Sitting of 18 December 1963

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  PENSIONS
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the Pensions (Increase) Acts (Extension) (No. 1) Order, 1963, be made in the form of the Draft laid before your House on 26th November.
  I will comply with your request.

BUILDING (ALDERSHOT)
Return ordered,
"containing a technical statement by the Building Research Station on the collapse of a building under construction at Aldershot with an explanatory introduction."—[Mr. Rippon.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Aysgarth and Leyburn (Reception)
    Mr. Kitsonasked the Postmaster-General when it is intended to improve the present unsatisfactory reception of the British Broadcasting Corporation television in the Aysgarth and Leyburn area; and what the estimated cost is.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Ray Mawby): As my right hon. Friend told the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) on 4th December, the B.B.C. are continuing to plan improvements and extensions of their television coverage by means of low-power stations, of which the first three batches are in hand. We understand that they are now preparing a fourth list of such stations, but, until my right hon. Friend receives their proposals, he is sorry he cannot comment with regard to individual areas.
    Mr. Kitson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is virtually no television reception in this area and that the inhabitants object to paying £4 for nothing? Will he try to make sure that they are included on the new list?
    Mr. Mawby: Naturally, I take that into account. I think that it would be of interest to the House to know that when the present satellite stations already authorised are in operation the B.B.C.'s first television programme will be available to almost 99·5 per cent. of the population. This is no mean achievement and is probably better than that in any other country.

    Advertisements
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Postmaster -General whether he will consult the Independent Television Authority with a view to the curtailment of advertising, particularly in children's viewing time, directed at children.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): No, Sir. I consulted the Authority during the debates on the Television Act, 1963, on advertisements affecting children. With the assistance of its Advertising Advisory Committee, the I.T.A. has drawn up rules to ensure that advertisements seen by children will not be harmful. These rules, which were published in the Authority's Report and Accounts for 1962–63, are strictly enforced.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Exactly what is meant by "harmful"? Does "harmful" include advertisements which are intended to get small children to persuade their parents to buy things which their parents may not be able to afford? Is not that injurious to family harmony and happiness?
    Mr. Bevins: I think it might be if that were to occur. I have not seen any evidence of that. If my hon. Friend has any particular cases in mind, I shall be very glad to discuss them with the authorities.

    Colour Television
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Postmaster-General what progress is being made towards the establishment of a colour television service in this country; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Broughtonasked the Postmaster-General what progress is being made towards the broadcasting of colour television.
    Mr. Bevins: As HON. MEMBERS know, a choice has to be made between three systems, and it is highly desirable that European countries should choose the same system, otherwise we shall be unable to exchange colour programmes with them and export opportunities will be reduced. There is to be a meeting in London in February of the appropriate international agency, which I hope will lead to an agreed recommendation about adopting a common system for Europe.
    Meanwhile, my Television Advisory Committee is due to meet in January, and I hope to have soon afterwards its advice on the policy to be followed.
    Mr. Smith: Would my right hon. Friend agree that as a country with one of the leading television services in the world we ought to be taking a lead in this matter and not necessarily wait for other European countries to make their decision? Would he not also agree that perhaps overall the American system may suit our needs best and may be cheapen than the German P.A.L. system and the French Secam system?
    Mr. Bevins: Any suggestion that we are dragging our feet in the matter of colour television is quite wrong. It is vitally important to the future of our radio industry that we should, if possible, have a system which is common to Europe, because, if we do not have that, our opportunities for exporting both programme material and radio components will be much less than they otherwise would be.
    Dr. Broughton: Will the Postmaster-General give an assurance that he will do all that he possibly can to try to put us in the van of progress in colour television? Is it not the case that we have lagged behind, because colour television is already being shown in parts of the United States? Does not he agree that it is desirable and important that we should take the lead in this matter?
    Mr. Bevins: I am in no doubt whatever that we have taken the best initiative that we can. The number of people in America who see colour television is
    1224
    less than 1 per cent. of all viewers. The sets are very expensive indeed. I am sure that we have played this at the right pace so that by about 1965 we shall have colour television in this country and, I hope, at prices which people will be able to afford.
    Mr. F. Harris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is about six years ago that Members saw samples of colour television in the House? Is there a chance that there will be colour television during my lifetime?
    Mr. Bevins: Assuming, as I do, that my hon. Friend survives about another eighteen months, yes.
    Mr. Mason: Is it not a fact that a sub-committee of experts of the European broadcasting services who have been examining the matter of European compatibility in colour television should have reported by now suggesting what would be the best colour system? Has not the right hon. Gentleman or the B.B.C. yet made up their minds whether it shall be N.T.S.C., P.A.L. or Secam? Unless they make up their minds very quickly for the spring meeting of the International Radio Consultative Committee, the timetable the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned for introducing colour television in 1965 will not be achieved.
    Mr. Bevins: These discussions have been going on for some time and the Post Office and the B.B.C. have played their respective parts. We are hoping that agreement will be reached at European level in February of the coming year.

    Licences
    Mr. Fitchasked the Postmaster-General if, with a view to preventing licence evasion, he will introduce legislation to compel all retailers of wireless and television sets to report each sale or rental to the Post Office authorities.
    Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. Any advantage that might be gained from such a measure would be outweighed by practical difficulties and by increased costs.
    Mr. Fitch: Can the Postmaster-General say how much money was spent by his Department in the last financial year in attempting to detect non-licence holders?
    Mr. Bevins: Not without notice, but it is quite a substantial amount. I must add that, if we were to do as the Question suggests, it would impose a very heavy burden on the radio industry, and an even larger one on the Post Office. The biggest practical difficulty inherent in this suggestion is that most people who purchase or hire new sets at present are already licensed in respect of old sets.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Has my right hon. friend made any effort to find out how much income has been lost to the B.B.C. in this way and has he made any calculation of the effect that this proposal would have in increasing the B.B.C.'s revenue?
    Mr. Bevins: No doubt it would have some effect in increasing the B.B.C.'s revenue, but it would also have the converse effect of increasing the expenditure of the Post Office on administration. That, in turn, would react against the B.B.C. Our present measures to prevent evasion are proving very successful. In the first ten months of this year, about 300,000 people took out new licences for the first time.
    Mr. Swingler: What sample research has the Post Office done into the so-called practical difficulties of implementing this proposal? Is he aware that most people who have considered this matter cannot see why there is any difficulty in enforcing this very simple rule, which would save the right hon. Gentleman's Department considerable detection difficulties?
    Mr. Bevins: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think he has considered all the complications which would arise. If we were to do this, we should have, first, to place an obligation on all the radio dealers in the trade. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Obviously. Substantial costs would clearly be incurred in making sure that that radio dealers met their obligations and in checking against licence records the information supplied by the dealers. Most of this work would be abortive because most people already have licences.

    Relay Stations, Scotland
    Mr. Smallasked the Postmaster-General how many microwave relay stations have been, or are being, con-
    1226
    structed in Scotland; and what proportion of the additional 37 such stations to be constructed in the next five years will be built there.
    Mr. Mawby: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is seventeen. Of the additional 37 stations mentioned in our recent White Paper, six will be in Scotland.
    Mr. Small: Has the hon. Gentleman considered whether that number is adequate? Will he give the utmost consideration to advancing the programme of construction in order to help employment prospects in Scotland?
    Mr. Mawby: The difficulty is that we need the relay stations only to transmit messages from A to B. Therefore, we are limited in the number that we can build. However, I will take into account the hon. Gentleman's point. There is not a great deal of work involved in these towers, but we estimate that the cost of the six new stations will be about £500,000, which is a bit of help.

    Pay-Television (Films)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Postmaster-General if he will consult the Cinematograph Films Council about the terms and conditions for the exhibition of feature films on experimental pay-television services.
    Mr. Bevins: Consultation with the Cinematograph Films Council is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development. Because of the Board of Trade's concern with the film industry I am, as I told the House on 11th December, consulting my right hon. Friend about the showing of cinema films on pay-television.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the Films Council is about to report to his right hon. Friend on the subject of monopoly practices in the cinema trade and is faced with serious and considerable complaints about the long delays in releasing British films? Will he, therefore, keep an open mind about the terms and conditions of showing feature films on pay-television because of the assistance which might be given to the film-producing industry?
    Mr. Bevins: I do not want to encroach on the domain of my right hon. Friend, but I freely admit that this is a difficult and complicated matter and I shall certainly have regard to the considerations which the hon. Member has mentioned.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Housing Estate, Cardiff
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the inadequate public telephone facilities on the Caerau and Ely Racecourse housing estates in Cardiff; and what steps he proposes to take.
    Mr. Mawby: My right hon. Friend intends to provide two more telephone kiosks on these estates as soon as suitable sites have been obtained, we hope at an early date.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can I look forward to these telephones being installed by January?
    Mr. Mawby: I would not go so far as to give any particular date, but they certainly will be in at the earliest possible date.

    Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Postmaster-General how many private telephones in Aberdeen are in use; how many applicants are on the waiting list; and how these figures compare with those for each of the last 10 years at the corresponding dates.
    Mr. Mawby: As the Answer contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report. The present waiting list is 18 compared with 1,354 in 1953.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that the telephone system is of the utmost importance for business and social contacts in the north of Scotland, and will he, therefore, avoid copying the obnoxious policy of Dr. Beeching in the case of the railways, who is destroying valuable social and business contacts between the people there, and take steps to avoid that kind of obnoxious conduct in the case of the telephone?
    Mr. Mawby: It is not for me to comment. Our aim is to make certain that communications will be the best possible for anyone who wants a telephone. This is our aim, and I believe that, in the main, in future this is what we shall achieve.
    Following are the figures:

    —

    Number of telephones

    Waiting List

    Applications under enquiry or being met

    30th September, 1953

    14,620

    1,354

    326

    30th September, 1954

    15,935

    1,094

    310

    30th September, 1955

    16,659

    1,466

    239

    30th September, 1956

    17,445

    882

    452

    30th September, 1957

    18,507

    126

    491

    30th September, 1958

    18,567

    49

    260

    30th September, 1959

    18,903

    73

    208

    30th September, 1960

    19,493

    104

    252

    30th September, 1961

    20,328

    111

    203

    30th September, 1962

    20,590

    27

    233

    30th September, 1963

    21,227

    25

    265

    30th November, 1963

    21,317

    18

    295

    Sales Promotion Calls
    Mr. Denis Howellasked the Postmaster-General if he will seek powers to make it illegal to use the telephone service for the purposes of general sales and advertising promotions in respect of private residences.
    Mr. Bevins: No, Sir.
    Mr. Howell: Is not the Minister aware that that reply will cause grave alarm to many telephone subscribers? This pestilence of ringing people up is an incursion into the privacy of the home. Why should this American type of advertising be carried out in this country at the expense of ordinary telephone subscribers who want to be left in peace and who, having paid the rent for their telephones, are entitled to be left in peace?
    Mr. Bevins: Telephone calls which are made for selling or advertising purposes are not an offence under the present law. Although there may be certain cases which are offensive to certain subscribers, I think that, on the whole, we are right to encourage the use of the telephone.
    Mr. Howell: Is the Postmaster-General aware that I have received a lot of correspondence on this matter? I have had one letter from a lady who had to go into a mental home. She was pestered by the Encyclopaedia Britannica four times, asking for her husband, who had recently died. I know of many other cases. One case was referred to me by an officer of the Worcestershire Constabulary, following the same sort of lines. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a very serious hardship which is extending throughout the country and it ought to be dealt with at once, whether or not he has powers? Will he look at it again?
    Mr. Bevins: I am willing to look at it again, but provided that this sort of call is made with a reasonable sense of decency and propriety I see nothing wrong with it.
    Mrs. Slater: Is the Postmaster-General aware that this is a growing practice now and that the Encyclopaedia Britannica actually rang me up and suggested that it had the support of the House? I know that it was only a girl who said that, but the fact remains that the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given will encourage firms like this to continue to say that they have the support of the House to do it. It is a bad way of trying to sell commodities to ring up people who are paying a considerable amount by way of rent for their telephones.
    Mr. Bevins: In a general sense, I should certainly be opposed to interference with telephone calls that are made for the purpose of selling goods. If it should turn out in certain cases that those calls are not made in a way that respects the feelings and susceptibilities of the subscriber, I am perfectly willing to do something.
    Mr. Howell: I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Central Scotland
    Mr. Manuelasked the Postmaster-General what special action he intends to take to reduce the waiting lists for telephone installations by providing more telephone facilities in the districts designated as growth areas in the White Paper on Central Scotland.
    Mr. Bevins: There are already plans for providing more exchange equipment and cables in these areas. The position is now being reviewed with a view to speeding up matters in accordance with the aims announced in the recent White Paper.
    Mr. Manuel: Can the Postmaster-General give us any idea just how soon they will catch up with the great lag in many areas of Scotland, especially in the bell indicated in the Question? Is he fully seized of the importance of his Department's initiative matching that of the local authorities, which are spending a great deal of money? Is he also aware of how necessary it is that when industrialists, executives and key workers come into an area they should have phone facilities provided in their homes and in the factories so that communications there will be as good as the best down here?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes, I am aware of all those considerations. I think that the hon. Gentleman may like to know that in those parts of Central Scotland, which are served by about fifty exchanges, there are at present about 50,000 subscribers and only about 500 people are waiting for telephones. We are speeding up our plans. If the hon. Gentleman would like to have detailed information as to what we are doing, I will gladly write to him.

    Motorways (Emergency Services)
    Mr. J. Wellsasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consult the Minister of Transport with a view to providing more emergency telephone services on motorways in remote country districts where there are no houses in sight.
    Mr. Bevins: It is entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to decide whether these telephones should be installed. They

    1231
    are, of course, different from public telephones, since they are connected only with police centres. My responsibility is to see that the service is provided when an order has been given.
    Mr. Wells: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for appearing to show willing, but can he, as the Question asks, liaise with his right hon. Friend, who appears to be unwilling to provide safety telephones on the Maidstone by-pass?
    Mr. Bevins: I am always willing to talk to my right hon. Friend, although strictly speaking the initiative should not be for me.

    Feltham
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Postmaster-General why the number of no pick-up calls is increasing on the Feltham exchange; and what steps are being taken to improve the position.
    Mr. Bevins: These difficulties have been caused mainly by a heavy load on the exchange. Extra lines to central London have now been provided and a special overhaul of the equipment at the Feltham exchange has just been completed. From now on the service should be very much better.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. Would he bear in mind that when a subscriber gets a no-pick-up call he does not report it to the engineers in the usual way? It is, therefore, obvious that the engineers must be told to keep a special watch and ensure that all the maintenance machinery and junctions are in working order so that no-pick-up calls do not occur?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes.

    Kirkcaldy
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the Kirkcaldy Telephone Exchange is in a growth area as designated in the White Paper on Central Scotland; and what steps he intends to take to speed up the provision of subscriber trunk dialling in this area.
    Mr. Mawby: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend expects to provide subscriber trunk dialling at Kirkcaldy early in 1966. We are sorry it is not possible to provide the facility earlier, but by that time
    1232
    90 per cent. of the subscribers in the Central Fife growth area should have S.T.D., compared with 70 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the areas of local calls were extended the price of a call from Kirkcaldy to Edinburgh was increased; and, in view of the fact that it will be 1966 before S.T.D. is introduced into the Kirkcaldy area, will the hon. Gentleman not consider reintroducing a special charge for calls between Kirkcaldy and Edinburgh which are of great importance to the commercial interests in the area?
    Mr. Mawby: I will have a look at that point.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, in conformity with paragraph 11 of the recent White Paper, the growth area in Central Scotland will have S.T.D. with the rest of the country completely by 1970?
    Mr. Mawby: It is our aim to carry out what is said in the White Paper, and this we shall certainly do.

    Subscriber Trunk Dialling (Scotland)
    Mr. Rossasked the Postmaster-General what proportion of telephone subscribers in Scotland enjoy subscriber trunk dialling facilities; and by how much that proportion will increase in the next three years.
    Mr. Bevins: Thirty-four per cent. of telephone subscribers in Scotland now have STD and, if all goes well, 70 per cent. are expected to have it by the end of 1966.
    Mr. Ross: Then that means that we shall have in the Highlands exactly the same percentage as Central Scotland has been promised?
    Mr. Bevins: It means that in Scotland as a whole 70 per cent. of subscribers will have subscriber trunk dialling by the end of 1966.
    Mr. Ross: But the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in answer to Question No. 17 he said that he hoped that the figure would be, I think, 90 per cent. in the growth areas, which will be getting preferential treatment

    1233
    over the next few years, which means that we shall have subscriber trunk dialling practically all over Scotland evenly spread at 70 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman must keep up to his promise.
    Mr. Bevins: That is true. By the end of 1970 the figure will be almost 100 per cent.

    Capital Development, Scotland
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Postmaster-General how much of the proposed £900 million to be invested in the inland telephone service in the next five years will be invested in Scotland.
    Mr. Mawby: On present estimates, based on the expected demand for telephone service, about 8 per cent. of the total will be invested in the telephone service in Scotland.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does that mean that the figure of 1½ per cent. per year over these years which the hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) last week will remain at that level? If so, it is an extremely unsatisfactory position for Scotland.
    Mr. Mawby: As I said, that is our basis on present estimates, but, obviously, if we can make any progress in this respect we will certainly do so.
    Miss Harvie Anderson: Can my hon. Friend say whether that figure includes cables? Is it not a fact that an increasing proportion of Post Office cables, excluding paper-cored insulated cables, is being made in Scotland, particularly in the Renfrew, East constituency, which is in a development district?
    Mr. Mawby: It is quite true that Scottish Cables Limited are making a considerable amount. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] I cannot give the exact amount without notice.
    Mr. Mason: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Scotland is in need of better treatment than this? Since 1955, Scotland has badly lagged behind in telephone developments compared with England and Wales, and particularly Northern Ireland. It has the lowest rate of growth in terms of telephone penetration and the engineering force has grown much more slowly than elsewhere.
    1234
    Will the hon. Gentleman therefore consider making a sales drive to stimulate demand in Scotland? If it is successful, Scotland may be able to take a bigger proportion of the planned investment.
    Mr. Mawby: We are running a sales drive throughout the country and not just in Scotland, but obviously the spread of the use of the telephone is tied up with a number of other things. Naturally, we want to get all these problems put right. When we do, greater use of the telephone will automatically follow.

    Kiosks
    Mr. Haymanasked the Postmaster-General to what extent he continues to pay regard to non-commercial considerations in the provision and siting of public telephone kiosks.
    Mr. Bevins: I have regard both to public amenity and to public finance. It is rare for a telephone kiosk to be refused where there is a clear need for one. At the same time there is a limit to what we can do in view of our current loss of more than £3 million a year on public kiosks.
    Mr. Hayman: Can the Minister indicate by what percentage the provision of public telephone kiosks is less now than it was, say, five years ago?
    Mr. Bevins: On the contrary, the provision of kiosks has not fallen but has increased, and we have about 75,000 kiosks throughout the country, which is very substantially greater than in any other European country.
    Mr. Blackburn: Will the Postmaster-General add to the 75,000 and make it 75,001 by putting one on the Wood head Road near where the former hon. Member for Rotherham was killed?
    Mr. Bevins: I will take note of that and see what I can do.

    Stockport and Marple
    Mr. H. Stewardasked the Postmaster-General whether he will now indicate an earlier completion date of the necessary work in the Stockport and Marple exchange telephone areas in order to connect the 205 applicants on the waiting list; what is the latest date on which a service will be provided for

    1235
    these people; and whether priority will be given to the 38 who have been waiting for more than two years.
    Mr. Mawby: The situation will be re-examined as part of the programme announced in the recent White Paper on the Inland Telephone Service, but I am sorry we cannot yet say what speeding up will be possible. Meanwhile, new cables are being laid and service is being given to the applicants now on the waiting list as plant becomes available. Many, including 24 of those waiting over two years, will have telephones within the next few weeks and the vast majority by the late summer of 1964.
    Mr. Steward: Is my hon. Friend aware that this new hope will be very welcome indeed in these two districts?

    Wallington
    Captain W. Elliotasked the Postmaster-General on what date he intends to begin work to convert the Wallington, Surrey, telephone exchange from manual to fully-automatic working.
    Mr. Mawby: Present plans are to start the new Wallington automatic exchange building during 1965, and have the equipment in operation by 1968, but we will improve on this if we can.
    Captain Elliot: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that that is not a very satisfactory Answer? Is he aware that this exchange serves a very populous area? Would he undertake to look at this project again with a view to advancing the date if he possibly can?
    Mr. Mawby: In this case there are some difficulties, because till space is available for a new building we cannot carry on with it, and the space can be provided only after another building has been built to replace the postmen's district office. So we are in a little difficulty here, but we are not dragging our feet. Certainly with regard to equipment at the present moment it is rather old, but we have made special maintenance arrangements, and I am pleased to say from our reports that the average time to answer has gone down quite considerably over the recent past as a result of the special attention we have given to this point.

  POST OFFICE

    Crown Office, Shotts
    Miss Herbisonasked the Postmaster-General where in Shotts he proposes to erect a Crown post office; and when work will begin on its construction.
    Mr. Mawby: The Crown post office will be erected in Shottskirk Road, Dykehead. Construction work should begin in April, 1964.
    Miss Herbison: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General ensure that it really does begin in April and that it is finished as quickly as possible, since this is a growth area and it would be a great help if there were adequate postal facilities in the area?
    Mr. Mawby: The hon. Lady raised this matter some time ago in a supplementary question. I promised that we would try to bring the scheme forward as much as possible. In fact, I have only been able to make marginal improvements, but I can assure her that the building will commence in April next year and we shall certainly seek to move forward as fast as possible.

    Repairs and Maintenance Work (North Lanarkshire)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Postmaster-General if he will set up a Post Office factory in North Lanarkshire, for the repair and maintenance of telephone and telecommunication instruments; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mawby: No, Sir. We are anxious to help the development areas as much as we can, but Post Office factories in their existing localities at London, Birmingham, South Wales and Edinburgh are expected to be adequate for all the foreseeable factory repair work. Minor repairs and maintenance work are usually done locally.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Edinburgh factory does not touch the bulk of telephone repair work? Does he realise that there are over 800,000 telephone users in Scotland, and that when telephones need major overhauls they have to go on a circuitous journey of 1,000 miles to Wales and back? Is it not in everybody's interest to site a factory which

    1237
    will give employment to this area in North Lanarkshire which is both a development and a growth area?
    Mr. Mawby: We have excess repair capacity so far as factory space and labour are concerned, but I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point.

    North East (Contracts)
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Postmaster-General what consideration he has given to the possibility of the Post Office itself producing in one or more of the vacant factories in the North East some of the telephone equipment which will be required for his recently announced expanded investment programme.
    Mr. Mawby: In general, the Post Office does not itself manufacture telephone equipment, but obtains this from the industry. My right hon. Friend believes that this policy, which is of long standing, is right. I should add that some of the factories engaged in manufacturing equipment for the Post Office are located in the North East.
    Mr. Fernyhough: When the Postmaster-General discussed his expansion programme with the firms who make the equipment—he informed me last week that he was keeping close liaison with them—did he ask them whether they would expand in the development areas? If he did, can he tell me what their answer was? If their answer was in the negative, can he say why, if the Government are really intent upon bringing employment to people who are at present unemployed in the development areas, the Government are inhibited and so doctrinaire about this policy?
    Mr. Mawby: All I can say is that some of the companies that carry out contracts for us have factories, for instance, in East Kilbride, Sunderland, Birtley, Hartlepool, Liverpool and Airdrie. They are some of the factories which are operated by contractors working on our behalf.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Could the hon. Gentleman give the percentage of the total amount of work which is done in the areas he has mentioned, so that we can see whether these expanding firms are making a contribution to providing
    1238
    additional employment in the development areas?
    Mr. Mawby: This information would be difficult for us to obtain, because the Post Office is an organisation which is asking for products to be manufactured. Naturally we give all assistance possible and special consideration to development areas, but I think it would be wrong for us to call upon each manufacturer to give us many more details which, in fact, are nothing to do with us.

    Office Facilities, Birmingham (Erdington)
    Mr. J. Silvermanasked the Postmaster-General if he will install a post office to serve the Wyrley Birch and Brookvale estates in Erdington, Birmingham.
    Mr. Mawby: I am looking into this matter and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Mr. Silverman: I am grateful to know that the hon. Gentleman is looking into this matter. Will he bear in mind that considerable inconvenience is experienced by the residents of these areas as they have to walk long distances to obtain post office facilities? May I express the hope that he will expedite his consideration?
    Mr. Mawby: Yes. I have already had a look at the problem, and I see the point of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I should like a little more time before making a firm decision.

    Satellite Communications
    Mr. Masonasked the Postmaster-General what part the Post Office is to play in the development of a universal satellite communications system.
    Mr. Bevins: The Post Office is undertaking further development of its highly successful satellite ground station at Goonhilly Down, which is generally regarded as the nearest approach so far to an operational station. The Post Office is also engaged in research and development work on the electronic equipment required for satellite communications, and it took part in the recently completed design study of satellites. The Post Office is also taking part in the international discussions now in progress.
    Mr. Mason: I am obliged for that reply. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the statement of the Assistant Postmaster-General on Friday, 6th December, when winding up the debate, was a statement of Government policy when he said that we are now playing a part in developing a universal satellite communications system? If that is so, could he explain what he means by "universal" and which countries are participating in this development of a universal system?
    Mr. Bevins: I think what my hon. Friend meant, quite rightly, was that by their very nature satellite communications are most economical when they are used on a world-wide basis. A single integrated world system is the right answer, provided the conditions we get are right.
    Mr. Mason: The right hon. Gentleman is evading the issue. The Assistant Postmaster-General said that we are now playing a part in developing a universal satellite communications system. Has a decision been taken by the Government? The Light hill Report was sent to the Government many weeks ago, and British industrialists are now eagerly awaiting a decision on the Report. That being so, the Government ought to be taking steps to enlighten the whole of British industry which is interested in this development on exactly what part this country will play in the development of satellite communications.
    Mr. Bevins: What my hon. Friend had in mind is that we are having discussions on several fronts at the present time, first of all with our opposite numbers in the postal and telecommunications organisations in France, Germany and Italy. We are having conversations at a European conference—in fact, several have been held already—and, of course, with the Americans themselves. I expect there will be an exchange of views between the European conference on satellites and the American authorities early in 1964.

    Bulk Supply Agreements
    Mr. Masonasked the Postmaster-General what proportion, in money terms, of the provision of trunks and junctions, subscribers' circuits, and local lines over the next five years will be
    1240
    categorised as telephone apparatus, and therefore subject to the bulk supply agreements.
    Mr. Bevins: Of the three classes of expenditure referred to in the hon. Member's Question only "subscribers' circuits" embody apparatus falling within the Telephone Apparatus Agreement. The best estimate I can make of expenditure on "subscribers' circuits" during the next five years is nearly £200 million, of which about a quarter will be on purchases under the Agreement.
    Mr. Mason: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly what contracts in terms of money will go to the eight firms which form the ring receiving 75 per cent. of the telephone apparatus agreements which are in operation for the next five years?
    Mr. Bevins: Certainly. The total expenditure under the three heads mentioned in the Question will amount to about £540 million, and of this I expect that, as near as makes no matter, £50 million will be spent on purchases under the bulk supply agreement for telephone apparatus.

    Scottish Development Districts (Tenders)
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Postmaster-General what plans he has for increasing purchases of telephonic equipment in Scotland in the next few years.
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Postmaster-General what steps he has taken to ensure that increased orders for telephone equipment are placed with firms in areas designated as growth points or development districts.
    Mr. Mawby: The Post Office already gives special treatment to these areas through the scheme under which tenders from firms in development districts are given a measure of encouragement. Our Contracts Department also takes great care, when tenders are sought, to ensure that all suitable firms in development districts are given the opportunity to tender. These measures will continue and my right hon. Friend hopes the firms will take increasing advantage of them.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those measures might be quite

    1241
    inadequate to deal with the position because the bulk of the factories or firms making such equipment is concentrated in the South? Does he recall that on an earlier occasion he advised me that only 1 per cent. of Post Office equipment was purchased in Scotland? Will his Department use its very great purchasing power—about £900 million over the next few years—to ensure that development in this respect takes place in the parts of the country where it is most needed?
    Mr. Mawby: That is what we are attempting to do, but I think it important to point out that we investigate each year about 1,000 new applications from firms, or trade associations acting on their behalf, to make certain that they know the sort of things that we require, which cover a vast range, and we show them how they can tender for these things. If we feel that an organisation cannot produce the main body of a contract, we break clown its size. We go to a great deal of trouble to ensure that people in these parts are able to tender. If they can show that they are capable of carrying out the order, we go to a great deal of trouble to make sure that they get it, or part of it.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman say what consultations take place between his Department and the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development, who has a great responsibility for development in these areas? Also, can he say whether the firms in Scotland which supply this equipment are working to capacity and whether his Department has given them an assurance that, if they expand, further orders from his Department will be forthcoming?
    Mr. Mawby: We have said to all these industries that if they can show that they can quote competitive prices we are prepared to give them special consideration, as we do to all industries in the development areas. From what I have said earlier HON. MEMBERS will know that we are doing everything we possibly can to make sure that special consideration is given to any industry in a development area, and that tends to attract other industries to the area as well.

    Office Facilities, East Ham
    Mr. Oramasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the inadequate post office facilities in the Vicarage Lane area of East Ham; and what proposals he has to remedy the situation.
    Mr. Mawby: I would agree that the distribution of post offices in this area is not as good as it might be. While I should not be justified in adding to their number, we will certainly consider altering their distribution as soon as a suitable opportunity occurs.
    Mr. Oram: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while I appreciate the consideration which he has already given to the question, the conditions and circumstances in the area are such as to warrant post office facilities in its own right and that it should not depend upon the fate of offices in neighbouring areas? Will the hon. Gentleman look into this aspect of the matter again?
    Mr. Mawby: Yes. As the hon. Member knows, I have paid particular attention to the problem, and I had hoped at one point that we had found a suitable way out. I will certainly look at the matter again and see whether we cannot find a way round it.

    Postal Charges (Books)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Postmaster-General what reports he has received about the effect of increased book postage charges on the export of British books to foreign countries.
    Mr. Mawby: I understand that in certain countries the selling price of British books has been raised following the increase in charges for printed papers sent overseas by surface mail; but we have no information about the effect of this on the number of British books exported. In any case, for the reasons given in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) on 18th November, my right hon. Friend does not see how he could have allowed the old rates, with the measure of subsidy which they involved, to continue.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that book exports are important not only in terms of the currency which they themselves earn, but also because they

    1243
    convey British ideas and often lead to purchases of equipment and other useful exports? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these increased charges appear to make British books uncompetitive compared with books from other countries? Will not he look at this matter again?
    Mr. Mawby: Yes, Sir. One of the major difficulties that we face is that if we are to carry out some of the social benefits that people expect from the G.P.O., we must have at least one department that is making a profit. Before 1st July, the reduced rate printed paper service was losing money at the rate of £1·7 million a year. Even with the increase in rates, the service is still running at a loss of about £½ million a year. The pre-1st July loss on overseas printed paper services as a whole was of the order of £3 million and it is still running at nearly half that amount. That is our difficulty. I am, however, seized of the point made by the hon. Member.

    Christmas Postal Work (Schoolchildren)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Postmaster-General which local post offices in Scotland have approached the local education authority to obtain the release of children from school to assist in Christmas postal work.
    Mr. Mawby: Ten head postmasters in Scotland have found it necessary to obtain the agreement of the local education authority and to approach schools about the release of children from school to assist in Christmas postal work. These are: Ardrossan, Dunbar, Edinburgh, Fort William, Galashiels, Glasgow, Hawick, Inverness, Oban, Paisley.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General really saying that in a place like Glasgow—and, perhaps, in Ardrossan and other places—there are not people unemployed who would like to have this kind of employment? Is not this quite wrong on grounds both of educational principle and of giving employment to those who need it most?
    Mr. Mawby: First, we have to satisfy the authorities that no alternative suitable labour is available; then, we have to get the permission of the parents and, obviously, of the children themselves.
    1244
    While I regret that we should have to keep children, even in this case, where they are over 16 years of age, away from school, it is one of those things that we do only when no suitable alternative labour is available.
    Mr. Ross: Has the Minister consulted the Ministry of Labour in these areas?
    Mr. Mawby: Yes, we are always in close contact with the Ministry of Labour.
    Mr. Ross: I did not ask that. I asked whether the Minister had specifically consulted the Ministry of Labour concerning employment possibilities of people who are unemployed in these areas at this particular time. Has he done this?
    Mr. Mawby: There has been no special consultation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—with the Ministry of Labour. [Interruption.] I will certainly bear this in mind.
    Mr. Vane: Are the opportunities for other areas to share in this work? I am sure that my children would like to play a part.
    Miss Herbison: Since, in answer to a supplementary question, the Minister has stated that there was no real consultation with the Ministry of Labour, how can he tell the House that the Post Office had to satisfy itself that there was no suitable labour before it went to the schools and asked for young people to deliver the mail? Surely, those two statements are completely contradictory. If the family of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) wish to take part in this work, I am sure that nobody would stop them, but is the Minister aware that whether it is potatoes or the Post Office, we very often find that it is the children from the junior secondary schools who do these jobs?
    Mr. Mawby: Let me make this quite clear. I said in answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question that we are in consultation with the Ministry of Labour, and this will normally happen at the level required. Then he pressed me on the point, and I did say that, so far as I knew, we did not consult the Minister at his level on this particular matter at this particular point in time. That does not mean to say that

    1245
    we do not satisfy ourselves through the local employment authorities that in fact labour is not available.

    Mail Bag Robberies
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Postmaster-General on how many occasions since September thefts have taken place of moneys in transit by mail.
    Mr. Bevins: In the period 1st October to 16th December, 33 mail bags containing registered letters were reported missing. Only one of these bags, that despatched on 9th October, contained bankers' packets. The value of these bankers' packets was £15,250.
    Mr. Donnelly: What is the right hon. Gentleman's normal procedure for making public such thefts, because it raises a great question of confidence in the Post Office security services?
    Mr. Bevins: I think that that probably arises more appropriately on the next two Questions.
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Postmaster-General why he requested the Pembroke shire Constabulary not to take action in the case of the theft of £15,000 from the regular Haverford west to London mail train.
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Postmaster-General why no public statement was made concerning the £15,000 mail robbery which took place in South Wales during October last; whether the serial numbers of the missing notes are known; and whether police assistance has been sought to solve the case.
    Mr. Bevins: The case referred to concerns the loss of one mail bag despatched from Haverford west Post Office to the Carmarthen to Bristol Travelling Post Office on 9th October. The contents of the bag included four bankers packets containing £15,250. The enquiries that have been made, in full collaboration with the Police, including the Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire and British Transport Police, have so far failed to establish where the theft occurred. It was not considered in the public interest to issue a statement and accordingly the Pembrokeshire Police were asked not to give publicity to the loss. The numbers of some of the missing bank notes were known and
    1246
    these were given to the Police for circulation.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that my information is that the Pembrokeshire Constabulary were not informed of this theft until two days had elapsed since the money was missing? Is he further aware that my information is that the Pembrokeshire Police were asked to take no action on this matter and to keep the matter secret? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that on top of this, despite the statement to the contrary of his Department reported in the Press in the last day, one of the local newspapers did telephone the local head postmaster shortly after hearing the rumour and was given a categorical denial that the theft had ever taken place?
    Mr. Bevins: If I may answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question first, notably, is it not true that the Pembrokeshire Police were asked to do nothing about it, I want to say absolutely flatly that this is wholly without foundation. It is perfectly true that the Pembrokeshire Constabulary were not told for a matter of 48 hours, because it had not been established, within an earlier period than that, whether the mail bags had simply gone astray or whether they had been stolen, but any suggestion that we have not collaborated with the police authorities is entirely false.
    Mr. G. Thomas: On the question of security, is it not a fact that there were absolutely no security steps taken when this money was in transit from Haverford west to Carmarthen, and that since the robbery steps are being taken? Is it not also a fact that an official of the right hon. Gentleman's Department has said that the reason why this robbery was not made public was because nobody asked them? Does the Minister wish to confirm that we have to inquire every day whether there has been a robbery? Is: he not aware that if it were not for the B.B.C. in Wales this story would never have come to light? Have we to depend on journalists—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] This is a very important issue. Have we to depend on journalists to reveal to us that robberies have taken place today?
    Mr. Bevins: I want to repudiate quite flatly, in dealing with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, that no security precautions were taken on this particular train. As regards publicity, I think the whole House will agree that when a robbery occurs the main thing is to detect the criminals and to recover the money, and the Post Office has to decide, case by case, according to circumstances, whether the issue of a public statement would either promote that end or tend to defeat it. Here, my investigation branch took the view, I believe rightly, that publicity would have hindered the detective operations at work.
    Mr. Mason: Is not all this rather deplorable? Do I understand from the Postmaster-General that his Department was specifically responsible for stifling public release of the news of this robbery? Secondly, how general is this policy? The right hon. Gentleman says he does it case by case. Would he indicate how many cases have happened without our knowledge? Thirdly, is it not a fact that the police depend a great deal upon the assistance of the public? So if there had been a public release of the news there would have been a far better chance, probably—a quicker chance—to catch the criminals in this case.
    Mr. Bevins: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "stifling" publicity, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that if the Post Office were to give publicity to every one of these cases which occur the newspapers would probably be taking far too much material from the Post Office—
    HON. MEMBERS: Oh.
    Mr. W. Hamilton: Not every day.
    Mr. Bevins: —but I do say with respect to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that the investigation branch of the Post Office, who are experts in these matters, are probably better judges of the value of publicity than they are.
    Mr. Mason: Could I ask the right hon. Gentleman, have the criminals in this case been caught? If this complacent attitude of the Postmaster-General continues, is he not aware that soon the
    1248
    public will lose all faith in the Post Office services?
    HON. MEMBERS: Nonsense.
    Mr. Bevins: So far the criminals have not been apprehended, but I am hopeful that they will be, and I am hopeful, too, that their apprehension will be promoted and not hindered by the action which the Post Office has taken.
    Sir C. Osborne: Apart from the publicity issue, is my right hon. Friend satisfied about the security side, remembering that about £250,000 was lost in the centre of London about a year ago and that no one has been apprehended for that? What with that theft and now this, and the August mail train robbery, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the security precautions are as good as they ought to be in his Department?
    Mr. Bevins: I have no exact figure, but I should say that during the four years I have been the Post Office Minister the expenditure on precautions both in Crown post offices and in respect of money in transit has been roughly trebled.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, notwithstanding his claim that there was a security guard on this train, nobody travelled in this mail van with this money, and that this particular money was marked specially as a parcel of high value? Is he aware that there were keys to the mail van all the way up the line and that post offices were entitled to put mailbags in that van? How can he say with confidence that Post Office security services are proficient in conditions of that nature?
    Mr. Bevins: I am certainly not going to comment on detailed points given by the hon. Member. It would be inimical to the best interests of the Post Office if I divulged what our precautions are.
    Mr. Callaghan: Could the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the time it took to establish that the theft had taken place? Did it really take 48 hours for the Post Office to be sure they had not got the bags in their possession?
    Mr. Bevins: I have said quite freely to the House that the Pembrokeshire Police were not informed for 48 hours—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] That

    1249
    was so because these mail bags so often are misdirected. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I would ask the House to keep some sense of proportion about this. When one considers the millions and millions of mailbags that are in transit throughout the country it is inevitable that now and again the odd mailbag will be misdirected, and it is important that we should check on that before we start bringing the police on to the scene.
    Mr. G. Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I propose to raise the matter—
    Mr. F. Harris: They are very honest in Wales.
    Mr. Thomas: —the English probably took it—on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

MAJOR P. R. CORY, R.A.S.C.
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. FRANK ALLAUN: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the outcome of his inquiry into Major Cory's court-martial; and what proposals he has for remedying procedure to give prisoners a right to bail pending appeal against court-martial decisions.
Mr. DENZIL FREETH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will now publish the conclusions of the review he has made of the issues arising from the court-martial of Major Cory, a constituent of the hon. Member for Basingstoke.
The Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now answer Questions Nos. 56 and 61 together.
Hon. Members will now have had an opportunity of reading the statement on the case of Major Cory.
The House considered whether bail should be granted on Crown Appeal to the House of Lords from the Courts-Martial Appeal Court in the debate on the Courts-Martial Appeal Act, 1951, and doubts as to its appropriateness were expressed on both sides of the House.
1250
But to cater for civilians and such very exceptional cases as where a soldier was about to leave the Army this very limited provision was allowed to stand.
Subsequently, in 1960, the House, in the Administration of Justice Act, 1960, confined the grant of bail by the Courts-Martial Appeal Court to certain civilians.
On our view of this case as set out in paragraph 37 of the statement, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I do not consider that a need for the provision of bail has been revealed by this case.
Mr. Allaun: While thanking the Minister for his courtesy in giving Hon. Members a chance to study his statement, may I ask whether it is not a travesty of justice that it took 17 months before Major Cory's case came to appeal, by which time he had served his sentence? Are there not similar cases? Why should not a Service man have the same right as a civilian to bail pending appeal? What are the difficulties which the Minister refers to in his statement? Surely they do not outweigh the great injustice which has been done. If legislation is needed, why not have it?
Mr. Ramsden: This case, as the report states, involved an exceptional combination of circumstances. I do not believe that this combination of circumstances, exceptional and regrettable as it was, vitiates the present system, which has been debated and confirmed by the House. On both sides of the House doubt has been expressed about the appropriateness of bail in Service conditions. As I have told the hon. Member, legislation would be required to remedy the matter.
Mr. Freeth: While thanking my right hon. Friend for having put a statement of the results of the review in yesterday's HANSARD, may I ask, first, whether he is not aware that the method of undertaking that review was wholly unsatisfactory in that neither my constituent, nor his legal advisers in Kenya, nor his legal advisers in London, were permitted to give any further evidence to either my right hon. Friend or the Lord Chancellor?
Secondly, is my right hon. Friend not aware that my constituent has had his military career ruined through an act of gross injustice, that he has had to

1251
incur heavy legal debts over the last three years, that he has served six months' imprisonment and two months' close detention, all for a crime of which he has been found not guilty, and that now the War Office is suggesting awarding him compensation equivalent only to what he would get if he went out under a "golden bowler" scheme, and without any compensation whatever for the mental anguish, for the imprisonment, for the gross injustice and for the ruining of his career?
Mr. Ramsden: I cannot accept what my hon. Friend has said about the basis for the compensation. The basis for the compensation was in consideration of the findings of the Courts-Martial Appeal Court.
With regard to my hon. Friend's first point, on the question of representations by Major Cory's solicitors in the course of the determination of the compensation, the point at issue was not a legal one such as could be argued between the parties, but the determination of a discretionery ex gratia payment on which I was seeking independent advice.
Mr. J. Morris: Would the right hon. Gentleman now agree that because of the colossal blunders in this case his Department comes out in a very bad light indeed? With regard to the preparation of the prosecution, is he satisfied that the proper legal staff was available to prepare the case? Also, is it not true that the only available professionally qualified accountant in the whole of the command was a National Service corporal? Will the right hon. Gentleman now reconsider the recommendation of the eighth Report of the Estimates Committee that there should be qualified staff available, a recommendation which was rejected by the then Secretary of State in the debate on 18th December, 1962?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman examine the procedure of the Judge Advocate General in giving advice to the Army Council on conditions? In view of the advice given, is it not astonishing that at that stage it was not discovered that something was radically wrong. Will he publish the advice?
Lastly, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the trial had to last 43 days
1252
and why no shorthand writers were available or used? Having regard to the unsatisfactory summing up and the comments of the Court of Appeal, what assurance can we have that there will be no repetition of this sort of thing in the future?
Mr. Ramsden: Matters concerning the Judge Advocate General's Department are for my noble and learned Friend and not for me. The hon. Gentleman referred to the conduct of the prosecution. I think it fair to point out to the House that the Courts-Martial Appeal Court said that the prosecution was conducted with skill and fairness. I have nowhere seen any imputation on the quality of the work by Corporal Sleep, whether in the preparation of the accounts or in his evidence.
The hon. Gentleman said that there were no shorthand writers available. Shorthand writers were available, but the pace of the trial was, in part, determined by the meticulousness of the Judge Advocate, who made a full note in his own hand of the proceedings, which enabled them to be available to him at an earlier stage than a transcript would have been, but this, naturally, contributed to the increased length of the trial.
Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are most grateful to him for the candour of his statement published in yesterday's HANSARD, and for having taken steps to make it available before Questions came to be answered today?
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a really astonishing tale of muddle in which a very large, although probably inadequate, sum of public money has been wasted? Is he doing anything about the Judge Advocate at this trial, who seems to have put up a terrible performance?
Thirdly, is the right hon. Gentleman doing anything about the Judge Advocate's Department here with his noble and learned Friend? After all, the Courts-Martial Appeal Court is a back stop, and, if one has a look at the proceedings, this was a terribly loose ball ever to have been allowed to get anywhere near a back stop.
Mr. Ramsden: I understand that the Judge Advocate concerned has since been

