Sitting of 24 April 1963

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
  DOVER HARBOUR BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  CLYWEDOG RFSERVOIR JOINT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BRITISH ARMY

    Knightsbridge Barracks (Rebuilding)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the proposed rebuilding of Knightsbridge Barracks; and how soon he expects this work to be put in hand.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): Knightsbridge Barracks is to be demolished and replaced by a new barracks, with some married quarters, for the Household Cavalry. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works will be responsible for this redevelopment. Although considerable preliminary work has already been done, this is a complex and important project, requiring full discussion with the planning authorities, and rebuilding cannot start before 1965.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Has my right hon. Friend seriously considered the possibility of resiting these barracks on the site now occupied by the old Magazine
    190
    in Hyde Park? Has he borne in mind the immense value of the present site of the barracks and that it might be more helpful to the Exchequer, apart from anybody else, if the present site were sold and new barracks erected at a place not quite so expensive?
    Mr. Profumo: I have carefully considered these and other alternative projects and sites, but I am satisfied that this is the best and right site for this project. At all events, the Knightsbridge site is part of the Royal Parks and its sale for purposes of other development would be precluded by Statute.

    Officers (Retired Pay)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for War how much retired pay is received by a major who retired on the 1945 code and is now 59 years of age, and by a major who retired yesterday, assuming that both completed maximum service; and how much terminal grant each officer would have received on retirement.
    The Under-Secretary of State and Financial Secretary for War (Mr. James Ramsden): £475 and £930 per year; none and £2,790.
    Mr. Johnson: Is it not apparent from that Answer and from other Answers to similar Questions that the older retired members of the Armed Services of all ranks and their widows are getting a very bad deal compared with those who retire today? Will my hon. Friend take note of the very strong feeling about this matter on both sides of the House, and will he do something about it?
    Mr. Ramsden: I will certainly take note of what my hon. Friend has said, but I should remind him and the House of two points. When the first major in his example reaches the age of 60, he will get the benefit of pension increases bringing his retired pay to £689 a year. Having retired, as he must have done, at 47 or sooner, such a man could reasonably be expected to supplement his retired pay by having some form of paid employment. That is one of the reasons why 60 has been made the effective age for pensions increases.
    Mr. Paget: Does that not equally apply to the man who retires today? Is not this grossly unjust? Are we not at some

    191
    time to adopt the principle of the same pension for the same service and not penalise these men because the Government have depreciated the currency?
    Mr. Ramsden: The hon. and learned Member is always lecturing me about honest money. I do not believe that his own side's record stands up too well in this connection. If he goes on doing so, some rather firmer support for an incomes policy from his side of the House would be welcome.

    Bank of England Picquet and Royal Palace Guards
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now discontinue the use of troops for the Bank of England picquet.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for War what action he will now take to relieve the Guards and other regiments of duties such as the Bank of England picquet and sentry-go at Royal Palaces during periods when members of the Royal Family are not in residence.
    Mr. Profumo: I am satisfied that the security requirement at the Bank of England can best be met by a military guard.
    There has recently been a reappraisal of the duties of the picquet to ensure that they are in conformity with modern requirements. Whereas it used to be partially ceremonial, the guard is now a tactical one, both in dress and deployment.
    The Governor of the Bank of England has agreed to make a payment to Army Votes for the provision of this guard.
    It is the responsibility of the Major-General Commanding the Household Brigade to ensure that the size of guards on Royal Palaces is consistent with security and other requirements. These requirements vary with the presence or absence of members of the Royal Family.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Dealing with the Bank of England picquet only, can my right hon. Friend say, if this is the best method of defending the Bank of England, why it has not been extended to the Royal Mint, for example, where it would also, if this is, be the most effective way of defending such a building, which I very much doubt? Can he say how much is being subscribed by the
    192
    Bank of England? Would he not agree that this is not the type of service for which the soldiers were either recruited or trained?
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Nonsense.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Finally, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the amount which this picquet costs represents almost exactly the amount which the Government felt unable to provide for kidney research?
    Mr. Profumo: The Bank of England is in a somewhat different position from other organisations which my hon. Friend might have in mind. There has always been a military guard at the Bank of England. To take away the military guard at this stage would be wrong. I have had a considerable discussion both with the G.O.C., London District, and the Governor of the Bank of England, and I can answer my hon. Friend by saying that the payment which is now to be paid to my Vote will completely cover the cost of the guard.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman really being serious about this? It is difficult to believe. Does he realise that the Bank picquet involves 114,000 man-hours a year wasted on a meaningless bit of ceremonial? Does it really matter whether the Bank pays a subvention or not? Has not the time come to dispense with these meaningless duties and burdens which are imposed on highly trained manpower which is supposed to be part of our strategic reserve?
    Mr. Profumo: As is frequently the case, the hon. Member is not entirely accurate. I do not accept his figures about the man-hours per year. Secondly, I have just told the House that there has been a reappraisal of the duties, and I am absolutely satisfied that the duties of the guard as a tactical guard are right and proper for a military organisation. London District soldiers have always combined their training as some of the best soldiers in the world with a lot of ceremonial and other public duties. The ceremonial side of this picquet has been cut out altogether. It is now a tactical guard and, as I say, I do not believe that it should be done by any other method.
    Mr. Strachey: Arising from the Secretary of State's original Answer, in which he said that he was satisfied that this

    193
    was the best security arrangement for the Bank of England, would he agree that this is well up to the Government's genera} standards of security arrangements?
    Mr. Profumo: I certainly do. I should like to see the right hon. Gentleman try to break into the Bank of England and see what happens. I give him good warning that, although he has been a Secretary of State himself and at that time never suggested moving the Bank of England guard, he will get very short shrift if he tries to get in.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not obvious that the reason the right hon. Gentleman retains a military picquet is his concern for a nationalised concern?
    Mr. Profumo: I agree that a private undertaking might be able to look after itself. However, I am convinced that this is the right thing to do and that it is in the national interest.

    Private Walter Drinkwater
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the special factors in the case, he will now recommend the early release of Private Walter Drinkwater, of Salford, from Wormwood Scrubs, where he is serving a three years' sentence by court-martial after an incident at Hilden Camp, Germany.
    Mr. Ramsden: No, Sir.
    Mr. Allaun: In the light of the Pirbright affair, how can the Minister justify this savage sentence on a soldier with a first-class record for what was clearly an unpremeditated clash with a drunken sergeant in the N.A.F.F.I.? Is the Minister aware that Drinkwater's counsel, Brigadier Morrison, said that this was the worst case of man-management that he had seen in 32 years' Army service? Will the Minister use his power to intervene?
    Mr. Ramsden: I am unable to accept what the hon. Gentleman said, including his comparison with the Pirbright affair, which involved a different set of circumstances. The hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend have exchanged several letters about this, and I assure him that all the points he has raised, including some that he raised this afternoon, have been taken into account
    194
    either by the court or at subsequent reviews and reconsideration of the finding and sentence.
    Mr. Allaun: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Dartmoor National Park (Okehampton Range)
    Mr. Haymanasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on the proposed bye-laws for the Okehampton Range in the Dartmoor National Park.
    Mr. Ramsden: I have nothing to add to the answer my right hon. Friend gave my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) on 8th April.
    Mr. Hayman: May I ask the Minister whether these proposed byelaws give the Army the power of arrest of ordinary citizens walking through a National Park for the first time, and are the ancient rights of hundreds of venville commoners to be overridden without their consent? Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to arrange for a public inquiry to take place before he reaches any decision?
    Mr. Ramsden: In reply to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I do not think that there is any need for a public inquiry. We shall answer all the objections that we have received. With regard to the power of arrest, there is such a power, but it will be used only against persistent trespassers. The idea of this power is to safeguard members of the public who might stray into places where dangerous firing is going on.
    We have come to agreements with those of the commoners' interests that we could identify, and we shall discuss similar arrangements with any other body of commoners or so-called venville tenants who establish that their rights are prejudiced by the use of this area for training.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Does not the fact that these byelaws are to be issued show that the area is now really too restricted for modern Army training, and would not it therefore be wise to accede

    195
    to the request that has been pressed on my hon. Friend for an inquiry into the matter?
    Mr. Ramsden: I welcome the opportunity of clearing this up. The area that we propose to use for training and firing is no greater than it has been in the past, notwithstanding the new proposals for byelaws. The byelaws will cover a wider area, but this is to improve arrangements for public safety. It does not involve the wider use of Dartmoor by the Army.

    Larkhill Range
    Mr. Pagetasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will institute a control system at Larkhill which will enable the Army to ascertain in future what happens to shells which miss the target area.
    Mr. Profumo: To prevent shells landing outside the target area we already take stringent precautions in the loading and laying of the guns. There have recently been two revisions of the standing orders for the range, and I hope that the new orders, which are most comprehensive, will prevent further accidents.
    Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not complaining of his dropping a shell on a neighbouring town? Accidents can happen in the best regulated circles. What I am complaining of is the right hon. Gentleman's incapacity to discover where the shell came from. That seems to argue indifferent range control.
    Mr. Profumo: I would agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman if he were not learned. If he has read the case—and I shall show it to him if he has not—he will know that there was a conflict of evidence and, although the Army thought it knew where the shell came from, the man who watched the shell land gave evidence which was wholly in conflict and we had to believe his evidence.

    British Army of the Rhine
    Mr. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for War how many additional men have to be mobilised to bring the British Army of the Rhine up to war establishment; how long this would take; and what training these men undergo.
    Mr. Profumo: It would not be in the public interest to disclose the mobilisation strength of the British Army of the Rhine, but I can say that the necessary reinforcement will take place within days. All the reinforcements will be trained men.
    Mr. Healey: Without going into details, where there is a legitimate security interest in keeping them secret, is it not the case that to be fully effective operationally B.A.O.R. would have to call up almost as many men as are already serving in Germany, that most of them would have had no training, and that it would take more than a week to get them there? Is this really a satisfactory situation for an Army whose main function is to be able to react immediately to a local thrust by an enemy without recourse to nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Profumo: I told the hon. Gentleman that I was not prepared to go into facts and details of how many days and hours it may take, or how many people were required, and I am sure that he will respect this, but our treaty obligations are to maintain in Germany an Army of 55,000 and there has been no suggestion that our plans for reinforcement up to war strength are unsatisfactory, and I maintain that they are satisfactory.
    Mr. Healey: Have not we certain obligations to our own commanders and men serving in Germany? Is it fair on these men to expect them to be ready to engage in operations when they know that they are short of desperately needed specialist and other personnel whom it will take more than a week to get there and who will not be trained when they arrive?
    Mr. Profumo: I cannot accept that they will take more than a week to get there. The point is that when the B.A.O.R. is at a strength of 55,000, that is the full peace-time strength. The number of people who would go from this country as reinforcements would be only one-quarter of the people sent there and would in fact initially go to teeth arm units and take their places in formations which would be comprised mainly of Regulars.

    Chieftain Tank
    Mr. Morrisasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Chieftain tank.
    Mr. Ramsden: The trials my right hon. Friend referred to in the debate on Army Estimates on 14th March have been completed and the results are at present being evaluated. Once this has been done, my right hon. Friend hopes that the way will be clear for production to begin.
    Mr. Morris: Has not the time come to accelerate the development of this tank? Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the statements made each year by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are brilliant exercises in padding? We were told in March of last year that this tank was in the final stage of its proving and use trials. We were then told, in a memorandum published this year, that they would take place within a few weeks. When will this tank be available to the units that need it?
    Mr. Ramsden: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. With a complex piece of equipment such as this, it would be a mistake to be in a bad hurry. There are bound to be teething difficulties and snags, and time spent now in clearing them up will certainly make production easier, and avoid difficulties later on.

    Recruiting
    Mr. Morrisasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on recruiting to the Regular Army and to the Ever-readies.
    Mr. Profumo: I dealt very extensively with recruiting to both the Regular Army and the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve in my speech in the Army Estimates debate on 14th March, and I have nothing to add to what I said then.
    Mr. Morris: Can we be told what the present target of the Minister is for the Ever-readies? He had wide authority from this House for a ceiling of 15,000 men. Then we were told, in his last speech, that he would not have to go anywhere near that target. What does he want now?
    Mr. Profumo: The need for the Ever-readies will vary from year to year. I am not prepared to lay down a ceiling, because it is difficult to say what it should be. At present the strength is just over 4,500. My whole organisation is geared to try to recruit as many more Ever-readies as possible. When we get near to what we regard as a practical ceiling for the time being, I shall reduce recruiting. I am hoping that the exercise now going on in the Far East may bring some realism into the requirement for the Ever-readies, and even stimulate their recruiting.

    Meritorious Service Medal (Mr. J. W. Sayer)
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for War when Mr. J. W. Sayer of 39 Gordon Road, Beckenham, Kent, who was recommended for the Meritorious Service Medal during World War I and received it in 1952, may expect to receive the gratuity attached to this medal.
    Mr. Ramsden: Mr. Sayer is on the roll of Meritorious Service Medal annuitants, and he will receive the £10 annuity in his turn. We are at the moment making awards to men born in 1885, and I would therefore expect Mr. Sayer to receive his in about four years' time.
    Mr. Goodhart: Cannot my hon. Friend be a little more generous in this matter? Surely it should now be possible to pay this £10 gratuity to all people who were recommended for this medal in the First World War—forty years ago.
    Mr. Ramsden: There is some misunderstanding here. The medal is normally awarded to N.C.O.s in recognition of long and meritorious service, and anyone who was recommended for an annuity on these grounds before the end of the First World War would be receiving it by now. According to my information, Mr. Sayer was not recommended for the Meritorious Service Medal until 1937; it was the Military Medal and Bar which he received in the First World War.
    Mr. Paget: Is not this a case for a good rather than a bad heart?
    Mr. Ramsden: The present policy was devised in 1950 by the hon. and learned Member's Government, and it has stood up fairly well since.

    Court Martial (Major Cory)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to expedite the procedure of appeals to the Courts-Martial Appeals Court.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for War what compensation he will pay to the officer who completed his sentence by court martial nine months before his innocence was recently established on appeal; and, arising from this case, what action he will now take to improve court martial procedures.
    Mr. Profumo: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I have already instituted together a searching inquiry into every aspect of the case of Major Cory, including the procedure governing appeals to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, which at present depends partly on statute and partly on rules of court.
    When our investigations are concluded—and they may take a little time—I will certainly report to the House. I need hardly add that my noble and learned Friend and I are very concerned indeed about this case.
    Major Cory has just raised the question of compensation, and this will be considered. He has, of course, been reinstated in the Army and has received his full pay and due allowances from the date of promulgation—22nd January, 1962—to date of reinstatement.
    Mr. Allaun: Was it not a shocking travesty of justice that it took seventeen months before Major Cory's case came to appeal, when he was exonerated? Up to that time he had served eight months in gaol and had been out of work for a long time. Is the Minister aware that, similarly, it took eight months before the requests of my constituent, Private Drinkwater, were refused by the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, during which time he had been in Wormwood Scrubs? Can the Minister ensure that soldiers, like civilians, will have the right to bail pending appeal?
    Mr. Profumo: I could not institute that without fresh legislation. If the hon. Member looks up the debates which took place in this House on the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act, he will find that it was decided that before asking for
    200
    leave to appeal to the appeal court an objection should be filed with the Secretary of State for War. It was recognised when the Bill was going through the House that it would be possible under the procedure for the presentation of objection to take place at such a late date that the appeal might not be determined before the appellant had served his sentence. I cannot hold out any hope of bail without fresh legislation. We try to do everything within our power to expedite this procedure.
    Mr. Lipton: In regard to the first issue raised in connection with this unfortunate case, will the Secretary of State give an undertaking, here and now, that the most substantial recompense, in addition to the restoration of pay and allowances, will be made to this unfortunate victim of what has obviously been a miscarriage of justice? Will he also bear in mind that, in order to avoid the possibility of similar tragedies occurring in future, the House would be quite willing to give him whatever legislative powers are necessary?
    Mr. Profumo: I am not sure that I wholly agree that the House would be prepared to grant any powers to avoid this, because it was only in 1956 that the House exhaustively debated the matter and it then expressly denied the granting of these powers. But we shall have a searching examination of the matter. As for the first part of the supplementary question, I cannot give an absolute undertaking at this stage. I have said that I will look into the question of compensation. If the hon. Member will read column 1619 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 29th March, 1954—which deals with a similar case—he will appreciate why it is impossible for me to give a categoric undertaking at this stage.
    Sir H. Harrison: It may be the opinion of the House that what has come out of the question of the appeal of this officer is the fact that the court martial was conducted over a long period and in a very unsatisfactory manner. What we would like in future is for my right hon. Friend or some member of the Army Council to be able to call for papers in cases where it is thought that a court martial is not being properly conducted, or has taken too long, as in this case.
    Mr. Profumo: I sympathise with my horn, and gallant Friend and other hon. Members in their feelings about this matter. I hope that the House will not press me too far at this stage, because these are just the sorts of things in respect of which my noble and learned Friend and I have called for a thorough and exhaustive examination. The Army Council calls for papers, and we rely on the Judge Advocate General and his advice when we are looking into these cases. In this case there were about 1,400 pages of typescript in the appeal that came to the Army Council.
    Mr. Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that his statement that there will be a full inquiry into this matter, and that he will make a statement to the House about this astonishing case, as described by the court of appeal, will be regarded as very satisfactory. In addition, however, will he place the transcript of this trial in the Library of the House? This case lasted for 43 days and the accused was in the witness box for more than a week. There are many instances to show that this was a very unsatisfactory trial. Will the right hon. Gentleman have a full inquiry into the matter, and will he also state the reason why the whole of the evidence was taken down in longhand when shorthand writers were available?
    Mr. Profumo: I once more give an undertaking that a really exhaustive inquiry will be made into this matter. As for putting a typescript in the Library, I hope that the hon. Member will allow me to wait until we have completed the inquiry, because the report may take the form of some kind of paper. It has not yet been decided whether it will be for my noble and learned Friend or for me to deal with the matter, but we want to get going with the inquiry. It will take some time. Perhaps we can consider this matter afterwards.

    2nd Battalion, Coldstream Guards (Absences)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the recent absence of a number of Coldstream Guards from Chelsea Barracks.
    Mr. Profumo: Some 400 men of the 2nd Battalion, the Coldstream Guards
    202
    were given leave at Easter. At 8 a.m. on Easter Tuesday the roll call showed that 26 men were missing. During the course of the day most of these men returned from leave or else reported themselves sick at home, and by the evening only 10 were actually absent without leave. On Friday of last week only 5 men were absent, of whom 3 were missing before Easter. Those men who returned late without good reason have been dealt with by their commanding officer.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is normal or abnormal at Easter compared with previous years? Would he not agree that there is increasing evidence that soldiers—in my view rightly—are objecting more and more strongly to the inordinate amount of "bull" insisted on by commanding officers? Will he set up an all-party committee from this House to go round asking private soldiers what they think about this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—hon. Members are not willing because they know there will be no result from commanding officers—and ask the commanding officers to use a bit more common sense instead of asking the men to do these quite stupid things?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must once again remind hon. Members of the un-desirability of long supplementary questions.
    Mr. Profumo: And, Mr. Speaker, of the undesirability of wild supplementary questions. If I may answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the numbers involved in this case were not exceptional. They amounted to 2 per cent. of the whole battalion being absent after a block issue of leave. With regard to some other accusations made by the hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. Manuel: Compared with other Easters?
    Mr. Profumo: The House will forgive me, I have not the details of other Easters. But block leave given over a holiday period of this sort is what matters, and I hope that Easter itself had nothing to do with this.
    I am certainly not prepared to institute the sort of inquiry which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I do not believe that that is the way to deal with the matter. I would much prefer to allow commanding officers, formation commanders and

    203
    commanders-in-chief to deal with this matter in the proper way. The action of a small number of trouble-makers in giving stories to the Press about their own units—not always accurate stories—can only bring discredit on the units as a whole, and I have no wish to add to it.

  SCOTLAND

    Infant Mortality
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the infant mortality rate in Scotland is higher than in many other Western European countries, including England and Wales and the Netherlands; and whether he will conduct investigations into this state of affairs.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): The Scottish rate is higher than in some Western European countries. It is highest in the industrial areas of the West of Scotland; and Glasgow Corporation is conducting a special analysis, in which my officers are assisting, of the circumstances attending every birth to Glasgow mothers. I will consider sympathetically any further proposals for research into this subject for which my assistance may be required.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate in the Official Report the figures for Scotland, England, Wales, the Netherlands and other Western European countries in order that we may see the comparisons here? Will he be able to make a further statement at the time of the debate on the Estimates regarding health in Scotland to show what progress is being made in the efforts to find the reasons for the discrepancy?
    Mr. Noble: I will circulate the figures in the Official Report. It is unlikely that by the time of the Estimates debates I shall be able to give any results from the inquiry. We shall have to wait for about a year to see how the results come in and what the picture shows.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Have not there been numerous inquiries over the last twenty or thiryt years into the cause of the high infant mortality rate in Scotland, and have not the inquiries shown the cause to be the dreadful housing conditions in that part of Scotland to which the
    204
    Minister referred, coupled with the inadequacy of the facilities for hospital confinements?
    Mr. Noble: Certainly, both those factors have had an obvious influence on the results. I think that what we want to do is to get a little further than just making a general statement. We are doing our best to improve housing and to increase the number of maternity beds.
    Following are the comparative figures per thousand live births in 1961, as published in the Registrar General's Annual Report for 1961:

    Portugal

    …

    …

    …

    89

    Poland

    …

    …

    …

    54

    Hungary

    …

    …

    …

    44

    Greece

    …

    …

    …

    40

    Spain

    …

    …

    …

    38

    Austria

    …

    …

    …

    33

    Western Germany

    …

    …

    …

    32

    Eire

    …

    …

    …

    31

    Japan

    …

    …

    …

    29

    Northern Ireland

    …

    …

    …

    28

    Belgium

    …

    …

    …

    26

    France

    …

    …

    …

    26

    Scotland

    …

    …

    …

    26

    Denmark

    …

    …

    …

    22

    England and Wales

    …

    …

    …

    22

    Finland

    …

    …

    …

    20

    New Zealand*

    …

    …

    …

    19

    Sweden

    …

    …

    …

    16

    Netherlands

    …

    …

    …

    15

    * Excluding Maoris

    Schools, Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters he has received about his proposal to close the demonstration school and other schools in Aberdeen; and what replies he has sent.
    Mr. Noble: I have received letters from two groups protesting against the decision by the Governors of Aberdeen College of Education to discontinue the demonstration school, and in reply I have explained why I approved the decision. I have also had some 260 letters of protest against Aberdeen Education Committee's proposal to discontinue the primary departments at Aberdeen Grammar School and Aberdeen High School for Girls, a proposal on which I have as yet reached no decision. The letters of protest have been acknowledged.
    Mr. Hughes: Would not the Secretary of State agree that these letters represent a large and widespread expression of reasoned opposition to the closure of the demonstration school particularly on the

    205
    ground that during its long history it has done very good work; is doing very good work; has attracted good teachers has produced distinguished alumni, and that no adequate reason has been given for the closure of this very distinguished school? Will he, therefore, reconsider his decision to close the demonstration school?
    Mr. Noble: I cannot reconsider my decision about the demonstration school. I am convinced that, from the educational point of view, no one in Aberdeen will suffer.

    Government Aid
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a comprehensive statement on the recent Government Aid plan for Scotland of £20 million, giving in detail the allocations to be made to each area and the conditions to be complied with in each case.

    CAPITAL INVESTMENT: AUTHORISATIONS AND AREAS

    £ million

    Miscellaneous minor works

    2·0

    The areas prescribed in S.D.D. Circular 33/1962.

    MacBraynes Ferry Ships

    1·25

    Being built in Aberdeen.

    Teacher Training Colleges

    1·0

    Aberdeen, Bearsden, Edinburgh and Hamilton.

    South of Scotland Electricity Board

    6·0

    Most of this is for strengthening the transmission and distribution networks in the Boards' areas.

    North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board

    0·5

    Additional roadworks

    2·5

    The counties of Ayr, Bute, Clackmannan, Dumbarton, Fife, Lanark, Perth and Renfrew.

    The burghs of Airdrie, Ayr, Clydebank, Coat-bridge, Dumbarton, Dundee, Dunfermline, Glasgow, Lanark, Hamilton, Kilmarnock, Kirkcaldy, Motherwell, Paisley, Port Glasgow and Rutherglen.

    New reservoir for Glasgow Corporation

    1·0

    Glen Finglas, Perthshire.

    Tay Road Bridge

    4·5

    Dunfermline Gas Turbine Generating Station

    1·75

    £20·5 million

    The bulk of this extra investment is for work to be done in the next two years. The miscellaneous minor works had to be started before 31st March and completed within six months of starting. The additional roadworks have to be ready for start by 1st July, 1963 and be capable of completion by 31st December, 1964.

    Diabetics
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the high cost of diabetic foods, he will bring them within the National Health Service, with a view to supplying such foods to diabetics at reduced prices.
    Mr. Noble: I have no power to arrange for the supply of foodstuffs under the National Health Service.
    Mr. Dempsey: Could not the Secretary of State decide to take such powers in
    Mr. Noble: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I shall, with permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hughes: Will not the Minister tell the House the principles on which he Acts? How does he select the industries which deserve, and are to get, some of these grants? Does he realise that in Aberdeen, and in the north of Scotland generally, there are many industries which offer to produce goods for export and to absorb some of the many unemployed in that region? Will he give the House some indication of his principles?
    Mr. Noble: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, if it is a question of industries, it is a question for the Board of Trade. The principle behind most of the road works has been to improve roads where they are most needed and where unemployment at the time was worst.
    Following are the details:
    view of the fact that a jar of diabetic jam costs a diabetic 5s. and a bar of chocolate 2s.? Is not that an exorbitant price for these people to pay when many of them are unable to walk, some can walk only intermittently and others are in the pensioner class? Is it not about time that the Secretary of State did something to solve this problem?
    Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman will realise that to alter the National Health Service in this respect would be to go very much wider than dealing with the

    207
    problem of diabetics. I realise that there are hardship cases, and the National Assistance Board is most ready to try to help where this is needed.
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that retirement pensioners who are diabetics and who require insulin, hypodermic needles, surgical spirits and cotton wool, pay eight shillings prescription charges; and if he will abolish these charges.
    Mr. Noble: Yes, Sir, but I have asked the doctors to prescribe for all diabetic patients in as large quantities as possible so that these charges have to be met less frequently.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that in some cases as many as seven items are prescribed, at a cost to the pensioner of 14s.? Is not that an extortionate proportion to take from the retirement pension of an old soul? Will he bear in mind that the National Assistance Board assists only in marginal cases and not in the millions of cases involving people above the marginal line, and will he please do something about it?
    Mr. Noble: As I explained in my Answer, we are encouraging doctors to help to solve this problem by prescribing in as large quantities as possible. This provides significant help. I cannot consider abolishing these charges as the hon. Gentleman desires.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Secretary of State aware that pharmaceutical chemists report that there are a large number of people who have to do without certain items on prescriptions given to them by doctors, because they cannot afford to pay for all the items? Is he aware that they ask chemists what items they can do without in order to cut the cost of the prescription to fit their purse instead of to fit their illness? Is not this a disgraceful way to treat people?
    Mr. Noble: I think that this is entirely wrong. If it were necessary, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, people in cases of this sort could bring the matter to his attention, or to my attention, and it could be taken up by the proper authority.
    Mr. Ross: Is it not a wasteful practice to ask people to prescribe and others to purchase more than they immediately require in order to save a few shillings?
    208
    Would it not be far better to wipe this out altogether?
    Mr. Noble: I think the hon. Member has got it wrong. In cases concerning diabetics it is possible for the doctor to foretell with considerable accuracy the amount they are likely to need. By prescribing in larger quantities he is giving a very positive benefit in this field.

    School, Helensburgh
    Mr. Steeleasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects work on the new senior secondary school at Helensburgh to start; and what is the estimated date of completion.
    Mr. Noble: Dunbarton Education Authority had hoped to start work on this school in September this year and to complete it by December, 1965. Competing demands of more urgent projects have occasioned some delay, but the project will be authorised as soon as practicable.
    Mr. Steele: Is the Secretary of State aware that, according to my information, this school is not to start in September, 1963, on the instructions of the Secretary of State for Scotland? Is he aware of the long postponement over thirty years in providing this new school? Is he also aware that at the moment this school is unhygienic, primitive and overcrowded and that teaching is going on in ten separate premises scattered about half a mile from the main building? Will he look at the matter again and assure the education department that the starting date will be September, 1963?
    Mr. Noble: I have to bear in mind the priorities which local authorities themselves want for schools. If I had "enough money to enable every education department to start all the work it wanted to do immediately, this would be a different problem.
    Mr. Steele: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Royal Infirmary, Inverness (Ambulance Facilities)
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that an almost totally blind woman from

    209
    Castletown, Caithness, has been sent to the Royal Infirmary, Inverness, for an operation and treatment on two occasions, and subsequently to Golspie, Sutherland, for out-patient treatment, without transport being provided for her; if he is aware that Castletown is six miles from the nearest railway station and journeys have to be made from the stations to the hospitals; and if he will take steps to authorise transport by road from door to door for incapacitated persons, free of cost to the patient.
    Mr. Noble: In general, where a patient's doctor considers that ambulance facilities are required, the whole cost is met by the Scottish ambulance service. Patients travel by road or rail, whichever is the more suitable. In this case, the medical advice was that the patient did not need ambulance facilities on the earlier journeys. For her last visit to Golspie they were required and a rail journey with an escort and ambulances to link with the train at each end was arranged.
    The patient's husband was, however, wrongly informed that he would have to pay the rail fare and he made other arrangements. In the circumstances, I am prepared to reimburse him the amount of the rail fare.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the information he has given to the House is completely at variance with the facts given to me, which I have confirmed in two trunk calls to Castletown in recent days? Is he aware that there is no public transport service from Castletown to connect with a train from Thurso to take the patient to Inverness? Is it not wrong that a woman in the state in which this lady is should be treated in this way? In addition to being partially blind, she is sick and weighs only 5 or 6 stone. This kind of thing will not do. It is making a masquerade of the National Health Service?
    Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman may well have information which I have not got. On the question of the ambulance services, often the best thing is to have a car to a station for the rail journey and an ambulance from the railhead to the hospital. This is often easier when long rail journeys are concerned, and this we try to do. I am sorry for the mistake about the rail fare.

    Mackenzie Committee (Report)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he now expects to reach a decision on the Report of the Mackenzie Committee; and if he will expedite this decision to avoid further disruption of new hydro-electricity development in Scotland.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will make a statement on the Mackenzie Report, with particular reference to island supplies.
    Mr. Noble: I have nothing to add at present to the replies given to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 13th March and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) on 10th April.
    Mr. Hannan: Is it not high time that the Secretary of State had something to add to the replies then given? Is he not aware that since he has responsibility for stopping the schemes, he also has responsibility for holding up development by both boards because of the uncertainty, or does this mean that he is abdicating his authority to the Aims of Industry organisation?
    Mr. Noble: Certainly not. I appreciate the need for urgency, and I am doing my best to get the right answer as quickly as I can.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that it is not his intention, or the Treasury's intention, to strangle the authority of the Hydro-Electric Board by not permitting these schemes to go forward, for that is what will happen if he does not allow this important development? Surely he can convince the Treasury that this is a very stupid short-term view which is sacrificing the long-term advantages of these schemes?
    Mr. Noble: The important long-term view must be to get electricity at the right price for Scotland as a whole. I cannot accept the implications of what my hon. Friend says about the Treasury's view and my own.
    Mr. Ross: What is holding this up other than the shilly-shallying of the Secretary of State? Is he aware that there are now about sixteen schemes held

    211
    up awaiting his authority and the next step rests with him to initiate a public inquiry, if that is necessary? Does he realise that he is making the position of the Hydro-Electric Board quite intolerable and that what the position of supply will be in a few years goodness knows? Does he want the board to go ahead, as was suggested even by the Mackenzie Committee Report in relation to these schemes? Will he take action now?
    Mr. Noble: I am perfectly prepared to take action as soon as the correct information and full information is available, but not before.

    Special School Children (Bursaries)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that children attending school beyond the statutory age limit are eligible for bursaries, whereas children attending special schools to the age of 16 years are not so eligible; and if he will now seek to amend Section 32(4) of the Education (Scotland) Act so as to rectify this anomaly.
    Mr. Noble: I appreciate that older children attending special schools are not eligible for higher school bursaries, and this question will be looked at when there is a suitable opportunity for amending legislation.
    Mr. Hannan: If the Government have difficulty in finding time for this, may I have the assurance of the Secretary of State that he will facilitate a Private Member's Bill to end an injustice which has gone on for perhaps too long?
    Mr. Noble: The problem is that this would have to be dealt with on a United Kingdom basis and not on a Scottish basis. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] Because the problem is exactly the same in both countries. I think it would be resented and would be unfair to England if we legislated on a separate basis.
    Mr. Millan: Why can we not deal with this in the Scottish Education Bill which is at present going through this House? Could we not insert something in that Bill?
    Mr. Noble: We cannot do that for the reason I have stated. This is exactly the same problem in both countries and
    212
    the law is exactly the same in both countries. It would be unfair if we were to legislate only for Scotland.
    Mr. Hannan: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Malicious Damage Convictions
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the maximum amount that a sheriff's court may order a convicted person to pay in restitution of malicious damage to private property; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Noble: There are no general statutory provisions which bear directly on the ordering of restitution of damage additionally to any penalties which the court may impose on conviction. This is in accordance with the view generally accepted in Scotland that restitution is a civil matter.
    Mr. Brewis: Has my right hon. Friend seen the articles which appeared recently in the Scotsman, which showed that vandalism is costing about £1 million in Scotland? Is he satisfied that the sheriff courts have sufficient powers to deter people who commit this malicious damage?
    Mr. Noble: I have seen the articles to which my hon. Friend has referred, but the increase in senseless vandalism in recent years has not been peculiar to Scotland. I agree that it must be a matter of concern, but I doubt whether it would be useful to examine it from the point of view of changes in the law in isolation from other aspects of delinquency. The law of Scotland relating to juvenile delinquency is at present being reviewed by a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Kilbrandon.

    Derelict Sites (Clearance)
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue a revised memorandum to local authorities on the clearance of derelict sites, in view of the recent change in Government policy.
    Mr. Noble: This was done on 5th April. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Dr. Mabon: Since I have already seen a copy of this memorandum, which was published after I had put down a Question, may I direct the Secretary of State's attention to section 5 of this very unsuitable memorandum, which obscures the main point and holds up the clearance of derelict sites—namely, the definition of "derelict"? Is he aware that in Scottish law it is impossible to declare that a site is abandoned or ownerless and that as a consequence local authority applications to him in fact fail? May I direct attention to subsection (j) of section 5 of the memorandum, which asks a hypothetical question which is quite difficult to answer and which, again, might be the cause of applications to him failing. Would he look at the whole thing again in view of the essential importance to industrial development in Scotland?
    Mr. Noble: I will look at any problem which a local authority brings to me and which seems to hold up these very necessary schemes.
    Mr. Ross: Did the Secretary of State send a copy of the memorandum to the Board of Trade? He will recollect that under the Local Employment Act the Board of Trade has the right to deal with derelict sites if nobody else does so.
    Mr. Noble: I expect that the Board of Trade got a copy, too.

    Geriatric Beds (Edinburgh)
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has sent to the Edinburgh Local Medical Committee's request for more funds to enable them to solve the immediate geriatric problem in their area.
    Mr. Noble: They have been informed of the regional hospital board's plans to provide about 150 additional geriatric beds in existing hospitals over the next few months and to build new accommodation providing a further 360 beds at the Liberton and Royal Victoria Hospitals.
    Mr. Hoy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local committee has expressed complete dissatisfaction with the Secretary of State's reply? Is it not a fact that some beds which he proposes to give to the geriatrics he has taken
    214
    from the general patients in hospitals in the area? In other words, he is worsening their position to try to meet this need. In view of the tremendous need for beds of this kind, cannot the right hon. Gentleman allocate more funds for this purpose without impinging on the already small number of beds which are available for general medical patients?
    Mr. Noble: I am afraid that I cannot do that. The south-eastern region has had a fair share of the programme, which has to be related to other building programmes in the public sector and to the capacity of the building industry to get through the work.

    Multi-Storey Flats, Bearsden
    Mr. Benceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received respecting the granting of planning permission to erect blocks of multi-storey flats in the burgh of Bearsden; and what steps he is taking to consider these representations.
    Mr. Noble: Representations were received in February from the hon. Member, Bearsden Town Council and the Mosshead Association. My hon. Friend, the Joint Under-Secretary of State, replied to the hon. Member on 4th March explaining that it would be inappropriate for me to intervene in the matter, and similar replies to the other representations were sent on my behalf on the same day.
    Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable discontent in this area? These people in Moss-head have paid fantastic prices for their land and houses because they were given verbal pledges that this was the type and style of amenity which they would enjoy. Planning permission has been given for multi-storey flats right up against them. The landscaping is on the other side of the flats, away from the bungalows. This is a shocking piece of development and a shocking piece of undemocratic procedure by the county planning authority and by the right hon. Gentleman in not intervening to stop the building of these flats. Will he do something about it?
    Mr. Noble: I think that the hon. Member knows that the responsibility in this matter rests with the local planning authority, not with me. It may be that if

    215
    there is an appeal it wilt come to me as the final arbiter. That has not yet happened.

    Hospital Plan
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to revise the Hospital Plan for Scotland, Command Paper No. 1602, in view of recent population reports and professional representations to him.
    Mr. Noble: In considering further extensions of the Hospital Plan for Scotland, I will take these matters into account.
    Dr. Mabon: May we assume from that reply that since there is concern about geriatric, maternity and mental beds, the Secretary of State proposes to take a leaf out of the Minister of Health's book and to publish a revised Hospital Plan in the very near future?
    Mr. Noble: I cannot give a promise about the timing of this, but these things are certainly being considered.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are serious doubts in medical and other opinion about the wisdom of reconstructing the Royal Infirmary in Edinburgh as proposed in the Hospital Plan and that a great many well-advised people consider that it would be much better to build a completely new hospital and to use the present Royal Infirmary for geriatric beds and thus satisfy both needs at much less expense?
    Mr. Noble: I will certainly bear what the right hon. Gentleman said in mind.

    Canal and Railway Bridges, Linlithgow
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a full statement, giving chronological detail, regarding the action he has so far taken towards reaching a decision concerning the improvement of the canal and railway bridges in Preston Road, Linlithgow, which were the subject of a public inquiry in July, 1962.
    Mr. Noble: An amendment to the West Lothian County Development Plan proposing additional sites for housing
    216
    to the south of Linlithgow was submitted in November, 1961. Objections were made, and a public local inquiry was held in July, 1962. I received the report on the inquiry towards the end of January this year and the decision was issued yesterday. I am sending a copy of the letter to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Dalyell: Why has it taken nine months?
    Mr. Noble: The questions which the reporter had to decide were complicated questions. I obviously cannot answer for his problems in this field.
    Mr. Dalyell: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will attempt to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Meteorological Office (Weather Forecast)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Secretary of State for Air what computers and other equipment are being used or installed in the Meteorological Office for the preparation and issue of 30-day weather forecasts.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Ridsdale): The methods of long-range forecasting now being studied by the Meteorological Office do not involve elaborate calculations or the use of special equipment, but an electronic computer is used to expedite the examination of relevant data.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does the Meteorological Office intend to publish 30-day forecasts? The Americans' 30-day weather forecasts for these islands have been "bang-on" recently. Further, is the machinery of the Meteorological Office adequate to issue such forecasts?
    Mr. Ridsdale: So far we have been against publishing the Meteorological Office's forecasts because we did not think them reliable enough, though they are at least equal to the American forecasts. However, the matter is being given further study and I hope to make a decision fairly soon. The replacement of the present Meteorological Office computer by a faster machine is under consideration.

  ROADS

    Clearways, Chester
    Mr. Templeasked the Minister of Transport how many bus stops without Jay-bys there are on the stretch of clear way on the trunk road from a point out side the Vicars Cross Golf Club to the point where this clearway meets the Chester cuter ring road.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): Eight, Sir—four on each side of the road.
    Mr. Temple: Does not my hon. Friend think that this stopping on the highway by public service vehicles destroys the the whole concept of a clearway?
    Mr. Hay: Not necessarily. Public service vehicles have to stop on clearways as well as on other roads where clearway conditions are not in operation. We try to ensure that where there is a need for buses to stop on a clearway and they cannot do it without obstruction, if possible they pull off the road.
    Mr. Templeasked the Minister of Transport on what date he commenced his consultations with the Cheshire County Council with regard to the imposition of a 40 miles per hour speed limit on the clearway between the Vicars Cross Golf Club and the termination of this clearway close to the boundary of the city of Chester; and if he will make a statement regarding the present position of the consultations.
    Mr. Hay: On 26th February. They are now prepared to await the results of six months' operation of the clearway before expressing a view on the 40 m.p.h. limit proposal. We shall be willing to consider the matter then.
    Mr. Temple: Is it not now perfectly clear that all local opinion is in favour of a 40 m.p.h. speed limit in order to increase the safety factor on this very dangerous stretch of highway?
    Mr. Hay: A number of views have been expressed to us at different times and sometimes those views have differed from the views which have been expressed previously. I think that we had better wait for another couple of months and let the experiment finish, and then we can look at the whole thing again.

    Severe Weather Conditions (Expenditure)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Transport what is the total of claims by local authorities for additional expenditure on roads, owing to the severe weather this winter; and what payments he has approved.
    Mr. Hay: We have not yet heard from all the local authorities concerned about their additional expenditure on classified roads. But in the year ending 31st March, 1963, expenditure of about £1 million over and above the original Estimate provision was met from the Exchequer for snow clearance from trunk roads and motorways.
    Mr. Digby: Can my hon. Friend give some indication of the number of claims which he has turned down and the number which he intends to allow?
    Mr. Hay: No, Sir. My hon. Friend should not be too pessimistic. We are now awaiting the information. We hope to get it all by the middle of May on classified roads. When we get that information we can decide.
    Mr. Mackie: Has any research been undertaken to find out why this damage happens on some roads and not on others?
    Mr. Hay: We know why the damage happens. What we do not know is why the atmospheric conditions which caused the damage were as they were.

    Tees-side (Deputation)
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the Minister of Transport why after a delay of five months he is not able to receive a deputation of seven Members of Parliament and their constituents to discuss a highways programme for Tees-side.
    Mr. Hay: My right hon. Friend was asked just before Christmas to receive this deputation. He suggested that we should await the outcome of another meeting, about the problems of Tees-side generally, which a similar deputation was shortly to have with my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council and representatives of departments, including the Ministry of Transport. Later my right hon. Friend was again asked to receive a deputation. As he has explained to the right hon. Member, it is

    219
    not practicable for him to receive it. He has asked my noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to do so, and I understand this is now being arranged.
    Mr. Bottomley: Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend when he thinks it important enough for him to receive a deputation? Is he aware that in addition to aldermen, there were councillors, seven M.P.S, town clerks and borough engineers? Surely the Minister himself ought to receive a deputation of this kind?
    Mr. Hay: I think that the House as a whole will acquit my right hon. Friend of being idle. He is one of the most active of Ministers, as I know only too well. He has a great many deputations to see and a great many things to do. He replied in detail to the right hon. Gentleman on this point. I should have thought that, in all the circumstances of the great consideration which is being given to the problems of the North-East, the deputation would have been quite happy to see my noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.

POLARIS SUBMARINES (OPERATING BASE)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. STODART: To ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will now announce where an operating base will be constructed for the Polaris submarines.
The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): After careful consideration of all possible sites in the United Kingdom it has been decided that development of existing submarine operating facilities at Faslane in the Gare Loch offers on balance the greatest advantages for a Polaris operating base. A new armament depot will be constructed at Coulport, on the eastern shore of Loch Long, about 8 miles by road and 13 miles by sea from Faslane.
The operating base for the Royal Navy's Polaris submarines needs to be near deep water; to offer easy navigational access; and to be a short distance by sea from the associated armament depot.
220
All the Royal dockyards fail in some degree to meet these basic requirements, but Rosyth will, of course, refit Polaris submarines as well as the nuclear hunter/killer submarines.
Survey and similar work will start at Faslane immediately, and the base will be completed by 1968.
Provisional estimates at this stage put the cost of developing the base and armament depot at between £20 million and £25 million, including between £12 million and £15 million for construction work. This work is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works.
When the base is finished it is expected that about 1,700 officers and men will be based or stationed there, together with their families.
Civilian staff employed at the base and armament depot will probably number about 400, of whom about half are expected to be recruited locally.
Mr. Stodart: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great satisfaction which will be felt at the fact that the operational requirements of the Royal Navy coincide with the particular interests of Scotland at this time? Can he say how much Scottish labour will be required actually to construct the base?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I agree with my hon. Friend on the first part of his remarks.
In reply to the second part, between 500 and 1,000 workers will be needed during the construction period. I cannot say more closely than that. It is thought that about half the 400 civilians who will be needed will come from local labour sources; that makes about 200 for the running of the base.
Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman already knows our views about this programme. Is not this an example of how the costs of this programme will snowball? Is he aware that this very vast expenditure will still further increase the fears of those who are really concerned about the effect of the Polaris programme upon our conventional naval forces?
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the demand for this base arises solely out of the Polaris programme, or would it have been necessary in any case for our hunter-killer programme? Is the £12 million to £14 million solely for the

221
armament depot, that is, for construction? Does the figure of 1,700 officers and men include any part of the 1,200 estimated for the crews of these submarines?
Finally, can the hon. Gentleman say to what extent—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] Certainly. This is exceedingly important. Can he say to what extent this further demand for very skilled manpower will accentuate the already very grave shortage that there is in the Service?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: First, it is not a question of the costs snowballing. The figure I gave during the debate on the Estimates was that the total overall cost of this programme would be about £300 million. This figure comes within the total I then gave and is not additional to it.
Secondly, I would concede that there are obvious economic advantages in amalgamating the administration of both hunter-killer and Polaris submarines in the same base. We are examining the pros and cons of this problem at the moment, but I cannot give a categorical statement at this stage.
Thirdly, the £12 million to £15 million for construction includes the costs of the armament depot.
Fourthly, the figure of 1,700 includes the 1,200 people needed for manning the submarines on a two-crew basis.
Lastly, we are certainly well aware of the manpower problem, and we are now examining a programme for increasing our intake of technical personnel and training them to meet the very carefully worked out date of 1968, when these Polaris submarines must be at sea.
Mr. Brewis: I welcome the extra employment which will be provided in Scotland. Did my hon. Friend look at all existing ports, not only Royal Naval dockyards, before choosing a location? In particular, did he look at Cairnryan Port, in Wigtownshire, before deciding to build a new port?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, Sir. We certainly examined all possibilities, not only in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but also in England. It was on the operational considerations that we finally decided, as the Americans decided before us, that this area was operationally most suitable for this particular project. I would add
222
that this expenditure is not unique. We are spending in Scotland, on N.A.T.O. projects which are being built for us by the Ministry of Public Building and Works, £14·9 million, and on naval works alone £8·4 million in our present programme. Therefore, this is a very large amount of support for Scotland.
Mr. Steele: Apart from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) about our policy on Polaris, this means bringing many new people to my constituency. Is the Civil Lord having any discussions with the local authority on this matter? What will this mean in relation to accommodation? Will the Admiralty itself provide the houses for these people and their families? What about education? I have already put a Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland today about the problems of education in this area. Surely this matter will have to be looked into as well.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, Sir. We certainly intend to consult the local authorities. I thought that the House of Commons would want to know first. As we are starting our survey this very week, I thought that it was right to make this announcement today. I am well aware of the pressure on educational facilities in the area. We are to start discussions straight away with the local education authority about extra schools to meet the need.
We shall be constructing a housing estate for the Royal Navy and we shall be in consultation with the local authorities about houses for the civilian personnel for this project.
Mr. Wingfield Digby: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Government on this decision. I am sure that it is the right one, following, as he said, the American example. Will my hon. Friend clarify what work is now to be done at Rosyth? Is it to be only a question of refits for these submarines at Rosyth so that very little extra work will actually be undertaken there?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, Sir. The Polaris submarines will off-load their missiles, which will be taken care of at Coulport where they will be maintained, and the boats will then go round to Rosyth where they will be maintained and refitted.
Mr. Healey: Are we to understand that it will be at least five years, even if everything goes well, before the first Polaris submarine is operational?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, Sir. The target date we gave earlier was that we should launch the Polaris submarines at the end of 1967, and they will be operational about five years from now.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's Answer, I give notice that I will raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

LAOS
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the situation in Laos.
Integration of the three rival armies was a central feature of the Geneva settlement, and pending such action there is an obligation on each party to desist from trying to secure an advantage by recourse to arms. However, Left-wing forces, probably with North Vietnamese support, have been driving the neutralist supporters of the Prime Minister out of their positions in the Plain des Jarres. Thus, the whole settlement has been put in jeopardy. This must concern us both as signatories to the agreement and because of my noble Friend's responsibilities as co-Chairman of the Laos Conference.
Our Ambassador in Laos, with the Soviet Ambassador's co-operation, has supported the efforts of the Prime Minister of Laos to halt the fighting, to get the contending leaders to agree, and to restore the situation. He has also been working closely with the International Control Commission to secure the right of the Commission to travel anywhere in the country and to maintain a presence wherever this is necessary to fulfil the terms of the agreement.
My noble Friend has discussed these matters with Mr. Gromyko, as Soviet co-Chairman. Mr. Gromyko failed to agree to my noble Friend's proposals for joint action and has chosen to publish his own counter-proposals. In view of Mr. Gromyko's action, copies of the full
224
exchanges have been placed in the Vote Office and released to the Press here.
The Soviet co-Chairman insisted on including in his draft message to the Government of Laos one-sided allegations against the American Government which my noble Friend regarded as unsubstantiated. Notwithstanding this, a large measure of agreement was reached as to what might be done and, although no action by the co-Chairmen is now possible, our Ambassador in Laos has been told to draw the attention of the Government of Laos and the Control Commission to the common views expressed in these exchanges.
A new truce now seems to have halted fighting on the spot. I hope that, this time, the truce will hold. I also trust that it will be generally accepted that the Commission should be present to deter any renewal of fighting and should exercise its authority to restore the situation which prevailed before the recent Pathet Lao advances.
Action in this respect will be a test of the good faith of all parties in Laos and also of the other signatories of the Geneva agreement.
In our view, these dangerous developments have not resulted from any defect in the agreement itself. This clearly provides for what should be done if such developments occur, and for the proper investigation of accusations that there has been foreign interference in Laos.
The next few days should show whether the settlement is to be allowed to survive or not. Mr. Averell Harriman, in discussions yesterday with my noble Friend, expressed the unwavering support of the United States for the Geneva settlement for an independent unaligned Laos. I am sure that the whole House will agree that it would be most harmful if this outstanding example of the ability of East and West to reach a constructive solution to their problems by negotiation were to fail.
Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that anything that Her Majesty's Government can do to maintain the non-aligned position of Laos will receive the very general support of hon. Members on both sides of the House? It is of extreme importance to the general balance between East and West in the world that this particular status quo

225
should be preserved. Is he aware, however, that his flat statement that no action by the co-Chairmen is now possible is rather disturbing?
We regret that the Russians have unilaterally published their side of the exchange. None the less, as his statement showed that considerable progress has been made in agreement with the Russians—and it is extremely important that we should not close our minds, as seemed to be implied in his statement, to the achievement of real co-operation between us on Laos, because this is one part of the world where we have a measure of common interest—could the right hon. Gentleman say what he thinks about the proposal that the International Control Commission should—and I think that this is implied in his statement— send observers to police the present rather temporary truce in order to try to make it stick, because this is the first great need?
Mr. Heath: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks about the views of the House as a whole towards the need for maintaining the cease-fire in this part of the world, the unaligned State of Laos, and the position between East and West.
On the question of joint action by the co-Chairmen, my noble Friend is, of course, anxious that we should be able to take such action. In this particular case it was not possible to reach agreement, and why my noble Friend regrets the publication of these documents is that in the normal way one would have continued through the diplomatic channels to try to reach agreement about the contents of the notes, which we would have sent to the Government of Laos.
I think that I can reply to the right hon. Gentleman's point by saying that my noble Friend would hope to be able to take joint action with the Soviet Foreign Minister, if we can get agreement on it. I am also in agreement with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the need to station members of the International Control Commission on the spot in the areas of the truce so that we can have reports from them on the state of affairs there and so that they can use their authority to maintain the truce.
Mr. Mendelson: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the past successes of Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Soviet Union in creating an atmosphere of agreement over Laos are, perhaps, the most important potential casualty in this dangerous situation? Could the right hon. Gentleman at least make a preliminary statement about the series of murders which have recently occurred in Laos, in which a number of people who are Left wing of the centre, which the Prime Minister there represents, have been murdered in an organised fashion? Does this not remind him of the series of murders which occurred in China, where the centre was deliberately eleminated by the Right wing in order to impose dictatorship later on, but which led to the opposite result? Would the Lord Privy Seal not consider, with the Soviet Government, making an investigation of these murders so that there might be a better base for joint action by the co-Chairmen?
Mr. Heath: We have, of course, deplored the murders for political reasons which have taken place in Laos recently; and there have been a number of them. But I would not agree with the hon. Member's analysis of the political position of those who have been the casualties of these political assassinations. We have done our utmost to impress on all the parties in Laos that they should bring to an end this form of political assassination.
Mr. A. Henderson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which of the authorities in Laos prevented members of the Control Commission from visiting the areas in which hostilities have been resumed and thereby made it impossible for them to check on what was happening? Would it be worth while considering inviting or arranging for representatives of the co-Chairmen—that is, Soviet and British representatives—to be associated with the Control Commission in supervising what he taking place in central Laos?
Mr. Heath: It is Prince Souphan-nouvong and members of the Pathet Lao who have objected to the Control Commission carrying out its duties under the Geneva settlement.
The British and Soviet ambassadors have been playing their part in remaining

227
in close contact with the members of the Control Commission when there have been discussions between the various parties in Laos about the truce and the activities of the Commission. The Control Commission has all the facilities necessary to carry out those activities—it has all the powers under the Geneva settlement to do it—provided that the parties in Laos themselves will agree to the Commission moving about the country.
Mr. Brockway: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that all of us want to see a neutralist solution to this problem? Is it not a fact that in the exchange of letters with Mr. Gromyko, he actually accepted the action proposed by Her Majesty's Government but had that unfortunate addendum, which was very one-sided? Is not the action more important than the expression of opinion in the addendum? In view of the psychological background which there is in Laos because of the previous American support of the Rightist element to secure a solution of this problem, would it not be much better now to call in the United Nations, and particularly U Thant, who has such a reputation in Asia?
Mr. Heath: As I said in my statement, if hon. Members look at the copies of the exchange of correspondence which have been placed in the Vote Office they will see that there is a considerable amount of general agreement, as the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) said, about the action to be taken. That is the reason why we have drawn the attention of the Prime Minister and the Government of Laos and of the International Control Commission to the common parts of the exchange of correspondence and have expressed the hope that they will act on those.
I do not think that it is correct to say that Mr. Gromyko accepted all our proposals. Nevertheless, there is a considerable amount of common agreement. I do not think that it would be right now to call in the United Nations or its Secre-
228
tary-General. The provisions of the Geneva settlement can be carried out if there is good faith between the three parties involved in the Government of Laos; and it is that which we are trying to achieve now.
Mr. Thorpe: The Lord Privy Seal has spoken about co-operation between the Soviet and British Ambassadors. Can he say what the effect of Mr. Gromyko's counter-proposals is to vitiate that co-operation, particularly in regard to the freedom of movement of the Control Commission and the right of access to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? Is this a matter on which there is still co-operation and agreement between the two ambassadors?
Mr. Heath: We hope that it will not vitiate future co-operation, but so far we have not had any experience since the publication of the correspondence.
Mr. Gordon Walker: I should like to ask the Lord Privy Seal a point of fact. Has the Soviet Union yet expressed itself in agreement with the idea of representatives or observers of the International Commission going to the area of trouble, or has not that idea yet been raised with the Soviet Government?
Mr. Heath: The position is that the International Control Commission can go to the area, either at the request of the Government of Laos—but that, of course, is being prevented by the Pathet Lao members of the Government—or on its own initiative. The position at the moment is that the Soviet co-Chairman has not joined with us in asking the Commission to carry out these activities.
Sir C. Osborne: When it comes to fighting, why is it that the Communists always seem to win? Is it that they are getting better arms from their side than the others are getting from ours?
Mr. Heath: As I mentioned in the earlier part of my statement, the indications are that the Pathet Lao forces are receiving support from the North Vietnamese.

