is falling apart, or dying, or anything of the kind.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? I recognise what the noble Lord says about rural housing, but I had made a special note to raise with him to-day a question on leasehold properties. This matter was raised in a very strong debate at the Co-operative Party Conference at Clacton at Easter, and I saw reports of mass meetings that were held. Most extraordinary charges are being made on quite small leasehold houses for the renewal of leases for short periods. If the noble Lord has been dealing with some of these cases, he might tell us what the position is.
LORD BRECON: I am really dealing with mid-Wales, where the leasehold problem does not arise. I must leave the question of leasehold to my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is at present looking at this matter very carefully; and I think he hopes to make a statement later. He is receiving reports from people who are very much concerned with this whole question.
As I have said, these standard grants and discretionary grants have made a tremendous difference to housing in the local areas. When I have gone round these areas I do not think I have ever seen so much work being done on cottages and houses there as I have seen in the last twelve months. This is an absolutely first-class thing, and is to the advantage of the people who live there. Furthermore, the new subsidies introduced in the Housing Act of 1961 will be of special benefit to mid-Wales, because almost all the authorities there will qualify for the £24 subsidy, and a substantial number will qualify for the £29, or even the £34, subsidy. Taken together with the adoption of, say, an up-to-date rental policy by the various

1093
authorities, this means that we can look forward to an even more creditable record of housing in the immediate future. Against the whole background the question of housing in mid-Wales has improved enormously in these last years.
With regard to local government income, the Government freely acknowledge that in preparing and carrying out this scheme for the improvement of these basic services the responsibility in the first place must be borne by local authorities. It has been suggested from time to time that the local authorities in mid-Wales are receiving in all this very important work less than their due share of Government help. I would therefore make it absolutely clear that in my experience the Government officials in London, as well as those in Cardiff, are at all times ready to give to their colleagues in local government whatever assistance and guidance they can.
Apart from this, the five Welsh counties draw a higher proportion of Government grant overall than authorities elsewhere in the country as a whole. In the financial year 1959–60 the percentage of the income of the administrative county of Montgomeryshire made up from Government sources was 68·9 in other words, the Government provided nearly 70 per cent. of the county's income. The average for all five counties in the same period was 63·9 per cent. I think that we in Wales should do well to remember that for Cornwall or Westmorland, say, the Government are providing only 50 per cent. if the income of the local government. These figures are an indication of the earnestness of the Government's approach to the basic services.
My Lords, let me go on to one other important thing in the countryside, and that is the essential element of electricity. The use of electricity in agriculture has increased, and efficient management means the provision of electricity as well. I think noble Lords should know what progress has been made on this in recent years. In 1951 only 6·3 per cent. of the farms in mid-Wales had been connected to a supply. But by 1961 almost 9,000 farms, that is 62·7 per cent., were supplied by the mains. This is a tremendous achievement and I should like to offer my congratulations to both Electricity Boards upon the work they have done in this
1094
regard. These things, my Lords, are part of the amenities of life to which we feel the rural dwellers are entitled, just as they are entitled to a reasonable network of roads to enable them to get about for purposes of business and recreation.
Noble Lords may recall that in this connection the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955, was passed with the special needs of this part of the country in mind and as a direct result of the recommendation made by the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire. It was designed to improve unclassified and unadopted roads in livestock-rearing areas, as a means of promoting efficiency of agriculture and forestry. I think it is relevant for me to remind the House that, out of the maximum amount of gram of £4 million authorised under the Act for Great Britain as a whole, £2 million was specially earmarked for Wales. So far, over 600 separate schemes have been approved in mid-Wales under the Act, and they are relating to between 500 and 600 miles of roads at an estimated cost of £1,400,000. These schemes have a direct effect on the basic industries of the area—namely, agriculture and forestry—and are also incidentally beneficial to the ordinary members of the public. I should have thought that, in many cases, when a man has a car an improvement of the road leading to the farm is almost more important than the improvement of other new roads in mid-Wales at the present time.
Despite what the Government have done for mid-Wales, and the very substantial Government assistance which has been poured into the area, one often hears criticism of Government policy and suggestions about what might be done. I am often told that more industry should be brought into this area. But noble Lords should recognise that it has been the Government's policy to introduce appropriate industry into the area with the help of the Development Fund and, indeed, within the last five years six projects have been approved for assistance, providing in all about 600 jobs. Here I should like to pay warm tribute to the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association, which the five county councils have themselves set up. They get funds from local rates and a contribution from the Development

1095
Fund as well. They have been very assiduous in presenting mid-Wales to the industries of the Midlands, and I think elsewhere, but it would be fair to say that they have found it just as difficult as the Government to induce people to go away from an industrial area into a rural area.