1253
seriously ill and, on the advice of his doctors, has informed my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor that he will not be able to sit again as Judge Advocate and proposes to seek transfer to other duties when he has fully recovered his health. I will look into the other points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Grimond: Could the right hon. Gentleman be more specific on one point? Is it true, as alleged by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Freeth), that in the compensation there is no element for the distress or damage suffered by this officer?
Mr. Ramsden: No, Sir.
Hon. Members: What does that mean?
Mr. Ramsden: It is not true that there is no element for the distress suffered and the other circumstances mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Freeth).
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In view of the distressing things that have been discovered as a result of the case, will my right hon. Friend undertake to do two things? First, will he see that a full review is carried out of the rules of procedure in so far as they concern questions of how the evidence is recorded in courts-martial?
Secondly, will he also do his best to clarify in the public mind the position of the Judge Advocate General? Is it not correct to say that he is not an Army officer at all in the true sense of the word, but that the word "General", which is attached to the title, as it so often is, is most misleading in the public mind?
Mr. Ramsden: It is true that responsibility for this case lies in two places—with the War Office and with the Judge Advocate General's Department. As to what we shall do to prevent this kind of thing happening again, we shall set out in greater detail the regulations covering the responsibilities of commanding officers and their superior headquarters in cases where commanding officers themselves choose to operate non-public funds instead of delegating the day-to-day administration to subordinates, and we shall draw attention to the dangers which may
1254
come with the use of long charge sheets and to the desirability of restricting the issues which are to be tried by court-martial. I am prepared to discuss with my noble and learned Friend shortening the period of 60 days allowed for the submission of an appeal to the Army Council.
Mr. Freeth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. Friend's reply in relation to his and the Official Referee's treatment of my constituent, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

LIBRARY (DEPOSIT OF DOCUMENTS)
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has a point of order which I understand he wishes to raise with me.
Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Monday, when I was critical of the Attorney-General, I notified the House that I would put the transcript in the Library so that right hon. and HON. MEMBERS would have the opportunity of reading his defence and his evidence in full. I should myself have thought it most unfair to say what I did say about him unless I had been in a position to make the whole of his defence available to right hon. and Hon. Members.
I duly placed the transcript in the Library and I believe that some HON. MEMBERS have had the opportunity of reading it. But, just before Question Time today, I was informed that it had been removed by your order, Sir. In my submission, in circumstances such as this, the Library ought to be able to be a depository where Hon. Members can read documents which may be, and undoubtedly are in the circumstances, of interest to them, and it is extremely unfair on the Attorney-General that his defence should no longer be available for Hon. Members to read.
Mr. Speaker: I am not seeking to reprove the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—and I know that he will not think that I am doing so—when I say that I regret that,

1255
before making the speech in which he announced that he proposed to deposit some documents in the Library, he did not consult me. His failure to do so gave us no opportunity to warn him that to do so would involve a direct departure from our practice and rules in the matter and, therefore, in directing, as I did, that when he put the documents in the Library they must be sent back to him—I do not know whether they have reached him yet, but they are on the way—I was following strictly the practice and precedents set by my predecessors.
If the House wants to alter this practice, that is a different matter. My only reason for having the document returned to the hon. and learned Member was the practice of the House, and I believe that there is very good reason for maintaining that practice.
Mr. Paget: I do not know whether you can give me any advice, Mr. Speaker. I should have thought that, in all the circumstances, it was highly desirable that Hon. Members who wanted to see the Attorney-General's defence should have the opportunity of doing so. If I cannot put it in the Library, is there any other convenient place in the House?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot undertake a geographical survey of the House, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman will give me time I will consider what method might be adopted in the circumstances. I am, frankly, not anxious, without the direction of the House, to break the practice of the House, which I believe to be useful.
Mr. Gordon Walker: Would it be proper for the Attorney-General himself to place this transcript, or arrange for it to be placed, in the Library, Sir?
Mr. Speaker: I would like time to consider that. This is not Government business. I do not think that any Ministerial responsibility attaches to the proceedings in question. I believe that we are dealing, in fact, with an unofficial document. That is my present opinion, but I would like time for further consideration.
Mr. Gordon Walker: Transcripts of trials have been placed from time to
1256
time in the Library, although I do not know by what means.
Mr. Speaker: That is a slightly different case. There would be certain Ministerial responsibility in some sense, vesting in the Lord Chancellor. The case of these documents is rather different.
Mr. Paget: Since the Attorney-General is a Minister of the Crown, perhaps he would like to lay documents, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: I think that that is rather like the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker).
Mr. Doughty: Is it not most unusual and improper to try to obtain publicity for a private inquiry by a professional body dealing with a professional man by putting such a document in a place where it can be read?
Mr. Speaker: That cannot be a matter for me. I am concerned only with the practice of the House.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE (WHITE PAPER)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Reginald Maudling): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on public expenditure.
In the debate on the Address I gave some figures illustrating the prospective growth of public expenditure on the basis of the Government's policies and programmes, and I undertook to consider amplifying them in a White Paper. This I have now done, and a White Paper on Public Expenditure in 1963–64 and 1967–68 will be available in the Vote Office at 4 p.m. today.
The White Paper covers, in addition to central Government expenditure, local government capital and current expenditure, the gross outgoings of National Insurance funds and investment expenditure by nationalised industries and public corporations.
The figures are grouped under main headings. They compare an estimate for 1963–64 with an approximate calculation of the prospective figures for

1257
1967–68 at constant prices and on the basis of present policies. They will be seen to fall in line with the 4 per cent. economic growth target accepted by the Government and the other members of the National Economic Development Council.
Mr. Callaghan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for joining the ranks of the long-range forecasters. Will he tell us the total increase proposed for 1967–68 as compared with 1963–64? Do these forecasts include items such as defence, agricultural subsidies and, for example, part of the cost of implementing the Robbins Report? Can we identify what items of Government expenditure are included or excluded by looking at the figures?
As the right hon. Gentleman correctly says, these increases are possible on the basis of a 4 per cent. growth rate. What changes are proposed in Government policy in view of the fact that we have had a 4 per cent. growth rate for only four out of the last twelve years?
Mr. Maudling: The figures cover defence as a specific heading, and agricultural subsidies are also dealt with. The effects of the Robbins and Newsom Reports are also included. The total is certainly included and I hope that in due course the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will give us his total, too. He need not be too gloomy about the 4 per cent. growth rate.
Mr. Callaghan: As it is the key figure, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is now the total for 1968?
Mr. Maudling: It would be a mistake to give any figures from the White Paper until all are available, but the hon. Gentleman will find that total expenditure between 1963–64 and 1967–68 advances by roughly 4 per cent. per annum in real terms.
Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: While thanking my right hon. Friend for what will obviously be most desirable Christmas reading, may I ask him whether his figures include estimates of the gross national product, so that even the most ignorant among us can judge what proportion of the gross national income is to be spent by Her Majesty's Government in future years?
Mr. Madling: In the White Paper we have given figures, as a percentage of the gross national product, of what has been taken by public expenditure in recent years. What we are giving for the future is our calculation of the increase in public expenditure of all kinds, in real terms, and if the gross national product expands by the 4 per cent. target which we have accepted, the proportion will, of course, remain roughly the same. There is a footnote on one page to cover this.
Mr. Grimond: Is there any indication in the White Paper of what might be the effect of the already agreed increases in incomes, salaries, wages, and so on?
Mr. Maulding: No, Sir. The White Paper does not cover that. But I would say that the most prominent threat to the realisation of these programmes, to which we all attach importance, is the rate at which incomes are expanding at the moment.
Sir G. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will give great satisfaction to members of the Estimate Committee, whose recommendations of some years ago are now being carried out?
Mr. Maulding: I am always happy to give satisfaction to my hon. Friends and to Hon. Members from both sides of the House who serve on the Estimates Committee.
Dr. Bray: To what extent are these estimates being taken into consideration by Departments in the preparation of their Estimates for next year? Will the right hon. Gentleman provide the House with an early opportunity to debate the White Paper?
Mr. Maudling: The question of a debate is for my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. The figures are estimates for 1963–64, but one clearly cannot give estimates in the same concrete form for 1967–68. The latter figures are calculations which are the best we can make on our current knowledge of the amount of real resources needed to meet these programmes.
Sir C. Osborne: Since these vast increases of expenditure are certain and definite and a 4 per cent. increase in

1259
national productivity is uncertain, unknown and not definite, can my right hon. Friend assure us that he has reasonable evidence that this great increase in expenditure will not result in further inflation?
Mr. Maudling: I have no doubt that it is within the capacity of our economy to achieve the 4 per cent. growth rate at which we are aiming, but this depends not on the Government alone, but on Government, management and unions together. Unless there is a combined effort towards this mutual objective, we shall not succeed.
Mr. H. Wilson: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has said what can be achieved over the next three or four years in Government expenditure, given a 4 per cent. growth rate—and the whole House welcomes the statement—and as presumably the Government accepted the idea of a 4 per cent. growth rate quite a time ago, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he and his predecessors could not have said two years ago that these programmes could have been started then?
Mr. Maudling: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to observe the progress towards these programmes which has been made during the last two years.
Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only have we observed what has been done in 1963, but that we forecast that after three years of stagnation there would be a boom in 1963? Would he like to turn up the HANSARD in which we made this forecast? Will he now tell us why it has taken so long to get these very necessary and desirable programmes and why the Government should not have aimed at a 4 per cent. growth rate in earlier years, either in this or in the two previous Parliaments?
Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman's previous speeches always make agreeable and often profitable reading, but I have observed that on more than one occasion recently he has himself announced targets which we have already achieved.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  RATING (INTERIM RELIEF) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.55 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir K. Joseph): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The House will be relieved that on this occasion I am presenting a very short Bill. This, as its Title proclaims, is strictly an interim Measure. It is intended to bring some relief to areas and individuals hard hit by revaluation during the time while the wider issues involved in the whole of rating are being considered. A revaluation which brought the assessment of house property in one jump from a 1939, or a pre-war, valuation up to current 1963 values inevitably meant big changes in assessments for individual householders. However, the House will remember that at the same time as this happened the Government legislated to remove the concession which throughout this period had been available to industry.
  As a result of these simultaneous movements, householders, as a group, did not come out of revaluation badly. Householders' share of the total expenditure falling on rates and rate-deficiency grants combined is virtually the same as it was before revaluation. However, as HON. MEMBERS will be quick to tell me, averages can conceal a great deal of variation. Some individual householders have found themselves bearing a larger share of the local rate burden, while others have found themselves bearing a smaller share.
  As a result of what must appear to be an apparently haphazard movement of the share of the burden, there has been added force to the widespread charge that the rating system is at present unfair. It is said, and said widely, that rates cause hardship to many people of limited means, and the fear that this hardship will increase grows as people become aware of the rising trend—the inevitably rising trend in view of the

  1261
  policies of both sides of the House—of local government expenditure. It is commonly feared that under the present system local government expenditure will bear increasingly hardly on those least able to bear the burden.
  As a result of these fears, there have been a number of suggestions for giving local government new sources of revenue. There have been only too many suggestions to increase assistance from the taxpayer. There have been a number of proposals to transfer part of the costs of local government from the ratepayer to the Exchequer. All these suggestions and these fears are of prime importance to the citizen himself and to local and central government. In the light of the revaluations, the first step was clearly to find out the precise facts.
  We know—and as part of the argument, but only as part, I must again refer to averages—that the average householder in England and Wales will be paying rather more than £30 a year this year, which is about 11s. 6d. a week, in rates. We know that at one extreme there are 13 rating areas where the average householder pays less than £13 a year, about 5s. a week, and at the other extreme there are four rating areas where the average householder pays more than £78 a year, just more than 30s. a week. All those four areas are in the County of London. We know very little about what lies behind the averages and still less about the means of those who are called upon to pay; the circumstances in which the people live who are called on to bear these rising burdens.
  I wish to emphasise that, with the greatest good will in the world, it would have been absolutely impossible to have investigated before revaluation the effects of revaluation on all the 15 million householders involved. Not even a battery of computers could have tackled the large range of variables with which we were confronted. It was not known until the last days before the new rate call was made what the rate call in each area would be. That was only one of the variables. It was not known until that time what the precept made on district councils would be, and it was not known until a few months before what the new valuation assessment would be. Nor was it known
  1262
  until then what the general grant would be.
  The combination of all these variables, and the compressed timetable which was necessarily involved, made it absolutely impossible to anticipate the results. We come to the position, therefore, that there have been a number of complaints, and that there is no doubt that there has been a degree of hardship in a number of cases; that we know the averages but that we do not know the facts behind those averages. As a result of all this, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I last May appointed a committee, under Professor Allen,
  "to assess the impact of rates on householders in different income groups in different parts of Great Britain, with special regard to any circumstances likely to give rise to hardship."
  The object was to get at the facts. The Government also responded to the widespread wish that the method of sharing the rising cost of local government expenditure between the ratepayer and the taxpayer should be looked at afresh. The Government have decided, therefore, to put in hand next year a comprehensive review of the financial relationship between central and local government and of the rating system. This decision was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary some months ago.
  I see from the expression on the face of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) that he is preparing to make yet another speech of the selective type in which he will, no doubt, pick out some of the suggestions that have been made by Hon. Members opposite in recent debates and taunt me and the Government with them. It is easy enough to pick some suggestions out of the battery of those that have been made and say that the Government are now adopting them. I would remind the House that in this case—and I do not want to make a polemical speech—the Government have had the courage to bring the basis of valuation up to date.
  This has needed a considerable amount of determination and I am sure that the House will agree that this was the right thing to have done. However, it is the Government's desire to mitigate and cushion any resultant hardship and to reconsider the situation in the light

  1263
  of the facts which have emerged. AH that the Opposition have been able to do all along is to urge an inquiry while, at the same time, flinching from the idea of bringing valuation up to date.
  Mr. J. T. Price: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of our deliberations on the Rating and Valuation Bill? I was a member of the Standing Committee which considered that Measure upstairs for several months. I can assure the Minister that all the results that have now flowed forth were laid at the feet of the Government during our debates at that time. The Government were warned then of what would happen. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Home Secretary, but who was then in charge of the Bill, promised to take special steps to meet hardship where there was an increase in rates of over 30 per cent. All this is on the record and the right hon. Gentleman can read it in the Official Report.
  Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member entitled to make a speech in the middle of a speech being made by my right hon. Friend, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member was coming to the point when the use of an intervention was being abused.
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) voted against the Bill which has led to revaluation, because he and his hon. Friends did not have the courage to modernise this country in rates, as in anything else.
  In the review which the Government are undertaking and which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, the facts produced by the Allen Committee will be highly relevant, but in the view of the Government it would not be right to delay all action until these facts and the results of the review become available. In view of the hardship that has been caused in some cases by exceptional rate increases resulting from revaluation, we do not believe that it would be right to wait until this comprehensive review is completed. The review is bound to take time.
  1264
  The Allen Committee, which has shown the greatest energy has had to mount the necessary field survey and will need time to digest the results of its investigations. The Committee will not be reporting before the early summer at the earliest, and then time will be needed for the review to be completed, after which further time will be needed for legislation to be prepared—if legislation is thought to be necessary.
  It must, therefore, be a considerable time before any general result will be achieved by the combination of the Allen Committee and the Government's review. Since the Government admit that there is hardship in some cases, a delay of action until the review has been completed would not be right. On the other hand, I hope that HON. MEMBERS will agree that since we have set up the Allen Committee to establish the facts of hardship, it would be folly for us now to try to define hardship itself. We must devise a Measure which will bring relief without prejudging the results of the Allen Committee and the review. That is why the Bill is an interim Measure only.
  The Bill does two things. First, it provides for grants to rating authorities based on the proportion of persons over 65 years of age in the local population. Secondly, it empowers local authorities to remit, in cases of hardship, the exceptional increases in domestic rate bills caused by revaluation, and it provides extra grants to enable them to do so. Unfortunately, it is not possible for the Government to direct general grant to individuals who are in difficulty. We must reach this objective in two stages: first, do what we can to direct grant to those areas which are likely to contain the majority of people who find themselves in difficulty; and, secondly, leave it to the local authority to use its own discretion to help those who are suffering hardship.
  Mr. John Morris: Would the Minister not agree that having to make decisions in this matter is placing a very heavy burden on local authorities?
  Sir K. Joseph: I shall come to that point.
  In deciding on the grant, I have chosen a grant based in the proportion of old

  1265
  people, for it seems to the Government that the areas in which rating increases have been the severest have generally been those with a high proportion of elderly living in them. Such areas come readily to mind. They tend most frequently to be the seaside towns and other areas to which people have retired; areas in which there is not a great deal of industry to share the rising local government expenditure. This limits the number of areas from which the majority of complaints have been coming, but judging from my correspondence, it is in such areas that cases of hardship are most likely to arise.
  Several Hon. Members rose
  Sir K. Joseph: HON. MEMBERS opposite must face the fact that they have been clamouring for the Government to do something to relieve hardship. All I am saying is that I must judge from my postbag where the hardship is. The object of the Bill is to deal, on an interim basis, with hardship.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton (Brixton): Can the Minister explain why all the hardship—in the South Coast areas and health resorts—has been taking place in areas which are represented by Tory HON. MEMBERS? Does this not seem odd?
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member is seeking to prejudge the Allen Committee's Report. We must wait for that Committee to define hardship. From the evidence reaching me I can say that the Bill will enable the local authorities concerned—and they will not be only in the areas of the South Coast or in pleasure resorts—to have discretionary powers to deal with hardship.
  The form of grant chosen ensures that of the available money more will go to the areas with most old people. As regards relief for the individual, the Bill empowers rating authorities to remit in cases of hardship what I might call the extraordinary increase in rate bills due to revaluation. This is defined in the Bill as the difference between the 1962–63 rates—that is the rates in the last pre-revaluation year—increased by 25 per cent., with a minimum of £5 increase—and the rates in the next year, 1964–65, which is the next rating year after the passage of the Bill.
  1266
  The amount remitted in any one year may not exceed the difference between these two figures, and there can be no remission unless there has been an increase of at least 25 per cent. over the two years. These limitations are intended, as I say, to isolate the extraordinary increases falling on individual householders due to revaluation.
  The House will see that the Bill does not seek to define hardship, but leaves it to the local authorities to assess in the light of the resources and needs of the household concerned. I recognise that this may mean that householders in similar circumstances in different areas may fare differently, but until the Allen Committee has done its job it seems to me that it would be premature to seek to define hardship or the circumstances that give rise to it. I shall, however, try to give some guidance for the interim period in what I shall say in a moment.
  Some will argue that relief from rates should be granted automatically—for instance, to old people; others, that relief should be linked with income—presumably with allowances for commitments of different sorts. These matters we shall have to study when the Allen Committee's Report is available; in the meantime, I am sure that we can rely on the sympathy and good sense of local authorities.
  Doubts have been expressed about the ability of local authorities to decide when relief is justified—and here I come to the point put to me by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. J. Morris). They will certainly have an invidious task, but it is one that their associations have accepted as inevitable in a Measure of this interim nature. Nor should it be supposed that local authorities are complete novices in this field. Rating authorities are also housing authorities and, as such, have a considerable experience in operating rent rebate schemes admittedly only for local authority houses.
  I do not draw a complete analogy. True, in the operation of rent rebate schemes, they can rely on the regular contacts between rent collectors and local authority tenants, whereas in the consideration of rate rebates they will have to deal with a far wider section of society that local authority tenants alone. They will have to deal also with

  1267
  private tenants, owner-occupiers and private landlords—but the analogy still has some force.
  I hope, at any rate, that in handling this discretion on rates that has been given them as an interim Measure, local authorities will adopt many of the practices followed by the most enlightened authorities in dealing with their rent rebate schemes. I am here particularly stressing that many authorities in dealing with rent rebates take great care to safeguard the anonymity of the applicant for a rent rebate. They deal with the application by using a code number instead of a name, so that the individual applying for rent rebate, in that case—or for a rate concession, in this case—can be sure that his or her privacy will be safeguarded. I commend that practice to the rating authorities.
  Some people will have made a proposal for the reduction of their rating assessment and will not have had the result of their appeal, and it would be proper here to give them some advice. The Government's view is that nobody should be deterred from making an application for rate relief under the Bill because he has already made a proposal for reduction of assessment—the two are entirely separate. It is true that if a proposal has been made in the first six months of 1963–64, the ratepayer is ordinarily entitled to withhold half the difference between his 1962–63 rates and those for the current year, but this is only a temporary easement until the proposal is settled and, if no reduction results, the ratepayer may have substantial arrears to meet immediately.
  The Bill assumes that rating authorities will grant relief despite an outstanding proposal, and Clauses 4(2) and 6(3) are included with precisely that point in mind. Thus, under Clause 4(2), a rating authority that has granted relief while a proposal is outstanding is required to review the relief if the proposal succeeds and, in adjusting rates for the reduction in rateable value, to take account of any change in the amount of relief. While, under Clause 6(3), provision is made to reduce by the amount of relief the amount of rates that can be temporarily withheld under the 1955 Act.
  Hon. Members may feel that I should go a little further in guidance to local
  1268
  authorities on their use of discretion. I would add only this. People who benefit from National Assistance are already covered against increases in rates. I would expect, therefore, that most of those who receive remissions will be retired people, or other people on incomes that are above, but not so far above, the National Assistance level, and who cannot meet a steep increase in rates without denying themselves what have come to be regarded as necessities. There will be others who suffer hardship, although their means are not so restricted, because it takes time to adjust their pattern of spending to their means. I do not think that I can go further than that in advance of the Allen Committee's Report.
  For the provisions of the Bill to affect next year's rates, it will be necessary for local authorities to take them into account when framing their budgets early in the coming year. If the House gives the Bill its Second Reading, I intend to invite local authorities to do this.
  That is all I want to say by way of general introduction before turning to the Bill itself. To sum up, the purpose of the Bill is simply to give a measure of relief pending consideration of the Allen Report and of the outcome of next year's review. It is not a Bill to reform the rating system or to remodel the basis of local government finance.
  I do not propose to dwell too long on the details of the Bill itself, because I know that, when he winds up the debate, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with questions raised in the debate, but I should like to draw attention to one or two salient points in the Clauses.
  Clause 1 is, I think, simple to understand. It concentrates about £6 million on grants to rating areas with higher proportions of elderly people. This means that areas with well below the average number of elderly—that is, about 119 per 1,000—will get no grant, while those with the highest proportions will get some very useful help, though still modest in total. For example, on the 1961 figures, some of the retirement areas on the South Coast, where householders have been hard hit by revaluation and increases in expenditure since 1962–63, will get benefit

  1269
  amounting to over a 4d. rate, and between 30s. and 42s. a year for the average householder. Budleigh Salterton, Sidmouth, Bexhill and Worthing are four places that will benefit by that order of help.
  On Clause 1, I would only draw attention to the last 13 words of subsection (2). The effect of those 13 words is that the grant paid to a rating area is retained there for the benefit of the local ratepayers, and no part is passed on through the precept to the county at large or any other precepting authority.
  Clause 2 enables the rating authority to increase relief—
  Mr. Charles Mapp: Before the Minister leaves Clause 1, will he tell the House why the Clause refers to people beyond the age of 65 rather than, as in so many other Bills, 65 and upwards?
  Sir K. Joseph: The effect is exactly the same. It is over the age of 65. The hon. Gentleman may have a Committee point, but I do not think that he has any point of substance.
  Mr. Mapp: A person would not be included in the statistics covered by the Bill until he had reached his 66th birthday, whereas in all other legislation the 65th birthday is the relevant factor.
  Sir K. Joseph: This is certainly not the intention. The hon. Member may have a good Committee point, but I think that he is wrong.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned some examples of authorities which will benefit. Could he confirm a report which has appeared in one of the papers that the City of London is one of the beneficiaries under Clause 1?
  Sir K. Joseph: I have not the figures for all the authorities in mind. I have not seen that report and I cannot confirm it.
  Clause 2 of the Bill enables a rating authority to grant relief to individual householders if two conditions are satisfied. The first is that between 1962–63 and 1964–65, the two years, the rates on the dwelling must have increased by more than one-quarter or by £5, if that is the greater. The one-quarter test will
  1270
  be the decisive one in the majority of cases. Anybody who paid £20 in rates in 1962–63, when the national average payment was £27 12s., will pass the £5 test if he passes the one-quarter test. I do not know how many dwellings will pass it. Indeed, nobody can know until the rate call for next year has been sent out and the rates have been made.
  The other condition, that the rating authority must be satisfied that the increase in the level of rates since 1962–63 will cause hardship to the ratepayers, I have already referred to. There is little in the rest of the Clause that requires comment at this stage but I might perhaps draw attention to the two methods of affording relief under Clause 2(2).
  In the cases covered by Clause 2(2,a) the residential occupier is a person who will be paying rates direct to the rating authority, and the obvious way of affording him relief is that provided by the Clause—the remission or refund of part of any rate or instalment of rate. The cases covered by paragraph (b) are those where the residential occupier pays rates indirectly, perhaps as part of an inclusive rent, or to the landlord as collector for the rating authority. The method to be used here is that of direct payments by the authority to the residential occupier. This is a method which I recognise at once will not necessarily commend itself to rating authorities. They will have no direct money dealings with the occupier and it will be relatively expensive administratively to arrange the payments under suitable safeguards.
  On the other hand, there are considerations for adopting this relatively unorthodox course which in my view are compelling. First, in the case of controlled tenancies it would be necessary to amend the Rent Acts to ensure that any relief allowed through the landlord would reach the tenant. Secondly, in other cases where an inclusive rent is paid it might be impracticable to ensure that the relief got to and stayed with the residential occupier without a very complex series of Clauses. I suggest that the most direct and in the long run the simplest method is for the rating authority to make direct payments to the residential occupier in cases covered by Clause 2(2,b).
  Clause 3 merely sets out the methods to be used in calculating rates for various

  1271
  years and rate periods for the purposes of Clause 2. Clause 4 contains provisions for varying or ending relief on a change of circumstances and for the adjustment of rate payments in that connection.
  Clause 5 makes provision for Exchequer grants towards the cost of relief given under Clause 2. The rate of grant is to be 50 per cent. on the first 3 per cent. of gross rate income remitted, and 66⅔ per cent. on any amount in excess of 3 per cent. I would not like to give examples of the way that the Clause might work, because to do so it would be necessary to know the amount of relief likely to be granted by the authority chosen as an example, but from the various pointers which have reached me, and from correspondence and representations made from time to time by the rating authorities, I would expect that very few of them would reach the 3 per cent. limit.
  Speaking very generally again, I would expect that the authorities which do exceed the 3 per cent. limit will be for the most part those with a large proportion of elderly people. People living on fairly small fixed incomes just above the National Assistance level are likely to form a large proportion of those granted relief. The authorities containing the largest proportion of elderly people will be, by hypothesis, the very authorities which will receive the largest share of grant under Clause 1. In many cases, therefore, Clause 1 is likely at least to make good any local increase in rates to meet relief under Clause 2.
  This effect is made all the more likely by the provisions of Clause 6(2), the practical effect of which is to secure that the net cost to the rating authority of relief granted under Clause 2, after allowing for grant under Clause 5, is shared between the rating area and the areas of any other authority for which the rating authority is levying a rate. To put it in a nutshell, a rating authority receives grant under Clause 1 and holds it entirely for itself without having to pass any of it on by way of precept to the precepting authority, whereas under Clause 6(2) the rating authority is able to share any burden that remains on its ratepayers, due to the difference between
  1272
  the total cost of remission under Clause 2 and grant under Clause 5, with all the other authorities who make a precept. I hope, therefore, that the net effect of both provisions will be to minimise the burden, if any, remaining on those ratepayers who do not get remission in areas where the amount of remission is relatively heavy.
  Clause 6(1) has the effect of preventing relief under the Bill from affecting the rate-deficiency grant percentages. I think that it is right to do this, especially since the relief is intended only as an interim measure.
  I do not think that other Clauses need explanation at this stage. I hope that I have said enough to explain the general purposes of this interim Measure, and the interim and transitional part which it plays in the process which the Government are now undertaking; first, by way of the Allen Committee, followed by a general review, bearing in mind the results of revaluation, of the division of the rising local authority expenditure between ratepayer and taxpayer. Although this is a modest and interim Measure I believe it to be a useful one and I commend it to the House.
  4.28 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: We are all indebted to the Minister for his clear exposition of the Bill. He said that some of the later Clauses did not call for explanation at this stage. I agree with him about "this stage", but they will call for a good deal of explanation later. Indeed, some of them could be more briefly written if mathematical symbols could have been applied throughout. [Laughter.] This is seriously so, and if the Minister undertakes the exercise of writing the later Clauses in algebraic form he will find that they will take up much less space. We shall be examining these matters, no doubt with interest, in Committee later.
  This is an interim Bill to relieve hardship, and the hardship springs from the combination of various causes. One is that mentioned by the Minister when he spoke of the inevitably rising trend of local expenditure. This is basically the real fact that we are struggling with—that the nation is demanding a wider range of local government services, that

  1273
  the people who do this service could not in justice be excluded from wage and salary increases which other people have, and that the total amount of money which a local authority must raise is bound to increase. This is a fact which has been known for some time.
  It is the combination of this with the fact that the general trend of Government policy has not been to give local authorities added help from the Exchequer, in view of this inevitable trend to greater total expenditure by the local authorities, and added finally to revaluation—all these things have introduced the hardship.
  The Minister was at some pains to point cut that the exact effects of revaluation alone would have been very difficult to predict in advance. I think that we may accept that. What we cannot accept is that the other factors which would lead to hardship were unpredictable. It was known when the Rating and Valuation Act, 1961, was introduced that we were in a period of steadily rising local expenditure. The view that there ought to be a greater measure of Exchequer grant to meet that expenditure had been frequently expressed on this side of the House and rejected on that. We are, therefore, entitled to point out that we did draw the attention of the Minister's predecessor to the danger that a situation of this kind was bound to develop.
  What was the proper step to take? Surely, it was, certainly by the time the 1961 Act was introduced, if not earlier, to set up an inquiry into the relationship between central and local government finance. That was exactly what we asked for on the Second Reading of the Rating and Valuation Bill. The Government could have got our support to that Second Reading if they had been prepared to set up such an inquiry, but they were not so prepared. I mention this because the Minister reproached us with not being prepared to give unconditional support to the Second Reading of that Bill and because he spoke of the Government's "courage" in introducing the revaluation.
  In the first place, the Minister will remember that it was not the 1961 Act which actually caused the revaluation; it was already predetermined by earlier legislation. In the second place, I do not
  1274
  greatly admire the use of the word "courage" in this connection. The courage shown by members of the party opposite in inflicting hardships on people poorer than themselves has been well known on a number of occasions, and it is not a particularly creditable characteristic. As far back as the Second Reading of the 1961 Act, therefore, we urged that an inquiry into the relationship between central and local government finance should be instituted.
  To continue the story of the background to this Bill, during the passage of the 1961 Bill through Committee, the Government were repeatedly told that it would lead to hardship and inequity between individuals but the only powers and provisions taken in that Measure were to operate if, in a whole rating area, the extra amount which had to be raised as a result of revaluation as a whole exceeded a prescribed figure. It was fairly easy for the Government to demonstrate afterwards that that condition had never been fulfilled in any particular county. However, the fact that it had never been fulfilled in that way did not preclude the circumstance that individuals in many parts of the country had found the amount which they had to pay shooting up as a result of revaluation alone by more than the 30 per cent. which was talked about in 1961. But no steps were taken at the time to deal with that possibility of individual hardship, and this is why we are having to consider the situation again now.
  I add by way of background that it was not only on the Second Reading of the 1961 Measure that we on this side drew attention to the need for an inquiry into the relationship between central and local government finance. We did it also in a Motion which we moved in the House on 25th February, 1960. Later, there was a Motion with which the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith) was concerned. This was debated for some time, and, when it became apparent that the Government were not prepared to accept it, Hon. Members opposite proceeded to talk it out so as to avoid the embarrassment of a decision one way or another.
  From several quarters, therefore, it was made clear to the Government that, sooner or later, something would have

  1275
  to be done about the individual hardships arising not only from revaluation, but from the combination of revaluation and the fact that the relationship between central and local government finance was not satisfactory and called for review.
  However, the Conservative Party retained its view that such an inquiry was not necessary. I quote from "Pocket Politics", issued by the Conservative Central Office in January this year:
  "It is surely only sensible to wait and see how this works out before considering an inquiry into the whole rating system."
  For nine months, it waited and saw. By that time, a number of HON. MEMBERS opposite from seaside constituencies had helped them to see.
  Sir K. Joseph: It was not nine months.
  Mr. M. Stewart: Yes, from January to October, 1963, when the Chief Secretary made a pronouncement. Speaking at Blackpool, he said:
  "I think it is clear that the time is now ripe for a searching review of the relations between general and local government expenditure…"
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is not being precise here. The time for judging how things have gone was after the revaluation and the rate call. The only delay here is from about May to the time when my right hon. Friend spoke in October.
  Mr. Stewart: The Minister has not followed what I was saying. The point at issue here is not only the effect of revaluation, but the combination of that with the rising level of local government expenditure as a whole and the unsatisfactory relationship between central and local government finance. That is what we were pointing out to him years ago and what the Chief Secretary said, in October, 1963, ought to be inquired into.
  The Chief Secretary was not talking just about the effect of revaluation. He spoke of
  "a searching review of the relations between general and local government expenditure….We will also review the rating system itself…"
  Once again, there is this gap of two or three years between the time when we say something ought to be done and the time when a member of the Govern-
  1276
  ment—sometimes using the very phrases, "relations between central and local government expenditure", and so on—at last admits that it must be done.
  Now, of course, we have what is, to put it frankly, a makeshift as well as an interim piece of legislation. If one chose to be puritanical and austere about it, as I see the leading articles in The Times are—though its one constructive suggestion for handling the matter does not seem to be much sounder than anything in the Bill—one could say that there are several objectionable principles in the Bill. However, one has to set that against the fact that the hardship is real and apparent and can be remedied in time only by a somewhat makeshift Measure. Therefore, perhaps we ought not to be too severe in criticising some of the unhappy principles embodied in the Bill.
  I quote in this context a remark made many years ago by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), in a debate on something done by the Labour Government. When he was asked whether he disapproved of what had been done, he replied in these words, "If a man jumps off a precipice, and bounces from cliff to cliff, it is idle to ask whether one approves or disapproves of his bouncing. He should not have thrown himself off the precipice in the first place." I am quoting from memory. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cares to look the passage up, he will, I think, find that I have not misrepresented him.
  Vicious as some of the principles of the Bill are, it is idle to ask now whether one approves or disapproves of them. The Government, in their usual manner, threw themselves off the precipice and are now bouncing. The cushions must be found. Here, such as they are, we have them, so we have to ask ourselves whether these are the best kinds of cushions which at short notice can be put together.
  Let us look at what the Bill actually proposes. As the Minister told us, Clause 1 is simple and small. The total amount that will be handed out by the Government is about 1 per cent. of the total of central Government grants to local authorites. It is about £6½ million. Government grants to local authorities total one hundred times that figure, and

  1277
  the total expenditure of local authorities is more than £800 million. It is not a great deal, and, as the local associations have said, if it were spread evenly, every authority would get such a tiny bit that it would hardly say thank you for it. Indeed I do not know that anyone has said thank you very warmly.
  But it is not spread evenly, and the Minister has given various examples. Worthing will get about £80,000; Bourn mouth will receive £95,000; and one newspaper reports that a Northern industrial town, which it does not name, will get £500; and a London borough will get about £3,000. It would be amusing, but uncharitable, to make a full list and correlate it with a list of Conservative majorities at the last General Election, but the Minister has not laid any such paper before us. It may be that the authorities that will benefit most will not be those with the largest Conservative majorities, but those with a majority in the large but precarious range. It is, therefore, clear that it is most important to grant relief in an interim Bill as soon as possible.
  We have soberly to ask what relation this has to individual hardship, because that is the only justification for a makeshift Measure of this sort. The relationship is a somewhat indirect and not altogether satisfactory one. It would be a great mistake to think that Clause 1 can be interpreted simply as providing help to elderly ratepayers, but such people, who may be quite hard hit, and who live in areas where there is not an exceptionally large number of people like themselves, will get no benefit at all, directly or indirectly, from Clause 1. It is the elderly ratepayer who lives in a locality where there is a high proportion of elderly people who might indirectly get some benefit by this Clause, and it is the fact that that kind of elderly ratepayer is more likely to be better off than ratepayers living in areas that will not benefit from the Clause. I do not think that that can be disputed.
  We next have to notice that the benefit is given to the authority and forms part of its general revenue, and presumably, therefore, causes the amount that it has to raise on the rates to be so much less than it otherwise would be. That is the way in which the benefit is passed on to individuals, but which individuals? To every ratepayer in the
  1278
  borough, including not only the residential ratepayers but the commercial and industrial ones as well.
  Do they need it? As far as I can see, that result occurs only because the Government have not thought out a way whereby they can channel this help more directly towards the elderly residential ratepayer. We are, in effect, here making what is a variation in the general grant formula. We are bringing in a new factor for assessing the total amount of grant to be paid by the central Government with only a loose and indirect relationship between the amount of grant and the individual hardship with which the Bill is supposed to deal.
  There will be a number of individual elderly ratepayers to whom the passage, or non-passage, of this Clause will make no difference at all, however hard hit they may be, and there will be a number of ratepayers, elderly and non-elderly, residential, industrial, and commercial, who will get some benefit from this Clause, although frankly they do not need it, so it is a somewhat blunt instrument.
  Mr. H. P. G. Channon: Clause 2 is headed:
  "Relief for residential occupiers of dwellings."
  Surely that means that it is the residential occupier who can get relief—and not industrial or commercial ratepayers?
  Mr. Stewart: I was discussing Clause 1which gives grants to local authorities. The effect of it will be that the amount of rate which a local authority will have to levy will be so much less. The benefit will accrue to all ratepayers in the area, residential, industrial, and commercial. I am talking only of Clause 1, and pointing out that it is a somewhat blunt instrument.
  Mrs. Evelyn Emmet: The weighting for children is equally a general grant for the county, and is spread over everybody. It is not possible to channel a special grant to a particular group of people.
  Mr. Stewart: The weighting for children part of the general grant introduced in the 1958 Act was, at any rate, a carefully thought out Measure to try to bring in all the factors that one ought to consider to get a proper kind of

  1279
  general grant. This is a makeshift, interim Bill which is altering the general grant formula. That is, in effect, what Clause 1 is doing. I am pointing out that the relationship between that and helping elderly, hard-hit ratepayers is a very indirect and tenuous one indeed. Clause 1 is a blunt instrument. It may be the best instrument that could be thought up at short notice, but one cannot say more than that for it.
  Now let us look at Clause 2 and the subsequent Clauses, which really expound and develop the theme of Clause 2. The principle here is, first, to make certain individuals eligible to claim partial remission of rates. If they are eligible under the Statute, they get the remission only if they satisfy the local authority that they are suffering hardship. I think that the Minister might have tried to tell us how many, and what sort of individuals will be eligible for benefit. We may get some areas in which the great majority of the ratepayers will be, within the terms of the Statute, eligible for benefit, or if they are not immediately so, they may be quite soon because, with the normal expansion of the amount of money which local authorities have to raise, it may not be long before they find themselves paying 25 per cent. more.
  A real difficulty in the presentation of the Bill is that we have insufficient information on that extremely important fact, because that is a measure of the administrative task which local authorities will face in determining hardship. How many people will be eligible to claim hardship? I have seen it suggested that in some areas 80 per cent. of the ratepayers will be eligible to claim, and the local authority will have to weigh up which of them is suffering hardship.
  There is then the question whether the definition of eligibility to claim in the Statute is the right one. Perhaps I might quote from an article by Mr. Ilersic in the Observer, which puts the point as well as I have seen it put. He said:
  "For example, the young married couple with children buying a self-built house on a large mortgage, for whom a 20 per cent. rate increase may impose far more hardship that a 40 per cent. rise for the retired bank manager in his bungalow."
  1280
  That may be true. The young couple may have their rates put up only 20 per cent., but it may mean greater hardship for them than to somebody in more favourable circumstances whose rates have gone up 40 per cent. Yet that young couple cannot claim relief, or even ask the local authority to consider whether they are a hardship case.
  What is more—they will have to help pay for such remission as is given to the persons whom their local authority decides are hardship cases, because the Government will bear only half—or in some cases a little more than half—of the cost of the relief given to individuals who are hard-hit. The cost must come out of the pockets of their fellow ratepayers.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to The Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): Taking into account Clause 1.
  Mr. Stewart: Yes—taking into account Clause 1, if the local authority is one that benefits under that Clause. That makes it all the more important to see whether we have got right the definition of what makes one eligible to be considered as a hardship case. I hope that in Committee the Government will be prepared to consider this point very carefully.
  Captain Walter Elliot: The hon. Gentleman has implied that a young married couple would not be able to claim hardship, but I understood that my right hon. Friend, in referring briefly to the directive, specifically said that people could claim if they suffered hardship because it took time to adjust their pattern of spending to the new income situation. That is what I understood my right hon. Friend to say.
  Mr. Stewart: I am not quite sure how one equates that with the wording of the Bill. It may be necessary to consider this matter again in Committee.
  I have studied the Money Resolution in this connection, and as I understand it it would permit of Amendments which would make an alteration in the increase from 25 per cent. to some other figure. That is something that we could discuss in Committee.
  Sir K. Joseph: I have no quarrel with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but since his words may be read widely I hope that he will emphasise that the 25 per cent. and £5 are in the form of a two-year jump and not a one-year jump, and that they therefore let in a larger class.
  Mr. Stewart: Yes, but we cannot be certain that this limit will not make eligible some people who do not need help while excluding some who do. We must consider the matter carefully in Committee, and I hope that by then we shall have a little more information in our hands. There are various agencies who can produce at least sample information on this sort of topic. I could pursue this point, but I must not take up too much time, since I know that many other Hon. Members will wish to speak.
  I want to say a word on the question upon which most discussion has concentrated: is it right to make local authorities the judges of hardship? I understood the Minister to say that the local authority associations have accepted this idea or, at least, had agreed with the Bill. The Bill offers them money, and it would be difficult for local authority associations to say that they do not accept it. But I have a memorandum from the Urban District Councils Association and I am bound to say that it is not an enthusiastically worded document. Of course, it does not reject the Bill; no association of local authorities will reject it, when there are certain extra grants in it.
  But the memorandum says, on the hardship question, that it is considered that the Minister ought,
  "for the benefit and guidance of rating authorities, if the Bill is enacted, to publish what in his view constitutes hardship, what in general terms are the householders he wishes to see relieved and, again in general terms, what scale of relief he contemplates and how far it should go. It is not fair to the rating authorities to throw the whole onus on them."
  Before the debate is over it is desirable that we should hear whether the Minister will meet local authorities on that point.
  What they are asking for is not to have their discretion removed; they are asking—in the fashionable phrase—for
  1282
  a "guiding light", and it is obvious from the last sentence that I have read out why they are asking for it. They do not want the whole odium of this invidious task to be thrown upon them. If they have to justify a refusal of relief in a particular case they will at least be able to say, "This is our judgment, and, what is more, this is the judgment that we have reached after taking into account what the Minister had to say about it."
  Since local authorities are having this invidious task thrust upon them, partly because the Government had not the mental energy to study the question of central and local government finance three years ago, this request for a guiding light and for some share of the odium to be borne by the Government is a reasonable one, which I hope the Government will be prepared to meet.
  I have said that this is a makeshift Bill, which we shall have to pass because we have to meet hardship, but I conclude with a word or two on what, in the long term, is required. First, we must make sure that we are having a real inquiry into local government finance—not only into the way in which the rating system works and the incidence of rates; not only into the question of the comparative shares of the Exchequer and the rates as sources of income for the local authorities, but also into the question whether other sources of local government revenue than rates can be found.
  On 19th December last year, almost exactly a year ago, the Parliamentary Secretary said, in effect, that it was encouraging false hopes to promise inquiries of that kind. I see from nods behind him, however, that some of his hon. Friends agree with me rather than with him on this matter. I warn him again—considering how many words have been aten by the Government in the last few months—not to nail his colours too firmly to that mast, because for all he knows he may well be getting up at that Box to announce a revolution in respect of local government revenues before many weeks are past.
  We want a real inquiry into all those aspects of the matter, but while the inquiry is ending—and it will take time; it is a very complex subject—we must accept the fact that greater help from the taxpayer to the ratepayer is needed. It is important for the public