MR. SPEAKER'S CONSTITUENCY
3.51 p.m.
Mr. Richard Marsh: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the creation of a constituency to be known as St. Stephen's and represented by Mr. Speaker.
It is not often that the House of Commons has the opportunity of meeting problems before they arise, but I wish for a few minutes to provide an opportunity to discuss something which I believe to be of importance in an air of calm deliberation, not affected by party political considerations or by differences between the two sides.
The problem arises at this juncture, and is becoming pressing, because within a few months the country will be faced with a General Election, and at that election there will, as I think most commentators agree, be a considerable swing against the Conservative Party and a considerable swing in favour of the Labour Party. That means that all seats are likely to be contested. This is a good thing, except in one particular case.
Your own seat, Mr. Speaker, in Westminster, will also be contested at that time. Already, there is a candidate from an extraordinary party known as the Fellowship Party. I understand, too, that a candidate has already been nominated from a party better known but just as extraordinary, the Liberal Party. Even more important in terms of realpolitik, there will almost certainly be a candidate from the Labour Party. The House therefore faces the position that it is now quite clear that at the next General Election Mr. Speaker's seat will be contested.
That will be the fifth time that Mr. Speaker's seat has been contested in the last hundred years. In the first two of those contests, the Speakers concerned were Mr. Speaker Peel, in 1885, and Mr. Speaker Gully, in 1895, and both contests arose in rather different and rather special circumstances. But the contests for Mr. Speaker's seat in 1935 and 1945 and the contest for that seat at the next General Election arise, in my view—and I put this for the consideration of the House—from the failure of the present
230
arrangements to satisfy two conflicting aims.
The first aim is what I regard as the very important one isolating the office of Mr. Speaker from internal party controversy. I believe that this is essential. I do not believe that the respect accorded to Mr. Speaker's office by members of the Opposition or the Government can be achieved if the holder of the office ever becomes part of that normal political controversy which I regard as a healthy thing in a democracy, but which, I believe, strikes at the very function of your office, Sir. The first aim, therefore, is to isolate Mr. Speaker from political controversy.
The second aim in a democracy is to enable any elector who is qualified as an elector to express his or her political point of view. Some commentators have suggested that under the present arrangements it is possible for the electors in Mr. Speaker's constituency to be represented as electors, as is their democratic right, because none of us is under any illusion at all that a request to a Minister from yourself, Mr. Speaker, would probably produce much faster results than would be achieved by one of the political proletariat here.
But in a democracy that is not the purpose of political representation. It is not the function of a Member of Parliament merely to be able to raise constituency issues on behalf of his constituents. In a democracy, it is the right of an elector to be able to pronounce on the big political, international and economic issues of the day, and as long as Mr. Speaker's seat is, by tradition, not contested, the electors within that constituency are deprived of the opportunity properly of expressing their political point of view on the big issues of the day.
For that reason, it is important that we should see whether there is some way in which we can achieve both these aims. I am suggesting, in my proposed Bill—and it is not a particularly new idea—that there shall be constituted a special, and a nominal, constituency of St. Stephen's which would be represented by Mr. Speaker upon his election to that office. Mr. Speaker would become the Member for St. Stephen's. There would then be a by-election in his former constituency, in which the electors would

231
be represented by the party politician of their choice.
Some commentators, notably The Times, for which back benchers normally have a fitting reverence, have suggested that it is essential to Mr. Speaker's office that he should be "one of us," and that the respect for and authority of the Speaker is drawn from the fact that he is himself an ordinary Member of Parliament. I suggest that this is a fallacy. Mr. Speaker is not an ordinary Member of Parliament. Indeed, the powers wielded by a modern Speaker would, in a democracy, be intolerable in the hands of anybody who was an ordinary Member of Parliament.
It is quite beyond belief that in a democracy we could permit any ordinary Member of Parliament to be able to pick and choose which Amendments shall be debated, to determine whether a debate shall be closured, and to exercise all the very real and extraordinary powers which Mr. Speaker quite necessarily, and quite rightly, carries. There are other differences. Legislation over the last hundred years, and before that, has been directed towards making Mr. Speaker's office a quite special one, to make of it the non-political embodiment of the House as a whole, and, with respect, I suggest that it is from that that you draw your authority. Sir.
There are many other differences that one could produce to further the argument that you are not as the rest of us. In my researches I have found, and it has been mentioned before, that you do not pay Income Tax, which the rest of us have to pay. During a Dissolution, you retain your powers and continue in your office. In my view, all these things are essential to a modern Speaker, but they also make nonsense of the argument that Mr. Speaker's authority is drawn from the fact that he is an ordinary Member of Parliament.
The other argument against this is that if Mr. Speaker represents a specific Speaker's seat then, on the loss of his office as Speaker, he would cease to be a Member of this House. That is a very desirable thing, because I think that it would be undesirable to have any Speaker at any time reverting to being an active party politician within this House of Commons. The last Speaker who did so was Mr. Speaker Addington, in 1789,
232
and he resigned to become Prime Minister. While many of us feel that any change could only be for the good in this direction, we on this side of the House have already chosen the present right hon. Gentleman's successor.
We are faced with the problem of what to do about the approaching situation. If we do not change the present position with regard to your office, Mr. Speaker, within a few months there will be a General Election and your seat will be contested. It will then be the third time that it has been contested since 1935. I believe strongly that this is an extremely undesirable custom which is growing up and something which we should seek to avoid. It is quite wrong and incompatible with democracy in 1963 that any group of constituents, for whatever reason, should be deprived of the right of electing not only the person of their choice but—to face the realities of the present party system—the party politics of their choice. I would, therefore, ask permission to bring in the Bill on these grounds.
It is not difficult, of course, to find anomalies in this position. Indeed, it is fashionable to point out the anomalies which exist in the British Constitution at present and all the illogicalities in the way we run our affairs. One thing which can be said in favour of the British Constitution or Parliamentary system is that it happens to work rather better than the systems which other people have followed. It has worked because it is a pragmatic system based on the recognition of difficulties and on the desire to ensure that the system always works to the best of our ability.
We are faced, however, with these conflicts with regard to this extremely important office and because of this I beg to ask leave to bring in the Bill.
4.2 p.m.
Major Sir Frank Markham: As the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) has said, this is an old idea. It is so old an idea that I think that the most senior Member of the House—bless him—was very much in the cradle when it was already old history. Royal Commission after Royal Commission has gone into the subject, and there has been inquiry after inquiry. One after the other has turned down this suggestion, and for very good reasons.

233
The first reason—and I say this with great respect to you, Mr. Speaker—is that whoever was appointed Speaker, from the moment that the Bill was passed, could regard his office as a lifelong job from which he could never be turned out. There would be no check on his appointment, either by the House or by a constituency. I think that that would be very wrong.
The second point is that once we introduce a Measure of this kind, creating one Member of Parliament, whatever his office, in a quite separate, distinctive and privileged category from any other Member, we would have his deputies wishing that they had the same privilege. It would not be long before
the House extended this privilege, or uniqueness, to Deputy-Speakers and Chairmen of Committees. At present, we have the straightforward practice that every Member of the House, no matter what his position, however dignified and honourable, is liable to the chance of the polls. It is very wise that we should retain that, even with so high and privileged an office as that of Mr. Speaker.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business): —
The House divided: Ayes 68 Noes 76

Division No. 96.]

AYES

[4.4 p.m.

Ainsley, William

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

O'Malley, B. K.

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

Holman, Percy

Paton, John

Beaney, Alan

Houghton, Douglas

Prentice, R. E.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Randall, Harry

Bradley, Tom

Hynd, H. (Acorington)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Brockway, A. Fenner

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Rodgers, w. T. (Stockton)

Collick, Percy

Janner, Sir Barnett

Sorensen, R. W.

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Jennings, J. C.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Crossman, R. H. S.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Dalyell, Tarn

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

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Darling, George

Lipton, Marcus

Thornton, Ernest

Dodds, Norman

Loughlin, Charles

Thorpe, Jeremy

Driberg, Tom

Lubbock, Eric

Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Tomney, Frank

Fernyhough, E.

McCann, John

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Finch, Harold

MacDermot, Niall

Walnwright, Edwin

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

McInnes, James

Warbey, William

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

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

Willey, Frederick

Gooch, E. G.

Mapp, Charles

Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

Grey, Charles

Marsh, Richard

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Millan, Bruce

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hannan, William

Montgomery, Fergus

Mr. Manuel and Mr. Mackie.

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

NOES

Barlow, Sir John

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Neal, Harold

Barter, John

Green, Alan

Neave, Airey

Benson, Sir George

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Black, Sir Cyril

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Bossom, Hon. Clive

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Box, Donald

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Pott, Percivall

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Prior, J. M. L.

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

Cary, Sir Robert

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Rawlinson, Sir Peter

Channon, H. P. G.

Lagden, Godfrey

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Cleaver, Leonard

Lancaster, Col. C, G.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Cooke, Robert

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Shepherd, William

Cordle, John

Lawson, George

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

Crawley, Aidan

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Stodart, J. A.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Lilley, F. J. P.

Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

Donaldson, Cmdr. G. E. M.

Longden, Gilbert

Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

Doughty, Charles

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Turner, Colin

Duncan, Sir James

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Walker, Peter

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

Maclean, SirFltzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Eden, John

Maitland, Sir John

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Mathew, Robert (Honlton)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Mawby, Ray

Farr, John

Miscampbell, Norman

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Sir Frank Markham and

Galpern, Sir Myer

Morrison, John

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke.

George, Sir John (Pollok)

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Marsh, Mr. Arthur Skeffington, Mr. Niall MacDermot, Mr. Tom Driberg, Mr. Bruce Millan, and Mr. Jeremy Thorpe.

MR. SPEAKER'S CONSTITUENCY
Bill to provide for the creation of a constituency to be known as St. Stephen's and represented by Mr. Speaker, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 3rd May, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 3, page 3, line 9, page 4, lines 7, 9, 12, and 13. Clause 13, page 9, lines 43 and 46, Clause 18, page 12, line 11, Clause 24, page 14, line 31, the proposed Clauses (Certain parks not to be entered in valuation roll) and (Amendment of s. 243 of Act of 1947), and the Amendment to Schedule 3, page 18, line 7, column 3, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Secretary Noble.—[Mr. Leburn.]
  Question amended, by adding to the end:
  "and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 3, page 3. line 8, and page 4, line 10, and the proposed Clauses (Exchequer grants) and (Adjustment of weighted population in respect of unemployed), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. William Ross".—[Mr. Ross.]
  "and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 1, page 2, line 4, and Clause 2, page 2, line 11, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Willis".—[Mr. Willis.]
  "and in respect of the proposed Clause (Certain village halls not to be entered in valuation roll) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Hendry".—[Mr. Hendry.]
  and, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  Clause 1.—(CONTINUATION OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO EXCHEQUER EQUALISA TION AND TRANSITIONAL GRANTS.)
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4. at the end to add:
  Subject to the proviso that the aggregate sum payable to Scottish local authorities by way of Exchequer Equalisation Grant shall be increased by 5 per cent. for every 1 per cent. of registered unemployed during the relevant year.
  The Chairman: I think that it will be convenient to discuss, at the same

  237
  time, the new Clause, "Adjustment of weighted population in respect of unemployed", in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and other hon. Members, with an opportunity for a Division on this new Clause at a later stage if that be desired, and also the Amendment, on the Report stage, in Clause 9, page 7, line 30, at the end to insert:
  (5) In addition to the provisions of the foregoing subsection the weighted population of an area shall be increased by the number of unemployed persons registered there at 1st February in the immediately preceding year.
  Mr. Willis: Before I proceed, Sir William, could I be clear whether it will be possible to vote on the other Amendment?
  The Chairman: Specifically, on the new Clause, the answer is "Yes". I prefer not to answer the question as to the Amendment on the Report stage, because that is for the House as a whole and not for my decision in Committee.
  Mr. Archie Manuel: On a point of order, Sir William. I hope that I have understood clearly what you have said about the Amendment in my name in Clause 9, page 7, line 30. Did you say that we could have an opportunity to vote on that as well as on the others?
  The Chairman: Perhaps I did not make it clear in my previous answer. There will be an opportunity to vote on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). There will be an opportunity, if desired, to vote on the new Clause, "Adjustment of weighted population in respect of unemployed". Whether or not there will be an opportunity to vote on the Amendment in the name of the hon. Gentleman during the Report stage I should not like to say, because I am here now only as Chairman of the Committee.
  Mr. Willis: Clause 1 of the Bill continues the provisions relating to Exchequer equalisation and transitional grants, and the Amendment which I have moved is designed to increase the amount payable by way of Exchequer equalisation grant in accordance with the percentages set out. The Amendment recognises a problem which greatly exercised the Standing Committee, namely, the high
  238
  and continuing level of unemployment in Scotland. If it were accepted, it would, at present, mean, roughly, an additional £5 million to be added to the Exchequer equalisation grant for distribution among the local authorities, and this, I suggest, would help the local authorities in dealing with the problem so far as it affects them.
  As I have said, everyone is aware that unemployment is a continuing problem in Scotland. It has not suddenly appeared during the winter months, owing to the bad weather. It has gone on for far too long, and, in spite of everything which the Government claim to have done, the fact remains that it is far worse in April, 1963, than it was in April, 1962. That does not indicate that any progress has been made during the past year. If we go back to the days of the Labour Government and compare the present situation with April, 1951, the increase in unemployment is even greater. That is a measure of the Government's failure to deal with this problem. It is also a measure of the needs of local authorities.
  We on this side have advocated a number of measures to deal with unemployment. We feel not that there is any single remedy for this problem, but that it should be attacked on a number of fronts and that one front is the local authority front. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) tried to introduce a Private Member's Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule procedure which he thought would have helped in this respect Some local authorities in Scotland have built advance factories. A number of other things have been done by local authorities in an effort to assist.
  Unemployment involves local authorities in expenditure. If local authorities are anxious to deal with the problem of unemployment in their areas, they will undertake the expenditure necessary to do that. This is already being done. I have just said that some local authorities have built advance factories, for which they do not receive a grant, to try to encourage industrialists to go to their areas. Other local authorities have launched campaigns to try to attract industrialists to their areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West represents part of a county which has just

  239
  launched a big campaign to attract industries to its area. A similar campaign has been launched by Midlothian.
  If there were full employment in these areas, there would be no reason for these campaigns. The reason for them arises from the fact that there is heavy unemployment, and, therefore, local authorities are involved in considerable expenditure, not only in the directions which I have mentioned, but also, if they wish to deal with unemployment in their areas, by the speeding up of local government works, which is what any local authority worth its salt will do. But we have a Secretary of State who is viciously cutting down local authority programmes. When a local authority wishes to embark on a big educational programme and to build schools, the right hon. Gentleman viciously cuts it down precisely at the time when many people in Scotland are looking for work.
  That is not the sort of thing that we visualise. We realise that local authorities will be involved in expenditure if they try to speed up work in their areas and to go ahead with projects to alleviate the unemployment in their areas. It is clear that if a local authority wishes to play its part in dealing with the unemployment problem in its area—and this applies to most areas in Scotland at present—it will be involved in fairly substantial expenditure.
  There is the other side of the picture, namely, that heavy unemployment in a local government area probably means a loss of revenue. The likelihood is that the revenue-earning services will not earn the sum that they usually earn. Therefore, expenditure will be the smaller. They will probably lose money on their housing revenue accounts and will be unable to meet certain expenditures falling on unemployed people by the grant of a remission of rates. Some local authorities will even suffer from a loss of rents. All these things cause loss to local authorities and, therefore, less will be spent on revenue-earning projects.
  We suggest that in an area like Scotland, which has had a rate of unemployment double that of the rest of Great Britain ever since the war, it is necessary to assist local authorities in meeting the expenditure which arises from this situation. We suggest that for every
  240
  1 per cent. of registered unemployed there should be a 5 per cent. increase in the Exchequer equalisation grant, which, I think, works out at about £1 million based on the present figure for every 1 per cent. of unemployment, which means an additional £5 million.
  This would also create an additional £5 million in purchasing power in Scotland and I have no doubt that a considerable part of it—I do not suggest all of it—would be spent in Scotland. The exact amount would depend on the extent to which local authorities wished to spent in Scotland. Whatever policy they followed in spending this money, they would without doubt, I think, spend a considerable part of it in Scotland and, to that extent, it would help to create employment in Scotland. Therefore, I suggest that the Amendment is worthy of the Committee's serious attention.
  During our Committee discussions, we tried to deal with the difficulties arising from unemployment by various means. We have some quite good debates. Hon. Members on both sides expressed concern about unemployment. I was sorry to see that some hon. Members opposite did not seem to be so concerned with the Report stage because they failed to table the Amendments which they had tabled in Committee despite the fact that the Government offered to consider them and to see what could be done about them. The Under-Secretary of State will know that his hon. Friends now sitting behind him spoke of the excellent service which their contributions and Amendments had performed. He will remember that his hon. Friends said to him that their contributions would strengthen his hand when he went to see the Treasury. I am wondering why hon. Members opposite have suddenly become so timid. This timidity is not becoming of them.
  The Earl of Dalkeith: We have strengthened his hand. We have achieved our object.
  Mr. Willis: I find it difficult to see how their object has been achieved in the Amendments put on the Notice Paper by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I see no Amendments dealing with unemployment tabled by hon. Members opposite. Admittedly, there is an Amendment dealing with a concession on rebates. While that is part of the same question, the unemployment problem is

  241
  not dealt with in the way that we are trying to deal with it, namely, by recognising the problem of unemployment by granting additional moneys to local authorities to help in solving it.
  Mr. James McInnes: Where are all the Tories?
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: I do not know where all hon. Members opposite are. Obviously, they are not very interested in unemployment in Scotland. We on this side of the Committee are very interested. We think that this proposition is very useful. The proposition was not made during the Committee stage. We tended to seek to divide the equalisation grant rather differently, as the Under-Secretary knows. But this would give us a larger overall amount to divide in rather a different fashion from the method which we advocated in Committee.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary has given this Amendment, which has been on the Notice Paper for some time, very close thought and consideration and that he is convinced of its worthiness and will accept it. In fact, the debate will be much shorter if he tells us that he is prepared to accept the Amendment.
  Even if he has not quite made up his mind, perhaps he will listen to the arguments to be advanced, in addition to those which I have put forward, and, at the end of the day, will agree that this is a worth-while proposition, that it seeks to do what all good Scotsmen would like to do, namely, assist the unemployed in Scotland, as well as the economic situation.
  Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Craig-ton): I support the Amendment. I wish to talk particularly about the proposed new Clause, "Adjustment of weighted population in respect of unemployed", which has the same purpose as the Amendment, namely, to increase the total Exchequer equalisation grant payable to Scotland, but which proposes to do it in rather a different way from that proposed in the Amendment.
  On the general argument, I do not wish to go over all the ground which has been covered so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), but I want to reinforce the point that he made relating to large-scale unemployment in a local authority
  242
  area when the local authority is involved in additional expenditure.
  I would mention, in addition to the matters that have already been mentioned by my hon. Friend, the Government's recent proposal to local authorities that they should initiate schemes costing up to £15,000, both on revenue and capital expenditure, with the specific purpose of alleviating unemployment. I am sure that a number of local authorities in Scotland have carried out work under the specific request from the Government.
  That work, to some extent, will be subject to Government grant, but in the case of other minor works of that nature with the specific purpose of relieving unemployment—for instance, works involving educational expenditure which is subject to the general block grant—this expenditure will have been added to the local authority expenditure burden without any compensation from the Government. Yet it is expenditure which has been incurred specifically to relieve local unemployment. That, added to the other instances mentioned by my hon. Friend, illustrates the amount of additional expenditure in which local authorities may well find themselves involved because they have higher than average unemployment figures.
  There is, however, another aspect of the question. If, in a local authority area, there is high unemployment, there is a correspondingly reduced ability on the part of the ratepayers to pay the local rates, at whatever level they may be, and it seems to me that there is a case for giving additional assistance to local authorities in that position, from this point of view, almost stronger than the case for giving them additional assistance because of the additional expenditure which they may have to carry out.
  These are the general arguments. I should now like to deal with the specific way in which the additional assistance should be given, and how it should be calculated. During our debates in Committee a constant theme of the Undersecretary has been that we must, whatever we do, maintain parity between Scotland, on the one hand, and England and Wales, on the other, in the calculation of total Exchequer equalisation grant, and we have had considerable arguments as to whether or not the present position maintains parity between the two countries.

  243
  I do not propose to go over all these arguments again, but I want to draw the Under-Secretary's attention to the method which is outlined in the proposed new Clause for adjusting the Exchequer equalisation grant for Scotland because of higher than average unemployment, and to point out to him that this method does maintain parity between Scotland, on the one hand, and England and Wales, on the other.
  What is proposed is that the weighted population which is used in the formula for calculating the Scottish total grant should be adjusted to take account of excess unemployment in Scotland in comparison with unemployment in England and Wales. I am not proposing, and the Clause does not propose, that the total Scottish unemployment should be added to the weighted population, because one would perhaps have an inequitable position. It is simply suggested that the additional Scottish unemployment over what the figure would be if our unemployment rate were the same as the rate for England and Wales should be added to the weighted population. It seems to me that this is a perfectly equitable way of making an adjustment to the formula.
  What would this new Clause cost the Government? I calculate that, on the present unemployment figures, where the Scottish percentage is 5·2 as compared with the United Kingdom percentage, excluding Northern Ireland, of 2·7, the cost to the Exchequer might be about £1 million. But the important point is this. If the Government were to reduce the unemployment in Scotland to the same figure as exists in England and Wales, this proposed new Clause would not cost the Government a penny.
  The new Clause, in fact, gives a financial incentive—apart from the other incentives—to the Government to reduce the Scotish unemployment figure to the level which exists in England and Wales. If the Government succeeded in doing this, it would not cost them a penny to have this adjustment to the formula written into the legislation.
  Mr. John Brewis: Surely it is equally true of any amount spent on alleviating local unemployment like the recent measures in the Budget.
  Mr. Millan: I am not sure whether that was meant to be a helpful intervention or
  244
  not. I assume that it was. In fact, the hon. Gentleman is accepting my point. If the Government's policy succeeds in reducing unemployment the Government will save money, and I should have thought that that was an admirable principle for the Government to accept.
  May I remind the Under-Secretary of the analogy with Clause 3? The Government are apparently concerned about rent levels and are introducing a formula for reducing Exchequer equalisation grant to local authorities if their rent levels are, in the Government's view, too low. The Government have pointed out that this would give an incentive to local authorities to raise their rent levels, and that if they raised their rent levels they would not lose anything under Clause 3.
  If we employ the same sort of principle to this proposed new Clause—the only difference being that the Government's reasoning on Clause 3 is fallacious, whereas my reasoning is not—we find that there is a similar incentive on the part of the Government to get the Scottish economy much more prosperous than it is at present, and if this were to happen the Government would not have to spend any money under the new Clause.
  When this matter was discussed in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State promised to consult the local authority organisations about the new Clause. In columns 497 and 498 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee, he gave the most specific assurances that he would discuss these matters with them.
  Two matters are involved. One is the alteration of the formula to increase the total sum coming to Scotland and the other is the alteration to take unemployment into the formula for the distribution of the total. That is a necessary counterpart to the new Clause of which I have been speaking. I understand, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is specifically concerned with that, since he has put down an Amendment for the purpose of altering the distribution formula within Scotland.
  The two matters of the total grant and the distribution formula were to be discussed with the local authority associations. I shall be interested to know the outcome of the consultations. I cannot imagine that the local authorities would wish to reject the kind of

  245
  new Clause of which I have been speaking, because no local authority, whatever its unemployment position, could fail to gain under the new Clause. In so far as the total which comes to Scotland is increased, every local authority would be able to gain to some extent.
  I hope that the local authority associations have told the Under-Secretary that they are in favour of the new Clause and that he will now accept it. I am heartened a little by what the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) said about the Government having given in on this matter, although there is nothing to that effect upon the Notice Paper. I take that to mean that the Under-Secretary will simply accept our Amendments. That would be a desirable outcome to our discussions. If the hon. Gentleman were to do that, he would give another example of the Government's determination to help to solve the unemployment problem in Scotland.
  Mr. Forbes Hendry: It is true that in Standing Committee I spoke with conviction in favour of the new Clause. Since then, I have given the whole question careful thought—
  Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member is now backing out.
  Mr. Hendry: I supported the new Clause taken in conjunction with an Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). In considering the matter, I feel that I was to some extent wrong in the action which I took at that time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is only fair to explain to hon. Members opposite exactly why I have come to that view.
  If there is a high proportion of unemployment in any local employment area, and if the local authority action to provide work for those who are unemployed, I may be wrong but it seems to me that the expenditure incurred by the local authority in doing that might rank for Government grant in one of two ways. It might rank for Government grant under the Local Employment Act, which could be to the great advantage of the local authority. At the same time, the expenditure would rank directly for equalisation grant by way of expenditure
  246
  and not because of some hypothetical burden which might descend upon the local authority.
  In view of that, it seems to me that on the general principle the local authority would get Government grant to compensate it for the extra expenditure which it is called upon to meet.
  Mr. Manuel Mr. Manuel indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hendry: Possibly, the hon. Member will explain where I am wrong. On the other hand, I agree, and I always have done, that a local authority might find itself burdened in another way under Clause 3.
  Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Member tell me under what Act of Parliament the local authority gets 100 per cent. of its local employment expenditure met by grant?
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Hendry: I never said such a thing. Possibly, the hon. Member will have something to say about that. I think, however, that I am right in saying that any expenditure so incurred by a local authority would rank for equalisation grant. As far as I can see, it would also rank, provided that the local authority was in an appropriate area, for grants under the Local Employment Act. I have investigated this matter on behalf of certain local authorities in my constituency who are eligible for such grants.
  I said that a local authority might suffer, because it might not be able to get the whole of its council house rants. In that case, it would suffer under Clause 3 of the Bill. It would, no doubt, be out of order for me to go into that subject at length at this stage, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put down an Amendment to Clause 3 which is designed specifically to deal with that very point. Taking these two sets of circumstances together, I consider that the Amendments which we are discussing and the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) are not the best way of dealing with the situation.
  When this matter was dealt with earlier, we discussed all sorts of ways of dealing with the problem. There was the great difficulty that Scotland might suffer as compared with England. If the new Clause which will be proposed later

  247
  by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is passed by the Committee, and becomes law, Scotland will not suffer as compared with England.
  My other objection is that the whole matter is purely hypothetical. There is no actual hard expenditure which would rank for equalisation grant under the Amendment or the new Clause. If, however, a local authority incurs expenditure, I suggest that it would be amply compensated by Government grants under different legislation from that which we are discussing.
  Mr. Manuel: No doubt, other hon. Members as well as myself are greatly surprised at the contribution to which we have just listened from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). Obviously, the hon. Member has only scratched the surface about Government schemes financed by local authorities and about the Exchequer equalisation grant. He has had the opportunity to look at the list of local authorities which are receiving grants. Many local authorities do not receive any Exchequer equalisation grant. Any local authority which is trying to bring forward a scheme to relieve unemployment and which is not receiving Exchequer equalisation grant will not have the opportunity of getting a proportion of the global sum of equalisation grant against that relevant expenditure.
  On an earlier occasion, we had from the Under-Secretary of State quite a lecture—a most helpful contribution—about how the scheme operated, but the sweeping remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West are quite wrong. This whole problem has been dealt with fraudulently. There was a promise from the central Government to local authorities which undertook reclamation work or the clearance of derelict areas. We had a fraudulent presentation which did not mean the impression that was conveyed in the House.
  I have read in my local newspaper of the great trouble that has been taken by one local authority in dealing with the Scottish Office—I do not want to read the whole correspondence, but I have it with me—concerning the Scottish Development Department and in attempting to get schemes of reclamation
  248
  of the foreshore and derelict land. Mr. G. M. Fair, an official of the Scottish Development Department, wrote at length replying to the town clerk that the scope of the circular extended both to projects which would fall to be financed by local authorities themselves and to projects which would in the normal way be eligible for grant or subsidy.
  If the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West accepts the Scottish Office circular he must accept this remark to the local authority. It would be better if the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) were to name the local authority than that I should, but I have here my local newspaper, and I have taken an interest in this matter. The town clerk replied to Mr. Fair:
  "If I understand the position correctly the circular does not, in fact, infer any promise of new or additional financial assistance to local authorities in the distressed areas, but simply the expedition of existing departmental procedures. I am afraid that this will be received with disappointment."
  Mr. Fair replied, as reported on 8th February this year, repeating that the basic purpose of the circular was to enable local authorities in selected areas to bring forward a number of projects which, because of earlier capital investment limitations, might have had to be deferred for some time. It did not, as had been inferred, offer any new kind of financial assistance.
  Mr. Hendry: Is the hon. Member suggesting that that expenditure would not rank for the equalisation grant?
  Mr. Manuel: I said that there are many local authorities—and the hon. Member is bound to know this—which do not qualify for the Exchequer equalisation grant. Many of the authorities starting schemes of this kind will not qualify. We had quite a lengthy contribution from the Under-Secretary of State about this. I want to clear this up only because of the remarks that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West made. All that we have been promised in new commitments by the Treasury is merely the bringing forward of schemes which would have been adopted anyhow. That is why I say that it is rather fraudulent.
  I want to support the Amendment moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in his usual fluent and invigorating style.

  249
  and also the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). I want to devote my remarks to the Amendment we are considering dealing with weighting for unemployment. I can see no reason why unemployment should not be a weighting factor as well as the number of schoolchildren under 15 or the number of miles of road, or anything else, particularly when we are suffering from the harsh injustices of heavy and persistent unemployment in many areas. The Government ought to have looked at this. There are certain areas which are much more heavily hit by unemployment than others, and to aid such areas we think that weighted population should be increased by the number of unemployed persons registered at 1st February in the year immediately preceding.
  Those words sound rather familiar. We debated this at some length along with our new Clause in Standing Committee. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, I wonder why the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) who was so much at one with us in the Standing Committee, has not got an Amendment on the Paper. He must remember that in Standing Committee an Amendment of his was debated along with our new Clause, and we were agreed on it. I am tempted to record one or two of the things said by hon. Members opposite. I have met local organisations, along with the hon. Gentleman, and he has been deeply concerned about unemployment not only in my area but in his area where I live. The Undersecretary of State rather slipped up on a certain understanding he gave us, and I certainly expected that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire would have put down an Amendment on Report. I discussed it with one or two of my hon. Friends. We thought that possibly he was out of the country, for he travels extensively, and that was the reason, perhaps, that it slipped his memory; or perhaps he was engaged in some military explorations. However, do not let us forget that the hon. Gentleman withdrew his Amendment in Standing Committee only because of a pledge he received—as we did. Many Members on both sides of the Standing Committee supported both the hon. Gentleman's Amendment and our new Clause.
  250
  The Under-Secretary of State is not going to ride off from this today. My job today is, I think, to make certain that he toes the line and answers this debate very fully, and particularly about that promise. He realised in the Standing Committee that on that occasion he was going to be defeated and that was the only reason why he suggested in his best Highland manner—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that he would consult the local authority associations—as a get out. He did it as a get out because he knew he would be defeated. The Tory Whip had slipped him a note—
  Sir Fitzroy Maclean: Will the hon. Member just say what he means by "his best Highland manner"?
  Mr. Manuel: Well, it was—
  The Chairman: Order. I think the Committee will be well advised to keep closer to the Amendment.
  Mr. Manuel: I was merely thinking, Sir William, of the—
  Sir F. Maclean: On a point of order. If an hon. Member uses a phrase surely it is in order to ask him what he means—
  Mr. Manuel: Yes.
  Sir F. Maclean: —even if it is rather contentious?
  The Chairman: I accept that, but it must be borne in mind that we have a good deal of business to get through.
  Mr. Manuel: All I meant was this, that the Under-Secretary's constituency borders the Highlands and he was meeting those very polite people who can give one a very nice answer at all times, and that is what he did. Highlanders are very good negotiators. I think that is a tribute I should pay them.
  I would say to the Under-Secretary that he might play these games too often. We ought to have known. I rather blame myself. We ought to have known the outcome of this little manoeuvre in Standing Committee. I cannot possibly imagine how the local authority representatives turned down the formula in the new Clause—
  Mr. Millan: Why is my hon. Friend assuming that they turned it down?
  Mr. Manuel: I am hoping that the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary is less dishonest than my hon. Friend thinks he is. I am assuming—I agree, only assuming—that it was turned down because the Amendments before us indicate that the case we put up has not been supported by the local authority associations.
  Mr. William Baxter: Would it not be of benefit to the Committee if the Under-Secretary would give us some indication whether or not, after his consultations with the local authorities, they were in agreement with the principle in this Amendment or were in disagreement with that principle? I think we are entitled to know that so that we can better proceed with the debate.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Manuel: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire, West (Mr. W. Baxter) that we shall certainly not depart from this until we have had the Under-Secretary's reply.
  I cannot understand that they would turn down a proposition which would give an increased global sum to Scotland by way of Exchequer equalisation grant. From the contacts that I have, I know that the Ayrshire Burghs Association, which comprises seventeen burghs, among them the large burghs of Kilmarnock and Ayr, were completely unanimous. I could quote the correspondence on this, because they wrote to me and also took it up with the Scottish Office. What reply did the Secretary of State send to them when they were asking that our proposals be adopted? That is a large body of burghs—the whole of Ayrshire completely unanimous—and I am sure that this would infiltrate a little into the constituency of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) that borders Ayrshire. I am very interested in all this. I want the Under-Secretary to explain what the Amendment meant so far as apportionment was concerned once the global sum was received. Did he really explain the formula embodied in our new Clause which would have meant, if he had accepted it, a sum going to Scotland additional to the present global sum? Did he explain that fully to the Association? He agreed that the matter must go before the local authority associations.
  252
  I wish that I had the opportunity of meeting these local authority associations and putting the case to them. I cannot imagine that they would not have accepted the proposition to which we devoted so much time and so many of our speeches in Committee. I am quite sure that they would have adopted the proposals. The Under-Secretary of State may think that he has been very clever. He has not really. He has only hastened the day when possibly there will be a rather big show-down between the local authorities and the Government, if they continue long enough in office and play this sort of game.
  In Committee we had quite massive support. There was not a speech which I remember against the propositions contained in the Amendment or the new Clause. There was a little doubt perhaps by the hon. Member for Galloway, but he came down in support of them; he could not go against them. I do not want to quote his speech. The hon. Member for Galloway was fully satisfied and he came down in support of them. It was the consensus of opinion that we should have a weighting of the Exchequer equalisation grant dealing with unemployment. On the Government side, we had a speech supporting them from the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West. The latter retracted today—back pedalled—but he said in Committee, dealing with this Amendment and new Clause, that we should help these areas of high unemployment by giving them more Exchequer grants. He said:
  "I plead with my hon. Friend to look at this matter again before Report. If he does, he will save many of his loyal supporters from a great deal of embarrassment. I do not wish to discuss the merits of the case which has been well and truly made."
  No wonder the hon. Member has fled from the Chamber.
  "Hon. Members who, like myself, spent the weekend in areas where there is high unemployment appreciate the tremendous burden in relation to it which falls upon local authorities and the people in their areas."
  There we have what he said, and we have heard him today. I would also add in support the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), the hon. Member for Galloway and the hon. Member for

  253
  Aberdeenshire, West. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East mentioned, we had the final contribution from the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire, who was so satisfied that the Government would do something that his final conclusion was:
  "I was very glad to hear what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said. It will give him an opportunity for consultation with the Treasury. I hope that the discussion this morning will have strengthened his hand.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 5th March, 1963; c. 493 and 501.]
  That is where we finished that. The hon. Member, along with the rest of us, has been completely let down by agreeing to the Under-Secretary's suggestion that he should discuss it with the local authority associations. He will be telling us later, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West did, that the local authorities can help themselves by setting up schemes to help unemployment which may get some grants. Very often a local authority has not the financial resources.
  In the newspaper report that I mentioned, the town clerk writing to the Scottish Development Department was pointing out this very thing, that in an area so much depressed by unemployment the local authorities themselves have not the financial elbow room to start big schemes which could help to relieve unemployment in their areas. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us the details very fully of his discussions with the local authority associations and give us the reasons for not supporting especially the new Clause which would have given Scotland more money. If they knew that and deliberately turned it down they were disloyal to Scotland, and I shall take every opportunity when meeting these people, no matter what their political colour may be, of telling them so in no uncertain fashion.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): In view of what has been said, particularly by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), it might be helpful if I now try to answer the points so far put. I thought that it would be courteous to allow the three hon. Members speaking to these two Amendments and the new Clause to put their points of view before I intervened.
  254
  The effect of these proposals would be to increase the Scottish total of the Exchequer equalisation grants. In the first place, the grants would be increased directly by 5 per cent. for every 1 per cent. of registered unemployed in the year. I shall not go into the increases which would be given under the plan suggested by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). He described it as a more equitable one, but I understand quite clearly what he meant. On the other hand, the Amendment spoken to by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire concerns mainly distribution.
  Thus, the Amendments and the new Clause would entail an increase of the Exchequer equalisation grants going to Scotland. Unemployment is a very great evil and my right hon. and hon. Friends are just as concerned about it as any other right hon. and hon. Members. Of course, the Government have done a great deal and are doing a great deal, but I do not think that it would be appropriate for us to launch today upon a general debate on unemployment in Scotland.
  What we are considering here is whether it is appropriate that unemployment should be taken into account as a factor when dealing with the Exchequer equalisation grants. However great an evil unemployment is, I do not believe that it has a massive effect on local authority budgets. They are now no longer responsible for such things as public assistance and, of course, are certainly not responsible for unemployment benefit. But what may make a significant difference are capital development and council house rents.
  The present arrangements for Exchequer equalisation grants ensure that the grant paid to a local authority increases proportionately with its expenditure. I want to make that clear. This means that loan charges on additional capital investment undertaken to improve basic services and provide employment attract grant at the usual rate applicable to the local authority in question. Similarly, an increase in the housing deficit due to loss of income from rent through a rebate scheme for unemployed families or others with low incomes attracts grant, except, of course, in the case of a local authority which might have a reduction made under Clause 3.

  255
  This additional grant is not at the expense of other local authorities but is a further contribution from the Exchequer, since the amount of grant payable in total is not a fixed sum but a sum which varies in proportion to relevant expenditure in each year. In other words, the Exchequer equalisation grant increases as expenditure increases.
  I really think that it is difficult to say that there is a case for any further general provision in the system designed to take account of unemployment. In particular, there must be no good case for giving additional weighting to unemployment in the calculation of the aggregate of the Scottish grants, but having said that, I want to make one qualification. It is true that there may be special difficulties for authorities which suffer reductions under Clause 3 but which have to allow a large number of rebates because of unemployment. I hope, however, that we will not discuss that point at the present time.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is the only one doing so.
  Mr. Leburn: But I wanted to make this qualification.
  Mr. Ross: Why?
  Mr. Leburn: Because I felt that it was a factor which must be mentioned. However, I do not wish to discuss it now, for we shall do so on Clause 3.
  Now I want to turn to the question of the discussions I held with the local authorities. I believe that the outcome of these discussions gives me another very good reason for suggesting that the Amendment should not be accepted. As has been said, when we were considering similar Amendments in Committee upstairs I undertook to consult the local authority associations. As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire suggests, I did this because of representations made—I go no further than that—by my hon. Friends the Members for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), and Galloway (Mr. Brewis) and also by the hon. Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and Central Ayrshire.
  5.15 p.m.
  I saw the local authority representatives on 29th March and discussed with them the question of unemployment weightings in respect of both the total and the dis-
  256
  tribution of the total. I assure hon. Gentlemen that there was no question of any manœuvre. There was no question of being very clever. If I say that it might be helpful or beneficial to consult the local authority associations, surely that is not a question of manoeuvre or of being clever.
  Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman will remember that at first he would not give way and that he told us so. It was only later that he manœoeuvred in order not to get beaten in Committee. He could avoid defeat only by giving way and saying that he would meet the local authorities.
  Mr. Leburn: I may not be good at algebraic equations, but I can see as far through a brick wall as the hon. Gentleman can. It is perfectly usual for a Minister in Committee to discuss a point at length and then perhaps change his mind. If I look up the records I am sure that we will find that on more than one occasion during the Committee stage, having listened to further arguments by hon. Gentlemen, I changed my mind.
  Mr. Willis: What the hon. Gentleman exercised his mind about was not whether or no he should accept the Amendment but whether he could find a way out of the difficulty he was in. He found a way out by suggesting that he would see the local authorities, not by accepting the overwhelming majority opinion in the Committee.
  Mr. Leburn: Hon. Members opposite really have the most sinister suspicions in their minds.
  Mr. Willis: We know the Tories.
  Mr. Leburn: The local authority associations did not favour the introduction of a weighting for unemployment either in regard to the calculation of the aggregate or in regard to distribution. They felt that new factors tended to have unpredictable effects and led to pressure for even more new factors to be introduced. They did not think that an adjustment to equalisation grants was the way to tackle unemployment. I say that quite unequivocally. They came to this conclusion without any prompting from me. There was no question of my either manoeuvring or trying to be clever. I give the Committee that absolute assurance.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock) rose—
  Mr. Leburn: I will give way in a moment.
  In saying all this I am not suggesting that the local authorities were entirely happy with the present grant arrangements as they affect unemployment relief projects. They felt that they should have direct grants to projects undertaken to relieve unemployment. They made that point to me. As a matter of fact, they asked me if I would make that point quite clear in these discussions, and I am so doing. They made it clear to me that what they wanted was direct grants, but they did not think that unemployment was an appropriate factor which ought to be taken into account in the calculation of either the aggregate or the distribution of Exchequer equalisation grant. I hope that in these circumstances and in view of what I have said—
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman added that second bit to what he said. Are we to take it —I want the hon. Gentleman to read his words again tomorrow—that the three associations said exactly the same thing, that they said exactly what the hon. Gentleman is now reciting, because, surely, there was some difference of opinion?
  Mr. Leburn: My fair understanding of the matter is that the three associations were unanimous in what I have here recited.
  Mr. Willis: All this is very interesting. Of course, it arose out of the discussion on the new Clause which centres around weighting. But, of course, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it does not apply to the first Amendment, which I moved. Therefore, all this about local authorities really has nothing to do with the first Amendment. That being so, I should now like the hon. Gentleman to address his answer to my first Amendment.
  Mr. Leburn: The point is that, of course, I could not discuss the hon. Gentleman's Amendment with the local authority associations because I am pretty certain that at that time the Amendment was not, in fact, in existence or on the Order Paper. What I discussed with the local authority asso-
  258
  ciations was whether the weighting for unemployment should be taken into account in the calculation either of the aggregate of the Exchequer equalisation grant or in its distribution, and I have tried to give the Committee an accurate account of the views of the associations. I am bound to be swayed—this is bound to affect my decision in the matter—but I believe that I have given perfectly strong arguments over and above that as to why I could not accept this Amendment or the other one, when we come to it, and I hope that the Committee will not press it.
  Mr. W. Baxter: I was for years a member of the County Councils Association for Scotland, and I cannot understand how the County Councils Association could have consulted its members and given the hon. Gentleman its considered opinion when this Amendment was withdrawn only on 5th March to enable the hon. Gentleman to consult the associations. My experience of that body, of which, as I have said, I was a member, is that it would be quite impossible to get its considered opinion in such a short time. It may be that the hon. Gentleman met one or two members of the County Council Association, but for the life of me I cannot understand how he could have got the county councils' considered opinion.
  Mr. Leburn: I really cannot tell whether the associations consulted their members or not, but if my memory serves me right, I met at least thirty people—their number might have been just over or just under thirty—when they attended this meeting. Whether or not they consulted all their members I would not know.
  Mr. Ross: I do not know how my hon. Friends feel, but I was disappointed though not surprised at the hon. Gentleman's speech. He will remember what I said after he made his submission to his hon. Friends, under pressure from us, in Committee. I will remind him of what I said on 5th March:
  "Now he proposes to discuss it with local authority associations, but he cannot promise us anything. I will promise the Committee something: when we are told about this later, the Government will have the comfortable majority of the whole House of Commons, including English and Northern Irish hon. Members. The Under-Secretary will not be faced with a relatively hostile and determined

  259
  Scottish Standing Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 5th March, 1963; c. 499.]
  I was surprised by the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). I was surprised at his temerity in saying what he did, although I am glad that he said something about the matter rather than just walking into the Division Lobby. Time after time in his speech he declared himself absolutely convinced of the Tightness of the principle put forward. Indeed, he went further than many of his own hon. Friends. He said in Committee that the new Clause and the Amendment went together, that the new Clause would give a greater aggregate in respect of unemployment and that the Amendment would give a fairer division in relation to unemployment. He further said that the principle was unquestionable. He spoke about unemployment in Ballater.
  One of the weaknesses of the present position and the weakness of the hon. Gentleman's speech is the assumption that everyone gets Exchequer equalisation grant. With the financial burden of unemployment not being met at all, it means that those with seasonal unemployment are ruled out. This was the point which the hon. Gentleman made. Let him answer that one to himself in relation to the speech which he made today. He said there was no argument at all about it.
  I note that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) is muttering away on the benches opposite. I do not know whether he is in a hurry to get somewhere, but I can tell him that I am not going away. He will no doubt get an opportunity to make a speech. The hon. Gentleman divided one of his speeches into two parts. The first was the fact that the effect of unemployment would be to create a burden on the local authority. Now he tries to swivel out of it. I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he is now quite satisfied because his hon. Friend is going to do something about rent rebates.
  Sir F. Maclean: I did not say anything of the kind.
  Mr. Ross: We shall see what kind of speech the hon. Gentleman will make.
  We have given two possible causes to the Under-Secretary in relation to what,
  260
  to my mind, is absolutely essential—an increase in the global figure for distribution. There is one matter, of course, which he has not answered at all. It was the point made in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend to increase by 5 per cent. in respect of over 1 per cent. of unemployment in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman said that that would cost £5 million. Is there any local authority in Scotland or local authority association in Scotland which would refuse an increase in the global figure of Exchequer equalisation grant for Scotland? Yet we are told that the hon. Gentleman discussed it with the county council associations and that they turned it down. I wish that I had been there to hear what was said. He must have put his case to them as unconvincingly as he has put it to the Committee today.
  In actual fact, of course, before the hon. Gentleman went to the Scottish local authorities on this matter he had one other journey to make. But it was a journey that he would not even promise us that he would make. He could not offer the local authorities an increased total. He knows quite well that it is the Treasury which would do that. I should like to have heard what kind of discussions went on with the Scottish local authorities. I have no doubt that discussions took place, but I know quite well that the hon. Gentleman got the decision he wanted.
  The whole Scottish Standing Committee was convinced about this matter, including hon. Members opposite who are now busy either running away or thinking out speeches which will give them another line of retreat. The Under-Secretary made his gesture and promised to do something about it because he could have been defeated in Standing Committee. The whole Scottish Standing Committee was convinced, and even the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) joined in the battle.
  5.30 p.m.
  The weakness of the equalisation grant at present is that we try to relate the rate burden in Scotland to that in England. We have had speech after speech from the Under-Secretary to say that we are a little better off because the rate burden per head of population is about £2 10s. less than it is in England and Wales. But the rate burden per head of the population

  261
  does not mean a thing. In the calculation of equalisation grant we take into account the fact that it would be unfair to consider population alone and so we have weighted population—children under 15, and miles of roads and so on. What we are saying now is that there is another factor which must be taken into account —unemployment.
  For more than twenty years, certainly since the war and long before it, unemployment in Scotland has been double that in England. There was a dramatic fall in the unemployment figures in England the other week, but there was no such change in Scotland. The headlines in the Scottish Daily Mail said that the tide had turned, but the tide will come back in and the tide of unemployment in Scotland always comes in further than it did the time before and never goes quite so far out, and it still further erodes what is left of Scottish employment every time it comes in. How far did the tide go out in Glasgow? There was a reduction in unemployment of 382; in Dumbarton, a reduction of 80; in Renfrewshire—I am sorry that the former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) has gone and I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East is not here, because the reduction of unemployment in Renfrewshire when the tide turned so dramatically was 33; the reduction in Ayrshire was 545.
  All those are areas where local authorities are being urged by their Government to spend money to create employment. But if they spend money and part of it is not met by grant, no matter how small a part, there is an additional rate burden and that residual part is even greater if the global sum for division among local authorities is not increased. It has got to the stage where local authorities cannot afford expenditures which they would like to afford, because they cannot raise the rates. This was accepted by the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire in Standing Committee and by every other hon. Member opposite. It is still true today and nothing has happened to unemployment in Scotland in the past two or three months to rob what we then suggested of its virtue. But the Government are prepared to do nothing and hon. Members opposite have changed and are prepared
  262
  to allow the Government to do nothing. We still have 114,000 unemployed and it looks as though in Scotland we will enter the summer with what we used to think was a disastrous figure for winter unemployment. Hon. Members opposite should make up their minds about whether they want action from the Government.
  The Under-Secretary said that unemployment was an evil. That was a change, because in Standing Committee he said that it was a scourge. He said that the Government were doing a lot. We can now see exactly how much they are doing and how much they have been doing when unemployment is double what it was 10 or 11 years ago. They are far too easily satisfied and here is a chance for them to do something and to get something more from the Treasury to help local authorities who would spend the money on public works. Hon. Members opposite have joined with us in pressing the Government for the implementing of schemes of public works run by local authorities. What restrains local authorities is the lack of Government grant.
  The Government do a little. They have asked authorities in certain areas to proceed with schemes costing £15,000 or less and which could be started in a short time and finished in six months. I presume that they are all started, but we still have the highest April figure for unemployment for twenty-three years. The Under-Secretary said that he was not satisfied that unemployment was a relevant factor. I am satisfied that it is. Unemployment has a depressive effect on the whole area. It affects commerce and business. If the rateable value of shops fails, the income to local authorities is correspondingly lower.
  The hon. Gentleman said that there were only factors. He said that one was local authority housing and rents and the other was capital expenditure. We accept capital expenditure, but is he saying that all the unemployed live in corporation houses? Do they not pay rates when they are living in private houses? What we are considering are not rents but the rate burden which is the sole criterion for equalisation grant. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson) got some interesting figures yesterday about the rate burden

  263
  for corporation houses. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is not here. The rate burden of corporation houses in Shetland is about 3s. 2d., but in Kilmarnock, which is to lose £12,000 a year of equalisation grant by the Bill, it is 15s. 7d. That has to be added to the rent to get the burden. Kilmarnock and every other authority troubled with unemployment has to look twice at any expenditure.
  The situation can be improved only by direct grant, but when have right hon. Gentlemen opposite ever done anything about direct grants? It was right hon. Gentlemen opposite who introduced the block grant for education and certain other expenditures, and authorities have to rely on the equalisation grant for other items although many of them get nothing.
  If there is anything which is relevant to local authority expenditure or to a reduction in local authority income it is unemployment. We proved our case in Standing Committee and we have proved it again today. We have given the Government two choices, the Amendment or the new Clause. We are at the stage where we are prepared to accept anything from the Government, but we are not prepared to accept nothing. I hope that my hon. Friends will continue the debate to convince the Government that we want action on unemployment to enable local authorities to do everything they can to reduce the level of unemployment and the distress it causes.
  Sir F. Maclean: In Committee upstairs I spoke with approval of the new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). If anything could make me change my mind on such an important question of principle it would be the hon. Gentleman's approach to this whole subject today. One says that one has to be grateful for small mercies. One of the small mercies for which I am always grateful is that it never fell to my lot to sit at the feet of the hon. Gentleman in any educational establishment. I cannot think of a worse fate.
  Mr. Ross: I was glad never to be a soldier under the hon. Gentleman.
  Sir F. Maclean: We both had lucky escapes.
  The hon. Gentleman has not, and I am sure that he is glad not to have, the Highland manner to which his hon. Friend referred, certainly not if the Highland manner consists, as is sometimes said, in the desire to please. The hon. Gentleman certainly does not have that.
  In Committee upstairs I thought that the hon. Gentleman's new Clause was complementary to the Amendment that I moved. I still think that that is the case, and I therefore propose to support it in the Lobby. Like other hon. Members on this side of the Committee, I am a great believer in incentives, and, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said, the new Clause provides an incentive to the Government to reduce unemployment in Scotland. I personally think that by the application of various incentives we have already achieved some measure of success in this respect. For instance, by constant badgering the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and I have succeeded in getting an advance factory for the Kilwinning industrial estate. I also thought that the Budget went some way to meeting Scotland's needs, and I finally think that we have achieved a partial success at any rate with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in the shape of the Amendment standing in the name of his right hon. Friend.
  Although in his speech my hon. Friend did not seem to accept the fact, the Amendment seems to recognise that an additional burden is inevitably placed on local authorities by the existence of high unemployment in their areas and I do not see how my hon. Friend can argue to the contrary. In my constituency there is no doubt that apart from the whole question of rent rebates, which we discussed in Committee upstairs and which seems to have been met by my right hon. Friend's Amendment, there are other expenses which inevitably fall on local authorities in areas where there is a high rate of unemployment. In my constituency, and in that of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, the local authorities have gone to great trouble and expense to try an all-out campaign to reduce unemployment and to attract new industry to the area.