There is absolutely no point in inducing a firm to settle in mid-Wales if it cannot find labour, and I know of at least two firms which have withdrawn largely because they could not find sufficient local labour. This question of which comes first, the population or the industry, is a very difficult one and they have to be correlated. If we could build up the towns and bring in the industry at the same time, it would be very much better. I am sure that the Government would welcome an increase in the size of certain of these mid-Wales towns, coupled with any new industry that we can attract from the Midlands or anywhere else. We do not mind where it comes from. But here again we must remember that any large movement of population would have to be accompanied by industrial movement, and I think those of us who are familiar with them would rather see the building up of the small towns.
I hope I have said enough to indicate that the Government are deeply concerned about the future of the mid-Wales area, but I should not like the impression to go out from the House that the Government regard mid-Wales as a dying and neglected region. It is clearly not neglected, and it is receiving closer attention than ever before. All the evidence which can be brought to bear indicates that the economy and the basic amenities of life have been steadily improved to a high standard. But we all accept that the area is losing population and this is not a recent phenomenon. The population figures since the 1880's show a slow and steady decline, and it is this factor which often leads to exaggerated complaints of neglect. What we need most of all, however, is a little further knowledge. We need to know what this decline in population has meant, and will mean, for the individual inhabitants of mid-Wales. Many of us have theories and many of us, perhaps, have prejudices as well on this, but we
1096
must have an impartial and perhaps a scientific assessment of the whole situation.
Of course, it was with this in mind that the former Minister for Welsh Affairs, my right honourable friend Mr. Henry Brooke, indicated in March, 1961, that he was, with the help of the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association, instituting a joint economic survey of mid-Wales. That survey is very well advanced, and I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Professor Beacham at the University College of Aberystwyth, who has done so much to assist its progress. Out of this cooperative venture, in which the area itself is making a contribution, it is hoped that the Government will have an unbiased and thorough-going assessment to help in shaping their future policies and to bring even greater benefit and stability to the whole of mid-Wales. In the last ten years mid-Wales has lost about 5,500 population, but in the same period the number of insured workers has risen by 4,770 to 47,770. Surely it must be a sign of stability when more people can find jobs in that area.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask how many of those are due to purely temporary employment in places like the atomic factory at Trawsfynydd?
LORD BRECON: It is true, my Lords, that some of them will be these, but they are not so temporary when they are there for five years. If most factories had orders for five years and did not have to worry about them, I think that would be a good thing. I can let the noble Lord have the figures, but I should not like to quote them off hand as I do not want to give him inaccurate figures. The fact is that the number of agricultural workers has gone down by 3,000 and there is an increase of 4,000 here, that really means there are almost 7,000 employed on new jobs of some form or another which have come to the area. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that, so far as the Government are concerned, they have a first-class record in what they have done for mid-Wales during the last ten years. Some of it was, perhaps, started in Agricultural Acts, to which the noble Viscount referred, but we have pressed on with this rather harder and we want to see

1097
these people with the facilities which other people in the rest of the country have.
May I refer to the other point which I think was mentioned particularly, the question of apprentices in Wales? Because in the past we have had the basic industries of steel, coal, iron and things like that, the opportunities for apprenticeships in Wales have never been as great as they have in places like Birmingham or London, where there is a vast amount of engineering works and other schemes. Furthermore, we do not produce a lot of capital goods, which is always another good reason for having apprentices. But during the last few years apprenticeships have been the leading topic in all discussions about youth employment in Wales. The Welsh Grand Committee in another place gave prominence to it in a debate which they had on further education in May of last year.
During the last year youth employment committees, the Welsh Advisory Committee for Youth Employment, the Industrial Association of Wales and Monmouthshire and, more recently, the Wales Committee of the Industrial Training Council all helped to concentrate attention on the need for expanding industrial training. There was the Commonwealth Technical Training Week, with a visit from His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and a march past, and a great deal of intensive work has been done to bring the attention of industrialists, the boys themselves and parents to this need.