  1283
  to grasp this fact. We all know that public services must be paid for; they do not grow like wild flowers. But the whole point of having them paid for rather more through taxes and rather less through rates is that it is easier to make taxes a fair instrument than to make rates a fair instrument. When the total volume of expenditure grows the question of fairness becomes more important.
  That is what has been happening with rates. Theoretically, there has always been something unfair about trying to assess a man's ability to contribute to local services by the value of the rateable property he occupies, but when the total amount to be raised was comparatively small that theoretical unfairness did not matter so much. For example, if we could raise the whole of the State's revenue by a poll tax of 1d. per head per year, the theoretical unfairness of such a method would not worry anybody. But in recent years the total of local authority expenditure has been growing, and the inherent unfairness of rating has, therefore, become less of a matter of theory and more of a matter of real and harsh practice.
  That is why, until, as a result of an inquiry, we can really get the whole thing on a proper basis, the immediate remedy needed is that more expenditure should be borne through taxes and less through rates, and that the particular channel through which that could be done would be a return to the principle of a specific percentage grant, because in many cases what we are asking local authorities to do is to expand services—to expand the education service and to go ahead with the comparatively new job of comprehensive development.
  To do that properly local authorities need specific education and planning grants. They also need help—I make no apology for mentioning this again—in respect of the burdens of interest rates and land prices. As long as the Government refuse to do anything about either of those, we shall have difficulty with the rates. But these things lie in the future and are larger matters. We have this Measure at the moment and I say to my hon. Friends that I believe we must approve it as a necessary crutch for those who have been hit by this chain of events. Let us hope
  1284
  that it will also be the crutch on which this Government will hobble into retirement.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Allan: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) into a discussion on the last two wider points which he raised, because I wish to talk particularly about the problem facing central area boroughs as a result of revaluation. My right hon. Friend mentioned that there were four rating areas where the average rate payment had gone up, I think, by £78. I am relatively certain that the Borough of Paddington must be one of those rating authorities, together with its immediately neighbouring central London boroughs. I do not want to be too parochial, but if in support of my argument I quote a few figures from the Borough of Paddington, I think that they can be more or less exactly matched in St. Marylebone and Westminster and certainly they can be quite closely matched in a number of other central urban boroughs throughout the country.
  The main general effect of revaluation on central boroughs in London has been that their new rateable value has been increased by considerably more than the rateable value of the County of London, as the hon. Member for Fulham will know well. This has meant that these boroughs have to pay a much higher proportion of the precept from the London County Council. Incidentally, they also get less back from the equalisation scheme. In terms of hard cash this means a burden of £250,000 on Paddington ratepayers. This burden, which is equivalent to an 8d. rate on the new valuation, or 1s. 6d. on the old valuation, is imposed on the ratepayers not for any new services which they are getting; not even to meet the additional cost of existing services. It is imposed simply by the act of revaluation itself.
  Another general effect on the boroughs about which I am talking has been the higher proportion of the general rate which now falls on the domestic ratepayer. This has happened for a number of obvious reasons but mainly because there is not much industry in those areas. Although in the

  1285
  main I am giving Paddington as an example, I think that the same shift occurs elsewhere. Whereas before revaluation the domestic ratepayer bore 45 per cent. of the rates, now the proportion is 59 per cent. This swing on to the domestic ratepayer means that he has to find £713,000 more than before. This, together with the other consideration which I have mentioned, means that the increase in domestic rates per head of population in Paddington and St. Marylebone is no less than 55 per cent., in Westminster it is 52 per cent., and in other central areas it is about the same percentage. These are average figures and my right hon. Friend emphasised that he, too, was talking about average figures.
  It is when one gets to particular cases that the real poignancy and hardship is seen. I am sure that we could all give many examples of extreme hardship caused to our constituents. But I do not wish to go into personal details. We all know that when we undertake any new housing commitments we think in terms of the total outgoings. If one is exceptionally prudent one may make allowances in one's mind for some slight and gradual increase in rate payments. But even the most excessively prudent person would not make an allowance for an increase of £2 or £3 a week which is certainly all too common in my constituency.
  I am told, I think that probably it is quite true, that there will be about 20,000 ratepayers in Paddington who will be eligible to put in an application for relief in respect of hardship under the provisions of Clause 2 of the Bill. The hon. Member for Fulham was trying to discover the size of this problem. I am told by the Paddington borough treasurer that the figure may be something of this nature in Paddington. It will impose an almost impossible administrative task—as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Fulham—on any local authority. What is quite certain is that in Paddington there are 5,389 domestic ratepayers whose rateable values have gone up by more than five times and whose rate payments have gone up by a minimum of 86 per cent. This illustrates the magnitude of the problem with which we are confronted.
  1286
  In the face of this large problem the provisions in Clause 1 will provide only negligible relief in these central areas. So far as I can make out, in Paddington the relief, or the amount payable back in the rate fund—it is not an individual relief—will provide about £5,000, and that against an impost on the domestic ratepayers of over £700,000. So, obviously, in the boroughs to which I have been referring the main relief will be channelled through the machinery of Clause 2. Here again it is the size of the problem that matters, because it will be virtually impossible for any local authority to investigate all the claims of hardship which will be submitted. I think that my right hon. Friend must go a bit further than he went today, either in offering guidance or, better still, in defining hardship in relation to this Bill. There will have to be some definition of hardship to enable local authorities to give some blanket relief to specified categories of persons. It may be old people—or there may be other ways in which this can be done.
  As was said by my right hon. Friend, it is the suddenness and the steepness of the increases which has caused not only a sense of injustice but also a real hardship as well. This could be mitigated in a number of ways which have already been canvassed. There might be some arrangement whereby increases were spread in steps over a period of years. Increases of over, say, 50 per cent. could be considered as hardship from the point of view of the provisions in this Bill. But even if we had some such blanket provision admitting relief automatically to categories of people, provided that it was applied for, the local authorities would still be overwhelmed by the administrative task involved in investigating those who apply under the provisions of Clause 2. As I am sure is the whole House, I am grateful to the Government for attempting to give some measure of relief, and for that reason I shall support the Bill. But I fear that its provisions will not be workable unless some of the suggestions which I have made are incorporated into the Bill at a later stage.
  5.10 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I am sure we have all been interested in the particular problems of

  1287
  Paddington, which has created, in disputes about its valuation, new local sensations which have reached a dizzy level. This is the first time I can remember when a property company has challenged in the High Court the valuation officer's list. It will be extremely interesting to see what happens as a result of this novel development.
  I begin by saying that, while no one wants to look a gift horse in the mouth, especially when it is worth about £6 million and particularly at this festive time of year, nevertheless I resent, as I hope HON. MEMBERS on both sides of the House resent, the fact that we have to waste more legislative time in considering still another partial rating Measure instead of getting down to a fundamental recasting of the rating system, as we could have done at any time in the last 10 years.
  I am certain that if future historians of this place examine our proceedings they will be quite mystified by the number of rating Bills and the amount of legislative time Ministers and Hon. Members have had to give to this subject with apparently very little ultimate satisfaction to ratepayers or administrators. Most of the Measures with which we have had to deal have been designed to remove one anomaly and, when that has been accomplished, they have seemed to raise half a dozen others. The result has been that often we have been worse off than we were before, for in attempting to remove anomalies we have often masked the defects in the present valuation system.
  I thought it bordering on impertinence for the Minister to talk about our lack of courage when in fact the 1953 and the 1960 Acts were both designed by the Conservative Government to defer the full effects of valuation. In the 1953 Act we not only put off valuation for one year, as we did in 1960, but put back valuation of residential properties 14 years, to 1939. It therefore seems that questions about courage in the matter of rating come very ill from HON. MEMBERS opposite.
  The Government stand to be condemned on three specific charges. Over the last 10 years they have failed to take advice either from Hon. Members on this side of the House—which I can under-
  1288
  stand for they might find that distasteful—or from many experts outside. I can remember myself and others telling the then Minister in charge, the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) that the 1953 Act was asking valuers to attempt almost the impossible because they were somehow to put their minds back to before the war, to 1939, and to assume that the Rent Restriction Acts had had no effect, that there was no marked overcrowding or under-occupation of houses. If there were any benefits in the district in 1953 it was assumed that they had been there in 1939, and if there was any defect in 1953 it was not to be assumed for the purposes of valuation that it was there in 1939.
  I remember saying that this was a task, not for valuers, but for magicians. I can well remember the right hon. Gentleman's remark, because it was characteristic. He said:
  "Ministers are but dim and transient phantoms who flit across the stage, and these men who are unhappy enough to have devoted their lives to valuing will have to carry out this work long after I have forgotten all about it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C: c. 2137.]
  This 1953 Act created much bitterness and anomaly which could have been avoided. The first charge against the Government then, which is proved up to the hilt, is that they failed to take the advice which was available not only in this House but from authoritative and knowledgeable experts outside.
  Secondly, there is their failure in the past 10 years to have what they have now conceded—a full-scale inquiry. I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) referred to the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, because this shows that if an argument is repeated often enough in this place it will even cause that hon. Gentleman to change his mind. On 19th December, 1962, almost a year ago, this is what he said:
  "I have been a critic of the rating system in the past…a very great number of people—eminent people—have given a very great deal of time to looking at the problem and have not been able to produce a really suitable alternative."
  He went on to say:
  "On this sector of the problem, we must face up to the fact that promises of further inquiries are likely to hold out wholly false

  1289
  hopes of producing anything either new or more satisfactory than the system that we have at the moment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1962; Vol. 669, c. 1335.]
  If those words were true then, are they true now? If so, what is the point of having an inquiry?
  Mr. Corfield: I should be delighted it I were proved wrong, but all I say is that I do not think there is an easy way of finding an alternative.
  Mr. Skeffington: I hope that will be noted, because it is clear that we have not really convinced the Government of the need to look into the whole area of local government finance and we shall have to wait, as in so many matters, for a change of Government for that. On the face of it they seem to have changed their minds in the last 12 months. Thirdly, they stand condemned for not more actively considering alternative rating systems. The Royal Institute of Public Administration produced a detailed memorandum about a local income tax which at the rate of 3d. in the £ would in 1956 have produced £150 million and would produce much more now. This is the sort of alternative which should have been considered. The Association of Municipal Corporations has also had expert groups working on this problem.
  It is quite shocking that in 10 years the Government have treated rating and local government finance as of no importance. All they have done has been to shift an ever-increasing financial burden on to the local authorities by the block grant legislation while at the same time the statutory obligations of local authorities have been increased by this Government.
  The Bill has had a poor welcome practically everywhere and in the Press. I would not have bothered to quote the details of political criticism, but in view of the Minister's non-polemical speech about courage, I feel I have to do so. The Times said this on 10th December in an article which was headed "Panic Measure":
  "It has…been impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Government's sudden change of mind about immediate rate relief, its decision to act before the facts on which action should be based have been investigated by the Allen Committee, was prompted by electoral calculations…it is ill-prepared,
  1290
  introduces at least one objectionable principle, and threatens to breed as much discontent as it is supposed to remove."
  This undoubtedly is true particularly when unfortunate authorities have to decide between one applicant and another on the grounds of hardship. This week The Times returns to the attack in an article headed "A Thoroughly Bad Principle". After suggesting that the Bill
  "will present the House of Commons with a critical test of its legislative competence"
  it goes on to say:
  "It is also a highly political Bill intended to placate a section of the community whose wrath has made itself felt. To the generous impulses aroused by the first of these characteristics of the Bill must be added the political calculations prompted by the second."
  This is pretty strong. It would be difficult to convince many of us and the public that the Bill is not unconnected with the political situation and the coming General Election.
  Even the Sunday Times, on the 15th of this month, had some fun in trying to estimate how the hardship principle, the old-age principle, will be worked out. Mr. George Schwartz, with whose views I do not normally agree, had this to say about the over-65 principle:
  "I envisage a scramble for us old 'uns. 'Are you over 65? Come and live in Sea-ville. Sunshine, glorious sands, municipal orchestra and rating relief'…Yesterday the Mayor and Corporation attended by the town band assembled at the main station to greet Mr. James Blogg, whose arrival has tipped the 10 per cent. scale of the over-65s."
  To have this kind of idea as a solemn basis for rating reform is asking us to swallow too much. Perhaps I may make a quotation from a more serious source, Mr. Ilersic, who has made a study of rating problems and who wrote in the Observer:
  "It is a hasty and ill-conceived measure intended to relieve some part of the hardship caused by the revaluation and at the same time placate the frustrated rather than overburdened ratepayer…"
  I have no constituency advantage from the Bill. I have no objection to relief being given where it can, but the Bill will make no difference whatever in my constituency or the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends. In my constituency only about 7 per cent. of the population are over 65. There, thanks to years and years of agitation from this

  1291
  side of the House, industrial premises have at last been re-rated 100 per cent., and my constituents are benefiting from that re-rating.
  It is a great pity that on such an occasion as this we have not with us Mr. Sparks, who used to represent Acton in the House and who did so much to present the arguments for the 100 per cent. revaluation of industry. On one famous Friday he even managed to get a Bill through the House on the subject, and the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, the right hon. Member for Wolver Hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), had to dragoon his followers to attend and kill it in Committee. Nevertheless, five years later we were able to get the Government to agree with our view. The tragedy is that we have all this waste of time and effort and all this hardship which could have been avoided if the Government had been more up to their job and acted sooner.
  I should like the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply to tell us how the Ministry feel that revaluation has worked out. Will he explain some of the peculiar problems which have arisen, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. R. Allan)? I am not making any attack upon the valuation officers; they have a very difficult job to do, they work long hours and they always have great devotion to the task entrusted to them, but the situation at Paignton makes one feel that there must be some special reason for what happened there. Only 100 out of 2,653 properties were correctly assessed and the error involved a miscalculation of about £56,000. Perhaps some statement has been made about this but if so, I have not seen it.
  I hope that we shall be told what went wrong, because it may have happened not only at Paignton. Worthing, which will certainly benefit under the Bill, was about to bring a deputation to see the Parliamentary Secretary. I know that the hon. Gentleman spends much time seeing deputations and that he saw one this morning, but it is a fact that there is acute dissatisfaction at Worthing. A few years ago in my constituency 1,200 council houses were incorrectly valued because
  1292
  for some reason the valuation officers did not know that they had electric light. When this was discovered the property was revalued and the assessments were increased. I can understand such an error in a few properties or in one house, but it is rather extraordinary that a mistake should be made affecting 1,200 houses.
  Quite apart, therefore, from the merits of the rating system, or its lack of merits, which is perhaps too complicated a subject to discuss in detail today in the Bill, I should like to know what the Ministry feels about the methods at present being used and the results achieved. We have had three or four examples made public, and there may be more. There is considerable dissatisfaction and concern about the kind of instruction given by the Inland Revenue to its valuers. I know that this is another Department, but the Minister obviously knows the instructions given to the valuation officers. What are the criteria which they must take into account in making valuations? Many people are very concerned about this situation.
  The London County Council has considerable experience in the overall problem of rate revenue, because it looks at it from the view of the whole of the County of London. It takes the view that the new grants payable under Clause 1 will be spread too widely and too indiscriminately to achieve the desired objective. There are 1,400 local authorities, and I understand that some 1,200 are likely to claim some sort of relief and to benefit to some extent, though with widely differing benefits. A northern industrial town, where a Id. rate brings in £17,000, tells me that it will probably get £400, but Worthing will get, I think, about £80,000. I do not say that this is a Christmas gift to political supporters, but if the view of the London County Council is correct that the grant to be paid under Clause 1 could be paid under Clause 2, then the results would probably be more significant under that clause than if they are spread as thinly on the ground as is expected under Clause 1.
  I suppose that on any calculation £6 million is worth while having, but the Government had a much simpler method of relieving ratepayers without all this

  1293
  ballyhoo and without the individual applications which will have to be made and the dissatisfaction which will arise, as The Times said, among those who will not benefit. The Government could have increased the general grant. A few evenings ago at about 10.50 p.m. we discussed the general grant regulations. In 1963–64, local authority expenditure will go up by £45 million, but the Government propose to pay only £25 million, leaving a gap of £20 million to be filled by local authorities. In 1964–65 the additional expenditure, it is calculated, will be £55 million and the Government propose to make grants of £30 million, which leaves a difference of £25 million. It would have been very easy for the Government to have secured this relief to ratepayers without all this work, and without the heartburning individual applications which will have to be made. They would have increased the general grant sum. H is a great pity that that was not done.
  I only hope that the time will very soon come when, if the present Government are not prepared to revise the whole of this creaking rating system, which is slowly coming to its doom, they will be replaced by a Government who have the courage at long last to do so.
  5.28 p.m.
  Mr. John M. Temple: My right hon. Friend the Minister was quite right when he said that this is essentially a temporary or interim Measure. It has to be looked at in that light. I will, if I may, pick out some points made in previous speeches during the course of my remarks.
  Like other Hon. Members on both sides of the House, I can welcome this Measure because it brings relief to ratepayers, and that is what has been asked for throughout the country. I estimate that the relief to ratepayers will be about £12 million—£6 million by direct grant under Clause 1 and approximately £6 million to local authorities so that they may relieve hardship. The other ratepayers in those local authority areas will in most circumstances have to find the other 50 per cent. of that relief.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr., R. Allan) was right to stress that this will be a considerable administrative task for local authorities.
  1294
  I am afraid that the administrative cost will be rather high, and in my speech I shall concentrate not on the details of the Bill, which, I hope, will be dealt with adequately in Committee, but on certain principles which are implicit in the Bill and in our rating system.
  First, there is the question of hardship. Local authorities, as my right hon. Friend said, are in certain circumstances, dealing in their rebate schemes, etc., with the question of the hardship of their ratepayers who occupy council houses. The local authorities are now to be asked to carry out a very much more difficult task, to judge hardship right across the board, across the whole gamut of ratepayers who reside in their areas. I submit that the local authorities may well need such powers as the National Assistance Board and the Inland Revenue have in order to be able to require information about the incomes of householders. Otherwise, I fear that we may get inequalities and injustices emerging just because relevant information may be concealed from the local authorities.
  Again, local authority members themselves who will have to frame regulations on these matters may well, and I would think many will, actually be candidates for relief under this Measure. Very significantly the Bill does not tie this hardship to old age. It says that hardship will be relieved if it can be proved, and gives certain criteria which have to be complied with in order that individuals may qualify for relief.
  I am going to stick my neck out a little tonight on the question of a very broad definition of hardship. My right hon. Friend the Minister has given us a certain amount of rather limited guidance tonight. I feel, with other Hon. Members on both sides, that rather more clear guidance may be necessary from my right hon. Friend, but I will try to throw a little more light on this subject; I will endeavour to produce my own guiding light with regard to a definition of hardship.
  My right hon. Friend said that, on average, each ratepayer throughout the country was paying 11s. 6d. a week. It will be known to Hon. Members that the average industrial wage today is between £16 and £17 a week, so that

  1295
  this average impost on the average industrial wage earner is approximately 3½ per cent. I would say that if the impost on any householder is double the average impost on the average industrial wage earner then he or she must be a candidate for hardship relief. I submit that if the impact of rates is 7 per cent., or 1s. 6d. a week, on the gross wage or income of the householder, then he or she must qualify to be considered as a candidate for hardship relief.
  The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who spoke first from the Opposition Front Bench, mentioned the natural increase of rate poundages. This is a significant factor, and I estimate that during 1963–64 and 1964–65, which period will govern this question of the 25 per cent. factor, the average increase in poundages throughout the country will be of the order of 15 or 20 per cent. Therefore, in the words of The Times, many candidates will approach "the threshold" of these conditions by reason of the increase of rate poundages over the course of these two years.
  I now turn to some of the best news which my right hon. Friend gave tonight. This was when he said that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was to undertake a general review of central and local government finance and a review of the rating system. That is excellent news, and I agree with my right hon. Friend when he said that up to this time there have really been too many variables in this situation for any expert committee to get down to a clear determination of the problem. However, I think that today we are in a position where the facts of revaluation and the various recastings of grants can be carefully weighed, and that, therefore, we are now in a position to get on with the job of a major review.
  Time, however, is not on our side. There will be another major revaluation at the end of the quinquennium in 1968, but before that time, in 1966 and 1967, the valuers will have to get to work possibly on a new basis of assessing direct to net annual values all domestic hereditaments. Therefore, if they are to have the required information before them in 1966–67, masses of new legisla-
  1296
  tion—I warn my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that this will be necessary—will be needed in the year 1965 in order to do a complete recasting of the rating system and of the relativity of grants to rates. Then the valuers and all concerned will be in a position to act in 1968 the hardship having been taken care of in the intervening period by this Bill.
  All this will mean that the inquiry which has to be carried out in 1964 will be on a vast scale. The inquirers will have an immense field to cover, and I believe that they will only be able to do it if they divide themselves into teams. There will be a need for some central collating agency so that the information obtained can be studied, brought together, and a report produced at the end of 1964 and legislation brought forward in 1965. That inquiry, I think, should be into the equity of the present rating system—in all its aspects. Again, the inquiry should look at the main grant structure and possible alternative sources of locally raised revenue.
  I regard this Bill as a temporary Measure in that respect and as an attempt to resolve hardship it is certainly welcome. Our task after the next election, when we return to these benches, must be to bring forward comprehensive legislation to deal with rating and the whole of local government finance.
  5.37 p.m.
  Mr. David Weitzman: No one can suggest that this Measure has been received with a great deal of acclamation. I think that the best that can be said for it is what was said by The Times, when it remarked that as there were some very hard cases in which revaluation had fallen with unforeseen severity the Bill was assured of at least a qualified welcome. But, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that paper headed its editorial "Panic Measure" and described the Bill as prompted by electoral calculation, as ill-prepared and threatening to breed as much discontent as it is supposed to remove.
  My hon. Friend referred to the observations made by Mr. George Schwartz in the Sunday Times when he poked what I thought was justifiable fun at the whole thing. Perhaps I may add that the Economist said that it was a

  1297
  rushed political manœuvre which might have been forgiven if it had been a good one.
  Rating is a very dry-as-dust subject which, as a rule, raises little interest except among the experts, but the recent revaluation has certainly resulted in assessments of such harshness that many ratepayers have been roused to fury. I have no doubt that the recently elected Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) suffered severely—and will in the future—from the ire of many such ratepayers. If I may introduce a personal note, I would tell Hon. Members that I live in a comparatively humble flat in Marylebone, and found my rateable value raised—I quote this as an example of many such cases in St. Marylebone—from £147 to £804 a year, nearly six times as much.
  It is true that I managed to persuade the valuation officer to agree to reduce the assessment to £597—still more than four times the previous assessment—but there are still others, I know, adjacent to me, who have received this six-fold assessment, from £147 to £804.
  Captain Elliot: I presume that the assessment was raised because of the revaluation, in which case the hon. and learned Gentleman would surely agree, in spite of what he has just said about the Bill being brought in for electoral considerations, that it is being brought in to relieve people who suffer hardship from that sort of revaluation.
  Mr. Weitzman: The hon. Member must be aware that when we get the sort of thing that happened at Marylebone, with the threat that hangs over the Government, any panic measure will be brought in to secure some electoral advantage.
  A local authority obviously has as its only source of income the money derived from the rates. It has been said again and again that the present system is archaic, unfair as between ratepayer and ratepayer, and cannot be justified on general or social grounds. In the debates on almost every rating Bill, someone has expressed the hope that one day a Government will have the courage to take the matter in hand. I am glad that the Minister has returned, because he used the words "courage on the part of the Government". What did the Government do?
  1298
  We have heard that the Government intend to set up a committee next year to study the whole matter of rating. I nearly said after 12 years of Tory rule. It will be 13 years if they remain in power, but, of course, we know that they will not. But just imagine the claim made by the Minister on behalf of the Government. Recognising that dissatisfaction and the necessity for some reform, which has been pressed again and again by many of my hon. Friends, the Government now promise that next year a committee will be set up to study the whole thing.
  In fact what the Government did was to set up the Allen Committee, with strictly limited terms of reference, to investigate ways of relieving those suffering from real hardship. One might have thought that they could have seized that opportunity to set up a committee with terms of reference wide enough to consider the whole matter. They had not even the excuse of urgency. Without waiting for any report from that Committee, the Government now suddenly seek to deal with the immediate situation by this interim Measure.
  What do the Government do in the Bill? I would emphasise at the outset that Clause 1 and 2 are not related. One does not depend upon the other. Under Clause 1 we get an Exchequer grant of £5 for each person over 65, but only where the local authority has in its population more than 10 per cent. over the age of 65. This is, of course, an additional subsidy to the authorities. Far be it from me to decry help given by the Exchequer to authorities in the form of subsidies or otherwise—I am all in favour. But I thought that the Government had constantly taken the view that it was a dreadful thing to talk of additional subsidies. Let us see what it means in effect. Bourn mouth, we are told—I do not know whether I have the correct figures—gets about £90,000; Wands worth, about £54,000; and Marylebone just under £20,000. That money goes to the authorities to increase their revenue and to do as they wish with it.
  They are not restricted in any way as to how they spend that money. It will go to the relief of rates of everyone, whether rich or poor he will benefit to the extent that it affects the rate payable. I realise that it is presumably meant to provide additional money to help an

  1299
  authority in exercising its discretion in cases of hardship under Clause 2, but nowhere in the Bill does it say so. As I have said, the Clauses are not related.
  May I put this to the Minister? Why is the hardship restricted to areas where there is more than 10 per cent. of the population over 65 years of age? Stoke Newington, according to the 1961 figures, has a population of 50,301 with 5,048 people over 65. It falls short by 182 of the necessary 10 per cent. and so it does not qualify under the Bill.
  Are there no cases of hardship in Stoke Newington? What about a local authority with a large proportion of people with young children? Are there no cases of hardship among them? Is individual hardship something that depends upon living in a particular area? I put that to the Minister. No wonder it is said by the Press, quite correctly, that this differentiation will breed discontent. This contribution by the Exchequer hardly helps the elderly and it is quite illogical in principle.
  Clause 2 gives to the rating authorities discretion to afford relief in 1964–65 and subsequent years where the rates for that year exceed the rates for 1962–63 by one quarter, or £5, whichever is the greater and the authority is satisfied that the increase causes hardship attributable to the increase since 31st March, 1963. It is to be noted that the relief is to be given for the year 1964–65. Why not 1963–64? Why is that year left out? The Minister looks surprised, but clearly a year is left out.
  Sir K. Joseph: The whole purpose is to relieve from the exceptional results of revaluation. The year 1963–64 is a post-revaluation year. The comparison must be with the last year before revaluation.
  Mr. Weitzman: If the Minister examines this again, he will see that there is a year of hardship which is not provided for in the Bill. Perhaps he will explain why that year is left out.
  Reference has been made to the fact that there is no definition of "hardship". No guidance is given in the Bill. There is the limited guidance to which the Minister referred today, but I suggest that is no guidance whatever. The interpretation of "hardship" will
  1300
  obviously vary from place to place. It is not poverty. The word used is "hardship". If a wealthy man proved that there had been an increase in his rates which made things more difficult for him, could not that be a case of hardship?
  Sir K. Joseph Sir K. Joseph indicated dissent.
  Mr. Weitzman: Why not? What does "hardship" mean? Surely it means that someone suffers in some way. It is a terrible thing to ask a local authority to define this in some way. Surely it was not beyond the capacity of the powers that be to put into the Clause some words to guide local authorities about the meaning of "hardship"?
  Even more regrettable than this is the fact that the Government have shuffled off the possibility of electoral rancour by putting the task of defining "hardship" on to local authorities. As a result, there will be the means test, a detestable thing. The burden is put on to the local authority to inquire into the private affairs of an individual. This is done by a Tory Government who prate so often about their love for individual liberty. The Minister says that local authorities have some experience gained from granting rebates to their own tenants. This is a far different thing. Is it right to put this task on to the local authorities? Does it not mean a means test? Cannot the Minister imagine the resentment there will be among many authorities? It is wrong in principle.
  I have spoken to a number of borough treasurers on the question of administration. A number of them have assured me that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to work this from an administration point of view.
  In central London, in particular, the rates of flats and houses have been raised to very high levels. Speculative builders, freed from restraint by this Government, have reaped a rich harvest in this area. The rents charged are used to justify raising the rates to very high levels. It is said, "If you pay that rent, even though it is with great difficulty and although you are compelled to do so, that is the rate at which the premises can be let in the open market. Therefore, you must pay high rates."
  A grant under the Bill of £20,000 to Marylebone is a fleabite. Any relief

  1301
  Marylebone will get will mean that more money must be found to make up for such relief. That will have to be found to a large extent by other ratepayers. The Minister will remember that when 20 per cent. was taken off commercial properties in 1957 the result was that the general rate had to rise. The rates will now have to rise again. The vicious circle will continue.
  It is all very well to talk about this being an interim Measure. Is it not time that we stopped tinkering with the problem? My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) quoted The Times. The Times said this, also:
  "The job of valuation was taken away from local authorities and given to the Inland Revenue after the war in order to secure uniformity and certainty in the operation of the rating system. Those desirable features are now about to be discarded in a panic measure."
  Whether it is right that rating valuation should be dealt with by the Inland Revenue may be open to argument. What is absolutely clear is that, instead of the limited terms of reference of the Allen Committee, long before now a committee should have been appointed with wide terms of reference to look into the principles affecting rating and its administration. The Government should not have introduced a Measure which will create further anomalies, because that is what f believe will be the result of the Bill.
  I can only express the hope that the Minister was serious when he talked about a committee being appointed next year. It is, indeed, time that was done. The appointment of such committee which will make an effort to put the law of rating upon an equitable basis and do justice between ratepayer and ratepayer is long overdue.
  5.53 p.m.
  Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I think that it was a little churlish of the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) to take such exception to the introduction of the Bill, because it appeared from the facts that he gave us that he is likely to be one of the beneficiaries of the Bill when it is enacted; but now that he has such an excellent representative in the House, if he has any grievances no doubt he will be able to take them up with him.
  1302
  A remarkable feature of the debate has been the very churlish welcome—one might almost say carping welcome—that the Bill has so far received from HON. MEMBERS opposite. I for one—I am sure that I speak for many of my hon. Friends—am delighted that the Bill has been introduced. [Interruption.] Indeed, it benefits my constituency, but it also benefits the constituencies of many other Hon. Members. It benefits a great many people, who have every reason to be grateful.
  I have gained the impression from some of the criticisms made by HON. MEMBERS that they believe that the Bill is designed to be the final culmination of all rating problems and all rating legislation for the future. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North, and the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M.Stewart) all talked about the Bill being a monstrous Bill which lays down the terrible principles. The Bill is meant to be only an interim Measure to deal with an interim problem. I assure HON. MEMBERS opposite that many of my hon. Friends will also continue to press for further legislation in the future to deal with this vital problem. To criticise the Bill as if it were the final culmination of rating policy is completely to misunderstand the purposes for which the Bill is introduced.
  The Bill is an interim Bill designed to meet the situation until Professor Allen's Committee reports. I was astonished to hear Hon. Members demand that a very tight definition of "hardship" should be written into the Bill. The Allen Committee was set up by my right hon. Friend specifically to determine what "hardship" means in this context. It is unreasonable for Hon. Members to demand that, whilst a very high-powered committee is examining this problem, my right hon. Friend should introduce his own definition of "hardship" into the Bill.
  After revaluation last year my right hon. Friend became perfectly clear that there are a large number of cases of hardship as a result of increased rates. Consequently, the Allen Committee was established to report upon hardship. Another committee has been set up by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to review the whole rating system and

  1303
  to determine, in particular, the exact proportions which should in future be raised from the taxpayer and from the ratepayer. Everyone who knows anything about this subject knows full well that any committee set up to decide what should be the exact proportions to be borne by the ratepayer and the taxpayer is presented with a very complicated problem. It is unreasonable to expect that legislation should wait until either of these two Committees reports.
  I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has in the meanwhile produced this temporary and interim Measure to relieve hardship which exists. I do not think that anyone can pretend that it follows from the introduction of a temporary and interim Measure that all the principles laid down in it will stand for all time. Of course not. The Government have had to design some method to deal with the temporary problem in a way which seems as equitable as possible.
  I should have thought that it was common ground between Hon. Members on both sides that it is in those areas where there is very little industry that the householder is likely to bear an increased burden on revaluation. I cannot give the exact figures for my constituency, but I think that the result of revaluation in the Borough of Southend as a whole has been an increase of approximately 5 per cent. in the proportion the domestic householder has to pay. Southend will benefit by £55,000 or £56,000 from the Bill, owing to the very large number of old people living there. It is true that large numbers of old people live in a number of constituencies like Southend. This is precisely the situation which the Bill is designed to meet. The inevitable result of the present rating system is that it is such areas as Southend that suffer.
  It is high time that something was done, not only in this interim Bill, but in the future, to sort out the whole rating system. That is why I welcome my right hon. Friend's determination to set up a fundamental review which, as my hon. Friend the Member for the City
  1304
  of Chester (Mr. Temple) pointed out, must work extremely fast if its recommendations are to be made in time for us to have adequate legislation before the next quinquennium arrives.
  I do not think that anyone wishes to be faced with a similar problem in 1968, regardless of which party is in power. Of course, I think that the party which will then be in power will be the Conservative Party, but others may hold a different view. However, regardless of which party will be in power, it will have a difficult problem in 968 unless we can get the Committee to report quickly and we get legislation as soon as possible after the Committee reports.
  Mr. James McColl: The hon. Gentleman appears to be scolding us because there is not a high-powered inquiry, but the whole burden of our case has been that a high-powered inquiry should have begun many years ago. That is why we voted against the 1961 Act. It is not our fault that we have not got an inquiry. If, when we on these benches come into power, we are faced with a chaotic situation in which it is impossible to adopt any policy about local government finance it will not be our fault.
  Mr. Channon: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. If I was scolding him, which I do not think I was, I was certainly not scolding him on that ground. I said that I thought it a little churlish to take exception to the Bill.

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

  1. Nigeria (Republic) Act, 1964.

  2. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1964.

  3. Electricity and Gas Act, 1963.

  RATING (INTERIM RELIEF) BILL
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. Channon: I was giving some of the reasons why I supported the Bill. I do not think it fair to criticise it on grounds that would be fair to criticise a Bill which represented the completion of the chapter on rate legislation. I welcome the Bill, imperfect though it may be in some respects, because immediate and urgent action is necessary.
  I agree that it is very difficult for local authorities to determine exactly how they will interpret hardship, but I think and hope that it will be the people just above the National Assistance level who will largely benefit from it. To cite the case of my own authority, if we get £50,000 and choose to use it, as I hope we will, to relieve hardship cases, then, coupled with the grant which will come from the Treasury, we will have £100,000 available, which for my authority is a comparatively large sum. This is true of many other authorities. I very much hope and think that local authorities will use their powers to relieve hardship.
  There is no doubt that trouble has been caused, not only by revaluation this year, but by extra spending on the part of local authorities. Local authority expenditure will inevitably rise as the years pass because of the increased cost of the many services which we all welcome. But there is no doubt that one thing which ratepayers will have to do much more carefully than they have done in the past is to scrutinise the programmes and schemes, and sometimes the expensive schemes, put forward by local authorities.
  I hope that councillors who practise economy will find themselves more easily elected, because experience in some local authorities is that it is the councillors who vote for large increases in expenditure who kick up a fuss about rate increases when the rate budget is prepared. I think that that is very unfair.
  I think that we all agree that the Bill is necessary. It is only an interim Measure. I take, however, a different
  1306
  view from some Hon. Members about the rating system. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that it will be extremely difficult to find an alternative to the rating system, but I seriously hope that a strenuous attempt will be made to do so. I recognise that the rating system is hallowed by centuries of antiquity and that rates are extremely easy to collect, but the system has many disadvantages. One of the worst is that it is very haphazard.
  It seems to me that very often the amount which the ratepayers have to spend towards the cost of education, which forms a vital part of the rates, depends not on how many good new schools there are in the area, but on how many industrial firms there are to help to bear the burden. This is a very strange system. Rates are by far the least progressive form of taxation, and even on that ground alone I should have thought that there was a case for changing the system. I should have thought that that point of view would appeal to some Hon. Members opposite.
  We all agree that there are great dangers in Transferring too much money from local government to the centre, not only because it would be extremely unpopular if extra taxation had to be raised in the form of Income Tax, but also because it would be a dangerous principle if control was too far removed from the people who have to pay for the services. But, granted that, I still think that there is enormous scope for making changes in the system.
  We may well have to re-examine and reconsider some of these problems, of which the cost of education is the most striking. I do not think it would be sensible to recommend that the whole cost of education should be borne by the Exchequer, but I think that there is a case for part of the cost being borne by the Exchequer. Perhaps part of the police burden should be borne by the central Government. These are problems which I hope will be dealt with expeditiously by the Chief Secretary's committee.
  This is a Bill which will relieve a great deal of hardship, and there is much hardship in certain areas. I have had many letters which I have forwarded to the Allen Committee dealing with hardship and I expect that many

  1307
  other Hon. Members have done the same. A great deal of hardship has resulted from revaluation and increased local authority expenditure. The Bill is designed to relieve part of that hardship until there can be a really first-class review made of the whole system.
  I have some doubts about the view of some Hon. Members that we should have had this review earlier. That might have been a good thing in some ways, but it would not have been practicable to complete the review until we had learned the results of revaluation. Although some Hon. Members were crying in the wilderness before revaluation took place, it was not until it happened that we realised the full extent of the problem facing the Government and local authorities.
  I do not think it entirely fair to criticise every detail of the Bill. As I say, it is an interim measure in what I consider to be a good cause, namely, to relieve some part of the ratepayers' burden. A criticism of the hon. Member for Fulham was that Clauses 1 and 2 did not go together. Although they cannot be put together in Parliamentary language, I am sure that the intention is that the sum of money which local authorities get should be used, not for the benefit of the general body of ratepayers, but to relieve the hardship which is described in Clause 2.
  In spite of the difficulties of the Bill, I hope that it will have a fair passage in this House.
  It was a previous colleague from Bristol, Edmund Burke, who said about taxation, that
  "To tax and to please, no more than to love and to be wise, is not given to men."
  That has proved abundantly clear in the case of the rate burden. My right hon. Friend the Minister, more than anyone else, has reason to know that this is true. I hope that as a result of the Bill, a small interim step will be taken to secure better justice for a class of ratepayers who have been a little too ill-treated in the past.
  6.21 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Wade: For the last 14 years, I have been taking part in debate on local authority rates. It is not a very thrill-
  1308
  ing subject, even though the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has found it an opportunity for quoting Edmund Burke. Although the subject is not very thrilling, however, it affects a great many people. To the elderly person living on a small income, perhaps with a few savings, just above the National Assistance level, a steep increase in rates can be a serious matter. The problem is what to do about it.
  Having studied the various Bills which have come before us during a long period of years, I consider that the legislation has become increasingly complex. It is true that occasionally attempts have been made to introduce a recognisable principle, but it has not lasted very long. There is, therefore, considerable point in the opening sentence in the article of the Observer of 15th December on the subject of the Bill which states:
  "If and when the rating system should be abandoned as the basis of local government it will be due not so much to its inherent defects as to the sorry series of expedients born of political pressures which have marred and impeded the working of the system since 1925."
  I would not accept the view that there are no inherent defects in our rating system. I believe that there are some fundamental defects. It is, however, true that much of the legislation has been determined by expediency. The Bill is an outstanding example.
  I agree that many cases of steep increase have arisen from the last revaluation. There is plenty of evidence of this and I forecast that it would happen before the revaluation same into effect. A good deal of the hardship is due to the suddenness of the change, but I do not think that it will necessarily follow that the Bill will produce the satisfaction that it is intended to achieve. For everyone who benefits, an equal number may feel aggrieved.
  Several quotations have been made from The Times, particularly the article entitled "Panic Measure". The criticism of the Bill is summed up in a paragraph which follows one already quoted in the debate and which states:
  "It has, however, been impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Government's sudden change of mind about immediate rate relief, its decision to act before the facts on which action should be based have been investigated

  1309
  by the Allen Committee, was prompted by electoral calculations. The resulting measure is just what might be expected; it is ill-prepared, introduces at least one objectionable principle and threatens to breed as much discontent as it is supposed to remove."
  That is all too often the penalty for acting on expediency.
  Before putting forward a few of my own specific criticisms, however, I should like to obtain more clarification of what is intended to be the combined effect of Clauses 1 and 5, to which there have been several references during the debate. The intention is still not quite clear. Clause 1 provides for Exchequer grants to rating authorities in whose area people over 65 years of age make up more than one-tenth of the population. This has been condemned in some quarters and by some Hon. Members this afternoon on the ground that it will result in a general subsidy to a rating authority and the benefit will be spread over all ratepayers, whether in need or not. Clause 5, however, is criticised on the ground that the Exchequer will provide only one-half of the relief which the rating authorities are enabled to grant at their discretion, as provided for in Clause 2, the remainder having to be found by the ratepayers as a whole.
  Exactly how are Clauses 1 and 5 to be taken? The two particular criticisms which I mention may cancel each other out. There may be some local authorities where the amount of grant under Clause 1 will offset the amount which is left to the local authority to find under Clause 5. Is that intended? If so, why is the result achieved in such a roundabout way? Alternatively, is it intended that in some cases the local authority should get more than it actually pays out, whereas in other cases local authorities will have to pay out more in relief than they receive in grant? To me, it is all unnecessarily complex. I hope that in the winding-up speech, we shall have further enlightenment on the relationship between Clauses 1, 2 and 5.
  Apart from that, I have five main criticisms. First, there is no clear guiding principle. This is simply a hand-out, or, at least, a promise of a hand-out, and it will lead inevitably to complaints from taxpayers who do not share in it. Secondly, there may be unfairness as between ratepayers in one local authority area and another. I am
  1310
  not making any special pleading for the borough which I represent. During the 1950s, Huddersfield came off fairly badly concerning Exchequer grants and I often had to make representations on its behalf. During the 1960s, however, Huddersfield has been comparatively well treated. Nevertheless, it is very much a case of the luck of the draw.
  However in talking of unfairness, I think not so much of my own borough as of the application of these proposals to some other local authority areas—for example, to some of the new or overspill towns which contain many elderly people but where there is likely to be also a high proportion of children. Presumably, this will reduce the percentage figure available to the elderly. This scarcely seems to be equitable.
  My third criticism is that there is no clear basis of assessing hardship, as other Hon. Members have pointed out. We are not dealing with poverty as such, of which there can be a reasonably clear definition. Surely, it would be wiser either to define hardship more clearly or to leave it to the local authority to act as it thinks best without the complicated limitations imposed in the Bill. Here we have neither one thing nor the other.
  Fourthly, there is bound to be an increase in administrative costs. This was summed up in a paper by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants dated 12th December, 1963. I quote the relevant paragraph:
  "Rating authorities will undoubtedly incur some additional Administrative expenditure in assessing hardship and applying relief. They will also be involved in the task of estimating the total sum likely to be lost through remissions, because this will influence the calculation of the penny rate product and so, in turn, the late in the £ required to be levied. The rate in the £is, of course, computed by dividing the aggregate net expenditure by the penny rate product. Most county councils have already obtained from the rating authorities in their area the 1964–65 estimated penny rate product for precepting purposes. It appears likely that they will now have to call for fresh calculations."
  It certainly looks to me as if there will be some hard work for the mathematicians.
  Fifthly, I think the timing is unfortunate in that relief should have been granted at the same time as the new revaluation came into effect. There is nothing in the Bill to help those who are