  265
  I said a short time ago that as a Tory I believed in incentives. I also believe in keeping down Government expenditure, and it seems to me that with any luck this new Clause will have that effect too, in that if unemployment is really reduced —and we have been told by successive Secretaries of State for Scotland that they will not rest until unemployment is brought down to the United Kingdom rate—there will not be any additional expenditure involved and everybody will be pleased. Therefore, for these reasons, and in spite of the offensive approach of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock which I shall not call a Lowland approach, because Lowlanders are just as kindly and anxious to please as Highlanders, I propose to vote for the new Clause.
  5.45 p.m.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) on his decision to support the new Clause because his decision is in line with what he said in Committee upstairs. I was not a member of that Committee but I was sufficiently interested in what was happening to read its proceedings.
  I am surprised that the other critic of the Government, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), has decided today that he cannot support the new Clause. His decision surprised me after I read what he said in Committee, but I was even more surprised after reading an article written by the hon. Member in the Inverurie and District Advertiser of 15th March, 1963. Speaking about the Bill, and about the new Clause, he said:
  "Several other members, including that formidable fighter, Sir Fitzroy Maclean, said much the same thing, and to save himself from being defeated on a vote, Mr. Leburn had to give in."
  I am glad that that formidable fighter is still a fighter and willing to stick to what he believes should be done to help local authorities in areas of high unemployment. But the hon. Member for Abardeenshire, West, no doubt because he had received a number of letters from constituents, felt that he had to make a further explanation in his article, and he went on to say:
  "A lot of burghs, such as Ballater do not get any of this money, because they have high valuations and so are not supposed to need it. Some of us, and indeed after the debate most of us, thought that the number of people
  266
  unemployed, especially in the winter, should be taken into account. That would mean the Treasury finding more money and that is a thing they hate doing."
  I suppose the Treasury still hate doing it now, a month after this article was written, but something has made the hon. Gentleman change his mind. He went on to say, and this is printed in heavier type:
  "It is only by putting very severe pressure on the Government that a bit more can be squeezed out of the stony-hearted keepers of the nation's purse."
  Where is that pressure today? What has happened to the hon. Gentleman's courage? It seems to have evaporated completely. He is willing to let the Government go ahead now, even though he said in that article that the Undersecretary of State for Scotland was afraid of being defeated and had therefore decided to reconsider the new Clause. The hon. Gentleman said in his article:
  "We were convinced that we were demanding justice for our constituents, and that is why we used such strong measures."
  What has happened to that conviction? Where has it gone?
  Mr. Hendry: I think the hon. Lady will agree that it would be out of order at this stage to mention my right hon. Friend's Amendment in Clause 3, which makes a great difference to the situation.
  Miss Herbison: The hon. Member ought to know that the Government Amendment to Clause 3 will do little to compensate areas of high unemployment. This seems to be just a get-out or a face-saver for his having changed his mind. This mild Government Amendment helps so little that it is negligible. I hope that the hon. Member will have second thoughts about the matter before we vote upon it.
  He seems to know a great deal about the present Chancellor and future Chancellors, because in this article he went on to tell us what my hon. Friend the Shadow Chancellor had been saying, and to frighten the people of his constituency by saying:
  "Not only stocks and shares and money in the bank but homes and furniture will all have to be returned to the Socialists' inquisitors."
  He delves right down to the bottom of the sewer, trying to get some credit for his Government and to denigrate the

  267
  Socialist Opposition. He will discover, as he discovered elsewhere, that the Scottish voters are intelligent people and that the further he delves into the sewers the less support he will get from those people. I am certain that that will be made plain to him in West Aberdeenshire in the next election.
  Unemployment in Scotland is now very serious. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) drew a comparison between the unemployment situation in April, 1963, and April, 1951-—the last year of the Labour Government. Today in Scotland there are still 114,199 men and women unemployed. But that is not the whole picture. There are far more men unemployed than there are women—6 per cent. of the men as against 3·8 per cent. of the women. In the majority of cases the men are the people who provide the money to run the home.
  There has been much talk about rent rebates. The Government Amendment to which I have referred deals only with that question. There is a very high rate of unemployment in my county of Lanark, and there are many people who receive no rent rebates but who are given rate relief. I do not know how prevalent this practice is in other areas, but it is the result of unemployment. The rent rebate Amendment that the Undersecretary will later move will not help those people at all. The situation obtaining in areas of high unemployment requires the acceptance either of the Amendment or the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). In April, 1951, we had 54,667 people unemployed. That means that in the last year of the Labour Government we had only 47 per cent. of the number of unemployed that we have in April, 1963—after twelve years of Tory Government. I hope that the people of West Aberdeenshire will note that fact.
  I want to make a last quotation from the hon. Member's article. In it he was trying to save his face. He went on to say:
  "But the vital thing is that we should be unwavering in our loyalty to the Unionist Party, which is the only possible alternative to the horrors of Socialism."
  Yet in 1951 the figure of unemployed was only 47 per cent. of what it is
  268
  today. If these are horrors, I know that the unemployed people in my constituency would rather be living with those horrors of 1951 than in the circumstances of 1963. The hon. Member went on to say:
  "The only way to avoid such a disaster is to work for the return once again of the Unionist Party, which through good times and bad, has kept the country prosperous and free."
  Prosperous? Is Scotland prosperous today, with 114,000 of its good men and women unemployed? It is shocking for an hon. Member so to underestimate the intelligence and the sense of decency and fair play of the Scottish people that he should think that such a statement can be accepted by anyone there.
  Mr. Manuel: I bet the hon. Member wishes that he had not written that article.
  Miss Herbison: I ask the Undersecretary to pay no attention to any loss of support from a Member who can write such an article. I ask him to pay more attention to the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire, who at least has the guts and the courage to stick to what he believes will help areas of high unemployment. I hope that the Undersecretary will accept either the Amendment or the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock. Let him not turn down both.
  Mr. John Robertson: I agree with the Under-Secretary that none of these Amendments will provide a solution to the unemployment problem. No one on this side of the Committee has suggested that it would. I also agree that this method of increasing the amount of equalisation grant coming to Scotland is not an ideal one. But we are faced with the difficulty that this is now the only method left to us. We must try to increase the amount of money that Scotland is getting in order to make up for what she has been losing for many years.
  The amount of money that has been lost to Scotland is not £5 million; it is about £30 million. That is what Scotland would have had if the principles surrounding the equalisation grant had been properly applied. I must correct my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). In

  269
  1961, the rates levied per head of population were higher in Scotland than in England—£18 1s. per head as against £17 4s. per head in England. Even then the equalisation grant paid to Scotland did not achieve its purpose.
  The ability to pay rates should have an effect upon the amount of grant paid to any part of the British Isles. The existence of unemployment in any area is obviously a good reason for channelling the grant into that area. The Under-Secretary was telling us that increases in expenditure mean increases in grant. Good gracious! We cannot believe that, after reading last week how the Scottish Office slashed the school building programmes of all the education authorities. The Scottish Office effectively controls expenditure. It has always been notable that, per head of population, the expenditure of Scottish local authorities has been singularly less than that in England and Wales.
  The remarkable fact is that the English counterpart of the Scottish Office is far more lenient, shall we say—more realistic, perhaps—than is the Scottish Office. It is not good enough to tell us that we get more grants if we spend more money. There is a rigid control over the money that Scottish local authorities can spend.
  6.0 p.m.
  I should imagine that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock has said, where there is a depressed area and a high figure of unemployment the resources to pay rates are much less. Do not forget that as well as the numbers of unemployed it is necessary to bear in mind that there are other people, not registered as unemployed, who work a considerable amount of short time. It is also relevant to this argument, quite apart from anything else, to remember that even people who are working receive considerably less remuneration than people working south of the Border. Obviously, therefore, where there is a high rate of unemployment and a considerable amount of short-time working the people are less able to pay high rates. But in Scotland the rates are significantly higher than in England and Wales.
  Let us dwell for a moment on the question of the distribution of the equalisation grant. During the Committee stage
  270
  proceedings we got some figures from the Minister about the amount of grant per head of population paid in England and Wales compared with what was paid in Scotland. This is a good way to measure the matter only if the Minister accepts the premise that Scotland has resources equal to those of England, and that is nonsense. Where does the money go when it is distributed in England? It goes to the depressed areas, to the North, to Wales and to the south-west of England. If the Minister would care to check the figures—they are available for England and Wales; they are, of course, never available for Scotland—he will find that the equalisation grant in the non-county boroughs and the counties in the north of England is equivalent to 35 per cent. of the rating values. In Scotland, the large burghs and the industrial counties receive 16 or 17 per cent.
  The significant point is that Scotland, and hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, should not come begging for this money. It is theirs by right, and by this method. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that, so far as it goes. But I cannot think of any other way, when dealing with this Bill, of getting a little more to help the Scottish ratepayers. Local authorities cannot undertake the extra jobs that require to be done in Scotland because Scotland needs a "face lift". More money is needed to be spent by local authorities. That is self evident and does not mean arguing.
  But the authorities cannot undertake this work because of the burden of the rates. That burden is far higher in Scotland than in England and already it is as high as people are prepared to accept, at least without protest. Any local authority which undertook extra work which resulted in the rates being increased would be faced with a problem at election time. After all, local authorities and councillors are no different from Members of Parliament like, let us say, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). Obviously, the hon. Gentleman was making an electioneering point. Local councillors have to face the electors and they cannot afford to carry out work unless there is an extra Government grant forthcoming to meet the cost of it. I cannot see local authorities even considering doing work in the present circumstances.
  It may well be, as the Secretary of State said recently, that the Scots will have to help themselves more and not always be running to the Government. Are we to pull ourselves up by our bootlaces? It is obvious that we must get some help. It is relevant to the distribution of Government grants, both general grant and equalisation grant, that the areas with which we are dealing should have a high unemployment figure. The hon. Gentleman did not deal with the point at all. If he was speaking theoretically of the best way to deal with the equalisation grant I might agree with him. But we have to deal with the situation as it is today and he brought forward no proposals for increasing the amount of the equalisation grant coming to Scotland, although he could easily have done so. To suggest that discussions with the associations of local authorities in Scotland had convinced him that they had agreed to consider the number of unemployed as a weighting factor in the distribution of the equalisation grant, is preposterous. His first job was to see the Treasury. But the hon. Gentleman has given no indication that he has seen the Treasury.
  Hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies are often accused of being slightly nationalistic and parochial in their outlook. In relation to Exchequer grants to local authorities, I have never come across a more nationalistic and parochial outlook than that adopted by English Ministers who simply refuse to give us the money that we should have. The fact is that if there is to be any equity in the distribution of the grant at all, Great Britain must be considered as a whole.
  The resources of Scottish local authorities must be compared with those of English authorities. If that were done in the way in which it should be done, the total amount paid at present in rate deficiency grants and equalisation grants would almost all—80 per cent. of it—go to Scotland. That is a measure of the state of poverty of Scottish local authorities. That, again, is the burden imposed on Scottish ratepayers.
  The Under-Secretary and his right hon. Friend have made a poor job of putting across the case for Scottish local authorities. If they consider that they
  272
  want more assistance to convince the Treasury that more Government grants should go to Scotland, we will see whether we can arrange something. They have not done a good job. I would not mind had they admitted defeat. But to tell this Committee that Scotland is receiving her fair share of grant is too preposterous for words. Obviously, unemployment affects the ability of Scottish local authorities to carry out their ordinary jobs. Where it is persistent, and on a high level, it should become a weighting factor in determining not only the internal distribution of grant in Scotland, but also the global sum.
  We shall be dealing later with another aspect of determining what the global sum should be, but there can be no good argument against the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) or the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). Whatever any local authority may think about the method of distribution of the global sum—and I may be prepared to agree that some difficulty may arise there—I cannot imagine them seeing any difficulty about increasing the size of the global sum.
  I suggest that the Under-Secretary should not come to the Committee and apologise time after time for his right hon. and hon. Friends of the Treasury. He should go back and fight for more instead of making excuses which are quite unacceptable.
  Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to you, Sir William, for calling me again, because I think it only fair that I should be called in view of the attack which was made upon me by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison). It is true that I wrote an article containing the passages which she read to the Committee, but I suggest to the hon. Lady that she read them completely out of context.
  Miss Herbison: No.
  Mr. Hendry: I think that the hon. Lady will find that the tenor of the article was that very often pressure caused the Government to change their policy when that was a good thing to do. I then contrasted criticism of the Government on lines of that sort with

  273
  the alternative, when I spoke of "horror", and pointed out that in sum total we must support our party.
  Miss Herbison: That is exactly what I quoted.
  Mr. Hendry: Let us see what effect the pressure brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) and I in Committee had, The effect was that the Minister went to the local authority organisations and obtained their view and then went to the Treasury. At least, we presume that he went to the Treasury, and had a great amount of success there. Otherwise, he could not have put down the Amendment to Clause 3, which it is not in order for us to discuss at the moment, but which, I suggest, is a very great triumph for my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Millan: If it is a great triumph for the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), is it not extraordinary that he should be supporting our Amendment?
  Mr. Hendry: I am not speaking for my hon. Friend, but for myself. I think that right and proper. I expressed the opinion that it was a triumph, not for my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire but for the Under-Secretary. I still think that it was a triumph for him to produce that Amendment, but it would not be in order for us to discuss it now. Therefore, I say no more about it.
  Quite apart from that, my hon. Friend got the advice from the local authority organisations that they did not want unemployment raised as a weighting factor in connection with equalisation grant. Why they came to that decision I do not know, but they are responsible people. Hon. Members opposite frequently press the Under-Secretary to consult those organisations. Having consulted them, he has, very rightly, acted upon their advice.
  There is only one thing which concerns me very deeply about this whole matter. It is that some local authorities do not qualify for the equalisation grant. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), who, I am sorry to see, is not now present, gave a very unfortunate example. He spoke of local authorities which, I understand, do
  274
  qualify for the equalisation grant. If a local authority has a high level of unemployment, and incurs substantial expenditure in trying to meet the position, the chances are that it will qualify for the equalisation grant as the law now stands.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Gourlay: I refer to the first speech made in this debate by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), when he was discussing the merits of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and the new Clause which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).
  The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West seemed completely to miss the point, because the basis of that Amendment and the new Clause is to seek to attract more money to Scotland, whereas the points he made dealt with redistribution of the existing Exchequer equalisation grant in Scotland. While we welcome the subsequent Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), which will have the effect of altering the distribution, we are principally concerned at this stage with increasing the amount of money to be attracted to Scotland if the Amendment and the new Clause are accepted.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, the speech of the Under-Secretary was not surprising, but none the less all the more disappointing. The hon. Gentleman said nothing new on this problem, which we discussed at great length in Standing Committee. He dealt very sparsely with the arguments advanced for increasing the amount of grant coming to Scotland. He paid lip service to the sad position arising from unemployment in Scotland and said that it was a great evil about which all his hon. Friends were very much concerned. He went on to say that the Government have done a great deal to alleviate the unemployment position in Scotland.
  In the areas which I represent, and which have been scheduled as development districts since 7th May, 1962, not a single new job has come about. If we are to regard that as the measure of the

  275
  Government's ability to help the employment position in Scotland, it is a miserable record and we have no fear of a General Election. In fact, we would welcome one next week, for then we could take control and show exactly what should be done.
  The Under-Secretary went on to suggest that unemployment was not a good subject as a factor in the calculation of Exchequer grant. He referred to the fact that local authorities are no longer responsible for Public Assistance or unemployment relief, but, as my hon. Friends have indicated, the whole basis of living in such an area is altered when there is high unemployment. Shopkeepers feel the draught because of the smaller amount of spending power in the area. Those still in employment are always looking over their shoulders wondering when their turn will come to sign on at the employment exchange. The amount of spending power in the area goes down considerably, and shopkeepers have to close down their businesses.
  There are very good reasons why unemployment should be regarded as a factor in the calculation and the distribution of the grant. The Under-Secretary said that he had had consultations with the local authority associations. I wonder exactly what proportion of the total number of persons present in those negotiations—he said that 30 were present—were elected representatives. I should guess that it was a very small proportion. I wonder to what extent those who were elected representatives had the opportunity of discussing their views on these two particular points.
  I cannot imagine any member of my local authorities, whether on one side of the council chamber or the other, refusing to accept additional income for Scotland for redistribution. I therefore am at a great loss to understand the reasons which the elected representatives could advance to the hon. Member that our proposals were completely unacceptable. I am afraid that the local authorities' full-time officials, for some reason or another best known to themselves, have persuaded the hon. Member not to accept these proposals.
  Hon. Members may wonder why I am supporting the Amendment, because at present my authority does not receive
  276
  any equalisation grant. The effect of both the Amendment and the new Clause is to increase the amount of money going to Scotland, and under present circumstances this would be of no immediate benefit to my local authority. As I have pointed out on many previous occasions, this situation arises from the revaluation which took place in 1961. The Fife and Dunbarton county assessors used a basis of valuation completely different from the other Scottish assessors.
  From figures circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT yesterday by the Secretary of State for Scotland, we find that, as a result of revaluation, Kirkcaldy has the highest average rate burden per local authority house of any authority in Scotland with the exception of the City of Glasgow and the Burgh of Clydebank. The average rate burden per local authority house in Kirkcaldy is 16s. 8d. per week. In Dunfermline, it is 16s. 9d., and in Dumbarton 16s. 6d. When we compare those figures with the lowest average rate burden per local authority house in Scotland we come to Wick, with a weekly rate burden of 6s., Caithness with a weekly rate burden of 5s. 4d., and Orkney, which is down to 3s. 2d.
  In the document circulated by the Secretary of State in January of this year, giving the rent levels of local authorities as at November, 1962, we find that the lowest weekly average rent of a municipal house in Scotland is in Orkney at 5s. 9d. a week. This gives a total weekly average payment for the local authority tenant in Orkney of 8s. 11d. per week. No wonder the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) does not require to attend the Committee today to defend the position under the Bill. When we compare this figure with that for Kirkcaldy, we discover that the average tenant in a municipal house in Kirkcaldy is paying 16s. 9d. in rent and 16s. 8d. in rates, a total of 33s. 5d., possibly the highest weekly average payment of tenants throughout Scotland.
  We discover that in Orkney the Exchequer equalisation grant received is equivalent to 85 per cent. of the total relevant expenditure, whereas Kirkcaldy receives no Exchequer grant at all. The average gross annual value of the local authority house in Orkney is £22 as opposed to the gross annual value in Kirkcaldy of £54.

  277
  I suggest that we get the assessors in Orkney and Fife to exchange places at the next revaluation and see whether they cannot help to iron out the anomalies which have arisen from the recent revaluation. They are very pertinent to the argument before the Committee, because valuation plays a great part in the distribution of the Exchequer grant and would also play a part in the distribution of the additional money if the Amendment and the new Clause were accepted.
  We must bear in mind the effect of unemployment in these areas, where the average earnings are about £8 to £10 a week. This is a very low wage. When we bear in mind the various deductions from wages we see that the take-home pay is very low, particularly in the linoleum industry, which is going through a very bad period at present. The hon. Member knows the position and he must realise that as a result of closures about 600 people may become unemployed. Kirkcaldy will have a tremendous problem of trying to attract new industries to employ the large number of people who are unemployed, but no additional money is coming to the local authority so far by way of additional grant to help it in its task of seeking new industry.
  At the same time, the Minister has been persuading the various local authorities to undertake other schemes of not more than £15,000 to create employment. My authority is having to undertake schemes without any grant, and this does not give encouragement to the authority to extend this additional type of work. I suggest to the Under-Secretary of State that he should be as bold as he was on the previous discussion and again change his mind. He should speak up for Scotland and give the local authorities the additional money which they so richly deserve.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am delighted to intervene in the early stages of the debate, for I have no doubt that the hon. Members for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) and Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) will want to speak. We had the four rebels on the other side in Committee. Let us be fair to them; they exacted from the Under-Secretary of State the facilities for this debate, because we should perhaps have had a vote in Committee, and perhaps the Chair would not have selected
  278
  the Amendment in that event, if it had been tabled again. Perhaps that would have been an end of the matter. One of my hon. Friends suggests that we should have won the vote, and I am of the same opinion as, I think, is the Under-Secretary of State, although he denied it today and said that he wanted genuinely to consult the local authorities.
  This is my first complaint: if this is consultation with the local authorities, then I shall never again listen to this argument in Committee, because I believe that we have heard a completely fraudulent position expounded. Let us look at the procedure. The Under-Secretary of State, under pressure—he admitted it himself in his second or third speech in Committee—with four declared rebels, admitted to the Committee that perhaps he might think about the matter again and that he would call together the local authority associations. That was on 5th March. By the end of March the conference had taken place, and the Government had their Amendment on the Order Paper before we rose for the Easter Recess when our debate was scheduled to take place. Another matter arose and the debate was postponed until tonight.
  It therefore follows that if we had the promise of 5th March and all these things followed, it must have been very quick consultation. I know that the Corporation of Greenock was not consulted for its views in these matters. Being the second largest burgh in Scotland, and having suffered, and still suffering, from possibly the highest level of unemployment in the United Kingdom, we ought to have been consulted on a matter such as this.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) asks why we were not consulted. I do not know. This is indeed the question which I am about to put. Will the Under-Secretary of State tell us, not just for the sake of the argument on this Amendment but for the sake of any future argument on any subject which involves consultation with local authorities, exactly how this procedure operates? My feeling is that this so-called conference with local authority representatives was made up of men who were not mandated to discuss anything. In fact, I go further and say that these men did not understand what they were discussing. I therefore submit that the Under-Secretary of State either did not appreciate that

  279
  fact or else he took these innocent lambs to the slaughter.
  The first proposition which they were asked to discuss was that the total grant coming to Scotland should be larger because of Scottish unemployment. I still find it incredible that a group of 50 Scotsmen, of whatever political party or in whoever's pay they might be—the town councils', big business, trade unions or anything else—would say that Scotland needs no more money to relieve unemployment. That was a stupid argument for hon. Members opposite to advance.
  6.30 p.m.
  I ask the Under-Secretary a straight question. Did he invite the local authority associations to consider the proposition that, because of the high unemployment in the development areas of Scotland, it was reasonable that the Government should increase the total amount of Exchequer equalisation grant going to Scotland? There are two points to be discussed—the total grant and its distribution. I do not deny that the Scots are an argumentative lot. They tend to be anxious to look after their own communities. I regard this as a virtue, not a vice. I could understand the Under-Secretary saying to us, "They fought among themselves about the distribution". I concede that they could arrive at a complete deadlock over the system of distribution among themselves, but I am not prepared to accept that the representatives of the local authority associations refused an increase in the total grant.
  I should like the Under-Secretary to give us the answers to these questions. What was the date of the meeting? Who were the representatives? Did they have a mandate? Did they discus this specific point? The Under-Secretary may recall that I interrupted his speech earlier in the debate and asked him if the words he was using were the exact words of unanimity that the meeting adopted. This will be an important post mortem in the history of consultation between the Government and Scottish local authorities. Few of us will rest until we get to the bottom of what happened at this meeting. Never since Sir Anthony Eden met the French Prime Minister has there been a more peculiar meeting to decide a very important matter.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) has twice given us an apologia as to why he has shifted his ground. Even the hon. Gentleman is wondering what happened at this meeting. In Standing Committee the hon. Gentleman said this about unemployment:
  "Previously hon. Members opposite tried to relieve it"—
  that is, the problem of unemployment—
  "by adjusting the rents of local authority houses. I was not convinced that that was the right way to proceed. I am sure that if there is a burden the burden should be relieved by a measure which will benefit the general body of ratepayers and not a selective body like housing scheme tenants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 28th February. 1963; c. 466–7.]
  This is a fundamental point. The hon. Member has shifted his ground completely, but I do not know why. I could not quite follow his argument. I could not understand why he was so persuaded. However, this was his assertion. It was an assertion in complete contradiction to that made by the Under-Secretary. This is a matter into which I went in some detail during the Recess. I went round various parts of my constituency and compared the changes in valuation and the changes in rate burden of unemployed tenants in different houses. We have quite a selection of unemployed people to choose from. The Under-Secretary's argument was, "Let us not give relief by reducing the loss of Exchequer equalisation grant because of unemployment, because unemployed live not only in council houses but in all kinds of houses". The hon. Gentleman said in Standing Committee:
  "There are unemployed also in owner-occupied houses and in tenanted houses privately owned. This proposal does not take into account the financial circumstances of those people who are living in houses which are either owner-occupied or tenanted and privately owned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 19th February, 1963; c. 313.]
  This is a most peculiar argument. I have tried to follow it as loyally and faithfully as I can to see where its body of substance lies. I still do not appreciate it. If a local authority, because of unemployment, spends money and is compensated to some extent by various direct grants from the Board of Trade or elsewhere, no one denies that the local authority, because it has spent this money, even though it has received grants, still has a deficit on that expenditure. It still

  281
  has to raise money from its ratepayers. If it has to raise money from its ratepayers, the question whether there is a deficit in the housing account of this size or that size is irrelevant. The fact is that all the ratepayers in the town have to find the extra finance.
  Where I believe the Under-Secretary is confusing himself is that he is not seeing that, although the Bill is designed as a negative mechanism by which to raise rents, it also effects the—even to his mind—admirable town councils which raise rents to the level he wants. If they have unemployment and behave exactly as he wants them to behave, he still penalises them by being unable to recognise the argument about unemployment and the concession on Exchequer equalisation grant. If my town council does exactly what the Under-Secretary wants, it loses £13,000 in Exchequer equalisation grant. If we do not do what the Under-Secretary wants, we still lose £13,000 in Exchequer equalisation grant. Therefore, it does not matter. It is an internal affair for Greenock to decide about its rents, because of the way the Government have constructed the Exchequer equalisation grant.
  This concession on unemployment is relevant. I do not care how small it is—we need the money, and we want the money. We think we are entitled to the money, because there are ratepayers in my town who are being asked to carry a national burden. The Under-Secretary argues that if one wants to help an unemployed man who has a high rent and who lives in a council house the best thing to do is to ask the other council house tenants to pay for it. That is the logic of the Under-Secretary's argument. He now takes it a step further and says that in a town where there is unemployment all the ratepayers must join in helping the unemployed and that Bournemouth can escape. Was not the idea of the Exchequer equalisation grant that local authorities which are well off can be balanced against local authorities which are badly off? Bournemouth was the great example which was always cited.
  This is a breach of that principle. By deceiving the Committee upstairs into accepting that he was genuinely going to consult the Scottish local authorities and, through the associations, find the popular opinion among the town councils, he has
  282
  done a grave disservice to his own country.
  I should like the Under-Secretary to answer one last question. Did the Scottish Office, either his right hon. Friend or himself, take this matter up with the Treasury? I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said. Did he take this matter up with the Treasury? If he did not, how could he have discussed it with the local authority associations? If he did, will he confirm again that the local authority associations refused an increase in the total Exchequer equalisation grant to Scotland?
  Mr. Leburn: I think that I clearly see the difference there is between myself and certain other Members of the Committee. There has been a great deal of discussion about unemployment in Scotland. I make no complaint about that. However, the weight of the discussion, as I see it, is that suggestions have been made that the Government are not doing sufficient to relieve unemployment for Scotland. I shall not say at this stage whether I agree with that or not. I believe that this is a matter which could more appropriately be dealt with during a debate on unemployment generally.
  I want to say this, in passing. While it may be that unemployment in Scotland is double that in the rest of the United Kingdom and while it may be that a great deal must be done to alleviate the evil of unemployment, I believe that in the last few weeks and months great things have been done. I have not gat all the facts and figures before me and I shall not recite or rehearse a catalogue of what has been done. Hon. Members opposite know just as well as I do that a great many things have been done and very important announcements have been made in the last few days and weeks. I can count up in my head about £30 million additional money committed for Scotland within a comparatively short time.
  It may be that extra grants, be they direct or otherwise, have to be given. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer during his Budget speech made a very important announcement as to additional grants being made available for the clearance of derelict sites.

  283
  This is the sort of grant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is absolutely true. They are going up from 50 per cent. to between 85 and 90 per cent. It is up to the local authorities to submit their schemes and I will encourage them to do that.
  Miss Herbison: If the local authorities put up schemes and the Treasury decides that too much money would be used, will every local authority be told that their schemes cannot be proceeded with, just as they have been told in relation to schemes for much needed new school building?
  Mr. Leburn: I have made it clear on many previous occasions that I am encouraging local authorities to put up schemes for grants in regard to this and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has sent out a circular inviting local authorities to put in their demands. That is not necessarily to say that absolutely every scheme will be approved. They will have to show that they are good schemes which can stand on their merits.
  As I said originally—and I do not propose to go over this again—it may be that, in another debate, hon. Members can adduce a case for help being given to relieve unemployment in Scotland. All I have said is that I do not think that giving some additional amount in Exchequer equalisation grant is the appropriate way of doing it. I do not wish to pursue this matter further, because I want to deal with the questions put to me, particularly that about the meeting I had with the local authority associations.
  I promised to consult the local authority associations. I consulted them on 29th March; the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked for the date. I do not want to deceive anyone about this. I clearly got the impression from that meeting—and if I am wrong then I am wrong—that when I put the case to the associations, the three of them, they did not wish an unemployment weighting factor to be taken into account in Exchequer equalisation grant, either in regard to the calculation of the total, or to the distribution. I cannot be more clear about it than that.
  Mr. Manuel: Did the Under-Secretary explain the formula contained in our proposed new Clause? Did he give the amount by which Scotland would
  284
  benefit in addition to the present global sum, as it were?
  Mr. Leburn: It was the question of the principle of the weighting factor which was discussed. I could not discuss the proposal of, I think, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). That hon. Member said that his proposal would give another £5 million. On the other hand, hon. Members who are taking a different line might suggest that the Exchequer equalisation grant should be increased to, say, 100 per cent. for every 1 per cent., which would bring £50 million to Scotland. I discussed with them the desirability or otherwise of introducing a weighting factor into the calculation for Exchequer equalisation grant, both in regard to the calculation of the aggregate going to Scotland and to its distribution.
  Mr. Millan: The Under-Secretary used the phrase "I clearly got the impression" about the local authority associations being against it. Did they not tell him if they were against it, one way or the other? Did he put to them the proposal in the proposed new Clause, which is identical to the new Clause my hon. Friends moved in Committee, to the effect that there should be an additional weighting for Scotland in relation to the unemployment rate there being in excess of the level in England and Wales?
  Mr. Leburn: I am quite clear that the local authority associations understood that point. The hon. Member queries what I meant by "I clearly got the impression". I wish to be categorical about this. The members of the three local authority associations which attended the meeting told me that they did not think that a weighting factor for unemployment should be taken into account in the calculation of Exchequer equalisation grant either way—the aggregate or the distribution.
  Mr. McInnes: Did the hon. Gentleman say to the local authority associations quite clearly that unemployment would be a factor in the calculation of the grant and that that would necessarily increase the global figure? Did he put it that way and, having put it that way, did they say that they did not want it?
  Mr. Leburn: I am quite clear in my mind that the local authorities understood the proposition.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. McInnes: But the hon. Gentleman did not put it that way?
  Mr. Leburn: I cannot remember the exact words I used. I am clear that they understood the position and that they told me that they thought it might be dangerous to bring in a weighting for unemployment because it might bring about unpredictable results for, obviously, it would have to be applied to the distribution as well as to calculating the aggregate. They thought, in any case, that if a weighting for unemployment was taken into account it might encourage, at some future date, other factors to be brought in as weighting.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am not saying that the Under-Secretary is entirely wrong. He may be entirely right, but am I to understand, because of the disputes or possible failure to predict how the grant would be distributed, that the three Scottish local authority associations refused an increase in the total figure—simply because they did not like the distribution?
  Mr. Leburn: I am not in the least suggesting that. While on this point, I must make the position clear to the hon. Member opposite who suggested that this was a matter discussed with and by and decided by the officials of the local authorities. I think that it was the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) who raised the question of officials at the meeting. There were also elected representatives there and they spoke. It is not for me to try to interpret how the local authority associations came to their decision. I admit that there were officials there, but I think that it is unfair to suggest that the decision may have been arrived at by the officials, because I want to impress on the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs that elected representatives were also there and that they spoke.
  Mr. Gourlay: I asked the Under-Secretary to supply the proportion of officials and elected representatives, because that figure has a bearing on this discussion.
  Mr. Leburn: I cannot, offhand, say exactly how many officials and elected representatives were there. There were a considerable number of officials there
  286
  out of the total of 30 or 32 people who attended. There was a substantial number of elected representatives and a substantial number of officials.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Leburn: I cannot continually give way.
  As I said earlier, it may be that a good case could be made out for giving grants to local authorities in this connection. At this meeting they specifically said that that was what they wanted; that that was the case they wanted to make to my right hon. Friend or some other Scottish Minister, and I have no doubt that they will wish to make that case. However, they said that they did not think that a weighting for unemployment would be an appropriate way to go about it. At the same time, they put in a caveat to the effect that they wanted to make representations to the Secretary of State or the Scottish Office to the effect that they thought that the way to go about it was to give bigger direct grants towards projects which might have to be undertaken to relieve unemployment.
  With these remarks, and the discussion that we have had, I hope that we can now come to a decision on the matter.
  Mr. Ross: We are grateful to the Under-Secretary of State. He has conducted the debates both here and upstairs with considerable courtesy, and he has gone out of his way to answer all our points. However, upstairs he was prepared to be a little more flexible, and I am convinced that his flexibility on this point, which enables us to discuss it again, was due to the fact that it was realised that the Government would be defeated. I am still convinced that what he did then was a manoeuvre to get rid of that embarrassment so that the Government could call on the impatient majority of English and Welsh Members whom I see beyond the Bar in order to deny Scotland a measure of financial justice.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he would not say very much about unemployment and then started talking about it. He said that announcements had been made in the last few months. Of course they have. I think that Dr. Beeching has made some announcements, and they will affect employment in Scotland. A firm

  287
  in Kirkcaldy has made some announcements involving a loss of almost half the jobs which we hope to get by the expenditure of many of these millions about which the hon. Gentleman spoke. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not seen the announcements made yesterday on shipbuilding. British shipbuilding work in hand is, I think, just over 1,400,000 tons compared with the figure of not so long ago, 1959, of over 5 million tons. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures for the Clyde he will realise how I was able to quote the figures about the tide of unemployment turning in Glasgow, with Glasgow unemployment dropping by about 300.
  This matter is serious and relevant. The outstanding feature is that we have consistently had this double burden of unemployment. In trying to relieve the rate burden of local authorities, is it not relevant to take this constant detrimental factor in Scotland into account? I think that it is, and that is why we have persisted with this Amendment and why I am glad that we still have the support of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). If the hon. Gentleman does not want to be misunderstood he should not make remarks such as that which he made when interrupting the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and which seemed to express a view opposite to the one which he eventually expressed, although I have a feeling that my hon. Friend's speech had a little to do with the stand which the hon. Gentleman eventually took.
  Sir F. Maclean: As far as I remember—and we can consult the record tomorrow—I interrupted the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire to say that we had indeed strengthened the hand of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in dealing with the Treasury, and I still consider that we have done that.
  Mr. Ross: We will see the record, but I think that even that impression is quite wrong.
  Is it reasonable to deal with this matter by, in one case, increasing the global sum and, in the second place, by dividing it according to unemployment in various parts of Scotland? I think that it is.
  288
  I now come to the vital meeting. I shall not quarrel with the Under-Secretary of State. All that I propose to say is that I was convinced upstairs that we would hear no more of this proposal. It does not surprise me to know that he had a meeting with the Scottish local authorities and got his way. Of course Scottish local authorities would prefer a direct grant. The fact is that they are not getting it. They would prefer it because the hon. Gentleman is dealing with certain local authorities which do not get an equalisation grant. He was dealing with local authorities which would not get an additional penny out of any extra money because their unemployment position was relatively satisfactory. But if the hon. Gentleman says that they stated that they would prefer direct grants, may I ask whether they are going to get an increased direct grant?
  Mr. Leburn: It was not a question of their saying that they preferred direct grants. What I said was that they did not think it appropriate to take the factor of unemployment in as a weighting. Having said that, they put it to me that they wished greater direct grants to be given for projects to help unemployment.
  Mr. Ross: That is more or less what I said.
  Mr. W. Baxter: I understand that when the meeting was held between the local authority representatives and the Under-Secretary of State it was agreed that a minute of the meeting should be drawn up. Is the minute available for perusal? Is there a minute of this meeting? I should like an answer to that question.
  Mr. Ross: I do not know the answer, but I can assure my hon. Friend that, if we do not get the information from the Under-Secretary of State, we will get it from the local authorities. It is very unwise for a Minister, certainly at this stage, to try to conceal the position. I do not suggest for a minute that the hon. Gentleman is doing that. All that I am saying is that I think that the hon. Gentleman is a bad advocate. His heart was not in the case that he was putting. He did not believe in it, and he told us upstairs that he did not

  289
  believe in it. Only the rebels on his own side made him make this gesture.
  I do not think that the Government are doing anything wonderful about derelict sites. We have 15,000 acres of derelict sites. How many acres have the Government managed to clear under the Local Employment Act?—11½. The hon. Gentleman says that the Government will be terribly generous and will give a grant of up to 85 per cent., and maybe a little more, for clearing these sites. The hon. Gentleman had better look at the Act and see the restrictive conditions attached to it. If he wants to know how the matter should have been dealt with he should appreciate that the Labour Government gave 100 per cent. grants without attaching such restrictive conditions.
  We have failed to convince the Government, but I hope that we have not failed to convince hon. Members opposite on the back benches. I even hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) will have once again changed his mind. This is a way by which we can help local authorities and do something about this problem. It may be a matter of only £5 million, or £1 million in the case of the second Amendment, but at least it is a token of our concern about dealing with the unemployment problem in Scotland, and I hope that my hon. Friends will join us in the Division.
  Question put, That those words be there added: —
  The Committee divided: Ayes 177, Noes 196.

  Division No. 97.]

  AYES

  [6.58 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Ainsley, William

  Griffiths, W, (Exchange)

  Monslow, Walter

  Albu, Austen

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Moody, A. S.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Morris, John

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hannan, William

  Mulley, Frederick

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Harper, Joseph

  Neal, Harold

  Beaney, Alan

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Oliver, G. H.

  Bence, Cyril

  Hayman, F. H.

  O'Malley, B, K.

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Healey, Denis

  Oswald, Thomas

  Benson, Sir George

  Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(Rwly Regis)

  Owen, Will

  Blackburn, F.

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Padley, W. E.

  Blyton, William

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Boardman, H.

  Hilton, A. V.

  Parker, John

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C.

  Holman, Percy

  Paton, John

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

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Boyden, James

  Hoy, James H.

  Peart, Frederick

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pentland, Norman

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Prentice, R, E.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Probert, Arthur

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Cliffe, Michael

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Randall, Harry

  Collick, Percy

  Jeger, George

  Rankin, John

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Cronin, John

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Rhodes, H.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

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

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Kelley, Richard

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Darling, George

  King, Dr. Horace

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Ledger, Ron

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

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Ross, William

  Davies, S, O. (Merthyr)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Short, Edward

  Deer, George

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lipton, Marcus

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Dempsey, James

  Loughlin, Charles

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Dodds, Norman

  Lubbock, Eric

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Driberg, Tom

  McBride, N.

  Small, William

  Edelman, Maurice

  McCann, John

  Snow, Julian

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  McInnes, James

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Fernybough, E.

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Finch, Harold

  McLeavy, Frank

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Fletcher, Eric

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Steele, Thomas

  Forman, J. G.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

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

  Stones, William

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Manuel, Archie

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

  Gooch, E. G.

  Mapp, Charles

  Taverne, D.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Marsh, Richard

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mason, Roy

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Grey, Charles

  Millan, Bruce

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Tornney, Frank

  Whitlock, William

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Wade, Donald

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Woof, Robert

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Willey, Frederick

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Warbey, William

  Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Watkins, Tudor

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Weltzman, David

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Lawson and Mr. Ifor Davies.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Gower, Raymond

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Allason, James

  Green, Alan

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Gresham-Cooke, R.

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Barber, Anthony

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Partridge, E.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Barter, John

  Harrison, Brian (Maidon)

  Peel, John

  Batsford, Brian

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Percival, Ian

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Biffen, John

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

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Bingham, R. M.

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Pym, Francis

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Holland, Philip

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Hollingworth, John

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Hopkins, Alan

  Rees, Hugh

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Hornby, R. P.

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Braine, Bernard

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Roots, William

  Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Russell, Ronald

  Brooman-White, R.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  St. Clair, M.

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  James, David

  Seymour, Leslie

  Bryan, Paul

  Jennings, J. C.

  Shaw, M.

  Bullard, Denys

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

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

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Burden, F. A.

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Speir, Rupert

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Stodart, J. A.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Channon, H. P. Q.

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Talbot, John E.

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Leather, Sir Edwin

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

  Cooke, Robert

  Leavey, J. A.

  Temple, John M.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Corfield, F. V.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Costain, A. P.

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Coulson, Michael

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Critchley, Julian

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

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Crosthwaile-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Longden, Gilbert

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Crowder, F. P.

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Turner, Colin

  Cunningham, Knox

  McLaren, Martin

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Curran, Charles

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Macpherson.Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfries)

  Walder, David

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Maddan, Martin

  Walker, Peter

  Duncan, Sir James

  Maginnis, John E.

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Garshalton)

  Maitland, Sir John

  Wall, Patrick

  Elliott,R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Mawby, Ray

  Whitelaw, William

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Farr, John

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

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Mills, Stratton

  Wise, A. R.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Woollam, John

  Gammans, Lady

  Morrison, John

  Worsley, Marcus

  George, Sir John (Pollok)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Neave, Airey

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Mr. Ian Fraser and Mr. MacArthur.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 3.—(REDUCTION OF EXCHEQUER EQUALISATION GRANTS IN RESPECT OF LOW RENT INCOME.)
  Mr. Manuel: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, at the end to insert:
  "less the amount of any rebates granted by the council under a rent rebate scheme to which no objection has been taken by the Secretary of State".
  The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): It would be convenient to take with this Amendment the following Amendments in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland, in page 3, line 9 and in page 4, lines 7, 9, 12 and 13.
  Mr. Manuel: The principle that we are trying to incorporate into the Clause is that a local authority's notional rent income in the year 1963–64 shall be 85 per cent. less the amount of any rebates granted by the council under any rebate scheme to which no objection has been taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Under the Bill as at present drafted, a local authority would need to charge in the first year 85 per cent. of the gross annual value in rent, plus the cost of any rebate scheme. The fact that the rents would be fixed at 85 per cent. of the gross annual value in the first year, 90 per cent. in the second year and 95 per cent. in the third year, plus the cost of any rebates, must inevitably drive up the rents considerably and increase the number qualifying for rebated rent.
  Previously, everybody has been agreed that the cost of rent rebate schemes should fall to be met by all ratepayers within a local authority area. Under the Bill, however, this will not be the case unless a local authority contracts out of the qualifying conditions for the full payment of Exchequer equalisation grant. The intention of the Bill is to exclude everyone who is not living in a local authority house from contributing to rent rebates. In the main, these would be the higher income groups.
  There has been no real assessment of the number of people who will be driven to apply for rent rebates because of low income. It is surely elementary that the higher the rents are fixed, the greater the number of people who will qualify for rebates. Owing to the strong arguments used in Committee on the question of rent rebates, the Secretary of State now brings forward what he hopes will be a face-
  294
  saving Amendment in case the circumstances governing rent rebates become so out of hand that schemes are unworkable.
  I am not sure who is the author of this new proposition and whether it emanates from the Scottish Office. I should not have liked to have been associated with it. I am amazed that people who have to draft a Bill in connection with Exchequer equalisation grant should have had thrust upon them the job of embodying within it something to do with rents because of the spleen and venom which has been exhibited for years by members of the Tory Party in Scotland, many of them out of touch with the real facts of life. Scottish Tory Party Ministers have become ready and willing tools to carry out this uninformed intention that at all costs local authority rents must be increased.
  I dislike intensely the Government's Amendment. I would dismiss it completely if it did not leave local authorities to decide whether they wished to be treated in the way that it provides. It is obnoxious to me. As, however, its acceptance by the local authorities is voluntary, possibly the, decision can be left to them.
  Let us be clear what we are doing. Despite all the talk we had in Standing Committee, this new proposal by the Government will drive rents higher. It sets a third table of 90, 95 and 100 per cent. of the gross value that the local authorities will need to fix in rent if they are to be allowed the cost of rent rebates on the income side of their housing revenue account.
  7.15 p.m.
  Secondly, if this proposal is adopted by a local authority it will surely drive many more tenants within the ambit of any rent rebate schemes. If this new proposition concerning rent rebates is adopted by a local authority, it is bound to increase substantially the number of people who would qualify to be considered in a rent rebate scheme.
  Thirdly, this proposal does not give a local authority freedom to cover the cost of rent rebate schemes by rateborne expenditure over the whole body of ratepayers. Councils with the real welfare of their communities at heart will not accept this red herring. If the cost of

  295
  rent rebate schemes rises above 5 per cent. of their notional rent income some councils may consider it, but I do not think that many will accept it. The Under-Secretary of State may, perhaps, point out that this would mean a certain proportion being rateborne if the rent rebate scheme measured up to as much as, say, 8 per cent. of the notional rent income. It might, however, measure up to only 4 per cent. I have a shrewd suspicion that the Under-Secretary has a good idea of the average cost to local authorities of their rent rebate schemes. He is budgeting safely in this respect.
  I am sorry that the Under-Secretary did not take the clean-cut idea which I submitted to him earlier and allow the straight set of figures in the original Bill of 85, 90 and 95 per cent. instead of staging rents a bit higher, which will nullify completely any intention which he may have of local authorities agreeing to adopt his scheme.
  I advise the Committee to accept my Amendment as the only solution to the rent rebate problem. I have a support for my attitude. Unlike the Under-Secretary of State, I do not need to meet the local authority associations. The Ayrshire Burghs Association has informed me that at a meeting held on Wednesday, 20th February, the hon. clerk and treasurer
  "was instructed to write to the Department requesting that the Association's views on the subject of Section 3 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill be conveyed to the Secretary of State. The Association was unanimously of the view that subparagraph 3 of paragraph 3 should be amended to the effect that the income receivable from rents was a reference to the income so receivable without making allowance for any rebates granted by the council. I shall be grateful if you would be good enough to bring the Association's views to the notice of the Secretary of State."
  I told the Under-Secretary that similar views were held concerning unemployment. Unanimously, the whole 17 burghs in Ayrshire communicated with the Secretary of State giving their views on unemployment. They are doing the same thing concerning rent rebates. The Under-Secretary would not accuse me of being able to influence 17 burghs in the County of Ayr, many of them controlled by members of his own political party.
  Nevertheless, we have this unanimous decision. I hope that the hon. Gentleman
  296
  will be able to tell me what reply he has sent to these local authorities concerning rent rebates, although he did not give the answer in the case of unemployment, on which we have just voted. I hope that the Committee will agree that we should agree to rent rebates in the terms of my Amendment.
  Mr. Leburn: From the very fact that we are also discussing the Government Amendment, in page 4, line 7, I think the Committee will see that I am not altogether unsympathetic in certain circumstances to reductions as a result of rebate schemes being taken into account in the various calculations to be made under Clause 3(3). I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has said, but I really cannot accept the proposals contained in this Amendment, and I hope that I can persuade him why and that I have good grounds for saying that.
  His Amendment would set off the rebates against the percentages of 85, 90 and 95 in the table. I want to tell the hon. Member that this table was devised originally to take rebates into account. It was devised specifically having rebates in mind. What the hon. Gentleman is proposing is that in spite of allowance having already been made for rebates as a whole there should again be allowance for them. He is, in effect, asking that rent rebates should be taken into account twice.
  There is an additional difficulty. The Secretary of State, under this Amendment, would have to accept any kind of rent rebate scheme unless he were to take specific objection to it. The Amendment makes no provision for rent rebate schemes to be submitted to the Secretary of State for observation. I do not think that this is really the right way to go about consideration of rent rebate schemes.
  Mr. Ross: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman will tell me just exactly what is the difference between the words
  "to which no objection has been taken"
  in this Amendment and the words in his Amendment, which say that the schemes have got to be approved?
  Mr. Leburn: Only to this extent, that under the Government Amendment local authorities will have to submit their rent rebate schemes to the Secretary

  297
  of State, whereas under this Amendment the Secretary of State will have to ferret out the schemes and he will have to see what action he will take,
  Mr. Willis: Surely this is really only a quibble? The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that if the words are not satisfactory he can get them changed when they go to another place.
  Mr. Leburn: If the hon. Gentleman does not want me to found on that, I am quite prepared to found on the original argument I put.
  I would obviously prefer the Government Amendment. I should like first of all to explain to the Committee its effect and then describe some of the considerations which have led to it. The Government Amendment introduces the alternative method of calculating deductions from Exchequer equalisation grant under Clause 3 to be operated at the request of individual authorities for particular years. Under the Clause as it stands at present notional rent income is a percentage of the gross annual value of the houses, 85 per cent. for 1963–64, 90 per cent. for 1964–65, and 95 per cent. for any subsequent year.
  As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Ayrshire realises, the local authority would be able as an alternative to require the Secretary of State to make the calculation on this alternative basis, namely, that the notional rent income should be 90 per cent. for 1963–64, 95 per cent. for 1964–65, and 100 per cent. thereafter of gross annual values less the actual amount of rent rebates granted under an approved rent rebate scheme. Thus an authority which granted rebates under an approved scheme, let us say, in 1965–66 of an equivalent of 7 per cent. of gross annual value of its houses would be entitled normally to have the Clause 3 calculation done on that basis of the notional rent of 93 per cent. of gross annual value instead of the present 95 per cent.
  In order for this alternative method of calculating the grant to operate, the rebate scheme must, of course, receive the approval of the Secretary of State. I think that hon. Members will appreciate this point, since for the purpose of calculating Exchequer grant there must obviously be some control. I think that it will be clear that the broad purpose
  298
  of the Amendment is to allow actual rebates to be taken into account, and if a local authority charges a rent equivalent to gross annual value in the case of the normal tenant, 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. in the two earlier years, it will not suffer any reduction of grant for granting rebates under an approved scheme.
  There is a link here with what I said in previous discussions about Clause 1 about the reason why local authorities do not want the weighting factor in the grant for unemployment. The only field in which expenditure does not in fact attract additional grant is where local authorities stand to suffer a deduction from grant under Clause 3, and consequently high rent rebates because of unemployment would not be offset by more Exchequer equalisation grant. This is one of the paints which was in the minds of my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) and of my other hon. Friends and, I think, also at, one stage in the minds of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire.
  In framing and introducing this Amendment I have tried to meet at least some of the difficulties which were referred to by those hon. Members in regard to local authorities which may have to grant high rebates because of unemployment. I might also mention that we have redrafted the Amendment to try to simplify it and make it a little more clear. These Amendments meet the case for taking special account of unemployment in the grant system in so far as it is not already taken into account.
  I hope that hon. Members will feel disposed to accept the Amendment. I want to say to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire that I am the author of this Amendment, so I hope he will not cast any aspersions or criticism at others in the Scottish Office.
  Mr. Manuel: I am delighted to hear it.
  Mr. Leburn: I think that this is a good Amendment. I feel that it is, if one argues about this logically. If a local authority will charge gross annual value—and, as I have said before, I consider that in certain circumstances it could charge more—to those tenants who

  299
  can afford it, and if it then comes to the Secretary of State with a reasonable rebate scheme which he approves, then there is no reason why it should suffer any deduction whatsoever. Even if there is a case—I cannot foresee it at the moment—where a local authority grants rebates because of high unemployment, or for other reasons of hardship, because, for instance, of a high percentage of old-age pensioners, whatever it may be, and has to grant rebates to the extent of 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. or even 50 per cent., then, provided that the rebate scheme is approved by the Secretary of State, the local authority will suffer no deduction of Exchequer equalisation grant. It seems to me that logically this is absolutely sensible.
  Hon. Members opposite have made the point from the first day we sat in Committee that they are not against fair and reasonable rent schemes. If local authorities will charge fair and reasonable rent schemes, I am quite sure that the gross annual value is a perfectly reasonable guide given by an independent assessor. I do not see why normal tenants who can afford to pay should not charge those rents, and for those who cannot afford them, the local authorities should, I believe, introduce rebate schemes. If it is a reasonable one, it will certainly be approved by the Secretary of State and they need suffer no deductions under Clause 3.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Manuel: I think that the Under-Secretary of State ought to give a full picture. What he is doing is to push the rents up either to 95 per cent. or 100 per per cent. of the gross annual value, but he is also taking away certain expenditure that is at present rateborne and there is a loss of Exchequer equalisation grant anyhow to that local authority. The relevant expenditure will decrease and there will be a decrease in the amount of the Exchequer equalisation grant. Inevitably, he is also bound to drive a whole host of the lower income group people within the ambit of the rent rebate scheme, and that scheme will be paid for only by the people who are in municipal houses. No Christian group of people in this country will agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is the way a rebate scheme should operate.
  Mr. Leburn: I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman says—that if rents are increased a certain amount of the Exchequer equalisation grant is lost. We went into that in Committee upstairs. I repeat that the local authority will be compensated and perhaps compensated three, four or five times, by the increase; in the rents. On the hon. Gentleman's other point that it may bring a greater number of people into rent rebate schemes, that may be true, but I do not for a moment think that the difference between 95 per cent. and 100 per cent. will bring in a mass of extra people. Although I suppose that marginally it may well do so, I still feel that logically if a local authority does not wish to suffer a deduction from the Exchequer equalisation grant, then from those who can afford it it should expect to get gross annual value, and from those who cannot afford it there ought to be a properly approved rent rebate scheme. It can give those rebates and need not suffer any deduction under Clause 3.
  Mr. McInnes: We are discussing a Bill relating to local government financial provisions, but in essence it is really a rent Bill. Fundamentally, it deals with the question of local authority rentals. In other words, if a local authority does not charge the rental laid down in the formula provided in the Bill, it loses its Exchequer equalisation grant.
  The Under-Secretary indicated that on this side of the Committee we have frequently asserted that we are opposed to low rent policies. I acknowledge that. We have always indicated our acceptance of a reasonable rent. What I should like to know, in dealing with this Clause and Amendment, is what constitutes a reasonable rent? I remember that in Committee frequent references were made to the Public Accounts Committee. That is fundamentally where the question of rentals arose. I know that in the evidence laid on behalf of the Secretary of State before the Public Accounts Committee it was clearly stated that the Secretary of State regarded £39 a year as a reasonable rent. This figure is in the written evidence submitted to the Public Accounts Committee. That was on 9th February, 1961, when the evidence was laid before the Public Accounts Committee.