Furthermore, I think one must remember that we are having to accept into industry at the moment the "bulge" which is coming from the schools, and our numbers in Wales have gone up quite considerably. I think that this year we are going up from something like 29,000 to 36,000, and many more jobs have to be found for these young people. But the facts are that, even with the "bulge" that we have had so far, whereas in 1958 there were 1,500 boys and 1,600 girls unemployed, in April 1962, the numbers were only 800 boys and 1,000 girls.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the training scheme, it has been suggested to me that some
1098
industrialists are rather reluctant to give any help. Could the noble Lord make any statement on that?
LORD BRECON: If I may, I will come to that in a moment, my Lords. All I am saying at the moment, on this question of training, is that we have to take a large number of young people into industry and it is very satisfactory to note that, out of 8,600 school-leavers last Christmas, 98·5 per cent. had got jobs by April. I think that is most encouraging—that, on leaving school, so many of these young people have found jobs. Of course, with 7,500 leaving school at Easter, and another 20,000 at the end of the summer, our task will be more difficult. Going back to the apprentices, we have had a striking increase in the number of boys entering apprenticeships. In 1958 the figure was 2,700; in 1959 it was 3,300; in 1960 it was 3,400; and in 1961 it was 4,200. So the proportionate increase is at the moment rather greater than the increase in the "bulge"; and this, to us, is most encouraging in every way.
A great deal has been said about the difficulties in Wales as to these apprenticeships, but there are no two regions in Great Britain which are alike, and in the matter of apprenticeships some are more favourable places than others. Traditionally, Wales, as has been said, is a country of heavy industry employing skills normally not suitable to present-day industry. New methods, however, have found Welsh labour very acceptable, very adaptable and quick to learn these new skills. I think that the modernisation and expansion of existing industries, together with the introduction of new industries, is changing the picture and is increasing the demand for skilled labour. For example, more craftsmen are required for these modern methods of coalmining. The noble Lord spoke about coalminers. I imagine that he, like myself, will be pleased to think that there are fewer men employed in the mines to-day than ever before, and that mechanisation is going on in South Wales. Lord Robens told me the other day that they were going on with their mechanisation, and the numbers will continue to decline. I think that if coal can be got out by machines it is rather better than getting it out by men.
Because of this mechanisation, more

1099
craftsmen are required; and the new methods of processing steel and the new light manufacturing industries all require engineering craftsmen. Even in the development districts, where there is a surplus of labour at the moment, skilled labour is difficult to obtain. In Wales taken as a whole, some of the new projects which we have started in recent years have already begun their own training schools. So long as everyone concerned—the employers, the trade unionists, the parents and the young people themselves—recognises the need for a thorough training to take advantage of the opportunities that industry will now provide, the boys and girls in Wales can look forward to the future with great confidence in every way.
My Lords, I should like just to mention one or two things that noble Lords have raised in the debate. I have referred to North Wales, and also to the apprenticeship schemes. I am sorry that the suggestion was made by the noble Lord that there seems to be anarchy in our industry in South Wales. In fact, it is just the reverse. We have never had, perhaps, better or newer industries, or more efficient industries, than we have at the present moment. Most of our works in Wales have been erected since the war. Some of the old ones have modernised themselves, and some of the old processes used in the tin-plate works have gone out. In Llanwern, which I think everyone was a little worried about at one time, because it was thought to be too large—not too small, but too large—we felt that it would upset things; but, my Lords, it has been digested (if I may so put it) quite easily, and South Wales is at the moment capable of taking more industry and giving further employment.
I can assure your Lordships that there has been no lack of planning. I hope that people will not go round saying that the Ebbw Vale Iron and Steel Works are going to close. Nothing could be more depressing to people in that area than to give them the idea that there is no future there. I think it is this sort of talk, of depression, of a black future, that does more harm to Wales, and has done more harm to Wales in past years, than anything else. We are trying hard at the moment to tell
1100
people that it is the place of opportunity and the place of progress, where they can come and prosper, and can enjoy themselves, too, by being able to leave their industry and, within half an hour, be away in the country or at the seaside. And where else can one do that at the present moment?
The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, referred to agriculture. He said that we were short of perhaps the right type of workers. This is a rather difficult matter, because it depends, as your Lordships know, on the size of the farm whether you have a full-time man or not, and in these days farmers do use an increasing amount of temporary, part-time labour which they get from the Forestry Commission and from other occupations in the countryside. But at the moment I think that, broadly, they are getting the labour they want.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I have heard that they are losing skilled labour; that it is being replaced by rather older labour and unskilled labour. That is where the handicap lies.