  1311
  most harshly hit by increased rates during the present winter. We have an anomalous state of affairs in which the relief proposed will not come into effect till next year.
  Meanwhile, the Allen Committee is sitting, and supposed to be studying the very subject which this Bill attempts to deal with. Local authorities were asked earlier this year to make submissions to the Allen Committee, and the leader of the Liberals on Exeter City Council has sent me an interesting memorandum which only came into my hands today. I understand that Exeter City Council resolved that in view of the short time available no detailed submission was possible and that it merely recorded its view that hardship is inevitable to ratepayers on low and fixed incomes.
  However, the Liberal group carried out an analysis of 34 cases which had been brought to its attention where hardship was claimed. Examination of these cases shows that whereas before April, 1963, the average householder in the sample paid 8·7 per cent. of his total income in rates, after April, 1963, the amount rose to 10·5 per cent. Of the 34 householders, 13 paid more than 10 per cent. of their income in rates, and of those two paid more than 20 per cent., and one more than 30 per cent. It seems almost unbelievable that someone should be paying 30 per cent. of his total income in rates.
  Naturally, I looked to see if these were National Assistance cases. I find here in this report that seven householders were in receipt of National Assistance, which was included in the income of the householders. So it is only seven out of the 34 where National Assistance has been paid, f think that gives some striking examples of hardship, although hardship may not have been defined.
  The survey states:
  "A typical case of hardship which emerged from this survey was that of pensioners living alone in the older type of terraced house. The rate demand on these ratepayers is frequently more than 10 per cent. of their total income and is often paid out of a shrinking reserve of small savings."
  I must say that I think, knowing this to be the case, that it is unfortunate that nothing should have been done for this current year. Most of the information was known a year ago. One is
  1312
  entitled to ask why no action was taken a year ago.
  However, it has now been decided to act without waiting for the report of the Allen Committee, and it seems to me that there is much to be said for simplifying the procedure for emergency relief. According to the article in the Observer, to which I have already referred, this tinkering with the rating system will cause further frustration. Would it not be wiser to remove some of the complicated limitations contained in this Bill—I am thinking particularly of Clause 2—and, as suggested in the Observer article, as local authorities are responsible bodies, leave it to their discretion to make use of such grants as the Treasury is prepared to concede?
  I am aware of the contrary argument—in fact, the contrary argument has been put this afternoon—that the local authorities should not have this difficult burden placed upon them of deciding who should be entitled to relief and who should not. Personally, I am inclined to the view that it would be better to simplify this Bill, rather than make it more complicated, and place the discretion upon the local authorities to do as they think best with such grant as is available.
  Finally, the terms of reference of the Allen Committee will have to be widened or amended. I do not quite know how the work of that Committee will be related to the investigation which is to be made by this new administrative committee. Or is it intended that the Allen Committee should complete its work first, before the new committee is set up? I do not know, but whatever body is given this task, someone should look into the whole subject of the present rating system and the many anomalies which exist, with a view to introducing some radical reforms. I have been pressing for radical reforms for a good many years, and I can only say they are very long overdue.
  6.36 p.m.
  Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I sympathies enormously with my right hon. Friend because he has a tremendously difficult task facing him, and I think he realises all too well that no matter what he did about this Bill there would always be

  1313
  people who would be discontented because they felt they had been omitted. Whatever proposals he put forward there would always be some people who felt they were being ignored, and I would commend to him what the leader in the Evening Standard on 10th December said:
  "An expert once remarked that there is something about paying rates which turns a rational human being into a ravening reactionary overnight."
  I think there is a good deal of truth in that. Rate demands seem to affect people much more than ordinary bills. None of us particularly like having to pay bills, but so far as I am concerned my rate demand is the one which really makes me see red more than any other. I would say that for my modest flat in your constituency, Mr. Speaker, my rateable value has been quadrupled, and therefore any increase in rate poundage in the future must certainly be viewed with great alarm, because whereas in the past, if the rate poundage went up by 6d., perhaps it was not too bad, in the new circumstances with vastly increased rateable values this will impose a tremendous burden on a lot of people.
  I think this Bill is certainly a humane attempt to help areas and individuals whose budgets have been drastically upset by the sharp increase in rates due to revaluation. I think one of the measures contained in the Bill has a certain amount to commend it, and that is the payment of grant to rating authorities in those areas where they have 10 per cent. or more of the population made up of people of 65 years of age or more; in each of these cases a grant of £5 is paid for each person of that age in excess of that proportion.
  This will undoubtedly help the seaside resorts and the holiday areas of this country, because those are the places where there is a high percentage of older people who have gone there to retire, and those are the areas which have been certainly badly hit by the revaluation because of their lack of industry.
  However, I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider places like the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which is regarded as an industrial city, not a place where people usually go to settle when they retire; not, I think, what would be
  1314
  termed one of the desirable areas of the country. It is, in fact, the centre of a great industrial area. Therefore, in Newcastle we benefit slightly by these grants, but we shall not get very much because the percentage of people over 65 in Newcastle is only slightly above 10 per cent. The strange thing is that although Newcastle is regarded as a great industrial city, we do not have so much industry within the city boundaries as most people imagine. Therefore, householders in Newcastle have found that tinder revaluation their share of the rate burden has been increased by 9 per cent., which is certainly in excess of the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). I imagine that Southend will certainly have a high percentage of older people and will, therefore, gain in this way, whereas Newcastle will not.
  A provision of the Bill which should be carefully looked at is that local authorities are to have power to help people where hardship is caused. This boils down to the definition of "hardship" and to the sort of local authority that people have. Some local authorities will look very sympathetically at cases and perhaps give people some redress, but someone in exactly similar circumstances may find that his local authority is hard-hearted and refuses to do anything to assist.
  A great deal has been said in the debate and on the general subject of rates about old people and people living on small fixed incomes. I entirely agree that they are a very special problem and that it is up to us to devise some means to cushion the effects of revaluation on them.
  Having said that, I want to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the case of people who bought a house, budgeting very closely to do so and taking on what they thought they could manage, but who now, because of the increase in rates, find it very difficult to make ends meet. They are not eligible for National Assistance and would not dream of asking for it. They would find it difficult to appeal to a local authority and say they were finding hardship in paying their rates. They are faced with a tremendous problem. The problem is even worse, because,

  1315
  as they realise, it is only the beginning and the amount they are paying in rates this year will almost certainly be increased in subsequent years unless drastic action is taken.
  An enormous amount of money will be spent on education in the years ahead. So long as we have our present rating system and education expenditure is shared between the central Government and local authorities, the burden imposed on ratepayers is bound to be enormous. This is causing tremendous concern to a large number of people. We encourage people to buy their own homes; yet they say that by doing so they are penalising themselves.
  I have drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend areas where there are council houses in the same street as private houses and the council houses are assessed at a great deal less than the private houses. There may be some justification for this, but most people find it difficult to understand why the council houses should be assessed so much lower than the private ones. The official answer when I took this up with the rating authorities was that there was a stigma about living in a council house. All I can say is that ratepayers in my constituency state that they are prepared to suffer the stigma if only someone will give them council houses and take away their responsibilities for doing repairs, making mortgage payments and paying rates and doing the other things which go with home ownership.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, I feel that this is a stopgap Measure. My right hon. Friend himself said this. Many people will be very grateful to him for it. It is at least an attempt to do something to help the hardest hit. I was disappointed to learn that my right hon. Friend thought that the Allen Committee would not report until the summer at the very earliest. I had hoped the report would be published at the beginning of the year. That is a fact-finding committee, and its job is to try to assess the impact of rates on different sections of the community.
  I do not feel that this goes far enough. I believe that the rating system is antiquated. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West that our
  1316
  system may make rates easily collectable. On the other hand, nothing at all is said about ability to pay. One sometimes comes across old people living in the family home after the family has grown up and left. These people find it very difficult to pay the increased rates on a house which is now certainly too big for their own use. But one cannot tell them that they must uproot themselves and find something smaller to live in, because they want to stay in the area where they brought up their children, have their friends and know their neighbours.
  Something must be done to find a new way of raising local revenue, which is necessary. It must be a way which has some regard to the ability of people to pay. While I welcome the Bill, I hope that it will be the beginning of a great deal of rethinking of the whole vexed problem of rates, because I believe that we have political dynamite here unless action is taken.
  6.47 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Mapp: I could not help reflecting that the argument of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery) about cases of hardship was somewhat similar to another argument used by his right hon. Friend. The words "political dynamite" have been used. I would prefer to be frank and say that the Bill uses the public purse to deal with the electoral difficulties of the other side of the House under the heading of "hardship", which the Minister does not want to define but which ought to be defined in any Act.
  For months we have had Government back benchers screaming and shouting their heads off about the hardship results of the cold, studied policy in a Standing Committee two or three years ago of the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Home Secretary. I distinctly recall the attitude of that right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary, who is now the Minister dealing with this Bill. At that time I warned the right hon. Gentleman about the effect of the incidence of legislation on the electoral date, and it seems that what I said is now coming true.
  When this point and other points were put to him, the Minister at that time

  1317
  said that one step was enough for him. Now the full impact—let us be frank about this—of the philosophy of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House is coming home. The philosophy was that we must express the modern market value of houses in terms not of 1939 but 1961. That was the philosophy of the Government side, not the Opposition side. Many members of the Opposition and some HON. MEMBERS opposite could see that there would be difficulties in terms of geography and the four groups which make up the rateable paying side of the problem, and here and there we could discern what now amounts to hardship.
  The Bill is pure panic legislation. It is hybrid legislation. It shows signs of having been drafted hurriedly. This afternoon the Minister showed signs that he was putting across a policy which had been thrust upon him: not a policy that he was really blessing. It was clearly a policy which had been thrust upon him to deal with electoral problems.
  Mr. Dudley Smith: If this Bill is political, why did the Government introduce it a day or so after the St. Marylebone by-election instead of a few days before it?
  Mr. Mapp: If the hon. Gentleman thinks me so naïve as to believe that the public has assessed the party opposite in only one by-election, I would point out to him that the portents have been with us for two or three years. The Prime Minister himself said that the next page after his own at Kinross would be a good one, but Dumfries proved to be dark for the Government after all. Let us be honest and admit that the Bill is sheer electoral strategy. The unfortunate thing is that it concerns a problem in which humanity is very much involved.
  I am surprised that the Bill embodies a completely new principle of rating. I believe I am right in saying that, hitherto, rating assessment has been confined to a physical basis in property. Now the Government say that persons must come into consideration.
  Mr. Corfield: Since 1925, there has been a provision by which property can be taken into account, and that includes persons. There is thus no breach of principle.
  Mr. Mapp: I do not think that that intervention is other than tactical. One is aware that a rating authority, in the face of proved hardship, is in a position now to remit on merit, but if that is now being produced to justify this new extension of the rating principle to people as distinct from practice hitherto, it is a rather poor argument.
  It has been interesting to note the evolution of thought among Hon. Members opposite about rates. Up until only months ago, the rating system based on property and land was sacrosanct to them, for reasons we all know. On this side of the House, however, we have always been clearly in favour of transferring local revenue from property to persons. Now right hon. and Hon. Members opposite have experienced a change of mind, for reasons of expediency.
  Clause 1 specifically refers to persons
  "…over the age of sixty-five…"
  I am open to correction but I understand that, in practically all our legislation, provision for elderly persons takes effect when the age of sixty-five is reached. Therefore, the words
  "…over the age of sixty-five…"
  clearly mean the sixty-sixth birthday. I hazard a guess that the statistics available—like those I have in respect of my own borough—apply to that part of the population which is aged 65 and over and not to the part aged 66 and upwards. This is a material point. It could make a substantial difference in the ultimate financial effect of this relief.
  We have been told that 1,230 rating authorities will benefit out of a total of 1,467. Clause 1 fixes the qualifying proportion of those over 65 in a town's population at 10 per cent.—which may mean, of course, as has been suggested, that the figure of 11 per cent. will be taken as the optimum number. Oldham is liable to qualify for this relief and it is estimated that the 2,300 people involved would bring Oldham the sum of £11,000.
  I have some reservations about relief to rating accounts under this sort of guise. If we wish to legislate to assist people aged 65 and over, why should we not do it in a straightforward way?

  1319
  Why not do it by recognising the services for older people, such as those my own local authority is pioneering? These are services specifically organised for older people and if we wanted to be more helpful to them we could, for instance, remove their prescription charges. That would be a better and more honest way of achieving the object than the Government's rather crafty electoral process. This is the sort of hypocrisy we are facing.
  Another point to consider is what is to happen in cases where a local authority trying to do the right thing for its elderly people finds that difficulty arises because some have been housed outside its boundary. These people, of course, will be in some other authority's census. I know that that is a Committee point, but we should begin to consider it now.
  Another way to help old people is through the home help service, which is one that really matters. Instead of offering this hybrid form of financial assistance under Clause 1, the Government should come clean and achieve the object through a more straightforward form of assistance. It is this attitude that makes me believe that the Government are not sincere when they say that they want to help old people.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) complained, quite rightly, about the complicated way in which the Bill is written. Surely the Minister could find a simpler form in which to say that the Government will pay 50 per cent. plus something or other.
  I want now to deal with the question of hardship. The Minister was guilty of a serious misdirection of the House, in my belief, when he said today that he did not wish to give a direction or statement as to what constituted hardship. There was some inference, however, that, in some other capacity, he would give some sort of guidance. Is this another instance of executive guidance about the carrying out of an Act of Parliament?
  Let us look at this in terms of the problems of a borough treasurer, which are much the same whether the local authority be Bourn mouth or Oldham. He has the task of considering what
  1320
  constitutes hardship. I believe that there is a very close link between Clause 2(1,a), which sets out the limits for rates on a house, and subsection (1,b). By implication, these two provisions suggest that if a rate payment increases by 25 per cent. or £5—whichever is higher—that, in the nature of things, is hardship.
  That is the case which is being argued by Hon. Members opposite. They say that if the additional rate demand is 25 per cent. or £5—whichever is the higher—over the preceding rate demand, then, willy-nilly, that is hardship. This means that the majority of people will be contributing a subsidy to help people who in some cases can well afford to pay the increased rate burden. Let us be realistic about this. How is the borough treasurer to ascertain hardship? He will have to issue a document which amounts to a test as to means. How else could he do it? How else, unless he inquires into the income and other means of the appellant, is he able to act for his local authority?
  I am not too happy about the Bill. Some relief is given here and there to some unfortunate people who have suffered from the Government's rating legislation. They will see it as a sort of eleventh hour repentance to regain their good will. In Committee, it may be possible to trim it up here and there and to make it easier to understand. However, once again, it must be for the House to determine the criteria of hardship. This is a task which should not be given to local authorities. Clause 1 has been written into the Bill for no reason other than its electoral possibilities.
  7.2 p.m.
  Mrs. Evelyn Emmet: I must take up the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) on one point. He appeared to be full of suspicions, but I am sure that he is a much nicer man than he seemed and I should like to assure him that we on this side of the House are nicer than he thinks we are.
  I welcome the Bill and I think that its introduction is due to the fact that HON. MEMBERS on this side of the House care very much for cases of hardship in their constituencies. It is for that reason and for no other that we have pressed the Minister who has now produced an interim Bill. I do not care whether this

  1321
  year, next year, or the year after, is election year; if my constituents are suffering hardship, I shall press to have it relieved.
  I am very glad that we have this interim Bill, although in some ways it will be difficult for the local authorities to operate—and I speak with some experience after 39 years in local government. I should have thought that there might be a simpler way in which to relieve hardship. I am glad that the central grant has been weighted for the aged as well as for children. Older people are an increasing burden on the social services of local authorities and it is only right that the aged as well as the young should be brought into the picture. But this means that the two extremes, the young and the old, have to be serviced by the working population, and it is time that we considered the whole system of taxation and rates and revised it.
  Hon. Members opposite have taken credit to themselves for being the only people who have thought of this, but many of my hon. Friends and I for at least two years have pressed for another look at the whole system of taxation and rating. We must agree that at a time when local government is being reorganised and we have had to face revaluation, it would be extraordinarily difficult for the Minister to tackle this third problem, but I hope that when local reorganisation is out of the way we shall be able to get down to it.
  The suggestion which I have made from time to time does not appear yet to have penetrated the Ministerial ear. It is this. People of a certain age and in a certain income group are exempt from Income Tax, and it will be agreed that that is right and proper. Something of the same sort could have been done with rates. That would have been a much simpler way than this to deal with hardship.
  I do not know whether even yet the Minister is fully seized of the agonising situation of some older people. They might have given up their old car and may have to give up the telephone which is tremendously important to them for keeping in contact with their family, doctor and tradesmen. They may have to give up their wireless. I know of some in my constituency who lie awake at night and wonder how their small income
  1322
  will stretch over continually rising rates. Rates to them appear to be a flood water which will engulf them. But a fixed rate demand, or an exemption at an income limit, or something like what is done in respect of Income Tax would immediately relieve these people of this anxiety, not only for this year but for the years ahead, and I hope that the Government will consider it.
  I should also like to refer to the regulations which appear to govern valuation officers in their assessment of flats as against houses, and council houses as against other houses. If flats are valued because of the high rate of demand, surely council houses should qualify in the same way in view of the long waiting lists for them. Local authorities lose much rateable value if they have many council houses in their area. It should also be remembered that in most council houses there are people whose earning capacity is sometimes very high compared with that of elderly people occupying flats, whose income is fixed. The council house tenant seems to be better able to bear the increasing rate burden than does the elderly flat dweller.
  Also to rate flats too highly is to militate against the movement of older people into smaller accommodation. There are many older people in my constituency who have moved from houses into flats because they were over-housed and who thought that they would be able to get on better in flats, but who found that the rates of the flats were far higher than those of the houses. This comparison of flats with houses and council houses with other houses should be reconsidered most carefully.
  I understand that there is to be no backdating of hardship, and that hardship cases will be considered as from 1st April next year. I have several cases in my constituency in which valuers have returned to have another look at accommodation and have then increased the rates over and above the first revaluation, one month, or even three months, after. The unfortunate ratepayer has tried to get used to the shock of revaluation, then finds that he is facing another shock with rates backdated to 1st April due to an error by the valuer. If there is to be no backdating for hardship, I think that where

  1323
  a valuer has made an error the consequences of that mistake should be borne either by the local authority or by the taxpayers for the rest of that year.
  I have made my points. I thank the Minister for helping those of us who brought to his notice cases of hardship, and I am certain that the Bill will be a very useful interim Measure.
  7.11 p.m.
  Mr. J. T. Price: It is most refreshing for some of us on this side of the House to be able to sit and listen to HON. MEMBERS opposite being so critical of the British rating system. Having given some thought to these extremely complicated matters, one finds it difficult to say very much in defence of the more or less bastard system that has developed in this country over hundreds of years.
  I was perhaps fortunate—or unfortunate as some might think—in being a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Rating and Valuation Bill, 1961. I was glad to be present this afternoon when the Minister, in his usual agreeable style, opened the debate on this small Bill and gave a lucid exposition of its terms, but had he had the time, or the inclination, to study the debates of 1961, which extended over three months, he would no doubt have found it much more difficult to make the kind of speech that he did today.
  We had a general critical survey of the British rating system, with all its absurdities, its anomalies, its illogicalities, its injustices and its failure to face the fact that all taxation, whether local or national, ought to be related to the principle of the ability of the citizen to meet those taxes, and not to some notional figment of the academic or official mind.
  I suppose that I would be out of order if I went wider than that in this general reference to a rating system, but it is nevertheless refreshing and welcome to know that the feeling that the British rating system is incapable of being defended is percolating from this side of the House to the other. I do not claim any special virtue in the fact that many of my hon. Friends have always been critical of the rating system, and I welcome one or two of the speeches that
  1324
  have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Let us consider what has been happening over the last two years. During the debates on the Rating and Valuation Bill, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, now the Home Secretary, was warned time and again of what would happen as a result of that legislation. It is a long time since I had the satisfaction of quoting one of my own speeches, because usually when I have made them that is an end of the matter. Sometimes they are very good speeches, and sometimes they are not so good. I do not often quote my own speeches. I do not like regurgitating food, but, nevertheless, I am going to treat myself to a quotation from one of my speeches so that I can point to hon. Gentlemen opposite and say, "I told you so". My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) told them so with much greater eloquence than I can.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) spent many hours trying to hammer into the skull of the then Minister of Housing and Local Government what would happen, and I said:
  "I repeat what I have said before—that when this Bill begins to be seen in all its implications, the effect will be seen, in the end, to be that the balance of rateable burden is shifted from industry and commerce to domestic householders.
  Whatever the Minister says today, this kind of slapdash legislation is not good enough. He wants this wide power in the nominal interests of purity of valuation. What is the use of having a new figure established for the valuation of houses if, eventually, the Minister says that he will take away 50 per cent. or 75 per cent. or any notional figure? We shall not have a real figure. The right hon. Gentleman may have a valuation list which contains the figure for the 1962 valuation, or any year, but nevertheless, when it is adjusted, one will be left with a bastard figure, as one is today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 20th December, 1960; c. 122–3.]
  That has turned out to be the case. There have been so many chippings away, so many adjustments and so many amendments that the whole purpose of trying to bring the valuation lists up to 1961 values has been defeated. This Bill is only one further attempt to mitigate the effect of new valuations, and the figure left will not be the true valuation on the 1961 figure.
  Mr. Temple: I would not like to spoil the pleasure the hon. Gentleman is deriving from quoting from his own speech, but would he not agree that, in fact, the share borne by householders is exactly the same as it was before that Bill was passed?
  Mr. Price: I could not agree with that. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a debating point without submitting the statistics necessary to prove his argument, I shall not be able to deal with it tonight, but his statement is not true as a general principle. The position differs from town to town, and from locality to locality. It is not true to say that the burden of rates has not shifted. The hon. Gentleman is a considerable expert in these matters, and he is not half as naïve as he would have the House believe. He knows that the burden of rates on dwelling houses is determined by the proportion of industry in relation to the number of houses in the area, the value of those houses and when they were built. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow that point.
  I have no intention of making a long and laborious speech.
  Mr. MacColl: Long, but not laborious.
  Mr. Price: It is not a labour at all; it is quite a pleasure.
  There are a number of things to which the Minister did not refer. For example, he did not refer to the fact that when the Rating and Valuation Bill was considered in Committee it was frequently forecast by my hon. Friends and myself that the effect would be to raise the rateable assessments by about 300 per cent. That was our more or less pragmatic judgment. Our forecasts were pooh-poohed. We were told that we were exaggerating, but we have been proved right.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, dealt trenchantly, in a polemical way, with this small Measure. I am trying not to incur the displeasure of the hon. Lady the Member for East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet), who thinks that we are nicer than we sound. My hon. Friend dealt with the real issue, which is that this
  1326
  little Measure is purely a tactical device or strategem to deal with the electoral consequences of this valuation.
  It is no use the hon. Lady shaking her head. Bournemounth is most closely affected, and the hon. Member for Bourn mouth, West (Sir J. Eden) agrees with me—at least, if he does not I will gladly give way to him. There are more old folk in Bournemounth, per head of population, than in almost any other town in the British Isles. It is a most desirable, pleasant and salubrious town, in which people who retire on their old-age pension can buy nice little flats or houses at the inflated figures that the Bourn mouth estate agents ask for.
  Mrs. Emmet: Is the hon. Member suggesting that however great the hardship is now we should postpone the Bill until after the election?
  Mr. M. Stewart: Let us have the election now.
  Mr. Price: The hon. Lady is being very provocative. She is tempting me to say something that I might regret later on. But if there is any question about this being an electoral device, it can be disposed of by having an election now—by putting up the shutters in this House and going to the country on this issue.
  If you will allow me to be serious for a moment, Mr. Speaker—[Laughter.] I am sorry, but the hon. Lady is asking for this. I could go happily down to Bournemouth and make the sort of speech that I am now making and get away with it, because the people there are very annoyed with the Tory Party about this. I know Bournemouth well, and I have a great respect for it. On one occasion when I was there I had the pleasure of moving some kind of official toast to the Mayor of Bournemouth.
  Hon. Members opposite know quite well that the Bill is merely a stopgap Measure to meet the criticism that is being launched against the Government. Rateable values are related to the real values of the hereditaments upon which the rates are levied. I am glad to see that the Minister has returned. I have not said anything about him, but I may, because he argued with me a great deal in Committee in 1961. He put forward

  1327
  some very good arguments. But when we speak of high rateable values we must remember that in many towns which have a high proportion of those over 65, the property values have been grossly inflated by speculators and all kinds of entrepreneurs who use property as counters in their financial speculations. Rateable values have risen in accordance with the increasing values of the properties to which they are related.
  This is a factor which the Minister cannot deal with in a Bill of this kind. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me when I say this—because I have said it many times in Committee—but he has studied these questions with great diligence and he knows the strength of his case, but, by Jove, he knows the weaknesses of it as well. As a Minister it is not his business to admit those weaknesses, but I am entitled to tell him tonight that when the Government lifted the rateable values to the 1961 levels, after having done the same thing in respect of business premises in 1953, they did so knowing that when a high rateable value is put into the hands of any local authority—whatever its political complexion, Tory, Labour, or any other kind—it is a standing incitement to it to increase the rate poundage. Anyone who has anything to do with local government knows that that is so.
  Whenever, for purely academic reasons or for theoretical reasons put forward by people in Government Departments or university professors, we raise rateable values, as we did in 1961, we put a tremendous weapon into the hands of every local authority—a weapon which may be used wisely or unwisely.
  When we were debating the 1961 Measure in Committee—when the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Home Secretary was the Minister and the present Minister, who was then Parliamentary Secretary, took over a great deal of the work on the Bill—the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the mere fact that rateable value might rise by 200 per cent. or 300 per cent. did not mean that the rates would rise. Of course it did not, because the rate poundage would presumably be reduced in inverse ratio. But that situation
  1328
  might obtain only for the first year. Everybody knows that once rateable value rise, although there may be an initial reduction in rate poundage, within a few years it is liable to creep back to its previous figure. If it had been 20s. in the £ and had been reduced to 15s., in a few years' time it would probably be back to 20s., and on a much higher valuation. That sort of thing is happening all over the country.
  I do not want to develop these points tonight. I am sure that many HON. MEMBERS on both sides of the Committee agree with me in this. I do not agree that the application of this over-65 test is necessarily a fair one. It will determine what grant is available under Clause 1, to be spent at the discretion of a local authority. There may be districts in which there is a very high proportion of children, which will have the effect of reducing the average age, and those districts may very well be put outside the bounds of the Clause, although they need assistance.
  I know that Clause 2 provides that a grant can be claimed on another basis altogether, but it does not take sufficiently into account towns with a high unemployment rate. Nobody can tell me that a town which has an oldish population—a town like Bournemouth, or Worthing, or a similar town on the sunny South Coast—and which will benefit from the Bill is in any greater need of assistance than certain towns in Lancashire, such as Hindley in my constituency, which now has an unemployment rate of 6 per cent. Such towns will have many cases of hardship, but they may not qualify under any of the provisions of the Bill.
  This is a further piece of slapdash legislation. The 1961 Bill at least was merely a valuation Bill, but this is something more; it is a stratagem introduced to deal with the political situation. That fact is beyond dispute. The present Home Secretary, who dealt with this criticism on the 1961 Bill, said that if there was hardship he would have to find ways and means of introducing an Order to abate that hardship for a term of five years. He was talking in terms of a five years moratorium on increased rates, no doubt expecting that something like this would occur.

  1329
  When we levy taxes or rates we ought to do so in such a way that, as nearly as possible, they apply with universal force to every citizen. In other words, there should be no uncontrolled discretion available to anybody to vary the rate of taxation on any person. It ought to be clearly laid down that every citizen shall be treated in a similar manner.
  Tonight we are considering a Bill which is admittedly a stopgap Measure until the Allen Committee reports. We are dealing with a Bill in respect of which the Minister is asking us to agree to allow uncontrolled discretion to every local authority to pick and choose how it shall deal with its own ratepayers. Is not that so? This is not a democratic principle at all. This is surrendering powers of government to kissing by favour, to pressure groups, to personal relationships, and not to any abiding principle of government or politics at all. I think it is quite wrong that persons who are able to exert pressure, because of some personal advantage or for some other reason, should be in a more favoured position than those who cannot. Therefore, I resist that—
  Mr. Anthony Fell: But not with a vote.
  Mr. Price: Of course not. If the hon. Member is asking how I am going to vote about it, I will say that I am not proposing to stop some people getting an advantage because I disagree with some parts of the Bill; but I am entitled to criticise the Government strongly because this Measure is a result of their folly of two years ago. Now they are trying to redress the consequences by a slap-dash, pragmatic approach to satisfy their critics in certain parts of the country.
  7.31 p.m.
  Mr. A. E. Cooper: In so far as this Bill will give reliefs varying from £6 million to £12 million a year, it is to be welcomed. But, apart from that, and having regard to the fact that my right hon. Friend said clearly that this is an interim Measure until the Allen Committee reports, this may be regarded as a mouse of a Bill. It merely papers over the cracks in a decaying rating system. It does not
  1330
  get down to the fundamental weaknesses of the rating system or of local government finance. It is all very well for right hon. and Hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. J. T. Price), to talk about Hon. Members on this side of the House supporting the introduction of such a Measure for electoral purposes, but what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should remember is that the principal Act on which all legislation of this sort is based is the 1925 Act.
  That Act laid down clearly how a rating system should operate. Since the Act was passed there have been no fewer than three Labour Governments and, if the system was so iniquitous, one might have expected that during the lifetime of one of their Governments the Labour Party would have done something about it. I wish to draw the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the fact that the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan, when he was Minister of Health, refused time after time to have any inquiry into the finances of local government, so that it does not lie in the mouths of members of the Labour Party to criticise a Conservative Government for what may seem to be lack of action on this very vexed subject. The reorganisation of local government was resisted by the Labour Party when in office year after year. It was the persistent efforts of Conservative back-bench Members of Parliament which ultimately forced the present Government to set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole organisation of local government. Now we are considering something which flows naturally from that development.
  Rating is probably the most complicated and complex matter with which we have to deal. It is difficult, indeed it is almost impossible, to find a yardstick with which to obtain an accurate estimate not only as between areas but even between houses which are sometimes in the same street. The system is anachronistic and unfair as between individual ratepayers. In effect, it is a poll tax which bears no relationship to ability to pay. Having said all that—indeed anybody can voice such criticisms about the present rating system—one must add that it is another thing to discover an alternative to the present system.

  1331
  I join issue with some of my hon. Friends, and certainly with hon. Gentlemen opposite, over the fact that it is not so much a problem of the revaluation of property as of the total amount of rates that individual ratepayers have to pay. What we must consider in this and in subsequent debates on this issue is how we are to find all the money, which we know must be found, to finance the development of our social services, and particularly education. In my constituency there are no very rich or very poor people. There are certain cases of hardship which will benefit from the provisions in the Bill, but I am sure that further substantial increases in the rate demand over the next few years would impose a burden on the great majority of my constituents which they would be unable to bear. Therefore, Parliament must consider seriously how our local government services are to be financed in the future. That, in essence, is what this is all about. It is as simple as that.
  I am not convinced that the committee which my right hon. Friend said that he is about to set up will be enough. The subject is so important that nothing less than a Royal Commission, along the lines of the Commission on local government reorganisation, will be sufficient. It may take a little longer, but it is my experience that a Royal Commission would deal with these matters in a thorough and impartial way, and I believe that in the long-term we should get a better result than would be obtained from the sort of committee which my right hon. Friend has in mind.
  This Bill will afford a measure of relief, and for that we are grateful. But I wonder whether there are other and better ways in which the relief could have been afforded, particularly in the great conurbation of London. My own local authority pays more than 2s. in the £every year for the Metropolitan Police. I suppose that other great boroughs around London do the same. I know it is suggested that if all this was taken over by the State, and the financing of the police became a State liability, rather than it being partially paid for by local authorities, we should find ourselves with a State police force.
  1332
  That argument does not bear analysis. If ever a party was elected to office which had the desire to create a State police force, the proliferation of police forces all over the country, as at present would not prove a hindrance to the carrying out of that desire. If it is implied that because we pay a rate of about 2s. or more in the £, we as a borough have some control in the management of that police force, that is a travesty of the facts. We have no influence on the policemen or the disposition of the force. We have no responsibility whatever. That is solely a matter between the Government and the Metropolitan Police. We simply pay. There has always seemed to me a powerful argument for the full payment of all the police in this area to be taken over by the State, and indeed, the cost of the police in the rest of the country.
  I come to the vexed question—vexed only in the sense that as a financial problem it is a very serious one—of the development of education services. Over the years, as a result of the Government's progressive policies, these will cost us more and more. Plans announced in the recent Queen's Speech will throw a tremendous and growing burden on ratepayers. Can we sustain that burden without a great falling back in our domestic purchases in other directions? I should have thought that there was a powerful case now for the transfer of the payment of all teachers' salaries from local authorities to the Ministry of Education.
  It may be argued that a local authority would then be giving up a lot of control over the education service, but is it seriously argued that a local education authority is any more than an agent of the Ministry of Education for the development of its education policy? Under various education Acts we have had to do precisely as we were told. There seems to be a strong case for transferring the cost of teachers' salaries to the national Exchequer. Of course, this would undoubtedly affect the general grant system, but the net result for the local authority could only be beneficial.
  I make these points because the existing rate system takes no account of the ability of the ratepayer to pay, whereas the taxation system operates in just that way. To that extent it seems more equitable than the present rating

  1333
  system. I want to have a little throw, as it were, at my right hon. Friend the Minister, I think not only the present Minister of Housing and Local Government, but previous Ministers, have been too soft with local authorities on one or two matters. If they had been firmer, they could have benefited ratepayers very considerably.
  There is a matter for which my right hon. Friend has direct responsibility, the question of housing and rents. I should have thought that it should have been possible to have made mandatory a differential rents scheme throughout the country. Many authorities—mostly Conservative authorities—have introduced differential rent schemes to the great benefit of local ratepayers. My council pioneered this many years ago, with the result that today—apart from such subsidies as we raise for old-age pensioners' houses—not a penny piece is found by the ratepayer for council house rents or the maintenance of council houses. If that could be enforced on all local authorities in the country, the saving to the ordinary house-owner would be considerable and the present burdens forced upon him would not appear so intolerable.
  Sir K. Joseph: I do not want to minimise the principle which my hon. Friend is putting forward, but in terms of actual amount the share of the rate call which is accounted for by rate subsidies to housing authorities is 1·7 per cent.
  Mr. Cooper: I am not referring to the amount of house subsidy, which my right hon. Friend provides through the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am referring; to the amount which ratepayers find.
  Sir K. Joseph: That is the figure I gave, the rate subsidy towards the housing revenue account.
  Mr. Cooper: As my right hon. Friend will realise, averages are very easy to use in rebutting an argument, but there must be many cases in which the figure is much higher, particularly when one has regard to the fact that in Ilford, for example, there is no percentage, for the reasons I have put forward. In any event, if it had been possible to enforce this policy on local authorities there must have been some benefit to the general body of ratepayers.
  1334
  The second way in which various Ministers have been a little soft has been on the question of borrowing powers of local authorities. Local authorities have been allowed to borrow far too easily in many cases, not exactly for frivolous items, but obviously for things which they wanted, which nevertheless they should have been able to provide out of capital. When one has regard to the volume of the outstanding loan debt of local authorities today it seems a staggering sum of money. It is well in excess of £6,000 million, which on my calculation costs about £350 million or £400 million a year to service. That is something which we have to take into consideration.
  I have raised these matters because we are considering a Bill which is intended to relieve hardship. That hardship has arisen because of the great growth in local government expenditure. In this contest we have to consider not only the revaluation of property which has brought this matter to a head, but also the various factors which have built up the great growth in local government expenditure. Because I regard this as of such great importance and as one of the greatest social problems we shall have to face in coming years, I beg my right hon. Friend to think again about the composition of the committee he is to set up and to see if it would not serve the interests of the country and the House better if a Royal Commission were set up.
  7.47 p.m.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I listened very intently to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper). I wish that he would realise one thing. It is true that the Labour Party was in power on three occasions, but on two occasions it had no power. The only occasion on which it had power in this House has provided a sheet anchor for Tory Party criticisms ever since. That party never had an anchor of criticism against the Labour Party before. It takes some swallowing to see how, from time to time, right hon. and HON. MEMBERS opposite have swung on that anchor rope. Some time that rope will break and eventually they will get the ducking they deserve.
  Mr. Cooper: Would the hon. Member be kind enough to refer to what I said?

  1335
  I spoke about the 1925 Act and said that since then there have been three Labour Governments. If the hon. Member wishes to know his history, he should know that there have been four Labour Governments, as there was one in 1924.
  Mr. Wainwright: I was coming to the point about the 1925 Act. The hon. Member surely realises that the Labour Party was extremely busy in its last period of office putting forward Bills which eventually became Acts. It did not have time to look into the rating question, but that would have been done if it had had a further term of office. I think that I can remove that point from the mind of the hon. Member as a legitimate argument to use in this connection.
  Undoubtedly, political influence is at work in the Bill. Hon. Members who read the newspapers on 10th December, the day after the Bill was published, saw that the Bill was regarded as the responsibility of certain Tory back benchers who had used their tremendous influence—occasionally, they can have tremendous influence—upon the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. The Rating and Valuation Act, 1961, has created hardship in many areas, and when it is suggested that it has created more hardship in Bournemouth, Torquay, Brighton and Eastbourne than in the rest of the country, that is not true. It is wrong for Hon. Members to emphasise that one area has been more adversely affected than another and wrong for the Government to introduce a Bill to ease hardship in some areas while overlooking the hardship in other areas.
  The Bill has been introduced solely because of the pressure by Tory Members from seaside resorts. If that is so, it does not reflect much credit on the Government. I am always in favour of easing hardship; I have seen too much hardship in my life not to realise what it means. But in this respect hardship is comparative. I do not blame people for retiring to such places as Bournemouth, Brighton, Torquay and Hastings, because they are salubrious places in which to live, but some of the people who have retired there are not suffering hardship. They may have to pay higher
  1336
  rates, but because they are retired business people they may have sufficient money to pay them and far more money than pensioners in other areas.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: Is not the hon. Member aware that the provisions of the Bill do not apply only to Bournemouth and other seaside resorts, but to places all over the country? Many other constituencies will be affected. The Bill is not directed only to some plush seaside resort, but applies also to such cities as Bristol, Birmingham and Manchester. The hardship arises among people who are in difficulties because of age or for financial reasons.
  Mr. Wainwright: If the hon. Member had listened to the debate he would have realised why I mentioned those seaside resorts. Because people have retired there, the percentage of the population over 65 is higher than in the rest of the country, and these areas will benefit from the Bill.
  This has been one of the major points of the debate. The Bill arises from pressure by Hon. Members opposite from seaside resorts who are, rightly, being pressed by their electorate to ease the hardship. The Government have given way to that pressure. If such pressure can be used, it means that democracy can work—but democracy of a kind; for it means that the greatest interest of Hon. Members opposite is in people living in their own constituencies and that they forget other people in the country who may not qualify under Clauses 1 or 2 for easement of the hardship caused by the 1961 Act.
  The Rent Act, 1957, also had some bearing on this hardship, and it greatly affected people whom Hon. Members are trying to help through the Bill, in that property prices rose enormously in the seaside resorts where property was in demand by people who wanted to retire there. Sir Charles Clore and others made fortunes out of this. When people talk of the effect of the 1961 Act they should also bear in mind what has happened in the country while the Government have not controlled land prices and property values. In 1947, Sir Charles Clore purchased a business for £10,000. In 1961, it was valued at £20 million. Where did that come

  1337
  from? It did not come out of the sky. This has happened under a Tory Government. If there is hardship in the seaside resorts, why did not the Minister heed the warnings of my hon. Friends and set up a committee to look into the whole rating structure?
  I am worried in case the Allen Committee takes longer to report because of this interim Bill. We shall not vote against the Bill or oppose it in principle, although there are some Clauses which we shall oppose in Committee.
  Hon. Members opposite have today referred constantly to the ability to pay. I have never known a previous occasion on which Hon. Members opposite have so frequently referred to the ability to pay. They say that the Rating and Valuation Act is wrong because it takes no account of ability to pay. They want provision whereby the man should pay according to his ability. I hope that they will continue to say that, because I have always believed that a man ought to pay according to his ability and not when he cannot pay without hardship.
  I am sorry that the Minister has not introduced a far better Bill than this. There are parts of the country where there is unemployment and where elderly people have great difficulty. This is especially true when they are just about the level of the National Assistance Board rate, for they have greater hardship than many people in the seaside resorts. Possibly they will receive no easement under the Bill. It depends on who will decide what is hardship.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: The National Assistance Board would take care of any increase in rates.
  Mr. Wainwright: I wish the hon. Member would listen. I spoke of those just above the National Assistance Board level. If the hon. Member makes such an interjection it is clear that he is not listening to what is being said.
  I know that the National Assistance Board rates would take into account any increase in local rates and any increase in rents, but there are many retired people who are just above National Assistance Board level, who are living longer perhaps than was expected—which is a good thing—and whose capital is dwindling away. They have great difficulty—and they have not left the district in which
  1338
  they earned their money. They will suffer as much as those who have bought houses in the seaside resorts.
  I am shocked that the Minister has not brought in a Bill sufficiently wide to take into account every person over 65 anywhere in the country. The person who lives in a population where the percentage of old people is less than 10 per cent. is just as much entitled to help as the person who lives in a seaside resort. The assistance under the Bill will go to authorities which have a population containing more than 10 per cent. of elderly people. Where the percentage is less than 10 per cent., the local authority will not receive the same assistance.
  Sir K. Joseph: I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, but he must appreciate that the evidence which has been sent to me shows that in general—obviously, it cannot be precise—hardship is concentrated in those areas where there is also a concentration of elderly people. Clause 2 gives power to local authorities all over this country to meet individual cases of hardship. If those cases of hardship are met in such areas where there is no concentration of elderly people, and 50 per cent. of the cost is borne by local ratepayers, on the evidence so far received by the Government that will be relatively small in total amount. But I am open to receive new evidence.
  Mr. Wainwright: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. But the pressure on the Government from the Tory back benchers arose from Hon. Members representing constituents who had retired to seaside resorts and who were in financial difficulties through having to pay the extra rate burden. It is entirely wrong to draw this percentage distinction, because hardship remains hardship whether the percentage of elderly in the population is over 10 per cent. or under 10 per cent. To use a percentage of 10 per cent. to decide on a major Clause for easing hardship must have been done without realising that many old-age pensioners who retired to seaside resorts were business people who could probably afford to pay the increased rate burden far better than could many pensioners living inland.
  The Government have rushed the Bill because of pressure brought upon them by Tory back benchers representing seaside resorts.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: It was to save a few Tory seats.
  Mr. Wainwright: The hon. Member for Ilford, South spoke about education. There are certain expenses which local authorities are bearing which the central Government should bear. This is not the first time that I have said that the central Government should bear the cost of teachers' salaries. I hope that this will be in the mind of the Government in the near future. It will have to be in the near future, because the Government will not be there for long.
  It is essential that the rate burden on local authorities should be eased, because as time passes it becomes heavier and heavier. Local authorities provide certain services. They provide home helps, a valuable service. They organise clubs. They provide facilities for elderly people. They find it difficult. I hope that the Government will devote much thought to what the local authorities are trying to do and recognise the heavy cost they have to bear. I hope that the Minister will devote serious thought to improving the Bill. I hope that the suggestions which we shall make in Standing Committee will be accepted by the Government. The Bill has been fashioned crudely and has been introduced in haste.
  8.6 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I welcome the Bill. Hon. Members opposite, certainly the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), will probably say, "Well you may. You represent Blackpool". When a Bill is designed to help those on low fixed incomes and old-age pensioners it is difficult not to help towns like Blackpool. All through this debate seaside resorts, as they have been called, have been caricatured. In Blackpool there is street after street of houses where people came to retire perhaps as long ago as the mid-nineteen thirties. Many of the people are very old now. Many of them are widows who live alone. It is difficult to reconcile the genuine hardship which I have found in such streets with statements which have been made in this debate.
  This is admittedly an interim Measure. I will not criticise it in detail. It is all too easy to do that. I am one of those mentioned by the hon. Member
  1340
  for Dearne Valley who harried the Minister to do something about this problem. I argued with my right hon. Friend. I took delegations to see him. I chased him in the Lobbies. I brought Black pool's problem to his notice. I told him that we have people on low fixed incomes who are experiencing hardship from increases in rates. I told him that we have old-age pensioners. I asked him if nothing was to be done to ease their burden. Therefore, it does not now lie in my mouth to criticise the Bill. Although I shall go on to say one or two things about its provisions, I welcome it generally.
  This evening we should recognise what we are doing generally by introducing another patch on the rating system. In April of this year, for the first time for many years, rating valuations were uniform. They all related to present values. I should have thought that it was with the greatest reluctance that the Minister was compelled by the hardship which came to light to move away from a situation in which anomalies had been eliminated. With the obvious exception of agriculture, which seems always to be an exception, the anomalies which had been prevalent and had cursed us throughout this century had been eliminated.
  The anomalies which will be created by the Bill do not need repeating. There is the difficulty of assessing hardship. There is the obvious fact that different local authorities will assess hardship differently. There is the fact that people will have to go to their local councils and put before them the facts of how they live and spend their money. Something similar to a rent rebate system will have to be applied to decide whether such people qualify for the hardship grant. These are obvious anomalies.
  One anomaly goes to the root of the matter. Some old people will be too proud to expose their poverty; they will not want to go to their local authorities. They will represent a high proportion of the total. Often those who do not apply are the very salt of the earth; they say to themselves, "No matter what happens, I intend to pay my way, even if it means cutting down on coal or food." If they do not apply, they will have to pay at least one-half towards the contribution that goes to those who

  1341
  apply. The rate which is used for the hardship cases must be found as to one-half by the local authority. The proportion found by the local authority will come from the local rates and will be borne, at least in part, by those who do not apply because they will not expose their poverty to public gaze—at any rate, to the gaze of those who make inquiries.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman is referring to Clause 5. It applies equally to lots of youngsters who will have no case on which to base their claim that they are suffering hardship. They, too, will be paying additional rates in the locality.
  Sir K. Joseph: Why should not they be able to base their claim for hardship, if the jump in rates due to revaluation in fact causes them hardship?
  Mr. Miscampbell: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's intervention. I entirely agree that they, too, may apply and get their rebate for hardship. I raise this matter simply to point out that once again the House is starting on the path of creating anomalies. I know that this is merely an interim Bill. I hope that it is to be only an interim Bill. One difficulty which has arisen in dealing with the rating problem has been the anger engendered in those who find that there are anomalies between themselves and their neighbours. This was highlighted in the difficulties which arose in the early part of this year. Houses had been rated on a 1939 valuation and had continued so to be valued Commercial properties were changed first to their full 1956 valuation. It was then reduced to 80 per cent. Industry was first 25 per cent. and then 50 per cent. It was useless to explain to a householder, who complained that his rates had risen on the new valuation whereas the rates of the shop next door had not risen, that what had happened was that the shop had been revalued five years before and he was merely coming up to its valuation. Although this was true, the householder did not find it an easy argument to accept.
  Although I accept the Measure, I do so reluctantly because of the anomalies which will arise. The fact that such
  1342
  anomalies as I have mentioned will occur means that we are piling up for ourselves further problems. It is clear that we cannot go on curing each problem that arises by an interim Measure. We must now come to a conclusion. We must say, "Enough is enough. The time has come for a full review", I was very pleased that my right hon. Friend said that this is exactly what is to happen.
  I utter one cautionary word. I know that the Allen Committee is inquiring into the question of hardship. Another committee is to inquire into the relationship of central Government funds and local authority funds. As I understand it, another committee which has not yet been appointed is to inquire into the whole rating system. I hope that this latter committee will be a Royal Commission, but, if it is not, it must be the most powerful committee possible. It must examine every form of revenue raising open to local authorities. What is required about all else in rating is knowledge and information for those who must deal with rating problems in local authorities. One difficulty has been that when councillors and officials have discussed within their councils rating and the possible alternatives there has never beer sufficient information available to them. What would clear the air more tan anything else would be if we now decided to have a full inquiry into all possible alternatives so that all the facts and information could be before those who form opinion in local councils.
  Mr. Wainwright: Has the hon. Gentleman taken account of the fact that this interim Bill is full of shortcomings? If there is to be a full inquiry after the Allen Commmittee reports, it may be a long time before the important committee he suggests recommends how all the existing ills are to be cured.
  Mr. Miscampbell: I agree that it will take some time. I understand the hon. Gentleman's impatience. Until I turned my mind to the question of rates I had not understood what patience was necessary. We shall not get in six months what we have not had in 25 years. Time is relative. The hon. Gentleman understands that this problem is not easy of solution.