  301
  then there came the Housing Act, 1962, with its somewhat complicated formula. Again, we were to take the gross annual value of local authority houses and the figure arrived at by multiplying £60 by the total number of houses. That meant that if the gross annual value of a house was £46, this would be £14 less than £60, so one had to halve the £14, which gave £7, and add the £7 to the £46, which gave £53. Therefore, instead of £39 being a reasonable rent, £53 became a reasonable rent under the Housing Act, 1962.
  In this Bill we have to take the notional income for the year 1963–64 at 90 per cent. of the gross annual value, working up in 1966 to 95 per cent. of the gross annual value, so in the next three years the local authority rentals, if they are to qualify for Exchequer equalisation grant, must reach the figure of 95 per cent. of the gross annual value by 1966, otherwise local authorities will lose their share of the Exchequer equalisation grant.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) dealt with the question of the rent rebate scheme. It is a peculiar position, but it is nevertheless a fact that each time a local authority increases rents it concurrently introduces a rent rebate scheme, because the tenants cannot afford the new rents. I will give a typical example. Dumfries County Council which charges 22s. per week has 2,443 tenants, but 2,132 of the tenants come within the rent rebate scheme. Is this the situation that the Under-Secretary of State wants to reach?
  Mr. Brewis: What percentage of the gross annual value is represented by the rent income at Dumfries after the rebates have been deducted?
  Mr. McInnes: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an indication as to the gross annual value. I am dealing with the factual situation in Dumfries.
  Mr. Brewis: It is up to 95 per cent.
  Mr. McInnes: I am glad of the hon. Gentleman's support. This is the situation that has developed and that I am complaining of. It is fantastic that a local authority such as Dumfries decides to increase rent for 2,443 tenants and then finds that 2,132 of them—88 per cent.—cannot afford the new rents. This is an intolerable situation.
  302
  I wish that the Secretary of State would, once and for all, make up his mind as to what constitutes a reasonable rent rather than introduce Measure after Measure containing complicated formulae which practically no one understands. Let him be honest about it and cut out these complicated formulae dealing with the Exchequer equalisation grants, gross annual value and the rest.
  Why should not he merely say that the Government regard certain figures to be reasonable rents for five-apartment, four-apartment and three-apartment houses, and that unless local authorities impose such rentals they will lose their equalisation grants? Let the Government be straightforward about this instead of introducing complicated formulae surrounded with nonsense in order to conceal precisely what they are doing.
  As the Under-Secretary of State has indicated, we on this side of the Committee are not opposed to reasonable rents. Indeed, we have gone further. We have indicated our opposition to low rental policies. I do not know what support he wants from this side of the Committee than that. But, instead, the Government bring us this Bill with its magic wands contained in almost every Clause waving in one direction or another. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider and accept our Amendment so that the position of the tenants may be somewhat eased.
  Mr. Hendry: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) should describe this as a rent Bill. I do not know where he was during discussion of previous Amendments, when the subject of rents was completely out of order and scarcely mentioned at all. On the other hand, we have had a great deal of discussion and we have all tried to achieve some sort of formula whereby local authorities which are less well off and have a high level of unemployment can benefit by the equalisation grants. The proposals put forward by the Government and by the Opposition have the same end in view—that so far as possible a local authority which has a high level of unemployment should not suffer in the distribution of the equalisation grant.
  There was a great deal of discussion on these lines in Committee upstairs and the Members opposite first of all suggested that the provisions whereby equalisation

  303
  grant would be effected by low house rents should not apply to areas of high unemployment. The Committee decided against that because there were various objections to it. Now hon. Members opposite have suggested a method by which they think a reasonable compromise could be reached. On the other hand, my hon. Friend has produced what I think is a brilliant suggestion which is the only one which can reasonably achieve what we are all trying to do.
  7.45 p.m.
  Apart from the question of rents, we are all exercised a great deal about the best way of ensuring that areas of high unemployment receive all possible benefit from the equalisation grants. In Committee upstairs, my hon. Friend undertook to see what he could do to achieve this without these local authorities losing equalisation grants in the event of their having to reduce house rents. The difficulty was that if an area of high unemployment reduced house rents to a very high extent it would inevitably lose equalisation grants, because the total of house rents would inevitably be below the percentage stated in the Clause.
  The only possible way by which this could be avoided was to make standard rents far above the gross annual value, and that would be wrong. If we take any criterion as to what is a reasonable rent for a council house, surely it is the gross annual value placed on it by the assessor, who is the properly appointed and skilled official for the purpose. In fixing the percentage in the Clause as originally drafted it seemed to me that my hon. Friend attempted to take into consideration the rebates which he might reasonably expect to take place in the average local authority area.
  However, it was put to him very clearly by hon. Members on both sides upstairs that this percentage might not be the true percentage in a high unemployment area where there were a great many rebates and where the actual rent income might be far below what it was supposed to be. Now my hon. Friend has gone to a great deal of trouble about this, and I am certain that he must have Treasury consent to what he proposes. He is taking, ultimately, the gross annual value, which is a reason-
  304
  able rent, but if a local authority wishes it, and only if it wishes it, he will see that the actual income is the figure taken into account.
  Mr. J. Robertson: Why is it that in Scotland the gross annual value is considered to be the proper rent? It is not so in England, where rent is now only half the gross annual value.
  Mr. Hendry: We are not concerned here with gross annual value. Under the law of Scotland as at present applied, the assessor was instructed to fix as the gross annual value what he considered to be a reasonable rent between a willing landlord and a willing tenant. That criterion is surely sensible. It seems to me to be logical and to be only fair and reasonable that where a local authority is comparatively poor and has a high level of unemployment due allowance should be made. The thing is logical. There will be an automatic adjustment for local authorities in suitable cases and my hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the Amendment which he has voluntarily offered to us.
  I am in complete sympathy with the intention behind the Opposition Amendment, but I am convinced that it is not the best means of dealing with this matter. I think, on the other hand, that my hon. Friend's Amendment is completely logical and will achieve what the whole Committee is trying to bring about.
  Mr. Ross: We have two competing Amendments to deal with the same matter. Clause 3 is a punitive measure by which a calculation is made following which a deduction is made from the equalisation grant of certain local authorities. The actual rent of local authority houses is aggregated and there is a definition of the actual rent which we discover to be not the money paid by local authority tenants, but the money which would be paid if they were all paying the full rent. We are not here dealing with areas of high unemployment, for it is not only the unemployed who cannot pay the rent stipulated. There are also old-age pensioners and those who are sick and others to whom, for one reason or another, local authorities rebate rents, perhaps in part, perhaps in full.
  What we are arguing about is whether it is fair to consider rents unpaid because

  305
  of poverty as actual income; in other words, whether the burden of meeting the poverty should be borne not by the whole town, not by the whole city and not by the whole county, but only by local authority tenants. Our Amendment simply argues that actual income should be what it is—actual income; that is to say, money paid. The calculation would leave completely out of account, or take into account—it depends on one's interpretation of those words—the unpaid rents of people receiving rent rebates because of their poverty.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) said that the gross annual value was not relevant. He never got things more wrong than with this Amendment. He is straight on his way to becoming either Lord Advocate or Minister of State. The present Minister of State immortalised his defeat by accepting the title of Craigton, the constituency which threw him out. In his new title he has told every Secretary of State that he would go down in history and that everything he did was brilliant. Most of them have gone down, although not in history. He went up and that will happen to the hon. Gentleman if he goes on being as muddle-headed as this.
  Gross annual value has been taken as the criterion, but to state that it is fair is to assume that gross annual value is right and to accept the infallibity of the assessors. If the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West had listened to the arguments in Standing Committee from my hon. Friends representing Dunbartonshire and Fife, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay), who pointed out that it was accepted by the Minister in relation to a certain rule Which the Bill is to make, he would have known that there was unfairness in the lack of uniformity of assessment throughout Scotland, so that gross annual value could be wrong. It could be wrong as between one area and another and wrong within an area. If the assessors were infallible, there would be no appeals and, if there were no appeals, there would not be pressure from assessors, as there is now, to delay the next revaluation for another year because of the amount of work now to be done.
  The Under-Secretary has accepted our argument in part. We had a good debate on this subject in Standing Committee
  306
  and there was some recognition of the unfairness and some acceptance of the view that the burden of poverty ought to be borne not by one section of the community, but by all the community. The Under-Secretary has recognised that by more or less saying, "I will give you 5 per cent.". That is not enough. He has to go the whole way to be logical and fair. He is still in the same difficulty as before, when in his fairness he argued himself into the position of justifying the rents of local authority houses which were in excess of gross annual value irrespective of whether that value was fair or unfair.
  The hon. Member should see exactly what the Rating and Valuation Act does say about the criterion by which an assessor fixes annual value. It has nothing to do with a willing buyer and a willing seller. This is not a question of buying and selling, but a tenancy. It is the rent which a person would be prepared to pay for a particular house on the assumption that there was an even balance between the person in the house and the person wanting the house. In other words, we are now dealing with the attitudes of the person in a house and the person who would like to be in the house. What the person who is in a house thinks it is worth is sometimes slightly different from the view of the person who would like to be in it. The Under-Secretary has made a fair effort and has gone some of the way, but he has not gone far enough. However, I thank him for cleaning up the Clause and clarifying some of the issues which we raised.
  Another question which the hon. Gentleman has not answered is: what is a reasonable rent? This is a slogan which does not mean anything. This is the third or fourth time that he has used the expression "reasonable rent", but he has not fixed it yet. There is now to be another distinction between those authorities who have rent rebate schemes and those who have not. It is to be reasonable to have 85 per cent. of the gross annual value in one case and 95 per cent. in another.
  No effort is made to define what kind of rent rebate scheme would be approved by the Secretary of State. The control is left in his hands. Our argument about Dumfries, which we have made time and again, is relevant and is not destroyed

  307
  by what the Under-Secretary has said. The figure will be 100 per cent. of gross annual value after two years and to say that it is 95 per cent. at the moment means that rents will have to rise in a year or two just to meet the Government's formula. If simply meeting a formula is not justified, nor is the use of a notional calculation.
  We think that the whole Clause is wrong and that the Secretary of State is abrogating his duties and rights to interfere with local authorities. He has all the powers in the world without Clause 3 and he has all the influence with local authorities which he requires. At Question Time today we had a Question about infant mortality in Scotland and the Secretary of State said that bad housing was one cause and that the Government were doing everything they could to get rid of it. They are doing everything they can to raise rents and doing less and less each year to see that new houses are built. This is where hon. Members opposite have failed Scotland. They have been almost hypnotised by this question of rents, and it is little wonder
  that their support is falling. They may be advised by all the advertising experts on their side of the Committee, but fewer and fewer houses are being built to supplant the slums and to meet the needs of the people of Scotland.
  The sooner we get away from this situation and back to reality in the building of houses and dealing with poverty and rent rebates and ensuring that where there is poverty it is borne by the whole community and where there is need for houses that is borne by the whole nation, the better.
  That is why we prefer our Amendment, but it is an Amendment to a Clause which we do not like. We shall not oppose the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman because it is an improvement on what is in the Bill, but we must insist on voting for our Amendment and I hope that we shall do so right away.
  Question put, That those words be there inserted: —
  The Committee divided: Ayes 163, Noes 184.

  Division No. 98.]

  AYES

  [8.1 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Ainsley, William

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Albu, Austen

  Finch, Harold

  Loughlin, Charles

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Forman, J. C.

  McBride, N.

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  McCann, John

  Beaney, Alan

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  MacDermot, Niall

  Bence, Cyril

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  McInnes, James

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgton)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Benson, Sir George

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Blackburn, F.

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Blyton, William

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Boardman, H.

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

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

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Manuel, Archie

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

  Harper, Joseph

  Mapp, Charles

  Boyden, James

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Marsh, Richard

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hayman, F. H.

  Mason, Roy

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Henderson,Rt.Hn,Arthur(RwlyRegis)

  Millan, Bruce

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hilton, A. V.

  Monslow, Walter

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Holman, Percy

  Moody, A. S.

  Cliffe, Michael

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Morris, John

  Collick, Percy

  Hoy, James H.

  Mulley, Frederick

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Neal, Harold

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Oliver, G. M.

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  O'Malley, B. K.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hunter, A. E.

  Oswald, Thomas

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Owen, Will

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Padley, W. E.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  ?tanner. Sir Barnett

  Parker, John

  Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Pa ton, John

  Deer, George

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Peart, Frederick

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Pentland, Norman

  Dodds, Norman

  Kelley, Richard

  Prentice, R. E.

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Driberg, Tom

  King, Dr. Horace

  Probert, Arthur

  Edelman, Maurice

  Ledger, Ron

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Randall, Harry

  Rankin, John

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Warbey, William

  Redhead, E. C.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Watkins, Tudor

  Rhodes, H.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Steele, Thomas

  Whitlock, William

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Wllkins, W. A.

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Stones, William

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

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

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

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Ross, William

  Swingler, Stephen

  Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Short, Edward

  Taverne, D.

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Woof, Robert

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Thornton, Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Small, William

  Tomney, Frank

  Mr. Lawson and Mr. Grey.

  Snow, Julian

  Wainwright, Edwin

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Allason, James

  Hastings, Stephen

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Partridge, E.

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Hendry, Forbes

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Balniel, Lord

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

  Peel, John

  Barber, Anthony

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Percival, Ian

  Barlow, Sir John

  Holland, Philip

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Barter, John

  Hollingworth, John

  Pitkington, Sir Richard

  Batsford, Brian

  Hornby, R. P.

  Pott, Percivall

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Biff en, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Bingham, R. M.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Rees, Hugh

  Bishop, F. P.

  James, David

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Jennings, J. C.

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Braine, Bernard

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Brewis, John

  Johnston, Eric (Blackley)

  Roots, William

  Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Ropner, Col, Sir Leonard

  Brooman-White, R.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Russell, Ronald

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  St. Clair, M.

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Seymour, Leslie

  Burden, F. A.

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Shaw, M.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Shepherd, William

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Kershaw, Anthony

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

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Kitson, Timothy

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig, Sir John

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Speir, Rupert

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Leather, Sir Edwin

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Leavey, J. A.

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Stodart, J. A.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Corfield, F. V.

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Coulson, Michael

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Talbot, John E.

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Crawley, Aidan

  Loveys, Walter H.

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

  Critchley, Julian

  Lubbock, Eric

  Temple, John M.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  McLaren, Martin

  Thompson,SirRichard(Croydon,S.)

  Curran, Charles

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs)

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

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

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R, H.

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E, M.

  Maddan, Martin

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Dray son, G. B.

  Maginnis, John E.

  Wade, Donald

  Duncan, Sir James

  Maitland, Sir John

  Wakefield, Sir Waved

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Walder, David

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  walker, Peter

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Mawby, Ray

  Wall, Patrick

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Finlay, Graeme

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

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Mills, Stratton

  Whitelaw, William

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Gammans, Lady

  Morrison, John

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  George, Sir John (Pollok)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Neave, Alrey

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Woollam, John

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Worsley, Marcus

  Gower, Raymond

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Green, Alan

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Gresham Cook, R.

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Osborn, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Mr. MacArthur and Mr. Pym.

  Amendments made: In page 3, line 9, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
  In page 4, line 7, at end insert:
  (3) In this section—

  (a) references to a council's actual rent income for any year are references to the income receivable for the year by the council and credited to their housing revenue account for the' year under paragraph (a) of section 138(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1950 in respect of the relevant subjects, together with any sums so credited under subsection (2) or (3) of the said section 138, but excluding any such income as aforesaid which by reason of the granting of any rent rebates is not actually received; and

  (b) references to a council's notional rent income for any year are references to such percentage of the aggregate of the gross annual values of the relevant subjects, as shown in the valuation roll for the year in question, as is specified in the second column of the following Table in relation to that year:

  Provided that, if he is requested by any council to do so, the Secretary of State shall direct that, in relation to that council and in relation to such year as may be specified in the direction, this section shall have effect as if references therein to the council's notional rent income for that year were references to such percentage of the aggregate of the gross annual values of the relevant subjects, as shown in the valuation roll for the year in question, as is specified in the third column of the said Table in relation to that year, less an amount equal to the aggregate of any rent rebates granted in respect of those subjects by the council for that year in pursuance of any rent rebates scheme approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.

  TABLE

  Year

  Percentage first referred to above

  Percentage second referred to above

  1963–64

  85 per cent.

  90 per cent.

  1964–65

  90 per cent.

  95 per cent.

  Any subsequent year

  95 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  (4) In the last foregoing subsection—

  (a) references to the relevant subjects, in relation to any council and in relation to any year, are references to any houses, buildings, land or dwellings let by the council and shown in the valuation roll for that year;

  (b) references to the aggregate of the gross annual values of the relevant subjects, in relation to any council, are references to that aggregate exclusive of such part of the gross annual value of any house or dwelling comprised in those subjects as may be certified by the assessor to be attributable to any garage provided otherwise than by the council;

  (c) the expression "rent rebates" means rebates to which section 73(4) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1950 or section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1962 refers;

  312

  (d) the expression "rent rebates scheme" includes any scheme for the granting of rent rebates (including so much of any rents scheme made under the said section 29 as relates to rent rebates); and

  (e) the expression "valuation roll" does not include "supplementary valuation roll".

  In line 9, leave out "(2)" and insert "(3)".—[Mr. Leburn.]
  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, to leave out "of revaluation".
  This is a very important Amendment. Under subsection (5) the Secretary of State takes power, in a year of revaluation, to reduce the figures to which we have already taken exception. There are now two columns. We suggest that he should have this power of reduction in any year. Why wait just for a year of revaluation? Before many months have passed he may well appreciate that he has made a mistake and has been far too hard on Scottish local authorities. We seek to give him power to make this helpful reduction for Scottish local authorities in any year.
  Mr. Leburn: The hon. Member has moved the Amendment with great lucidity and has explained exactly what he thinks ought to be done. As I see it, however, we are here concerned with certain methods of calculating a local authority's notional rent income. This is based on gross annual value and, as we have explained in previous debates, we regard this as a proper figure on which to base these calculations. The only factor which would make my right hon. Friend consider making an Order fixing a lower percentage would be a steep rise in gross annual values in a year of revaluation, making it somewhat difficult for local authorities immediately to relate their rents once again to gross annual values if they did not wish to lose or have a reduction in their Exchequer equalisation grants.
  In those circumstances an Order might be made allowing for a reduced percentage in a year of revaluation, but that is the only circumstance in which such action would seem appropriate. In those circumstances, I regret to say that I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: I would not object to the reasons given by the hon. Member for the inclusion of this subsection. They

  313
  seem to be quite appropriate reasons. But I am surprised that he should close his mind to the fact that there might be other reasons why the Government would wish to change the figures. The hon. Member is not gifted with any divine insight into the future. He is not a prophet. We know that members of the Government are a number of things, but I certainly have not associated them with the race of prophets. The hon. Gentleman is being too rigid in this matter.
  We are trying to help him. We are trying to help the Government. We are seeking to give them more powers. I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should reject our generous offer in such a cavalier fashion. It does not tempt us to be helpful in the future.
  He must realise that he cannot tell what circumstances might arise in the future which would necessitate a change in these figures. That must be self-evident. If there is a possibility that circumstances might arise that would lead to a change being desirable, let us provide for it. If we read the subsection we find that he can change the figures
  "as may be so specified, as if for the percentage specified for that year in the Table there were substituted such other lower percentages as may be specified in the Order"
  and in relation to any local authority. Surely circumstances might arise in which these figures would be inappropriate in respect of one local authority. A certain area might be hit by severe unemployment, or something of a similar character, in which circumstances it would be ridiculous to maintain the figures in the columns.
  All we suggest is that, like very wise men, we ought to take precautions to enable the Government to deal with such a situation if it arises. That would appear to be a reasonable suggestion, and a quite generous offer on the part of the Opposition. The Government ought to accept an Amendment which would allow them to deal with any situation that might arise in the future.
  Mr. Ross: I am terribly disappointed at the reaction of the Under-Secretary. I have tried to help him out of a difficulty. He has already convinced us that it is desirable to have this power, because there may be such a steep rise in gross annual values in a year of revaluation
  314
  that it would be unfair to leave the figures as they are. Let him read what is in the Bill. The Clause provides that
  "The Secretary of State may by order provide that the Table set out in subsection (2) of this section shall have effect as respects any year of revaluation specified in the order…"
  That means that it can be done just in the year of revaluation. Not for another five years will there be any change in the valuation. He admits that it might be unfair in the year of revaluation, but what about the year after that? Might it not be unfair then too?
  The hon. Gentleman ought to think about this matter. The Secretary of State is not here to tell him, "This is a reasonable point. For heaven's sake accept the Amendment and save the Government." I advise him to accept the Amendment if he wishes to preserve us from the evils of a steep rise in gross annual values not only in the year of revaluation but in subsequent years.
  Will the hon. Gentleman have a very quick look at that? Or does he want me to talk a little longer in order to persuade him that it would be advisable to do this? I fed we ought to press this Amendment to a division from a point of simple justice. But I hope that we shall not be required to press the hon. Gentleman. If he requires this power in a year of revaluation he requires it in the following year, obviously. Has the hon. Gentleman an answer to this? If he has, I should be glad to hear it. Otherwise I think that we shall, in simple justice to the people of Scotland, have to press this matter to a division.
  Mr. Leburn: I have listened carefully to what has been said by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). It is true that this power, given to the Secretary of State, has been taken only for the years of revaluation. I make the point—I made it before and I will make it again, and the hon. Gentleman himself took it—that there may be an occasion when it is necessary. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. I am not a prophet, and I must work on the circumstances which are foreseeable. The only circumstance I can foresee in which this power would be required is in a year

  315
  of revaluation when there might be a steep increase in gross annual value.
  The gross annual value is a fair and impartial estimate of the rent value of a house. We must get to this point when discussing Clause 3 as it concerns E.E.G. It is one thing to say that local authorities may require one year in which to adjust the position. If they are to be given more than one year we do not set the gross annual value as a standard to be achieved or a percentage of it, when we consider Clause 3—
  Mr. Willis: But may I—
  Mr. Leburn: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue.
  Therefore, I think it reasonable to do this for one year. I admit that hon. Members may argue that in introducing this we are giving local authorities three years with increasing percentages. I appreciate that. But it is one case to phase into a new situation. Having got to that situation and accepted that gross annual value, or a percentage of it, is the standard, that is another case. The only circumstances I can foresee where the Secretary of State might want power to reduce is in a year of revaluation when there might be a steep increase. That being so, I feel that one year is sufficient time in which to get the matter adjusted.
  Mr. Millan: Suppose that in a year of revaluation a municipal house value goes up by 50 per cent. on average in an area of a particular local authority. Is the Under-Secretary saying that the adjustment called for in the provisions in Clause 3 should be effected in one year only? Obviously, that is absolutely preposterous. This has been badly drafted. The Government draftsmen have not seen the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), that revaluation affects not just the year of revaluation, but the succeeding four years.
  We are trying to get the Undersecretary out of a difficulty. I do not see why we should take all this trouble to get him out of a difficulty when he is so determined to put himself into it. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to look at this again. There may be circumstances in a particular area—and this subsection was meant to provide for such circum-
  316
  stances—where there would be inequity. This is simply an error in drafting. If the power were available, there would be nothing to prevent the Government prescribing one year in an order if that were all they wanted to do. But if they did want phasing, unless this Amendment is accepted, legislation would be needed. The Government have nothing to lose by accepting the Amendment. I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept it and not maintain this ridiculous argument.
  Mr. Ross: What is the Under-Secretary afraid of? There is nothing mandatory about this. He may do it; he does not need to do it. Would not it be advisable to have this power? He has taken every other power, not to apply to the whole of Scotland but to a particular local authority in relation to revaluation. Let the hon. Gentleman forget about "Michael the Silent". He is the man in power. Let him accept the Amendment. If the Secretary of State were present, he would know nothing about it anyway—let us be honest. And those in St. Andrew's House who do know something about it would probably give the hon. Gentleman a vote of thanks.
  Mr. Leburn: This is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman thinks. If I were to accept the Amendment—and if it were only a question of drafting I would consider the matter—it would be almost giving a hostage to fortune—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Wait—and it would, perhaps, be misleading in giving the impression that in certain circumstances where there is a steep increase in valuation the phasing out is, perhaps, to take place over two, three or four years. The underlying principle behind Clause 3 is that the gross annual value, or a certain percentage, is the standard to be reached for a notional rent, if local authorities do not wish to suffer a deduction of E.E.G. I think it reasonable to take the power for one year. It is different from extending it over a number of years. I am sorry, but I cannot accept the Amendment.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: The Under-Secretary has not answered the point which was made very effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). He drew special attention to the possibility, which the Clause envisages in terms of the Under-Secretary's explanation, that there might be a steep

  317
  rise in valuation for one local authority. What the hon. Gentleman said does not make sense unless that is the interpretation. If that steep and very unfair rise in valuation takes place for one local authority, that local authority will have lo put up with it for five years. What is the hon. Gentleman going to do about the other four years? If it is necessary to meet the unfairness of the very steep rise for one year for one local authority, it would be most unfair for that one local authority to be picked out. Does not the hon. Gentleman propose to do anything in respect of the other four years?
  Mr. Gourlay: I wish to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, East ^Mr. Willis) and for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). This is not a hypothetical situation. It is the situation at present in Fife and Dunbartonshire. The Under-Secretary's Department, with a member of the other place, met representatives of both those authorities earlier this year. There was an undertaking to see what could be done to persuade other local authorities to have a readjustment in Exchequer grant because of the unfair valuations in those areas.
  If the Under-Secretary accepted this Amendment, he could relieve those two authorities. As has been stressed, the relief would be not only in one year but in five years from one valuation to the next in which those authorities suffer. I emphasise the appeal made to the hon. Gentleman and ask him to think again and to see whether he can give the necessary relief to authorities which are hard hit.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: Will the Under-Secretary have another look at this problem? When I saw this Amendment I thought that it should be in the name of the Secretary of State, because I thought it an Amendment which the Government would want to make as the subsection is obviously a mistake. In drafting this subsection, the Government have assumed that the situation might arise in a subsequent year of revaluation, 1966–67, in which in the area of one or more local authorities there will be an exceptionally steep rise in valuation. It should be borne in mind that most of the valuation areas comprise several local authorities. Those authorities would be
  318
  seen by the Government of the day to have had a steep rise in valuation.
  All that the Government seem to have done by this subsection is to have taken power to make allowances in the calculation of what is a fair rent for a council house in an authority's area in which there has been an exceptionally steep and unfair rise. The Under-Secretary says that an order will be made to give relief to the housing authority in the valuation area for the purposes of one year. In the remaining four years of the quinquennium that group of authorities within the area will have a level of notional rent to which they must rise greatly in excess of the level to which he will expect the rest of the country to seek to rise.
  In view of what we all understand to have been the undertaking of the Minister of State to local authorities in Fife, Dunbartonshire and Renfrewshire, we are seeking to ensure that in future the Government will proceed, presumably by amended legislation, to see that appellants against high gross annual value may make their appeals on the ground that the annual value is unreasonably high in relation to the general level of valuations throughout Scotland. That is the kind of promise that has been made. As that has not been done and the time for making appeals against the 1961 revaluation has expired, would the Undersecretary not wish to be able to do something for those local housing authorities in areas which have an unreasonably high valuation under the existing revaluation of 1956–61?
  If he wanted to do something for them, he would accept this Amendment so that he could make the order at any time. He could make it now and substitute alternative figures for those in the subsection for Fife, Dunbartonshire and Renfrewshire. He may not wish to do that, but would he not want to have the power to do it?
  If we have a similar situation arising in 1966—it could be in the same valuation area, it could be Fife—what does the Minister propose to do? Suppose that in 1966 the Fife valuation for local authority houses were 20 per cent. higher than the average valuation for local authority houses in industrial towns in Scotland. Would the Under-Secretary think it enough to make an order under Clause 3(5) to deal with the provision

  319
  in the County of Fife for the year 1967 and no other year? Would that be fair? Presumably, following the subsequent revaluation at the end of another quinquennium, he would make another order for the year 1972. Is this the way in which he imagines that the Government should go about their business? Surely not. Surely the whole object of putting the subsection into the Clause is to enable the Secretary of State by means of a Statutory Instrument to introduce some measure of equity when inequity has seemed to flow from revaluation. If that is not the object, then I cannot see the object of subsection (5).
  I wish that the Under-Secretary of State would take my hon. Friend's advice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, there is nothing mandatory in our proposal. We are merely removing what appears to be a foolish limitation which has crept into the situation. The Secretary of State will still have power to apply his order to any one authority or any group of authorities. He will do it only for those who have been badly hit by an unreasonable revaluation. If it is good enough to do it for one year, it must be good enough to do it for the remaining four years of the quinquennium.
  Will he not take this power? If he or any of his successors did not feel that the situation warranted the exercise of the power, then it would not be exercised and the order would not be made. Surely he will assume responsibility as Minister in charge of a Bill, for accepting this very reasonable Amendment.
  Mr. Leburn: I am always prepared to accept responsibility for dealing with Amendments. On the face of it, the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) was persuasive, but where he goes wrong is in the fact that his whole argument is based on the assumption that the Secretary of State will be the judge as to what is a fair and reasonable assessment of any group of authorities or, for that matter, any single authority. I could not accept that situation for one moment. The position is that we accept the valuations of the assessors throughout Scotland as being able to bring us to a uniform valuation. Where anyone feels aggrieved there is the normal
  320
  valuation appeal procedure. I do not think that it would be right for the Secretary of State to set himself up as a judge in this matter.
  That is quite a different thing from saying that there may be a steep rise for one year which deserves special consideration. We agree that we cannot look behind these valuations. While we accept the valuations and accept that they are uniform, it might well be that there were circumstances in which for one year, if there were a steep rise, it would be right and proper for the Secretary of State to give some relief. But we cannot get away from the fact that the values brought out by the assessor will bring us towards uniformity. We have introduced a new provision in the Bill whereby appellants will be given an opportunity to make comparisons with other areas so that all the time we are getting towards greater uniformity, although even now we have a much greater uniformity than ever before and we hope as years go on to get greater uniformity still. Giving some relief for one year is different from perhaps carrying over for one, two, three, four or five years, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, because that would be getting away altogether from the principle that the gross annual values are a fair and impartial assessment of this value. I have listened very carefully to all that has been said, but I do not feel justified in accepting the Amendment.
  Mr. T. Fraser: If the Under-Secretary has such confidence that there are at present uniform valuations and that there will be increasingly uniform valuations—or, as he said, more and more uniform valuations—in future, why does he want the power to make an Order which will apply to one local authority in Scotland? Does not the hon. Gentleman take the power to make the Order applicable to one local authority or a group of local authorities as he sees fit because he recognises that there has been a very steep rise, to use the words he used in his first speech on the Amendment, in the valuation of houses in the area of one local authority or in a group of local authorities?
  Does he not recognise that the whole object of inserting this subsection is to deal with the situation where there has manifestly been a departure from this

  321
  uniformity which he recognises will always flow from the present system of valuation for rating? Is not that so?
  Mr. Leburn: The only conclusion I would draw from that is that I might seriously have to consider whether the Secretary of State should have power to do it for such local authority or local authorities.
  Mr. Ross: It is depressingly difficult to persuade the Under-Secretary to see sense on this point. What destroys his whole argument is the fact that these words are there at all. If they are necessary for one year, they might well be necessary for a
  second year or a third year. The hon. Gentlemen's persistence in failing to recognise our argument is to deny the historical fact of what has happened in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton), what has happened in relation to Dumbarton and what happened before revaluation took place in Bearsden. In view of the attitude of the Under-Secretary, we must proceed right away to force our Amendment to a Division.
  Question put, That "of revaluation" stand part of the Clause:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 194, Noes 159.

  Division No. 99.]

  AYES

  [8.43 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Foster, John

  Macpherson,Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfries)

  Allason, James

  Gammans, Lady

  Maddan, Martin

  Atkins, Humphrey

  George, Sir John (Pollok)

  Maginnie, John E.

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maitland, Sir John

  Balniel, Lord

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Barber, Anthony

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Gower, Raymond

  Mawby, Ray

  Barter, John

  Green, Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Batsford, Brian

  Gresham Cooke, R.

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

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Mills, Stratton

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Harris, Reader (Heaton)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Biffen, John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bingham, R. M.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morrison, John

  Bishop, F. P.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Hendry, Forbes

  Heave, Airey

  Box, Donald

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

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Braine, Bernard

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Brewis, John

  Holland, Philip

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

  Hollingworth, John

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Brooman-White, R.

  Hornby, R. P.

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Peel, John

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Percival, Ian

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  James, David

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Jennings, J. C.

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Chataway, Christopher

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Pott, Percivall

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Clarke,Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Pym, Francis

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Cooke, Robert

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Kerans, Cdr, J. S.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Coulson, Michael

  Kitson, Timothy

  Roots, William

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Lancaster, Col. C. C.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Critchley, Julian

  Langford-HoIt, Sir John

  Russell, Ronald

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Cot. Sir Oliver

  Leather, Sir Edwin

  St. Clair, M.

  Curran, Charles

  Leavey, J. A.

  Seymour, Leslie

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Shaw, M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Shepherd, William

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Lilley, F. J. P.

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

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

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

  Speir, Rupert

  Drayson, C. B.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Duncan, Sir James

  Lubbock, Eric

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Eden, John

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stodart, J. A.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  McLaren, Martin

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Talbot, John E.

  Emmet, Hen. Mrs. Evelyn

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs)

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

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

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

  Temple, John M.

  Farr, John

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S,)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)

  Thornton-Kemsfey, Sir Cohn

  Fisher, Nigel

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Walder, David

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Walker, Peter

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Wall, Patrick

  Woollam, John

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Worsley, Marcus

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Whitelaw, William

  Wade, Donald

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Ian Fraser and Mr. Rees.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Pentland, Norman

  Ainsley, William

  Hayman, F. H.

  Prentice, R. E.

  Albu, Austen

  Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Probert, Arthur

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Randall, Harry

  Beaney, Alan

  Holman, Percy

  Rankin, John

  Bence, Cyril

  Hoy, James H.

  Redhead, E. C.

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Rhodes, H.

  Benson, Sir George

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Blackburn, F.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Blyton, William

  Hunter, A. E.

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Boardman, H.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

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

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Ross, William

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

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Short, Edward

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Brockway, A, Fenner

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Kelley, Richard

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Small, William

  Cliffe, Michael

  King, Dr. Horace

  Snow, Julian

  Collick, Percy

  Lawson, George

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Steele, Thomas

  Dalyell, Tam

  Loughlin, Charles

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Stones, William

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  McBride, N.

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

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Swingler, Stephen

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  McInnes, James

  Taverne, D.

  Deer, George

  McLeavy, Frank

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Delargy, Hugh

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Dempsey, James

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Thomas Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Dodds, Norman

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

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Manuel, Archie

  Thornton, Ernest

  Driberg, Tom

  Mapp, Charles

  Tomney, Frank

  Edelman, Maurice

  Mason, Roy

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Millan, Bruce

  Warbey, William

  Fernyhough, E.

  Milne, Edward

  Watkins, Tudor

  Finch, Harold

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Weitzman, David

  Fletcher, Eric

  Monslow, Walter

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Forman, J. C.

  Moody, A. S.

  Whitlock, William

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Morris, John

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mulley, Frederick

  Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Neal, Harold

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Oliver, G. H.

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

  Grey, Charles

  O'Malley, B. K.

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Padley, W. E.

  Woof, Robert

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Parker, John

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Paton, John

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Harper, Joseph

  Peart, Frederick

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

  Mr. McCann.

  Amendments made: In page 4, line 12, leave out "percentage" and insert "percentages".
  In line 13, leave out "percentage" and insert "percentages".—[Mr. Leburn.]
  Question put, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 189, Noes 153.

  Division No. 100.]

  AYES

  [8.55 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Barber, Anthony

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Allason, James

  Barlow, Sir John

  Biffen, John

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Barter, John

  Bingham, R. M.

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Batsford, Brian

  Bishop, F. P.

  Balniel, Lord

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Box, Donald

  Hornby, R. P.

  Peel, John

  Braine, Bernard

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Percival, Ian

  Brewis, John

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Brooman-White, R.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pott, Percivall

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Burden, F. A.

  James, David

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Jennings, J. C.

  Pym, Francis

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Chataway, Christopher

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Roots, William

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, w.)

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Russell, Ronald

  Cooke, Robert

  Kershaw, Anthony

  St. Clair, M.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Seymour, Leslie

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Shaw, M.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Shepherd, William

  Coulson, Michael

  Leather, Sir Edwin

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

  Craddock, Sir Beresford(Spelthorne)

  Leavey, J. A.

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Critchley, Julian

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Speir, Rupert

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Curran, Charles

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Stodart, J, A.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lioyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Lubbock, Eric

  Talbot, John E.

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  McLaren, Martin

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

  Drayson, G. B.

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Temple, John M.

  Duncan, Sir James

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Eden, John

  Maclean, SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

  Elliott, R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall(Dumfries)

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Farr, John

  Maddan, Martin

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maginnis, John E.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Maitland, Sir John

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Gammans, Lady

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Vane, W. M. F.

  George, Sir John (Pollok)

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Wade, Donald

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mawby, Ray

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Walder, David

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

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

  Walker, Peter

  Gower, Raymond

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wall, Patrick

  Green, Alan

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Morrison, John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Whitelaw, William

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Neave, Airey

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Hendry, Forbes

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Woollam, John

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

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Holland, Philip

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Hollingworth, John

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Finlay and Mr. Rees.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Collick, Percy

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Ainsley, William

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Albu, Austen

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Grey, Charles

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Dalyell, Tam

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Beaney, Alan

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Bence, Cyril

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Harper, Joseph

  Benson, Sir George

  Deer, George

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Blackburn, F.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hayman, F. H.

  Blyton, William

  Dempsey, James

  Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)

  Boardman, H.

  Dodds, Norman

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Driberg, Tom

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

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

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hilton, A. V.

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness(Caerphilly)

  Holman, Percy

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hoy, James H.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Finch, Harold

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Forman, J. C.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Cliffe, Michael

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  326

  327

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Steele, Thomas

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  O'Malley, B. K.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Stones, William

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Padley, W. E.

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

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Parker, John

  Swingler, Stephen

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Taverne, D.

  Kelley, Richard

  Peart, Frederick

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Pentland, Norman

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Lawson, George

  Prentice, R. E.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermilne)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Probert, Arthur

  Thornton, Ernest

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Tomney, Frank

  Loughlin, Charles

  Randall, Harry

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Rankin, John

  Wainwright, Edwin

  McBride, N.

  Redhead, E. C.

  Warbey, William

  MacDermot, Niall

  Rhodes, H.

  Watkins, Tudor

  McInnes, James

  Weitzman, David

  McLeavy, Frank

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Whitlock, William

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Wilkins, W. A.

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

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

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Manuel, Archie

  Ross, William

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Mapp, Charles

  Short, Edward

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

  Mason, Roy

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Millan, Bruce

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Milne, Edward

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Woof, Robert

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Moody, A. S.

  Small, William

  Morris, John

  Sorensen, R. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mulley, Frederick

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

  Neal, Harold

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Mr. McCann.

  Clause 13.—(VALUATION BY FORMULA OF CERTAIN LANDS AND HERITAGES.)
  Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 9, line 43, to leave out "and".
  The Chairman: I think that it would be convenient to take at the same time the next Amendment, in line 46, at end insert:
  "and
  (e) any lands and heritages occupied by persons carrying on (otherwise than under authority conferred by or under any public general enactment) an undertaking for the generation of electricity by water power."
  Mr. Leburn: Yes, Sir William. The first is a drafting Amendment to introduce the second, which is the substantive Amendment.
  The purpose is to add another category to the list of types of subject to which valuation by formula could be applied, namely, hydro-electric undertakings other than those carried on as public bodies under statute. Representations have been made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by the Scottish Council that in the case of hydro-electric undertakings—other than those carried on by the North Board and the South Board—normal methods of valuation produce anomalies and burdensome results.
  That is because of the high capital cost of the extensive and expensive dams, reservoirs and plants which a hydroelectric scheme requires. They inflate the value to such a level that the rates
  328
  form a much higher proportion of the value of the output than in the case of industry generally or of the Boards' hydro-electric schemes.
  We consider that an adequate case has been made out at least to justify including private hydro-electric undertakings in the list of undertakings which under Clause 13 can be valued by means of a formula prescribed by the Secretary of State. This does not mean that a formula will necessarily be applied. A detailed case would have to be made out which would stand the test of discussion with the local authorities concerned, which, under the Clause, have a right to be consulted, and an Order embodying a formula produced after discussion and consultation would, of course, require the approval of the House of Commons.
  We took the opportunity of discussing this proposal with the working party on local government finance, and I should tell the Committee that it was not exactly keen on this. In fact, it did not meet with its approval, because it felt that this might be a precedent which could be claimed by other industries. Nevertheless, all we are doing by this Amendment is to create an enabling power to be used only if a case for it can be substantiated. The effect of rate burden on an undertaking would, therefore, not in itself justify the adoption of a formula, nor the fact that public hydro-electric undertakings are valued by formula, and a case

  329
  would have to be shown in detail that high rate valuations were unreasonable.
  Mr. W. Baxter: Does that mean that an application would then be made to the Secretary of State about the valuation of these undertakings? Is that not a contradiction in terms of the last Amendment, on which the hon. Gentleman said that the Secretary of State should not enter into the question of valuation?
  Mr. Leburn: We are here dealing with the question whether a particular type of subject should be valued by formula.
  I thought a good deal about the difficulties which the working party had about setting a precedent, but I do not think that this applies here, because there is something rather special about a hydroelectric project as opposed to any other form of industry. I think that on balance this is wise, and I commend the Amendment to the Committee.
  Mr. McInnes: As the hon. Gentleman indicated, we are dealing here with subjects valued by formula. May I ask him whether he consulted the Advisory Council on Valuation on the matter?
  Mr. Leburn: I do not think that we did.
  Mr. McInnes: Why not on an important matter like this, as to how these subjects should be valued? That was the purpose for which the advisory body was set up under the 1956 Act—so that it should be consulted in matters of this kind.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman said that he is just adding one more set of subjects to the list, but he will admit that this is quite a change, because these are private installations, and, so far as I know, there are only two of them—or, rather, there will be two of them: there is only one at the moment, as far as I am aware, and that is the one at Kinlochleven; there will be another at Fort William when we get the pulp mill. Did the hon. Gentleman consult the local authorities concerned? Because it may be that the Inverness and Fort William councils may have something to say about this, rather than the County Councils Association. I am not saying that infallibly the hon. Gentleman should, having consulted them, always take their advice; but it strikes me as strange how quickly
  330
  this has come in, on representations made not by the people themselves, and after such a long time, because, after all, the Kinlochleven installation has been going quite a long time.
  I do not think we necessarily raise any objection to this, because, after all, if an order is produced we shall have an opportunity of seeing it here. Nevertheless, the point made by my hon. Friend is quite relevant. We took the trouble to set up this Advisory Council. I know that the Under-Secretary may say that this refers to valuations and assessments of an entirely different kind, but these are the kind of people who certainly should be approached in a matter like this. I do not know how often it meets or whether it would be troublesome to call it for the purposes of giving advice of this kind. But I do not think that we can ignore its existence in a matter which, in the aggregate, may not be very much, but which to the local authorities directly concerned might mean quite a considerable amount. I hope that the Under-Secretary will bear that point in mind when he adds to the list.
  Mr. Leburn: I am very conscious of this fact, and I feel that the right thing to do is to take this power, but before anything can happen all the local authorities concerned will be consulted; in fact, under subsection (4) they must be. I can give the same undertaking to the hon. Member for. Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) that the Advisory Council would be consulted at that time too before there was any question of the Secretary of State bringing in an order to rate by formula.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 46, at end insert:
  "and
  (e) any lands and heritages occupied by persons carrying on (otherwise than under authority conferred by or under any public general enactment) an undertaking for the generation of electricity by water power."—[Mr. Leburn.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 18.—(EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC PARKS FROM RATES.)
  Mr. Leburn: I beg to move in page 12, line 11, to leave out Clause 18.

  331
  Would it be convenient, Sir William, to discuss this Amendment and the Amendment to Clause 24, page 14, line 31, leave out "sections 2 and 18" and insert "section 2", together with the first new Clause?
  The Chairman: In that case, perhaps it would be better for the Committee also to discuss the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) which was to be discussed with the Secretary of State's first new Clause.
  Mr. Leburn: I think that that would be better.
  In Committee, hon. Members opposite were good enough to withdraw their Amendments to this Clause about the rating of parks. They saw difficulties and persuaded me about the approach that we had taken and particularly the requirement that the public had to have both free and unrestricted access to a park if it was to be de-rated. In view of this, I am now suggesting that we should adopt a different approach and, therefore, we are proposing that a park vested in or under the control of a local authority should be excluded from the valuation roll unless the park makes a profit. In other words, the ordinary parks would be outside the valuation system altogether, which would avoid the assessment of fictitious rental values, and the fact that there are perhaps putting greens or boating ponds for which a charge is made would not prevent a park being excluded from the roll. Few, if any, of these facilities cover their expenses, still less the expenses of a park as a whole, and only commercially profitable parks, for example, fun fairs, would be entered in the valuation roll. It is also appropriate that buildings in a park, which are ancillary to the park, for example, for implements and vehicle sheds and the houses for the staff who need to be resident there, should be considered as part of it. But buildings such as ordinary dwelling houses in the parks will, of course, not come within this category.
  9.15 p.m.
  It is expected that the vast majority of local authority parks will obtain this exemption. As I explained in Committee upstairs, this will not make any real difference to the local authorities concerned,
  332
  except where a park is in the area of another local authority or where it is a district council park. I hope that, with this explanation, the Committee may feel disposed to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 24.—(INTERPRETATION.)
  Amendment made: In page 14, line 31, leave out "sections 2 and 18" and insert "section 2".—[Mr. Leburn.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  New Clause.—(CERTAIN PARKS NOT TO BE ENTERED IN VALUATION ROLL.)
  (1) Any lands and heritages—

  (a) which consist of a park vested in or under the control of a local authority; and

  (b) from which the local authority does not derive net profit,

  shall not be entered in the valuation roll for the year 1963–64 or any subsequent year;
  Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any building comprised in any such park unless it is used for purposes ancillary to those of the park.
  (2) In this section the expression "local authority" includes a district council, and the expression "park" includes any recreation ground or pleasure ground.—[Mr. Leburn.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Leburn: On a point of order, Sir William. There is an Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) to this proposed new Clause.
  The Chairman: I propose, if the Committee decides to give a Second Reading to the Clause, to call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), if he wishes to move it.
  Mr. Hendry: Further to that point of order, Sir William. I am not clear about what we are discussing. I had understood that a new Clause in my name, "Certain village halls not to be entered in valuation roll," was also to be discussed.
  The Chairman: I said that that Clause would be debated in the discussion we have just completed. That is the position. What will happen now is that if the Committee agrees to the Government's new Clause being read a Second

  333
  time the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to move his Amendment to it.
  Question, That the Clause be read a Second time, put and agreed to.
  Mr. Hendry: I beg to move, in line 2, after the first "authority", to insert "or a village sports club".
  The original proposal discussed in Committee upstairs brought out considerable misgivings. Doubts were raised about parks where there was an occasional charge for entry and about areas in parks used for such purposes as bowling greens. My hon. Friend then gave certain assurances. At the same time he stated that the exemptions must be given out evenly, fairly and squarely over the whole of Scotland. If he is to give exemptions evenly and fairly and squarely over Scotland, I consider that he must in fairness give them to parks which are not vested in a local authoriy but in local organisations such as sports clubs.
  There are many of these parks throughout Scotland, especially in the country areas. There are many in my constituency and I believe that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is well aware of one near his own home in the village of Freuchie where, I understand, there are a public park and cricket pitch belonging to the local cricket club. Both come within the definition of a park for the purposes of a new Clause, and so we shall have the extraordinary state of affairs that the park vested in the local authority will not be on the valuation roll, but that occupied by the cricket club will.
  This sort of thing is serious in the countryside. There are many sports grounds in my constituency which are rateable and which I hoped would have been classified by the local authorities as charitable and so exempt from the payment of rates. However, that has not been the case. Some local authorities regard sports clubs as charities and others, for reasons best known to them-selves, do not. There is a certain inequity as between one area and another.
  The best way to deal with the anomaly would he to regard all sports grounds which would otherwise come within the definition of parks for this purpose as
  334
  exempt from rates and thus not enterable on the valuation roll. I have had the extraordinary experience of having to open a sale of work for the purpose of raising funds to pay the rates of a local sports ground. That is the height of nonsense, and I hope that my hon. Friend will see his way to adopt the Amendment and achieve justice for these local associations.
  Many of the buildings on these grounds are used for public purposes and are essential to the well being of country communities. Buildings used purely in connection with such community purposes should be exempted in the same way as similar buildings belonging to local authorities. I am not sure whether the wording of my Amendment is perfect, but if my hon. Friend accepts its spirit he will be able to arrange for its redrafting in another place.
  Mr. T. Fraser: I hope that the Under-Secretary will not readily succumb to the blandishments of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). The hon. Member is trained in the law and frequently lets us know of his prowess in his profession. Although his Amendment proposes to include village sports clubs he did not take the trouble to seek to define a village sports club. Although we know what a local authority is, we have taken care to define it, but we do not know what a village sports club is.
  Public parks vested in or under the control of the local authority are not to be entered on the valuation roll only if the local authority does not make a profit. If the hon. Member's Amendment were accepted, a park vested in any village sports club would be left off the valuation roll even though the club made a huge profit, while the local authority park would be left off only if it made no profit. This is ridiculous.
  Mr. Brewis: Nonsense.
  Mr. Fraser: We have another lawyer joining in the fun now. He, too, has omitted to put down an Amendment to define "village sports club". If there had been genuine concern to give some relief from rating to those many amateur sporting and recreational organisations which are dotted about the country, many in villages but many in towns, I could

  335
  have seen the point. I do not see the point of taking out of the valuation roll altogether some undefined parks which happen to be vested in undefined village sports clubs.
  The hon. Gentleman did not even take the trouble to say what is a village. I do not think that a village is defined in any local government statute. Inasmuch as we define a local authority, a burgh and a county, surely it would be necessary, with an Amendment like this, to define a village?
  It could be said that a village is a small community, but Cambuslang in Lanarkshire has a population of over 30,000. Is it a village? I am told that it is not a town because it has no council, and yet it is not a burgh. It is frequently described as the largest village in Scotland. Is it intended that the park occupied by Cambuslang Rangers, the local football club, should be taken off the valuation roll? I assure the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West that the local authority, which is the Lanarkshire County Council, does not make a net profit from what goes on in this park which is owned by Cambuslang Rangers. I think that the hon. Gentleman will see just how foolish the Amendment is.
  Mr. Hendry: The hon. Gentleman will admit that I suggested to my hon. Friend that the drafting of the Amendment was probably anything but perfect, and I should have preferred my hon. Friend to address himself to the merits of the Amendment and not to the drafting of it.
  Mr. Fraser: Before the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland could address himself to the merits of the Amendment, and before the Committee could consider them, they would have to be outlined by the hon. Gentleman. He has lamentably failed to do that. He failed to mention what he had in mind, although he referred to a cricket club.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: Is cricket a sport?
  Mr. Fraser: I do not know. Bingo is sometimes described as a sport. There are many recreational activities which many of us would like to see given rating relief, but we have had far too many
  336
  subjects taken off the valuation roll. The proposed change in the new Clause is being made as a result of earlier concessions. I think that too many concessions were made in the 1956 Act, and I do not want any further concessions to be made when the Bill goes to another place.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not say that he accepts the principle of the Amendment and will see that a suitable Amendment is made in another place. We are unwilling to let this Amendment go on that basis, and I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary of State will not give the Committee any foolish advice.
  Mr. McInnes: I do not think that the Under-Secretary of State will require any encouragement to reject the Amendment entirely, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said, it would lead to thousands of subjects being taken off the valuation roll.
  It is all right to deal with a village sports club. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) will no doubt concede that there are probably 50 or 60 junior football clubs that come within this category because they all come from villages. In addition, local tennis, golf, bowling and other clubs could come within this category. One could carry on ad infinitum, and there would be no limit to the number of clubs which could be included under this provision. I repeat, therefore, that I do not think that we need to give the Under-Secretary of State any encouragement to reject the Amendment.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Leburn: May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) that I understand what he has in mind. That is probably because I live near Freuchie rather than Cambuslang. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the question of Freuchie. I do not think that ever before has a back bench Member been able to anticipate the mind of a Minister quite so accurately in considering a specific case.
  At the same time, I thoroughly understand the other side of the question put by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes). I say to the hon. Member for Hamilton—although he may not follow this, some

  337
  of his hon. Friends will—that perhaps it is a good thing that we have passed Clause 8 when we are making this reference.
  The new Clause which we have been considering restricts exemptions from valuation to parks which are
  "vested in or under the control of a local authority".
  I think that it would be right to stick to this principle and would be dangerous to depart from it. Whole communities benefit from the provision of public parks and recreation grounds run by local authorities. I think it reasonable that they should be exempted from valuation. To extend this provision to grounds under the control of village sports clubs seems to me rather different.
  The village sports club, whatever its contribution to the community—and certainly, in the case of Freuchie it is a considerable contribution—enjoys beneficial occupation and it seems appropriate that it should be treated in the same way as a private sports club. It might be difficult to distinguish between them. That point has already been made. These clubs may possibly qualify for mandatory rating under Section 4 of the 1962 Act and they are eligible, I should have thought, for discretionary rating relief under the terms of Section 4. Such relief can extend to the whole of the rates. In the light of the full consideration given to this matter under the 1962 Act and of the view expressed by the working party and by hon. Members, I think that we have to be very careful not to widen this question of exemption from valuation and rating. I feel that the Amendment of my hon. Friend goes too far and that a park should come within the definition which we have laid down of
  "vested in or under the control of local authorities".
  Alternatively, the provisions of Section 4 of the 1962 Act should be looked at for rating relief. In these circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.
  Mr. Hendry: I hope that my hon. Friend will impress upon local authorities the desirability of putting the provisions of the 1962 Act fully into effect. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF SECTION 243 OF ACT OF 1947.)
  Notwithstanding anything in the definition of occupier in subsection (1) of section 379 of the Act of 1947, lands and heritages shall not be deemed for the purposes of section 243 of that Act (which relates to unoccupied subjects) to be occupied as respects the year 1963–64 or any subsequent year by reason only that they are subject to a tenancy or sub-tenancy; and the said section 243 shall have effect as respects any such year as if the word "unlet", wherever it occurs in the said section, were omitted.—[Mr. Leburn.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  This Clause is intended to secure that unoccupied property is not denied rating relief under Section 243 of the Local Government Act, 1947, simply because it is the subject of a tenancy or a subtenancy. A recent judicial decision has laid it down that as a result of the definition of "occupier" in Section 379 of the Act, property is regarded as occupied if it is subject to a tenancy, irrespective of whether any use is being made of it or not. The court pointed out that if any remedy was wanted to this situation it must be sought by amending the Statute, and that is what we propose here.
  Under the Clause, Section 243 will now enable exemption from rates to be given to a property which is unoccupied and unfurnished. The fact that the property may be let will not, of itself, disqualify it from rating relief, although the existence of a lease may be a material factor in determining whether it is occupied.
  Sir James Duncan: Some people are doubtful about the operation of the Clause. Up to now the tradition has been that farm land and property are dealt with as a unum quid—the farm land, the farmhouse and the farm cottages. Because, up to now, the cottages have been in the name of the farmer they have all been rated in one. Under the new law, however, these cottages will be separately assessed, although they will still be in the name of the farmer.
  If a cottage happens to be empty, for one reason or another—perhaps because of a reduction of load on the farm—I believe that it will still be regarded as occupied by the farmer and charged for rates. Does the Clause cover that point?
  Mr. Leburn: In general, it does. In fact, that is one of its purposes. But I want to make it clear that while, under the old provisions, rating relief could not be given to a property if it was let, because it was held that the tenancy itself gave of occupation, rating relief can now be given if the house is empty, but it will not necessarily be given automatically. It could be that a house, although empty, was still of rateable occupation—I believe that that is the right expression—and I would not like my hon. Friend to feel that this is an automatic provision. The case that he puts to me is, however, covered generally by the Clause.
  Mr. T. Fraser: Can the Under-Secretary explain the matter a little further? Why should a rates concession be given in respect of a house such as was described by his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan)—a house which is empty but which none the less is the subject of a tenancy or sub-tenancy agreement? Presumably the house is not available for use by anyone else. In those circumstances, why should the owner not be made liable for the rates that would normally be paid in respect of it?
  We are going too far in making these concessions. We are always being told about council tenants and other people who now have motor cars. If a council tenant has a garage in an industrial area a valuation of about £9 a year will be put upon it, and if he dies—and I know of an actual case of this kind—and his poor widow has no need for a motor car, and sells it, there is no suggestion that she should stop paying rates on that garage, although it is no longer occupied and although she may be living on a greatly reduced income. If the garage is a brick-built structure she cannot very well sell it unless she sells the house at the same time.
  We seem to be making far too many concessions to people who are already over-privileged. Why has the Under-Secretary introduced a new Clause which will give a rating concession in respect of a farm worker's house which is for the moment unoccupied but which is none the less the subject of tenancy or subtenancy agreement?
  Mr. Leburn: I shall try to explain to the hon. Member. I understand his difficulty in this matter. There could be
  340
  a long debate whether we ought to have this system or not, but in Scotland up to now occupation has been the qualification as to whether someone has or has not to pay rates. Up to now rate remission can be given if the property is unlet, unoccupied and unfurnished.
  I use the example of a farm because my hon. Friend has mentioned it, but this can apply to other properties. Where an owner-occupier has a cottage which is unlet, unoccupied and unfurnished, he does not have to pay rates on it, whereas a tenant farmer who has an empty house which is unoccupied and unfurnished may not get rating relief. That is because up to now it has been held that the very fact that he is a tenant as opposed to being a landlord means that the cottage in question cannot be unlet by reason of the fact that he has the tenancy and that cottage is let to him, although it is not occupied by him or furnished by him. In an effort to put this anomaly right, we are introducing this new Clause.
  Mr. Fraser: I do not want to continue this discussion for very much longer, but I think that what the Under-Secretary is doing by this Clause is aggravating a great mistake which was made in 1956. He dealt with this question on the basis of a house on a farm, but he could have taken the example of unlet tenement houses or flats in the City of Glasgow, where far too many property owners are being almost encouraged to keep reasonably good accommodation unoccupied waiting for very high prices while thousands of our fellow citizens are living in the most miserable slums. We made a great mistake in 1956, and all that the Under-Secretary is doing now is making a further aggravation of the wrong which was then done.
  Sir J. Duncan: I do not know anything about tenements in Glasgow, but I will give a personal example. I have a farm and if I have an empty cottage on that farm I get exemption. I also let a farm to a tenant, but if he has a cottage which is empty he cannot get rate relief. Is that fair on my tenant? I am getting an advantage which my tenant is not getting.
  Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member is merely underlining what I have said. In 1956, when his lands were taken off the

  341
  valuation roll altogether, there was no question of paying rates on them. It is a great pity that we made provision that if one of his cottages was empty he would not be given every possible encouragement to get it occupied by being obliged to pay rates on it while it was empty. In many cases the farmer keeps a cottage empty waiting for a fancy price to be paid by someone who wants a house in the country.
  Sir J. Duncan: No.
  Mr. Fraser: Of course that is true. All that the hon. Member has done has been to underline what I have said. He has a concession in respect of a cottage which is vacant on his farm of which he is the owner-occupier.
  The hon. Gentleman enjoys a privilege at present over most other ratepayers of Scotland. He now says, "Inasmuch as I have another farm which I have let to a tenant, this tenant farmer should have the same privilege which I, as an owner-occupier, enjoy". I say that it was a mistake to give the hon. Gentleman this concession in the first place. For the most part the ratepayers of Scotland, who are much less able to pay their rates than he is, have no concession at all.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause.—(EXCHEQUER GRANTS.)
  In the Sixth Schedule to the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956, for paragraph 6 there shall be substituted in respect of the year 1963–64 and subsequent years, the following paragraph, that is to say:—
  "6. The notional rates burden for Scotland shall be deducted from the notional relevant local expenditure for Scotland and the sum so arrived at shall be multiplied by a fraction the numerator of which is the proportion of total local rates payable in Scotland in the previous year which was payable by domestic ratepayers (such proportion to be ascertained and certified by the Secretary of State) and the denominator of which is the proportion of total local rates payable in England and Wales in the previous year which was payable by domestic ratepayers (such proportion to be ascertained and certified by the Minister of Housing and Local Government), The sum so calculated is hereinafter referred to as 'the notional Exchequer grant for Scotland'."—[Mr. Millan.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  The Clause raises once again the question whether in comparison with England and Wales the total Exchequer equalisation grants going to Scotland are fair. One of the claims made by the Under-Secretary at various stages of the debate has been that the purpose of the Exchequer equalisation grant was to give to local authorities which had a lower-than-average rating capacity the kind of assistance which would mean that the rate burden per head of the population in their areas would approximate to the rate burden per head of the population in other parts of the country.
  The same principle, so the Under-Secretary said, applies in calculating the total grant coming to Scotland or the English and Welsh total. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson), has never tired of pointing out, the result of the present Exchequer equalisation grant in practice is still that the rate burden per head of the population in Scotland is higher than in England and Wales.
  The position is even more striking if one considers not just the total rate burden in Scotland per head of the population but the domestic rate burden per head of the population, because that is what concerns the ordinary domestic ratepayer. It is extremely misleading to talk about the rate burden per head of the population by dividing the rates, including those paid by industrialists and on commercial property, by the total population, because equity demands that it is the domestic rate burden about which we are concerned. When we come to the domestic rate burden we find that the burden per head of the population is substantially higher in Scotland than in England and Wales. That arises partly because the burden per head of the population, even taking rates as a whole, is higher in Scotland, but it also arises because the proportion of domestic rates as a percentage of total rates in Scotland is very much higher than in England and Wales.
  Up to 1960–61 no less than 59 per cent. of rates in Scotland were paid by domestic ratepayers compared with only 47 per cent. in England and Wales.