LORD BRECON: This comes back to the old point: that if a man can get a better job and a better place, should he not do so? Is it to be said that he must stay where he is, on his present rate of pay, and not be able to change? I think that if one is going to have freedom in this way, then one must accept the difficulties that anybody else has to accept. If somebody puts up a new works alongside you, and pays twice as much in wages, all your workers will go. But those are the problems of the day.
So far as water is concerned, which the noble Lord mentioned, I think I am right in saying that there is shortly to be a debate in this House on this question of water, on the White Paper which the Government have published. The noble Lord read a rather nice letter from the man who read the Report—I believe he said, on April Fool's Day. He should not have done such a thing. We published the Report we are debating on March 1, on St. David's Day, and that would have been a far better day. However, I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, speak, and wipe away some of the gloomy pictures that have been painted about Wales, because

1101
this is the one thing that we must not allow to go by. I will never let it be said that Wales is in any sort of depression at the moment. It is not: it is far from it. We have problems, and we have not got everything right; but we are keeping going. Then the noble Lord mentioned sheep going up—
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Sheep straying.
LORD BRECON: Sheep straying; I am sorry. I know that my right honourable friend Mr. Henry Brooke had great trouble with this problem in the Rhondda, and in Merthyr, too. Cattle grids are no good except on roads. The noble Lord said there were only 28, or something like that, at that time. If the common land runs right down to your back garden—and I can assure the noble Lord that the sheep in Wales jump remarkably well—great difficulty may arise. I often return home from Cardiff via Merthyr, and besides seeing sheep on the roads I see Welsh mountain ponies as well; but they are rather easier to see when driving at night.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the point we made was that it now requires Government action and is not to be left to local authorities.
LORD BRECON: This, of course, brings up many problems for the farmer. I suppose he is expected to fence his own animals in, but it is very difficult for him. But I think that one local authority has quite successfully appointed a man who looks after the pound. He collects the sheep every morning and puts them in the pound, and when the farmer wants them back he has to pay 10s. a time. The farmer looks after them a little more carefully after he has paid once or twice for them.
I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, paint a rather better picture of how things are in Wales at the present time. Factories have gone up in the area, and I was certainly interested to hear his figure of 85 firms in the rural areas now employing 7,000 workers. It is true, as Lord Dynevor said, that Welsh boys are not taking to forestry, and we should welcome a greater interest by the boys of Wales in forestry. There is a school near Llan-
1102
gollen where they could take examinations and obtain qualifications.
So far as the railways are concerned, I think that problem is the result of changing social habits, and, what is more, the improved prosperity and use of private transport—now something that is increasing every day. I am delighted to see that in Radnorshire, about which many people have talked to-day, there are 226 cars per thousand of population. This is higher than in any county in the rest of the country as a whole. I am also glad to see that in Montgomeryshire there are 209 cars per thousand, and that shows a sign of prosperity in these counties. Only Dorset comes second, with 211 per thousand. But I think people are jumping to a great number of conclusions about the closure of the railways. I think some statements here to-day are not entirely accurate; but we must wait for the meetings of the Transport Users' Consultative Council to consider these railways, particularly the ones in mid-Wales. I would much rather wait to hear their conclusions and find out what they say, first of all, than jump to conclusions. I think I am right in saying that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has not rejected the Jack Report on rural buses, and that is also being considered at the moment. But I would agree with my noble friend Lord Swansea that the Royal Welsh Show, having bought a piece of ground at Builth Wells, will perhaps find it rather difficult if there is no railway there. It will be difficult for them.
The noble Lord, Lord Leighton of St. Mellons, asked me a question about the Rochdale Committee, and I understand that their Report is to be published some time during the summer. With regard to the ports, I must be quite frank in that we do not build ships there. We do some ship-repairing, but we do not build ships. We have built a few in South Wales, but not many. The ports were designed, of course, to export coal; they were not designed to export anything else. But I hope that in time, when we have the Severn Bridge and the dual carriageway from the Midlands right down to South Wales, a greater quantity of traffic will come that way, sufficient to fill the boats which will call there. The noble Lord, Lord Leighton

1103
of St. Mellons, also referred to the journeys of the ambulances, and so on, and perhaps the Ministry of Health will have a look at that.