  1343
  I conclude with this plea, that we should have a full investigation of all the alternatives. I believe that at the end of the day we shall come to the conclusion that the present system is basically satisfactory. It may be very difficult to find a more satisfactory system. Nevertheless, every avenue ought to be explored. Everyone ought to be able to understand what the alternatives are, the advantages and disadvantages. Then, and only then, shall we get some satisfaction from a system which people at present find difficult to understand.
  8.19 p.m.
  Mr. William Small: I rise to give some instances of the practical application of rating relief in Scotland. The maximum dissemination of information is required to indicate where rating releif can be obtained. One difficulty is to be found in the matter of discretion. Many local authorities in Scotland exercise discretion, but are, nevertheless, deficient in giving the necessary information to the ratepayers.
  Most local authorities state on the rate demand that application can be made for rate relief. The criterion is inability to pay. But I would remind the House that when a person is unable to pay the situation is very humiliating, particularly in the case of, say, a spinster. These are facts of life. I have dealt with them as a member of a local authority. I have given rate relief. I have often found that among the members of a local church choir, and in other places, the fact that a certain person has applied for rate relief soon becomes public knowledge. On the other hand, when people who are most in need, with fixed incomes, in poor health, having had perhaps two operations in one year, apply for relief, the human element does not always become common knowledge.
  I should like to tell the House how some of my colleagues and I operated rate relief. We encouraged people to apply. We also took into account such circumstances as when a man of 79 or 80 years of age had resided in a town for 60 years and had paid rates during the period. We considered the prospect of his paying rates for the next five years, and we said, "Perhaps we should let him off at the end of the year." The question of what criterion
  1344
  one should use to decide whether people are unable to pay, is difficult. I might go from London to live in Bournemouth and, after residing there for a year, apply for rate relief, while a man living next door to me may have paid rates for 50 years and may be in worse circumstances than I. Yet he may not want his poverty to be known publicly.
  I have had much experience of this sort of case. There are many cases of people who are not very well known in the area in which they live, who apply for relief and are relieved of two-thirds of their rates, while others who have lived in that same town all their lives are disinclined to apply for relief. We ought to decide on a criterion, such as, for example, where a man has lived in an area for a certain length of time and has paid his rates for, say, 50 years.
  Let us take the example of a borough with a population of 10,000, of whom 500 apply for rate relief. The clerk to the local authority makes an assessment in respect of those 500 applicants and calculates what the cost would be to the local authority. I am opposed to that kind of systematic relief, where 500 people apply and they are all relieved to the extent of two-thirds. An investigation should be made into the individual circumstances of each case, and I think that it would be reasonable to consider the length of time that an applicant has lived in the area.
  If there is an application from 500 people, the clerk says, "This is costing the local authority £2,000, so we will let everybody off with a third". The circumstances of a spinster and those of an old man of 80 can differ. I believe from experience that there should be a 10-year residential qualification in the area before the hardship rule is applied.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) will not expect me to roam the heights of Scotland with him. I listened with much interest to some of the practical points which he made. He avoided—and I congratulate him for it—firing the political broadsides which some Hon. Members opposite have done and then gone out of the Chamber to keep their powder dry. Listening to the arguments put forward

  1345
  by some Hon. Members opposite, one would think that every person over 65 years of age was bound to vote Tory. Since we have had four Labour Governments, there is probably jolly good reason why they should.
  The relief for those over 65, as I see it—and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will agree with me—is to correct the rating balance between industrial and residential property. My right hon. Friend's predecessor stated in the House that, with revaluation, the average increase in cost to the individual ratepayer would not be more than 33⅓ per cent. This has nothing to do with lush, Tory seaside seats. I represent a seaside constituency of which I am very proud.
  Clause 1 is a very practical way of correcting the difference between industrial rating value and residential rating value. It must be obvious to all Hon. Members that people over 65 are probably not in industry. Therefore, there are not factories in their area providing additional rates relief. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) mentioned Burke. I think that it was the same gentleman who said that people paid taxes in sorrow and rates in anger. When injustice arises in the rates, people get extremely angry.
  I have had a large number of petitions on this matter. Many people have come to see me in my constituency about it, and I have been able to put reasoned cases to my right hon. Friend on their behalf. Hon. Members opposite delight in calling back bench Members on this side Lobby fodder, whatever that may mean, at one moment and then in calling us a pressure group to influence the Minister at the next moment. They must make up their minds on what they expect us to be.
  One problem which presents itself particularly in the seaside resorts is that the rating system is dependent on the rental value of a property. The capital value is nothing to do with it directly. What matters is what the property would collect in rent. Because bungalows can fetch reasonably high rents and because they are suitable for families to occupy, possibly for holidays, the balance of rateable value over the whole street can be upset because one or two bungalows have commanded a high rent.
  1346
  This, I suggest, throws the whole thing out of balance. Most of my constituents who have come to see me are bungalow dwellers.
  I should like to read an extract from a letter which sets out the typical situation of 200 or 300 of my constituents who have been to see me. I think that it will indicate to HON. MEMBERS opposite that this is not a problem for lush businessmen who have retired to the seaside. This letter is self-explanatory. It states:
  "After fifty years' railway service in the North, I retired at the age of 65…and subsequently came to live in Sand gate where I purchased a new, small type two-bed roomed bungalow (with no garage) suitable for my wife and self. To enable me to do this I had economised and made considerable sacrifices during my working years as I had no desire to become dependent on any assistance from any source whatever, either local authority or otherwise, not ever having had to do so previously. In order to help in this connection, instead of retiring five years earlier, as I could have done, I stayed on in order to obtain a larger superannuation and acquire a little more by way of savings to provide, I hoped, for the remainder of our time.
  On retirement my railway superannuation was, of course, supplemented by the Government retirement pension, which, as you will be aware, was increased in May last by £42 18s. p.a. for a married couple…Since then the rating assessment of my bungalow has been increased from £42 gross value, £32 rateable, to £155 gross and £110 rateable, which at the present Folkestone rate of 10s. 11d. in the £ involves a payment of rates increased from £39 1s. 4d. to £60 0s. 10d. p.a., i.e., an additional £20 19s. 6d. p.a. This, plus the water rate"—
  this is the first time that any reference has been made to water rates during this debate—
  "which has been increased from £5 6s. 8d. p.a. to £7 15s. 10d. p.a., i.e., £2 9s. 2d. more…These two make an extra £23 8s. 8d. p.a. to pay which takes up over half the additional retirement pension increase."
  He makes the case that he is a believer in thrift. I hold the view that any nation which does not encourage thrift must at some time become bankrupt.
  The machinery of appeals has been clearly discussed by many Hon. Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Miscampbell) has made a number of the points which I wanted to make. I will not repeat them as I wish to give other Hon. Members an opportunity of speaking. I should, however, like to put one or two points

  1347
  concerning the practical difficulties behind the Bill. A number of elderly people are nervous about disclosing information concerning their possessions. They regard it as almost wrong to do so. I never succeed in explaining to them, however, that they have completed their Income Tax forms without fear. The local authorities will be put in an invidious position in ascertaining the extent of hardship.
  Bearing in mind the letter which I have quoted from a constituent of mine who has to pay 50 per cent. more, I should have thought that to obviate the operation of the appeal machinery and to save embarrassment and delay, my right hon. Friend could provide in the Bill for automatic relief to be given when the percentage increase which a ratepayer has to pay exceeds x for which purpose a percentage of about 33⅓ would probably be right. This would give a good deal of comfort to those who are worried about the future. They are very anxious about it, God bless them, and they need the greatest care and help. We could quickly relieve them of their worry by providing for automatic relief when their increased payments exceed x.
  The Bill is likely to cause a great deal of complication. I refer specially to Clause 8 and to a point which so far has not been mentioned concerning the splitting up of hereditaments. In the case of a moving population in a seaside town, it is extremely difficult for a local authority to assess who is the occupier at a given time.
  Equally, I should like my right hon. Friend, if he can, to make it clear, on the question of hardship, when hardship has been established and the rebate has been made to a person and that ratepayer has the enterprise to take in a lodger, whether hardship will be deemed no longer then to apply. These are the sort of factors which I believe have got to be sorted out, but as they are items for consideration in Committee I will not detain the House by developing that theme.
  I do not accept that this is a panic Measure. I think it is a natural development of the revaluation and is a first look at the difficulties. My right hon. Friends all the way through the debate
  1348
  have indicated to us that they expected revaluation to have difficulties. This Bill is a natural development of revaluation, an interim Measure to give relief, and it will be followed, I believe, by a proper look at the rating system of this country. That, I accept, is long overdue, but when the baby is born I am sure it will be a sturdy and healthy one.
  8.36 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: I think that my hon. and right hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate have been less than kind to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, if the remarks we have had during the last one or two speeches are to be taken seriously. My hon. Friends said that this is a Measure designed to safeguard the constituencies and political interests of Hon. Members on the other side of the House.
  Mr. Willis: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Loughlin: My hon. Friend says "Hear, hear", but I am not sure that he is right. It is only coincidence.
  Having been 12 years in power, having seen the effects not only of the last revaluation but of the revaluation before that, it is only a coincidence that within months of a General Election the right hon. Gentleman trots out a Measure of this kind, a Measure which, in one's most generous mood, one can only describe as a panic Measure, because one has merely to look at the full implications of the Clause 5 as it relates to local authorities and the difficulty of administration. If what the right hon. Gentleman said in his intervention is true, when I previously intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell), then one can see how panicky, and how unworkable, the Bill is in its present form.
  The Bill is in two parts. Clause 1 deals with those areas which have within their boundaries a given percentage of people who are 65 years of age or over. Again, of course, it is only incidental that the towns which will benefit by this provision are the seaside resorts. It is only coincidence that Bournemouth and Blackpool and other seaside resorts are given special privileges in the Bill. Because if it is the intention of the Government to relieve hardship for

  1349
  persons who are aged 65 or over, why stipulate a percentage of 10, as the Bill stipulates in Clause 1?
  Is it of greater concern to us that a person living in Blackpool or Bournemouth aged 65 or over is suffering hardship because of rate revaluation compared with a person living in the Forest of Dean? If the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) says that the Bill is not intended specifically to benefit seaside resorts, can he explain why the framers of the Bill, recognising that it would be more favourable to such resorts, incorporated the Clause 1 percentage in the Bill?
  Mr. Costain: I thought I had made clear that people over 65 are not employed in industry. It is coincidental that they happen to be living in seaside resorts. The purpose of Clause 1 is to compensate for industrial rating which industrial towns get automatically.
  Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman simply makes the point that I am making.
  Mr. Costain: But in a different way.
  Mr. Loughlin: If hardship is imposed upon aged people through revaluation and the hardship is imposed irrespective of where they live, why should there be preferential treatment for seaside resorts?
  Mr. Costain: It is coincidental that seaside resorts have less industry than industrial towns.
  Mr. Loughlin: Of course it is coincidental. That is what I said when I began. But the Bill is designed not specifically to meet hardship suffered by old persons. Clause 1 is the main Clause; I shall show that Clause 2 as related to Clause 5 is unworkable.
  I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is listening to the debate. Apparently, he has time to chat with his colleague on the Front Bench. He is having a little giggle. It is his responsibility to note the comments made so that he can face the issues in Committee. He ought to be preparing now for the Committee stage. I hope that in Committee my hon. Friends will deal with the situation in Clause 1.There is an easy way to
  1350
  ensure that the relief will be more equitable—by a simple Amendment in Committee to reduce the percentage.
  I will not presume to instruct my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) but I hope that he will seriously consider moving an Amendment to reduce this figure. What does "hardship" mean? The Government have been repeatedly asked that question. It would save a lot of argument if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us now precisely what it does mean. I do not suggest that people in seaside resorts are all retired from industry and commerce. Many of them retired a considerable time ago and are on fixed incomes, sometimes superannuation payments related to the value of money at the time of retirement. They are suffering hardship because of revaluation.
  But unless we know precisely what "hardship" is we might very well have people claiming for hardship when in reality they could afford the additional burden. The Parliamentary Secretary has not responded to my suggestion that he should state what "hardship" means. I understand, however, that it does not mean poverty.
  Captain Elliot: Not necessarily poverty.
  Mr. Loughlin: It is people above the National Assistance Board scale who are likely to apply for this. If it does not necessarily mean poverty, does it mean that a person with capital resources or capital in the bank, but with a fixed income which has been impaired by revaluation, can claim for hardship? If the Bill means that, then it will be inequitable in its application between one area and mother, and we shall be laying down the principle that persons who could carry the additional burden will be granted relief because they live in a certain area while others who cannot afford it, whether aged or not, will be penalised because they happen to live in another area.
  I do not want to say any more about Clause 1, except that I hope that the Press will take note—what is the Parliamentary Secretary giggling at? If he has something to say, let him get up and say it. He cannot keep giggling on his own. Does he want to get up? He does not have the courage to get

  1351
  up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am in order. I know how far I can go.
  I hope that the Press will take note that this is not a Bill merely to relieve the rating burden on the aged, which is the impression which has been current during the last few weeks. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the application of Clause 2 as related to Clause 5 and made clear the issue to which I hope the Press will give publicity. Rightly or wrongly, the impression has been given that the sole purpose of the Bill is to give rating relief to aged people, but the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that it would apply to all, to the young and the old.
  Many people will have to bear the onerous burden of an increase in rates, and many people in the lower income brackets may want to take advantage of the Bill. If many people of the lower income groups apply for relief, many local authorities, especially where there is high unemployment which is generally concurrent with low wage rates, will find it administratively impossible to consider hardship. There will be two reasons for this. First, the machinery will not exist. Additional personnel will have to be brought in to establish a machine to handle the enormous number of cases which will be presented.
  In addition, these are not prosperous areas, and every time a local authority grants relief to an applicant it will itself have to find slightly less than 50 per cent. of that relief I think that one hon. Gentleman said that the local authority would itself have to find 50 per cent., but I believe that the figure is slightly less.
  Let us assume that in a number of places the increase in rates results in hardship in the sense that that phrase has been used in this debate. Let us also assume that that hardship arises in areas where 10 per cent. of the population are over 65. If the number of applications for relief is excessive, will the local authorities use the discretion given to them in the Bill, if in doing so they place an additional burden on the remainder of the ratepayers? I think that Clause 2 will be impossible to administer. It is likely to place a tremendous burden on local authorities because of the relief given to applicants,
  1352
  and I hope that the Minister will reconsider it.
  The Bill is of little consequence. It will meet the demands that have been made on the Government by Hon. Members opposite who represent seaside resorts. These Hon. Members have done a good job.
  Mrs. Emmet: I do not represent a seaside resort.
  Mr. Loughlin: I was not making a personal reference to the hon. Lady. I did not even know that she had had a chat with her right hon. Friend about this matter.
  I am saying that, in the main, the Bill is designed to meet the representations which have been made to the Government by hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent seaside resorts. They have done a good job for their constituents. I congratulate them, not merely on the pressure that they have brought to bear on the Government, but on their timing. They know that if something is likely to be popular, this is the time to press the Government to do it. The Government's hopes of electoral victory in the General Election are dim. They are scraping the barrel in the hope that they will not lose quite as many seats as they will if they do not pander to popular demand.
  8.59 p.m.
  Captain Walter Elliot: At the end of a long debate on a rather short Bill it is difficult to find something new to say, and I hope that I shall not weary the House by repeating some of the arguments that have been put forward. That inhibition does not apply to hon. Gentlemen opposite—in particular the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin)—who have said time and again that this Bill has been introduced for electoral reasons. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West even said that we had been in office for 12 years and had not brought in this Bill in that time. He may not be aware of the fact that revaluation took place this year. The hardship has been caused by the sudden upward movement of rates. Naturally we could not take action to correct that movement before it took place.
  Mr. Loughlin: The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to be fair about this. I said that in addition to the period of 12 years there had been two rate revaluations, but that the Government had started to look properly at the problem only when the General Election was near.
  Captain Elliot: I shall not go on with that point. The latest revaluation has had by far the greatest effect in increasing rates. The Bill recognises the fact that this great increase may bring hardship, and it has the merit of drawing our attention to the effect upon individuals of our imperfect system of raising money by rates. That is a new principle, which is to be welcomed. The Bill also makes an attempt to bring relief to those who really need it, and that is a proper objective. For those reasons, I am glad to see the Bill introduced. I say that in view of some criticisms which I now propose to make.
  The Bill certainly bears all the hallmarks of what is called an interim Measure. There is one hall-mark which it does not bear, however, and that is the hallmark of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. To my mind this is not the sort of Bill that he would have introduced if he had had his way. Although the Bill has the right objectives, I have some doubts whether, owing to the practical difficulties and the form of the Bill, those objectives will be achieved.
  I appreciate that people over 65—probably retired, and living on fixed incomes—may as a class suffer more than others from an increase in rates, although by no means all of them can be put into that category. That means that the selectivity of the Bill is rather blunted.
  I may be speaking from insufficient knowledge, but it also appears to me that the identification of these people may place a burden upon local authorities. We know the difficulties of identification that arise in getting people to come forward for such things as National Assistance. I presume that, as a start, the identification will be through the State pension system. I know of no other means. But many elderly people do not draw pensions. They will have
  1354
  to be searched out by some other means.
  Further, I am not sure what local authorities will do with the bonuses they receive. The Bill provides that this money shall be payable in aid of the revenues of authorities generally. As the hon. Member for Fulham Mr. M. Stewart) says, this will presumably ease the rate burden on everybody. That is an excellent thing, but it does not seem logical that this relief should be assessed on the basis of the number of people over 65 years of age living in any one area. There might be other criteria for assessing what assistance should be given.
  Clause 2 deals with hardship, and that is a worthy objective—but will the Clause achieve it? First, we must define hardship. There is poverty. The payment of a few extra pounds from a person's income may mean cutting down on food, heating and perhaps clothing. That is plain enough. Secondly, there is the budget upset. An elderly couple—retired or not—with their own house, and living on a tight budget, may be affected to the extent even of having to give up their house and leave the district.
  I am inclined to think that this Bill is aimed at helping both groups and I was glad when my right hon. Friend seemed to reinforce that view. Certainly I believe that, for the benefit of local authorities and to mitigate their difficulty, it is important that that should be crystal clear. The task of local authorities in deciding who is suffering hardship, and what sort, will be extremely difficult, although I am sure, despite what one or two HON. MEMBERS have said, that that is a task for the local authorities We must give them all the help we can. The most difficult part will be to decide on hardship through an upset in the personal budget which cannot be classed as poverty. There will be sure to be many claims under this head, and it will strain the resources of local authorities to the limit to sort them out.
  Most Hon. Members probably saw the article in The Times of Monday, 16th December and one or two Hon. Members have quoted from it. The hon. Member for Fulham said that the article contained only one concrete proposal with

  1355
  which he did not agree, I do not Know whether it is the one which I picked out and which I thought was rather good. No one else has read it, and so I will.
  "…the simple provision that no ratepayer shall as a direct consequence of revaluation be called on to pay in any year a proportional increase of more than so much, say a fifth, over the year before".
  I thought that a rather good idea. This Bill deals not only with the years of revaluation; it is a continuing Measure. In the interests of simplicity and practicability, and in order to look after persons who suffer hardship but not poverty, surely it would be best to cover the revaluation years only by relief given on a broader basis, as is suggested in that paragraph in The Times. After all it is in the revaluation years that the rises occur which cause hardship. Subsequently the Allen Report will be available as a more detailed consideration of the problem.
  Assessing hardship from the stand-point of poverty, where an extra bill may deprive a person of some of the necessities of life, is not so difficult. It could be done by considering the income, resources and needs of the person, as is done already in respect of the payment of National Assistance. Then one of the expenses which is taken into account is rates, and those in need, having paid their rates, can get the money refunded by a National Assistance payment.
  If the Bill becomes law, it would seem that some duplication might occur. To my mind, one of the merits of National Assistance is that not only income but need is considered, and we should not discard that approach now that we have this Bill. It seems logical, and surely it would be a simpler process, if relief from rates were taken out of National Assistance and administered by local authorities. Councils would then have to assess incomes, as they would have to do in respect of the provisions in this Bill, and they would assess the needs of individuals and fix their rates accordingly. No additional money would come from the Exchequer and a much more simple system would result.
  I welcome this Bill as the first, if faltering, step to bring help to some people who need it. I hope that there will be changes made in its provision
  1356
  before it is placed on the Statute Book, and that it is not beyond the wit of Parliament to bring about such changes.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. James MacColl: The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain Elliot) deserves congratulations for the patience with which he sat through the long and rather weary debate waiting his opportunity to say that he thought the Government were completely wrong from the beginning to the end of the Bill. If he is to join us in the jolly little frolic upstairs, I hope that in Committee he will try with his vote to get the Bill altered and not merely make big speeches on Second Reading as so many Government supporters do and then be surprisingly quiet when a critical Division comes in the Committee.
  The Minister deserves at least credit for the determination with which he produced the Bill this afternoon. I was reminded of the confidence trickster who, having been found guilty by the jury without the jury leaving the box, is asked by the judge whether he has anything to say before sentence is passed on him, and says, "I will not at this moment choose to be polemical." The idea of the right hon. Gentleman not wanting to be polemical when he has been on the defensive from the very beginning to the end of discussion of the Bill when no one on either side of the House has said that this is not too little and too late!
  I propose to say something in a moment about the background to the Bill, but, first of all, I want to ask some questions about the Bill itself. Will the Parliamentary Secretary try to make a little clearer than the Minister did precisely what consultation took place with local authority associations? On these difficult Bills we always get tossed out, in the course of a Second Reading speech, the phrase "this has all been agreed with the local authority associations." Was there formal consultation with them, or was it merely informal and confidential communication at officer level? That rather weighs our assessment of the matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) mentioned that the Urban District Councils' Association did not seem to accept it very enthusiastically. The London County Council

  1357
  is distinctly lukewarm about the shape of the Bill and does not like the first Clause; very few people seem to do. It would, therefore, be helpful if we could have some clearer picture of the nature of the consultation and precisely what it was. It is a little unfair in general terms to commit local authority associations to something when they may not have been clearly, categorically and publicly consulted at member level.
  Coming to the details of the Bill, the points which have been made about Clause 1 seem to have much weight. Why do we need this Clause? Why can we not do the whole thing with Clause 2? We have a general grant which already has a weighting for old people. We passed a general grant Order only a few nights ago in which we altered the weighting of the general grant. We could easily have had a further alteration which could have paid more attention to the old people weighting in the general grant formula. In that way without any appearance of special pleading and twisting the law to suit party convenience, we could have got a substantial amount of assistance to those local authorities.
  A number of HON. MEMBERS have talked as if Clause 1 were something to do with relieving the needy ratepayer, but, as was pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton, this is not a need Clause at all. There is nothing in it which will directly help the general ratepayer. It is a form of general grant, a rather curious form, at £5 a nob. It has nothing to do with whether there is industrial development in an area or not.
  The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) seemed to be under the impression that it would provide special assistance to those areas which have no industrial development and which will not benefit from the re-rating of industry. There is nothing of that in the Clause. It is purely concerned with a capitation grant in respect of old people. There are many other criteria of need which could equally well have been taken and many other criteria of heavy rate expenditure and comparatively low rating resources.
  Clause 2 appears to be the most flexible part of the Bill, but the House
  1358
  is being asked to pass the Bill when in the Memorandum it is simply said:
  "It is impossible to make any useful estimate of the amount of grant likely to be paid".
  We are supposed to be setting a good example to local authorities in economy of expenditure and wise and prudent housekeeping. Yet we are being asked to pass a Money Bill which will increase taxation without being given any idea of how much money is involved. We are not asking to the nearest 6d., but is it the same amount as in Clause 1 or substantially more? I hope that in the reply to the debate we shall be given a little more detailed information about the effect of Clauses 2 and 5 taken together.
  I was deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) for having intervened in the debate, because this is a matter of which Scottish local authorities have had some practical experience—working this kind of machine of rating relief. He put some points which were very much the same sort of points as those put by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple), who also has great knowledge of local government. They pointed out how difficult it would be to find the people to whom one should give relief, and they asked how to persuade them to take the relief and what criterion of hardship local authorities are to adopt.
  Local authorities already have to work the provision for the derating of charities, the mandatory and discretionary rating relief for charities, which is difficult enough and gives enough headaches. To give them, in addition, this extremely invidious and difficult question to decide, perhaps on a very large scale, the kind of test to be applied in this case seems to be putting a great burden on them without, at the moment, much assistance in how they are to tackle it.
  What part is the district auditor to take? Here is a discretion put on the local authority to hand out money, as it were, in the form of rating relief. Will the district auditor apply tests, as in the case of rents, where he intervenes to try to define what seems to be a reasonable rent? Will he have his own preconceived idea about what is and what is not hardship? Are local authorities going to get into trouble if they adopt a more

  1359
  generous approach to the problem? May we have South Coast Poplarism? Is there a risk of Bournemouth councillors going to gaol because they have too widely interpreted the meaning of hardship? What is the test which will be applied? Will it be a mandatory test? I understand that it is entirely at the discretion of local authorities and that some may adopt it and some may not.
  This is interesting in view of what was said by the hon. Member for Ilford, South. He asked that differential rents should be mandatory and hoped that the Minister would introduce them. Are we eventually to have mandatory differential rents and at the same tune to have this rating relief left completely discretionary? There seems some obscurity in the Conservative Party on precisely what is their attitude to local authorities—to what degree they wish to leave local authorities discretion and to what degree they intend to force them to carry out the Government's policy in these directions.
  Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain precisely the point in Clause 5—I am not necessarily saying that I disagree with it—about the "plussage" on the grant? I understand that an authority gets 50 per cent. Grant on the rebate, but that if it goes beyond 3 per cent. of the gross rate income the authority gets an extra grant. This is a very interesting precedent in view of the efforts which have been made in the rate deficiency grant to cut down on the higher level of local authority grants. If an authority goes above the average expenditure, it gets less than its full share of the rate deficiency grant. In this case we have the complete reverse, the more money it gives away in concessions, the bigger the grant. This seems to be open to much danger, particularly when there is no guidance on precisely which standards local authorities will adopt.
  I want to look at the background to the Bill. We have had a picture of the Minister as a wise pilot with his hand firmly on the tiller going through the storms and stresses of revaluation, surefooted, knowing exactly where he was going, guiding the local authority ship in the direction of the haven, knowing all the time that the right moment, carefully calculated, he would produce this
  1360
  great scheme of rate relief, knowing in 1961, when he was in the Standing Committee, that eventually it would have to be done.
  But my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) has told us that, in fact, in Committee it was pointed out to the Government again and again that some action such as this would have to be taken. Our attitude has always been that the problems of local government finance are so difficult and complicated that they call for a thorough examination.
  What has been said in the debate today about the need for a comprehensive inquiry? The Parliamentary Secretary said, "There is no easy way to find an alternative". The hon. Member for Chester said, "A general review would be an inquiry of an immense nature". The hon. Member for Ilford, South said, "We are just papering over the cracks of a decaying rating system. There is a need for a Royal Commission". The hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) said, "Enough, enough. The time has come to look at every form of revenue raising which is available—a full inquiry. I really mean a full inquiry."
  What has the right hon. Gentleman been doing about this full inquiry? On 29th July the Standing Joint Committee of Metropolitan Boroughs, representing all London local authorities, sent this resolution to the Minister:
  "That in view of the increasing amount required each year to meet necessary local government expenditure, and the amount which has to be raised under the present rating system, which has no regard to the income of the individual ratepayer, a Committee of Inquiry should be appointed to examine the rating system and the possibilities of alternative sources of revenue."
  This resolution contained the main points which have been made in the debate—hardship for the individual ratepayer, the need for examination of the rating system, and the possibilities of alternative sources of revenue.
  On 15th August the Minister replied in these words:
  "The (Joint) Committee are doubtless aware that there have been several enquiries…Some were held a considerable time ago but the passing of the years does not invalidate the general conclusion that there was no satisfactory and workable alternative system…

  1361
  Despite the annual increase in the amount of local government expenditure…there is no evidence that rates are a problem for the majority of ratepayers…However, there is no denying that a certain amount of hardship exists. The problem is first to see just where there is hardship and how it may be defined and this is why the Minister has set up the Allen Committee. When their report it received the Government will be able to decide whether any action is necessary."
  That was in August. The attitude was that there was to be no individual rating relief until after the Allen Committee had reported. There is an out-and-out rejection as completely unnecessary of the idea of a full-blooded comprehensive inquiry into local taxation. What happened between 15th August and the Conservative Party's pledge reversing this?
  Sir K. Joseph: What happened was that Professor Allen told me that with the best will in the world he could not produce his report until well into 1964. That was the new development.
  Mr. MacColl: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman, for the price of a telephone call, find out before he wrote this rather peremptory and almost offensive letter that that was to happen?
  Sir K. Joseph: Because at that time the Allen Committee was not sufficiently in action to give me its opinion on the timing.
  Mr. MacColl: This is one of those improbable coincidences, like the fact that all the people in Folkestone and Hythe are over 65 and vote Tory.
  It is a little hard to believe that in August he could not be told that a committee which was set up in May would not be able to report by the summer at the earliest, which was what the right hon. Gentleman said in his speech. Anyone who considered the matter would know that this was to be a comprehensive and careful statistical examination based on proper sampling methods.
  We should pay tribute to Professor Allen for not being bounced by the Tory Party. What we desperately need and what we should have had years ago is a proper report on the incidence of rating, about which we know very little. It is to Professor Allen's credit that, when he was pressed to produce something quickly for this Session so
  1362
  that it could be done before the General Election, he said, "No. My integrity as a scientist and statistician would prevent me doing that." That is what I think first happened.
  The second thing that I think happened was that the Chief Secretary, who has been around a long time in the political field, said, "This is absolute nonsense." The attitude which the Ministry of Housing and Local Government was maintaining to local authorities as late as August could not be justified at the Conservative Party conference in October. Therefore, the Ministry completely reversed its policy which had been guiding it since 1961, under the Home Secretary and then under the present Minister. This policy was reversed overnight in October, at Blackpool. We are now reaping the effects of that.
  Whatever may be the advantages or disadvantages of the Bill, however much we may improve it in Committee, however much it may be anomalous in its working, this way of dealing with local authority finance, hardship to ratepayers, and the interests of local communities—to treat them as pawn of party manipulation—is a shocking abrogation of the decencies of government.
  9.28 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): We have had an entertaining if somewhat speculative speech from the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) about what has been going on in areas in which he can have no first-hand knowledge. I shall try to develop my speech on lines nearer to the facts, although I cannot hope to be as entertaining as a result.
  Before attempting to answer the debate in general, I want to clear up one or two points raised by the hon. Gentleman. There were formal and confidential consultations with the local authority associations, and the Government's original proposals were modified to meet most of their suggestions. One of the modifications which was put forward for that purpose related to Clause 1, because one of the original proposals was to put in additional money for the elderly through the medium of the

  1363
  General Grant. But this was changed to the form in which it appears in Clause 1 as a result of those discussions and the views expressed by the local authority associations.
  As to the other main point with which the hon. Member dealt, namely why one selected 50 per cent. plus one-sixth of anything over 3 per cent. of the gross rate income, arithmetically that means that we move from 50 per cent. to two-thirds. I must admit that I did a little algebra during the night and did not get that answer until the penny dropped later on. But that is, in fact, what it means. The Government realise that there will be certain areas where this hardship element may be concentrated and, therefore, it is sensible to put rather more money into those areas.
  In the debate we have ranged over a fairly wide field. There have been a number of remarks on the rating system as a whole. There have been a number of comments and, indeed, claims as to when a review of the relationship between central and local government finance should or should not have been carried out. We have had some comments on revaluation, and some misunderstanding. Indeed, by the time that we have added in the two articles from The Times, we have had almost more discussion on those outside factors than on the details of the Bill.
  I will now say a few words on the remarks that have been made about the rating system. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) referred to one of its advantages, namely that it was hallowed by age. When I started taking an interest in these affairs my attitude was, "Well, if it has lasted all this long, it is time it was changed". But I am bound to admit that the more I go into these matters the harder I find it to think of something sensible to put in the place of the present system.
  I think most of us can go back over our speeches in the past and find comments of perhaps a destructive nature on the rating system, but I am certainly not going to bore the House, let alone myself, by doing that in the case of my own speeches. However, I would not agree with the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) that one becomes progressive by knocking down
  1364
  an Aunt Sally without putting something in its place.
  The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) was rather more moderate in his references to the rating system as such than some of his hon. Friends or, for that matter, of some of my hon. Friends. As is indicated in an article which was much quoted from the Observer, but which was not in other respects particularly laudatory, I think he realises that the rating system as it exists today is a definition of local government as it exists today. An answer of mine to a Question has been quoted, and I would be the most pleased person in the House if I were proved to be wrong. But I think HON. MEMBERS would agree that, on the whole, politicians are not backward in trying to find something which will make them popular, and I would be immensely happy if I could find a really satisfactory alternative to the rating system. All I am doing is to warn the House that there have been many inquiries and suggestions, and none of them have really held up when examined carefully.
  I think it is unwise to imagine that one can suddenly find a panacea, after so many people have looked into the question. I am a little critical of the idea, which seems to gain strength in the modern world, that if we put a lot of men into a room, label them as experts and preferably put some letters after their names, they can find an answer to everything in due course. I do not think this happens, and it is unwise to think that one can suddenly produce an answer.
  The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) said that one wanted courage to scrap the rating system. As at present advised, and with my present knowledge of the alternatives, I think it would be the courage born of desperation. However, I believe that the rating system is likely to remain—not necessarily without some other supplementary source of income—the basis of the financial independence of local authorities and their responsibility to their electorates which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West stressed as so important.
  Then we passed on to a good deal of teasing by Hon. Members opposite. There

  1365
  have been demands in the past for a review of the relationship between the central government contribution and the local government contribution. But I remind HON. MEMBERS opposite that when they were urging a general review in 1961 that was during the life of the 1956 valuation lists, and there had been a review as late as 1957. I must emphasise that, if the new look is to be any advance on the reviews which have been made in the past, it must include accurate information as to the real effects of revaluation.
  The hon. Member for Fulham repeatedly referred to the necessity of looking at the combined effects of the rise in costs of local authority services and the effects of revaluation. One has only to go to the Vote Office and to get the two White Papers—the one which put forward the estimated effects of revaluation and the later one which put forward the actual effects—and compare the figures to realise how futile it would have been to have started a major review on the basis of the estimates, because they confirmed that, with the best will in the world and a great deal of skill, it is impossible to forecast accurately how revaluation will work out.
  Mr. J. T. Price: May I remind the hon. Member, with great respect, that the official estimates published in the White Paper were very wide of the mark, whereas the unofficial estimates made by my hon. Friend during the Committee stage of the Measure in question were very much nearer the mark? That underlines the hon. Member's own argument about the reliability of expert opinion.
  Mr. Corfield: I read quite recently the debate on the 1961 Measure, and there is no detailed estimate, as there could not be, on which one could conceivably found a useful general review. I remind the House—this was probably a slip rather than ignorance—that the 1961 Act was not responsible for revaluation. Revaluation arose from the Local Government Act, 1948, which, admittedly, was subsequently amended in order to postpone the revaluation for technical reasons rather than anything else. The 1961 Act eased the burden on householders, because it rerated industry.
  The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) blamed the
  1366
  Government for the 1953 Act decision to retain values of domestic property at 1939 values. In other words, he was criticising us for the amendment to the Local Government Act, 1948. But he overlooked the fact that the 1953 Act replaced provisions in the 1948 Act, for which, after all, the hon. Member's party was responsible—this is not important; it is a technical rather than a political matter—because the valuation officers had found that they produced totally unacceptable results and did not form a sensible basis for valuation. We went back then to 1939 values—there was a move forward from 1934, but it was a very small move—purely because that was the latest year in which there was a reasonably free market on which to judge rental values, which are the basis of rateable values. As a result, the 1953 Act gave householders seven years during which they have borne less rates than they would otherwise have done.
  I suggest, therefore, that it is wrong to suppose that it could have made any sense in 1953 to have moved forward, albeit it would have been a shorter move, so to speak. Nevertheless, having reached that state of affairs, I cannot conceive that anybody, either in this House or outside, honestly believes that it makes sense to go on valuing property of any sort on the basis of 1939 values. That is nearly a quarter of a century ago. I imagine that a large proportion of the valuation staff were, at least, quite small boys at that time and for all I know, some of them may not have been born. To imagine that it is possible to relate the values of houses, something like one-quarter of which have been built since that date, to conditions which ruled, or might have ruled, in 1939 makes nonsense of a science which, at best, can hardly be an exact one. I hope, therefore, that we would all agree that the revaluation had to take place if we are to make any sense of the basis of the rating system.
  The object of revaluation, or any form of valuation, is purely and simply to find the method by which to decide the shares of the rates. It would not very much matter if they were all 10 per cent. up, or double, or treble or one-half, as long as the relationship one to another is as fair as one can make it. That is what matters. As long as a certain

  1367
  amount of property is based on 1939 values and another large proportion is based upon 1956, as was the case with commercial property and partial derating of industry, it is impossible to get any comparison which begins to make sense for the purpose of apportioning the rate burden.
  To turn to the Bill, the first comment on Clause 1 came from the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) when he asked why the Clause referred to people over 65 instead of 65 and over. I assure the hon. Member that the description
  "over the age of sixty-five"
  is that used by the Registrar-General to include all people who have reached the age of 65 on the relevant date. The regulations under Clause 7 will provide for the number of people over the age of 65 to be estimated and certified by the Registrar-General for the purposes of this grant when the time comes. I assure the hon. Member that it will not make the difference that he suspected. I will, however, look up the other Acts to which he referred and see whether I can find the reason for the difference in wording.
  A number of Hon. Members asked what was the relationship between the grants under Clause 1 and the expenditure under Clause 2, and, in turn, the grants towards that expenditure under Clause 5. There is no direct relationship between Clauses 1 and 2, but an estimate has been made—and one can do this only from a very large number of letters which have come in from all parts of the House and from all parts of the country, not necessarily through HON. MEMBERS. Although one cannot necessarily define hardship with accuracy, we all know it when we see it, and it appears that the concentration of this sort of thing is in the areas which, for want of a better word, one could call the retirement areas.
  I have no doubt that to a large extent this is due to the fact that these areas coincide with absence of industry, or the presence of very little industry. To some extent that is part, perhaps, of the attraction of places to people who want to retire there. Again, of course, the fact that there is a large proportion of old people goes with the fact that there is a large proportion of people living on fixed
  1368
  incomes with very little opportunity of increasing them. That is the reason why in Clause 1 the basis is the proportion of elderly people over 65 over a certain figure. I should perhaps tell the House that the figure chosen of 10 per cent., or 100 per thousand, is quite noticeably below the national average. The national average, on the 1961 census figures, is 119 per thousand;11·9 per cent. That is why it brings in a very large proportion of the total number of local rating authorities in the country.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and, I think, the hon. Member for Oldham, East, suggested that we should leave out Clause 2 (1,a), namely, the requirement that the increase in rates should be more than the difference between 1962–63 and 1964–65, plus 25 per cent. or £5 whichever is the greater. I think that this sum, which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West referred to as complicated, is not really as complicated as it appears, and it really does not follow, as I think the hon. Member for Oldham, East suggested, that it is the criterion for judging hardship. It is the prerequisite. We have to explain to people that they have to get over this hurdle first.
  Here I think there is a difference of opinion in the House, but not on party lines necessarily. There are Hon. Members who have suggested that we should make this relief mandatory, that we should have what The Times called a scaling up, say, one-fifth of the increase in the first year and two-fifths in the second, spreading the increase over a five-year transitional period. But this is really to ignore the fact, which many hon. Gentlemen have drawn attention to, that many of these people can well afford to pay the extra. It simply does not follow, because one has suffered a big increase, which may in some cases reflect the fact that for years one has been paying below one's fair share of the rates, that one necessarily suffers hardship or that one is a proper recipient of special funds which are being made available in this Bill to meet hardship.
  This was the point which The Times put forward as its suggestion, and I was glad that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham indicated, I think, almost

  1369
  as much dislike of it as I have. Indeed, I feel that it was a curiously illogical suggestion to be put forward by The Times, because earlier in the same article it had condemned any proposition that some of this money might go to millionaires. To go on to suggest a means by which this not only might, but almost certainly would, happen seems illogical. I am afraid that the only conclusion I drew from the article was the dawning light why writers of leading articles prefer to remain anonymous. It did not seem to me very logical.
  Nor did it seem to me an entirely logical idea that this is a vote catcher, because it went on to say that it might well cause more discontent than it cures. Whatever else the British public are they are much too sophisticated to give their votes to that sort of legislation, and I really think that The Times, and some HON. MEMBERS who include it in their reading, must make up their minds whether this is a good Bill or a vote catcher, because I do not believe it is both.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, East said that this will involve some test of means. This is true, of course. It is true of every rebate scheme run by local authorities. It is an absolutely inevitable consequence of any effort to channel money to where there is hardship, whether on the lower scales of the National Assistance Board levels or scales slightly above those, with which we are mainly concerned in the Bill. In fact, we are exclusively concerned with them, because, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the National Assistance Board scales include an amount for rates, and normally everybody on National Assistance has any increase in rates met. I find that 98 per cent. of people in receipt of National Assistance who are also householders have the whole of their rates and any increases in rates met through National Assistance. So, at that level, hardship is not a problem. I can assure Hon. Members that there will be no duplication, that people who are on National Assistance will not be able to get relief under this Bill as well.
  There will be a very considerable extra administrative burden on local authorities. No one denies that. No one can assess how that burden will fall from one area to another at present. In some
  1370
  areas it will be relatively light; in some other areas it will be relatively heavy. Most local authorities have some experience of running rebate schemes, and when they apply the same sort of principles, I think it would be possible in many cases for them to give broad indications of the sort of people who need not take up time by applying and, possibly, broad indications of those who are likely to be favourably received. I also hope that they will continue to operate the principle which they do under rebate schemes of discussing people's affairs under a code number in the committee so that there is no question of having those affairs discussed publicly.
  Several Hon. Members raised the problem connected with the actual technical exercise by the valuation officers—the valuation of particular properties. My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet) was particularly concerned about the apparent anomaly between the valuation for flats on the one hand and houses on the other. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington raised the question of the Paignton mistake. Hon. Members will realise that I am not a valuer and that my Department is not responsible for the valuation officers, who are employed by the Inland Revenue, but I can safely say that when the mistake at Paignton came to light every effort was made to put it right at once and there was no question of trying to hush it up. Should another mistake come to light, the same will be done.
  For the present, the only answer to those who think that they are over-rated is the local valuation court. These courts do excellent work. They are composed mainly of voluntary workers and I am sure that they are utterly impartial. I do not think that we have had any complaint to the contrary and that is probably as high a tribute as I can pay.
  The whole question of the method of valuation will be included in the review. It is intended that the review shall be thorough-going and all points of this kind will be looked into. The main problem is that differences of this sort reflect the differences in rental values, which provide the whole basis of the scheme. There are bound to be different

  1371
  relationships between different types of property in different parts of the country.
  The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North referred, as did other Hon. Members, to the additional amount of administrative work and expense that Clause 2 will create. Here again, on the whole, the local authority associations have faced this. I cannot say that they have accepted it with great enthusiasm, but they realise that it is a necessary exercise and a responsibility they can and should accept.
  It was also a little curious to see The Times suggesting that there is something constitutionally wrong in putting in the same body the obligations to levy a tax and at the same time to relieve hardship. But both these are functions of Government, and if they are functions of national Government, then they are also within the functions of local government. We tend to forget that local authorities are, to a large extent, independent within their own responsibilities. The Bill recognises this fact and ensures a degree of financial independence without which, I
  1372
  believe, they might not have the opportunity to carry out the immense tasks now falling upon them and which will become immensely greater with urban renewal and the problems of the motor car.
  This Bill does not go to the root of the rating system and does not pretend to do so. It is an interim Measure and is not meant in any way to be a panacea for all the anomalies of the rating system. It is intended to bring relief to individuals hard hit by revaluation. That is why the figure of 25 per cent. has been chosen as something more than the increase which occurs in two years of ordinary rate call increase. This increase has, over the last two years, actually been about 20 per cent. although that has been higher than usual. The Bill strikes the right balance in dealing with largely localised problems for an interim period, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  RATING (INTERIM RELIEF) [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to England and Wales for grants to rating authorities, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (a) of any expenses of the Minister of Housing and Local Government incurred—

  (i) in making to rating authorities in the case of whom, in the year 1964–65 or any subssquent year, the number of persons over the age of sixty-five estimated to be included in the population of the authority's area exceeds one-tenth of the estimated total of that population a grant in respect of that year at a rate of five pounds per head of the excess;

  (ii) in making to rating authorities who have afforded relief for any year in accordance with the said Act to the residential occupiers of dwellings a grant equal to half the aggregate amount of that relief plus one-sixth of the amount, if any, by which that aggregate amount exceeds three per cent. of the gross rate income of the authority's area for that year within the meaning of the Rate-product Rules 1959 or the Rate-product (County Boroughs) Rules 1959;

  (b) of any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other Act.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

  9.59 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: There are one or two questions that we should ask about this Money Resolution before we give it our approval. The Money Resolution authorises
  "payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—
  of any expenses of the Minister of Housing and Local Goverment incurred—
  in making to rating authorities in the case of whom, in the year 1964–65 or any subsequent year, the number of persons over the age of sixty-five estimated to be included in the population of the authority's area exceeds one-tenth of the estimated total of that population a grant in respect of that year at a rate of five pounds per head of the excess;"
  During the debate on the Bill, it was suggested that it might be useful to
  1374
  amend that figure, but as I read the Money Resolution it will not be possible to do so. This is something which Hon. Members should consider before passing the Resolution. Hon. Members ought not to have their hands tied and be prevented from discussing whether the fraction of one-tenth is correct. The Resolution seems to be very tightly drawn in that respect.
  In sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) we have a curious formula for estimating the Government's contribution to the amount to be spent by local authorities in giving relief. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that.
  Sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) is the provision by which during next year and the year after, 1964–65 and 1965–66, £13 million is to be given to the ratepayers of England and Wales. I have to hesitate about supporting this Resolution when I remember that in Scotland we are to get only £1 million, and that in the year 1965–66. The sum of £13 million is to be spent in England and Wales to relieve hardship and I am reminded of the relatively small amount to be spent in Scotland.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member will find himself going outside the Resolution if he deals with Scotland, because we are dealing only with England and Wales.
  Mr. Willis: I am very grateful for your guidance, Sir William. I was only quoting that as one of my reasons for finding it difficult to support the Resolution. I do not intend to develop any great argument about Scotland, but for Scottish Members this is one of the factors which must be borne in mind when we are asked to support a Resolution of this character.
  Sub-paragraph (ii) is the provision by which authorisation is given for an amount which is not known, but which is to be over and above the £13 million which is to be spent during the first two years, so that the sum for England and Wales is to be more than £13 million compared with only £1 million for Scotland.
  Paragraph (b) covers
  "any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other Act."