  343
  Because of the new valuation, the situation is now slightly better. In 1961–62 and 1962–63 it is 53 per cent. in Scotland and 47 per cent. in England and Wales. Next year the gap will have narrowed a little more. It will still be 53 per cent. in Scotland, but the new valuations in England and Wales will raise the proportion there to a little over 48 per cent. Even then, the burden borne by domestic ratepayers in Scotland will still be higher than in England and Wales. If we come back to 1961–62, which is the last year for which full figures are available, we see, for example, that the domestic rate burden per head of the population in Scotland was £9·1 whereas in England and Wales it was only £7·3. There is a very substantial difference.
  The purpose of the new Clause is to introduce an element into the formula for calculating the total Scottish Exchequer equalisation grant which will take account of the higher burden borne by domestic ratepayers in Scotland and therefore make the formula approach nearer the principle that the Under-Secretary has so often laid down for us of making the rate burden in Scotland per head of population the same as it is in England and Wales.
  This is a particularly appropriate time to introduce this kind of adjustment to the formula, because whereas industrial rerating is coming into effect in England and Wales in 1963–64 this has been put off in Scotland at least till 1966–67 and probably even later than that. The introduction of this kind of adjustment into the formula would give Scottish local authorities some compensation for the rateable value that they are losing because industrial rerating is not, as originally intended, being introduced in Scotland in 1963–64.
  I calculate that, if the new Clause were accepted on the 1961–62 basis at least, a little more than £2 million extra would have come to Scotland under the formula. I cannot say what the amount will be in 1963–64 or subsequent years, because so much depends on what the figures turn out to be for England and Wales. There is this problem of the high rate burden being borne in Scotland by domestic ratepayers. The Clause is an attempt to ameliorate the position for them and for Scottish local authorities because they
  344
  have not the advantage of industrial re-rating. I very much hope that my hon. Friends will support me. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be persuaded either to accept the Clause or to say that something similar will be introduced at a later stage.
  Mr. J. Robertson: It is an exercise in itself to begin to read the method of calculating the Exchequer equalisation grant that will come to Scotland in any year. One has to work through a whole series of notional figures. It all begins from the position of the English ratepayer and the amount of rate deficiency grant and the amount of rates paid per head of population in England and Wales. The new Clause is an attempt to rectify an anomaly which has existed for many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and I have contended that the global sum of Exchequer equalisation grant coming to Scotland is not the correct sum. The method presently employed is supposed to equalise the rate burden per head of population, but it does not do even this.
  I have said this on many occasions and given the figures. I do not want to repeat them. As everyone knows, rates do not fall on every head of population. They fall on only some heads—those of the householders, or at least the wage earners. One of the problems we must face is that the population is different in kind in Scotland from what it is in England. We have a larger proportion under the age of 20 than there is in England and Wales and a much smaller proportion of the wage-earning class. Thinking in terms of households, the birth rate in Scotland is higher. Therefore, the number in the family is higher.
  The only reasonable way to consider this at present is the rate burden falling upon the household. I have the figures for 1960. The rate burden per household in England was £22·9. In Scotland, it was £27·7. That is a considerable difference—and it is after the payment of equalisation and rate deficiency grant. It means that to equalise that burden we need about £5 in addition per householder.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Craigton said, ratepayers in Scotland must do things that ratepayers in England are not asked to do. They must, for instance, bear the burden of

  345
  the extra subsidy that is given to industry through Berating. The derating given to agriculture is proportionately greater than that applying in England. This, too, falls on a limited number of ratepayers in Scotland. Consequently, the man with whom I am concerned is the ordinary wage earner who must meet this tremendous rate burden.
  When dealing with an earlier Amendment I said that in considering the relationship of the rate deficiency grant and the equalisation grant one must bear in mind the effect of the method of distributing the former in England and Wales and how that distribution operates. I also pointed out that most of it was concentrated in what are known as the depressed areas—the North-East, the North-West, certain parts of Wales, Lincolnshire, and so on. I do not wish to bore hon. Members with statistics, but to illustrate this more clearly it might be worthwhile to consider this matter in more detail.
  In Committee upstairs I dealt, for example, with the relationship between Barnsley and Motherwell. The rate deficiency grant applied to Motherwell is equivalent to 3·08 per cent. of the total rate revenue, plus equalisation grant. In Barnsley, which, I suggest, is a more prosperous town even than Motherwell, the value of the rate deficiency grant is 35·75 per cent. In Barrow-in-Furness, it is 26·62 per cent.; Birkenhead, 26.22 per cent.; Blackburn, 34 per cent.; Bradford, 30 per cent.; Burnley, 34 per cent.; Bury, 29 per cent.; and in Dewsbury it is 38·9 per cent.
  Mr. Brewis: The hon. Member's figures are not always so much in favour of England. For example, if we take Port Glasgow and Darlington we find that Port Glasgow has a rate burden of 215s. as against 295s. in Darlington.
  Mr. Robertson: I agree. Port Glasgow's figures are the highest in Scotland. In those figures 43 per cent. is the contribution of the equalisation grant. But why stop there? Why not consider Merthyr Tydfil, a county borough, where 58 per cent. of the expenditure is met by rate deficiency grant? By all means examine Wales as against Scotland, although if we examine Scotland we find some odd figures. I am pointing out that local authorities in the industrial
  346
  areas of Scotland compared with those of the north of England, Durham, Yorkshire and Lancashire are not getting their fair share.
  The method suggested in the new Clause will not provide the final solution. There is only one way finally to solve this problem, and that is to apply a rate deficiency grant to the whole of the country—Scotland, England and Wales together. But this new Clause would at least assist and would give some relief to Scottish local authorities, which is long overdue.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not reject this proposal out of hand. One of these days—
  It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Leburn.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Mr. Robertson: I was about to say that one of these days either myself or someone else will produce the full facts and figures. We shall have to do the work of the Scottish Office and produce the information which we should have had many years ago, and it will not be enough for the Under-Secretary, or the Secretary of State, simply to stonewall. The case for an increase in equalisation grant is unanswerable, and it is time that we finished with all the excuses and putting off that we have had over the years.
  Mr. Leburn: I agree with the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson) that the exercise of calculating the Exchequer equalisation grant is extremely complicated. I do not think that at this time of night he would wish me to follow too far his argument on those lines.
  When I read the proposed new Clause for the first time, I was fascinated by it.

  347
  I think that I saw the hand of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) in the drafting of it. I have listened very carefully to the arguments which he and the hon. Member for Paisley have put forward, but I cannot see any logical justification for accepting the new Clause.
  The hon. Member for Craigton suggested that, because the proportion of rates borne by domestic householders in Scotland is higher than it is in England and Wales, the total Exchequer grant should be increased to take account of this fact. The other side of the proposition is that if, after the next revaluation, the domestic proportion of rates in Scotland is lower than it is in England, the grant hould be reduced. I am not sure that this would commend itself to Scottish local authorities. The hon. Member is quite right about the percentages of 59 and 53 which he mentioned and the way in which the percentages are moving, but if the idea is that the new Clause should be accepted only as long as it increases the grant payable to Scottish authorities it is a case of "Heads I win and tails you lose".
  I can see no valid reason why the proportion of rates paid by householders should enter into the calculation of equalisation grant. The additional Exchequer contribution to local finances which this proposal would produce would be applied generally to the reduction of rates and would therefore help
  all ratepayers, domestic and otherwise, and I think that the hon. Member for Craigton himself would say that some of them are being treated favourably enough already. The householders would, in fact, get only about half of the benefit.
  Mr. Millan: That is fair enough, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that it is not possible to do everything that one wants to do in one new Clause.
  Mr. Leburn: I realise that.
  The Exchequer equalisation grant is designed to bring the relative rating resources of local authorities un to a minimum standard and not to take account of the different distribution of rates between domestic and non-domestic subjects in England and Wales, on the one hand, and in Scotland, on the other.
  I think, therefore, that the Exchequer equalisation grant must be based on a fair comparison of the total rating resources as a whole of local authorities in Scotland and in England and Wales, and not complicated by reference to the proportion of rates paid by any particular category of ratepayer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue to press his Clause.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 142, Noes, 175.

  Division No. 101.]

  AYES

  [10.6 p.m.

  Ainsley, William

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Holman, Percy

  Albu, Austen

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Hoy, James H.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Deer, George

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Beaney, Alan

  Dempsey, James

  Hunter, A. E.

  Bence, Cyril

  Dodds, Norman

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Benson, Sir George

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Blackburn, F.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Blyton, William

  Finch, Harold

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Boardman, H.

  Forman, J. C.

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

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

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Kelley, Richard

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Gourlay, Harry

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Lawson, George

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Harper, Joseph

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Cliffe, Michael

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Collick, Percy

  Hayman, F. H.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  McBride, N.

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Hill, . (Midlothian)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hilton, A. V.

  McInnes, James

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Randall, Harry

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

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

  Rankin, John

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Manuel, Archie

  Redhead, E. C.

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Mapp, Charles

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Mason, Roy

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Tomney, Frank

  Millan, Bruce

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Wade, Donald

  Milne, Edward

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

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Ross, William

  Watkins, Tudor

  Morris, John

  Short, Edward

  Weitzman, David

  Mulley, Frederick

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Neal, Harold

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Whitlock, William

  Oliver, G. H.

  Small, William

  Wilkins, W. A.

  O'Malley, B. K.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery

  Oswald, Thomas

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Padley, W. E.

  Spriggs, Leslie

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

  Parker, John

  Steele, Thomas

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Peart, Frederick

  Stones, William

  Woof, Robert

  Prentice, R. E.

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

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Probert, Arthur

  Taverne, D.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. McCano and Mr. Grey

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Partridge, E.

  Allason, James

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Hastings, Stephen

  Peel, John

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Percival, Ian

  Balniel, Lord

  Hendry, Forbes

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Barber, Anthony

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

  Pitman, Sir James

  Barlow, Sir John

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Pott, Percivall

  Barter, John

  Holland, Philip

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Batsford, Brian

  Hollingworth, John

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Bell, Ronald

  Hornby, R. P.

  Pym, Francis

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Rees, Hugh

  Biffen, John

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Bingham, R. M.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Bishop, F. P.

  Irving, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  James, David

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Box, Donald

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Roots, William

  Braine, Bernard

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Brewis, John

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Russell, Ronald

  Brooman-White, R.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  St. Clair, M.

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Seymour, Leslie

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Shaw, M.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Kerans, Cdr, J. S.

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

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Chataway, Christopher

  Kitson, Timothy

  Speir, Rupert

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)

  Leavey, J. A.

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Stodart, J. A.

  Cooke, Robert

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Talbot, John E.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Coulson, Michael

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

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

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Temple, John M.

  Critchley, Julian

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Curran, Charles

  Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N.Ayrs)

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)

  Turner, Colin

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall(Dumfries)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Maddan, Martin

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Maginnis, John E.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Duncan, sir James

  Maitland, Sir John

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  Eden, John

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Walder, David

  Elliott,R.W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Walker, Peter

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Mawby, Ray

  Wall, Patrick

  Farr, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Finlay, Graeme

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

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Mills, Stratton

  Whitelaw, William

  Foster, John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Gammans, Lady

  Morrison, John

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  George, Sir John (Pollok)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Neave, Airey

  Woollam, John

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Worsley, Marcus

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Gower, Raymond

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Green, Alan

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Mr. Chichester-Clark and

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. McLaren.

  Gurden, Harold

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

    New Clause.—(ADJUSTMENT OF WEIGHTED POPULATION IN RESPECT OF UNEMPLOYED.)
    In paragraph 3 of the Sixth Schedule to the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 there shall be added after the words "the weighted populations in Scotland" the words "as hereinafter adjusted" and at the end of the paragraph, the following, that is to say:—
    "The adjustment to the total of the weighted populations in Scotland referred to in this paragraph is the addition to the said total of the number, if any, by which the number of registered unemployed in Scotland at the fifteenth day of January in the relevant year, or at the nearest practicable date thereto exceeds the number which bears the same proportion to the
    number of registered unemployed in England and Wales at the same date as the registered working population in Scotland bears to the registered working population in England and Wales, both at the same date".
    For the purposes of this paragraph the said numbers of registered unemployed and of registered working population shall be ascertained and certified by the Minister of Labour.—[Mr. Ross.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Motion made, and Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 139, Noes 169.

    Division No. 102.]

    AYES

    [10.15 p.m.

    Ainsley, William

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Albu, Austen

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Peart, Frederick

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Hilton, A. V.

    Prentice, R. E.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Holman, Percy

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Howell, Charles R. (Perry Barr)

    Probert, Arthur

    Beaney, Alan

    Hoy, James H.

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Bence, Cyril

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Rankin, John

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Benson, Sir George

    Hunter, A. E.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Blackburn, F.

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Blyton, William

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

    Boardman, H.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

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

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Ross, William

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

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Short, Edward

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Kelley, Richard

    Small, William

    Carmichael, Neil

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    King, Dr. Horace

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Cliffe, Michael

    Lawson, George

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Collick, Percy

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Steele, Thomas

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Stones, William

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Loughlin, Charles

    Swingler, Stephen

    Dalyell, Tam

    Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Taverne, D.

    Davies, G. Elfred (Rhondda, E.)

    McBride, N.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    McCann, John

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Deer, George

    MacDermot, Mall

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Delargy, Hugh

    McInnes, James

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Dempsey, James

    Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Dodds, Norman

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Tomney, Frank

    Edelman, Maurice

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Wade, Donald

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

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

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Fernyhough, E.

    Manuel, Archie

    Watkins, Tudor

    Finch, Harold

    Mapp, Charles

    Weitzman, David

    Forman, J. C.

    Mason, Roy

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Millan, Bruce

    Whitlock, William

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Milne, Edward

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Morris, John

    Williams, W. F. (Openshaw)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mulley, Frederick

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

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Neal, Harold

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Harper, Joseph

    O'Malley, B. K.

    Woof, Robert

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Oswald, Thomas

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Padley, W. E,

    Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)

    Parker, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. Grey

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Allason, James

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Biffen, John

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

    Bingham, R. M.

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Balniel, Lord

    Bishop, F. P.

    Chataway, Christopher

    Barber, Anthony

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Box, Donald

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Barter, John

    Braine, Bernard

    Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)

    Bell, Ronald

    Brooman-White, R.

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Cooke, Robert

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Rees, Hugh

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Renton, Rt. Hon. David

    Corfield, F. V.

    Jones,Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Coulson, Michael

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Critchley, Julian

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Roots, William

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Kitson, Timothy

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Curran, Charles

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Russell, Ronald

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Leavey, J. A.

    St. Clair, M.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Seymour, Leslie

    Deedes, Rt. Hon, W. F.

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Shaw, M.

    Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. M.

    Lilley, F. J. P.

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

    Drayson, G. B.

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

    Duncan, Sir James

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Speir, Rupert

    Eden, John

    MacArthur, Ian

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Elliott,R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

    McLaren, Martin

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Stodart, J. A.

    Farr, John

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Finlay, Graeme

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Talbot, John E.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Foster, John

    Macpherson,Rt. Hn.Niall(Dumfries)

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

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Maddan, Martin

    Temple, John M.

    Gammans, Lady

    Maginnis, John E.

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    George, Sir John (Pollok)

    Maitland, Sir John

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Gibson-watt, David

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    Mawby, Ray

    Turner, Colin

    Gower, Raymond

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Green, Alan

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

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Mills, Stratton

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Garden, Harold

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Morrison, John

    Walder, David

    Hastings, Stephen

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Walker, Peter

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Neave, Airey

    Wall, Patrick

    Hendry, Forbes

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Ward, Dame Irene

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

    Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Whitelaw, William

    Holland, Philip

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Hollingworth, John

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Hornby R. P.

    Partridge, E.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    Peel, John

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Hughes Heillen, Vice-Admiral John

    Percival, Ian

    Woollam, John

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Pitman, Sir James

    Worsley, Marcus

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Pott, Percivall

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    James, David

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Mr. Frank Pearson and

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Pym, Francis

    Mr. Batsford.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Schedule 3.—(REPEAL OF ENACTMENTS.)
    Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 18, line 7, column 3, to leave out from "the" to end of line 9 and to insert "word 'unlet', wherever it occurs".
    This is a consequential Amendment
    354
    arising from the new Clause dealing with the Amendment of Section 243 of the 1947 Act.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

    New Clause.—(APPLICATION OF PAYMENTS MADE TO COUNTY COUNCILS UNDER PART V OF ACT OF 1948.)
    (1) A county council shall, out of any sums received by them under Part V of the Act of 1948 for the year 1963–64 or any subsequent year, pay to the council of any district in the county an amount which bears to the amount of the sums so received the same proportion as the expenditure of the district council for that year bears to the relevant local expenditure for the landward area of the county for that year.
    (2) Section 101 of the Act of 1948 (which relates to the application of payments under the said Part V) shall have effect as respects the year 1963–64 and any subsequent year only in relation to so much of the sums received as mentioned therein as is not paid to district councils under the foregoing subsection.
    (3) in this section—
    "district" has the same meaning as in the Act of 1947;
    "expenditure" in relation to a district council for any year means so much of that "council's expenditure for that year as is reckoned in calculating the relevant local expenditure for that year for the landward area of the county in which the district is situated for the purposes of section 2 of this Act; and
    "relevant local expenditure" in relation to the landward area of a county for any year has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of the said section 2.—[Mr. Leburn.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The effect is to require county councils to make certain payments to district councils from the payments which county councils receive as Part V payment from railways and electricity boards in lieu of rates. These payments to district councils will bear the same proportion to the total received by the county councils as district councils expenditure has to the county councils' relevant expenditure.
    We are seeking to do what was suggested in a new Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) in Committee upstairs. He very kindly withdrew that Clause when it was suggested that we should consult the local authority associations.
    I have since consulted both the District Councils Association and the Association of County Councils. Not unnaturally, the former supports this but the representa-
    356
    tives of the latter suggested that the apportionment was hardly worth making. However, they did not wish to oppose this. I hope, therefore, that we can now agree to give this Clause a Second Reading.
    Mr. Hendry: There is little I need add to what my hon. Friend has said. This Clause takes the place of one suggested by me in Committee and which I withdrew. Most of us in Committee expected the result of the investigations my hon. Friend made. At the same time, I am extremely grateful to him for having redrafted the Clause and corrected the imperfections in the original version. I have great pleasure in commending this Clause.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 3.—(REDUCTION OF EXCHEQUER EQUALISATION GRANTS IN RESPECT OF LOW RENT INCOME.)
    Amendment made: In page 4, line 13, leave out "other".—[Mr. Leburn.]

    Clause 8.—(WEIGHTED POPULATION FOR PURPOSES OF GENERAL GRANTS.)
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 7, line 1, to leave out from the beginning to "shall" and to insert:
    "(3) An order under this section may be made so as to have effect for the purposes of the year 1964–65 or any subsequent year.
    (4) Before making any order under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned; and any such order".
    The Amendment has two objects. The first is new and the second gives effect to an undertaking which I gave to the Standing Committee.
    The new subsection (3) proposed by the Amendment states that an order under Clause 8 varying the method of calculating weighted population for the purpose of the general grant may be made for any year from 1964 onwards. I have been advised that it is desirable to specify the year from which the order can operate. There are two reasons why we have chosen 1964–65. The first is that there would not be time to make an order for 1963–64 before the beginning of the local authorities' financial

    357
    year. The second, particularly bearing in mind the points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), who drew my attention to the fact, is that representations were being received from certain local authorities about the proposals mentioned during Second Reading and in Committee to vary general grant weightings. It is, therefore, desirable on all counts that this should be postponed until 1964, which will give us time to consider the whole question fully. In the meantime, of course, the existing method of calculating weighted populations for general grant as laid down in the Second Schedule of the 1958 Act will continue in force.
    The new subsection (4) regarding consultations is simply to fulfil an undertaking which I gave in Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 7, line 2, to leave out "each" and to insert "the Commons".
    The Amendment seeks to restrict to the Commons the power to approve Clause 8 varying the weightings of population used for calculating general grant. Similar Amendments to Clauses 10, 12 and 13 were accepted in Committee and I propose to bring Clause 8 into line for the sake of consistency. All orders with financial implications which are made under the Bill and which require affirmative Resolutions will now require approval by this House only.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 9.—(MEANING OF PRODUCT OF A RATE OF ONE PENNY IN THE POUND AND STANDARD PENNY RATE PRODUCT.)
    Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 7, line 8, at the end to insert:
    (2) Before making any rules under the foregoing subsection, the Secretary of State shall consult with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned; and any such rules shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.
    The Amendment meets two undertakings which I gave in Committee. First, it provides that local authority associations must be consulted about the rules proposed to be made under Clause 9; that is, rules specifying the factors to be taken into account in calculating the pro-
    358
    duct of a rate of a penny in the £. Secondly, the rules are to be subject to annulment by this House.
    The rules are of a mainly technical nature with no substantial policy aspects and will be designed simply to give a fair measure of the real rating resources of a local authority. I hardly think that they warrant the affirmative procedure and, if my memory serves me correctly, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has indicated that he shares that view.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 12.—(BASIC RATEABLE VALUATION OF GAS BOARDS.)
    Mr. Millan: I beg to move, in page 9, line 16, at the end to insert:
    Provided that for the purposes of this subsection any changes in the rateable value of industrial and freight transport lands and heritages arising out of section 10 of this Act shall not be taken as constituting a substantial chance of circumstances.
    This Amendment arises out of a discussion that we had in Committee upstairs. Broadly speaking, the Clause has the effect of eliminating the present method of valuation for the Scottish Gas Board—which is the revenue principle method of valuation—and substituting another method of valuation in which there is the use of a basic rateable valuation which is then adjusted from one year to another.
    Subsection (2) provides that in certain years the Secretary of State shall have power, where he thinks it is expedient to do so, to vary the basic rateable valuation of the Gas Board. The reason for doing this is that there may be a change of circumstances which makes that a desirable thing to do. The change of circumstances which is most likely is a revaluation at the year of quinquennial revaluation. It would obviously be inequitable if the basic valuation of the Gas Board were not adjusted during the year of general revaluation, because if no adjustment were made the rate burden falling on the board would be progressively reduced from one quinquennial valuation period to another.
    During the proceedings in Committee upstairs I raised a point with the Under-Secretary of State of which, I think it is fair to say, he was not fully apprised

    359
    at that time. The point was whether the revaluation in industrial rerating which is projected to take place in 1966–67 would be taken to be one of the substantial changes of circumstances which of itself would justify an increase in the basic rateable value of the Board.
    The point at issue is the simple one that the board in Scotland has never been subject to industrial derating and it would therefore be inequitable, when industry as a whole was rerated, that there should be some change in the basic valuation of the board in line with the rerating of industry generally in Scotland, and in Committee I asked the Under-Secretary of State to give some undertaking that that would not happen. He was not able to do that then, but it was arranged that the Report stage would be a suitable opportunity to raise the matter again, and I am doing that.
    It may be that my Amendment, which would simply provide that the rerating of industry under Clause 10 would not be taken as constituting a substantial change of circumstances for the purposes of subsection (2) of this Clause, is not, technically speaking, the kind of Amendment which the Under-Secretary would be willing to accept. I admit that there might be technical deficiencies in it, but I want to get it on the record that it does not seem to me to be reasonable that there should be a rerating of the gas industry in Scotland in 1966–67 in the circumstances that the gas industry has never been subject to derating, and I hope that tonight the hon. Gentleman will be able to give the sort of assurance that he was not able to give in Committee, when I think he was rather taken off his guard.
    Mr. Leburn: I am glad that this Amendment has been selected because I had undertaken to try to say something about this during this stage of the Bill.
    I am not sure that I can give the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) the assurances he seeks. Clause 10 provides that from 1966 onwards the rateable value of industrial land in Scotland shall be the same as the net annual value instead of 50 per cent. as at the present time. In other words, industry is to lose its present derating. The Amendment proposes that this fact shall not be taken into
    360
    account in deciding whether, or by how much, to vary the basic rateable value of the Scottish Gas Board.
    I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that it is not possible for re-rating to apply automatically to the board in a parallel way to industry covered by Clause 10, since the board has never enjoyed derating, and the provisions of Clause 10 therefore do not apply to it. Nevertheless, in considering any variation of the board's basic rateable value, the Government of the day must be able to look at the rates position as a whole in order to be able to compare the board's position with that of other ratepayers. The rerating of industry is certainly not the only factor to be taken into account when it is necessary to reconsider the board's position, but the Government cannot preclude the possibility of taking it into account.
    I question the point made by the hon. Member when he talked about the board being brought in line. If he meant that it would be to the extent of 50 per cent., the same as industrial property, I should not have thought that this would be the case. The intention is simply that the basic rateable value of the board should be capable of adjustment in the light of all other changes in rateable values, so that it continues to pay a fair share of rates. I would not expect it to pay more than that.
    In the light of that explanation I hope that the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
    Mr. Millan: I do not want to press the Amendment to a Division. On the other hand, the Under-Secretary has not been as forthcoming as he might have been. If, in a year of revaluation, the valuation as a whole—taking industry, commerce and domestic revaluations—rose by 50 per cent., it might be reasonable to put the Gas Board's valuation up by 50 per cent. That is a possibility. Similarly, one could adjust the board's valuation—as has been done in England and Wales—to the increase in commercial valuations. What I do not think would be right would be to adjust the board's valuation to the increase in industrial valuations, when those would be affected by revaluation. In 1966–67,

    361
    if nothing else happened, they would rise by at least 100 per cent. Obviously the rise will be even more than that. From what the hon. Gentleman says I take it that that would not happen to the board. It would not be adjusted in line with the industry valuations.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will go a little further, and say that there will be no question of taking an average between the commercial and industrial valuations, which would take the rerating into account not fully but only partly. There are many possibilities. We are dealing to some extent with a hypothetical situation. We cannot envisage what the Government are likely to want to do. Therefore, it is difficult to produce arguments for or against any possible Government action. In any case, I have made my point, and it is on the record.
    In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 13.—(VALUATION BY FORMULA OF CERTAIN LANDS AND HERITAGES.)
    Amendments made: In page 9, line 35, after "heritages", insert "(i)".
    In line 36, after "quarry", insert "or (ii)"—[Mr. Leburn]

    Clause 14.—(PROVISIONS RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND HERITAGES.)
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 10, line 39, to leave out from "by" to "and" in line 41 and to insert "any person".
    It might be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to take at the same time the other three Amendments to this Clause.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Yes, if that is convenient to the House. So be it.
    Mr. Leburn: In Committee I undertook to examine the Clause, and these Amendments are the result of that examination. We are here considering the Berating of agricultural buildings which are not actually on the farm. I was particularly concerned to examine the words "any agricultural land" in line 43, to ensure that the land was firmly linked to the occupancy of the building which is to obtain derating. Hon. Members suggested that under the
    362
    Clause as it stands a building used by an agricultural contractor or merchant would be able to obtain derating. In these Amendments we have redrafted the Clause to meet this point. The effect of the first four Amendments would be to make the paragraph read:
    "A building (other than a dwelling-house) which is occupied by any person and is used solely in connection with agricultural operations by him on any agricultural land (other than the building) whether adjacent to the building or not, being agricultural land occupied by him."
    This, I think, establishes quite clearly that the building and the land which it serves must have the same occupancy so that what the paragraph covers is simply a farm building separated by some distance from its farm.
    The purpose of the new subsection (2) is to apply that principle to farm associations and to ensure that a similar restriction applies to land occupied by the association or its members. At the same time, while we did not think that the possible implications of exemption from rates given to buildings occupied by an association were in reality as wide as some hon. Members feared, we felt that it would illustrate and limit the nature of the association to farmers combining for efficiency if we introduced a numerical limit for those associations. I have chosen for this purpose a limit of twenty persons. This number is somewhat arbitrary, but twenty persons is a numerical limit for partnerships in Scots law. While we do not regard these associations as partnerships, this provides an analogy with existing Scottish practice.
    Mr. Ross: In Committee there was considerable misgiving and concern expressed as to how widely this could be interpreted. I remember having quite an argument with the Under Secretary about the question of land. I am glad that this has been tightened up.
    I also remember that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) joined in expressing concern that this might conceivably be widened away from the producer of agricultural operations to trading aspects. So far as I see, this has been reasonably well covered. I think that it could be still more definitely restricted, but, taking it all in all, it ties up generally with what we had in mind originally. I do not know if there is any

    363
    great merit in the limit of twenty persons. I think that rather high in relation to associations, and I have taken the trouble to find out about this matter since we discussed it in Committee.
    We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for listening to our complaints and meeting them, if only in part, but I hope that he will keep an eye, as he said he would, on these new developments in agriculture. There is no doubt that agriculture is becoming more and more a business. It may well not always merit as against other commercial concerns the amount of Berating which is making it very profitable.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 42, leave out from "by" to "on" in line 43 and insert "that person".
    In line 44, at end insert
    "being agricultural land occupied by that person,".
    In page 11, line 8, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
    (2) The foregoing subsection shall apply to a building occupied by or on behalf of an association to which this subsection applies and to any land occupied together therewith as it applies to a building occupied by a person and to any land occupied therewith, but with the following modifications:—

    (a) for the reference in paragraph (a) thereof to agricultural operations carried on by the person there shall be substituted a reference to such operations carried on by the association or any member thereof; and

    (b) for the reference in the said paragraph (a) to agricultural land occupied by the person there shall be substituted a reference to such land occupied by or on behalf of the association or by any member thereof.

    (3) The last foregoing subsection applies to any association of not more than twenty persons who are jointly and severally liable for any debts of the assocation.—[Mr. Leburn.]

    Clause 15.—(PROCEEDINGS IN APPEALS.)
    Amendment made: In page 11, line 30, after "(Scotland)" insert "Amendment".—[Mr. Leburn.]
    Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 11, to leave out line 31.
    I raised this point with the Under-Secretary of State on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The more I think of it the more inclined I am to the view that he would be doing us a service and saving the time of
    364
    the House if he said right away that he would accept the Amendment. He would not be losing a great deal and he would be preserving what I think is a valuable right.
    He proposes to replace by regulations a right specifically laid down in Section 12 of the 1956 Act. This is a useful power which should not be left out, possibly to be replaced by regulations covered by the general regulation-making power, for it involves the procedure of the valuation appeal committee. Let us look at what the Minister proposes to repeal. It is information to be furnished by parties to an appeal or complaint. At present anyone taking an appeal in relation to a valuation to the valuation appeal committee can call upon the assessor to tell him the basis of his original assessment and the subject with which the relevant comparison has been made. Likewise, the assessor can make the same demands on the appellant in respect of the basis of the appeal and what he proposes to consider as a relevant comparison to support the appeal.
    That is written into the Statute and is a valued right which is the basis of a person's appeal. It is unfair of the Secretary of State to take away this right and not himself to come to the Committee or the House to justify it. The Government Whip makes a comment on that; he has made many more speeches—from a sedentary position—on the Bill than has the Secretary of State.
    The Under-Secretary well knows that many appeals have been brought forward in a year of revaluation. This proposal would obstruct a person seeking to make an appeal and might obstruct the assessor in relation to an appeal which he might make. I see no great virtue in wiping out this right and covering it by blanket regulation-making powers. As I raised the matter in Committee and gave due warning of the point, and as the Amendment has been on the Order Paper for some time, I hope that the Under-Secretary will have second thoughts. He would not be robbing his Bill of any little virtue which it might have, and he would be retaining rights which are valued by people in respect of valuation appeals.
    Mr. Leburn: I assure the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that I have given a lot of thought to the matter and that I have every sympathy with the

    365
    aim behind his Amendment, which is, of course, concerned with the protection of the rights of appellants under Section 12 of the 1956 Act.
    The hon. Member will recall that in Committee upstairs I gave an assurance that, whatever is done by way of regulation, it will not take away anything from any of the basic rights of the appellant. I will explain why I have included Section 12 of the 1956 Act as one of the provisions that may be repealed under Clause 15 and why I would hesitate to accept the Amendment. I hope that, just as I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member had to say, he will try to follow my difficulty in this connection.
    The Scottish Valuation Advisory Council considered last year, in studying the lessons of the 1961 revaluation, the question of valuation appeal procedures with a view to the inclusion of any changes in the forthcoming Bill—that is, this Bill—and it soon became obvious that it would be better to deal with this procedure question by means of regulation, which involved repealing the existing statutory provisions, including Section 12 of the 1956 Act, to prevent confusion and overlapping. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock will come that far with me. The question, however, is whether Section 12 should have been one of these. I consider that it is necessary, for whatever ones we do include, that there should be power to repeal, so that there is no confusion.
    I agree that Section 12 of the 1956 Act confers rights on appellants which should not be lost. It is for this reason that I gave the assurance in Committee upstairs to which I have referred. On the other hand, it is undoubtedly true that Section 12 has not been operating satisfactorily from the point of view of either the appellant or the assessor. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock said, under Section 12 an appellant can demand a list of the comparable properties on which the valuation is based and the ground of the valuation, but he must make this demand at the time of lodging the appeal; and the information must be supplied within twenty-one days. The assessor can also make a corresponding demand and the appeal must not be heard by the Valuation Appeal Committee
    366
    until twenty-eight days after that right has been exercised.
    There are several defects in this procedure. There is the practical problem that a large proportion of appeals in an area of revaluation tend to come in over a very short period, with the result that even though in practice many of these appeals will not be heard for months and months, the assessor must produce the information demanded within twenty-one days. Then there is the fact that the appellant must exercise his right at the time of lodging the appeal, which allows him no time for further thought.
    In view of these considerations, it would be to the interests of the appellants as well as the assessors if Section 12 were re-examined; and this is what I was proposing to do—that is, reexamined in consultation with the Valuation Advisory Council and the local authorities to see whether it could be replaced by a more generally useful provision. I confess that we do not know what it should be at this stage, but I do know that it should help everyone concerned if it were possible to adjust Section 12 of the 1956 Act. I hope I have persuaded the hon. Member for Kilmarnock on this point. If not, perhaps he will let me know his further doubts. I have put my difficulties to him and I hope that he appreciates them.
    Mr. Ross: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the right with which we are concerned is the right to ask for the information in question? The only difficulty he has listed is that of convenience in relation to a stipulation about time. Will he consider making some change in relation to his power to alter that time of twenty-one days, which originally was ten days in the 1956 Act?
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. McInnes: I have a great regard for the Under-Secretary. I think he is fair and reasonable, but his opposition to this Amendment creates in my mind the belief that there is something sinister behind his deliberate attempt to block it.
    The hon. Gentleman said that as a result of the revaluation there will be tens of thousands of appeals. It is over 100 years since we have had a revaluation of this kind. Revaluation was left to the whims and fancies of the local assessors, and they undertook a revaluation only

    367
    as and when it suited them, spread over years. Here we have had for the first time a practical and exceedingly good system introduced in order to ensure that revaluations will take place each succeeding five years.
    I regard Section 12 of the 1956 Act as fundamental to the whole system of appeals. It provides that it shall be the duty of the assessor, if requested by the appellant, to provide information upon which he, the assessor, founds his case. A similar duty is imposed upon the appellant to give the assessor the information upon which the appellant founds his case. There could not be anything more reasonable than that. It is a co-operative arrangement whereby the assessor shall tell the appellant why he so decided on such a revaluation, and the appellant shall tell the assessor why lie regards that revaluation as being wrong.
    Section 12 is one of the most important provisions of the 1956 Act. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman, who is normally so kind and helpful in matters of this sort, should adopt a dictatorial attitude on this vital issue. I appeal to him to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Leburn: With the leave of the House, I should like to say one more word on this Amendment. I told the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that I was sympathetic to his Amendment. I listened carefully to what be said when he intervened in my speech. I have also heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes). I, too, am very concerned about the rights of the appellant. That is an important factor. I have been persuaded by what both hon. Members have said, and I am prepared to accept this Amendment.
    I should like to tell the hon. Member for Kilmarnock that we already have powers to change the timing, which I think will help in regard to the difficulty which has existed about the twenty-one days. I think that, on balance, I have been persuaded by the arguments put forward from the benches opposite, and therefore I propose to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Ross: With the leave of the House, I should like to express my appreciation—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: May I make the position clear? As I understand it, the hon. Member does not require leave to speak a second time when he has moved an Amendment, and neither does the Under-Secretary who is in charge of the Bill.
    Mr. Ross: Thank you, too, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—thanks all round! I was about to say that the Committee and the House owe a great debt of gratitude to the Under-Secretary. He has been in his seat since a quarter-past four without a single break. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I wonder where all the other Scottish Ministers are. It is all very well somebody saying, "Hear, hear." Whoever said it should be cracking the whip and seeing that one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues was present to give him a chance to get a cup of tea. I begin to think that the longer the hon. Gentleman sits here, the better able he is to appreciate the points and the brilliance of the argument as put forward from this side.
    The Under-Secretary's acceptance of the Amendment is no surprise to us, because in Committee we were able to persuade him by the force of our argument. We are glad that he has taken this step.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Ross: I do not know whether to press my Amendment in page 11, line 32, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
    (4) Regulations under this section shall not have effect unless approved by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.
    The Under-Secretary will remember our argument concerning the effect of the Amendment. It was because of Section 12 of the 1956 Act and our concern that matters should not be left to the negative procedure, whereby we should watch all the various enactments and pray against them, but that it should be the responsibility of the Government to bring them forward by the affirmative procedure.
    I am not necessarily prepared to press the matter in view of the fact that the previous important right has been left in the Bill. Having made that explanation, I do not propose to move the Amendment.

    Clause 19.—(REPAYMENT OF RATES PAID IN ERROR.)
    Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 12, line 24, to leave out from first "made" to "the" and to insert "after".
    Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if with this Amendment we took the following one, in line 25.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker Mr. Deputy-Speaker indicated assent.
    Mr. Leburn: The effect of the Clause as it stands is that no repayment at any time could be made by a local authority unless it specifically had an application by an individual concerned for that repayment. In other words, local authorities would have neither the power nor the duty of making any repayments if they found that an error had been made. By rephrasing the proviso, we have put the matter right.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 25, at end insert:
    "unless application therefore was made before that time".—[Mr. Leburn.]

    Clause 21.—(AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS 199 AND 200 OF ACT OF 1947.)
    Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 13, line 37, to elave out subsection (2) and to insert:
    (2) Section 200 of the Act of /947 (which also relates to the inspection of accounts) shall have effect as if in subsection (1) thereof the word "any" were inserted immediately before the word "Saturday", in the second place where that word occurs; and as if after subsection (1) thereof there were inserted the following subsection:—
    "(1A) Any such ratepayer may make written application to the local authority for an opportunity to inspect the said abstract of accounts at such reasonable time as may be specified in the application, being a time not between the hours specified in the foregoing subsection in relation to Saturdays and other weekdays respectively but within the period of seven days referred to in that subsection; and where such application has been made, the local authority shall make the abstract of accounts available for inspection by the ratepayer at that time in such manner as the local authority may determine".
    This is another Amendment which is designed to meet points raised in Committee. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), who kindly explained to me that he could not be present tonight, asked whether arrange-
    370
    ments could be made for the inspection of local authority accounts by individual ratepayers at hours other than the restricted hours set out in Section 200 of the 1947 Act. The Amendment will allow ratepayers, on written application, to arrange to see the accounts at any reasonable time outside the specified hours.
    Amendment agreed to.
    11.10 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    First, I should like to express my thanks to all hon. Members who have played a considerable part in improving the Bill. When I express these thanks I express them very sincerely and very warmly, and particularly—I hope the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) will not mind—to those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee.
    It now seems to me a very long time ago since we dealt with the earlier Clauses of the Bill. I think that it is perhaps right to remind ourselves that the origin of the Bill arose from the need to provide a continuation of Exchequer equalisation grant for Scotland after 15th May this year. In making this provision, we have tried in various ways to improve the system, and, at the same time, we have taken the opportunity to introduce a number of improvements not only in regard to Government grants, but also in regard to a number of other matters affecting valuation and rating and one or two other minor points.
    Exchequer equalisation grant has been a valuable feature of local authority finance since it was introduced and is an outstanding example of grant given by the Exchequer to local authorities to use as they judge best in the light of local circumstances. Time after time when the grant has been reviewed it has received the approbation of local authorities who, I believe, recognise it as an equitable means of providing assistance to those authorities whose rating resources per head of population are below the average for Great Britain as a whole.
    I recognise very well that there is an inherent difficulty in deciding how best to calculate the amount of grant which

    371
    should come to Scotland as compared to the amount which goes to England and Wales. This is largely due to the fact that there is no unified valuation system covering both countries, but I believe that as the years have rolled on we have been able progressively to improve these arrangements.
    I do not at this late hour wish to make a long speech, but I must specifically mention Clause 3. I understand very well that it has proved to be controversial. The revision of E.E.G. means looking, among other things, at the circumstances in which grant is paid, perhaps on occasion without justification. The assumption which lies behind the grant is that it should be applied to the assistance of expenditure which would otherwise go on the rates. The Public Accounts Committee has emphatically drawn attention to one of the difficulties in the present system. Since local authorities in receipt of grant get a guaranteed percentage of their relevant expenditure paid to them by the Exchequer, housing deficits transferred to rates receive grant, and if this results in charging unreasonably low rents, the taxpayer is paying an additional contribution through grant.
    I do not wish to say very much more, but there are one or two other important Clauses, particularly perhaps Clause 10. It has had its critics from time to time, but I believe what we have done is right.
    This will not, in my opinion, be the last Bill which we shall have to deal with for Scottish local government. I realise that improvements will continue to be necessary from time to time both in regard to the relationship between local authorities and the Exchequer and in regard to the valuation and rating system. I am well aware of that. I hope that, as the days go on, we shall be able to get better and better uniformity in rating and valuation matters. I realise that this is important when we are here dealing with the question of equalisation grants, and, in fact, in dealing with other matters as well. This will not be the last Measure dealing with Scottish local government finance, but I commend this one to the House. In doing so, I would like to thank again the local authority associations and the
    372
    working party for what they have done. Most of all, I would thank hon. Members who have done a great deal to improve the Bill.
    11.15 p.m.
    Mr. Manuel: First, I tender, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), his apologies to the Under-Secretary of State and to the House. He has an appointment in Scotland and has had to catch a train. Secondly, I associate myself with the remarks of the Under-Secretary of State about the good work accomplished in Committee upstairs. While it appeared to me that most of the work was done on one side of the Committee, I was on one occasion very grateful for the support we got from certain active Members opposite, although, at the end of the day, nothing much came of it.
    We used a great deal of brain power and exercised our thoughts to try to improve the position of local authorities regarding unemployment, but were unsuccessful. If things do not get better, something will have to be done eventually about unemployment weighting in local government finance.
    I want to thank the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for his great patience and, at times, forbearance. The Committee got a bit heated at times and those of us who were active felt very keenly about some of the issues but the hon. Gentleman steered his way successfully through and surmounted all the hurdles.
    This Bill is financial, but is different from previous Measures of this character, because the Government have introduced new powers for the allocation of the Exchequer equalisation grants, tied to a formula laid down in Clause 3, which is designed to force up municipal rents. It is a new feature and I regret it. I hope that no Government I support would ever introduce a Bill of this character with this ulterior motive in connection with the allocation of grants to Scottish local authorities.
    We must remember that this exercise, as we see it, and as the hon. Gentleman has agreed, will lose Scotland £1 million in Exchequer equalisation grants which will be filched from the local authorities and returned to the maw of the Treasury. I do not think that this is something Which any hon. Member associated in

    373
    driving the Bill through the House should be proud of. We should think carefully before we have a recurrence of this sort of exercise.
    I believe that Clause 3 is unnecessary. The Secretary of State has already all the powers he needs to deal with local authority rents if he wishes under the 1962 Housing Act. But the Government has been loth to use those powers because of the resentment that would arise among a great many electors if the Government were seen to be putting up rents. The Government are now forcing local authorities themselves to inflate their rents and take the blame or lose certain proportions of the Exchequer equalisation grant. In Committee, the Under-Secretary agreed with me that that was the case.
    In the context of rent rebates, the Bill also brings into being a principle which is obnoxious, unfair and un-Christian. The Under-Secretary has heard my views on this and I will not dwell on them tonight. To qualify for the full equalisation grant, local authorities are to have to increase rents if they are not above the figures laid down in Clause 3. When I say "figures" I refer to the proportion of the gross annual value. Many of the lower income groups do not have the incomes to pay these rents and rent rebate schemes are now already operated on their behalf. The cost of rent rebate schemes is now to fall wholly on the tenants of council houses. This is a substantial change.
    I could quote Section 73 (4) of the 1950 Act which gives local authorities complete freedom to set up their own rent rebate schemes and to operate them as they think fit. The Government are taking away quite substantial powers from the local authorities while further powers are being placed in the hands of the Secretary of State. That cannot be denied. Local authorities are now to have no power to operate rent rebate schemes which they may wish to operate.
    I deplore, as do all my hon. Friends and, I am sure, some hon. Members opposite, these further dictatorial powers which are being taken by the Secretary of State. This is weakening the fabric of Scottish local government and the status of local councillors who are now to be told what they must do about local authority finances in practically every
    374
    field. This is a bad thing and I hope that when there is a change of Government, as I sincerely hope that there will be when we have a general election, we will be committed to removing the obnoxious financial provision which is introduced by Clause 3.
    11.23 p.m.
    Mr. McInnes: I want to express, on behalf of those of us on this side of the House, our appreciation of the Under-Secretary. He has said that he had the co-operation of all those who took part in all the stages of the Bill and I must confess that I found his attitude very flexible. He demonstrated that in Committee and we have had evidence of it again today. I express my personal gratitude to him for his co-operative spirit, but in saying that I want him clearly to understand that, while I appreciate his efforts, I detest the Bill.
    11.24 p.m.
    Mr. T. Fraser: My hon. Friends and I are mindful of the great strain which has been imposed on the Under-Secretary of State in the course of today's debate. He has been here since the beginning of the discussion on public business this afternoon without once being relieved. The hon. Gentleman is one of a team of four Scottish Ministers who are free to play their part in the House. It may be that the two other Under-Secretaries of State were not sufficiently briefed on the Bill to enable them to relieve the hon. Gentleman, but it is scandalous that the Secretary of State has not once put in an appearance in the course of today's proceedings.
    In view of what I have said, I do not want to delay the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps I might put on record a few comments on Clause 8. As the Under-Secretary of State knows, I was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, but I read with considerable interest a good deal of what was said both by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Gentleman as to the reason why he wanted this order-making power to adjust the weighting provisions for the calculation of general grant. He explained that Lanarkshire was to have a considerable reduction in its general grant because of the development of the new town of East Kilbride.
    On Friday, 1st March, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and a depu-

    375
    tation from Lanarkshire County Council, I waited on the Secretary of State for Scotland, at St. Andrew's House, to discuss with him the problems affecting Lanarkshire in the sphere of education arising from the development of the new town to which I have referred. On a number of occasions we have made representations to the Secretary of State, to his predecessor, to the Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland, and to the Minister of State for Scotland, to the effect that the Lanarkshire education authority is seriously penalised by the operation of the general grant for the simple reason that we have East Kilbride in Lanarkshire.
    The general grant is determined by the counting of heads, with certain weighting for sparcity of population, and that kind of thing. The county has to meet its educational expenditure out of general grant, and a substantial part of this expenditure has to be applied to the building of schools in East Kilbride to cater for people from other parts of the country. We cannot find the money to build schools in other parts of Lanarkshire because so much of the money available to the county has to be spent on building schools in East Kilbride for the population that is moving into the county.
    On 1st March the Secretary of State said that he appreciated that there was a serious problem. He expressed his awareness of the financial burden falling on Lanarkshire County Council. We pointed out that a similar burden would fall on other counties with new towns, particularly Fife with Glenrothes, Dunbartonshire with Cumbernauld and West Lothian with Livingstone. He said that he would be able to adjust the weighting under the Clause and that he would do what he could to see whether Lanark could get some advantage out of the order to be made under the Clause.
    I do not know whether he then knew what the Under-Secretary had explained to the Committee would be the effect of the order, but I quoted it back to the Secretary of State, who said, however, that he believed that he could use the new freedom given him under the Clause to increase the general grant to Lanarkshire and not to decrease it, as the Under-Secretary had explained
    376
    was the purpose of this order-making power.
    I thought it important to get this on the record. I wondered whether the under-Secretary had been informed of what the Secretary of State had promised on Friday, 1st March, to the deputation from Lanarkshire, and whether he would now say that there was a reasonable prospect of the Secretary of State's promise being kept.
    Mr. Leburn: I confess that I had not been so advised. I would like to consult my right hon. Friend on this point. In passing, although there has been criticism of my right hon. Friend's absence today, I ought to point out that he is on very important business, and I happily volunteered to take the whole of the Bill. I think that I am just managing.
    I would remind the hon. Member—this is rather a long intervention—that we accepted an Amendment on the Clause, bringing in the year 1964 as the effective year, and that I then made the point that this would give an opportunity to these specific local authorities to make further representations and to have the matter further considered.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

    FORT WILLIAM PULP AND PAPER MILLS [MONEY]
    Resolution reported,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the Board of Trade to make advances to Wiggins, Teape & Co. Limited in connection with the construction and equipment of pulp and paper mills in the neighbourhood of Fort William, and to make grants to that company in respect of interest on such advances, it is expedient to authorise the provision out of moneys provided by Parliament—

    (a) of sums not exceeding £10 million in all to be advanced to the Board of Trade to the said company by way of loan;

    (b) of sums not exceeding £1·3 million in all required by the Board of Trade for making grants to the said company in respect of the company's liability for interest accruing before 1st January, 1967, on sums advanced by way of loan under the said Act;

    and the payment into the Exchequer of sums received by the Board of Trade by way of interest on or repayment of such advances by way of loan.
    Resolution agreed to.