I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was here to-day, because, after all, he is the Chairman of the St. David's Theatre Trust, which we are watching very closely. He has taken on a very great responsibility. I think that is something that Wales would like to have and would enjoy. My feeling, as with so many of these things, is that I hope it will get the wholehearted support which it deserves from all the people and from the local authorities. As the noble Lord has already said, local authorities can spend up to 6d. in the pound, on anything of a cultural nature in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, is, of course, from Monmouthshire. We are always glad to see him and know exactly his views upon the state of Monmouthshire. I was delighted to hear him say that there was no chaos there, except at Newport Bridge, I suppose, at some times. But I must inform him that the Heads of the Valleys Road starts in Monmouthshire, and that part of it is nearly complete at the present moment. He said something about other people paying for the Welshman's requirements of culture and things like that. I must remind the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, that, of course, the Welshman pays taxes too. I think we all pay into the pool; it all depends on how much we get out of it. We may complain about that, but we do not actually pay for somebody else's interests. The noble Lord talked about the Boundary Commission. I am sorry, I can say nothing about that. The matters referred to are before the Commission at the moment, and in due time they will report.
The noble Lord, Lord Swansea, raised a number of matters, mostly about the Boundary Commission, and also about transport. He said that the roads were not adequate in his area. He does not live very far from me, and I can leave my house in the morning and drive north through Builth Wells, and perhaps during nine months of the year I do not pass 50 cars. If only the people in the rest of the country knew where
1104
to live, life would be much more tolerable in every way.
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, will the noble Lord excuse my butting in? He may have misunderstood me. What I meant to say was that the roads are inadequate for the large increase in industrial traffic which the roads would have to carry if the rail service were curtailed or withdrawn.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I think the point is that if the whole of the traffic on the railway which runs up there were to go by road it would make no practical difference at all. The farmer is hauling his hay, his milk and his fertiliser by road at the present moment, and the majority of farmers go by road. So far as the railways are concerned in mid-Wales, over the whole area, they exist but they are not being used. I have no evidence at all that that has stopped depopulation, and I have no evidence at all that it has brought in any industry, either. If anyone can correct me on that, I shall be very glad indeed. I think that so far as the railway workers mentioned by the noble Lord are concerned, they will be taken care of, and that the Transport Commission have already given undertakings to the trade unions on this point. It is hoped that perhaps some of them will not have to leave the area in which they live.
It was interesting to hear Lord Boston speak. The noble Lord comes from Anglesey, which I suppose is a county without any hill farming schemes and therefore cannot get this grant. But it was nice to have a tribute about that from an English Peer living in Wales. He is so right when he talks about local enterprise. If we Welsh have one fault it is that we do not enter manufacturing industries. If only the Welshman could generate some more industry of his own, and would take the risks taken by the man in Birmingham or the Londoner or the man from anywhere else, we should be very much happier altogether. I think that as we are getting these new industries, younger people will look at them in future; they will not take a job which gives purely a service, but will think of the manufacturing industries, where they can do well and also get very good jobs.

1105
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, had a most enjoyable debate with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and I do not think it calls for a very great deal from me in reply, but I too enjoyed it as Lord Ogmore did. With regard to technical education, we have provision in South Wales for that. In fact, we are well provided for in one form or another at the moment. As I said earlier, I should like to see some more firms, more trade unionists, more pits and more boys and girls taking advantage of those facilities that exist at the present moment in the technical education field. While the noble Viscount claims for his Party all Members of Parliament from industrial areas, he will give us Swansea West, will he not, as one? Perhaps he will not count Cardiff North, but maybe we shall have a few more next time. The noble Viscount referred to the old days. Until four years ago I had worked in Merthyr all my life. I started in Merthyr in 1922, and therefore I know a fair amount about the valleys in that part. But I should like to say that any suggestion that the valleys of South Wales are going to die will do us a great disservice. We are doing everything we possibly can to keep industries in the valleys and to bring further industries into them to take the place of any collieries that may close dawn, because there is a community life and culture, and in some places a language of their own in these valleys, and it is the Government's policy to try to do this. In fact, in 1961 we carried out rather more schemes in the valleys. The noble Viscount talked about a National Water Board. I think that that was in their policy of 1945, but I will look it up. Perhaps it is one of the things that ought to have been done.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is mostly charged with doing too much.