  1375
  The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says:
  "Changes in penny rate products as a result of the Bill may increase the amounts of rate deficiency grant (and consequently Exchequer equalisation grant in Scotland) through their indirect effect on the distribution of general grant and on the incidence of precepts for purposes other than general county purposes."
  I assume that the extent to which that will affect the Scottish Exchequer equalisation grant is covered by sub-paragraph (b) of the Money Resolution. How much is it expected that the Exchequer equalisation grant for Scotland will rise as a result of the operation of the Bill? That is one of the factors which we must consider when deciding whether to approve this Money Resolution, because it must be remembered that Scotland receives only £1 million.
  The Memorandum also says:
  "The changes may also affect subsidies under the Housing Acts of 1919 and1961.…"
  I do not know the extent to which that affects Scotland, because 1961 Act does not apply to Scotland.
  Mr. Archie Manuel: I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that the Housing Bill, which is being considered in Committee upstairs, proposes to apply Part II of the 1961 Act to Scotland.
  Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend, with his customary perspicacity has appreciated the point that I was about to make. When the 1961 Act becomes applicable to Scotland as a result of that terrible hotchpotch of a Bill that we are considering in Committee, to what extent will it affect Scotland financially?
  I hope that I have not transgressed the rules of order too much, if at all. I do not like this Money Resolution, for two reasons: first, because it is so tightly drawn, it precludes a great deal of useful discussion; and secondly, because I am not in favour of voting these large sums of money for England and Wales in view of the small amount that we are to receive in Scotland. This is a monstrous state of affairs, and I think that the Scottish Ministers, who are skulking at the end of the Front Bench opposite, ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for not being able to do better than this for Scotland. They ought to resign.
  Mr. William Ross: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has done a service to the Committee in raising these points. We ought to scrutinise the Money Resolution as carefully as possible to ensure that it is discussed in detail and to enable us to make desirable changes when the Bill goes to Committee.
  As a Scot, I deplore the fact that I am to be denied the opportunity of making vital changes in respect of Scotland. The Money Resolution says:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to England and Wales for grants to rating authorities…"
  That means that neither in Committee nor on Report will I be able to move an Amendment suggesting that the words "to Scotland" in Clause 10, page 7, line 24, be left out. In that line it is provided that the Bill shall not extend to Scotland or to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland people can look after themselves, but I am concerned with Scotland.
  We have a right to suggest that this is unfair to Scotland. On the day the Bill was issued we had an answer from the Secretary of State for Scotland which related to it, and in which he said that he was going to take parallel measures. I should have thought that the best way to take parallel measures would be to ensure that similar legislation to this was brought in separately for Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman is not going to do this, but owing to the way in which the Money Resolution is drawn back benchers will be denied the chance of doing anything about it themselves. I do not know whether the Treasury Ministers are responsible, but I should like to know whether this action was calculated to stifle the justified complaints of Scottish Members.
  My second point is on similar lines to one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, but I want to link it up with a paradox which he omitted. Not only is the Money Resolution tightly drawn; it is also very loosely drawn. Sub-paragraph (a,i) could not be tighter, but sub-paragraph (a,ii) could not be looser. There is little hope of my hon. Friends who represent English and Welsh constituencies being able to provide for an increase in the grants paid

  1377
  for elderly persons; the wording is so completely tied up. The age is there—65—and the figure of one-tenth of the estimated total population of the area is laid down, as is the rate, of £5 per head. Not a thing can be changed in Committee if we pass this Money Resolution. It deprives us of any discretion.
  Mention of the word "discretion" immediately brings me to sub-paragraph (a,ii). I thought that we were coming to the end of open-ended subsidies and grants. The Minister has not been able to tell us his estimate of what this sub-paragraph will cost, and I am entitled to ask the Treasury what it thinks will be the cost. We are dealing with money, and I am entitled to ask how much is involved. Surely there were discussions between the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Treasury on this matter before the authorisation of the payment out of these moneys.
  The sub-paragraph says that the amount that will be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament
  "in making to rating authorities who have afforded relief for any year in accordance with the said Act to the residential occupiers of dwellings a grant equal to half the aggregate amount of that relief…"
  We have not a clue what the amount of relief will be. It is entirely at the discretion of local authorities. What will the Public Accounts Committee say about us if we pass this Resolution so blindly? I can remember that Committee becoming all worked up and the Government deducting nearly £1 million from Scottish local authorities' grants in respect of what it thought were too low rents.
  10.15 p.m.
  Here we are giving open-ended discretion to local authorities in England and Wales. So far as I know, no sum has been quoted as to what it will cost. We in Scotland are taxpayers, too. But the Ministers who clamped down on Scotland last year—with a subservient Secretary of State for Scotland doing their bidding—are the people who are presenting this to the Committee tonight—the Treasury. I should like to know what this will cost, and I want an answer. There is a wonderful Clause in the Bill giving the Minister power by Order, not an affirmative Motion but only an annulment, to give an estimate of what it will cost and to come back with a
  1378
  corrected estimate. For the proper processes of Parliament, and in order to know what we are passing, this is the time for an estimate to be given. Surely when they went to the Treasury the Ministers had some idea of what it would cost. We have had an estimate, a rough one, in respect of sub-paragraph (a,i) of £6,500,000 in the next year.
  Mr. Willis: I am sure that my hon. Friend has noted that this amount could be well over 3 per cent. of the gross rate income which, according to my calculation, might be £25 million in the case of England and Wales.
  Mr. Ross: This is additional. It is one-half of what is discretionary, plus one-sixth. The total may be very high; but there is no point in Hon. Members on this side of the Committee making blind guesses when we have present an array of Treasury Ministers who can tell us what is involved.
  I wish to draw attention to subparagraph (b) of the Money Resolution, authorising the payment out of money provided by Parliament:
  "of any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other Act."
  Nothing could be very much wider than that. I wish to know something about the £1 million which has been promised to Scotland for the relief of hardship. We have had revaluation on current values since 1961 and so we are getting speedy and urgent relief—there is a promise from the Secretary of State that he is going to add £1 million, not this year, not next year, but in 1965, to the general grant. But we do not know what the general grant is, and so we shall not know whether £1 million has been added and £1 million taken away to make room for it. I wish to know whether the £1 million is attributable to this Act. On 9th December, the Secretary of State said:
  "Meanwhile, in parallel with interim measures for Exchequer assistance which are being introduced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in the Rating (Interim Relief) Bill published today, I propose to provide temporary assistance to Scottish local authorities."—[Official Report, 9th December, 1963; Vol. 686, c. 37.]
  Temporary assistance in 1965 for hardship that started in 1961—well done, thou good and faithful Tory! And someone said that it has no relation to a General

  1379
  Election. May we be told whether this £1 million is covered by this Bill? May I query the use of the word "provide"? I have studied Money Resolutions over a number of years and I should have thought that the proper word would be "payable". I wish to know exactly why it is so indefinite. There is another Money Resolution on the Order Paper where this formula is much more definite.
  It says:
  "any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable by way of Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in Scotland."
  It would have been far better if the Minister of Housing and Local Government had spelled out the main Acts from which he expected to have to pay out more moneys. We have had reference to the increased administrative expenses of local authorities. They are to be attributable to this Act. He might have given us information about that.
  There are to be increases in relation to rate deficiency payments in England and Wales. There are to be increases, I fancy, in relation to general grant in England and Wales. I hesitated to question your Ruling, Sir William, that this did not refer to Scotland, but we cannot make any increase in rate deficiency grant in England and Wales without also increasing the rate deficiency grant in Scotland. We find in all these Bills that whether Scotland is in the Bill or not it is always in the Money Resolution. It so happens that it is not mentioned in this Resolution tonight because of the way in which the Money Resolution has been drawn.
  I ask, what are the Acts; what are the sums? There is also a question of the Housing Acts of 1919 to 1961 being affected by a change in the penny rate. This may well have a future reference to Scotland, but, if one of the rules of order is that we cannot discuss what is going on in Committee, I shall not go into that point. I shall be grateful if we can have these points examined and answered. Was it deliberate to leave out Scotland in respect of rating authorities? If England and Wales had not been mentioned, could Scotland have been introduced later? Was it deliberate so to specify in sub-paragraph (a,i) the age, the fraction and the
  1380
  actual amount per head to prevent any possibility of upward amendment in Committee? What is to be the cost under sub-paragraph (ii)? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what are the other Acts and whether they include the legendary promise of £1 million under the Scottish general grant in the year 1965–66?
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs(Sir Keith Joseph): May I first take the opportunity to apologise to the Committee for an unintentional misstatement I made when intervening in the speech of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) on the Second Reading? I said categorically, getting my dates wrong, that I learned from Professor Allen after an early date in August that the Report of his Committee would not be available this year. I have checked on the dates and in fact I did know in the second half of July from Professor Allen that the Report would not be available. I informed the House of this and that the Government, in the light of it, were considering whether any interim steps would be necessary before the next rates were paid. I apologise to the hon. Member for unintentionally misleading him, but the letter I sent to the Standing Joint Committee was written at a time when my statement of the Government's intention to consider an interim measure had been made public.
  Mr. James MacColl: Of course I unreservedly accept the apology of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Ross: This is out of order on a Money Resolution.
  Mr. MacColl: I think it confirms my suggestion that at the time the letter was sent to the Standing Joint Committee it was known that there was no possibility of the Allen Committee's Report being received this Session.
  Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful for the opportunity, slightly out of order, to put right that mistake on my part.
  I turn with some relief to the technicalities of the Money Resolution. First, I must accept that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) paradoxically is right in saying that part of the

  1381
  Money Resolution is very tight and part is very loose. The Money Resolution in respect of Clauses 1 and 5 is very tightly drawn, and I understand that any Amendment to the figures in those Clauses would, subject to the Ruling of the Chair, be out of order. On the other hand, the figure in Clause 2 about the eligibility of a householder to be considered for hardship relief is not limited by the Money Resolution and therefore that part of the Bill is open to discussion with a view to amendment.
  So much for the tightness of the Money Resolution. Unfortunately, in the nature of things I am not able to give a clear answer to the inquiries by HON. MEMBERS about the probable cost of Clause 5, which, in terms of the Money Resolution is paragraph (a,ii). The fact is that if we knew exactly how much hardship there was we should have been able to draw the Bill in quite a different way. But we do not know exactly how much hardship there is, and we are forced to rely on the local authorities' discretion.
  As the hon. Member rightly said, the expenditure under Clause 5 will depend on the use which local authorities make of that discretion. All I can say is that from the best evidence I can get—and in the nature of the things I fear that it is scanty evidence—the order of magnitude of the cost of Clause 5 and therefore of paragraph (a,ii) will be something under the cost of Clause 1 or of paragraph (a,i)—something under £6 million. That is the nearest I can get to guiding the House. I cannot say that it is accurate even to within 50 per cent., but that is the order of magnitude which I think will obtain.
  I was asked to give some information about paragraph (b). Here the words are fairly broadly drawn in reference to
  "sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other Act."
  This is both because they include by that phrase reference to the well-known link between the rate-deficiency grant in England and Wales and the Exchequer Equalisation Grant in Scotland and because there are two other Acts which are known to be influenced by the 1d. rate product in England and Wales. The 1d. rate product in England and Wales may be minutely altered by
  1382
  the operation of the Bill. It may be that because the distribution through the precept of some expenses falls differently as a result of differences in rate remissions of county districts, the total of rate deficiency grants might be minutely increased. This would occur if a larger share of expenses were borne by county districts receiving rate deficiency grant at higher percentages.
  Because of the Bill we must bear in mind the possibility that a 1d. rate product, which is a factor in two other Acts—the Housing Act, 1919 and the Housing Act, 1961—might be slightly altered. These possibilities are covered in paragraph (b).
  The hon Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), in a brilliantly imaginative intervention said, "But the current Housing Bill before the House introduces Part II of the Housing Act, 1961 to Scotland and there is, therefore, implicit reference to Scotland in paragraph (b)". I must correct him. He was very nearly right. But what the current Housing Bill which is in Committee upstairs does is to make it possible for Part II of the Housing Act, 1961 to be introduced into Scotland at a later stage.
  The last question raised concerned the Secretary of State's announcement. Although the Secretary of State for Scotland has announced his intentions in connection with a £1 million for Scotland, that does not come within the ambit of this Bill, which is limited to England and Wales. I think that I have answered all the questions which were put to me, and I hope that I have satisfied Hon. Members.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. As the debate proceeds, it becomes clear that under paragraph (a,ii) the amount that can be spent is very substantial. I cannot see any limit to the amount which can be spent. A local authority can spend any amount it likes. It will be guaranteed half by the Government, plus one-sixth of the amount by which whatever it spends exceeds 3 per cent. of the gross rate income.
  Sir K. Joseph: I should like to put the hon. Gentleman right straight away. Local authorities are free to remit only in cases of hardship and subject to the

  1383
  two hurdles—that is, the 25 per cent. increase over the 1962–63 level or at least a £5 increase. Hardship must be established. Then the remission must not exceed the excess over the 1962–63 level, plus 25 per cent. There are these limits.
  Mr. Willis: I accept the correction that there are limits. One is the £5. Speeches I have heard about conditions in England had led me to believe that everyone has suffered a far bigger increase than this. Most people in Scotland have, but we have not the benefits of this. One reason which makes me dubious about supporting the Money Resolution is that, as I understand it, when a Scottish local authority remits rates it does not get a contribution towards it. This is utterly preposterous.
  Why the Secretary of State for Scotland sits there and allows this to go through without saying a word about it is beyond my comprehension. Has he no consideration at all for Scottish ratepayers? He allows ratepayers South of the Border to obtain benefits of this kind which do not operate in Scotland and which are likely to involve considerable expenditure, expenditure which might well make his £1 million look like chicken feed. I feel angry about this. If it were advisable I should like to vote against the Resolution, but I do not want to deny my fellow Englishmen the benefits they might get under the Bill. I should like to see steps being taken by Scottish Ministers to ensure that some of these benefits are brought North of the Border.
  10.33 p.m.
  Mr. Archie Manuel: Scottish Members are bound in doing their duty to try to probe the rating reliefs which will affect in some way allocations of general grant and Exchequer equalisation grant in Scotland. As my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) pointed out so ably, paragraph (a,ii) is drawn very wide. It says:
  "in making to rating authorities who have afforded relief for any year in accordance with the said Act to the residential occupiers of dwellings a grant equal to half the aggregate amount of that relief plus one-sixth of the amount, if any, by which that aggregate amount exceeds three per cent."
  1384
  The Minister tried to ride this off by saying that he cannot give us a figure, because it depends on the amount of hardship. We cannot accept that. The yardstick of hardship among the English and Welsh local authorities could have very little to do with the actual on-cost and moneys paid out.
  The degree of hardship is to be assessed by the English and Welsh local authorities. But the compositions of local authorities are different. Some local authorities may be hard-hearted in their outlook and may not have the regard for extenuating circumstances in the case of old-age pensioners that other local authorities have. The Minister has an intimate knowledge of local authorities, and thousands of representations have flowed in to his office from local authorities in England and Wales about the hardship which will be inflicted by these rate increases. Surely he must have some idea of the amount of money involved. If I were to mention a sum of £14 million, could he not say that that would be something near it? He cannot say that is not a reasonable sort of figure. The Minister has already told us that he does not know the degree of hardship involved, so he is in a cleft stick. He cannot answer. Our case is as good as his.
  Sir K. Joseph: If the hon. Member is asking whether I can confirm that Clause 5 of the Bill—that is, paragraph (a, ii) of the Money Resolution—might cost £14 million, I can say categorically that the answer is "no".
  Mr. Manuel: This is a remarkable situation. I took down the Minister's words very carefully. He said he could not say how much hardship there is; it could not be measured. Would he agree that it is the measuring of this hardship by the local authorities which will decide the figure, or have I misconstrued the situation? I think the amount could be much more. I think I am making a conservative estimate in suggesting this figure.
  We are in a cleft stick. We have a feeling that something wrong is being perpetrated in Scotland and that it can cause great injury to local authorities and the work that they carry out because of the application of the general grant.
  Mr. Willis: If we take the first two years, which brings us up to the time that Scotland gets the £1 million, it is quite possible under these two provisions that England and Wales would get £20 million.
  Mr. Manuel: My hon. Friend is so accurate in his assessment of the position that I am bound to agree with him. I think that figure is very moderate. It could be £28 million, and we do not get our grant in Scotland for two years yet. I know it is fashionable these days to lump all sorts of things into United Kingdom Bills. The English Minister is having quite a job with the Housing Bill, because he does not know much about Scotland.
  Mr. Ross: He does not know much about England.
  Mr. Manuel: I would not say that. We are not talking about geography here. The Minister has admitted in Committee that he is not competent to deal with the Scottish application of the United Kingdom Bill, but I think my hon. Friends will agree that we would welcome some more references to Scotland than we have had. Why, when there is something of real value, is it applicable to England and Wales only?
  The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill lays down quite clearly that
  "Changes in penny rate products as a result of the Bill may increase the amounts of rate-deficiency grant (and consequentially Exchequer equalisation grant in Scotland) through their indirect effect on the distribution of general grant and on the incidence of precepts for purposes other than general county purposes."
  This is very confused, of course, but the Government actually have an alibi. Two years from now they can tell us that they indicated in the Memorandum that there could be repercussions in Scotland.
  All we are trying to do tonight is to try to wring some information out of Ministers responsible as to what the repercussions are likely to be in Scotland when this comes fully into effect. So far we have been signally ineffective in getting any real information. I would hope that the Minister will tell us, or the Secretary of State for Scotland will tell us, and perhaps relieve our anxieties, that he will make up this leeway if we
  1386
  have lost it in two years' time, when this is applied in Scotland. If the Secretary of State would make that statement we should all be happy to let the Money Resolution pass.
  Mr. George Lawson: I think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite think we are just having a little joke. We are very much concerned. We represent Scotland. We wish to see Scottish interests upheld. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite think that this is a matter merely of passing some time, they ought to get rid of the idea. The Patronage Secretary is sitting there. The Secretary of State for Scotland is sitting there looking at the ceiling. He started knowing nothing about if. He is asleep, or at least showing no interest whatever n what is going on—
  Mr. Willis: It is beyond his comprehension.
  Mr. Lawson: —although he is the Minister with the primary responsibility for Scottish interests. My hon. Friends have asked legitimate questions. If they had not asked legitimate questions, you, Sir William, would have ruled them out of order. They have asked those questions and they are entitled to get answers.
  It is quite obvious that the Minister of Housing and Local Government cannot answer those questions. It is possible, though I doubt it, that the Secretary of State for Scotland may be able to answer them. He might at least have a try. Since the Patronage Secretary is sitting there, in control and command of these things—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—he might suggest to his right hon. Friend that at least he gets up and has a try. I have not interrupted at all, but have listened to the right hon. Gentleman hazarding a guess what the cost might be under paragraph (a,ii). If I did not misunderstand him, it was very much a guess—very much a guess. How can he get up and say categorically it cannot be £14 million? When the right hon. Gentleman hazards a guess how can be mock other guesses? One guess is as good as another—unless the right hon. Gentleman can bring forward some evidence to show that his guess is an informed guess. I have not yet heard that evidence. He is telling us that in

  1387
  that guess he may be 50 per cent. out. That is something. We should like to learn how he arrives at the 50 per cent. We want to know how Scotland will be affected by the Measure and the related Measure. We want to know the implications and consequences.
  It being a quarter to Eleven o'clock, The Chairman put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted Business).
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  DISTRICT PROBATE REGISTRIES ORDER
  10.46 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): I beg to move,
  That the District Probate Registries Order, 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.
  The object of the Order is to enable the District Probate Registries at Exeter and Bodmin to be run by one registrar instead of, as at present, by two.
  The reason for making the change is that there is not sufficient work at Bodmin to require the full-time attendance of a registrar, and the President of the Probate Division, with the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury, is satisfied that an equally efficient service to the public in Cornwall and Devon would be provided by the attendance of the registrar at Exeter on four days of the week and at Bodmin on one day.
  The history of the matter is that until 1938 Bristol and Exeter together constituted one group with a sub-registry at Bodmin and that after 1938 until today separate probate registrars operated at Bristol and Exeter and Bodmin.
  While it is true that the amount of business done in probate registries has been increasing steadily since 1938, the fact nevertheless remains that the amount of actual attendances either by members of the public or by solicitors and other members of the legal profession at any individual probate registry is very small indeed, and does not, in the view of those who know about these matters, justify the continuation of a full-time registrar at Bodmin.
  1388
  In 1962 there were 3,742 applications at Bodmin, of which 3,481 were dealt with wholly by correspondence. There were only 183 personal applications by the general public, which do not, of course, require the attendance of the registrar in person, and there were only 78 applications made wholly or partly by the personal attendance of a solicitor—in other words, the equivalent of one and a half attendances a week. At Exeter there was a total of 5,647 grants issued in 1962, and of these only 383 were personal applications from the general public, and 1,022 were wholly or partly by the personal attendance of a solicitor. In these circumstances, it is considered that the public will continue to get as satisfactory a service if there is a single registrar for both Exeter and Bodmin and if he is in attendance at Exeter for four days a week and at Bodmin for one day a week.
  It is proposed that the fusion of the two posts should take place on 30th July next when the present registrar at Exeter retires, and it is estimated that a total saving to public funds of approximately £1,500 a year will be achieved.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The odd thing about this Order is that it was not made before. Apparently, the present position is that the number of transactions at Bodmin is increasing. The Government in their wisdom choose the moment when the transactions are increasing to shut down the registry and get the work done by a registrar coming from outside Cornwall. I do not quite follow this. If it is right to close this registry now, then it was right to close it some considerable time ago. One wonders why it was not done then.
  If it is to be done now, what assurance do the Government have that with the continued increase a separate registry at Bodmin might not soon be wanted again? I forbear from going too much into the figures, although I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find a remarkable disparity between the number of solicitors' cases in Exeter and that in Bodmin. It may depend on some personal and local circumstance with which I am not acquainted and with which he may not be acquainted, but on the main question that we have to consider I should like to know why

  1389
  now and not before. Although the death of a district registry does not attract so much attention as that of Trelawney, some number of Cornishmen, probably not 20,000 but rather fewer, would like to know the reason why.
  The Attorney-General: It is not the position that the probate registry at Bodmin is being closed. All that is happening is that it is being run as a sub-station from Exeter. It will still be in its present existing physical presence with its staff, but there will not be an individual commanding officer for each. All that is happening is that a single registrar is taking command of both registries instead of having two commanding officers at Bodmin and Exeter.
  Mr. Mitchison: Surely that answer is rather by the card. The right hon and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well what I mean. In future, the business is to be dealt with not by someone who deals continuously with the Bodmin business, but by someone who comes from Exeter for one day in the week to deal with it. It does not matter whether we call that shutting down a registry or not. What is being done is perfectly clear and the Attorney-General understands it perfectly well. Presumably, it is being done for some reason of economy. I do not know of any other reason. If that is the case, why with business now increasing was this not done some time ago, and what security have we that the increase in the business will not lead the Government in a short time to do the very opposite of what they are now doing?
  The Attorney-General: It is not the Government, but the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division who is responsible for the organisation. The Government put through the Orders if they approve them, but the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, on review, no doubt on assuming his office, has decided that this reform can be made. If it transpires—no doubt he will keep these matters under review—that further attendance is required, no doubt he will take appropriate steps. There are more attendances in Exeter than Bodmin—I know the area a little—because there are far more
  1390
  solicitors in practice in Exeter. The majority of solicitors in Cornwall are not concentrated in Bodmin and they therefore do their probate business with the registry by correspondence.
  Mr. Mitchison: When an Order requires the concurrence of two Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, it is remarkable to say that it depends entirely on the judge who makes it. Of course the Government are involved.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the District Probate Registries Order, 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.

  COUNTRYSIDE AND TOURIST AMENITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Noble.]
  Question agreed to.
  Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

  COUNTRYSIDE AND TOURIST AMENITIES (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).
  [SIR WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session relating to the countryside and tourist amenities in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by parliament of—

  (a) grants towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred by any person in carrying out work which in the opinion of the Secretary of State is calculated to preserve or enhance the natural beauty of a country locality, to restore or improve the appearance of land in a country locality, or to improve the facilities available in such a locality to members of the public for enjoying the countryside;

  1391

  (b) allowances to members of a Scottish Tourist Amenities Council established under that Act;

  (c) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under that Act; and

  (d) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable by way of Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in Scotland.—[Mr. Noble.]

  10.56 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: I think that I am the only Scottish Member who has not made a speech on this Bill.
  Mr. George Lawson: I have not made one.
  Mr. Willis: I stand corrected. My hon. Friend and I are probably the only Scottish Members who have not made speeches on this Bill, and it would be out of order to do so now. I have no intention of detaining the Committee for very long, but I am sure that it would be a great disappointment to the array of Scottish Ministers on the Front Bench opposite if they were now allowed to show their paces on this Money Resolution, and we must therefore ask them one or two simple questions.
  We have come down from the higher realms of local government finance, with all its intricate calculations, to the more mundane matters of tourism. Sub-paragraph (a) of the Money Resolution, which almost repeats Clause 2(1) of the Bill, authorises the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of
  "grants towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred by any person in carrying out work which in the opinion of the Secretary of State is calculated to preserve or enhance the natural beauty of a country locality, to restore or improve the appearance of land in a country locality, or to improve the facilities available in such a locality to members of the public for enjoying the countryside."
  We grumbled about the Money Resolution in respect of the Rating (Interim Relief) Bill being drawn too tightly. We now have a Money Resolution drawn in extremely wide terms, and I should like to know what it embraces. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (The Earl of Dalkeith) decides to paint the gates of his country estate, will that be eligible for a grant? It appears that it will be. Or if my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), in very much
  1392
  humbler circumstances, decides to paint the gate of his front garden, will that be eligible for a grant?
  Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend knows that I do not live in a historic mansion maintained out of public funds. I live in an ordinary semi-detached cottage, and no funds are provided for its upkeep.
  Mr. Willis: I was aware of the distinction, but the giving of a grant seems to depend on whether it is in a country locality
  "in a rural area whether in the landward part of a county or otherwise."
  That seems to me to beg the question of what is a rural area. The provision lends itself to exploitation by the landowning interests of Scotland on a large scale. I am against allowing the landed gentry of Scotland to get their hands further into the public purse. They are in deep enough already, without allowing them to be in much deeper.
  11.0 p.m.
  I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will be able to indicate the kind of things that can be done under the provision. I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee, but I could think of numerous kinds of activity which could be engaged in by various people and paid for under this provision. The Financial Memorandum says that it is expected to spend only £25,000, but I wonder on what that calculation was based. Who decided that it would be only £25,000? Was there a sample survey of the type of work required in Lanarkshire, or the Border area—perhaps in Roxburgh—which was taken as being indicative of what was required for the whole country? The right hon. Gentleman should tell us something about it.
  He should also tell us something about the allowances to members of the Scottish Tourist Amenities Council, to be established under the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill to indicate what it might cost. I understand that these people will have fairly considerable powers of taxing. I feel rather dubious about passing on such powers to other people. What sort of allowances has the right hon. Gentleman in mind? How many are to be on this Council? I could ask what amounts are to be spent under paragraphs (c) and (d). Perhaps the right

  1393
  hon. Gentleman could say something about them, and give us an estimate of the total expenditure per annum that he expects to be involved.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East Mr. Willis) is so good at dealing with these problems that I feel it is almost a compliment that on this occasion the Treasury has not been accused of drawing the Money Resolution too tightly. That is generally the argument he makes. I agree that paragraph (a) is very wide. It is right, in the circumstances that we know about in Scotland, that it should be wide, because there are so many different ways in which the amenities—to use the modern word—of our countryside can be improved. I do not think that many Secretaries of State would want to paint the hon. Member's gates, in any colour, but there might well be conditions in which individuals could contribute cheaply and sensibly to providing extra facilities, for our tourists.
  The hon. Member said that he was one of the few people who had not spoken on the Bill. I am sure that he read about all those parts of the debate that he missed, and he will therefore be aware of the suggestions made as to the types of work which could be done under this provision. One hon. Member suggested that derelict buildings might be removed, or perhaps trees planted to screen them, in order that they should not affect the beauty of the countryside. It was also suggested that seats might be provided, and footpaths improved, and that indicator signs should be put up showing the direction of high peaks from certain vantage points. Other suggestions were made, going as far as the clearing of litter and the provision of car parks. All these things are possible under the Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why a figure of £25,000 had been suggested. It is not, of course, either in the Money Resolution or in the Bill, and all that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is what I said to Hon. Members in the Committee, that this figure was thought to be reasonable; and particularly it was thought to be so in relation to the fact that the English equivalent legislation contemplates an annual expenditure of £48,000. This figure, therefore, was
  1394
  thought to be a reasonable indication of what might be needed in Scotland.
  With regard to the hon. Gentleman's question about allowances paid to members of the Scottish Tourist Amenities Council, these will be the normal allowances for travel and subsistence given to people who have to travel a certain amount round the country in order to see how the work or the suggestions made should best be dealt with. I do not expect these allowances to be substantial because I do not believe that this will need to be a very large body. Therefore, I do not think the hon. Gentleman need be worried about any large sums being spent in this way.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: I wonder if the Secretary of State for Scotland would partially take back some of the things he has just said. The right hon. Gentleman justified paragraph (a) by saying that in the course of the discussion on the principle of the Bill Hon. Members made a lot of suggestions as to ways in which public money might be spent in improving the amenities of the countryside. He then went on to say, for example, that we might clear some of the derelict pit heaps. We are not going to clear many pit heaps if the right hon. Gentleman is going to spend only £25,000. In any case, the right hon. Gentleman must know full well that we should not deal with that kind of problem in Scotland, which is a very large problem, under the provisions of the Bill.
  Power was given under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, in the areas scheduled under that Act. The powers were repeated in the 1960 Local Employment Act in the areas listed under that Act as development districts. The Government have the power to provide the whole of the money for the clearing of these derelict sites, whether pit heaps or other industrial sites which have become derelict, under the provisions of the 1960 Act. As far as I am aware, they have so far not cleared any.
  It is a little unfortunate if the right hon. Gentleman is just going to throw out loosely a hope to unwary people in local authorities and to unwary people who might be thinking of visiting Scotland that they might get a job done for which provision is already specifically made by an Act, though not done

  1395
  under that Statute but done, as it were, vicariously under the Countryside and Tourist Amenities (Scotland) Bill. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it will not be done and he really must not hold out any possibility of it being done in what he says tonight.
  Mr. Noble: It was not I who threw out this suggestion but one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, who asked whether this sort of work could be done or whether screening by trees could be employed as well. I said that it could and quoted that example to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Fraser: That was exactly my complaint. The right hon. Gentleman is Secretary of State. He is the person defending before the British House of Commons a Money Resolution which is being considered now by a Committee of the whole House. When asked by my hon. Friend what he expects to do with the powers he is seeking under paragraph (a), he replied by saying that some hon. Member had suggested things which could be done, and left it at that. He did not say, "We would not dream of spending money under this power in clearing a derelict slag heap at a colliery." He did not say that it would not be done, but that it was one of the things which could be done. I want him to take that back, because we all know that it will not be done and we ought not to hold out the prospect of its being done.
  We very much hope that many derelict sites will be cleared under legislation which specifically refers to them as blots on the landscape that ought to be removed. I am all too well aware of those blots on the landscape because there are so many in my constituency. They were left behind by people who made a lot of money out of mining royalties in Lanarkshire from the coal which was there, and then left those ugly slag heaps. Power was taken in 1945 to have these things cleared at public expense. Some were cleared between 1945 and 1951, but none has been cleared since 1951. I wish that the Government would start to clear them under the powers they have under the 1961 Act. Let not the Government or the Secretary of State pretend that they will clear them under this Bill, because the right hon. Gentleman has no intention of doing so.
  Mr. Willis: This is a most intriguing subsection. Would it be in order for the right hon. Gentleman with his 30,000 acres to put in for a grant to trim all the hedges or cut the trees in certain shapes to add to the beauty of the landscape? Would it be in order for him to make a model lake, or an artificial waterfall? I can see the right hon. Gentleman having a busy time under this subsection.
  Mr. Noble: I can assure the hon. Member that if I spent a busy time thinking up schemes for my own land, I should have an equally busy time turning them down as Secretary of State.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman because I did not hear the first part of his reply to the debate. Nor did I hear the first part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).
  Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend missed a brilliant speech.
  Mr. Ross: I was correcting a brilliant speech that I had made earlier. I think my hon. Friend was right about paragraph (a). This part of the Bill—about improving and enhancing the beauty of certain areas—has everyone's approval. I wonder if it is desirable to limit it to country localities.
  Mr. Willis: I could do with a bit of paint on my house.
  Mr. Ross: We have this definition in the Bill:
  " 'country locality' means any locality in a rural area whether in the landward part of a country or otherwise."
  I can think of certain parts of small burghs which could not be considered as rural areas, but to which it would be desirable to effect some changes. If the Secretary of State left it as it is, he would not be able to give any expenditure to any person, as apart from a local authority, in respect of changes which were made in such an area as I have mentioned.
  The Money Resolution refers to allowances to members of a Scottish Tourist Amenities Council. I am sorry that it mentions this body because not everybody is agreed that this should be the name. It could have been denned in

  1397
  much vaguer words. I do not like Parliamentary draftsmen to tie us down and to frustrate our efforts to improve things. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) suggested that this name was not very suitable and that we could find a better one. I am sorry that the Secretary of State thought fit to include this in the Money Resolution and to deny us the chance of amending it.
  Paragraph (d) reads:
  "any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable by way of Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in Scotland."
  It is clear that he limits any contribution under the Act to local authorities to the extent to which they might receive equalisation grant, although in Clause 4 he places considerable new duties on local authorities—duties which many do not now possess. Rural authorities are not the wealthiest in the country, but they are to deal with the provision of
  "area seats, shelters, viewpoint stances and indicators, together with any necessary footpaths leading thereto."
  These are not things which can always be provided without a considerable amount of expenditure, and I think that he should leave it open for us to suggest that the Government should make a direct contribution from general grant, quite apart from limiting the provision to help being obtained under the equalisation grant.
  He gives power to local authorities to advertise their areas. Is this expenditure to be met only out of the Exchequer equalisation grant? In Shetland and Orkney, 85 per cent. of the total local expenditure is covered by equalisation grant. In the Secretary of State's area, Argyll, about 64 per cent. of local expenditure is covered by equalisation grant. It varies between 60 per cent. and about 80 per cent. This provision would be all right for those areas, but for others it might be very desirable to give a specific grant in relation to what they do under this provision.
  The Secretary of State has not answered the question about allowances to members of the council. How much are they to be? I should be grateful for some indication. He has fixed the title and I do not doubt that he has
  1398
  already fixed the number of people concerned. I cannot see him denying us the possibility of changing something as unimportant as that and then giving us the opportunity of expressing an opinion on something which is much more important.
  I should be grateful if he would answer the one or two questions which I have additionally put, and he may well have second thoughts on some questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and so far unanswered.
  Mr. Noble: The definition of "country locality" has been specially drawn, as I explained—the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was not present when I wound up the debate—so that Cromarty and Kingussie could be brought within the provisions, although they were small burghs.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the equalisation, grant. Clause 4 provides only a power. Grants apart from the equalisation grant will be available under Clause 2. The hon. Member asked how much the expenses would be. All I can say about them is that they will be the normal travelling and subsistence allowances which are paid to people in many walks of life. I have not made up my mind how many people there will be on the Council. I have no doubt that I shall get some suggestions from Hon. Members in Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received tomorrow.

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed [copy laid before the House, 9th December], approved.—[Mr. Woodhouse.]
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Horwich [copy laid before the House, 9th December], approved.—[Mr. Woodhouse.]

  FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND (PUBLIC SERVANTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
  11.22 p.m.
  Dame Irene Ward: I am very glad indeed to have an opportunity tonight to say a few words about the provision which is being made for the Federal public servants. It is true that this matter was raised in yesterday's debate, but as the debate was really on the Order I thought that it was wiser to have my Adjournment debate tonight to get some additional information, because those who are interested in this matter are very anxious to have some further knowledge.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies made this observation last night:
  "After considering the representations of the Staff Association, I am satisfied that there is not really any justification for reopening the inter-governmental agreement, and the five Governments including the Federal Government, all share this view. Nevertheless, the Staff Association has put forward certain proposals which, in its opinion, could be adopted without reopening the Agreement. These proposals will be considered in conjunction with the further detailed recommendations, which have now been received from the Inter-Governmental Committee in Salisbury. These deal with the treatment of hardship cases, the currency in which pensions are to be paid, and other related matters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1963; Vol. 686, c. 1068.]
  Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretady kindly give a little more information about what was in my right hon. Friend's mind? Perhaps he will forgive me if I say that what I want to know is whether this means that there is a firm intention to meet the case which has been put forward by the Staff Association in relation to these matters, on which the Secretary of State I think intended to convey that he was reserving judgment. In other words, I want to know whether this was a firm action and not just a way of sounding conciliatory without really meaning to take action. I should like to be assured that in due course we may expect some real action after the proposals have been considered.
  1400
  I want to refer also—because it is of great importance—to the statement that was made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he was Minister for Central African Affairs, in which he said categorically that on this very human issue of the treatment of the people who were concerned in the break-up of the Federation, we should be judged by our treatment of them. That, I consider, was a very important statement indeed.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-secretary of State will forgive me if I say that I do not consider that the arrangements that have been made are a sound prospectus. If my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary were the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do not think he would consider that it would be in the interest of the nation as a whole to put forward a prospectus which was so indefinite and ill-drawn. It is not for Her Majesty's Government to present to the Staff Association a prospectus which has so many outstanding points which have not yet been resolved.
  I am looking forward to hearing whether my hon. Friend can make a firm statement on the points which were raised by the Staff Association in the memorandum that it sent to my right hon. Friend on 5thDecember. May I briefly put on the record the points that were made in that memorandum. The memorandum from the solicitors representing the Staff Association said:
  "We found the draft Order in Council"—
  as it then was—
  "very unsatisfactory. It does not make it clear what the currency of the pensions is to be, and the position is pretty vague with regard to the question of making up the fund to the required amount, the location of the fund, the appointment of new trustees and the actual payment of the pensions."
  I agree with every word that is contained in the memorandum. One should not expect a body of public servants, who have served the Federation to the best of their ability, to regard as satisfactory a scheme designed to protect their interests which is so lacking in the fundamental explanations of what is to be the currency in which the pensions are paid, or of the details of how the pension authority is to be made up. This is not the kind of prospectus that ought to be issued by Her Majesty's Government. I hope, therefore, that my hon.