    TEACHERS (TRAINING GRANTS)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]
    10.33 p.m.
    Mrs. Barbara Castle: I want to raise one aspect of our provisions in respect of teacher training grants. I am anxious to bring home to the House the fact that some of these provisions make nonsense of the Government's claim that they want to increase the supply of teachers as quickly as possible. I never realised how absurd some of these provisions were until a case arose in my constituency. Like everyone else, I thought that we were short of about 100,000 teachers, and that the Government were leaving no stone unturned to increase the supply as quickly as possible.
    Then, a short while ago—last January, to be exact—I received a letter from a young Blackburn mother, Mrs. Dinnis, who wrote to me without her husband's knowledge to say that her husband, at the age of 21, had embarked on a three-year teachers' training course last September, and that as a result she, her husband, and a small baby were having to live on £6 10s. a week, and would have to go on doing so for the next three years.
    This grant is appropriate to a student who is considered to be not a married man with a family but someone still dependent on his parents. Mrs. Dinnis wrote to the Blackburn education officer, Mr. Hartley, and asked whether this provision was in order. He replied pointing out that her husband was not over 25 years of age and had not been supporting himself for more than 21 months before he decided to take up his teacher's training. He was classed as dependent upon his parents for the purposes of grant and was not eligible for a grant for his wife and child, even though his parents are not contributing anything to his support, even though he has been earning his own living for nearly two years, and even though he has a wife and young baby.
    When Mrs. Dinnis wrote to me I just could not believe that these facts could be correct. She puts a point of view very simply and movingly which I believe is echoed by hundreds of students in similar circumstances:
    "We are repeatedly being told in advertisements etc. put out by the Government"—
    378
    she wrote—
    "that teachers are urgently required, but I am very much afraid that my husband will not be able to complete his training as I cannot possibly see how we can manage to live off this grant. I ask for no luxuries, only that we should have enough money for the bare necessities and to give our 11-month old baby a good start in life in the way of nourishing food and warm clothes.
    If it were possible, I myself would go to work, although I dearly want to took after my baby and myself, but both my own and my husband's parents and relatives live some distance from Blackburn, so this is impossible.
    To add to our pecuniary plight, my husband received a letter from Blackburn education authority last week informing him that he would have to pay the first £10 of his travelling expenses, which amount to 18s. 4d. per week."
    It was with considerable confidence, therefore, that I wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, who I am glad to see here tonight, and put his case before him. I asked whether he would see that Mr. Dinnis was able to maintain his wife and child. But the Parliamentary Secretary, in his letter to me on 22nd January, merely confirmed that many students
    "may only be regarded as independent of their parents if they are over 25 years of age when they begin their studies or if they have supported themselves for at least three years out of their earnings. A married student who does not satisfy one or other of these conditions is not regarded as independent and no grants are payable on behalf of his wife or children. … We do our best to make clear to all students before they begin their training the conditions under which they receive assistance during their courses and there is nothing to prevent a student like Mr. Dinnis who does not qualify for independent status and grants for his wife and child from postponing entry to college until such time as he is able to meet the requirements."
    That is an absolutely astonishing attitude of the Ministry to take at the very time when every independent body, every Government report, every Royal Commission and Committee is stressing the need for us to have rapid and immediate expansion in our educational provision. Only last week we had another one in the second report of the N.E.D.C. stressing the value of education as part of the policy of growth economically, let alone as part of the cultural life of the community.
    We know that we are desperately short of teachers. That is the argument used by the Government as to why they cannot reduce the size of classes and make other improvements. Yet I am

    379
    solemnly told, when there is a capable and eligible young man in my constituency, who has been selected by the Charley Day Training College for a three-year training course, that he should be advised to give up his teacher's training and to do some other job for four years in the calm assumption that at the end of that time he will be willing to start again as a student, possibly with a reduction in his standard of life which that might entail. The Parliamentary Secretary surely does not for a moment believe that that is the answer to the problem of such people. I know that he does not believe it; he is far too intelligent and too interested in education to believe it. Such an attitude, in fact, indicates a remoteness by the Ministry from the realities of current social life.
    I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will quote the Anderson Committee, but he cannot shelter behind that Committee, because the Government have carefully picked and chosen what they will take from that Committee's Report. They have accepted some recommendations and have not accepted others. I believe that the Anderson Committee recommended the abolition of means tests for students, but the Government turned that down. They used their own judgment in taking from the Anderson Committee's Report what they wanted. I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not give me that answer, because it is not an honest answer, as he knows.
    The Government must take responsibility for a situation in which the Ministry say to a young man who is keen to take up teaching as a career, "If you want to qualify for independent status you must leave school early enough to support yourself for three years before taking up teacher training"—in other words, encouraging young men to leave school early, "or you must not marry while you are in training or you must not start training until you are over 25." None of these facts is compatible with the present situation or with a policy of the expansion of our teaching services.
    We ought to be doing the opposite of all these things. We ought to encourage these students to stay at school before going into teacher-training. Surely we
    380
    should allow them to try another career first, if they want to do so, until they make up their minds that teaching is the vocation for them and the vocation for which they are most fitted and on which they are mast keen. Finally, we should recognise that today people marry very early. They marry as students. Certainly, many of them marry before they are 21. Therefore, we should not penalise them in any way for having married at that age. Many times from this side of the House we have pointed out the folly of such regulations as these. We have urged the Government to change it. The National Union of Students has made strong representations to us and, I believe, to the Ministry.
    When I raised this matter at Question Time on 14th February the Parliamentary Secretary said that he would certainly undertake to look at the subject again. I hope that tonight he will say that he has done so and that good potential teaching material of this sort will no longer be discouraged in this way. It is not humane to face this young family with the choice of either the young mother having to go on struggling to bring up one child on less than £6 10s. a week, when travelling expenses are deducted, or being prevented from having more children because of the smallness of the income.
    It is grossly inhumane to expect her to struggle on in this way or for her husband, who has set his heart on a teaching career, to have to give up that career because the Ministry insists that he must live like a single man. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will give me and Mr. Dinnis some hope tonight.
    11.46 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I welcome this opportunity which the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has offered tonight briefly to consider some of the implications of our present regulations as they concern grants to students at teacher training colleges.
    I share the hon. Lady's enthusiasm to see as many students as possible coming into the teacher training colleges. She will know that my right hon. Friend is at the moment in the middle of an ex-

    381
    pansion of these colleges, an expansion that will, in the space of twelve years, effect a trebling of the numbers in training. At present there are more applications for teacher training colleges than we have places, but I entirely agree with her that we want to ensure that these colleges are as attractive to young people as we can make them; and we must treat most seriously a case such as that of Mr. Dinnis which she has drawn to the attention of the House.
    I readily appreciate the anxiety and concern the hon. Lady feels for this couple and the situation in which they find themselves. It was never considered that the recently issued Awards Regulations should embody the Minister's final word on this subject. It was always the intention that these arrangements should be reconsidered at the end of one full year's experience.
    Teacher training grants form part of the much wider system of grants and awards as a whole and the arrangements approved by the Minister in the main circular, No. 7/62, are closely linked with the Awards Regulations. They cannot, therefore, be dealt with in isolation. The arrangements, which were introduced with effect from September, 1962, represented a considerable improvement in students' grants and were estimated to cost an additional £5 million in the first year. It has become clear, both in the course of administering the arrangements and in the debate on the Awards Regulations which took place in November last year that the general level of grants is now fairly widely considered to be reasonably generous.
    The criticisms have been on certain particular aspects of the arrangements as they affect limited groups of students, and the criticism that the hon. Lady makes tonight is clearly in that category. It is in just such cases that I hope the review we are to hold this autumn will be helpful. We have always considered that a general review of the new arrangements should be undertaken after they have been in operation for a complete year and we propose to do this in consultation with the local authority associations.
    I informed the hon. Lady in the House that I would very carefully consider the narrow point she put to me then and which she has repeated tonight. This
    382
    has been given careful consideration. We cannot change the regulations in advance of the promised review, but I undertake that if this is considered by the local authority associations to be an amendment that is required in the light of the experience they have had we would be prepared very carefully to consider it.
    Letters are, in fact, going out this week to all the local authority associations inviting comments and proposals about the working of the grant arrangements and suggesting a meeting later this year. Already, a number of points have been raised, which will be considered at that stage, and it may also, as I have said, be appropriate then to consider the situation of students who, though technically dependent on their parents, themselves have dependants.
    May I briefly outline the present arrangements by which my right hon. Friend and the local education authorities are bound? Students attending training colleges receive free tuition and maintenance grants during each academic year. For resident students there are free board and lodgings during term time and a grant of £133; day students not living in their parents' home receive £355 in London and £325 elsewhere. These figures are directly related to the amounts payable to university students and take into account the longer training college year. They include various sums for necessary travel, books and equipment, and towards the cost of maintenance during vacations.
    A parental contribution is payable on the basis of an income scale except in the case of independent students, who are, as the hon. Lady has reminded the House, those who are over the age of 25 on 31st August of the year in which they begin their course, or those who have regularly supported themselves out of their earnings for three years before that date, or thirdly, in the case of women students, those who are over 21 and were married before application for admission to a course of training.
    Dependants' grants are payable to independent students thus defined, and there are a number of other grants, including grants for those who live in two homes, and additional grants to students over the age of 25, to which I need not draw attention tonight.

    383
    I think that the hon. Lady will agree that it is desirable to make regulations, and that this is not a matter that should be left to the totally free discretion of local education authorities because that means a difference in arrangements between the different areas, which probably is not acceptable. But if we have regulations, then, clearly, we have got to draw the line somewhere. It is quite apparent that for Mr. Dinnis the line is drawn in an unhappy place, but, wherever it is drawn, somebody is going to fall just outside. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady will be prepared to concede at least that regulations of some kind are needed and that these regulations are by their very nature bound to cause anxiety to some.
    This age limit of 25 which has been considered very carefully—it has been attacked from time to time in the House—is one of long standing. I do not shelter behind the Anderson Committee. Of course, it is the Government's responsibility. But the Anderson Committee, composed of people with experience, did consider this matter very carefully in 1960 and came to the conclusion that there was no reason to change this age of 25. The Standing Advisory Committee, in its review of grants, did not question it, nor did the local authority associations when the award regulations, circulars, and so on, were being discussed with them. It applies to all students except postgraduate students on courses of advanced studies who have been awarded State studentships or D.S.I.R. studentships. These are automatically accorded independent status.
    If it were decided to lower the age limit for independent status, the most obvious age to adopt would be 21 and there have been a good many requests for this. I am not entirely sure whether even so large an alteration as that would help Mr. Dinnis. If the age were lowered to 21, the cost would be £½ million over the field of grants as a whole, about £350,000 of it in training colleges alone. It would, of course, benefit a comparatively small sector of the student population. It is questionable whether, if this additional money were available, it should be spent in this way.
    A compromise solution, which has been put forward by a number of people,
    384
    would be to reduce the age limit to 23. This would cost only £150,000, but it would help an even smaller number of students and would almost certainly be followed by pressure to make a further reduction to 21. The qualifications for independent status below the age of 25 were slightly amended by the Anderson Committee and those amendments were accepted by the Government. Previously, a student who had supported himself for two years could qualify provided that he were over the age of 21. The Committee thought that the lower age limit should be removed, but that two years was an insufficient period, and substituted three years.
    The dependants' grants are restricted to independent students. There is at least some clear logic in this, since one person can hardly be dependent on another who is himself dependent upon a third. It was argued in the debate on the awards regulations that grants for dependent wives and children should be payable to dependent students, but the Minister repeated the view, which had been advanced by a number of his predecessors, that a student should not, as it were, be able to marry during his course at the taxpayer's expense. One may argue about this. The Anderson Committee also considered that marriage in itself was not a ground for waiving the parental contribution.
    As to students who marry after the beginning of their course, we have always made it clear to them beforehand that they cannot expect help from public funds. Hardship may, possibly, arise in cases where a student is already married and his wife is able to work but subsequently has to give up work when she is having a child. This may be the case in this instance.
    Possibly, some discretionary power might be conferred upon authorities to pay a dependant's grant up to an agreed limit in cases of that kind where hardship is proved. This, also, is a point which will be considered in the course of the review to which I have referred. Alternatively, it might be argued that dependants' grants should be payable as soon as there is a dependant to be provided for whether or not the marriage takes place before the beginning of the course.

    385
    There may be merit in such proposals provided, perhaps, that dependants' grants continue to be tied to indepependent status. It is already the practice to pay wives' and children's grants to State students as soon as they reach the age of 25. It is estimated that the cost of this latter suggestion might be approximately £110,000. I hope that from what I have said, the hon. Lady will appreciate that there are quite substantial sums involved in any of these amendments, small as they may seem. Under the present regulations I cannot, therefore, I regret, hold out any hope of a dependant's grant for the hon. Lady's constituent at this moment.
    All I can do is point, first, to one rather small discretionary power which is given to local education authorities and which enables them to pay to any student an extra grant of £2 a week for up to 12 weeks of the vacation period if he can show financial hardship. Secondly, I would repeat the assurance which I have given that these arrangements are to be the subject of a review, and that the points which the hon. Lady has made will be taken into careful consideration. If local education authorities have found that during the preceding twelve months the circular and the Regulations have proved defective either in this respect or in any way we shall be willing then to study very carefully their representations.
    Mrs. Castle: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for the promised review, and hoping that it will help to solve the particular problem I have brought to his attention, may I ask him whether, in the interim period, the local authorities could be authorised, and advised by the Minister that they are so authorised, to make discretionary payments of the kind he has mentioned in cases of hardship over a rather wider field?
    Mr. Chataway: I am not able to give that undertaking to the hon. Lady. The grants which are at present payable and the powers given to local education authorities stem from regulations which are less than a year old. It was made clear at that time that they would have to run a year before they could be properly reviewed, and I think that that was a reasonable provision, because one can hardly judge how the regulations are likely to work in under twelve months, in which one has three terms and three whole vacations. I regret, therefore, that I think it unlikely that my right lion. Friend would be able to make any dispensation of that kind at this time.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Twelve o'clock.

BRITISH ARMY
  Mr. Gilmour
  Mr. Gilmour
SCOTLAND
  After Care (Report)
  After Care (Report)
  School-Building Projects
  School-Building Projects
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Public Works
  Public Works
  London Transport (Fares)
  London Transport (Fares)
TRANSPORT
  Road Haulage Licences
  Road Haulage Licences
  Road and Rail Services (Areas of High Unemployment)
  Road and Rail Services (Areas of High Unemployment)
  Channel Link
  Channel Link
RAILWAYS
  Trains (Automatic Driving Equipment)
  Trains (Automatic Driving Equipment)
  Beeching Report (Representations)
  Beeching Report (Representations)
ROADS
  Chequers Lane Level Crossing, Dagenham
  Chequers Lane Level Crossing, Dagenham
  Leigh and Tyldesley
  Leigh and Tyldesley
EMPLOYMENT
  Hosiery and Knitwear Workers
  Hosiery and Knitwear Workers
  Sutton-in-Ashfield
  Sutton-in-Ashfield
  PHILIPPINES (ABDUCTION OF WOMEN)
  PHILIPPINES (ABDUCTION OF WOMEN)
  REFUGEES
  REFUGEES
  NORWAY (DISCUSSIONS)
  NORWAY (DISCUSSIONS)
  LAOS
  LAOS
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Nuclear Attack
  Nuclear Attack
  Sarawak and Brunei
  Sarawak and Brunei
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Messrs. Wiggins, Teape & Co. (Government Loan)
  Messrs. Wiggins, Teape & Co. (Government Loan)
  Commonwealth and Sterling Area
  Commonwealth and Sterling Area
ROYAL NAVY
  Unskilled Labourers (Wages)
  Unskilled Labourers (Wages)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  River and Catchment Boards (Precepts)
  River and Catchment Boards (Precepts)
EDUCATION
  Destroyed Schools (Replacement Projects)
  Destroyed Schools (Replacement Projects)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Classified Information and Secret Plans
  Classified Information and Secret Plans
  Fugitive Offenders Act
  Fugitive Offenders Act
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Members' Expenses (Income Tax)
  Members' Expenses (Income Tax)

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

TRANSIT NAVIGATIONAL SATELLITE SYSTEM
2.35 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any of the ground tracking stations for the American navigational satellite system called Transit will be on Commonwealth territory, whether the Royal Navy will be able to benefit from this system, and, if so, whether any of the "certain other equipment" mentioned by Mr. McNamara in his budget statement to the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee this year will be carried in British Polaris submarines or other of Her Majesty's Ships.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD) CARRINGTON): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government has received no requests for an operational ground tracking station for Transit to be provided in the United Kingdom or any other territory for which Her Majesty's Government's consent would be required. I cannot speak for other Commonwealth countries. If such a request is received, it will be considered. Assistance in tracking during development has been given by the Ministry of Aviation establishment at Lasham, in Hampshire.
It is possible that British Polaris submarines or other of Her Majesty's ships would benefit from the Transit system, if they were fitted with the necessary equipment referred to by Mr. McNamara: no decision has yet been taken on whether we should seek to have British ships fitted with the necessary equipment to enable them to benefit from the Transit system.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. If the British Polaris submarines are not fitted with this equipment, would it mean that they would be less able than the American Polaris submarines to know exactly where they were?
LORD CARRINGTON: Not necessarily, my Lords. There are other ways of doing this. There are other methods of determining your position with accuracy. I think it is a question of which is the best.

OVERLOADING OF PRIVATE MOTOR CARS
2.37 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of comments made by a Judge of the High Court as reported in The Times of April 10 under the caption "Nine men in car for four: car not unsafe", which might be construed so as to cast doubts on the effectiveness of Regulations 73 and 86 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1955, combined with section 253(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1960, to prevent the overloading of private motor cars, the Minister of Transport will take within the general consideration he is at present giving to the overloading of goods-carrying vehicles consideration of a more precise definition of the maximum permitted number of passengers to be carried in private motor cars so that effective enforcement of the law can be based upon fact and not upon opinion.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the Court was concerned with construing a clause in an insurance policy and it was in this connection that it found the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1955, to be of no great assistance. Regulations 73 and 86 have been found in practice to provide a sufficient basis for prosecution in cases where an excessive number of passengers have

1203
been carried in private motor cars. My right honourable friend does not consider it practicable to lay down specific maximum numbers of passengers to be permitted in different motor cars.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. He will, I know, appreciate that I was in no way attacking anything the learned Judge in this case said. As the noble Lord said, it was a civil case. But there is one observation to which, if he will permit me, I should like to draw his attention. The learned Judge said:
"The opposite contention was that the condition of the vehicle did not include any consideration of the use to which it was being put or the manner in which it was used. It had been pointed out that on the evidence this vehicle, even overloaded as it was, might have been driven safely if it had been kept down to a speed appropriate to its load."
This is the vehicle that had nine men in it. Does the noble Lord not agree that in this context that underlines that what is overloading is still a matter of opinion and not a matter of fact?
Might I also ask the noble Lord this, for his consideration and the consideration of his right honourable friend? If it is practicable to fix the maximum number of passengers carried in a public service vehicle, in a hackney carriage or in a taxicab, and it is illegal to carry more than that number, why is it so difficult to bring the same thing into the realms of an ordinary, private motor car?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the answer to that is that public service vehicles and taxis are purpose-built to a specification for their particular purpose, whereas private cars are not, and may possibly be subject to modification. I would ask the noble Lord just to think of the complications involved: the size of people the number of children to be regarded as equivalent to one adult, what their age limit should be—and, furthermore, an adult of what size? There is also the fact that, should the legal load be, say, four people for a motor car, to put them all in the front seat would be just as dangerous as anything else. One runs into such difficulties and I really do not think they are soluble.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if there is this difficulty in laying down the number of people who should be carried in a car, I wonder if the noble Lord would consider whether there could not be some rule in regard to the number of persons who may be on the front seat. I am sure the noble Lord would agree with me that, where there are crowded in the front seat of the car three or sometimes four people, the driver is very much restricted in his driving. If a regulation cannot be made in regard to the car as a whole, would the noble Lord consider the question of limiting the number on the front seat?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, we should be glad to consider anything which would be conducive to the progress of safety in this matter. I think your Lordships are well aware that it would be quite wrong for me to comment in any way on what was the decision of the Court, but I would certainly agree that it would be most unfortunate if there were any public misunderstanding in this matter which led members of the public to believe that loads of that kind were legitimately possible or desirable, or in fact would do anything other than work against safety.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that the number of small motor cars is increasing by leaps and bounds, and he will also appreciate that as the number of small motor cars increases in this country so will the overloading. Let us take time by the forelock, and do not let us get into the condition we are in with goods-carrying vehicles. I know the noble Lord is very keen on this subject, as are all your Lordships; road safety is a pre-eminent consideration with us all. Has the noble Lord ever heard the old-fashioned little saying:
"Where there's a will there's a way"?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords, I certainly have heard that, and I must say that we shall be very glad to find the way. It would be wrong for me not to point out to your Lordships that the approach to that way seems fraught with great difficulty.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, could I ask whether the Minister is actively consulting

1205
on this point with the insurance companies, who may have considerable liabilities unless there is some official backing?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords: not that I am aware of; but I should naturally be most pleased to consider the suggestion that the noble Earl has made.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is extremely probable that the insurance companies will find their own remedy having regard to the decision in this case?
2.44 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the driver of the car referred to in the previous Question was ever prosecuted for any offence against the road traffic law and, if not, why not; and, if a prosecution was brought, whether it was successful.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am informed that the driver was not prosecuted for any offence against the Road Traffic Acts because the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis found no sufficient grounds for the institution of proceedings.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, is not that a very strange conclusion to come to? Here is a car which carries nine persons, travelling down a steep hill; it crashes into a motor car at the bottom, killing the driver and wrecking the car. And it is said that there is no ground for proceedings under the Construction and Use Regulations, which the noble Lord has just told your Lordships are absolutely sufficient. There was a prima facie case of dangerous driving; there was a prima facie case of the driver not having proper control over his car; and there was a prima facie case that the car was overloaded. Here your Lordships spend the best part of your time trying to prevent accidents, and this is the support that your Lordships get from the police force.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am sure that the House will have taken notice of the Question which the noble Lord asked; but I think the noble Lord will bear with me when I say that my noble friend has made it plain that the institution of prosecutions does not in any way rest with Her Majesty's Government.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would not the noble Viscount the Leader of the House agree with me that it is the prime responsibility of Parliament to see that the laws that it passes are properly observed and enforced?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No, my Lords.?

BRITISH POLARIS SUBMARINES' BASE
2.45 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have yet decided on the base from which British Polaris submarines will operate.]
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, after careful consideration of all possible sites in the United Kingdom, it has been decided that development of existing submarine operating facilities at Faslane in the Gare Loch offers on balance the greatest advantages. A new armament depôt will be constructed at Coulport on the eastern shore of Loch Long, about eight miles by road and 13 miles by sea from Faslane.
The operating base for the Royal Navy's Polaris submarines needs to be near deep water; to offer easy navigational access; and to be a short distance by sea from the associated armament depôt. All the Royal Dockyards fail in some degree to meet these basic requirements, but Rosyth will, of course, refit Polaris submarines as well as the nuclear hunter/killer submarines.
Survey and similar work will start at Faslane immediately, and the base will be completed by 1968. Provisional estimates at this stage put the cost of

1207
developing the base and armament depôt at between £20 million and £25 million including between £12 million and £15 million for construction work. When the base is finished it is expected that some 1,700 officers and men will be based or stationed there, together with their families. Civilian staff employed at the base and armament depôt will probably number about 400, of whom about half are expected to be recruited locally.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the comprehensive nature of his reply, which I am sure will give general satisfaction throughout Scotland, and particularly in the South-West. May I express the hope that when the base is established something will be done to clean up the existing rather untidy condition of the Gare Loch? May I also ask my noble friend whether he can say what employment will be provided during the construction of the base?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords. to deal with my noble friend's second question first, I may say that between 500 and 1,000 local workpeople will be engaged in constructing the base. With regard to the first part of his question, I do not think that that is my responsibility, and I hope your Lordships will agree with me that the Royal Navy are not usually responsible for leaving a mess anywhere.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether this is not rather an extraordinary procedure to announce dates at this stage? Grave doubts are being expressed in many quarters whether we can be certain that at all stages in the next five years we shall be working up to a full supply of Polaris weapons. We do not know yet whether there is much more security about getting this particular weapon than there was about getting Skybolt. To make an announcement of this kind so long in advance, with an estimated expenditure of £25 million, seems to me to be rather remarkable.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that there is any doubt
1208
whatsoever that the Government are going ahead in building the Polaris submarine—that has been announced. I would put it to the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition that it is not much good having the submarines if you have not got the submarine base for them. It is no good starting to build the base after you have got the submarines.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, will this base be available for the Polaris submarines that we are to assign to NATO under the multi-national agreement?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, those are the same submarines.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, did I understand my noble friend to say that he anticipated that there was to be permanent employment at the base for about 400 civilians?
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes, my Lords, about 400 civilians, about half of whom would be recruited locally.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, as we are going so far in regard to information being given in this way, may I ask this: what is the date of the first delivery of a Polaris missile?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the first delivery of the Polaris submarine is 1968.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am asking about the missile at the moment.
LORD CARRINGTON: The missiles are being timed to fit into the submarine in 1968.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: You hope!
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not a fact that there are going to be some Polaris submarines which are not assigned to NATO but are for our other commitments in other parts of the world?
LORD CARRINGTON: No; the submarines the Government have decided to build will be assigned to NATO.

LAOS
2.50 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Private Notice Question which is in my name. It is as follows: to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the situation in Laos.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the situation in Laos remains very serious.
One of the main causes is that there has been no progress as yet in integrating the three rival armies which had taken part in the civil war there. This was a central feature of the Geneva settlement and the signatories had a right to expect progress. Pending such action there is certainly an obligation on each party to desist from trying to secure advantage over the others by a recourse to arms. Left wing forces, very probably stiffened with North Vietnamese in contravention of the Geneva Agreement, have been driving the Neutralist supporters of the Prime Minister out of their position in the Plain of Jars in support of a rebel to the Prime Minister's authority. The whole settlement has been put in grave jeopardy and this must concern us both as signatories to the Agreement and because of the British Foreign Secretary's responsibilities as co-chairman of the Laos Conference.
On the spot, our Ambassador, with the Soviet Ambassador's co-operation, has been extremely active in support of the efforts of the Prime Minister of Laos to halt the fighting, to get the contending leaders to agree and to restore the situation. He has also been working very closely with the chairman of the International Control Commission, Mr. Avtar Singh, of India, and his Canadian and Polish fellow Commissioners to secure the right of the International Control Commission to travel anywhere in the country and maintain a presence where-ever it is necessary to fulfil the terms of the Geneva Agreement.
This is of the first importance and it is this aspect of the matter which I have stressed in my contacts with Mr. Gromyko, the Soviet co-chairman of the Laos Conference. It is a sad blow to our ability to help the situation in Laos
1210
and to the relationship between the cochairmen that Mr. Gromyko has failed to agree to our proposals for joint action and has chosen to publish unilaterally his own part of our exchanges. My reasons for suggesting changes to the draft message he had prepared should be clear from my side of our correspondence, which I have now been obliged to release to the Press, and of which copies have been placed in the Library of the House.
Briefly, the Soviet insisted on one-sided allegations against the American Government which seemed to me to be unsubstantiated and to prejudge the issue before we had learnt the International Commission's views. Your Lordships will see, however, that a very large measure of agreement was reached as to what the two co-chairmen thought should be done, and in the circumstances, and because the situation is so serious, I thought it right that, although no action by the co-chairmen is now possible, Her Majesty's Government should draw the attention of the Government of Laos and the Control Commission to the common views expressed in the exchanges between Mr. Gromyko and myself. Our Ambassador in Vientiane has been asked to do this.
If this is a set-back, we can draw some encouragement from the fact that a new truce seems to have halted fighting on the spot. I hope that, this time, the truce will hold. The International Control Commission is there to help to this end. Despite Mr. Gromyko's attitude, I very much hope that it will now be accepted on all sides that the Commission should, with the full co-operation of all, inhibit by its presence any renewal of fighting and exercise its authority to arrange that the situation which prevailed before the recent Pathet Lao advances is fully restored.
This will be a test of the good faith of all parties in Laos and also of the other signatories of the Geneva Agreement. It is not, in our view, the result of any defect in the Agreement that these dangerous developments have come about. The Agreement makes clear provision for what should be done if such developments should occur. It also provides for the proper investigation and assessment of accusations that there has been foreign interference in Laos. It is very regrettable and disturbing that there have been

1211
indications that there may be an intention on one side to by-pass and frustrate this machinery in order to jeopardise the whole settlement. It has been most valuable to me that it has been possible to have an exchange of views with Mr. Averell Harriman. He has expressed the unwavering support of the United States for the Geneva settlement for an independent unaligned Laos.
The next few days should show whether the settlement is to be allowed to survive or not, and I shall keep noble Lords fully informed. I need scarcely emphasise how harmful it will be to the prospects of reaching agreement based on mutual advantage in the future if this outstanding example of the ability of East and West to reach a constructive solution to their problems by negotiation is allowed to fail.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Foreign Secretary for the very full statement which he has given. I think we all must regard it as a disturbing statement. The House will remember that when the Geneva Agreements were reached there was a world-wide sense of relief that this disturbing and dangerous situation was being brought under control, and I think the House will agree that recently there has been a good deal of concern at developments which seem to be moving back from the progress that had been made at Geneva.
I think the House will join with me in welcoming the efforts the Foreign Secretary has been making as co-chairman of the Geneva Conference, together with Mr. Gromyko, to settle the recent unfortunate developments. I think it is most regrettable that those efforts should have been blocked by Mr. Gromyko. I think it is clear to all of us that what was necessary, and what is necessary, is joint representation from the co-chairmen to the Laotian Government. This effort which was promised has been spoilt by the insistence of Mr. Gromyko on including in the proposed joint statement a charge against the United States Government—a charge which is rejected by the United States Government and, I believe, rejected by Her Majesty's Government. It seems to me that in a situation of this sort everybody should avoid introducing
1212
charges and counter-charges which can only bedevil the situation further.
I am very much in agreement with the statement by the Foreign Secretary that the International Control Commission should be brought into effective operation. I believe that it is true that if that Commission were operating fully in all parts of the territory there would be little room for charges and counter-charges because the Commission could give us the facts. But I think we all agree that what is necessary now is that the two cochairmen should persist in their efforts to influence the situation in Laos in order to get the three factions to co-operate genuinely on the basis of the Geneva settlements, and that the fullest possible use should be made of the International Control Commission to that end.
I think it is true that if this situation is not eased and brought to a settlement it contains the seeds of very great danger to the peace of the world. I hope we are not going to have the efforts frustrated by the insistence of Mr. Gromyko. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will continue to press him to withdraw his insistence. I am not sure whether this is not a case of a concession from the Soviet Government to the Chinese Government. But if it is, it is at the expense of the prospects of peace in Laos. I am very glad that the Foreign Secretary has said that he will report to the House any further developments. We hope that he will persist in his efforts, and we wish him success in what he is trying to do.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while thanking the Foreign Secretary for his very clear and detailed statement, may I ask him whether it is possible under the Geneva Agreement, in spite of the attitude of Mr. Gromyko, to put into operation the machinery under this Agreement which is referred to; and in particular, if necessary, to have an investigation and an assessment of accusations that there has been foreign interference in Laos?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I think it is quite useless to fling around charges and counter-charges. Under the Geneva Agreements, the essential thing is that the International Control Commission should have a free run of

1213
are denying the ability of the Commission to go to the territory which is in their control. We had hoped that Souvanna Phouma and his Neutralist Party would establish themselves and that after a period of time there would be elections. No progress has been made in that. But I think the important thing now is to work away on the spot, to see to it that the International Control Commission is able to establish itself, and particularly in the Plain of Jars, which is the centre of the trouble.
So far as the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is concerned, under the Geneva Agreements it is perfectly possible for the International Control Commission to go all over the country in Laos, provided that the Government of Laos make that request; and indeed they could do so under their own initiative. What has happened from my exchanges with Mr. Gromyko is that they can no longer—at least, not at present—do so, as a result of a joint message from the two co-chairmen. But I very much hope that the Prime Minister of Laos, Prince Souvanna Phouma, will see to it that the International Control Commission is able to go wherever they wish to go and to establish, in particular, a permanent presence in the Plain of Jars.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
FACTORY LANE, WARRINGTON (LEVEL CROSSING) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
3.4 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order), on the Motion for Second Reading moved yesterday by the Lord Chancellor.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, we are considering a long and comprehensive Bill, and the debate in your Lordships' House yesterday covered a lot of ground. I will do my best to deal in rather more detail with the main subjects which were touched upon yesterday and which, in the nature of things, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack was unable to develop at any great length in his opening speech. Perhaps it would be convenient, however, if I explained at this juncture that the original intention was that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe should reply and develop the points, dealing particularly with the new London boroughs' functions and the services attaching to them. But in view of the indisposition of my noble friend, I shall have to deal with those subjects as well as with the general planning, transport and housing matters. Therefore, if your Lordships feel that my speech is extra long, you may perhaps console yourselves with the thought that we shall be saving time later on in the debate, since the noble Earl would in any event have been dealing with these subjects.
I should like to address my opening remarks to those provisions in the Bill which concern the Greater London Council, and perhaps it would be convenient if I commenced with a word or so about that body. I should like to stress one aspect of the Council's position under the Bill, which stems directly from the conception of the new system of local government in Greater London as it was first outlined by the Royal Commission. The Greater London Council is not designed to be a superior or upper-tier authority with suzerainty over the borough councils. The conception of upper-tier and lower-tier authorities has been carefully avoided in drafting the Bill, although I noted yesterday evening that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, did not think so. The Greater London Council and the London boroughs will operate side by side, neither in essence superior to the

1215
other. The essential element in the Government's approach to the Greater London Council, however, is that it should be the authority for those functions and services which need the widest area for their planning and administration.
My noble friend on the Woolsack mentioned yesterday overall planning, main roads, traffic control and certain aspects of housing, especially overspill. To these matters I would add main drainage and refuse disposal, the fire and ambulance services, and an intelligence department to keep under review problems connected with Greater London as a whole. These are strategic functions, and I think—or I hope—that we can all agree that the nature of these services, taken together with the size of London's population, implies the need for a type of authority which is different from others throughout the country.
Let me deal first with town and country planning, which, par excellence, calls out for the widest treatment where Greater London is concerned. The Greater London Council themselves are, as we know, required by provisions in Part III of the Bill to prepare an overall plan, to be called the Greater London development plan. This will deal with matters of general policy and provide the framework against which the detailed plans will be worked out. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, asked that the Council should deal with the right things. They will be dealing with the pattern of communications, the balance of land use, the policy in regard to industry and other forms of employment. I think that these are certainly the right things.
This will be a master plan and it will have full statutory significance. To break down the detailed work of planning, street by street and block by block, the borough councils will prepare local development plans after the Greater London development plan has been approved by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The local plans will have to be submitted to the Minister through the Greater London Council, who will be able to pick up, and put back if necessary, anything which goes against the approved Greater London plan.
Your Lordships will readily see that, in their responsibilities for development plans, the Greater London Council will
1216
be very different from a joint board with advisory, consultative or co-ordinating functions. They will be a body with very wide and real powers. But, at the same time, the borough councils and the Common Council, nearer the ground, will be responsible for the detailed planning of their areas. In this respect the Bill differs from the Report of the Royal Commission, who recommended that the Greater London Council should be responsible for all development plan work. But clearly it is an advantage to spread detailed work of this kind in order to get it done in a reasonable time.
A plan like that for London County alone is simply enormous. It has recently been under review, and the County Council and their officials are to be congratulated on the smoothness with which the work has, in fact, been done. But it is a heavy burden, and the individual, who has a right to object to what goes into plans, may feel that his case has been lost in the mass. This burden and this sense of frustration would be much increased if the development plans and their reviews were done for, and by, only one authority over the whole Greater London area.
There is also another advantage in making the boroughs responsible for most of the redevelopment work. It is, after all, the borough council who will be in a position to see what changes of local character need to be made. On the other hand, it has been argued that the centre of London is so important and of such general interest that its development plan should be the responsibility of the Greater London Council, to the exclusion of all other local authorities, but the Greater London Council will in fact have both adequate and flexible enough powers in drawing up their overall plan and also in dealing with planning applications of major importance wherever they occur in Greater London.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I just ask the noble Lord, on that point, whether he is saying that central London, which I take it means inner London, will be treated differently from the rest of Greater London? I do not see that in the Bill, but is it intended?
LORD HASTINGS: No, I was not saying that at all. I was just saying that it had been argued by some people that

1217
it should be treated differently. But these powers which the Greater London Council will have will be adequate and flexible; and they will be able to deal with planning applications of major importance not merely in central London but elsewhere, too, if necessary. I was going on to remind the House that my noble friends Lord Conesford and Lord Colville of Culross expressed some anxiety about this matter yesterday, and were doubtful as to how (or, indeed, whether) the division of general planning powers as set out in the Bill would work out in practice. I hope that I may be able to allay their fears, particularly in regard to Clause 24, subsections (4) and (6).
The Royal Commission recommended that the day-to-day work of dealing with planning applications should be given to the borough councils, and the Bill provides for that. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross had something to say about this, and evidently approved, because he pointed out that the mass of planning applications already being dealt 'with by the London County Council would be so multiplied that the Greater London Council would not be able to deal with them—and I am sure that that is so. But, just as with development plans some matters are of local importance only while others will be the concern of Greater London as a whole, so the Bill recognises that there will be planning applications with which the Greater London Council should deal. The Bill enables the Minister of Housing and Local Government to prescribe classes of development, and areas, for which applications should be dealt with by the Greater London Council. This follows a recommendation of the Commission, when they mentioned tall buildings which could alter the skyline, large office development and development on historic sites as likely candidates for this treatment; and no doubt my right honourable friend will bear this in mind.
Your Lordships will observe that a special clause is devoted to historic buildings, and I should like to add a word about these and about the London Survey. Under the general law, special notice must be given to the local planning authority of any proposal to demolish or seriously to alter a building which has been listed as of special historic or architectural interest.
1218
The London borough councils will in the future be the authorities to whom this notice must be given. Accordingly, preservation will in the first instance be the responsibility of the boroughs. They will have the power to take enforcement action in the event of failure to give notice of proposed works. They will have the power to make preservation orders and the power to make a compulsory purchase order if this is necessary in order to preserve a building from neglect after a preservation order has been made.
The Greater London Councl have, however, been given substantially concurrent powers in this field. They will receive notices of proposed work to listed buildings, and they will have powers similar to those of the boroughs in relation to enforcement, preservation orders and acquisition. My right honourable friend also has it in mind to provide, by regulations to be made under Clause 24, that the Greater London Council should be able to comment on planning applications submitted to the boroughs in respect of listed buildings and, if necessary, to direct the borough council on how any particular application should be dealt with. These arrangements will ensure that the very considerable body of experience and expert knowledge built up by the county councils, and particularly by the historic buildings section of the L.C.C., will remain available.
The historic buildings section, which I am sure will be kept together by the Greater London Council, has built up a unique body of scholarly and practical knowledge, derived from their investigations and recording for the London Survey, from their work of maintaining historic buildings under the care of the L.C.C. and in advising on planning work which involves listed buildings. These functions will be transferred to the Greater London Council, and your Lordships will have noted that paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 to the Bill specifically gives the Greater London Council the power to continue the London Survey and to give advice about the preservation of buildings.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, were both concerned with subsections (4) and (6) of Clause 24. They

1219
were anxious to ensure that there should be the clearest statement of the functions to be exercised respectively by the Greater London Council and the boroughs in relation to development control and planning applications. My Lords, I entirely agree. This is a most important matter. I have just indicated some of the topics which might appropriately be reserved to the Greater London Council. It is not by any means an exhaustive list, but we should be careful to avoid the temptation of prescribing in the Bill, item by item, what we think ought to be allocated to each of the two separate authorities. In the Government's view, there could easily be produced an over-rigid system which would preclude consultation with the new authorities. My right honourable friend, in consultation with the local authorities, will give the most careful consideration to the framing of regulations that fall to be made under Clause 24, and I can assure the House that every effort will be made to make certain that the public are spared unnecessary delays and inconvenience, and that a clear and workmanlike system will be achieved.
Your Lordships would not wish me to leave the vital topic of planning without touching on the problems of redevelopment. These range from those of the small scheme, which moves a few nonconforming industries or clears up some obsolete development, to the very large scheme, which has traffic repercussions over a wide area and may run over borough boundaries and involve large sums of money. For the first type of scheme, where the problems are essentially local, the borough councils will be the appropriate authorities: for the bigger scheme, the Greater London Council should be able to step in. This is provided for in the Bill, though it may not immediately catch the eye. Clause 29 gives the borough councils and the Greater London Council the Planning Act powers to buy land, and attracts to both sets of authorities the Planning Act powers of redevelopment.
The division of functions—from the preparation of the development plan, through the day-to-day work with planning applications, to redevelopment—should give the authorities on both levels an ample measure of responsibility and plenty of work to justify and require
1220
the appointment of well-qualified staff. The Greater London Council will certainly need a good team for the work it will have to do in all three fields of activity; and the borough councils also will need fully competent staff. The apportionment of responsibilities should mean that we have avoided the danger that at either level too little work of the right kind would be at hand to attract the best people, either in the council chamber or on the planning committees, or at official level; or, conversely—and especially is this true of the Greater London Council—that there would be too much detail which would clog the machinery, make the constructive approach difficult and generally lead to the needs of broad planning being lost to sight. There should be ample scope for the strong team at the centre, ranging over the problems of the whole area; and for good teams of good county borough planning office standard at borough level. At the same time the needs of the citizen have been kept in mind throughout, so that the workings of the planning machinery, which affect him at so many points, will be as accessible as it is possible to make them consistently with the needs of planning in the Metropolitan area as a whole.
Let me now touch on another set of functions which require the widest review over Greater London as a whole—the construction and maintenance of main roads and the management of traffic. Part II of the Bill deals with traffic and highways. In both these vital fields of local government it is intended that overall control should be given to the Greater London Council. This will mean that for the first time in London government one authority will be responsible for traffic management, and for the main through routes. At the same time, it will, as planning authority, be charged, in particular, with giving guidance as to the future road system of Greater London. I entirely accept the contention of my noble friend Lord Conesford that traffic is not a subject that can be divorced from planning. It is for this reason that a Director of Traffic has been made a statutory appointment. We wish to make quite certain that the importance of road and traffic planning will be recognised, and that it will, in fact, be fully integrated into the planning system. It is only by the concentration of these

1221
powers in the hands of one authority that the enormous road and traffic problems together with the planning problems can properly be tackled.
So far as highways are concerned, the Bill proposes that the present multiplicity of authorities and functions should be replaced by a simple and logical division. Except for the trunk roads the Greater London Council will be responsible for the main through routes—the metropolitan roads—and the borough councils will be responsible for all other roads. The Bill selects initially nearly 550 miles of metropolitan roads but there is plenty of room for adjustment later. For the moment we propose no change in the trunk road system in the Greater London area, but no final decision has been taken on these and my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport intends to review the position of these roads and discuss with the Greater London Council what the final pattern should be.
The Greater London Council will be taking over powers of traffic regulations which have been exercised by a Minister of the Crown ever since the London Traffic Act, 1924.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? Could be tell us when he is going to reach the human race, the people who live in London and Greater London? And could be read this speech slightly more slowly so that we could follow it better?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I apologise for reading too fast. I explained to your Lordships that I was going to have to deal with all the subjects with which my noble friend Lord Jellicoe would otherwise have been dealing in a separate speech. But I am sure the noble Lord would agree that planning and the highway system are not to be ignored and have to be dealt with. I was reading slightly fast only because I was afraid my speech would be too long, but I will slow down from now on.
In handing over these powers to the Greater London Council the Bill gives guidance in Clause 9(2) on the purpose for which the Greater London Council should use its powers, not simply to keep traffic moving, but also to have regard
1222
to the interests of pedestrians, of safety, of reasonable access to premises and of getting adequate parking space provided. The Greater London Council is under a duty to promote these interests so far as practicable. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, can rest assured that that means it should have regard to other non-traffic interests such as trade, public transport, amenity and the convenience of the inhabitants of London; in short, that London should remain a pleasant place to live in. It will be for the Council to weigh all aspects of the public interest and act accordingly. These are great responsibilities which are to be transferred to the Greater London Council.
Traffic in London presents many difficult and urgent problems. To help give the Council the best chance of meeting this challenge, the Bill gives the Greater London Council the full range of the Minister's present powers in London which are wider than those of local authorities outside London. Because the powers to be handed over are so wide, because the matter of coping with the traffic problem in a great city such as London is so vast, the Government feel it right in the last resort that the Greater London Council should be subject to some control by a Minister answerable to Parliament.
Some criticism has been made of these proposals, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. But I wonder what would be the reaction of Parliament if something were to go badly wrong with the road and traffic planning of Greater London or if, for instance, the inhabitants of a particular borough or the users of historic Central London were to be inconvenienced and then the Minister were to come to Parliament and say he was sorry but he had no powers to put things right. These powers of the Minister are intended only as reserve powers, and a Government Amendment moved in another place in Committee has made it clear that the powers to give directions may be exercised only after consultation with the Greater London Council. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has complained of the precise words used, but these were the words accepted in another place in answer to the criticism that the Minister's powers were excessive.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, when my noble friend says these words were accepted in another place, it should be remembered that they were subjected to devastating comment by members of all Parties in another place. They were accepted as better than nothing, under the guillotine; but surely it is going a little far to say that these words (which I suggested might be clearer if set to music) were accepted in any real sense.
LORD HASTINGS: Perhaps the noble Lord will be happier if I were to say that they came to this House from another place in that form, as a result of an Amendment.
If I may now turn to housing—where the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lam-both, will feel happier; for this is a subject which affects people more intimately—the arrangements proposed for housing are new and have been devised to meet the practical problems in Greater London. In doing so we have tried to ensure that the balance is fairly preserved between the Greater London Council and the London boroughs. On the one hand, some people are understandably anxious that too much power should not be given to the Greater London Council in case it dominates the housing scene. Others feel that the advantages of size and strength which lie with the L.C.C. are being dissipated and nothing comparable is being substituted.
Let me try to put the matter into perspective and explain the Bill's proposals in more detail. The first important point is that the new set-up is emphatically not merely the extension of the present L.C.C. system to cover the whole of Greater London. Within the County of London, the L.C.C. and the metropolitan boroughs operate the housing powers concurrently, except that the L.C.C. alone can build outside the county. Metropolitan boroughs cannot even build outside their own areas except in special circumstances; and in practice this hardly ever happens. The conception underlying the Greater London Council's powers is quite different. Their powers will be very far from concurrent; in essence they will be supplementary to the boroughs' powers. The new boroughs, with an average population of 250,000, will be very large housing authorities and it would be incongruous to suggest that authorities of this size are not capable
1224
of dealing with the whole range of housing work on their own, as far as is physically possible. The Bill recognises this.
The London boroughs are, so far as possible, being treated as if they were county boroughs. The only limitations on their powers are that they are not normally to be allowed to build outside Greater London. They will be the primary housing authorities. They will be responsible for clearing the slums, for making improvement grants, for dealing with multi-occupation and other matters. They are being given the best set of powers available, including a new power not available in general housing legislation which will enable them, if they have not been able to find land in another borough to build houses themselves, to enter into arrangements with another London borough whereby the latter will, on terms, undertake the housing of families for whom the parent borough can find no room. All this is proof that the Government are sincere in their view, which the Royal Commission stressed, that the London boroughs should be the primary housing authorities and should be equipped with powers to go as far as they can in solving their own problems.
But none of this changes the physical circumstances affecting housing in Greater London. The major housing task is the redistribution of the population of the congested inner areas. Many of the congested boroughs cannot solve the whole of their housing problem within their own area. This means that from their slum clearance and redevelopment operations, and from their waiting lists, there will be a surplus of families who will have to be housed elsewhere. Some of this will be dealt with by overspill schemes. The Greater London Council will be solely responsible for this. The reason is that overspill schemes will now have to be at such a distance from London that population and employment must move together.
As the Ministry pointed out in their evidence to the Royal Commission, experience has already shown that only a large authority like the L.C.C. covering a wider area than any borough can handle this effectively. A fortiori, the Greater London Council should be even more effective. But many families who need to be rehoused are still tied to Greater London because of their work.