LORD BRECON: I would charge it only with not doing the right ones. This has been a most interesting debate. Perhaps we should have talked more about the White Paper, but I suppose we cannot expect Welshmen to keep to the narrow track of one White Paper, and they wandered freely from it. I have found the debate most helpful and I hope that noble Lords, too, have found it interesting. The Welsh are a happy
1106
and joyful people. So long as we have plenty of work to do, we have time to sing as well.
6.42 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, when one rises to withdraw a Motion, I do not think that it is an appropriate time to go into controversial speeches made by other noble Lords. I think that that is very tiresome, and when one has another speech to make it is even more tiresome. I would merely say that I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I have enjoyed it very much. It has been stimulating, and I am pleased indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, also found it stimulating.
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Leighton of St. Melons, on his able and informed maiden speech. I am sure that with his experience of the docks in Cardiff and elsewhere in South Wales he will be a valuable acquisition to your Lordships' House. I knew his father and mother and was a friend of his brother, who unfortunately died a few years ago. I have known the whole family and my wife has been friendly with them for many years. If his father, Sir William Seager, had been able to be here to-day he would have been very proud of his son. Unfortunately, the noble Lord has had to leave to go back to Wales, and he asked me to convey his apologies to your Lordships.
I am very sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, was not able to be with us. I spoke to him earlier and I had hoped he would be speaking tonight. He told me that if he were well enough he would be speaking, and I am sorry he has not been able to be here. I hope that his indisposition will be a temporary one and that he will soon be with us again. I have a great admiration for the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, with whom I have been friends for many years. He certainly bears a high reputation in South Wales.
May I just say that I have no complaint about the attack made upon me, personally or otherwise, by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough? I have known him for many years and have always liked his style of speaking. I quite enjoy it, and when I know that he is to speak I try to be in

1107
the House because I like his good, old-fashioned "bang" at his opponents. That is what debate is for. I do not like this mealy-mouthed stuff. The noble Viscount had his birthday yesterday and I hope that he will be many years with us, to have a good whack at those with whom he disagrees, whether they are former Members of his Party or not.
There is only one other point that I should like to mention. The noble Lord, Lord Brecon, does his best in Wales and I should like to pay tribute to him personally. What success there has been in South Wales—as I have said, there has not been much in mid-Wales—owes a considerable amount to him. As he knows well, my criticism is not of him, but of the system he has to work in. I think that there is a great call for a Secretary of State and secretariat for Wales. I hope that he does not think that any criticisms I made are any reflection on him personally.
Only one more word, about the Montgomeryshire by-election, which was trailed through the House by so many speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Brecon, and other noble Lords know perfectly well that when I put down this Motion months ago, the late Mr. Clement Davies was still with us and there was no question of a by-election, I did not fix the date of this debate. It was fixed by the noble Earl, Lord St.Aldwyn. The idea that there has been some Machiavellian plot on my part to intervene in the Montgomeryshire by-election is ridiculous. It was two or three months ago, long before the by-election, that I told the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, the subject on which I was going to speak to-day. I said that I wanted to concentrate on mid-Wales, in respect of which I had grave doubts and feelings of concern. I also wrote to other noble Lords, at least a month ago and even earlier, asking them if they would care to speak and mentioning the subject.
That is all I have to say. I am sure that the people of Wales will read in the Western Mail, the Daily Post and other Welsh papers, and hear on broadcasting and television—some may read Hansard—what has been said here to-day. They are the people who are going to judge. They are the people who ought to judge, and we can safely leave it to them. I
1108
beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read a, and to be printed.

MARRIAGE (WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL
6.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I regret that I must inflict another speech upon your Lordships, but I can assure you that it will be very short.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Hear, hear!
LORD OGMORE: Heartfelt confirmation from the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor! It was thought by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, and those who advise him, that it would be a good thing to have this Bill on the Order Paper to-day, because many noble Lords present would be interested in the subject, and I have much pleasure in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a subject, unlike the last one, on which I hope there will be no dissent or disagreement at all.
In my view, it is a happy augury that in both Houses of Parliament the Church in Wales has asked Free Churchmen to take charge of this Bill. My friend Mr. George Thomas, with his usual efficiency and charm, took charge of it in the House of Commons, and I have the honour to do so here. In my boyhood it would have been unthinkable for such a thing to happen, and it proves that in Wales, at all events, some of the barriers which have caused such harm to Christianity in the past are gradually being removed. I am proud to have been asked to do this, because the Church in Wales is truly a Welsh Church. It is an ancient Church. It was hundreds of years old before Saint Augustine landed in England—indeed, it goes back into the mists of time. It is a Church which has produced St. David and St. Patrick. It was organised

1109
anciently, not on a diocesan plan as in the case of the Church in England, but on a plan of the ancient churches in Asia Minor.