  1401
  Friend will give some reassurance to those who rightly seek to preserve their position.
  I think that a great deal of the anxiety which has been engendered by the unsatisfactory position of the proposals which have been put forward arises from the very real anxiety which those people have, and very rightly have, about their future. I am bound to say that when I attended the meeting at the Commonwealth Relations Office which was presided over by the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations and I listened to the arguments advanced I did not think the spokesman for the Commonwealth Relations Department met at all the case which was put forward by the spokesman for the Federal public servants. I say again that I do not think that it is right that the Government should come forward with suggestions which give all the appearance of very immature consideration. To my mind it certainly does not add to the lustre of the administration of the Government, nor does it really carry cut the undertaking which was given by my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary when he himself was speaking about the judgment which would be ours, based on the treatment of these people.
  If I may, I refer very briefly to the fact of one of the African Governments now independent making attacks, as the Ghana Government have done, on the pensions of the widows whose husbands died and who are now the responsibility of the Ghana Government. It does not, of course, add to the feeling of security of the people who are concerned with this scheme under the Federation. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give us much more convincing evidence that we have got a fair, honourable and proper scheme to put forward to these people for whom we have such real responsibility.
  I want very briefly to deal with one or two specific cases because I think they are important. I have received a copy of the terminal benefits and arrangements for the Federal Supreme Court judges. I want to put this on the record because, again, I do not consider that it has been proper treatment of the judges. Presumably my hon. Friend has read this memorandum. If he has
  1402
  not I shall be indeed glad when he sees it on the record. It says:
  "The first occasion the judges became aware of the proposals relating to them was on Monday, 25th November, 1963. It must be remembered that in 1955 the Chief Justice gave up a seat on the Supreme Court of South Africa where he was assured of his full salary until the age of 70, followed by a pension. He did so to serve the Federation. Similarly, Sir Vintcent Quenet in 1961 gave up a secure seal on the High Court of Southern Rhodesia where he was assured of his full salary until the age of 70, followed by a pension. Instead of being compensated on the basis oil salary lost when their present posts are terminated, the proposal is to compensate them on the basis of past service. It is extremely doubtful whether the judges will be offered comparable posts in other courts and it is also extremely doubtful whether they will be able substantially to mitigate their loss by obtaining other employment. It is, to say the least of it, most unfortunate that they should be put in the position at their time of life, 59 plus and 57 respectively, of having to seek employment. The worst feature of all, however, is that the judges have been denied an opportunity to put their case either to Committee A or to Governments, other than the Federal Government, and the latter has been baulked by the laying of the Order in Council. It is not clear why it was considered necessary to freeze the compensation terms for judges into the Order in Council. The Federal Government feels that they could have been left over with other matters for further consideration."
  This matter justifies the greatest condemnation of Her Majesty's Government for the treatment which has been meted out to these very distinguished servants. This sort of thing would never have been allowed to happen in this country. I am not in a position to say whether under the Order in Council which has now been passed it is possible to deal with the matter fairly and adequately, but, quite apart from the terms of the arrangements which have been made for these distinguished judges, I think that the memorandum adds substance to the point I was making, that the whole matter has been so hurried that there has been no proper consideration of the issues.
  To revert to what I was saying earlier, it is now understood that the currency in which the pensions are to be paid has been referred to a sub-committee. At this stage, when the Order in Council has been laid, those of us who are interested in central African affairs would have preferred the Government to put off the matter until proper provision had been made for those who had served the Federation.

  1403
  I want to raise one other specific individual point. This comes from the Ministry of Health in Nyasaland. It is a letter written to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), and is signed by Mrs. Elizabeth Sword. It says:
  "I understand that Mr. Sandys has agreed to look into the matter of compensation for those Federal Civil Servants who find it impossible to carry on after the break-up of the Central African Federation.
  Perhaps the following information in respect of two men, both of whom joined the Colonial Service, may be of interest to him.
  Case 1…A Nyasaland Government (Colonial) Administrative Officer has just left. He receives £11,000 compensation, plus a bumped-up pension, plus, to my astonishment, a disturbance allowance of £500.
  Case 2…A Colonial Medical Officer, whose post as Provincial Medical Officer has been abolished, gets a bare pension.
  Both these men have worked side by side mostly in the Central Province of Nyasaland. One began as an Assistant Administrative Officer, rising, in this case, because of his undoubted ability, to District Commissioner, Deputy Provincial Commissioner and finally to Provincial Commissioner.
  The second began as a fully qualified Medical Officer with valuable experience in medico-legal work and overseas experience during the war, becoming finally Provincial Medical Officer, Central Province.
  Whilst I admit that the work of the former was by no means easy, I claim that the latter had a far more arduous job, including much night work. He did not wish to leave Nyasaland and was seconded to the Federal Ministry of Health until 1958 when he had to decide either to transfer to the Federal Ministry of Health or leave the country."
  I have heard from the medical profession here that it fully supports the point of view put forward on behalf of those who were in the medical profession in the Federation.
  I do not want to go further into this now, but I want to ask my hon. Friend if he is aware of the consternation with which this unsatisfactory arrangement has been received by many Hon. Members on both sides of the House. However unfortunate the break-up of the Federation may be, we are entitled, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary himself has said, to expect the Government to see that those who have served the Federation have adequate, fair and just treatment. From my little knowledge of these affairs—although I have taken some trouble to inform myself—I believe that we are entitled to expect some assurance
  1404
  that those who have now become the responsibility of the new pensions authority will not be subject to unfair treatment. If the pensions authority breaks down, there seems to be no provision for dealing with the situation if any of the Governments concerned default on their undertakings.
  We have all these agreements and undertakings, but all of us living in the modern world of today have seen so many agreements broken and so many undertakings tossed aside that it would not be right to accept all these assurances, even when the Government are associated with the pensions authority, unless we are certain that if there is a fall away or lack of contributions by any of the Governments concerned, appropriate steps will be taken.
  I have put the case frankly and, I hope, reasonably. When we are dealing with human beings, it is absolutely essential to protect their interests. It is true that we have an obligation to protect the interests of Her Majesty's Treasury and Her Majesty's Government, but I am more interested in proper treatment being accorded to individuals. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give some of the assurances for which I have asked.
  11.43 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. R. P. Hornby): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has raised this matter and I entirely share the anxiety, which she has expressed on this and other occasions when public servants from this country and elsewhere have been concerned, that this problem should be regarded as a human one, and for that very reason it needs to be handled with the greatest possible care and concern. This is a subject which affects the future livelihood of some 35,000 Federal civil servants and I welcome the opportunity to say that the words spoken by my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary, then in charge of these matters, were not idle ones when he said that it was a subject on which we must be judged and on which we had to take the greatest possible care in our decisions.
  I wanted to give my hon. Friend that assurance about the anxieties which are shared by all concerned. For reasons

  1405
  which I shall later explain, I cannot at this stage give her all the details for which she rightly asked, and which it is proper that we should examine, as indeed we are doing. In that connection, perhaps I should say a word about the timetable, as my right hon. Friend did yesterday. I freely admit that there has not been time for as carefully prepared a statement as we should have liked. The main reason, as my right hon. Friend explained yesterday, was that the decision of the Victoria Falls Conference imposed a very tight timetable once the decision on dissolution by 31st December had been made. It is inevitably, therefore, to some extent an interim statement that one is making, but I think it is better that one should have all the available knowledge before one, even though it does not represent the complete picture.
  As the House will recall, details of the settlement on terminal arrangements for the Federal Public Service were announced on 18th September, and were the result of prolonged discussions between the five Governments concerned. The public service staff associations were given the opportunity of putting their views to the Dissolution Committee while this settlement was being worked out.
  The House is familiar with the main details of the settlement, provision for which is made in Part II and the Second Schedule of the Order in Council, and I do not propose to go over those details. I think, however, that the House may like to know the latest assessment that I have been able to obtain of the prospects for future employment.
  The most up-to-date information was given very recently by the Federal Minister of the Public Services. He said that of the 21,000 established officers in the Federal Service only 257 have so far been advised that the Territorial Governments are unable to offer them employment. The Federal Minister went on to estimate that it was very unlikely that the number of officers for whom the Territorial Governments could not find employment would exceed 400. He also said that fewer than 900 officers and employees had refused to consider offers of further employment.
  So far as unestablished employees are concerned, the Territorial Governments have assured the Federal Public Service Commission that all 15,000 of these em-
  1406
  ployees will be absorbed, almost to a man, and I think my hon. Friend will agree that in terms of jobs available this is encouraging.
  I now turn to the main points made by my hon. Friend about redundancy compensation and security of the pension funds. Again I think that the details are fairly well known to my hon. Friend, namely, that officers for whom work cannot be found in their home territory will receive their earned pension plus an additional one-third.
  I come next to the question of security. It has clearly been a matter of concern to the Federal Civil Service that there should be the maximum possible security for these terminal benefits, and also for future pensions, and for that reason it has been decided that the existing Federal Tension Fund, with assets amounting to approximately £17·6 million, largely invested in Federal stock should be taken over by a new Fund. Provision for this new Central African Pensions fund is made in Clauses 24 and 25 of the Order in Council, and the Fund will be administered by trustees domiciled in this country and initially appointed jointly by the Governments concerned.
  It has been said that the settlement is ungenerous in one of two respects, and I should like to comment on that. The main ground for criticism has been, I think, that the treatment proposed for former Federal officers seems to compare unfavourably with that which has been accorded to ex-members of the Overseas Civil Service. I should like to reiterate, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, that the Federal Public Service is, and always has been, a locally recruited service. None of its officers has the status of Overseas Civil Servants, and this was made clear at the time of recruitment. I think my hon. Friend will also agree that it would have been impossible to make distinctions, so far as terminal benefits were concerned, based on an officer's race or country of origin, or for that matter country of recruitment.
  Perhaps a further point which my hon. Friend and others might have considered is whether Her Majesty's Government ought to have provided additional compensation beyond what has been agreed with the Territorial

  1407
  Governments. There are two reasons why one cannot accept this principle. First, I emphasise again, this is and always has been a locally recruited service, and, secondly, it is simply not possible to distinguish in terms between ex-members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Servants and other Federal officers.
  I freely admit that there are certain points which are giving cause for anxiety. My hon. Friend referred to the meeting which she had with my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Since then, as she will know, a number of recommendations have been made by the Dissolution Committee in Salisbury, and also by the staff associations, which were told by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that although he could not go back on or reopen the settlement between the Governments concerned he did understand that if there were particular points which the staff associations put up to him which seemed to avoid reopening the intergovernmental settlement these points would be carefully considered. I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that these points, some of which she mentioned, are being most carefully considered. They include
  1408
  such subjects as the currency in which the future pensions will be paid and any possible deficiencies in the pension fund.
  I hope, therefore, that what I have said, somewhat briefly and admittedly hurriedly in the time available, will indicate that everything possible is being done to reach a fair and satisfactory settlement of what is a very complex problem, affecting all the Governments concerned, not just the British Government, and that in arriving at a final agreement with the Territorial Governments full account will be taken of the views expressed by the public service associations to my right hon. Friend.
  If I may summarise the position, this is a problem of a locally recruited service which, in our view, can best be dealt with in conjunction with the Governments concerned.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at seven minutes to Twelve o'clock

TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Leicester and Newport
  Leicester and Newport
  Cumbernauld
  Cumbernauld
  London Centre Area
  London Centre Area
  Equipment (Scotland)
  Equipment (Scotland)
  Telephone Exchanges, Scotland
  Telephone Exchanges, Scotland
  East Suffolk
  East Suffolk
  Lisburn, County Antrim
  Lisburn, County Antrim
POST OFFICE
  High Commissioner for Australia (Official Envelopes)
  High Commissioner for Australia (Official Envelopes)
  Robberies
  Robberies
  Mail Bags, South Wales (Registered Letters)
  Mail Bags, South Wales (Registered Letters)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  South Down
  South Down
  Weardale, County Durham
  Weardale, County Durham
  B.B.C. (Second Television Service)
  B.B.C. (Second Television Service)
  Bute
  Bute
ROYAL NAVY
  Surface-to-Surface Guided Weapons
  Surface-to-Surface Guided Weapons
  Aircraft
  Aircraft
  Falmouth Shipyard
  Falmouth Shipyard
  Commando Carriers and Frigates (Helicopters)
  Commando Carriers and Frigates (Helicopters)
  Operational Squadrons (N.A.T.O. Declarations)
  Operational Squadrons (N.A.T.O. Declarations)
  The Clyde (Ship Construction)
  The Clyde (Ship Construction)
BRITISH ARMY
  Sniper Rifle (Calibre)
  Sniper Rifle (Calibre)
  Recruitment
  Recruitment
  New Buildings, Hong Kong
  New Buildings, Hong Kong
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Woolwich
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Woolwich
  W.R.A.C. Camp, Richmond Park
  W.R.A.C. Camp, Richmond Park
  Maltese Service Men, B.A.O.R. (Pay and Allowances)
  Maltese Service Men, B.A.O.R. (Pay and Allowances)
  British Army of the Rhine (Strength)
  British Army of the Rhine (Strength)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Sydenham Airport
  Sydenham Airport
  AW681 Transport Aircraft
  AW681 Transport Aircraft
  Prestwick Airport (Scandinavian Services)
  Prestwick Airport (Scandinavian Services)
  Airports, Highlands and Islands (Management)
  Airports, Highlands and Islands (Management)
  Aldergrove Airport
  Aldergrove Airport
  London Airport (Taxicab Service)
  London Airport (Taxicab Service)
  Inclusive Tour Traffic (Aircraft)
  Inclusive Tour Traffic (Aircraft)
SCOTLAND
  Crimes of Violence and Sexual Offences
  Crimes of Violence and Sexual Offences
  Herring Industry
  Herring Industry
  Road Programme
  Road Programme
  Housing
  Housing
  North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board's Scheme, Laidon
  North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board's Scheme, Laidon
  Highland Transport Board
  Highland Transport Board
  Arran (Population)
  Arran (Population)
  Advisory Council on Child Care (Training Committee)
  Advisory Council on Child Care (Training Committee)
ROADS
  Road Junctions (Parking Restrictions)
  Road Junctions (Parking Restrictions)
  A.611 and B.6011 Roads (Speed Limit)
  A.611 and B.6011 Roads (Speed Limit)
  Traffic Congestion (Report)
  Traffic Congestion (Report)
  Buchanan Report
  Buchanan Report
  A.3 Road (Accidents)
  A.3 Road (Accidents)
  Highway and Traffic Engineers
  Highway and Traffic Engineers
  Traffic Signals (Cost)
  Traffic Signals (Cost)
  Hull-Beverley Trunk Road
  Hull-Beverley Trunk Road
  London-Crawley Motorway
  London-Crawley Motorway
SHIPPING
  Rochdale Committee's Report
  Rochdale Committee's Report
  Waterways Board (Reorganisation)
  Waterways Board (Reorganisation)
  Merchant Shipping Acts
  Merchant Shipping Acts
  North Cornwall and Devon (Harbour of Refuge)
  North Cornwall and Devon (Harbour of Refuge)
TRANSPORT
  Rural Transport (Report)
  Rural Transport (Report)
  Public Passenger Transport, London
  Public Passenger Transport, London
  Comprehensive Transport Survey, Manchester
  Comprehensive Transport Survey, Manchester
  Vehicles (Abnormal Loads)
  Vehicles (Abnormal Loads)
  Goods Vehicles (Authorised Gross Weight)
  Goods Vehicles (Authorised Gross Weight)
RAILWAYS
  Proposed Closures, Manchester
  Proposed Closures, Manchester
  Proposed Closure (Woodside-Sanderstead Line)
  Proposed Closure (Woodside-Sanderstead Line)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Hunter Aircraft (Replacement)
  Hunter Aircraft (Replacement)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk
  Milk
  Amble Marshes (Drainage Scheme)
  Amble Marshes (Drainage Scheme)
  Drainage Schemes
  Drainage Schemes
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Expenditure (White Paper)
  Public Expenditure (White Paper)
  Finance Act, 1963 (Section 2)
  Finance Act, 1963 (Section 2)
  Income Tax (Schedule A)
  Income Tax (Schedule A)
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
GHANA
  Pensions (Tax)
  Pensions (Tax)
EDUCATION
  U.N.E.S.C.O.
  U.N.E.S.C.O.
  Roberts Report
  Roberts Report
HOSPITALS
  Crawley Hospital
  Crawley Hospital
  Patients (Death)
  Patients (Death)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Refugees (Council of Europe Recommendation)
  Refugees (Council of Europe Recommendation)
  Fareham (Wards)
  Fareham (Wards)
HOUSING
  Housing Associations, South Wales
  Housing Associations, South Wales
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Movement of Population (South-East)
  Movement of Population (South-East)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Widows' Pensions
  Widows' Pensions
  Earnings Rule
  Earnings Rule
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  International Voluntary Service (Council of Europe Resolution)
  International Voluntary Service (Council of Europe Resolution)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester
The Earl of Lindsay—Sat first in Parliament pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 of the Peerage Act, 1963.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
2.34 p.m.
LORD COBBOLD: My Lords, I have the honour to present a Message from Her Majesty The Queen, signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that the Pensions Increase Acts (Extension) (No. 1) Order, 1963, be made in the form of a draft laid before your House on the 26th of November.
"I will comply with your request."

SCOTTISH HERRING FISHING INDUSTRY
LORD BOOTHBY: 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 are aware of the serious situation that has arisen in connection with the herring fishing industry on the West Coast of Scotland; and what steps they are proposing to take.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): I am aware that a number of drift net fishermen were dissatisfied with the poor market response to landings of herring made by them at North-West Coast ports late in November and that they decided to discontinue herring fishing about three weeks earlier than is usual. The drifters have certainly not done as well during the autumn fishing in the Minch as they did last year, but this year they had better fishing in the summer
242
months, and over the year as a whole the herring catchers have sold their catch for very much the same total price as last year.
Representatives of the catchers who saw my right honourable friend the Joint Under-Secretary this morning have asked that "oil and meal" subsidy arrangements should be changed to cover all surplus herring; but this could be done only by an amendment of the Order. My right honourable friend promised to discuss this with the Secretary of State for Scotland but was not able to hold out any promise of early action.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, arising out of that Answer, I should like to ask my noble friend whether it is not a fact—and I understand it is—that all the herring fishermen now ask is that the 25s. subsidy on meal and oil should be extended to cover all surplus herring landed from now until the end of January, just to tide them over a difficult time, and whether he does not think that that is a fairly reasonable price to pay for saving the herring fishing industry, which is now facing something nearly approaching destruction.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, even if we wanted to do that, it would not be practicable because it can be done only by amendment of the Order. But although my right honourable friend will look at this matter most carefully, we are not wholly convinced that the situation is as serious as my noble friend has suggested.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, having eaten a herring for my breakfast this morning, may I inquire whether it was an all-purpose herring?

THE INDONESIA-MALAYSIAN FRONTIER
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any further statement to make on the military situation on the Indonesia-Malaysian frontier, which according to Press reports still continues to give cause for grave anxiety.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I have nothing of substance to add to the statement which my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence made in another place on December 11 last. No significant event has been reported since that statement. As my noble friend knows, our forces are at present co-operating and will continue to co-operate with those of the Malaysian Government in the defence of Eastern Malaysia.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that statement, may I remind him that there have been repeated reports over the last week or ten days of military aggression across the frontier and violations of Malaysian air space and other acts of a warlike nature on the part of Indonesian forces? Can my noble friend give us any further information as to the consultations going on between ourselves and the Malaysian Government with a view to an approach to the Security Council of the United Nations, and possibly to the dispatch of a team of observers to the threatened area?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the question of the United Nations in this context was, as I am sure the House will recall, fairly fully discussed in supplementaries following on the Question which my noble friend put to my noble friend the Leader of the House on December 5 last, when he stated that this is essentially Malaysian territory and this is really a matter for the Malaysian Government.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether we can take it from his first reply that there has been no great intensification of the fighting in Borneo during the last fortnight?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that my noble friend can take it from the reply that what I have said was correct; that in the last week there has been no significant development in this particular area.
LORD REA: My Lords, would the noble Earl say whether the relationship with Indonesia has been completely broken off or whether there are still channels of approach through which some sort of solution might be arrived at by negotiation?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend realises that Her Majesty's Ambassador is still in situ—I think that is the correct expression.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION ON PORTUGUESE TERRITORIES
LORD COLYTON: 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 what instructions were given to the British Representative on the Security Council in regard to voting on the Ghana resolution on the overseas territories of Portugal, which was adopted by the Security Council on December 10.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, The United Kingdom Representative was instructed to vote for the resolution, subject to a separate vote on operative paragraph 3, on which he abstained, and to certain reservations on operative paragraph 4. The former referred to a previous resolution of the Security Council, on which the United Kingdom abstained, and the latter to a resolution of the General Assembly, on which the United Kingdom also abstained.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, this resolution was, of course, condemnatory of the Portuguese development of their overseas territories. May I ask my noble friend whether he is not aware that the Portuguese have in fact built up a completely multiracial society in their African Provinces; and that they are now giving them increasing rights of election on an entirely non-racial basis to the local councils, the district councils and the provincial councils? And, secondly, may I ask whether he is aware that under the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373, which we invoked in 1943 in order to get the Azores bases, it was laid down—and I quote:
"that as true and faithful friends they shall henceforth be friends to friends and enemies to enemies."?
Would it not, in the circumstances, have been more decent to have abstained, as did the French?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not agree that this resolution was

245
condemnatory. Our vote on this resolution and the speech of the United Kingdom Representative simply showed our continued support for the application of the principle of self-determination to the Portuguese territories. This is quite a different matter, as my noble friend knows, from laying down how this shall be achieved.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, was this resolution proposed by Ghana? Is not Ghana the country in which the Chief Justice has just been dismissed for preferring law to tyranny? Cannot hypocrisy go too far, even in the United Nations?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think my noble friend was asking me for information.

ARMS FOR SOUTH AFRICA
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, with apologies to my noble friend the Leader of the House and to noble Lords for postponing it till to-day from Monday, 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 now intend to place an embargo on sales of arms and equipment to South Africa following the Security Council resolution of December 4; what is the estimated loss to British manufacturers; and what broad categories of arms and equipment are now deemed not to be subject to the Security Council resolution.]
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, following the Security Council resolution of December 4, as well as the resolution of August 7, the position of Her Majesty's Government is that we shall not export to South Africa arms, or material and equipment for the manufacture of arms, which would enable the policy of apartheid to be enforced. We made it clear in the Security Council that we reserved our position in regard to the continuing supply to South Africa of arms and equipment appropriate to the Republic's right to self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter particularly in view of our arrange-
246
ment for co-operation in the protection of the sea routes. I am afraid that I cannot give any estimate of the possible loss to British manufacturers.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend if it is a fact that every Government, whether British, British Commonwealth, British Colonial or foreign, whether governed by arbitrary Government or democratic Government, or by any race, must supply its police with what might be called police arms for the maintenance of law and order? Is it proposed to sell such arms to South Africa? And is it or is it not proposed to continue to supply them to Basutoland?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I made it plain, I think, in my first answer, that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is not to export to South Africa arms, or material or equipment that could be made into arms, which would enable the policy of apartheid to be enforced. I think that that answers the question.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: No, my Lords. May I ask my noble friend to face this fact. It seems to me that he is evading it. Short of interfering with the policy of another country, which may or may not be a good thing to do, does it not remain a fact that police must be supplied with some arms, even in Britain, where we seldom use arms and deplore the use of them? Is it not a fact that the Labour Government and the present Government, and the next Labour Government, will be very remiss if they do not supply the police with arms for the maintenance of law and order? And is it our intention to deny South Africa and Basutoland the use of such arms?
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I ask him whether he does not think that it would be absolutely deplorable if Her Majesty's Government supplied the South African Government with arms for this purpose?
LORD CARRINGTON: Certainly, my Lords, that is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, as I have now said on two occasions. I am not trying to evade anything. I think that my noble friend is mistaken. What I said was that if the arms which would be

247
supplied to South Africa were capable of enforcing apartheid, then they would not be supplied.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is any pistol so capable?
LORD CARRINGTON: Every weapon is considered on its merits.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: What weapons will be supplied and what weapons will not be supplied to the police?
LORD BOOTHBY: None.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House, in view of the difficulty in differentiating between weapons that are capable of being used for defence and weapons that are capable of being used for internal intimidation, and in view of the fact that spare parts are being supplied from this country to South Africa—for example, for the Saracen armed personnel carrier, a weapon which has been used in South Africa for intimidation—whether the Government will reconsider the whole question of the sale of such weapons and spare parts, of any kind whatever?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the policy of Her Majesty's Government has been reconsidered very recently, in the light of the decision we have to take on what to do on the resolution before the United Nations. I do not think that I can undertake that we will examine it again; but with regard to the applications for spare parts, of course they are all examined on their merits.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, will my noble friend say what they are going to do about Basutoland, and how law and order can be preserved there without police arms?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will put down a special Question on Basutoland.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: It will be too late.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, will the embargo include sporting guns and 12, 16 and 20-bore shotguns, which technically could do
248
harm? If we prevent their export, we may lose some very valuable markets, because British craftsmen still make the best sporting guns in the world.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think it is very difficult, in question and answer of this kind, to say, off the cuff, which weapons will be and which will not be exported. What I have tried to do this afternoon is to explain to your Lordships the principles on which the Government's policy is based.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, will the Minister try to enforce the embargo in such a way that it will not harm that very valuable trade?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I will certainly look at that point.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House if the position is this? We have certain strategic defence commitments with South Africa: they are particularly naval. Would it not be quite reasonable if, apart from those commitments, the Government could interpret their Answer to-day as excluding anything else which could be used, inland and internally?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the policy of Her Majesty's Government, I must say again, is that we will not export to the Republic of South Africa arms which can be capable of being used for the purpose of carrying out the policy of apartheid. That is the position of the Government at the present time.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is certain that the Government can draw this distinction between arms that can be used for naval protection and those that can be used for internal intimidation? May I ask him to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the possible loss, not economic but in other fields, of the continuation of the supply of these arms? In this context, may I ask him to draw to the attention of the Minister a statement made by the Nigerian representative to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association at Kuala Lumpur, in the course of which he says:
"Nigerians cannot understand how the British Government can claim not to know that

249
military aircraft which it is sending can be used over the veldt as well as over the sea routes around the Cape, and if the British Government continue to grant export permits for sending military aircraft to South Africa, it could give rise to a situation where many African States were forced with reluctance to envisage leaving the Commonwealth, when the former Mother Country acts towards her African children thus."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am beginning to wish that the right reverend Prelate and his friends on my left would fire at my noble friends on my right and leave me out of this because I am obviously in a position halfway between the two. With regard to the right reverend Prelate's question, I have seen the statement to which he referred. All I would say is that I think we must be sensible about this. No one believes for one single moment that the South African Government are buying Buccaneers, extremely expensive aircraft, for the purpose of enforcing a policy of apartheid.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, my noble friend has just said that Ministers have been in recent consultation about this matter. Must they not have decided at that time what type of arms on which to put an embargo and what type of arms may continue to be exported; and in these circum stances why is it so difficult to answer the last part of my Question, which asks merely for the broad categories of arms and equipment which are now deemed not to be subject to the Security Council resolution? If my noble friend is not able to answer the Question to-day, will he undertake, in view of the controversy which is apparent in your Lordships' House on this subject, to clarify the whole situation after the Recess?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, of course, I will do everything to help my noble friend. But what has happened is that Her Majesty's Government have established a policy in principle, and every issue must be decided on the basis of this principle.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, have we not arrived at a most curious position, where noble Lords opposite are seeking to bring pressure to bear on their own representatives in the Government to export arms to South Africa in the interests of the arms manufacturers in this country—?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Oh, no—bunkum!
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: That is what is in the Question on the Order Paper—despite the fact that the United Nations have recommended that this action should not be taken. It is absolutely terrible that in the middle of the 20th century, noble Lords should make these speeches.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, that does not seem to be either a question or addressed to me.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Lord asked for help.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in view of my noble Leader's urging that we should be reasonable, and in spite of my noble friend Lord Boothby's decision, on behalf of the Government, what policy should be, and in the interests of employment, with due regard to the noble Lady, should we not agree that the dynamic buoyancy of South African economy will quickly enable them to provide for themselves all the arms that are needed for their own defence? Would it not seem, therefore, that this whole embargo complex is an aspect of the propaganda developed by the Afro-Asian bloc in the United Nations with the object of subordinating throughout Africa the interests of the whites to the non-whites? And, further, would he not say that there is in this propaganda a distinct resemblance to the current blackmail campaign being carried on by Arabs against the Hebrews?
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I ask him to bear in mind that Purdey's are at the moment in no urgent need of financial assistance?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think it may well be true, as my noble friend behind me says, that in the end the South African Government will be able to manufacture their own arms. But I do not think that is the point. The point is that Her Majesty's Government do not think it right to sell these arms for the purpose of enabling the policy of apartheid to be enforced.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the

251
House to take note that there is undoubtedly a growing public concern about this matter, as is evidenced by a recent resolution passed on Monday by the Executive Committee of the British Council of Churches? May I ask, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will reconsider their policy in the light of these views?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think I have answered that question already. I will, of course, take note of what the right reverend Prelate says; and I have noticed the resolution to which he has drawn attention.

DETAINEES IN ADEN
2.52 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the Private Notice Question to which the Leader of the House referred last night: whether Her Majesty's Government are now able to make a statement on the present situation in the Aden Protectorate, in the light of the questions and answers in the House yesterday?
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, the questions were raised in this House yesterday whether those persons detained during the present state of emergency in the Federation of South Arabia are able to obtain legal advice and aid should they wish to do so. I can now give the House an assurance that any of those detained can obtain advice from their legal advisers should they so wish. There is no full legal aid scheme such as we enjoy in this country operating in Aden. There is, however, provision for making available legal aid to anyone accused of a serious offence before the courts who is not in a position to pay legal fees. I might add that there are a number of lawyers among those detained.
Under this present public emergency decree made by the Supreme Council it is specifically stated that anyone detained thereunder may appeal to a tribunal, the chairman of which would be appointed by the Chief Justice, for his case to be reviewed. Copies of the emergency decree under which these
252
detentions have taken place have been sent for from Aden, and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as it is available.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it may be rather difficult for some of us to come to the House to refer to it during the Christmas vacation. Perhaps the Minister will have the courtesy to send me a copy as soon as he has it. I hope he thinks now that we were not quite so much out of order, and did not make mistakes in thinking who we were, in putting our questions yesterday. I am obliged by the Answer the noble Duke has given. We shall look upon the rest of the information which comes to us with great interest. I hope very much that the lawyers among the people interned at present without any charge will be able so to act that they will be brought to trial as soon as possible.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I will certainly see that a copy of the decree is sent to the noble Earl. I should like to take this opportunity of saying how sorry I am if I appeared in any way discourteous to the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, who is infinitely more experienced in the ways of the House than I am. I can only assure him that I intended no discourtesy.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, have the Government of Aden any police arms? If so, who supplied them, and what are they for?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I think I shall have the House with me when I say that that is an entirely different question.

EPISCOPAL CHURCH (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to remove a disability restricting the clergy of the Episcopal Church in Scotland in the exercise of their office in England, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la,—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to enable the Court of Criminal Appeal to order new trials in cases of fresh evidence; to make corresponding provision for new trials by court-martial; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 44A (Printing of Bills brought from the Commons) be amended as follows: —
Leave out ("on a day on which") and insert ("at a time when").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; the said Amendment made, and to be printed.

BUILDING SOCIETIES (SPECIAL ADVANCES) ORDER, 1963
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, your Lordships will recall that one of the main objectives of the Building Societies Act, 1960, was to ensure that building societies concentrated mainly on their proper and traditional rôle of lending money on the security of owner-occupied houses. It was found difficult to formulate a satisfactory legal definition of owner-occupied; the object was achieved however by creating the class of "special advances", to include all advances made by building societies to any corporate body (as distinct from advances made to individuals) and all advances of more than £5,000. Special advances were to be restricted in any year to a maximum of 10 percent. of a society's total advances. The Act contains power to vary the figure of £5,000.
Since 1960 not only has there been a general rise in the price of houses,
254
varying from one part of the country to another, but there has also been an in creasing demand for the more expensive type. There has been full consultation with all concerned, and agreement has been reached that the figure should now go up from £5,000 to £7,000, a figure which should remain appropriate for some time. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Building Societies (Special Advances) Order, 1963, be approved.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEVELOPMENT OF CENTRAL SCOTLAND AND NORTH-EAST ENGLAND.
2.57 p.m.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM)THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM) rose to move to resolve, That this House takes note of the White Papers on Central Scotland and the North-East (Cmnd. 2188 and 2206). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I hope your Lordships will accept my apologies if, because of urgent Government business, I am unable to be present in the House during all the later stages of the debate. The reasons for the present problems of unemployment in Central Scotland and the North-East are, I think, essentially different from what they have been in the past. The problems arise to-day from the fact that these areas were to a substantial extent the cradle of our Industrial Revolution. The availability of coal and iron ore was the basis of our industrial development, and, consequently, the iron and steel industry, and major users of steel, especially the ship building industry, were located in these areas.
As the manpower requirements in the older industries, such as coal, ship building, railways and heavy engineering, have shrunk, we are faced with structural unemployment here to a greater extent, I think, than in other parts of the country. The need for greater diversification, by bringing in new growth industries, has therefore become increasingly urgent. New jobs created by the Government have not made up for the decline in jobs that is

255
going on in the contracting industries. We want to press on, therefore, with diversification in order to ensure that the people of these regions are able to make their full contribution to national prosperity. We aim, broadly, to bring work to the people rather than people to the work.
The special employment difficulties of Central Scotland and the North-East are, I think, best illustrated by the employment figures. Their unemployment rates have for a long time been substantially higher than those of the rest of the country, and the recent November figures show that unemployment is still running at 4.5 per cent. in the Northern Region, and 4.2 per cent. in Scotland, compared with—and this is the point—1.2 per cent. in London and 1.4 per cent. in the Midlands. It was for these reasons that we put in hand full inquiries into these two areas, where I think all noble Lords, on both sides of the House, would agree that the problems were greatest. The inquiries by the Lord President in the North-East and by the Secretary of State for Scotland into Central Scotland suggested long term measures which were needed to stimulate the economic development of the areas as a whole, and these recommendations are contained in the two White Papers of which I am asking the House to take note.
Before I deal with these recommendations, I want to mention how the process of adjustment in Scotland and the North-East has already been helped by the Government's policy of limiting the expansion of industry in the more congested areas and, at the same time, offering inducements to industry to go to the areas where it is most needed. These inducements, as noble Lords will remember, have been made much more attractive recently. It was, in fact, in the Local Employment Act of this year that we brought in standard grants for plant and buildings, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced in this year's Budget free depreciation, so that all firms in development districts could choose the rate at which they could write off capital expenditure on plant and machinery. Here I think I have good news to tell your Lordships, because since the 1963 Budget the response has been really
256
encouraging. The Board of Trade have received no fewer than 1,266 applications for the new standard grants. Of these, 392 are for Central Scotland and 374 for the North-East; and they are, of course, in addition to the continuing flow of applications for Board of Trade loans and Board of Trade factories. The significant point is that the total rate at which projects have come forward for Board of Trade assistance has been more than three times as great as in the previous year.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Viscount help us? These are interesting figures of the number of applications. Could the noble Viscount say how many have been accepted?
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: I cannot, off-hand; but I will see whether, in the course of the debate, one of my noble friends is able to answer the question put forward by the noble Lord. These are all applications which have been received and on various dates have been dealt with by the Board of Trade.
I was discussing the programme of advanced factory building. Since the beginning of 1962, plans for 32 have been announced, and 28 of them are for Scotland and the North-East: in fact, 16 for Scotland and 12 for the North-East. Of these 32, we expect 15 to be completed by the end of this year, and a further 8 during the first half of 1964. We expect most of them to be let by the time they are completed, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry is considering the possibility of further advance factory building. In addition, before the White Papers on Scotland and the North-East were published we had, of course, already begun to increase the share of these two areas in social investment of roads, housing and education. Again, as your Lordships will recall, we have offered special credit facilities to the shipbuilding industry to the extent of £75 million. The effects of this shipbuilding loan scheme have been felt, naturally, in all the shipbuilding areas, of which Scotland and the North-East are the largest.
Our restraints on industrial expansion in the more congested parts of the country will continue. They have been, and are, an essential part in our efforts

257
to steer industry into the development districts. One cannot prohibit all expansion and industrial building in congested areas. For example, some expansions must be close to the parent firm, and some industries with a special local market cannot be expected to operate elsewhere. Again, service industries need to be close to their customers. I must say that I was very surprised that in connection with the proposals made in another place recently for the future use of the Woolwich Arsenal, I noticed that the Opposition urged that industry should be brought into the area. One really cannot have it both ways. It has been argued that we are too lenient with developments in the more congested areas, but I am sure that many firms in Birmingham and the South-East would testify that we are in fact very tough indeed. I should like to assure your Lordships that we intend to continue to be so.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: You are going to set up arms production in Nottingham, are you not?
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: Yes, but the proposition put forward by the Opposition in another place was that the factory space occupied by the Woolwich Arsenal should be reserved for more new industry coming in. That is the point I was making to your Lordships.
I should now like to deal with the main recommendations of my right honourable friends the Lord President, on the North-East, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, on Central Scotland. In particular, they recommended that increased activity in the whole of the areas could be generated by concentrating efforts to diversify the industrial structure, and to improve the whole range of services in those places which have the conditions most favourable to self-sustaining growth. They also laid great stress on the growth points concept. I do not think I need explore fully the history of this concept of regional development. It was set out in the Toothill Report on the Scottish economy, and the National Economic Development Council in its Report on Conditions Favourable to Faster Growth, said:
"It is possible that regional development would benefit if policies were directed towards larger areas than at present and towards the
258
encouragement of growth points within these areas."
I think there has been a general welcome for our acceptance of this growth area policy. The areas have been very carefully chosen, with special attention to factors such as the availability of land for factories and houses, the presence of labour resources and water supplies, good communications, or the possibility of providing communications if they do not exist, and of an existing nucleus of industry.
There has been some criticism of the exclusion of certain contiguous development districts. I think this was bound to happen. Whenever you draw a dividing line, immediately those on the wrong side of the line inevitably feel keenly disappointed. But we have to recognise that concentration of our resources inevitably involves exclusion, and our resources are obviously not unlimited. If we try to spread the special advantages too widely, they really become valueless as inducements to the better distribution of economic activity, which I think all of us consider to be essential.
I believe your Lordships would agree that if we look at Scotland and the North-East, we find that both these areas have great natural attractions. They are surrounded by beautiful countryside to which there is much readier access by everyone than is available to those of us who live in the Midlands and the South. The quality and skill, and the character of their people are excellent. In visits I have made to both Scotland and the North-East in recent years, I have been constantly impressed by the spontaneous tributes by management coming from the Midlands and the South, or from the United States and other foreign countries, about the excellence of the labour force and the adaptability which it shows in settling down to new factory techniques. Here is a first-class labour force, only too willing to make its contribution. We are taking positive steps to match both its natural attractions and the character of its people by improving communications, housing and town centres, by accelerating the clearance of derelict land and by improving training, education and health services, so that we can ensure that these areas will become increasingly places in which employers and workers will be proud to live.