1225
The boroughs will be enabled to play the fullest possible part in dealing with this part of the problem themselves. But this may not be enough. The Greater London Council have therefore been given power to build homes inside Greater London as well as outside. The Royal Commission and the Government, however, recognising that this would represent an intrusion into the domain of the London borough as the primary housing authority, proposed the system of consents which has been incorporated into the Bill. The Greater London Council may build houses in a London borough only with the consent of the borough or, if that is withheld, with the consent of the Minister. In coming to a decision, the Minister will, in effect, be holding the balance between the needs of the borough and the needs of Greater London, and the Bill specifically charges him with this duty. So much for the distribution of powers and responsibilities for housing under the new system.
Now I come to this matter which really exclusively concerns the new London boroughs, and which the noble Lord opposite referred to as the personal and human services. I think he will find that they are given a fair share of my speech, although I have already been on my feet for some time. I beg your Lordships' pardon: I am afraid that I have not yet reached that point, although I am nearly there.
Local government services depend partly on the quality of the elected members and partly on the calibre of the permanent officials, and your Lordships are rightly concerned to ensure that experience and expertise, particularly where it resides in a team, should not be lost. Fears have been expressed in many places about the future of the L.C.C. architects' department, lest it should be broken up. I see no reason why it should. If we take a sober look at the range of the Council's work, we can say with confidence that it provides as substantial and varied a basis as that on which the present architects' department has been built. The Greater London Council will have functions exercisable throughout Greater London, and will be responsible for overspill not only for the L.C.C. area, but for the whole of the Metropolis. It will have planning functions covering the whole area and powers to carry out comprehensive redevelop-
1226
ment. It will be responsible for all the building work needed in connection with the Greater London Council's functions, including school building in inner London, subject to the review of the educational arrangements there.
Clause 21(5) provides that for an interim period the Greater London Council should have all the housing powers of the L.C.C., the intention being that they should take over and complete the L.C.C. forward housing programme as it stands at March, 1965. Therefore, in total, the Greater London Council will have the opportunities and responsibilities which should enable them to inherit and improve upon the reputation of the L.C.C. in this respect. Under the orders which the Bill will make necessary the existing staff of the L.C.C.'s architects' department will almost inevitably be transferred to the Greater London Council. But it will be for the Greater London Council to arrange their own organisation and appoint their own chief officers. Speaking of chief officers, your Lordships may recall that in another place a Government Amendment actually removed a provision originally appearing in the Bill which would have required the Council to appoint a surveyor. Nevertheless, in my right honourable friend's view (this is a controversial matter, I know) it would be desirable to have a further and comprehensive look at the whole question of chief officers for the Greater London Council before the Bill finally completes its passage through Parliament.
Before turning to the new London boroughs and the personal services for which they will be responsible, perhaps I may turn aside for a moment to comment briefly on the position of the counties which are described, I think rather unattractively, as truncated. The Government are not oblivious of the fact that reorganisation within Greater London will have financial consequences for those counties. But let there be no doubt that the counties will remain strong and viable units of local government. Indeed, the three counties most affected—namely, Essex, Kent and Surrey—will still be among the most populous in the country. Nevertheless, the Government believe it right—and have so provided in Clause 68 of the Bill—that these counties should be given some assistance to help them meet the

1227
extra rate burden that may fall upon their ratepayers. Your Lordships will already know that the Government have felt themselves able to go some way to meet critics who considered that the assistance should be more generous. My right honourable friend has also undertaken, without commitment, to look at figures produced by the Surrey County Council.
No doubt some of your Lordships may wish to examine these provisions in the Bill at a later stage in our proceedings, but I should like to take this present opportunity to set out some general arguments that have influenced the Government. First, as I have said, the Government believe it right that assistance should be available. It is generally accepted that the assistance should be for a reasonable, limited period; but there are differences of view as to whether or not there should be some starting point before which the assistance should not be payable. Local government reorganisation carried through in the interests of the citizen continually causes alterations in the rate burden, and in the Government's view it is only when an increase exceeds a certain level that it is right for assistance to be given. Similarly, since the reorganisation is being carried through for the benefit of the citizens of the reorganised area it is reasonable that the citizens of that area, in this case within the truncated counties and inside Greater London, should shoulder the burden or provide the assistance, as the case may be. It is certainly not for the taxpayer to foot the Bill, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth; after all, the resources of the combined areas remain the same. But it is for the Government to keep a fair balance between one group of ratepayers and another, and this is what Clause 68 sets out to do.
I now come to the London boroughs and the personal services. We heard some very moving speeches yesterday, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and my noble friend Lord Grenfell, as well as from Lord Taylor and others, on the very complicated matter of children's services and mental health services, and my speech deals at considerable length with these two subjects. I think that everybody who heard those speeches yesterday will have
1228
been very much moved, and certainly will treat the subject with the greatest seriousness and sincerity, and a feeling of sympathy; because there is no doubt that we wish to make absolutely certain that these services will work in the way in which it is intended they should work; that is, for the benefit of the people who receive the services.
The Government's case for a children's service organised on a borough basis does not rest on the record of the L.C.C. (or of the other affected authorities), but on the belief that, given that local government in Greater London is to be reorganised, the proper place for the children's service—along with the other personal services—is with the boroughs. The main criticisms made are that the service as at present organised works well and should not be disturbed, and that the pactical difficulties of reorganization are enormous. My Lords, the Government have never sought to minimise the transitional problems, but they do not agree that they are so great that they must be the deciding factor for the future of the children's service in London.
Transition, particularly in the London County Council area, will not be easy, because the London County Council's children's accommodation is unevenly distributed, much of it being outside the area it serves, and a substantial proportion of it is concentrated in five very large homes. But the geographical distribution of the accommodation should not affect the inner boroughs adversely, and the main problem will arise in the sharing of large children's homes. The sharing of specialist establishments such as remand homes and reception centres, should not be such a problem, but there is no reason why adequate sharing arrangements should not be devised to serve until such time as the boroughs have made alternative arrangements. The Government believe that the boroughs will aim to accelerate the run-down of the large homes and their replacement by small family group homes; the boroughs will be anxious to achieve as soon as possible self-sufficiency in the basic forms of children's accommodation. In the outer boroughs the accommodation is in smaller units and more evenly distributed. Consultations which have taken place at officer

1229
level between the Home Office, the local authorities in the outer area and the local authority associations have led to the conclusion that it should be possible for each of these new boroughs to be allocated enough property within or near to its own area to make it self-sufficient, or nearly self-sufficient, in the basic forms of accommodation.
The principles on which the transfer of responsibility for individual children in care on the appointed day will take place have yet to be discussed formally with the local authorities and their associations, but informal soundings have already been taken among certain of the authorities and all are agreed that the interests of the children should be paramount, and that no child shall be uprooted from his environment for the sake of administrative tidiness. In a children's authority the Government do not believe that great size is necessarily an advantage. Nobody setting out to construct an ideal child care authority would think in terms of an organisation as large as the London County Council. On March 31, 1962, the London County Council had 9,232 children in care—more than the counties of Essex, Kent, Middlesex, Surrey and Sussex had put together. The disadvantages of great size can be mitigated to some extent by decentralisation, and in recent years the London County Council have done their best to decentralise to three district committees and nine area children's officers. But decentralisation at best produces artificially the benefits which smaller units possess naturally, and it cannot remove all the disadvantages of excessive size.
Of the 12 Inner London boroughs, it is likely that 3 will have just over 1,100 children in care and the remainder from 400 to 1,000. A case load of this order provides a task large enough to engage the energy and enthusiasm of elected members and staff, but the organisation remains small enough for the children's committee to keep closely in touch with the staff and their work, and to bring local knowledge to bear on the problems of the service. Similarly, the child care staff of the new boroughs will be closer to the centre of local administration and more conscious of the whole picture of child care and of other services. At the same time, those senior child care staff at the borough headquarters will be more concerned with field work and individual
1230
children, and less absorbed in managerial and organisational responsibilities. Over the area as a whole, there should be an opportunity for increased contact between child care staff and elected representatives.
The specialist establishments of the London County Council include two remand homes, four reception centres and three establishments specially for disturbed or difficult children. There is also room for some specialisation in size and type within their family group homes and their large establishments. But remand homes outside London are commonly provided by one authority for the use under special user agreements of others. Reception centres also take children from other areas. There is therefore no reason why similar arrangements should not be made in respect of all the London County Council's specialised institutions, including those for difficult children. The London County Council also place handicapped or disturbed children in special homes run by voluntary organisations. The new boroughs will be able to continue to use these places. In a nutshell, the principal arguments in favour of giving the child care service to the boroughs rather than to the Greater London Council arise from the importance of associating the child care services with the services concerned with health, welfare and housing. The Government believe that effective understanding and co-operation will be easier to achieve if these services and the children's service belong to one authority, and, if possible, live under one roof, than if the children's service is severed from the others.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? Would he be able to point to any body of opinion concerned with the care of these children which favours this fragmentation of the service?
LORD HASTINGS: We really do not agree that it is fragmentation. We believe that we are reorganising it on a larger basis.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Would the noble Lord point to any body of opinion which favours this reorganisation on the lines he suggested?
LORD HASTINGS: I cannot point to the London County Council, certainly.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Can the noble Lord point to any body?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Come on, answer.
LORD HASTINGS: Consultations have been going on between the Home Office and local authorities, and I mentioned some cases where that has happened and where they are in agreement on certain subjects.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: You are not answering the question.
LORD HASTINGS: I am not able to point to any specific organisation, because I am not representing the Home Office.
The Royal Commission's recommendation that the personal health and welfare services should be administered by the same authority, together with the closely linked children's and environmental health services, had wide support from individual local authorities. If the noble Earl had waited for one more paragraph he would have had his answer.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Is it not rather surprising that the noble Lord did not know what was coming next in his speech?
LORD HASTINGS: I was held up inadvertently by the noble Earl. From the point of view of individual citizens who are concerned with the needs of their whole family—and this is the point of view which matters most—the various health and welfare services should be easy to understand, should seem to come from one source and, so far as possible, should be associated with a single field worker. Yet a great variety of types of service may be needed, and their interrelations may be most complex.
The only way to satisfy this apparently conflicting demand for a simple yet many-sided service, is through a domiciliary team of health and welfare workers, acting with the local general practitioners, and able to draw on more specialised advice and facilities as necessary. Because the basic health and welfare services are directly and personally concerned with the family and the individual, the Government believe that in Greater London they can best be run by the new London boroughs. Authorities of that size, ranging from 166,000 to
1232
341,000, will have resources to organise and administer efficient and economical services without being too remote from their population as a whole. Nevertheless, as your Lordships are aware, there are certain aspects of these services for which few local authorities in London or elsewhere are large enough to be entirely self-sufficient, and which they therefore need to provide in co-operation with neighbouring authorities.
In addition, in the London area the distribution of, for example, old people's homes and training centres for the mentally sub-normal is such that there will probably be an undue concentration in the areas of some of the new London boroughs and insufficient provision in others, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, mentioned yesterday. Because of this, sharing of the use of these services by more than one borough will be necessary—in some cases for only a transitional period while the new boroughs establish their own services, and in the case of the more highly specialised services on a permanent basis, as is common throughout the country. As local health authorities under the National Health Service Act, and as local authorities under the National Assistance Act, the new boroughs will have the necessary powers to make use of one another's services. Clause 5(3) of the Bill provides supplementary sharing powers, if they are needed, and orders embodying the necessary arrangements can be made by the Minister of Health under Clause 81 of the Bill.
To give the administration of the mental health services to a different local authority from that administering the rest of the personal health services would be to create an artificial, unworkable and potentially disastrous division between physical and mental health, and to throw away the advantages of integrated health service. It is only in recent years, and especially since the passing of the Mental Health Act, 1959, that services for mentally disordered children and adults living in the community have started to be regarded as an integral part of the community health service as a whole. It would be putting the clock back to separate them again.
The question of the training of staff of training centres for the mentally subnormal goes much wider than the reorganisation of London government.

1233
When the Report of the Committee which was appointed, under Dr. Scott's chairmanship, to advise on the training of these staff was published last year, my right honourable friend the Minister of Health sought the views of other interested bodies, for example, the local authority associations, the Royal Medico-Psychological Association and the National Association for Mental Health, both on the Report and on the covering advice of the Central Health Services Council. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, in particular will be pleased to learn that final replies have now been received from all of the bodies consulted, and that my right honourable friend is reconsidering the Report in the light of these replies with a view to making an announcement as soon as possible.
It is true that at present a full range of mental health services does not exist in each of the new London borough areas, nor indeed in London as a whole, nor in most other parts of the country. This situation reflects the fact that the community mental health services throughout the country are still at a very early stage of development. They need to be developed in London, as elsewhere. Future development will not, however, necessarily need to proceed to the point at which there is at least one of every possible type of unit in the area of each London borough.
The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, also sought information on the Government's plans for financing the services to the mentally subnormal and mentally ill. Estimates of relative expenditure on mental health and other local authority services are already taken into account in fixing the amounts of the general grants distributed to local authorities. In determining the amounts for the years 1963–65 it was recognised that the local authority health and welfare services are expanding, and the rapid expansion taking place in the mental health service was especially noted. Expenditure on mental health is expected to increase from about £6 million in 1961–62 to about £11 million in 1964–65. Under the Bill the same services will be provided by local health authorities, and the same expansion in mental health services is expected, only the authorities' areas will be different. They will continue to be financed from the rates with substantial assistance from the general grant.
1234
There have been suggestions that the London boroughs would have to administer these specialised services without the help of those who have over the years acquired experience in running them—a fear I think in the mind of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. But this ignores the fact that staff will normally be transferred with the services in which they work; the possibility of several boroughs sharing the services, in an advisory capacity, of senior medical staff with special experience of mental health; the desirability of joint staffing arrangements for hospital services; and the fact that county councillors and committee members with experience of particular services will, no doubt, be among the elected or co-opted members of the committees responsible for the services in the future.
There can be no doubt that in the long term smaller administrative areas for welfare purposes than the present counties will make possible a more "personal" service for the handicapped and the aged. The Government's intention is that ownership and management of local authority centres and residential homes for the mentally disordered, the blind and other handicapped persons will be transferred to the London boroughs in which the premises are situated. Where an establishment serves an area wider than the borough in which it is situated, arrangements can easily be made, as is the practice elsewhere in the country, for the facilities to continue to be available for the residents of other authorities.
My Lords, I should like to end with a word about the future administration of the education service in Greater London, but, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor referred to this at considerable length when he moved the Second Reading yesterday, I do not propose to deal with the subject at very great length. More money is spent on education, and rightly, than on any other single local government service, and no one will challenge the supreme importance of this subject. But it is a local government function and cannot be considered in a vacuum, or divided from other services provided by local authorities in the context of the large reorganisation of London government. The problem is not, therefore, to establish a set of authorities based solely on the needs of this one service, but it is to examine how the needs

1235
of education can best be administered with the needs of other services provided by local authorities to the benefit of the community.
The essential question in any structure involving a single overall authority of a network of boroughs is by which authority, or combination of authorities, education will be administered and there are strong arguments against dividing responsibility for education between the overall authorities and the boroughs. These were cogently set out in the Royal Commission's criticisms of too large an administration, as it now works in Middlesex. On the other hand, the Greater London Council with a population of 8 million, is too large to be an education authority, and the Royal Commission's own recommendation of dividing this service between the Greater London Council and the boroughs seems to the Government to be open to the same objections as the arrangements in Middlesex which the Commission had themselves criticised. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor dealt with this yesterday. In the circumstances, therefore, as your Lordships know, the Government came to the conclusion that the London boroughs should be substantially larger and would then be perfectly capable of administering the education service; but that special arrangements were needed for inner London.
In dealing with education, I should like to reply to the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. I know that my right honourable friend the Minister of Education will consider very carefully all that the noble Earl said yesterday about voluntary schools. Perhaps also your Lordships would be interested to know—if you do not already know—that the Bill provides special safeguard to protect their interests in Clause 31(2), which applies to subsections (3) to (5) of Section 11 of the Education Act, 1944, including a provision for consultation with such schools by the local education authorities. I am sure also that the remarks made by the noble Earl and by my noble friend Lord Auckland about freedom of movement over the outer boundaries of Greater London will receive the most careful attention.
My Lords, it has taken a long time to deal with both the central and local services of the proposed Greater London
1236
Council and the new London boroughs, but it has been necessary, I feel, to do so, and the purpose of my remarks has been to demonstrate that the new constitution for Greater London, so ably described and expounded by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, will produce sensible, humane and workmanlike services to the greater benefit of all of London's citizens. In local government, as in central government, the basic criterion is the welfare of the citizen. It is the Government's belief that this Bill gives the right powers to the right authorities, who will have an unprecedented opportunity for public service which, I am sure, they will take up with the enthusiasm and skill that have been the characteristics of local government in this country.
3.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I hope that there are still some noble Lords who have not finally made up their minds about this great question and, from their point of view and from the point of view of all of us, it surely has been an astonishing debate. There have been so far, if my arithmetic is correct, 14 speeches. We have been at the receiving end of two comprehensive Departmental briefs. One has been retailed to us with charm and complacency by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. I welcomed the crack at me, based though it was on inadequate research, seeing that he was, so to speak, the man we know with esteem and that he was still alive while he was speaking. But I am very sorry to hear that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who is valued so much in this House, will not be able to speak tonight, although I am glad the Lord Chancellor will have another chance beyond the one which perhaps eluded him yesterday of enhancing his growing reputation in your Lordships' House. I heard someone say that that was a "dirty crack", but it is clean if one compares it with the background to this Bill. Our whole standards are in danger of sinking and I hope that I shall not sink with them.
We have also received a full speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. I feel that I should congratulate him on something; therefore, I congratulate him on the admirable equipoise which he maintained throughout a trying experience. I could see that he was as anxious as we were to bring the whole thing to an end. He knew from the beginning what

1237
we all suspected: that it was going to be a long ordeal for everyone, and so it proved. I remember what I think was the noble Lord's maiden speech in the House, a very good speech certainly, on Spain.
LORD HASTINGS: Not a maiden speech.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: At any rate a very good speech early in the day by the noble Lord on Spain, and I remember saying to myself, "There is a man who can make a first-class speech when he makes his own speech and cares about what he is saying." Here he is, relatively mature in Parliament now, to quote the words of the Gospel, when he is compelled to "stretch out his hands and be girded by another, who carries him where he must go and not of his own will." I prefer the noble Lord when he speaks for himself. I am sure he is as capable as any of his colleagues and I hope it will not be long before he makes independent speeches for the general pleasure.
There have been twelve other speeches. It would be difficult to discover in any of them, with one possible exception (I am glad the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has been able to join us), an attempt at any argument in favour of the Bill. I am not referring to Ministers, who, after all, could hardly do anything else, but to the other twelve untied speakers. I challenge anybody to produce any argument submitted in favour of this Bill with the possible exception of that of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross—a doubtful exception, but with that possible exception I challenge anybody to point to any argument submitted in favour of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, in the eyes of us all and in the eyes of the British public is "Mr. London" and always will be. If there is one other he would wish to be associated with him it is the noble Lord, Lord Latham. And they both made tremendous and moving speeches yesterday. My thoughts went back. I wondered if one of them was going to quote the words W. B. Yeats used about George Moore, who had been a friend and was at that time an enemy and had been writing about Yeats in a way Yeats did not like.
1238
This is what Yeats wrote:
"And all my memories have become a post some passing dog defiles."
That was not exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said, but I think the message was the same, and justified. That is without any personal reference to anyone who has gone in for this defilement; it is just a generalised observation.
We had three very incisive speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, the noble Lord, Lord Crook, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, from these Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Lord, Lord Reith, raised technical points of difficulty from what might be called a neutral position, and the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, expressed anxieties from the point of view, which I certainly share, of the voluntary schools. There was no argument in support to be found in those speeches.
There were four staunch Conservatives who spoke, the noble Lords, Lord Conesford, Lord Grenfell and Lord Auckland, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, it is true, congratulated the Government on having the courage to embark on a great measure of local government reform which in the nature of things, he said, could not be popular because great local government reforms never are popular. So when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tells us this is popular, at any rate in informed quarters, I think he should pay attention, or at any rate listen, to what the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, says about the unpopularity of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, rightly described himself as a specialist in the sphere of road policy and town and country planning, and I am going to leave the deeper aspects of that to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who is an unrivalled authority. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said on these subjects, where he is a great expert, that the Bill showed a fundamentally wrong approach in dealing with road traffic and highways, and he criticised town planning. He said as regards both traffic and planning [col. 1161]:
"… the intentions of Her Majesty's Government may be good, but I am convinced hitherto they have failed in the Bill that is now before us".

1239
That is not very enthusiastic support from the Government's main town planning colleague.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment? I think if he does quote that part he might also quote the part where I said I was convinced that by Amendment in this House the defects to which I called attention could be remedied.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: That remains to be seen, but the fact is that the noble Lord used very sharp language about this Bill, and if that is the best support they can obtain I think the Government are in a bad way, as indeed they are.
The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, made a poignant speech. I hope the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, when he replies, setting aside, if he will, or belittling as he very likely will, speeches by politicians like myself, will reply to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. I quite agree that the noble Lord is a politician, but I was meaning in this particular matter that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, was hardly speaking as a politician but as a father. He made a speech the last words of which must be quoted referring to the subnormal. He said [col. 1181]:
"I cannot believe that, with all good intentions—and, indeed, there are good intentions—their future"—
that is, of the subnormal"—
"under the Greater London boroughs will be what they deserve or desire."
That was a very severe criticism from a staunch Conservative and someone who knows this subject at very close hand.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, spoke sharply about the damage done to Surrey. He announced he would support the Second Reading, for reasons not disclosed—I take it from loyalty; at any rate he would support the Second Reading for these unidentified reasons, but he threatened to be critical about Surrey, about which he knew and felt greatly. Only one gallant Lord leapt to the aid of the Lord Chancellor, though once again he refrained from giving any reasons for supporting the Bill. He mentioned an earlier speech of his own, to be fair. He soon got into difficulties as those present will remember—I am refer-
1240
ring to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross—when he was challenged by the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. He delivered himself of the cryptic utterance, which I think he hardly would have coined if he had time to reflect [col. 1192]:
"I do not think that Sir Edwin Herbert would describe himself as a conservative. I know him very well and I am sure he would be particularly careful to avoid that."
I am not quite sure what the implication is. It is a very odd one, and I must leave noble Lords to sort that out. I cannot regard it as a crime by the noble Viscount to be a Conservative.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it seems that the Opposition do so regard it, and that is what I was trying to deal with.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Something worse than a crime—a gross blunder. At any rate, that was what the noble Viscount said: that Sir Edwin Herbert, for some reason best known to himself, would be particularly careful to avoid being called a Conservative. The only people who usually avoid giving themselves that label are people who are Conservative and do not want to be thought so. The noble Lord finished his speech heroically and then fled from the House before the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, could return or the noble Lord, Lord Latham, could reply, so I do not know that as an ally he was there when it really mattered. But, at any rate, he did his bit, which was more than anybody else did.
We were told yesterday by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, that there was general approval among local authorities and informed people concerned with local government for this Bill. That, of course, is an outrageous statement which it is quite impossible to take seriously, but if it were true it would be very surprising that none of this general approval came into this House. It was impossible to discover anybody to present any argument in favour of this Bill in twelve speeches. That enhances our view that it is a very bad Bill indeed.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I really cannot let the noble Earl get away with this. I specifically refrained from making an immensely long speech yesterday and repeating all the points I made in the White Paper debate

1241
in March last year. All those points were implicit in what I said, and I hope on that occasion I put forward a great deal in favour of this Bill.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Well, the noble Viscount was doing his best. The truth is, as I mentioned just now, that he referred us back to an earlier speech; but in a debate on the Second Reading of the London Government Bill he was taking the line, "I have said what I have said, and noble Lords must look up my earlier speech". The noble Viscount pouts, but I do not feel that a pout is an effective answer.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for yielding: I know him well enough to know that he does not wish to misrepresent anybody. When a great Bill comes to this House and there are a number of people who wish to speak upon it, it is by general agreement usual, since this House will, of course, adopt the view of another place and give it a Second Reading, to concentrate on those points on which we think the Bill needs amendment. I can assure the noble Earl that the most loyal supporters of the Government think it is a good thing to give notice to Her Majesty's Government of the points on which they are going to seek to amend a Bill. I was careful to say that I joined with the Royal Institute of British Architects in thinking that the reform of London government was overdue, and I congratulated Her Majesty's Government on reforming it.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think that noble Lords are a little embarrassed to-day when they find that they did not do all that they might have done or said yesterday. I am simply in the recollection of the House in pointing out that there were twelve speeches, including a number of Conservative speeches; and, for reasons which to them may have been good, nobody came forward to praise the present argument in support of the Ministers. I must leave that to them. I repeat that nobody came forward to praise the present argument in support of the Ministers.
I wanted to speak mainly about education. I do not, of course, mind being interrupted, but there are a number of noble Lords who I know want to speak. I would agree with what was said—not said very warmly; but it was said—by
1242
the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, about the importance of education. I forget whether he quoted it (I do not think he did), but it was certainly the view of the Royal Commission that education is "the most important of all local government functions". The noble Lord will, I am sure, agree with that.
Education, financially speaking, is responsible, in the case of the L.C.C. for example, for half the total expenditure. I remember that I said last November that if the proposals for a revolution in London government are to make sense they must make sense in relation to education; if they make nonsense in relation to education, one can regard them as fairly worthless. No one, so far as I know, has had a good word to say to-day. I cannot remember, in any of these recent debates, anybody saying a good word for the educational proposals of the Royal Commission. I do not think the Lord Chancellor said anything good for them yesterday, and I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, managed a good word for them to-day. They are now sunk without trace—a fact that has served to discredit the general findings of the Royal Commission in no small degree.
The existing proposals were explained to us clearly, as one would expect, by the Lord Chancellor. They have no respectable ancestry. Proposals of this sort were not put before the Royal Commission by the Ministry of Education or any responsible body. The evidence of the Ministry of Education (and if I were not already in danger of having spoken too long I should quote it) must be considered most favourable to the achievements of the L.C.C. and other authorities in this area. And one is left with the strong impression—I cannot demonstrate this, but I ask anybody who differs to read the evidence, oral and written—that the Minister of Education would have favoured no change in the arrangement of the educational services in the Inner London area. At any rate, there is no serious criticism. The educational proposals now are not even based on—or they may be in some theoretical sense based on, but at any rate they are nowhere the same as—the original proposals of the Government as set out in the White Paper.
Noble Lords may or may not recall that the Government were driven away

1243
from these proposals of the White Paper by the most violent protests from teachers and parents; and at any rate, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, when he talks about informed opinion, must I think agree—because he is fair-minded, though, rightly, tough in debate—that the teachers and parents of the large administrative County of London have shown themselves violently opposed to the educational proposals of the Government. Why did the teachers and parents show such a strong hostility to the proposals? There were various reasons, but the simplest and most obvious reason—the general reason—was that the teachers and parents had for many years enjoyed great benefits from the London education service as now organised. Even the Royal Commission could scarce forbear to praise that service, though they produced some rather "phoney" and hypothetical criticisms. But on the whole, the Royal Commission praised the service; and, as I say, the Ministry of Education paid cordial tribute to the London education service—a service which is famous throughout the world. Its characteristics may be said to be continuity, unity and variety, combined with highly developed arrangements for consultation with the teachers. Whatever the conclusions, these are facts beyond argument.
I am sure that many noble Lords, though perhaps not quite all, will be aware that the London education service is unique, in that so far as the schools are concerned, the service has been administered as a unity virtually unchanged since 1870; that is, since the beginning of State-maintained education. There is no distinction of treatment for teachers, parents and pupils in all this wide area. The service has been built up regardless of borough boundaries, and (this is a vital point) large numbers of pupils cross these boundaries to go to the secondary schools of their parents' choice. It was this grave anxiety about the threat to their freedom of choice which most moved the parents. But the teachers were also deeply concerned about the damage that would result to their profession.
Why was all this done? The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, did not quite say that education had to play second fiddle to other services; but he did imply, I think—he will correct me if I am wrong
1244
—that what is now being proposed for education is not necessarily best from a purely educational point of view.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot let the noble Earl get away with that. I implied that it was an integral part of the personal services, and therefore should be handled by the local boroughs. I did not imply that it was going to be second best.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: If the noble Lord reads his words carefully tomorrow he will see that what I have just said is a fair construction. But if he did not mean that I am glad to hear that he has withdrawn it. But the noble Lord did, in fact, say what was not altogether unreasonable, that when dealing with education you must not deal with education alone. He said that you must take it in conjunction with other services and do what is best for the services as a whole. That is what I was referring to. What would seem to have occurred is that the Royal Commission and following them, the Government, reached the conclusion that the administrative arrangements had to be withdrawn, not for educational reasons at all but for reasons of planning and traffic. That is what seems to be the case. No one has suggested that this extraordinary revolution had to be brought about for educational reasons. The argument is that you have got to do it for these other reasons; that, somehow or other education has got to fit in. And education has greatly suffered.
What about the new proposals? They have been explained twice already in this House in the last 24 hours, and I will not therefore go into them in any sort of detail. I am already in danger of going on too long: I must confine my remarks to the L.C.C. area, but we can come to the other area another day. The London County Council cover 3¼ million people and their services are justly renowned. This education service is to be spared under the new proposals. The service itself is to continue for the time being, but it is to be placed under a committee of the Greater London Council. This committee, the composition of which has been explained in the House, will be in fact—although it will be called a committee of the Greater London Council—an independent body. That seems to be admitted

1245
by the Government. It will be a single-purpose authority, and most of the members will be chosen for the general purposes of local government and not for education.
What are we to make of this extraordinary contraption, this single-purpose educational authority? I challenge anybody to suggest that the Government have arrived at this decision on educational grounds. They have arrived at it because they think they have got to fit education in. Nevertheless—and I say this quite candidly—this is a better scheme than the last one, and much better than that suggested by the Royal Commission. Even so, it is a much worse scheme than we should have if the educational arrangements had been left alone.
I must not go into detailed support of that statement, but there is one very important argument in favour of a multipurpose authority, like the ordinary council or borough, as compared with a single-purpose authority of this kind. This comes out glaringly if one goes into detail in regard to the London area. Since the war a great deal of the progress made in the London area, particularly in regard to educational planning, has been much assisted by the fact that the L.C.C. have been a housing authority as well as an education authority. This is a point of first importance if one examines the matter in detail. A single educational authority would have the greatest difficulty in planning as effectively as the London County Council have done in recent years. There are other grave disadvantages. We may have a good deal to say about the school health service when we come to Committee, but I must move on.
The Government themselves cannot claim that this new educational set-up carries any great confidence, even in their own breasts. They have said, in effect, that they do not know whether or not it will work. They have said, "We must watch this for a few years and then take a fresh look at the whole thing". That is not an unfair representation of their attitude. They say that they have no idea whether after 1970 the boroughs are to be given education, or whether this existing plan is to continue, or whether some quite different plan is to be brought into force.
1246
So, after all those discussions, they come forward without any idea at all as to what, even in their own view, is to be the permanent arrangement for education in London. I need hardly point out that this is bound to make long-term planning extremely difficult, coupled with the fact I have just mentioned, that this is to be a single-purpose instead of a multi-purpose authority.
My Lords, I must close. The real truth about this Bill was set out starkly and undeniably by my noble friends Lord Morrison of Lambeth and Lord Latham yesterday. As chairman of a representative committee concerned with fighting this Bill, I was approached at a certain function a little while ago and asked by a journalist if I had said that the Bill was a Tory ramp. I replied that that sentiment, which might or might not be justified, was hardly proper at a non-Party gathering. A leading Conservative at my elbow, who, if I may say so with respect, has had more experience of local government than all the Front Bench opposite and the Royal Commission put together, replied for me. When he heard me asked whether it was a Tory ramp, he said: "That's just what it is, anyway." That is the view of a leading Conservative, very well known in local government circles and much respected everywhere.
I am reminded of an occasion many years ago when an uncle of mine, the late Lord Dunsany, a poet of an older generation, was compelled to listen to readings of poems by poets of a younger and more obscure school. "What do you think of it, Lord Dunsany?", he was asked at the end. "Pretty good stuff, isn't it?" "For years", replied Lord Dunsany, "people in England have been saying that poetry is rot, and now at last it is." For years people in England have been saying that politics is a dirty business, and now at last it is—or will be if this Bill goes through. I hope and believe that the Government will not achieve their aims, and I can only say that we shall strive by every constitutional means to defeat something which, in its motivation and consequences, is about as evil as anything I can remember in this country in my lifetime.
4.27 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just spoken complained

1247
that hitherto no argument has been forthcoming in favour of this Bill, and he delivered himself of what sounded to me like a challenge. Whether that challenge was intended for me or not, I feel inclined to adopt it. The reasons for this Bill can be very shortly stated. The whole structure of London government is out of date. It was devised to meet conditions of the nineteenth century which have now passed away, and it has become wholly inappropriate for the administration of local services at the present time.
I should like to glance for one moment at the position within the administrative County of London. Within the administrative County there are 28 metropolitan boroughs. They vary immensely in size and in resources. At one end of the scale there is the Borough of Finsbury, which has a population of 33,000—
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Why leave out the City? Why does not the noble Lord mention the City, with a population of under 5,000?
LORD ILFORD: If the noble Lord likes, the City with under 5,000. At the other end of the scale there is the Borough of Wandsworth, with a population of 346,000. And if Finsbury is an unfair example to take—I can see that it is very close to the City, and, for that reason, perhaps the noble Lord will regard it as unfair—I will take the borough of Bethnal Green, which has a population of 46,000. These authorities have a very limited range of functions. Indeed, where one has to deal with authorities of such varying size and resources it really is not practicable to entrust them with the major functions of administration. These boroughs collect house refuse and dispose of it; they also collect the rates; they have certain responsibilities for highways; and they run a library service, which in most parts of London is a very good service indeed. But that is the end of their functions.
What should the Royal Commission have recommended should be done in this situation? It cannot remain as it is. There is no justification for imposing upon the people of London the administrative costs of 28 metropolitan boroughs, who discharge such minor functions as those to which I have just referred. I suppose that the Royal
1248
Commission might have recommended that these metropolitan boroughs should be swept away, and that the London County Council should have been made a single all-purpose authority for the whole of the administrative County of London. I am not surprised that the Royal Commission did not entertain that idea. I do not think that anybody would have looked upon that solution as satisfactory. It would have been a denial of local administration; and the London County Council as a single all-purpose authority administering a population of 3¼ million would have been unique among the local administrations. My Lords, the only alternative was the alternative which the Royal Commission have adopted, of endeavouring to build up these boroughs within the administrative County into effective units of local government, possessed of the necessary population and resources to undertake major services with success.
May I turn for a moment to the situation outside the administrative County? There, during the last 40 years, as we all know, there has grown up a vast population, but no corresponding municipal structure to meet their requirements. I think that the situation in Greater London outside the administrative County is exemplified by the conditions of the great borough which I had the honour to represent for several years in another place. The Borough of Ilford has a population approaching 180,000—bigger than many county boroughs and, I think I am right in saying, bigger than all non-county boroughs. There is in Ilford an active and interested municipal life. But all the major services are administered from a country town 20 miles away. I should not like to be thought to reflect on the services of the Essex County Council; I have known the Essex County Council in many different capacities for a very long time. But they are still primarily in a rural county. It was surely an impossible state of affairs that all the major services in a great community like the Borough of Ilford should be administered by an authority 20 miles away, whose principal function was the administration of a rural area. Unless such a system of administration had been there, it would have been difficult to believe that it could ever have existed.

1249
While I represented Ilford in another place, I think I introduced either five or six Private Bills to give the town what it ought to have had, the status of a county borough. All those Bills were withdrawn, because each time we were assured by the Government of the day that some general scheme of reorganisation of London government was imminent, and that it would be better for the Ilford people to wait until they knew what was proposed for them. I must not detain your Lordships by endeavouring to reply further to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, but I should have thought that those features of the situation to which I have alluded, as it exists inside the administrative County and outside it, were sufficient to indicate that some major change is needed in the structure of London government; indeed, that some major change is long overdue.
My Lords, I pass from that aspect, and I should like to make some observations about the effect of these changes on particular services. Yesterday the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, spoke in a most informed and feeling speech of the effect upon the children's services. As I listened to the noble Baroness it seemed to me sometimes that she was under the impression that when the London boroughs are reorganised, as this Bill proposes, the same children would not be living in the same homes, would not be boarded out with the same parents and the same officials would not be watching over them. But that is not so. The children will remain in the places where they now are and under the same care. They will still be watched over by the same officials; but they will be officials of a smaller authority nearer to the population than the London County Council are. That might be a great advantage.
It is interesting to see how the children's service has developed in other parts of the country, where it is administered by authorities about the same size as the new authorities which the Government propose to set up in London. I think it is generally agreed that children who are deprived of a normal home life are best served by being boarded out with foster parents. I believe that it is the universal practice to-day among children's authorities to endeavour to board out the maximum possible number
1250
of children. It is interesting to see how far the county boroughs have succeeded with this. In the county boroughs of England and Wales as a whole, 56 per cent. of the children in care are boarded out. In the counties they seem to have done rather better—58 per cent. are boarded out.
Now I turn to the London County Council. In the London County Council area only 31 per cent. of the children in care have been boarded out. It does look as though the apprehensions—
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? I do not want to upset his train of thought. But so far as London is concerned, the housing problem, and the fact that there are a greater number of persons per room, limits the possibilities of the extensive boarding out that exist in more sparsely populated and unit-housed areas, such as in Hertfordshire or the rural parts of Kent and Essex.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord does not quite appreciate the point. I am not referring to sparsely populated areas: I am referring to the county boroughs. I am quite sure that the noble Lord would not contend that, from that point of view, conditions in Liverpool, in Manchester or in Birmingham were fundamentally different from conditions in London.
It is perhaps also of value to notice that in London an exceptionally large number of children are maintained in institutions managed by voluntary organisations. Something like 30 per cent. of the children maintained in institutions in London are in institutions managed by voluntary bodies. In the county boroughs, the percentage is much smaller, only 10 per cent.; while in the counties the number is almost negligible. My Lords, if so large a number of children are being maintained in institutions managed by voluntary organisations, the danger of their being affected by some change in the children's service is surely much less. I should have thought that the noble Lady might well have felt reassured by the success which has been achieved by boroughs of substantially the same size as those which it is proposed to create in London, in the management of this very vital and human service.

1251
My Lords, may I now turn for a moment to education? I am sure that the change which the Government made in their first proposals, as a result of which the education service in the administrative County of London will remain substantially as it is now for a period before a review takes place, was a very wise change. There is an essential difference between the conditions in the administrative County and the conditions which prevail outside, although it is a difference which I think sometimes passes unnoticed. Outside the administrative County, nearly all local authorities—not quite all, but nearly all—are authorities which were responsible for elementary education before 1944. They have had experience in the administration of the education service, and that, I think, is a very vital factor for success.
In the administrative County of London, none of the local authorities have ever been education authorities, and they lack that experience among their elected representatives and among their staff which I think is essential for the success of the education service. It goes a little further because since 1944 many of the authorities in Greater London which are within what is called in the Report "the review area" have been "excepted districts" under the Act of 1944. In that way they have acquired experience not only of the administration of elementary education, which they had before, but also of the administration of secondary education. Therefore, I feel that the Government were quite right in deciding that these authorities should be education authorities forthwith, but that there should be some delay, until the new authorities within the administrative County have settled down and have found their feet, before they are entrusted with the responsibility of the education service.
My Lords, I do not think that in this debate there has been any criticism of the services either of the London County Council or of the counties and municipal boroughs in the non-county area. It has been asked why, if the services give no cause for complaint, there should be any change. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, says, "It works". My Lords, that is the familiar argument of local authorities which has prevented so much from being done.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: A good British argument.
LORD ILFORD: It is a good British argument, but it is one the local authorities always use when they do not want to do something which they ought to do. It is quite true, I think, that no serious complaint has been made, either in the Report of the Royal Commission or elsewhere, of the local services in London. But that is not the end of the matter. One has to look at the situation from a rather different standpoint. The answer, it seems to me, is to be found in an expression which occurs very frequently in the Report of the Royal Commission They speak frequently of what they call, "the health of local government". Now, my Lords, our English constitutional and democratic system assumes that local services will be administered by an active and interested section of the population. That does not happen in London, notwithstanding the fact that the political Parties have succeeded, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, pointed out, in getting quite a substantial portion of the electorate to go to the polls. But in London there is not that active and interested municipal life which makes for success in the administration of local services.
This is not the first attempt to reform London government. The Ullswater Commission was set up after the First World War. It came to nothing. At the end of the Second World War, the then Minister of Health set up a new Commission, of which Lord Reading was the chairman. Before the Commission had hardly commenced their task, they were swept out of existence. My Lords, it would indeed be a disaster if the forces of inertia or political rivalry should destroy these latest endeavours to bring order out of what is now chaos.
4.58 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I gathered from the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down that he supports the Bill. Therefore, he joins the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who spoke yesterday—two supporters. I am glad my noble friend Lord Longford is back, because I wish to thank him for having jerked up a few heads when he rose to speak. There were a number of gently nodding heads during the long speech that was made by the Minister.

1253
I will leave it at that, since the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is not present; but I would say to him, if he reads my words, that he did not really do justice to his case at the speed at which it was read. I doubt whether there is any Member of your Lordships' House who could possibly be aware of the points he was making; and I should hope that he will take note of that in future, particularly when we come to the Committee stage, and that he will deliver himself in such a way that the House can appreciate his remarks.
Yesterday my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth and my noble friend Lord Latham indicated that this was an evil and malformed Bill. It was spawned in dishonour, deserted by its father and now presented to Parliament by its step-parents. It is evil because of its political conception and intention. It is quite clear, when one looks at the hasty drafting of this Bill, that there is one clear intention that my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth mentioned; that is, the destruction of the L.C.C. without taking any account of the consequences. The Bill is certainly malformed, badly drafted, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, drew to our attention yesterday, complex in its use of words.
The first point I wish to put to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack is that he himself drew our attention to the complexity of the Bill—232 pages, nineteen clauses and seventeen schedules. I am sure the noble and learned Lord will agree that this Bill was subject to the guillotine in another place. Much of it was not even considered. Government Amendments were moved and, because of the guillotine, were not discussed. Therefore this Bill comes to your Lordships' House to some extent undiscussed. I wish to know, therefore, from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, the Government's intentions in regard to a time-table. Are the Government going to rush this Bill through? I can see they would require it before they leave office; but I think we are right to say that time should be provided so that this Bill shall be adequately examined. I do not advocate that there should be any filibustering or delay—it will not arise from this side of the House—but there is much in the Bill that requires careful examination. I
1254
therefore hope that the Government will not use what could be a more savage guillotine by requiring this House to sit in Committee in this Chamber for a very long time with the responsibility falling on the shoulders of a few Members. I should hope that the Government and, if I may say so, the House, will give us protection to see that we have adequate time to consider this Bill.
The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack raised the subject of mandate. I understand why he did so, because one of the Members for Croydon, Sir Cyril Black, raised this point in a forthright speech on the Second Reading in another place.
A NOBLE LORD: The Member for Wimbledon.
LORD SHEPHERD: The Member for Wimbledon, my Lords—a good Surrey constituency. I do not think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would disagree that this is a constitutional Bill. It deals with the constitution of London; it affects the position of 8½ millions of Londoners; it will affect, as the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, indicated yesterday, millions of people outside the London Area. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, drew our attention to Surrey and to counties like Surrey—Kent and Essex—which will suffer permanent damage.
I am rather interested to know what is going to be the attitude of the noble Lords opposite in this matter. I have heard them on television. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, on television and other noble Lords in this House on debates about what this House should do; what its purpose is. It is accepted that it should be a revising Chamber. There are other noble Lords, certainly on the other side, who say that this House gives an opportunity to the country for a pause in legislation; that there should be no question of the Government's rushing business or Bills through for which they have no mandate—Bills which may be highly controversial, Bills in which the country have had no say and for which the Government had no mandate. Noble Lords opposite have said this repeatedly. Now they have the opportunity to prove that they meant by it not just legislation moved in this House by a Labour Government; but that it is a rule and a protection

1255
against all forms of Government pushing that type of legislation through.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said the Government had no mandate. He said that the question had, however, been subject to general discussion and that there had been a Royal Commission. But as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, drew to your Lordships' attention, in the case of the L.C.C. this was a major issue in the last County Council elections and the results are to be seen—an increased Labour holding in the Council. It is equally true in the case of Surrey. This was a prominent theme in the Surrey County Council elections, and there the Conservative Council that held it increased its strength and increased its poll. Therefore, in the case of London and Surrey—I cannot speak of other counties—so far as those two counties are concerned there was a clear mandate to those opposed to this legislation. If there is ever a question of any authority or mandate, it lies on those who are opposed to the Bill. Therefore I look forward to seeing what noble Lords opposite will do to live up to their conceptions and ideas of the use and power of this House in the protection of the public. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack also spoke of informed opinion. He said it was not wholly opposed to the Government.
A NOBLE LORD: He said, "generally in favour".
LORD SHEPHERD: Well, my Lords, "generally in favour"; we will not have an argument about it. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack read the quotations from the Royal Institute of British Architects and the London School of Economics, but as an advocate, of course, he produced his own case. He did not bring any evidence or any support in favour of the Government proposals from any local authority. I wonder whether his eyes are dim, his ears deaf or his memory short. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can remember the resolution passed by the Surrey County Council, which is a very experienced body of administrators and is one of the most dynamic of counties. Did they support the Government proposal? They utterly rejected it. They rejected
1256
every conception of the Government. I am prepared to read it, but it is clear and passed by the Surrey County Council. Does the noble and learned Lord say that these people are not informed, and does he brush aside their ideas and views and judgment? It appears the Government so intended.
I want to say one thing in regard to what I consider to be local self-government. I do not think there is any disagreement between us that one of the essentials of local government is that there shall be close contact between the councillors and the electorate, the population. We in Westminster deal in national affairs. Members of Parliament admit their difficulty in dealing with the problems of their electors. To some extent that is mitigated by what the councillors on the local authorities can do.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that this was a progressive Bill; that it improved local government. May I draw the noble and learned Lord's attention to what is going to happen in the case of Croydon? At present in Croydon there is a population of 252,387. They are represented on the Croydon Borough Council by 48 councillors and 16 aldermen, and to this new borough is going to be brought Coulsdon and Purley, with a population of 74,738, represented by 33 councillors, making a total council of 97. The area is bigger; the population is bigger; the duties and the tasks of the authority are going to be greater. One would have imagined that the number of councillors would be increased. But no!, from 97 the number is to be reduced to 70. What is the position, therefore, of these councillors to that electorate? They are not to be paid; they are to be voluntary workers, to sit on councils, to sit on committees, to deal in the evenings with their electors count. By reducing the numbers, surely, you increase the burden upon the councillor to perform his duty, and you equally reduce the services that can be provided to the people. I ask the noble and learned Lord: how can he justify that this is an improvement of local self-government?
I could quote the case of Kingston, Surbiton, Malden and Coombe. There they have 102 councillors to-day. Brought together, they will be back to

1257
this arbitrary figure of 70—a far greater area again, and yet we have this arbitrary figure put in. I hope the House in Committee will see that this fixed figure is adjusted so that it has some relationship to the number of persons in the area.
I was grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, raised the position of the Surrey County Council. Certainly we shall need to come back to this on Clause 68. But I think the House should recall this: that what the Government are doing is affecting not only the London County Council, but also what are called these truncated counties. In the case of Surrey, it is retaining 92 per cent. of its area, and it will have 60 per cent. of its present population; and yet its rate-able value drops to 57 per cent. Whether it is right or wrong, the policy of the Surrey County Council has been in the past to put more emphasis on the built-up areas of the county which are now going under the Greater London Council. In recent years, however, there has been this change of emphasis: that there was to be more money, particularly in education, to be spent in the country districts. But they are not now to enjoy that position. They will lose this high rate-able value area, and the country districts are, therefore, to be left entirely to make up for the deficiencies in education.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, spoke of assistance. It is something more than assistance that is needed in Surrey. I think these counties are entitled to some form of compensation for the permanent damage that is being done, whether by compensation you put a special hardship on the London area or not; and perhaps, as my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth suggested, it should be by the Government themselves, because it is they who are imposing the permanent damage on these councils. They are the ones who are imposing the damage upon the people who will remain in these districts.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I would point out that the Government are the taxpayers.
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes. But you are the people responsible for policy; it is you who have decided to do this. Why should the people in the country districts of Essex and Surrey suffer because of this Government decision, which we on this side of the House, and others,
1258
believe to be for special motives? Therefore I hope that in Committee we shall come back to Clause 68 to see whether we cannot do something about the figure of 5d. If my figures are right, it should be closer to 2d. which the county should receive in the form of assistance or compensation.
My last point is perhaps the most important. As I understand it, the Government's main plank for these proposals is based upon planning and traffic; the fact that the London County Council were not in a position effectively to organise traffic in the Greater London area. This is one of the reasons why they seized upon the recommendations in the Royal Commission. I would ask your Lordships to look at Clauses 9 to 19 between now and the Committee stage, because here the Government have obviously departed from the recommendations of the Royal Commission. May I put it this way? In the Royal Commission Report, on page 203, they say, speaking of traffic:
"We have no doubt that all these matters should be the responsibility of the Council for Greater London, and that these powers should apply to all streets and roads whether main roads or otherwise, the Council being free to use the Boroughs as its agents …. We can see no other solution. If it is not adopted"—
and I ask your Lordships to mark these words—
"the alternative seems to be for the central Government to assume dictatorial powers."
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, drew the attention of your Lordships yesterday to the remarkable powers that Mr. Marples has taken for himself within this Bill. One could well say that they are the Marples Declaration of Rights. Here we are, with the Government setting up a local authority that they believe will last, as I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said, through the century. But the Minister is not prepared to trust it. He says: "I must retain full powers in case they do not do the right thing." That, surely, is a remarkable demonstration of faith of the Government in their own policy. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said that these powers would be used only in the last resort. But is it not a fact that the Government in another place repeatedly rejected Amendments to the effect that these powers would not be used unless the Greater London Council failed? Yet those are the words that the Minister tried to put across to us this

1259
afternoon: that these powers will be used only in the last resort—and when we try to get an Amendment to ensure that they will be used only in the last resort, it is not accepted.
Obviously the Minister has said: "I am going to be the highway authority; I am going to be the traffic authority, whatever I may do in this Bill to make the Greater London authority appear so." Maybe it is similar to the case of the Minister's Department in setting up the Office Bureau, whereby if things go right the Minister can take the credit, but if things go wrong it is not the Minister who is responsible, but the Greater London Council. That is as it would appear. I hope that during the Committee stage we shall try to look at London's traffic problem as it is and as it will be unless action is taken.
The Minister said in regard to planning that there was to be a Greater London survey. I know that the Minister has nothing to do with transport and traffic. In fact, it is a remarkable thing that we have a Transport Minister in this House—and this is one of the main planks of Government policy—yet we do not have that Minister here this afternoon, but it is left to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, to deal with in a few brief moments in a long speech. As I see it, we have to make the Greater London Council (if we are going to have it) the supreme traffic and highway authority. We should give it the powers to carry out a survey—in fact, a survey is not really necessary. The noble Lord knows that the Government, with the London County Council, are now spending £400,000 on a survey. Yet there is no question of waiting to decide how the roads will be designated to the various authorities. It is already laid down in the Bill which roads will go to which authorities.
One would have imagined that the main roads, the Class 1 roads, would all go to the Greater London Authority. But no, they are to have only 60 per cent, of them, and 40 per cent. are to go to the boroughs. As I understand it, nobody who has any knowledge of London traffic has any idea how the Government came to the selection of roads. It is a remarkable thing. Why designate the roads now, when you are
1260
carrying out this expensive survey? One can only suppose that what the Minister wishes to create is a position so that he will have all the excuses in the world to move or act and to give him full freedom. I hope that in Committee we shall try to look at traffic as a real, big problem, which it is, and shall try to see that we give to the Greater London Council all the powers that are necessary to deal with traffic, to try to effect a co-ordination within the public transport service. You cannot look at traffic just from the point of view of cars; you have to take into account public transport, the question of highways, lighting, and everything. Give them the responsibility. Certainly let the Minister have the power to make orders, but only at the last resort and at the failure of the Greater London Council. Let us give them trust. I hope that on the Committee stage we shall move a big Amendment in this matter.
I feel as though I have said too much, and my voice is beginning to feel it, too. We on this side of the House are bitterly opposed to this Bill. Our bitterness results from not only the intention of the Government in this Bill, but the fact that the Government are prepared, in order to achieve their ends, to put in jeopardy the health and the development of many people, in particular the children. I do not believe there is one noble Lord on any side of the House who in his heart of hearts really believes that the educational proposals of Her Majesty's Government meet the true needs of London people. Therefore, right through the Committee stage, without any feeling of filibustering or delay, we must look at this Bill as a question of duty. It is dealing with 8½ million people. We on this side of this House will do our duty, and I hope the other side will do theirs.
5.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I have been in the past a Conservative Member in the minority opposition on the London County Council, and I used to argue with the noble Lord opposite and his colleagues. I was on the Surrey County Council, where we had a majority of Conservatives. I have also held office in the present Government and have always been a Conservative. But now, after a good many years, I propose to back noble Lords opposite 100 per cent. on their contentions on this Bill. I think

1261
it is a bad Bill for the many reasons which have been mentioned—those concerned with education, traffic, and a good many other matters.
I do not propose to speak for long, because so often in a long debate like this many things have already been said and said much better. But I entirely agree—I think for the first time in my life—with practically everything noble Lords opposite have said. I will certainly assist them. I am speaking now not on my own behalf, but because I have been asked by a very large number of people in Surrey to support the attack on this Bill. We shall be eviscerated. Our rates will go up; our educational system will go endways, and our traffic will go endways. It will no longer be a county, and poorer people will be paying higher rates—we reckon on an increase of anything from 11d. to as high as Is. 7d. in the pound, which is a lot of money to put on to a poor area. For those reasons, I heartily disagree with the Bill, and shall back noble Lords opposite.
5.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like first of all to say how much we welcome the speech to which we have just listened from the noble Earl opposite, who used to be a colleague of mine in the old days but, usually speaking, in rather a different fashion, as a member of the London County Council. A speech such as his shows how this great problem of London government cuts right across Party loyalties, and that it is a problem which we are all doing our best to consider on its merits, from the point of view of the people of London.
I should like to address my remarks—which I hope will be mercifully short—this afternoon to one matter only: it is one that has not so far been fully discussed, though it was mentioned during the debate in another place, and also, in passing, yesterday by my noble friend Lord Taylor. It is a matter which I regard as absolutely essential to the efficiency of a Greater London Council. We have heard a good deal about the need for an efficient staff to run the services that will be given to the Greater London Council. That, of course, is essential. We have heard a great deal more about these services which are essentially the machinery which the Greater London Council
1262
will use to discharge the functions which will be allocated to it. That, of course, is also essential. But surely the human factor is far more important than anything else. It will be the elected members of the Greater London Council who will decide the policy of the new authority, and who will take the major administrative decisions. It is therefore no less essential that the new authority should be able to attract to its service men and women with the qualities required for the greatest administrative task in the country outside Whitehall.
This is a matter which, I must say, I am astonished has not been more fully discussed in the course of this debate. It surprises me that the Government wish to set up this new authority without making sure in advance that the conditions of service will be such as to secure members of all political Parties of the right calibre for this enormous task. What I should like the Government to consider (and though this should have been dealt with already, it is still not too late to do so before the new authority is set up) is the question of the remuneration of members of the Greater London Council. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will convey this point to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, before he replies, so that he may be good enough to give me an answer to this question.
I do not believe that the right people will be found to serve on the new authority unless they are paid a modest salary. In making the case for the payment of members, I should like to refer to my own experience as a member for many years of the London County Council. I do not want to weary your Lordships with my own experience, but it goes back quite a long way. I was a member, before the war, for East Lewisham and subsequently for North Battersea. When I joined the Council, my noble friend Lord Latham was chairman of the Finance Committee—the most important committee of the Council—and my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth was our Leader. When I left the Council the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was one of my colleagues, and the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, was also a member of the Opposition side. The memory which remains most clearly in my mind is of the enormous devotion of the staff and members of the Council

1263
to their work, the spirit of public service that went right through members and staff—indeed, I am sure that, whatever may happen as a result of this Bill, the London County Council will go down to history as one of the greatest local authorities in the history of the Western World.
But, my Lords, no authority is perfect, and it struck me from time to time—and it still strikes me—that we could have had an even better Council if it had been composed of a more representative cross-section of Londoners. By this, I mean that the average age of councillors was rather too high. I am now about average age, I suppose; I was not when I was on the Council. And the proportion of women to men was too large. The reason why there were so many retired professional and business men on the Council, and so many married women with grown-up families, was simply that these were the only people who could afford the time demanded for the work of the Council's services. I myself found that this was as full a part-time job as attendance in your Lordships' House, and took up about half a day three or four times a week; and I did not join more committees than I had to. I should be interested to hear if the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, found that about the same amount of his time was occupied by the committees of the Council. When I became vice-chairman of a committee it became, of course, a very much longer job—almost a whole-time job.
I do not think it can be argued (certainly it has not been argued up to now) that the new Greater London Council will have less work than the London County Council. It is true that some of the present functions of the London County Council will be given to the new borough councils, but the Greater London Council will have new functions, such as traffic control, which the London County Council does not have. The new Council will, of course, be administering an area much larger in size and with a population more than double that of the present London County Council area. One result of this will be that members of the Greater London Council will spend much more time travelling between their homes and county headquarters and local institutions of the councils they hope to visit than L.C.C. members do at the
1264
moment. I have no doubt that councillors will have a part-time job that will take up at least half the working week, while chairmen of committees will have almost a whole-time job.
I believe that it is proposed that there shall be 100 councillors on the Greater London Council, and fifteen main committees, varying, of course, in importance. What I am suggesting for the consideration of the Government is that councillors should be paid a part-time salary, and chairmen of committees a salary that will enable them, like Ministers in the Central Government, to give all their time to the work of their departments. I am quite certain that the present system of payment of expenses and compensation for lost earning capacity, which is extra-ordinarly difficult to assess, and for that reason very troublesome, will not bring youth, vigour and talent into the service of a Greater London Council. I hope therefore, that the Government, if they have not done so already, will study the system of remuneration for members of town councils now operating in the Scandinavian countries. I believe, for example, that the salary of a chairman of a main committee of the Stockholm City Council is comparable to the salary of a Cabinet Minister in Sweden. I am not suggesting that there should be exactly the same relationship in this country, and, of course, members of the Stockholm City Council are salaried. But this is a matter, I feel, in which we should study what other countries do, particularly the Scandinavian countries, because in this matter, as in so many other respects, they appear to me to be in advance of practice here.
It is true, of course, that if a system of payment of members were introduced for London it might well have to be extended to other urban authorities in the country comparable to London. There are not many of these authorities that approach London in wealth and population, and if this is to be legislation which would have a nation-wide effect, I do not think it would apply to a very large number of citizens. I associate myself with the objections that have been raised about this Bill, but I should like to put this particular objection. If the Government sincerely desire to reform the Government of London, they should surely at least provide conditions of service that will make it possible to recruit the best citizens of all Parties for the tasks of local