Let me, very shortly, explain the purpose of this Bill. By Clause 1 it will extend to Wales and Monmouthshire certain provisions of the Marriage Act, 1949, which at present operate only in England. At the time of the disestablishment of the Church in Wales in 1920, the law with respect to marriages was the same in Wales and Monmouthshire as it was in England. There was no difference between them. Subsequently, the National Assembly of the Church of England passed the Marriage Measure, 1930, and the Banns of Marriage Measure, 1934—since consolidated in the Marriage Act, 1949—which altered the law with respect to marriage in church in England. These Measures did not, of course, apply to Wales and Monmouthshire.
Their effect is, first of all, that an authorised layman may in England publish banns of matrimony during morning or evening service, subject to the observance of certain conditions. Secondly, a marriage after banns can, in England, take place outside the parish or district of residence of the parties in a parish or other authorised church which is the usual place of worship of the persons to be married, or of one of them. Thirdly a marriage by common licence or superintendent registrar's certificate can in England take place outside the parish or district of residence of the parties in a parish or other authorised church which is the usual place of worship of the persons to be married, or of one of them. Clause 1, by extending the provisions to Wales and Monmouthshire, will bring the law there once more into line with that of England.
There is just one further point that I ought to mention, and that is with regard to Clause 2. Clause 2 is designed to cure an anomaly arising in the application of the provisions of the Marriage Act, 1949, which are to be extended by the Bill to Wales and Monmouthshire and to certain border parishes. There are parishes which, geographically, are partly in England and partly in Wales. Section 9 of the Welsh Church Act, 1914, provided for these border parishes to be attached either to an English diocese or
1110
to a Welsh diocese, in accordance with the general wishes of the parishioners. The Sixth Schedule to the 1949 Act, in excluding certain provisions from the application of the Act to Wales and Monmouthshire, failed to take into account the situation of some of these parishes.
Clause 1, by extending Section 9 of the 1949 Act to Wales and Monmouthshire, will obliterate all distinction between one area and another as regards publication of banns by an authorised layman. The effect of this clause will be to produce a similar result in relation to the operation of the other provisions which are to be applied to Wales and Monmouthshire—that is, those provisions whose purpose it is to facilitate marriages in the usual place of worship of one of the parties. There are very few of these border parishes, and I do not think I need go into the particular relationship of them, except to say that the meaning of the expression "church electoral roll", as applied by Clause 1 (2), is such that, without the addition of this clause, those English border parishes which have their parish church on the Welsh side would not benefit from the extension of the provisions made by the Bill. This is because the parish is in an English diocese, so that there would be no electoral roll as defined in Clause 1 (2). I may say that the authorities of the Church of England and of the Church in Wales were consulted about this clause and have agreed to its inclusion in the Bill. Clause 3 provides for the Short Title and for citation. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Ogmore.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I have one question to ask before anyone ventures to reply. I was asked by a staunch Nonconformist whether this Bill was a step in the direction of re-establishment of the Church in Wales. On the answer to that question my questioner wanted me to decide my attitude. If it was a step in that direction I was to oppose, but if it was not, then I was to support it.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I note with satisfaction that the noble Lord

1111
recognises Monmouthshire is not part of Wales.
LORD BOSTON: My Lords, as a member of the governing body of the Church of Wales, I should like to say that I give the Bill my support.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I do not think there is anything for me to add. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has explained the Bill to the House, and I need not reiterate any part of it, except to say that it brings Wales and Monmouthshire into line with England on this particular matter of the legal preparation for marriage in church. The Bill has been universally supported in another
1112
place, and I should like to say that the Government add their blessing to the measure in this House.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, speaking with the leave of your Lordships, may I say that this does not in any way mean that the Church in Wales will alter its status in any manner whatsoever. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, and his King Charles's head, I would say that this does not affect the decision, whenever it may be taken, as to whether Monmouthshire is part of Wales or not.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS
  COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS
  ESTIMATED INCREASE IN MEDICAL GRADUATES
  ESTIMATED INCREASE IN MEDICAL GRADUATES