1265
government—and this is something which, so far, they have conspicuously failed to do.
5.27 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I have an interest in the subject of this afternoon's debate, not only because I have lived in London for all my working life, but also because, until recently, I served as an elected member of the council in one of the boroughs concerned in this reorganisation, and I contested the last General Election as a candidate in another borough which is concerned in this reorganisation. In spite of this interest, I had not intended to speak in to-day's debate. At the start of the debate yesterday I came along anxious to learn about Hybrid Bills and other intricacies of that sort. But I am concerned to come into the debate this afternoon for one reason only: because it seems to me that a serious charge of impropriety has been made against the Government. It is a charge which, if it were established, would make it very difficult for any Back Bencher on this side of the House to support this measure. The suggestion is that the Government are reorganising the system of local government in London for reasons of Party political advantage. I intend to address myself only to this single point in the debate to-day.
It is not a new line of criticism. I am aware that it has been aired fairly consistently over the last few years. It has been aired outside Parliament, and a representative example is perhaps the speech of the Secretary of the London Labour Party, Mr. Peter Robshaw. Speaking at the Labour Party's Conference in Brighton in 1962, he moved a motion critical of the White Paper, which was described in the motion as "politically biased and ill-conceived". In his speech, as reported in the Guardian—it is a verbatim report and I think we can take it as accurate—Mr. Robshaw went on to say:
"Having failed for 30 years to gain control of the L.C.C. they "—
meaning the Tories—
"have now concluded that if they cannot win it, they will wind it up".
Good partisan stuff for a Party political conference. But I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of
1266
Lambeth, with all his tremendous experience of local government in London, take up this same point yesterday. I have mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that I intend to quote a piece out of his speech, so I have observed the usual courtesy.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord has observed the usual courtesy. My noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth has been informed that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is on his feet. I do not know whether the noble Lord is going to deal exclusively with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth—however, he is now here.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think the words, "deal exclusively with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth" are hardly those I would have chosen. I was making the point, my Lords, that in the main, the criticism of this measure inside and outside Parliament has been that this is a measure motivated by Party politics. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, made this point quite clearly in his speech yesterday, and if I am not to misinterpret him, perhaps I could read his actual words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 248 (No. 71), col. 1146]:
"… the motive was political: to get rid of the insult of a Labour and Socialist majority on the great municipality of the capital city. That was the motive, and I think it is rather disgraceful."
A few minutes later Lord Morrison of Lambeth said [col. 1148]:
"I do not object to change in principle. What I object to is change for the sake of change, and especially if it is for rather mean, gerrymandering, Party political motives."
And I think the noble Lord, Lord Latham, spoke in the same way later on last night and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, associated himself with this line also in his speech.
The charge, therefore, I think we can take to be not just a rash remark of a Party militant at a Party conference; not just the sort of argument which is used by partisans active in Party politics in London; not a type of argument discouraged by the official leadership of the Party opposite. It is, on the other hand, and it seems to be accepted as such, an official, considered criticism of the Government's motives and conduct by Opposition spokesmen, and therefore

1267
it is quite clearly a point which deserves to be looked at carefully. I suggest that if opportunity for Party advantage was the Government's primary motive for initiating this reorganisation, or if it had been allowed to influence the way in which these proposals have been developed over five years, then the Government certainly would be open to criticism—criticism for failing to maintain any very high standard of integrity in the formation of policy as well as for being less than honest, and certainly less than frank, over the way in which the policy has been presented. Since I am not in the confidence of the Government on their motives, unlike perhaps some of the members of the Party opposite who speak with such certainty on the matter, I can only look at what has happened over five years.
The first point to note is that the proposals which are incorporated in the Bill to-day go back to the Royal Commission, and not to a Party committee sitting in Smith Square. The Royal Commission was set up in 1957 to examine the present system and working of local government in Greater London and to recommend whether any changes ought to be made.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I think he must go a little further back. Before the Royal Commission reported, the London Municipal Society gave evidence; and, as he will know by now, they are the Conservative Party machine for local government elections in the County of London. They no doubt asked for the Royal Commission to be set up, but they gave evidence and the significant thing is that the Royal Commission's Report is substantially in harmony with the evidence given by the Conservative Party machine for the County of London.
LORD WINDLESHAM: It seems to me that is a criticism of the impartiality of the members of the Commission.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Both.
LORD WINDLESHAM: If it is, it is the criticism that the noble Lord hinted at yesterday when he described the Commission as disappointing—I am not sure if that was the word, but that was
1268
the thought—and in speaking of the political outlook of its chairman. I think it is unfortunate that members of Royal Commissions should be criticised in this way; they were a distinguished batch: an ex-president of the Law Society, the then President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Vice-Chancellor of a University, and one of the wisest and best informed university teachers of politics in the country. I am bound to say with very great respect that I find it sad that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, should choose to criticise the membership of the Commission and to throw some doubt on their impartiality.
Let me take a point out of the Royal Commission's Report. This is published as an official document in a Blue Book. This is not a statement lightly made. At the beginning of the Report, in dealing with the visits made by the members of the Commission to the local authorities, having received written evidence, in 1958, in paragraph 26, at page 8, the Royal Commission said—this is pertinent and this is the first remark in the Report which deals with this particular criticism:
"We found in some quarters that our arrival had been preceded by a rumour that we had received certain secret instructions from Your Majesty's Government as to what recommendations we should make. The existence of this rumour sometimes put an air of restraint upon the first hour or so of our informal visits, but that was soon dissipated and on only one occasion during the public sittings did we find it necessary to refer to the matter."
I emphasise the next sentence—
"We need hardly say that at no time have we been under the slightest pressure from a Minister of the Crown or a Government Department, and that no suggestions of any kind as to what we should recommend have been made to us beyond what appears in the published evidence."
They went on to say that, for this reason, they were publishing all the evidence submitted to them by Government Departments and, of course, by the London Municipal Society. Later in the Report, in paragraphs 243 and 250, the Royal Commission said they had discounted in their deliberations any consideration of the Party political consequences which might flow from what they recommended.
The Report was published in 1960. Parliamentary debates followed; and, after a period of reflection in which the views of local authorities and others were studied—over 100 of them—the Government published the White Paper in

1269
November, 1961. Then came more Parliamentary debates; more consultations, the four provincial town clerks who held conferences on the grouping of boroughs in the summer of last year; and, finally, publication of the Bill. Throughout this five year process changes were made, a lot of changes and important changes, as the plans began to mature and develop; changes in regard to education, changes in the size of the groupings of the London boroughs. An indication of the number of smaller changes is that 1,250 Amendments, I understand, were listed to this measure in another place and over 450 in some form or another have been accepted. It cannot be said that this is a rigid, ruthless measure which is being railroaded through. It is, on the contrary, I suggest, a measure which has undergone the full ritual of traditional legislative change.
I find on looking into this that local authorities which are the principal interests concerned have had opportunities to make their views known at seven successive stages: first, written evidence to the Royal Commission; second, visits by Royal Commission members to authorities or groups of authorities; third, oral evidence to the Royal Commission—70 days of hearings in public; fourth, local authorities were asked by the Minister of Housing and Local Government for their views on the Report of the Royal Commission after that Report had been published; fifth, after publication of the White Paper, local authorities were asked for their views on that White Paper; sixth, the Town Clerks' hearings last summer, and, seventh, an opportunity to press for Amendments to the Bill, either direct through their Members of Parliament or through the local authority associations.
As I say, it seems to me that it is difficult to argue that this is a measure which has been pushed through ruthlessly. Indeed, historians of the future, I think, may reflect that while this measure has been pursuing its fairly stately process of democratic decision making, the entire episode of the Common Market has been played out within this five year period, from the initial decision to apply for entry, through the negotiations themselves, to the final breakdown: all with a minimum of direct popular participation. I do not suggest there
1270
was any alternative, but I want to make the point that reform in this instance does seem to have gone through every conceivable stage anyone could wish. To talk of lack of mandate in these circumstances seems to me to be hardly justified. The doctrine of mandate is no precise doctrine; it exists merely to protect the Electorate from being taken by surprise by an opportunist Government. Nobody can say that the Electorate were taken by surprise over five years and with these seven stages that I have already listed.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, would the noble Lord argue that part of the stately progress of the legislation is consistent with the imposition of a guillotine at the earlier stages, which made it impossible for the House of Commons to discuss it? Moreover, it has not been treated as a Hybrid Bill, which would have enabled the local authorities, represented by counsel, to be examined and to cross-examine. Are these factors stately progress?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord knows much more about legislation than I do or probably ever will. But I should have thought that the fact that 450 Amendments have been incorporated in the Bill—
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Most of them Government Amendments.
LORD W1NDLESHAM: Most of them Government Amendments, maybe, but many reflecting what had already been put to the Government, and Government Amendments which took the place of other Amendments which had been withdrawn and considered. Surely 450 is a considerable number. In any event, to revert to the point, five years and these traditional stages cannot be called railroading.
Let me recapitulate. First, there is the independence of the Royal Commission second, there is the thoroughness and extended nature of the consultation with the interests affected; third, the degree of attention paid to the representations which were made. These, I would suggest, are not the marks of a Party political measure. Indeed, as I have thought about this subject overnight, it seems to me that the evidence points to the reverse—that it is the Party opposite which has a strong Party political interest in

1271
preserving the London County Council. It is quite understandable that that should be so.
It may be that the criticism which I am discussing reflects a form of transference. The Labour Party attitude to reform of local government in London would, I imagine, be to retain the London County Council and to see how local government in the Greater London area could be improved around it. This scale of values seems to have transferred itself to the study by the Opposition of Government motives. It is quite legitimate to try to preserve existing political interests; but it is not, I suggest, legitimate to claim that the Government are now primarily concerned to put paid to the Labour Party on the L.C.C.
Let me end by calling to mind a fable. It is the story of James Thurber's bear—a sociable beast who decided to give up mead because, in carousing, he constantly wrecked his household, distressed his wife and frightened his children. Reformed, the bear took to callisthenics—exercises of strength and beauty—took to them with such zest that he wrecked his household, distressed his wife and frightened his children. From this, Mr. Thurber drew the moral that you might as well fall flat on your face as lean too far over backwards. The moral for this House, I suggest, is that if a Government leave a Royal Commission Report on the shelf they are accused of timidity and giving way to Party political influences. If they implement a Royal Commission Report it seems that they are accused of obstinacy and giving way to Party political influences. The fact is, my Lords, that this Bill is a modern-minded and realistic attempt to reform a system of local government that is well out of date. To reassure the noble Earl, who, I felt, was winding up the debate half-way through this afternoon, I am whole-heartedly in favour of the Government's proposals and will support this measure.
5.45 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, may I first of all congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on having made the best Second Reading speech and the best debating speech that has been made on this Bill in this Chamber during these two days.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: From the other side.
LORD LINDGREN: I am talking of the other side. After all, from a debating point of view it is his job to answer criticisms arising from this side of the House. It was a first-class job, and I look forward to hearing him when he has a really good case. It is no mean task in a Second Reading debate to tackle my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, whose experience in local government and governmental matters, as was admitted by the noble Lord, is wide. If he can handle his case as he did to-day and if it is a good case, I am certain that he will be much more effective.
There is one point that I would put to the noble Lord. He referred to the opportunities which local authorities have had to express their views. He did not go on to say—and I do not blame him for this, because it is our job to point this out—that every single local authority, and every single local authority association, expressed their view against the Government and against the Bill. No single authority was in favour. My noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, in an aside, has just mentioned that the Association of Municipal Corporations were less enthusiastic in their opposition to it; but the A.M.C., having the difficult task of representing all-purpose authorities plus certain municipal boroughs, trimmed their sails. But no single local government body came out in favour.
At this stage of the debate is is difficult to say anything fundamentally fresh in regard to the Bill. Our local government system is administrative; it is not executive. It works within a framework created for it by Parliament, and with functions given to it by Parliament. Parliament makes the opportunities. Whether those opportunities are taken advantage of depends upon the administrative skill and enthusiasm of a local authority. Present local government structure largely arises from the Local Government Act, 1888, which set up the county councils, and the Local Government Act, 1894, which set up the urban districts and the rural districts. Over these seventy years, added into the machine has been the responsibility for administering increased numbers, and to an increased extent and standard, of various services.

1273
I would agree that after seventy years of administration one ought to look to see whether or not the machine is still effective. After all, it was introduced when the speed of man was dependent upon the speed of the horse. We are now in the jet or space age, and it is a fair comment that what was fundamentally safe and sound and good seventy years ago need not necessarily be good for to-day. Few of us who have been associated with local government over a number of years would not admit quite openly and frankly, would not in fact advocate, that a certain amount of reform and reorganisation of local government is necessary. But as one who has spent forty years in local government, my complaint is that this Bill does not deal with any one of the problems which face local government at the present time.
The two main factors of defect in local government, to my way of thinking, at the present time are the small administrative bodies, necessary seventy years ago when distance mattered but which are uneconomic. That is a fundamental structure. It applies particularly to small urban and rural districts and even to some small county boroughs. The unit to-day is too small for economic administration. But can the Government or any noble Lord say that the Middlesex County Council is too small, or is un-economic to administer? Can he say that the London County Council is too small, too uneconomic as a unit, to administer? Of course not.
The other point is that the structure of local government finance needs fundamental reform. It has been largely the same for seventy years. The basis of Government grant, rateable value and the product of the penny rate, with development of services and changes in social habits has meant that the financial structure, which was always a "hit and miss" affair, poses problems at the present time. Originally, because people tended to go to the type of area and house they could afford, it was a rough and ready system. To-day our rating system—and any unbiased person would agree with this—bears very unfairly on certain sections of the community and sometimes on certain areas of the country. Yet this Bill does not tackle that fundamental problem which faces local government; neither does it touch the problems of
1274
administration, the standard of service, and the rest.
I come back to the point—and I repeat it, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has said—that this Bill is a piece of political gerrymandering. After all, so far as local government is concerned, and I do not say this unkindly, the Tory Party believe in single Party local government, and will do anything to get it. Their main plank during the forty years I have been in local government has been: "No politics in local government". When that failed they became Independents; then they became Ratepayers' Candidates; then, in relation to London, there came the Municipal Reform Association. But whichever of these they chose, they were Tories, and adopted any means they could to obtain control of local government administration. They have been fairly successful in some ways, but now, because of the success of the Labour Movement in fighting local government elections, in pointing out that politics is a way of life, and in showing how the resources of the country and the local authority ought to be used, they have come more openly into the more general political field.
The function of local government is to provide as high a standard of service, within the authority given to them by Parliament, as they can, and to do so at the least cost to the State, the taxpayer and the ratepayer in the locality. I put it quite plainly that what the Lord Chancellor who sits on the Woolsack must reply to to-night—and this has not been dealt with in any part of this debate—is this. Have the Middlesex County Council and the London County Council failed in the provision of an adequate standard of social service? Have they been uneconomic in their administration? Have they been extravagant in their administration of the services which Parliament gave them authority to administer? If they have fallen down on their job, then it is Parliament's function to put another system in their place. But there is not a single Member of this House—and this applies, I think, to the other place. though I must admit I have not read all the debates there—who has challenged the effectiveness and the efficiency of the standard of service of either the Middlesex County Council or the London County Council.

1275
I see the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, sitting on the Cross Benches. He went out of his way, after being a little critical in some ways, to say at the end of his speech that there could be no criticism of the standard of service rendered by either county council. If there has been no deficiency, if the people of Middlesex, London, Surrey, Kent and Essex have been well and truly served, why the Bill? After all, as I said, the function of local government is to provide a high standard of service at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer and the ratepayer; and if they have not fallen down on that job then someone must show very good reason why that system should be changed.
Let us look at one or two services, because I think the Lord Chancellor, who is to reply to the debate, has a duty to this House to answer where these authorities have fallen down. I will pick out one or two of the main services. Education has been spoken of a great deal. Well, perhaps I ought to declare an interest: I am a product of L.C.C. elementary education. I have been proud, having been in local government for over forty years, to see the higher standard of education and the opportunities enjoyed by the youngster in London to-day as compared with those I had fifty years ago in a London elementary school. But have either the London County Council or the Middlesex County Council fallen down on their administration of the various Education Acts which they have had to administer? They have been subject to the Minister of Education, and prior to that the Board of Education; they have been hampered in what they wanted to do because of economic crises in the country and the fact that the Minister has cut their programmes from time to time. But that has not been the fault of either authority. We ought to know where the Middlesex and London County Councils have fallen down in educational administration.
Local government administrators from abroad—and this is something of which we have a right to be proud—come to this country to see how our local government system works, to study how they can improve their own systems. The County Councils of Middlesex and London are the places which are put forward as examples to visitors from abroad.
1276
The London County Council have been free in the exchanges with other local authorities on problems of administration, and methods of dealing with school building in particular, arising from their own Architect's Department and the research which is carried out within that Department. It can be said that both the county councils we are abolishing have been examples in education, administration and efficiency; and they have satisfied—and this is no mean achievement—thd residents of the areas for which they have the responsibility of administration. It is yet to be charged against them that in this respect either of them has been inefficient.
So far as the L.C.C. is concerned, it is true that certain hidebound Tory Ministers have objected to their educational experiments—the experiment in regard to the comprehensive school. But, speaking as one who suffered, or suffers now, from the fact that my education went no further than elementary school, I would say that I think the comprehensive system of education gives an opportunity to late developers which the ordinary primary, secondary modern and grammar school education does not give to quite a large mass of the children. Nevertheless, the only criticism that I have ever heard, even from the Tories, of the educational administration within London, has been that it has been bold enough to develop the comprehensive school. Here again it has been an example which has been studied by educational administrators all over the world, as well as all over this country.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? Is he not making rather a false charge? I do not think that the motive behind this Bill is any feeling that the London County Council have failed in their duties, or anything like that: it is simply a matter of change which is made necessary by growth. When the London County was first formed, no doubt there was a great deal of complaint that Middlesex, Surrey and Kent were being deprived of a great deal of their area; but nobody now considers that an important point.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the point I am making is this. If an existing structure is giving satisfactory service—and, after all, it is the local government

1277
service which really matters; it exists to provide a service for the people of the country—why destroy it? If you are going to destroy it, then there ought to be some very excellent reason for doing so. The only excellent reason for it is the one that we mentioned, that the Tory Party have been trying to secure control of the London County Council for well over 30 years and have failed miserably every time. I am bold enough to say that if at the last election, in which the question of the future of London's government was one of the issues, the Tory Party had gained control we should have seen nothing of this Bill. Of course London has grown, but is this Bill going to provide any better standard of service for the truncated people of Surrey, of Middlesex? Nobody has shown that it will. After all, administration needs development; it is an art. It is true that many of the administrators in the new body will be the very people who have been in the old. But it will be a jumbled-up affair, with fellows going here, there and everywhere, setting up a new organisation and setting up new groups of people. The same goes for every one of the services. I feel that I am getting home to noble Lords opposite, because they must justify what they are doing.
It is exactly the same so far as housing is concerned. Reference was made to the Royal Institute of British Architects, and to their support for the Bill. But I remember reading, in one of the architectural technical journals, of their distress that what they termed the "finest municipal architectural department in the world" was going to be destroyed. I wish I could remember which architectural journal said it. Can anybody say—Middlesex is not a housing authority, I agree—that the standard of housing provided by the London County Council has not been good? Some of it was not, it is true. The Tory Party's housing developments at Barking, and out at Burnt Oak, in Middlesex, where they just built houses and forgot that people wanted a church, shops, a pub and everything else—they were just a mass of working-class houses—were a shocking example. But the general standard of slum clearance, of housing provision by the London County Council, its planning, its lay-out, its creation of real communities by development of all
1278
social services within the community, has been a glorious example of housing and planning.
They had the difficulty of housing their population within their own area. Those of us associated with local government know that one of the problems on the housing side is what is termed "out-county estate development", where the local authority into whose area you go does not want you, and where the problems arising from dual control are legion. But the standard of co-operation of the London County Council, whether it has been dealing with out-county estates, such as we had in Hertfordshire, or such as have gone out into Essex; whether it has been dealing with expanded towns out at Bletchley, Swindon or elsewhere, has been excellent. Their standard of efficiency is so high that this Government itself, which was falling down on the provision of new towns, "passed the buck" to the London County Council to build a new town for London's "overspill"—a terrible word. They have not been able to do it.
But, here again, this change must be justified. On the basis of housing and slum clearance, have the London County Council fallen down on their job? Has their standard of architecture, their co-operation with other local authorities, been such that it requires that they should be abandoned or abolished? No, my Lords, I cannot see that they have. One can go on about child care, handicapped persons and welfare of the aged—all those services which they have carried out excellently, to a standard which was not obtainable and was not provided in many other counties. I say, quite openly, that the provision for handicapped persons within London and Middlesex is far higher than we provide in Hertfordshire. Why change?
The only thing that has been said with which I agree was something said by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, and by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, in reference to London and the metropolitan boroughs. It is true that, because of the structure of the L.C.C., the boroughs had less power, less authority and fewer functions than an urban district council. Yet these metropolitan boroughs, which are admittedly inexperienced, are now to have thrust upon them these new functions of child care, care of handicapped persons, care of the aged and

1279
housing, so far as London is concerned, to be dealt with by a group of officials (because you have to use the existing officials within the metropolitan boroughs) who have no skill, no experience of the general administration of these services.
May I say here, too—I do not care which service you take; child care, welfare or handicapped persons—that there is not a single professional body associated with those services which supports this Bill and the new set-up in regard to it. Even many of those associated with the London metropolitan boroughs are fearful that the general standard of service likely to be provided in the future will be lower than that which now exists. In many ways that is bound to be so; because these specialised sections of the community are not so numerous in an area of 300,000, 400,000 or 500,000 people. Spread over a wider area, one can get a greater degree of specialisation, a greater opportunity, than is possible within the smaller unit, even the new revised boroughs within London. To-day, while one does not want too much to be made of distances, the added transport arising from carrying specialised cases to other parts of the area is not great because transport facilities are so much better. All these services—and one could go on to parks, parking spaces and the rest—every one of them, are well and effectively administered so far as the residents of London are concerned. Why destroy them unless it is a question of political prestige?
There are only two services referred to by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack which the London County Council and Middlesex are alleged to have handled less efficiently than they should have done. One has been the planning of Greater London, and the other the traffic problems of Greater London. My Lords, that is not a criticism of either the London County Council or of the Middlesex County Council: that is a criticism of the Government and of the Government Departments responsible. I say that because the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Health have a function—that of guidance and co-ordination. And if the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Housing
1280
and Local Government have not been able effectively to co-ordinate, they ought to look at their own administration in order to see if there is not something lacking there.
This argument comes ill from the Tory Government responsible for destroying the Governmental regional services, which gave very good local contacts with the various local authorities within their region. My criticism of Government Departments, under the present structure forced on them by a Tory Administration, is that they are so wide, so large, that very often the Civil Service itself cannot give that personal attention to local government problems which it ought to give. I would not say that that applies so far as London and Middlesex are concerned, because it is quite obvious—and quite proper—that the larger, major authorities have an easier access to the Ministry than many of the other, smaller authorities. But when it comes to planning, the fact is that most of the planning problems that arise in London are common to all other authorities, and again arise from amendments of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, from the fact that local authorities are now in some difficulty in dealing with compensation and are not in a position to change in order to make things any better.
My Lords, I have tried to point out that it is the duty of the Government to say where the present system has fallen down in the standard of service that has been given, or in the cost of the services that have been provided. If they do not do that, then the Government must give some much better reason than has so far been provided for bringing forward this Bill. I conclude, as many others have done, by saying that to us the real reason is political prejudice—and a political prejudice which is not only destroying the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council but is hampering the development and the standard of service provided by the whole of the Home Counties, with the exception of my own county, Hertfordshire. It is upsetting Surrey, Kent and Essex. Why? I think that that is the question for the Lord Chancellor to answer when he comes to reply this evening.
6.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, may I start by associating myself with the congratulations which the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, paid to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on his speech, which I personally thought was excellent? My Lords, earlier in the afternoon the noble Earl, Lord Longford, had a little quiet fun by saying that up till then there had been hardly a single speech from either side of the House in favour of this Bill. He spoke a little too soon, because since then we have had speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Ilford and Lord Windlesham, supporting the Government, and I, too, am going to disappoint the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I think, by saying that, although it is not difficult to find some points, Committee points, to criticise in a Bill of this size, it would be more profitable if, at this stage, when almost everything that can be said about the Bill has been said in general terms, for a very few minutes (and I hope I shall not detain your Lordships for more than ten minutes or so) I try to make one or two constructive suggestions, as I hope they will be, which can be dealt with at the Committee stage of the Bill. If I put a point or two to the Lord Chancellor, I shall quite understand if he cannot reply at short notice, but I hope that the points I make may be of some assistance.
When the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor opened this debate yesterday he spoke at some length on the difficulties which he foresaw and which had been foreseen on both sides of the House—and the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, also spoke at length on this point. He spoke of the difficulties which were going to arise during what I think was described as the overlap period. During that period there are, of course, in certain places going to be two authorities working side by side. Great doubts were also expressed as to whether sufficient time had been given for the transfer of some of the services to the new authorities. I wonder whether it would be possible, during that period, to recruit some help from other authorities.
I would suggest that there are three places to which we might go. We might ask other local authorities all over the country to second one or two senior officials to come and help us. Of course, straight away the objection to that will
1282
be made that most of these authorities are already so hard pressed themselves that they are not likely to be able to find many people who could come and help. Nevertheless, I feel that if we made that demand we should get a certain response. After all, it would, I think, be mutually advantageous. Local government service is rather narrow, and I think the opportunity for senior officials to spend some time here might be helpful, not only to us but to their home authorities.
Another source to which I think we might apply is the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office, which, owing to circumstances, have a certain number of senior officials who might well be able to come and help us for a limited time. If the objection here is made that people who have been working in Africa are hardly likely to be very much use to local government, I would only say that I think that senior officials in the Civil Service would be well capable of applying themselves and in certain cases of doing very useful work. They might be very grateful to come and help. A third and possibly best chance of recruiting heap would be to ask senior local government officers in London who in the ordinary course of events have retired during the last year or eighteen months whether they would consider coming back for a short period to help. If we could recruit people on that sort of basis, I think it might be a very great help in getting through this awkward and difficult period.
The next point I want to make is really a Committee point, but I should like to make it now because I think there will then be the best chance of the Government's being able to meet it or consider it when we come to that stage. The constitution of the new Greater London Council is laid down to consist of a hundred councillors and, I think, sixteen aldermen. I can see no justification for having aldermen at all. I think the whole conception of aldermen is basically out of date; but tradition dies hard and it may be a few years yet before aldermen are disposed of altogether in local government. To set up a completely new body, as is now proposed, and to have aldermen, seems to me to be without any point at all.

1283
The idea of aldermen is two-fold. First, it is always considered rather useful to have people with experience and, second, that position is given to the more elderly members of some counties as a sort of "services rendered" award. I have always been sorry that I have not been an alderman myself. It saves one fighting elections. But I would suggest—and I will put down an Amendment to this effect at the Committee stage—that the whole idea of aldermen should be given up and that the sixteen places, which I think is the number proposed, should be taken up by sixteen more councillors. It might later be considered that there is a case for increasing the total number; but that is another point.
Nearly every speaker from the Socialist Benches has made the point that this is a political Bill and, indeed, they have called it gerrymandering. I would merely ask this: is it likely that a Government, who have several little local difficulties of their own on their hands at present, would bring in a Bill which is by no means popular with many of their own supporters in such Conservative strongholds as Surrey—is it likely that they would do such a thing for political advantage?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Yes. They are such an incompetent lot that this is just the sort of thing they would do. Typical Macleod!
VISCOUNT MERSEY: It seems fantastic to me. The Bill would have been a very much better Bill if the L.C.C. had co-operated with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government when the Bill was being drawn up.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: And dug their own graves!
VISCOURNT MERSEY: Their answer to that was, "Why should we assist at our own execution?" But, my Lords, that is taking a very narrow view of the object of the Bill. The local government in London is not being got rid of; it is being changed. Certain bodies are being changed and boroughs are being increased. We are bringing in a Greater London Council; but local government as such is, we hope, going to be improved. I suppose the Opposition Front Bench has more
1284
experts on London local government than this side of the House; but we have not had a single constructive suggestion from any of them as to how this Bill might be improved. We have had plenty of criticisms. I am hopeful that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who is going to wind up for the Opposition may be able to give us some suggestions. That is what is required.
This Bill is capable of improvement. Nobody is denying that. But merely to keep on the old parrot cry that this is being done for political advantage, is really a waste of time. I hope that we shall give this Bill a Second Reading, and that we shall come to the Committee stage as soon as possible because there are a very large number of Amendments to be put down from both sides of the House. Surely the object of both sides in regard to this Bill should be to produce a new charter for London which will improve the lot of Londoners now and for many years to come.
6.28 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords in making the final speech from this side of the House I find myself in some difficulty, because there is so little that I have to answer from those who are supposed to have been supporters of the Bill. Perhaps I can respond at once to the noble Viscount who has just spoken and say that in my honest opinion it is quite impossible so to amend this Bill as to make it acceptable. While we shall, of course, take part in the various stages of the Bill if it is given a Second Reading, I am bound to say that I have little hope that at the end of the day it will be fundamentally any different from what it is at the present time.
I would ask the Government: what is the urgency of this matter? Why are they implementing this particular Report of a Royal Commission when so many other Reports of Royal Commissions remain on the shelf? I have complained over and over again that the average waiting period for the implementation of a Report of a Royal Commission is something like ten to twelve years. Why is this particular one being implemented so quickly? There has been no pressure on the Government to implement this Report. I do not think the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor will contend that the Government have been under any

1285
Pressure to have this particular Royal Commission Report implemented. On the contrary, all the pressure on them even from among their own supporters has been not to have it implemented. It is certainly not desired by the majority of thinking people in Greater London.
One is really forced to certain conclusions as to why this particular Royal Commission Report is being implemented. I said that the great majority of people in the area affected are against the Report. I do not know whether that statement is going to be disputed. But if it is not disputed, why do the Government deliberately introduce a measure of local government to which the great majority of the people of the areas affected are opposed? Is it that they know best? The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, himself asked the question. I am not sure that he is able to give a good answer. But, of course, Governments do foolish things. This is not the occasion for me to enumerate them, but I could, if pressed, give the noble Viscount quite a long list of foolish things which this Government have done recently, and which, if one were seeking for an explanation, one would find it difficult to answer. I respectfully submit that this is a case in point. This is a wholly uncalled for Bill.
It is said that it is in the interests of local government. But, surely, local government is self-government; government with the consent of the people concerned. That is the last thing you can say about this particular Bill. It is not with the consent of the people concerned.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, is the noble Lord, therefore, saying that no change is needed in the government of London?
LORD SILKIN: If the noble Viscount will do me the honour of sitting in his place until I have finished, he will find that I shall not shirk that particular question. But I wish to answer it in its proper place in what I have to say. I was saying that the essential of local government is that it should be self-government, Self-government is more desirable than good government. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Somers, who interrupted several times, to bear that in mind. People would rather run their own show
1286
in their own way, however unsatisfactory it may be, than be told from above how they should run it. I submit that that is a factor which the Government have not taken into account.
My noble friend Lord Longford said in his speech earlier in the day (perhaps too early) that this Bill had not received any support from any part of the House. Well, it has had support, and I shall refer to some of it in a moment. But I should like to refer to two speeches made yesterday in support of the Bill. One was made by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who, of course, is greatly concerned with town planning and with transport. In the course of his speech he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 248 (No. 71), col. 1156]:
"Unless we get those provisions right"—
and he meant the provisions dealing with town planning (I am glad that the noble Lord has returned, in time to hear what I am saying)—
"we shall not merely fail to use a great opportunity for improving London: we shall run a serious risk of making matters worse."
What chance does the noble Lord think there is at this stage—and I will sit down and give him an opportunity to reply—of getting these provisions right?
LORD CONESFORD: I think fairly good; but it may partly depend, I suppose, on Her Majesty's Opposition.
LORD SILKIN: That is not a bad reply on the spur of the moment. It sounds to me, however, that if it is going to depend on Her Majesty's Opposition, the chance of getting these provisions right is not very great. It is for the Government. These provisions the noble Lord was talking about are absolutely fundamental to the Bill. As he himself said, unless they can be put right, things are going to be worse. If I were a betting man I would give him very heavy odds that they will not be put right. The noble Lord also said that the Bill shows a fundamentally wrong approach in dealing with road traffic and highways. That is pretty strong language from a supporter of the Bill.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, was an equally strong supporter of the Bill, but he said very much the same thing, though perhaps not in the same strong language. I gathered that the effect of what he was saying was that unless the Bill could be fundamentally

1287
altered in respect of planning (I do not think he dealt with traffic) things were not going to be improved. At any rate, he was very critical of the planning provisions of the Bill. I will pay the noble Viscount the compliment of saying that he does know something about planning; but what he knows about local government, and certainly English local government, I do not know. On the matter about which he does know something, he was pretty critical.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, was another supporter of the Bill. He was prepared to support it if his particular area and his particular county were excluded.
LORD AUCKLAND: I did not say that. What I said was that on the Committee stage I should have some criticisms to make. In a Second Reading debate, as I understand it, the comment is of a general nature.
LORD STLKIN: I do not think I am misinterpreting the noble Lord. He is certainly prepared to allow this Bill to have a Second Reading, with the intention of getting his own county excluded by Amendment.
LORD AUCKLAND: No.
LORD SILKTN: Well, is the noble Lord not going to move an Amendment?
LORD AUCKLAND: Not the county.
LORD SILKIN: His own particular area.
LORD AUCKLAND: The area, yes; but not the county.
LORD SILKIN: Another supporter of the Bill was the noble Lord, Lord Ilford. I hope that he will not mind my saying that we are old friends and colleagues; and he was for some years a distinguished member of the London County Council. I rather gather that his support of the Bill is coloured by the fact that, as he said, he has made four or five attempts, without success, to get Ilford created into a county borough; that Ilford, with its large population, ought to be a county borough, and here, at last, was a chance of giving Ilford the powers it deserved. Well, it is a very worthy purpose, but I would hardly call that entirely justifying support for this Bill. The noble Earl, Lord
1288
Onslow, could hardly be said to have supported the Bill; I thought he was 100 per cent. against it.
Then we come to the most fervent supporter of all, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who made a clever debating speech—and I hope we shall hear more of him. But, in fact, he said not one single word on the merits of the Bill. He made no attempt whatever to justify this Bill. He devoted the great part of his speech to my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who is, of course, always a worthwhile target in any gathering. But it does not carry us very far. The noble Lord gave us the history of the Royal Commission, and he spoke about its Chairman. I should like to say that I have a very high admiration for the Chairman: we were both law students together, and we got to know one another extremely well. We have taken different paths, but I hope that we are still very good friends. I would not suggest that the Chairman was biased at all; it is not part of my case that the Chairman, or the Commission were biased. They may have been unduly influenced, but that is quite a different matter. But the last thing I would suggest of them is that they were biased.
I want to ask why this Government, who are virtually on their deathbed, have put forward this long, complicated and uncalled-for measure. The noble Earl, who is the very respected Chief Whip on the other side, is constantly complaining about shortage of time and pressure of Business. Surely, the Government could have found more worthwhile measures to put forward, giving adequate time for their consideration, than this particular measure. When the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has been here a little longer he will not be so distressed at the suggestion that possibly political reasons may have entered into the minds of the Government; that they may to some extent have been influenced by them. After all, we have had four or five London County Council elections since 1951, since the present Government took office. Every one of these elections has resulted in a Labour majority and in the last two elections an increasing Labour majority. Is it to be thought, taking into account the evidence of the London Municipal Society, that this fact has played no part in the minds of the Government in bring-

1289
ing forward this measure? I am not even suggesting that they have not an honest desire to improve local government; but I would not discount the fact that the increased Labour majority on the L.C.C. is a factor in their minds.
The other main ground that has been put forward is that it is in the interests of the removal of anomalies: that the present state of local government in London is an anomaly; that it is out of date; that it arises from the horse age; that it was created at the time when the boundaries of London consisted of the present London County Council area; that it has grown, and that the reform of London government is overdue. Of course this does not mean that there should be change at any price, and any kind of change. If I were to concede that there is scope for an improvement in London government—and I have always taken the view that there is—that still does not mean that this is the right way to do it. That is the contention which I am putting forward.
I believe that this Bill falls down because two conditions for the improvement of London government have not been complied with. The first is that you cannot improve local government without the broad consent of the people affected. In another place, one honourable Member said that some people may have to suffer; that it may be necessary to ask people living in Surrey (as he said in this particular case) to make certain sacrifices for the larger community of which they are a part. I will accept that. But the sacrifices have to be justified. We must make quite sure that the people who are asked to make these sacrifices (and it is significant that people are being asked to make sacrifices; that is admitted by a supporter of the Bill) will, in fact, benefit; and that is by no means certain, as I hope w show in a moment. Will the result of these sacrifices be that we shall get better government? That is the test.
I do not propose to enumerate all the various services, because noble Lords in all parts of the House have criticised the changes in respect of the particular services involved. As the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said, unless the Bill can be altered in certain respects it may even make matters worse. The noble
1290
Lord, Lord Grenfell, said much the same thing; and, from this side of the House, we had a most devastating speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, as well as speeches from others, in respect of the child welfare services. I would put it no higher than this: that nobody has attempted to establish that the services will be improved as a result of this change. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, made a valiant and (may I say with all respect?) laboured attempt, but I do not think he went so far as to say they will be improved. I think he pointed out some of the defects of the present system, but the last thing I thought he established was that the new order would be an improvement on the old.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? At last this afternoon we hear a noble Lord speaking on behalf of the ratepayers. May I ask whether he thinks the services will be cheaper? That is what I think Londoners are interested in. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, when he replies, to say whether he agrees or disagrees with the noble Lord that these services will be cheaper.
LORD SILKIN: I will break off from the trend of my remarks to answer that point. I had considered this question of whether it will be more economical, and I came to the conclusion (I may be wrong; the argument has never been put forward on behalf of the Government that this is a more economical form of government)—
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Not a word.
LORD SILKIN: —is that it will be more expensive. I will give my reasons. One reason is that many of the services which are at present centralised and carried out on a large scale by the London County Council, and by the county councils whose area is to be split, will now be distributed over a much wider area. It seems to me much more economical to run a large service by centralisation than by splitting it up among a large number of authorities. The noble Earl is quite right to make the point, but certainly the Government have never claimed that this change is

1291
being made in the interests of economy. The most they have claimed for it is that this is a logical and right thing to do; that it is marching with the times; that it is progressive, and so on.
If one talks of some of the services, it does not even meet the argument that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that you need a larger area for traffic and planning. The fact is that the true planning area is, roughly speaking, the area recommended in the Abercrombie Report, which is something like three times as large as the area of the Greater London Council. And if you want to deal with the planning of the London conurbation (and I hope the noble Lord does not mind my using that word, which has become almost a "dirty" word) you have to have a much bigger area than the area of the Greater London Council, and certain expedients will have to be adopted—and they have been suggested: joint councils, joint authorities, and so on—in order to deal with the planning of the whole area. So, we have not got it right from that point of view.
Nor have we got it right from the traffic point of view. The area of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, for instance, is again a very much bigger area than the area of the Greater London Council. I feel that this is not a solution to the problems of traffic or town planning. You have to find some other solution and you are going, to be in just as much difficulty in dealing with those two services, which are the main justification for this Bill, as we have been in up to now.
Nor have we a solution to the education service. The Government were forced to change their mind about the education service and had to retain the Inner London area for educational purposes, but all the time over the next five years the service will be under a threat of extinction, and you never get the best service out of an authority when it is under a threat that it will come to an end.
I ask the Government then, if it is not political prejudice and if it is not the pressure from those who are seeking reform, what is the reason for this? I
1292
can really only come to the conclusion that, apart from what I have said, it is the removal of anomalies, and that the tidy mind of Her Majesty's Government is such that they cannot bear the thought of having local authorities of different sizes and different areas in London. They have them all over the country, and I do not know whether it is the intention of the noble Lords, if they get the chance, to divide Great Britain into tidy areas of population of about a quarter of a million. each for the sake of the uniformity that they are trying to create in Greater London. Is that their policy? Are they going to do the same with Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool, with all the great conurbations? Are they going to split them up into tidy areas of a quarter of a million people?
It is all very well to talk about tidiness and the anomaly of London government as it exists to-day, but we are the last people to talk about anomalies. We ourselves are the greatest anomaly in the Constitution of this country. How can we justify ourselves? If we begin to talk of the removal of anomalies we have not got to look very far. When we talk about the House of Lords, what is the argument? The argument is, "All very well. We agree it is anomalous, but it works." I am not going to argue on that this afternoon, and I accept for the time being that it works. We shall see whether it works when we see the progress of this Bill and whether we get a reasonable chance of discussing it, as they did not in the other place. The job of this House is to examine legislation carefully, with ample time at our disposal, and pick up the deficiencies of the other place. We shall see how it works.
However, the argument is that this anomaly works. Is not that exactly what you can say about the government of London? It works, and it has worked well. My noble friend Lord Lindgren went to great pains to show that the government of London has worked, is working, and works successfully; and many of us who have given our lives to the work of London government feel very proud of what we have achieved, and very proud to show other people the results of our handiwork. It is not surprising,

1293
therefore, that there is a good deal of feeling about the destruction of something which one has helped to create. And it has not been a Party matter. All Parties have had a hand in the creation of London government; the Progressives, the Conservatives and the Labour Party have all played a part. And the result of it all is that something has been created which works and which ought not to be tampered with lightly, and certainly not drastically altered unless you are quite certain, as you are not, that the result is going to be an improvement.
It works for London government. I say that equally the governments of Surrey, Kent, Essex and Middlesex work. So, also, do the boroughs of West Ham, East Ham and Croydon. I put them all in the same category. They work, and they have worked successfully and have created something, and it must be very galling to them that they should be swamped and that their identities should be submerged with a number of other authorities.
Therefore, I hope, perhaps vainly, that the Government will have second thoughts about this Bill and be prepared to look at it again. If I bad to give my main criticism of the Bill, it is that you are not creating local government at all, which assumes that it is government with the consent of the people. You are passing this measure against the wishes of the people concerned, and in that case I cannot hope that it will have a very successful passage.
6.58 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I had not expected to make a second speech in the course of this debate, and I should not have done so but for the indisposition of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. I can only hope that he will speedily recover, because I shall certainly need his assistance when we come to the Committee stage. I should like to express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Hastings for so nobly stepping into the breach and dealing with the matters with which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was going to deal in replying to this debate, and also for replying to many points that were raised in yesterday's debate. I must say that I regretted that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, took it upon himself to lecture my noble
1294
friend on the manner of his delivery of his speech. I do not think that was justified. I was sitting on the Woolsack, and I must say that I had not the slightest difficulty in following my noble friend's arguments.
Certain points which have been raised in the course of the debate to-day have been raised so as to give the Government due notice of them before we reach the Committee stage. I am grateful to your Lordships for having done that, and I can say that all the points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, and many others, will be considered between now and the Committee stage; and at this late hour I trust that your Lordships will not desire me to reply in any detail to those particular points.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde, my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and the noble Lord, Lord Reith, drew attention to the question of auditing of the local authority accounts, and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde referred to certain correspondence which had taken place with regard to this matter. I have not seen that correspondence but I will certainly consult with my right honourable friend with regard to the question raised. At this stage I do not think that I can say any more on that point to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Crook, appeared in a rather unaccustomed role as a spokesman of informed Tory opinion in Surrey.
I rather gathered, from what was said from various quarters in the course of the debate from this side of the House that noble Lords did not particularly enjoy my references to "informed opinion". What I in fact said, in moving the Second Reading, was that people who made speeches usually regarded opinion that agreed with theirs as informed opinion; and what I also said was that it was just not true that all informed opinion was against the Bill. I did not say, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, suggested, that all informed opinion was in support of the Bill. But I must say that I was rather astonished and surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, deride the London School of Economics as not being able to express any informed opinion. But I certainly would not suggest for one moment that all informed opinion was in support of this Bill: that would be putting it far too high.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has misquoted me about the London School of Economics. I admit that I got very near what he says I said. The noble and learned Lord says that he said only that this was a Bill which was not hotly dissented from (I think it was) by people of informed opinion. But this is what he actually said, unless the Official Reporter is wrong, which I do not find it possible to believe. He said [OFFICIAL. REPORT, Vol. 248 (No. 71), col. 1132]:
"But your Lordships would be misled if you allowed yourselves to be persuaded that the principles on which this Bill is based do not command general approval among local authorities and among informed people, concerned with local government."
That is what he said.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not detract from that for one moment. If the noble Lord looks at column 1131, he will see that I quoted from that. But I thought he rose to interrupt me about his remarks on the London School of Economics. I am surprised that he diverted his interruption on to another subject. I was not seeking to say that all informed opinion was in support of this Bill, because informed opinion may differ just as much as uninformed opinion; and at the end of the day it is for the Government to make up its mind, and come and put before Parliament and the public proposals. And that we have done. It is no use the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, trying to suggest there was not adequate discussion of the major issues in this Bill because of the guillotine in another place. If he will look at the Record he will see most of this Bill was thoroughly considered.
May I come to what is, I think—I want to deal with it as briefly as I can—the main Oppositon attack on the Bill? It was opened by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and what seemed to me the most astonishing statement made in the course of this debate (it astonished my noble friend Lord Conesford, and it astonished me; indeed, I think it is really the saying of the week) was when the noble Lord declared that he was not a Party politician. Having heard him on a number of occasions, I must say that that is certainly not a description of himself that would be generally accepted by informed opinion. He is, I venture to assert—and I say it in no derogatory
1296
Sense—a Party politician; and the speech he made yesterday was, as I think he would be the first to admit, a very political one; though I certainly do not complain of that. His whole approach to the Bill was political. He asserted that it was inspired by "mean, gerrymandering, Party political motives". That is an easy thing to say; but it is not, of course, the fact.
The case for this Bill is that changes in the local government of London are long overdue and that change is necessary in the interests of good administration and efficiency over the Greater London area. Really, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, showed himself on this occasion to be reactionary. He thought that there might perhaps be one or two amalgamations of boroughs. He went so far as to admit that there was a case for merging Deptford with Lewisham, and he thought that there might have been more delegation of power to the metropolitan boroughs. He went on to say he thought there might be an executive board representing the county councils and county boroughs and the Ministry of Transport and representatives of the police. That would not, of course, be an elected body; and I think it is certainly more democratic that, if there is to be a body charged with overall responsibility for the Greater London area, it should be responsible to the electorate in that area and chosen by them.
But the noble Lord's approach to the whole problem of London government was, I think, revealed by that passage in his speech when he gave his reasons for not seeking the inclusion in the London County Council area, when he was leader of the London County Council, of Willesden and an area on the North East; and one reason that he gave was it would have meant a row with the local authorities. I have never known the noble Lord shrink from a row. Indeed, when he was Leader of the other place, I remember his provoking many on many occasions. The second reason was the one I found so interesting, and it was this. The inclusion, he said, of these two areas would have meant an increase of the Labour majority on the London County Council, and he did not want that. The noble Lord, who said that he was not a Party politician, said he did not want that, for too large a majority could be troublesome. But I

1297
ask your Lordships to note that he apparently did not even consider whether the inclusion of these areas in the London County Council would conduce to better administration and greater efficiency. He did not reject their inclusion on the ground that it would not do so, but solely for two reasons one of which was confessedly political. That was his approach then.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: There would have been no great advantage in bringing them in, except that it would have tidied the map up a little. I do not run to the uniformity philosophy of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The way in which the noble and learned Lord has quoted me, in reference to my being, or not being, a Party politician is not accurate. I do not think it is there. What I said was that the head of the British Judiciary had now jumped down into Party politics and must take the consequences. That is what he has in mind. It has made him cross. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I never like to make a high judicial authority cross. It is not fitting.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry if I have given any appearance of crossness. I certainly do not think I am, and I do not feel it. If the noble Lord wants the column reference, it is column 1145, where he said:
"I was not a Party politician".
I was saying that that was his approach then, and that he showed the same approach to this Bill. He always has been a Party politician. He looked at this Bill purely politically, and his attack was on that account.
It really is all very well for him and the noble Lord, Lord Latham, to attack my right honourable friend the present Home Secretary; but this attack involves an attack on the probity of the members of the Royal Commission, for in the main this Bill follows their recommendations. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in winding up for the Opposition, to say, "We do not allege bias, only undue influence." But that really will not do, when one bears in mind that there was not a single murmur of criticism when the names of the members of this Royal Commission were announced. It is only
1298
when the result of their conclusions is seen that there is criticism.
And what criticism is it? It was criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who said that the Royal Commission had on it no outstanding Labour person; and that was taken up by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition. Is it really suggested that this would have been a more impartial Royal Commission if it had had upon it an outstanding member of the Labour Party? I really do not think that that will do. The line of attack was followed up by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, last night. I hope he will forgive me when I say that I really feel that the strength of his argument did not support the violence of his language. I know that the Party opposite want to make this out as a Bill solely directed at the London County Council; but that, as my noble friend Lord Mersey said, really will not do. It is directed to find the best solution to the problem of local government for the Greater London area; and that is what it does. As has been pointed out already in the debate, if it were a purely political Bill it Would indeed be extraordinary to draft it in such a way as to arouse the curiosity and animosity of the informed opinion of which the noble Lord, Lord Crook, and others, spoke.
Now may I come to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Longford? It was a most amusing speech, when it was not being slightly condescending. It was a speech which made no attempt at all to answer the case for the Bill deployed by me and by my noble friend Lord Hastings. All that was said about the case that we deployed was that we had spoken from departmental briefs. The noble Earl tried to ride off on that. He did not try to meet the case. Then what did he do to make his speech for the Opposition? He went round all the speeches that had been made yesterday, picked out the points of criticism made by my noble friends as advance notice of Committee points, strung them all together and recited that as the argument that the Bill would not do. That really was not a difficult manæuvre; but, equally, it was not convincing.
Then he went on to say that no one had spoken from the Back Benches in support of the Bill. Well, that was too premature. He was followed by my noble

1299
friend Lord Ilford and by my noble friend Lord Windlesham, who made a most excellent speech. I was sorry to be absent at the time—it was my misfortune. Then he was followed by my noble friend Lord Mersey. Then what did the noble Earl do? He devoted a great passage of his speech to attacking education proposals which are not in the Bill, and he said little about the education proposals in the Bill. Then, to top off his speech, he had to use as convincing evidence of the bad nature of this Bill a casual utterance by some Tory Member whom he says he met at some cocktail party or other or Party event.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord always slightly alters the truth. He does not revolutionise it; he just adjusts it. There was no reference to a cocktail party; it was quite a different sort of function.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry I made an error in saying it was a cocktail party, and I am glad it was at a different public function. But that does not quite rob me of the point I was making. The noble Earl had to rely on his casual observation in an endeavour to make out a case against the Bill; and the impression that his speech created on my mind was that he was finding it difficult to discover any convincing argument to put forward.
I want to say a word about the speeches that followed. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, made a speech which I listened to with great interest, and, if I may say so, I thought it was the best speech made from the Opposition. I hope that will not annoy noble Lords on the Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, devoted his case—and he argued it well—to saying that we had to establish that there had been a breakdown in local government. That has never been the case for this Bill. In moving the Second Reading, I paid a tribute to the London County Council and what they had done. The case for this Bill is based on entirely different grounds: that the modern structure of local government in Greater London is outdated. Indeed, that was recognised by the Royal Commission.
I should like to remind the House of certain observations of that Committee. In paragraph 694 they said:
"… we have been driven to hold that administratively the present structure of
1300
government in the Review Area is inadequate to deal with many of the major problems of the Review Area as they exist today and as they are evidently going to develop."
In the next paragraph they said:
"Where things are working well our inclination is to leave them alone."
He really is not justified in saying that this is a Bill for change for change's sake. They continue in this way:
"We do not believe that London's problems can be solved merely by improving the machinery of government. Our inclination is to recommend changes only where they appear to be essential."
Then, in the next paragraph they say:
"The present structure of local government in the Review Area is inadequate and needs overhaul."
The Opposition seemed to be split about that. They have not disclosed whether they accept that position or not. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in winding up appeared to recognise that there was scope for a change; but the noble Lord. Lord Morrison of Lambeth, I thought, made it quite clear that he was against any change in the organisation of local government in London. But really the Opposition case against this Bill is split, for this reason: on the one hand they say that the whole object of this Bill is to destroy the London County Council; and then they turn round, as did the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and try to make out that the object is to destroy Surrey and other counties in the neighbourhood. The two really do not go together.
The truth is, of course, that this Bill is a necessary Bill. I am asked why it should be introduced now. It is five years since the Royal Commission reported, and I really do not think that there is any necessity for delaying a change in the organisation of London government.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: It is not five years yet.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought it was five years since it was set up. But there really is no reason for delaying a change which I think most people regard as necessary, at least in some degree. I do not shrink from putting forward this Bill again to the House after these two days' debate as a Bill which will be beneficial in its purposes and is progressive; and I would ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in formed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Orders
Their Lordships divided:—
Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lothian, M.

Albemarle, E.

Ferrers, E.

Margesson, V.

Aldington, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mersey, V.

Allerton, L.

Forbes, L.

Milverton, L.

Auckland, L.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

Bessborough, E.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Newton, L.

Bossom, L.

Gage, V.

Perth, E.

Carrington, L.

Glentanar, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Chelmer, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Saltoun, L.

Conesford, L.

Hastings, L.

Somers, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hawke, L.

Soulbury, V.

Davidson, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Spens, L.

Denham, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Stonehaven, V.

Derwent, L.

Ilford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Devonshire, D.

Jessel, L.

Swansea, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lambert, V.

Windlesham, L.

Ellen borough, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Lindgren, L.

Silkin, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E

Listowel, E.

Stonham, L.

Attlee, E.

Longford, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Champion, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B.

Crook, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Taylor, L.

Faringdon, L.

Onslow, E.

Walston, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L

Latham, L.

Shackleton, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Lawson, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Wootton of Abinger, B.

made on February 14 last and the 8th instant discharged, and Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  PROTECTION OF WILD BIRDS' EGGS
  PROTECTION OF WILD BIRDS' EGGS