259
The particular significance of the growth area concept rests, I think, mainly on the increase in the public service investments which we propose for these areas. Central Scotland and the North-East have about 13 per cent. of the total population of Great Britain, but we propose to spend in these areas no less than £210 million, which represents 17½ per cent. of the total for Great Britain, and to increase this in 1964–65 to £230 million, more than 18 per cent. of the national total. This is, therefore, a deliberate and substantial discrimination in favour of these areas. Very large sums are involved. Take the road programme. New or improved highways are going to link Glasgow and Edinburgh, the docks on the Forth and Clyde, and the airports at Prestwick, Abbotsinch and Turnhouse. Improved communications between the A.1 and the Tyne Tunnel and a new route for the A.19 will, as far as the North-East is concerned, greatly improve communications there. Then, of course, we have the new towns at Washington and Cram-lington in the North-East, and the great expansion of existing new towns in both the North-East and Scotland, which will, again, in turn, involve considerably large extra sums of expenditure.
The measures we have agreed upon in the White Papers for Central Scot land and the North East are, as your Lordships appreciate, not short-term. They cannot make dramatic changes in the next few months, and it is no use anybody pretending they will. But they are intended to do what they are designed to do; that is, to ensure permanent and long-term improvement. I should like to stress the objectives of our regional development policy: to secure a more even spread of economic activity; to preserve the character of the individual regions; and to effect a more even improvement of the general quality of life in those regions. The differences in employment prospects between the Midlands and the South, to which I have drawn attention, and those two regions must be evened out and a much fairer balance achieved than exists to day. For this reason we have firmly pledged that, even if it were necessary to moderate the growth of public service investment in the country as a whole, exceptions would be made for these
260
growth areas, where the programmes will be maintained so long as the necessary resources are available. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is a unique and very significant pledge.
In addition, we have decided that some assurance ought to be given of the continued availability of assistance to new or expanding industries; to new industries which go there, and industries already within those areas which seek to expand. We shall not, therefore, regard a fall in the local unemployment rate in any part of the growth area as sufficient in itself to justify the removal of that area from the list of development districts. In other words, under present assistance arrangements any removal will require strong evidence of a general and sustained improvement in the region as a whole. I think these are important points for your Lordships to consider.
May I now turn to the machinery for carrying out our intentions? My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for carrying out the plan as far as Central Scotland is concerned, and his main instrument will be the Scottish Development Group, which comprises representatives of the Scottish Departments and of the other Departments concerned. The Scottish Development Group will confer in detail with local authorities, with industrial interests and, of course, with the Scottish Council (Development and Industry); and I am very glad to notice that the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, Chairman of the Council, is going to speak later in the debate. I have seen for myself the great contribution he and his Council have made in securing new industrial development for Scotland. In fact, the last time I saw my noble friend was in the early autumn when he was just about to go over to America to attract new firms from there to Scotland.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask whether the list of machinery set up for Scotland specially excludes the Scottish Trades Union Congress?
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: I said that it would confer with industrial interests, which certainly does not exclude the trade unions.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should like the "industrial interests" to include the trade unions.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: I have noted what the noble Lord has said. The industrial interests would, naturally, include the trade unions.
I have noticed that in another place the Labour Party spokesman suggested that, so far as the Labour Party is concerned, they would establish, as he described it,
"a real regional organisation with regional controllers of each of the Departments concerned in each regional capital, working regularly together.…"
I really do not know what he was complaining about, because I consider that our arrangements both for Scotland, which I have just outlined, and for the North-East, fit pretty well into what he had in mind. May be the noble Earl will have something to say about this.
In the North-East, we propose to work through the regional representatives of Whitehall Departments, who form, under the chairmanship of the Under-Secretary in charge of regional development in the Board of Trade, what is called the North-East Development Group. This Group will meet frequently and will have a direct link through its Chairman with my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development. The Group will also co-ordinate the implementation of the plans in the White Paper. I do not really think there is all that amount of difference (although the noble Earl may say that there is) between what the Labour Party have in mind and what, in fact, we actually propose. We strongly believe that this is the right way to get speedy and effective action in the region. Existing Departments have a wealth of knowledge and experience within their existing responsibilities; their regional representatives are senior and responsible people, and I think they have shown by their enthusiasm the full measure with which co-operation will be gained within this North-East Development Group.
In addition to the concern that all of us feel about the level of unemployment as a whole in these two areas, what worries the majority most is the position
262
of the unemployed young people. In Scotland, between August and November, it is true, youth unemployment fell by 49 per cent. and in the North-East by 52 per cent., compared with the bigger fall in Great Britain as a whole of 64 per cent. These falls were due to the placing of school-leavers in jobs. In November, boys and girls unemployed in Scotland amounted to 5,600, a better figure than in November of last year when it was 7,000, but still far too high, In the North-East there were 5,885 young unemployed compared with the lower figure of 5,389 in November, 1962. I am hopeful that this fall in the youth unemployment will continue to be shown. We have not yet had the December figures but I hope that an improvement will be shown when these figures are known. Many local education authorities are playing their part in encouraging children to stay on at school and by providing special courses of a strongly vocational character which are open to young unemployed people. But, of course, only the increased diversification which I have stressed earlier in my speech can bring about a long-term solution to this problem.
In the short term the Government are anxious to see a further development of training opportunities both in the North-East and in Scotland, although again I think we must be aware that in the first eleven months of this year 39 per cent. of boys entering employment in the North-East obtained apprenticeships and 38 per cent. in Scotland, compared with the lower figure for Great Britain as a whole of 33·5 per cent. A considerable expansion of facilities for training is under way, and the special needs of Scotland and the North-East have been recognised by allotting more than half of the new places in Government training centres to those areas. We are also encouraging the work of the North-East Training Council with financial assistance, whose operation is at the moment on Tees-side, and we look forward to the future growth of the Council's activity throughout the whole of the North-East. Six first-year apprenticeship classes are being run at Government training centres at Hillington, Motherwell and Granton, and two more will be started in the course of next year.
But, of course, again in the long term, the Industrial Training Bill, which I

263
hope will be shortly coming to your Lordships' House, will I believe make a very major advance in the whole of training. The Training Boards which will be set up under the Bill are designed to ensure that methods of training that exist in this country to-day are brought more universally up to date—they are good in parts and bad in other parts—and standards improved to see that all young people, not merely apprentices, should be given when they come into industry particular forms of training suitable to them. They will also provide retraining for adults who become redundant in the contracting industries and who wish to move into the new and expanding industries, and one sees how important this is when one looks at the shortage which exists in so many parts of this country to-day in the skills in the building and engineering industries.
So far, my Lords, I do not think I have struck a very controversial note, and I do not intend to do so. But I should like to examine what are the main respects in which the Labour Party seem to differ from our policy. When I was in another place many Members of the Opposition used to urge on me and my colleagues that we should direct industry to places where it is needed. To be fair—and the noble Earl will contradict me if I am wrong—I do not believe this is the policy that has been officially accepted by the leaders of the Opposition. But I must make it clear to your Lordships that we are not prepared to direct industry. We do not believe it would work in a free society, and certainly among the consequences they would have to direct labour as well as industry itself. Therefore, we shall continue to rely on inducements and on persuasion.
The Opposition, I know, has urged that projects should be launched in partnership between private enterprise and the Government. This, of course, can happen in certain circumstances, and I will cite the Fort William Pulp Mill as an example where that in fact has been done. But, in general, it seems to me that our existing arrangements, under which substantial grants and loans can be given if industry goes where we want it to go without the Government interfering in the detailed
264
operations of the particular firm, can surely be described as the best type of partnership that can exist between Government and private enterprise. I certainly do not think that active participation by the Government in the management of the firms prepared to move to development districts would in fact be anything but disastrous.
The Opposition have not taken any very clear position, as I see it, on our policy of discriminatory public investment in the growth areas. So far as I can gather from what was indicated in another place, their policy seemed to me to be to
"schedule all under-employed industrial areas as development areas, without any muddled distinctions between growth areas and development districts".
I do not think there is any muddle in our White Papers. I think they make very clear the significance of what those areas are. Of one thing I am absolutely certain—I have indicated this earlier. If the Opposition seem to be thinking of spreading this power more widely, in fact to offer equal priority for public service investment to every area with unemployment above the average would in fact nullify our intention to stimulate economic growth where conditions are most favourable and where growth in time will stimulate the whole of the surrounding area.
The noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, is to move the Amendment on the Order Paper and I understand he may divide the House on it. I hope he will—and I am sure he will; 1 have a great respect for him—provide better reasons than were produced by his colleagues in another place when this matter was debated. Unless he really has new arguments to produce, I fail to see why he should seek to divide the House. To-day we see a general improvement in our economic position. We can successfully maintain that progress if we gain co-operation from both sides of industry—and I would repeat, both sides of industry—to control inflationary tendencies by keeping down costs and prices and making prices stable. The improvement that we see over the country as a whole has been reflected in Scotland and the North-East, and our short-term measures are beginning to have some effect. But, as I have indicated, these are short-term

265
measures only. In order to make full use of resources of manpower and skills in these areas it was essential that we should make special plans to deal with the long-term problems. The plans that we have set out show the part that the Government themselves intend to play, but the results that we hope to achieve cannot be wholly brought about by Government action. As a Government we are playing our part in the public sector, and we are convinced that by so doing we can make these areas attractive to new industries. We can also, by providing very considerable financial inducements, encourage firms to come up.
We believe that the steps we are taking as set out in the White Papers will, so long as industry responds to these inducements and so long as this partnership concept—the Government playing their part in the way I have described and industry taking a solid and responsible attitude on their side—is accepted when the recommendations come into effect, bring new life, new hope and new vigour both to Scotland and to the North-East, and we believe they deserve the commendation of this House. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House takes note of the White Papers on Central Scotland and the North-East (Cmnd. 2188 and 2206).—(Viscount Blakenham.)
3.30 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH rose to move, as an Amendment, to add at the end of the proposed Resolution "but is of the opinion that these proposals fail to ensure an immediate substantial reduction in unemployment and fail to provide for regional development considered necessary to prevent depopulation and long-term unemployment within those areas."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, first of all I should like to thank the noble Viscount for having given the Government's point of view as to the contents of the White Papers and also their objectives, at least as they see them. I would only comment—in case he has to slip out, as he said, from the debate—that I think this is one of our most important debates this Session, and unless you have to put something on to the back of the Leader of the House, we think
266
we are entitled to the full attendance of a Cabinet Minister. I do not know exactly what is the urgent business outside, but we are not accustomed to a debate of this importance being introduced by a Cabinet Minister and then for him to say he will have to leave during the debate.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: My Lords, I hope to be here for most of the debate. I did not want to appear discourteous to some later speakers if I was absent.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I hope the absence may be brief. I thought I had better point out what is the usual practice for all Parties. I am quite sure that when we are the Government, in a few months' time, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would point this out to our side. As the noble Viscount is almost a "new boy" here, I thought it would be as well to point that out.
My Lords, we are of course, dealing with a vastly important question. We are dealing with a question which has been with me all my public life: how to deal with unemployment in a capitalistic system, and that has been with us all the time. It never left me, at any rate in all the public life I have had to live. But when I look at the change in the attitude of the Conservative Government over the years, then I think perhaps the slogging and the working and the argument of organised labour in this country to bring about such a tremendous revolution in the minds, in the thinking, and now in the endeavour to produce a satisfactory policy to deal with this problem, has been worth while. What we are afraid of, as we say in our Amendment, is that the White Papers submitted do not provide, as we think, the necessary provision for reducing unemployment at the present time; nor do they satisfactorily lead to an organisation of industry and the nation in order to prevent unemployment in the future. That is the object of our exercise this afternoon.
The position is this. I have read the debate in the other place, and I have really not heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, if he will excuse my saying so, an adequate answer to the magnificent case submitted there by Mr. Douglas Jay. Unfortunately, it is too close to the date of the debate there

267
for me to break a rule that we must not quote from another place within so short a time as this; but if it were possible to do so, I think I could prove my case easily upon that point.
One of the first things that we have to say is this: in dealing with the problem facing our nation as a whole we miss, in the White Papers which have just been submitted for these two regions only, the evidence of any real thinking about targets. I would ask the Government: what are your targets? What are you planning for? How many jobs have you to create now, and how many progressively for the next decade or two decades in the areas? Where do you want the personnel to be trained, and for what? The Government talk about the real necessity for changing certain habits of industrialists in setting up their industries here or there, and say that this point can be dealt with only by what is called diversification. What is their target in diversification? Have they considered, in connection with diversification, what is to be the exact target of their youth training? I was most interested and pleased at the announcement of the noble Viscount with regard to the growing success in these areas of apprenticeship. But apprenticeship to what? What is going to be their ultimate target for diversification, and in what direction? I think the noble Viscount will find, if he looks at some of the economic newspapers which have been commenting on the White Papers, that they have not been unmindful of some of the points that I have mentioned to-day.
Then there is the question, when these two particular White Papers are studied, whether the Government are not, in fact, in each of the Papers, pleading guilty to the charge that they are planning in isolation. I would go wider than some of those who have criticised from the point of view of their reference entirely to the White Papers, but certainly Scotland has areas which are left out. There are beautiful red colours shown in Central Scotland in the Scottish White Paper. What has been left out? The Government are planning in isolation. I do not propose to look in detail at the areas in Scotland, because my noble friend Lord Hughes will know a great deal more about the Scottish side of the case than I could. But obviously,
268
if big inducements are to be given in special areas of this kind, just in one part of the country, the question arises: is there in the Government's mind a target as to what they want to reach, or to avoid, in all the other areas that are left out? How many do you want to divert from the existing areas? How many industries do you want to be transferred, either in small numbers at a time or in blocks? I can see no evidence in the White Papers that, on the basis of true economic planning, this question has really been faced.
Let us look at the North-East—but perhaps, before I come to that I may make this comment. It is, of course, true, in a correct judgment of Parliamentary procedure, that one could say that to-day we are confined to discussing these points in respect only of the two White Papers that are submitted. But I am afraid that we think we are also right in saying that we should go a little wider. We want to deal not only with what is left out in the development areas in respect of which these White Papers submit their proposals, but also with what is left out at this stage, especially when the noble Viscount who is Chairman of the Conservative Party Organisation is already warning us in his speech today, "you cannot expect to work wonders in two months' time from now". Is that the date of the Election? Therefore, we have to think of the whole country, and not only of these two White Papers—especially after that remark from the Chairman of the Conservative Party Organisation.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: My Lords, in order that there should not be any misconception, I did not use the words "two months". I think the noble Earl will see that I said "some months".
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: No; it was two months. We shall watch Hansard most carefully. Our hearing is exceedingly good. Therefore, we say that we have to consider at the same time these other, wider-spread development areas.
I am sure that, if the noble Viscount has taken so much part in the Government's consideration of these matters he cannot have missed reading, say, the Report of the Welsh Grand Committee

269
last week. I read it; I hope he has. At any rate, here is a great Principality, with far greater population than is contained in the two special areas now selected in Scotland and England. Last February the unemployment rate was 6 per cent. overall. In some of the different parts of Wales to-day there are points where the rate is as high as 8 per cent. I am happy to think that the overall percentage there has gone down since last February, and I hope that it will remain down. But the whole position of Wales certainly should have been treated with much more urgency than appears to have been the case. Indeed, when we read that it is hoped that the planning for Wales will be over a much longer period—20 years or more—it does not seem to fit in with the ideas of more progressively minded people in Wales. I do not think it would be right for me to discuss Wales at length. I am only saying that this is a part of planning at the present time in isolation. Wales is left out of account.
What about Cornwall? There is over 5 per cent. unemployment there. It may have fallen 1 per cent. in the last few months, but it was 5 per cent. earlier in the year. Nothing is mentioned about them. What about Merseyside? We put points forward in the other place about that, and our Party there were given no real answer; and we have not had one to-day from the noble Viscount. We have heard nothing about what is going to be done there. As for the inner parts of Lancashire—areas like Burnley, with all its intense troubles to-day; what are you doing for them? What about the North-West? What about Cumberland and the coast there? You are planning in isolation in those places. I feel almost like saying to any Welshman who is here, "Look you!" Please understand, that your planning here to-day in these two areas is going to have an effect on all the others.
What have you considered a target as to what you want to do in your reconstruction of the economy, so that you do not have the result of the last twelve years—almost complete freedom of action arranged by the Government to swell up London and its suburbs, and other parts of the South, at the expense of other industrial areas? Are you going to make that good as a
270
whole? You do not say a word about it.
The noble Viscount seems to suggest that the men who have been established in the great industrial Government organisation at Woolwich, who have been in steady employment, who have bought their own houses and live in the area, in Woolwich, in the suburbs of Eltham, Abbey Wood and in other districts, do not need to be considered. The noble Viscount does not seem to think that labour has any real interest in it. That is not the right way to settle this overall question. These things ought to be dealt with by proper economic planning in which every kind of target is set, and then if it is found to be right it is pursued. But I am amazed that, after our having had to say, "Well done, Conservatives!", for at last giving up the cry that you had in the 1950 and 1951 Elections of "Set the people free! No controls!", there are now apparently no targets except to keep the Labour Party out of office. There seem to be no other targets. As a result, we now have a national Budget well over 50 per cent. larger than it was, owing to inflation which could have been avoided quite easily under really top-class planning. That is the situation.
Let me come back to the White Paper on North-East England. How does it work there? My noble friend Lord Hughes will be dealing with Scotland a little later. The Government are planning in isolation. Am I not right in saying that the whole of Durham is a development area—is that not true?
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: Not the whole, no.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should say that the whole of Durham is reckoned to be a development area, except that in the plan now submitted there is going to be started what is called a growth zone. Is that not correct? That is the fact. In the White Paper the area is coloured green on the map. I agree that it is a widespread area. It gives all to the East Coast side—that is to say, East of the Great North Road; but all the rest, the North-West and the South-West of Durham, is left altogether out of this question of growth zone. But are not

271
these points that specially need assistance, as well as the assistance the Government have rightly given to the shipbuilding industry?
One can take places like Bishop Auckland, Willington, Crook, Stanley—places like that, in the declining coalfield: these are the areas which are likely to suffer depopulation. Is there not need to stop the drift? Does not the White Paper itself say that in ten years 80,000 people have gone from that area to the South? Not a word about it here. Well, perhaps I am not being quite fair; it is assumed in the White Paper that if you can get some growth in the zone marked for special assistance, it is bound to affect the other places. Is it? We do not know anything about what is going to be there, except for the blessed word "diversification"; there is no other information available to us. When I look at the lack of targets in the whole of this White Paper, I am just astounded at the calmness and quietness of the Government in thinking that they have already made a great success of it.
I know it is a good thing to be able to say that the Government are giving special inducements to firms, who not only are to be helped by loans, capital, special conditions, grants and so on, but are to be given special concessions with regard to taxation—and, not the least, the capacity for dealing with what are usually called depreciation charges by writing off even new developments at a very early date. These are all very important. In drawing up these considerations have you considered the effect on the rest of industry in the country, until you know the target in the industry which you are going to put in that area? In fact, if you are going in for a regional scheme of this kind, then other questions arise, for the economy of the country as a whole depends on the depth and the breadth of the Government's examination of the problem.
When you talk about the industrial inquiries you are making and say that this is to include new schools, new hospitals, new roads and the building of factories (a number of which have already been mentioned), have you considered the problem of skilled labour in actual building construction? You have
272
given certain guarantees of what the actual expansion should be in house-building. Have you considered the present position in regard to skilled building labour? I saw a comment the other day that a very considerable proportion, some 10 to 20 per cent., of skilled building constructors were employed in the shipyards; but they have now got to reckon that they will certainly not need much more than 20 per cent. less than that because of the general decline in the shipbuilding industry. So that on every aspect of this matter one sees that the Government have not considered what labour is available for building construction. At least, I could find no indication of it in the noble Viscount's speech.
What sort of pace will be made with the actual operations proposed in regard to the construction of factories, the building of roads and the various activities which have been mentioned? The targets ought to be set out in the White Paper—and they are not here. We are going to leave it to a machinery which the noble Viscount has commented upon. He has made favourable comments about the construction of the machinery for the Scottish area, and I will leave that to my noble friend Lord Hughes; but looking at the White Paper on North-East England, we see that the target there is not a true target. No particulars are given as to what it is proposed to construct; no particulars of which trades and industries they are going to train for; no particulars as to what is going to be done immediately and effectively to deal with the pockets of unemployment in Durham, details of which I should like to know.
May I ask the noble Viscount, for example: is it true that West Hartlepool has now been taken out of the zone on the East side? Is it true that Saltburn at the South-Eastern end has been taken out of—or in fact was never put into—the growth zone? Saltburn has an unemployment percentage of 10·9—say 11 per cent. Although Hartlepool has recently had some little help in shipping and its percentage has dropped, the figure of unemployed is still one of 8 per cent. What sort of target have you there? I can assure the noble Viscount, when he makes the comments he has done about the Opposition's attitude in the other House, in regard to the

273
lack of constructive thinking and real economic planning, that I do not think he has met our point in this House, either. When I lock at the White Paper and see what it says about the machinery, the main idea—I expect it must have been his own idea—in the mind of one whom we must now call Mr. Quintin Hogg seems to be that if we can put all into one house, the D.S.I.R. and the other Departments—I think altogether there are four or five separate Departments, with staffs of civil servants—that is the answer. I have to admit that that is not really the basis of the plan for machinery in Scotland; that seems to be a better plan than the one for the North-East of England.
But we are not satisfied. I am sorry to have taken quite so long—I did not want to take so long—because there are eighteen names on the Paper, and I do not want to go on too late tonight. But there it is. We think that we are right in putting down our Amendment, and that the Government have no real plan or target for dealing with immediate unemployment or for preventing unemployment in the future. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment, to add at the end of the proposed Resolution:
"but is of the opinion that these proposals fail to ensure an immediate substantial reduction in unemployment and fail to provide for regional development considered necessary to prevent depopulation and long-term unemployment within those areas."—(Earl Alexander of Hillsborough.)
3.52 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will accept my apologies if, by reason of diocesan engagements in York, I have to leave before this debate is completed. Those of us who live and work in the North of England, and especially those who live in the North-East part and those who live in Scotland, are grateful for these White Papers. A programme for development and growth is called for and we welcome it. There is one facet of the problems which face us in the North-East of England, particularly, on which I should wish to speak. It is the matter of unemployment; and more particularly I want to say something about unemployment as it affects young people.
Here is a problem of first importance. The figures, of course, vary from month to month. They are aggravated by the
274
"bulge". But when Lord Hailsham, as he then was, visited the North-East early this year, the unemployment figures of those under 18 were 5,684 boys and a much smaller figure for girls. I believe there are still some 6,000 young people unemployed, while there are tens of thoustands who have slipped into dead-end jobs in order to get some kind of employment, however unsuitable it may be. Some of these youngsters get three, four, five, six or even seven jobs between the age of 15, when they leave school, and the age of 18, when no further statistics are available; and we do not know what happens to them because they are treated as adults.
But, leaving them on one side for a moment, let us look at those who are actually unemployed. We cannot say that these unemployed young people are depressed in the sense that we used that term in the 1930s, which have left so terrible an impression on many of our minds—and I speak as one of those who worked very nearly in the East End of London in the middle 'thirties. They are not broken people in the sense that those were, but in some ways their plight is worse than was that of those who were unemployed in the 1930s. Then almost everyone in certain areas was out, and even those with work were badly off. But to-day, with comparative affluence everywhere, the 5 per cent. of unemployed feel themselves terribly isolated in society. The unemployment rate for a youngster on National Assistance is 37s. a week. That is enough for him to do a good deal of mischief with, if he is so inclined. It is sufficiently little for him to be made to feel cut off from his working mates and to occupy the rôle of a scrounger. It makes him think that a society which has no use for him is not worth having. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, if he and his fellow unemployed prove to be troublesome members of society.
Let us look at the problem a little more closely. Of the class of secondary modern schoolboys who leave at the age of 15, about 40 per cent. have no worthwhile qualifications. They are not of the calibre to take apprenticeships. It will simply not do to concentrate on the other 60 per cent. only. The State has a duty to all its citizens, and it would be a dereliction of duty to ignore the 40 per cent. to whom I have just

275
referred. In many cases these boys have not gained a great deal during their last year or two at school. They have probably hated it, they have probably kicked against the traces, waiting only for the day when at the mature age of 15 they will be "men of the world". What do they find?—either no work at all or, as I have already said, dead-end jobs; jobs which lead nowhere worth while when they are 18 and the responsibilities of early marriage and a family are upon them.
What is called for in the light of the facts that I have outlined? Two things seem to me to be clear. One is that a diversification—I come back to that "blessed word"—of industry in the North-East is needed. Too long we have relied too heavily on heavy industry, coal mining, shipbuilding, chemicals, metal manufacture, heavy engineering, markets for which may well decrease as each potential customer becomes more self-sufficient in supplying his own needs.
Very recently—last month to be exact—an interesting experiment was carried out. A party of 55 boys, accompanied by four police cadets and two industrial chaplains, left the Sunderland area by coach for London on a visit which was called a "Holiday with a Purpose". It was an attempt on the part of the Church to deal realistically and helpfully with a pressing human problem. Of these 55 boys, 44 got jobs in London and eight elsewhere. This is very good, and Mr. Godber, the Minister of Labour, who spent half-an-hour with all these boys and their Members of Parliament, congratulated those who initiated the scheme. He said:
"I want to say most emphatically that we will he glad to give all the help we can, not only to this group but also to others that can be organised to come either to London or to other parts of the country where greater opportunities exist for them. I do not look upon this as in any way seeking to attract young people away from their homes permanently, but to give them opportunities for training and employment."
I am all for efforts like this, but only if it is recognised that they are in themselves admissions of defeat. This the organisers of the scheme themselves clearly recognise. Why should we drain off our young people from the North-East, to make the problems of the
276
already overcrowded cities of the South even greater? The White Paper speaks of "net outward migration"—a somewhat cold and impersonal term, but we know what is meant. It notes that net migration for the area has averaged 8,000 per annum for the ten years to 1961, and it estimates that it will be 4,000 in 1963. I find it a little difficult to see quite why the figure should be halved, with unemployment as it is, but there must be reasons for that which my mind cannot compass. Then, it contemplates a stable 2,500 per annum migration during the period 1963 to 1981. My Lords. 60,000 people will migrate before 1981, if the figures are not an under-estimate. But this is surely defeat for the North—and disastrous defeat. Should not every effort be made so to diversify industry in the North-East that we turn the tide of migration, until we think in terms of an influx of manpower into the North-East, rather than sit down under the inevitable conclusion that the drain southwards must continue?
The second need, to my mind, is for a new look at, and vigorous action in regard to, training of our youth. When the regional plans begin to be implemented, the need for trained labour will be very great, and the training must begin now. Existing firms cannot be expected to bear the full burden of this training, and Government help to accredited firms would seem to be called for at once. Some of this training—and here I come back to the point I made a few moments ago—must be for semi-skilled work for that 40 per cent. of school-leavers to whom I have already referred as having virtually no qualifications. Here is our great need: investment in the training of our youth. The talent is there in the he shape of many a boy without hope of a job, on whom large sums have already been spent through the educational services. Is this earlier investment to be wasted because of a failure to continue training fruitfully after his schooldays are over?
Paragraph 95 of the White Paper on the North-East refers to the Government training centres at Felling and Tursdale. I understand that 24 unemployed boys are catered for at Tursdale, and this number, we are assured, will be doubled but, unless my arithmetic is wrong, we are still on the wrong side of 50, which

277
does not make very much of a dent in the problem. The other Government training centre, at Felling, caters only for those employed in apprenticeships, as do mainly the technical college pre-apprenticeship courses, which are said to cater for nearly 1,000. Half a million pounds will not build many miles of road, but half a million pounds spent on the training of school leavers would save many a lad from drifting into unemployment or into "dead-end" jobs, or even to the South, and could help in the permanent cure of a malaise which will be healed only when the accent is put on persons in a way which, one is bound to feel, the Government White Paper in some measure fails to do.
4.5 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, it is a great honour and a particular pleasure to offer to the most reverend Primate, on behalf of your Lordships, our warmest congratulations on what he was too modest to inform us was his maiden speech in this place. In so doing, perhaps I should reassure him at once that, in introducing, as I did earlier this afternoon, the Bill 10 remove restrictions on Scottish clergy from exercising their office in England, I had no intention of starting an invasion of his See. In his choice of subject, and in the way in which he dealt with it, he has reminded us that this is fundamentally a human problem rather than merely a material and economic one. He has lifted the subject out of the Party political arena—a course in which I shall do my best to follow him. I am sure I speak for all your Lordships in saying we greatly hope that he will come down here as often as he can, aided by the wonderful new communications with which his native North-East is about to be supplied.
I welcome these White Papers because they round off a year which I think, in retrospect, will be realised to have been of considerable importance in the efforts of all of us to bring prosperity to these parts of the country. In January of this year I was privileged to open a debate on the development of Scotland, and there were a number of measures which we then suggested which we can take satisfaction in having now attained. I said that, if we were to attract new industries and help the expansion of our
278
own, we must have a bigger and juicier carrot in the form of Government grants and loans. What is more, we must let the donkey see the carrot. In other words, we must have a definite price-list of the benefits available to industry; and I made the suggestion of differential fiscal measures to encourage investment in these parts of the country. It seems that, as a result of that debate, and in other ways, we have convinced the Government of the essentials of our case. In April, the Government introduced these new measures for increased and standardised benefits to attract industry, along with this right to choose one's own rate of depreciation on plant and factories for tax purposes.
For years now the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) has propounded the need, not just for a policy of remedial action against local pockets of unemployment, but for a positive and long-term policy of encouragement of regional growth, and this culminated, of course, as the noble Viscount who opened this debate told us, in the work of the Toothill Committee and its Report. With the publication of these White Papers we have a virtual acceptance, at least, of this theory. We see a new line of thought in Departments—not least, I suspect, in the Treasury: and, in place of the previous policy, we now have one in which I believe a great deal can be achieved by the active partnership of Government with industry, with local authorities and all the other organisations.
I think it is fair to say that, over the last thirty years, Scotland has led economic thought in this field of regional development, just as she did in other fields in the days of Hume and Adam Smith. It is gratifying to all who have worked over these years to see its acceptance, particularly for people like the noble Lords, Lord Bilsland and Lord Elgin and Kincardine, both of whom have asked me to say how much they regret their being prevented from being here to-day.
The noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, spoke of the long fight of organised labour against unemployment. He asked, also, whether the Scottish Trades Union Congress were included in the bodies working to carry on from this point. I can assure him

279
at least that the Scottish Trades Union Congress is one of the five main constituent bodies of the Scottish Council, and that over the years it has played a very active part in helping us to formulate our policies and in our deliberations. I gladly acknowledge their work along with us in all that. I think, finally on this, that it must be a matter of satisfaction to the team in the Scottish Development Department who have put so much hard work into the proposals now before us.
I do not intend to cross the Border further and to trespass on the territory of the North-East, however accustomed my forbears were to doing so some time ago. That field will doubtless be defended with ability and skill by other noble Lords, just as it was in those days, too. But I must say that, while the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, paid a tribute to the Toothill Report, I was a little sorry to see that, in the White Paper on the North-East, there was no acknowledgement of the basic study done in that Report, not merely for Scotland, but for the whole of Britain. It made it look a little as if the former Lord President had appeared in the role of a fairy godmother, had done a few quick pirouettes around the stage and waved a magic wand over a child, thus endowing it with eternal good fortune before making a spectacular exit to another place. The last thing we would suggest is that we have any copyright in these ideas; we are only too glad that any other part of the country should benefit from them.
My Lords, one thing is clear; and that is that the plans cannot do much to relieve the immediate unemployment problem. We have nearly 100,000 people still out of work in Scotland, due to contraction of some of the older industries; to increased productivity; to the larger numbers of school-leavers and, possibly, to less emigration to the South because of fewer opportunities here. What is encouraging, as the noble Lord said earlier, is the response to last April's new inducements, as is shown in the great increase in the number of inquiries about Scottish locations from companies, both outside and inside, who are seeking to expand. The staff of the Scottish Coun-
280
cil can see this clearly from the greatly increased volume of work coming into their hands.
This autumn a group of us spent six weeks touring North America from coast to coast, from the St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico, seeking to sell Scotland—and, indeed, not just Scotland, but Britain as a whole—to American industrialists. This time (and we have done it at regular intervals) we saw far more interest in opportunities in Britain than at any time in the last five years. That is very encouraging. They were particularly interested in the new financial help we can offer them; and we were able to quote them firm terms for it. At the same time in Scotland itself we are seeing a welcome improvement in shipbuilding and in some of the other industries that have been in depression. All this means more jobs; if not at once then comparatively soon.
The next most immediate prospect for employment lies in the programme of construction and public work of all kinds outlined in this paper. We welcome the figures and details given on the quantitive side, but we must press on for the quickest possible progress to be made. Here I agree with the noble Viscount opposite that we need more targets. Certainly the target for 1970 for many of the major road developments seems to be far too leisurely. I know that there will be the problem, again mentioned by the noble Viscount, of the capacity of the building industry to cope with this. But we must give more encouragement to them to modernise their methods and increase output. We look froward to the Report of the Committee looking into methods of Scottish building industry.
This ties in, too, with the need for increased facilities for training and retraining our workers in the new skills. It is a paradox of our position that, while on paper we have a large supply of labour, there is a grave shortage in many of the key trades. This is a problem to the solution of which managements and unions will have to make a big contribution. But the fact remains that the Government must give a strong lead, and I am sure that places in Government training and retraining centres will have to be stepped-up well beyond the figure of 1,700 for Scotland proposed

281
in the White Paper. That figure is only 7 per cent. of the 25,000 redundancies arising in Scotland each year.
There are some other aspects of Government influence which are either given insufficient emphasis in the Paper or are not covered at all. There is, for example, no mention of the rôle of Government as employer; no mention—despite their professed anxiety to see more offices moved out of Greater London—of the possibility of moving Government offices and other establishments to the development districts. There is no mention of the part to be played by Government spending on defence, civil research and development, far too much of which is still tied to the South by the policies of Departments and to suit their convenience. This is an issue which we regard in Scotland as of vital importance and shall continue to press with all our might.
The importance of communications is acknowledged in the Paper; but what I think cannot be too strongly emphasised is the fact that their importance increases the further one gets from the centre of gravity of population. Roads we have already mentioned; and I will come to railways later. Now that the Ports and Harbours Bill has been published. I hope that every encouragement will be given to the plans for new port development which are awaiting the word to go ahead. Good air transport is vital, whether to the South or overseas; and I am glad that airports figure in the Paper. Our air services have improved, but there is still a long way to go. British European Airways have done a good job, but they have a virtual monopoly of the domestic services; and we shall press the Government to see that we are given the services we need, with or without Government aid. Our international services from Prestwick are of vital importance to many companies as an essential link with their customers and associates in North America and on the Continent. There is at present a move afoot to restrict the passenger rights of certain overseas airlines out of Prestwick, and this move we shall oppose very strongly, because it could lead to a serious reduction in, or even an elimination of, our direct overseas air services.
The final paragraph of the Scottish White Paper contains a proposal of
282
considerable interest to us in the Scottish Council, as doubtless will be its equivalent in the North-East Paper to the corresponding body there. I refer to the offer by the Government of Exchequer assistance to us for the task of selling Scotland, and of publicising the facilities and advantages that we can offer. We in the Scottish Council are honoured at this recognition of all the work we have already tried to do in this field. We do not know yet just what is proposed, but we must make it clear that we shall accept such a grant only if it in no way restricts our independence of action or the scope of our other activities.
My Lords, there is one problem which has just been touched upon and which, although not strictly within the scope of the Paper, will be affected by it. That is the position of the other areas of Scotland and, in particular, the outlying ones, such as the Borders, the Highlands and the North-East. I am glad to see that there is mention of further regional studies to be made sometime in the future. In the short view, the White Paper proposals could actually work to the detriment of these other parts of the country and they would be more gravely affected by some of the proposed railway closures. I hope that in this respect everyone who stands to be adversely affected, and has good reason to do so, will in due course make the requisite objections.
Scotland is a whole just as Britain is a whole; and we cannot allow these other parts of the country to languish: because I am convinced that they have a potential. As an earnest of this belief, as an encouragement to industry and to the inhabitants and as a lead to government, we in the Scottish Council, two days ago, decided on a new form of spearhead operation. We intend to seek out a few individuals in each of these areas with sound and practical experience of industry and of those parts of the country, to provide them with men on the staff of our Council to work with them and seek out all possible opportunities for industrial development which I am sure exist within the areas themselves. What the results will be we cannot tell; but at least it shows our recognition of the Government's view expressed in the White Paper that:
"The restoration of the economy will ultimately depend on the vigour with which

283
all sections of the community make their individual contributions."
I think this is the essential point to remember about the Paper as a whole. The plans have been criticised by some because they are not industrial plans—and this is true enough. But they cannot be provided by Government alone. They are plans or programmes for a social and industrial structure which will favour industrial development. I think we sometimes tend to place rather too much faith in economic planning. Certainly my own faith, both in economists and in planners, is tempered by my realisation of what they can do. To a number of measures already planned or in train, these White Papers bring a brave new look. By themselves, they will not bring the millennium, but, for that matter, neither will any other plan I have heard of. We have heard talk of plans, but we have heard very few details of these plans. I think that their importance lies less in particular proposals than in the implications of a fundamental change of policy, establishing, as it does, a position in the whole field of regional development from which it is unlikely any future Government can retreat. And no retreat must there be, even in the face of short-term economic fluctuations, because it is essential to have continuity and consistency if these plans are to work.
They have undoubtedly given a timely boost to morale in Scotland. Meanwhile, much more will need to be done, by many people, before all is really well with our economy. But, with the help of industry itself and of the many other organisations concerned—help which I am sure will now be forthcoming—the plan can be a real investment in Scotland's future, and of lasting benefit, not only to Scotland, but to the country as a whole.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question? In view of his position in Scotland and the silence of the Government, could he indicate to us what, in his estimation, is the number of new jobs that need to be provided in Scotland, say, in the next five to ten years, in order to deal with the drift of population and the existing unemployment?
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I certainly have figures, but I am not prepared to quote them without a chance to look them up.
4.24 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to me to start my remarks by associating myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said, in congratulations to the most reverend Primate on his maiden speech. I do not wish to do so in exactly the same words as the noble Lord, because it did not seem to me that the most reverend Primate was being strictly non-political. It seemed to me that he was talking exceedingly sound politics, and I hope that we shall always have sound politics from the occupants of the Bishops' Benches. That does not necessarily mean that they will come down on the side of one Party or another. I have always found that the Church has made its most effective contribution in debates when it does so along lines adopted by the most reverend Primate this afternoon, on those subjects in which both Church and State have a most direct interest, and I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks he made.
I am a little disappointed in the rest of what the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said, and I would warn him against being a little prematurely complacent about the contents of the White Papers. I have no doubt that he has read them more than once, but when he reads them more thoroughly he will find that there is a very great deal more of promise in the White Paper than of actual proposals. I am very conscious of the fact that if the Labour Party and the Liberal Party were to keep quiet about suggestions for the improvement of the economy for a period of a year or so, the Government would have nobody to fall back on for the formulation of policies except the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and the Scottish Council. So he is entitled to a certain amount of satisfaction in that, after an interval of a year, the Government have put into a White Paper some of the proposals which he put forward in the debate in your Lordships' House at the beginning of this year.
Having said that, I would go on to say that it seems to me that there is

285
not the slightest doubt that the White Paper on Central Scotland—I apologise to your Lordships if I confine myself to the White Paper on Central Scotland, but I have no doubt that there are Members who will deal with the other White Paper—has been a great disappointment to those who are looking for vigorous action to cure Scotland's economic ills. It is admitted on all sides that the most hard hit areas are the Highlands and the Border, and they are left completely out of the Government's plans except for vague promises of future investigation, such as in paragraph 8, where it is stated:
"…the Government are fully conscious of the many problems affecting the economies of other parts of Scotland; problems often just as vital but on a smaller scale. They are pressing forward with their examination of these areas, which may need measures different in scale and character from those set out in this Paper."
And the modest carrot they offer to Dundee, in paragraph 69:
"Dundee's need for regular air communications to the industrial and commercial centres in the south is, along with airfield requirements for the area, now being urgently considered."
I will come back to Dundee later.
The White Paper simply teems with fine phrases—there is no doubt at all that it is beautifully written—many of which put a gloss on twelve years of Government failure. I hope that your Lordships will permit me to give some examples:
"Many of the measures described in this Paper are already being taken or have been announced. These are now incorporated in a fully integrated programme and are reinforced by a wide range of new measures specifically designed to accelerate growth in the most favourable places";
or,
"But this has not occurred at a fast enough rate fully to offset the changes in the older basic industries. Thus employment opportunities in the area have not kept pace with the natural increase in the population. The result has been unemployment on a scale averaging about twice the United Kingdom level since the last war, in spite of heavy emigration in the younger working age groups."
Perhaps I may be forgiven for drawing the notice of the most reverend Primate to the net figure of migration from Scotland in the last ten years. It was not 80,000, but 280,000.
286
The White Paper goes on to say:
"But the net loss of younger people cannot continue at its present level without serious damage to the prospects of long-term economic recovery.
"Another consequence of the run-down of the older industries in Central Scotland has been the physical decay of so many of the older industrial areas which grew up in an age of coal, smoke, dirt and overcrowded housing conditions."
Unfortunately, most of the areas referred to in my last quotation are outside the Central Scottish Area and are being offered nothing in this proposal. I am not one of those who subscribe to the point of view that everything should be done everywhere at the same time. To that extent, I am in agreement with the noble Viscount, but I must say that it upsets me a little to find myself in agreement with him when he says, in effect, that we must use our resources to the best advantage, and if they are to be spread out there is going to be very little available for everybody. This, in effect, means that by concentrating at this stage on the North-East and Central Scotland a great deal less is going to be done in these other areas, and, in the short-term, at any event, they are going to be worse off. I was rather interested in what was said by my noble Leader when he referred to the many areas with high unemployment which are in effect being told by the Government, "It isn't your turn. You are not the worst." Or, "You are not the area in which the best can be accomplished. You must wait."
One of my complaints about the White Paper is the extent to which it is general rather than detailed. Perhaps it was in keeping with this attitude that the noble Viscount objected to my noble Leader as being too specific in attributing "two months" to him, rather than "some months". My main complaint about the White Paper is that the general is always preferred to the specific. As I said before, the White Paper is well written: the language is beautiful, and if words alone could solve our difficulties we should indeed be home and dry. The last quotation from the White Paper which I made places a reliance on planning which is staggering. And remember what Government policy was, year in, year out, from 1951 to 1962. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, rather unwisely I thought, let

287
out a remark which is typical of what has been going on all these years: that even when planning is accepted, it is accepted with a degree of suspicion.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, I do not feel any unwisdom in having made the remark. I stated what I believed to be the case.
LORD HUGHES: Quite so. None of us makes remarks which we ourselves believe to be unwise; it is only other people who think they are or are not unwise. After all, if we ourselves thought they were unwise we would not make them. What could be most alarming, to both industrialists and workers, is the fact that the policies now being applied with some success—and there are policies which are being applied with considerable success at the moment—are the very ones which the Government have so regularly refused to operate in the past.
For example (and it is coincidence that what I have noted here before the noble Viscount spoke are the two subjects on which he himself spoke with considerable stress in his opening speech), there is more than one paragraph in the Paper where glowing tributes are paid to the value of the policy of building advance factories; and one of the few details given in the White Paper is the number which are presently being built and those which are to be started in the near future. Yet for years Ministers were urged to put into operation this policy of building advance factories, and they declined to do so. The argument always was that the industrialist did not want an advance factory; he wanted a factory tailor-made to his requirements. My late friend and colleague Mr. John Strachey on many occasions pressed Ministers to put a policy of advance factories into operation, and on every occasion he was met with a blank refusal. Then, recently, in the last two or three years, a change was made, and once again the Government found a Labour scheme worked when their own ideas had failed.
Another proposal pressed by the Scottish Council and by, I think, almost every organisation in Scotland, political and non-political alike, was the subject of specific grants. We complained bitterly and regularly of the fact that the industrialist coming to locate a factory in
288
Scotland did not know whether he would get a large grant, a small grant or no grant at all. We asked, year in, year out, for a policy of specific grants, and even eighteen months ago we were told it was impossible. When we spoke about preferential systems of taxation for areas of high unemployment eighteen months ago we were told it was impossible. But what speech, propaganda and exhortation failed to achieve, the heavy unemployment, the adverse unemployment of last winter, and the adverse by-election results which followed it, turned from being impossible into being practical, and the Budget of this year brought in both specific grants and a tax policy which discriminated in favour of people going to selected areas.
I am not surprised that we have had a great increase in the number of applications. After all, the reason why so many people put this scheme forward was because they believed that that sort of thing was necessary in order to get industrialists to go to these particular areas. When one realises, therefore, that the only measures which are really successful are those which the Government did not initiate but which they reluctantly accepted only after up to ten or twelve years of pressure, one could be reassured by the White Paper only if it contained some real evidence of positive thinking along similar lines or on new ones. What do we find? We find that in a document of 168 paragraphs fewer than a dozen paragraphs contain specific proposals for action. The greatest part of the document is historical, and most of the references to the future are very general and sometimes even very vague. On top of that, as befits, I must admit, good writing, a certain amount of fiction creeps in from time to time. The White Paper is essentially a programme of public investment, and public investment is the field which has been made most costly by the Government's interest policy.
This brings me to a number of specific questions on policy, and, first of all, to housing. The White Paper proposes an increase of some 9,000 houses a year in the growth areas of Central Scotland. Where these houses are being constructed for the New Town Development Corporation, notwithstanding the fact that they operate at much higher rentals than do the local authorities in these

289
areas, the very large sum of from £80 to £100 per annum will fall on the Exchequer for each house built. What is to be done where the houses in the growth areas are required to be provided by the local authority? Is the subsidy to remain at the present level of £12 or £32, depending on the local authority's housing finances? Can you expect these local authorities to pay an annual subsidy of anything from £50 to £80 a house—especially if, as appears in paragraph 29, they are to be
"unfettered by any consideration of 'local housing lists '"?
How is this going to work? What local authority are going to build two lots of houses when they are going to get the same subsidy for both, and one lot they must earmark for people not on the housing list at all? I can imagine no better way for a town councillor to lose his seat; and remember that town councillors are just as conscious of the need to preserve their seats as are Ministers.
May I also ask about schools? Paragraph 91 states:
"The major increase which is planned in growth area housing will demand a corresponding concentration of school building."
In paragraph 92 it says:
"It is clear that an even higher level of investment will be necessary for school building generally."
Yet, within the last month, many local education authorities have complained bitterly at the cuts made in their school-building programmes. An example is Fife—and in Fife is one of the growth areas. After savage; cuts in their school-building programmes, they sent a deputation to St. Andrew's House, and after prolonged discussion with—I do not know whether it was officials, or officials and Ministers, they came away with some increase. But even a growth area, including one of the New Towns within that growth area, could not get anything like what they originally requested for school-building programmes; and the most the Convenor of Fife County could say when he came away from the meeting was that he was gratified, but not satisfied.
It is obvious that no unnecessary difficulties should be placed in the way of industry if successfully located in Scotland. For that reason, one welcomes the statement in paragraph 66:
290
"Good air communications for both domestic and international journeys have become an essential part of any modern expanding economy. Business men need to be in the closest touch with their markets and to be able quickly to follow up any new opportunities, wherever they may be. The availability of an airport within reasonable travelling distance, offering both domestic services and either direct international flights or convenient connections thereto, is increasingly important in attracting new industrial and commercial enterprises."
If one takes this in conjunction with paragraph 69, about the urgent consideration being given to Dundee's air problems, this might be taken as quite a good augury for an air service for Dundee at last. Yet as one who regularly came to London and went to Edinburgh to interview Ministers in connection with an air service for Scotland, I am very conscious of the fact that I and my successor were told every time that this is not a matter for the Government; that it is a matter for the air lines concerned.
Now what has happened? Has the urgent consideration of Dundee's need made it possible at last for something to be done after twelve years of refusing to intervene? When will the decision be made? How long does urgent consideration take? After all, they have had twelve years. How much urgent consideration do you need to add to twelve years of waiting before you come to a decision? Will it be given to-day in this debate? Will it be given this month? Will it be given next month? How long, my Lords, how long?
Paragraphs 75 to 80 stress the importance of adequate supplies of fuel. Will the Government not consider at this stage the desirability of making electricity cheaper for industry in Scotland by providing finance to the Electricity Boards on the same basis as it was supplied for the strip mill, and is to be supplied for the pulp mill? There would be no question of electricity becoming dearer in Scotland in the next six months if they would do that. In fact, I am quite certain that my noble friend sitting behind the Front Bench would be able to bring the cost of electricity down in his part of Scotland if money was made available on the same sort of conditions as it is made available in what the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, said was the best sort of co-operation between the State and

291
private enterprise, where the State puts forward the money at a comparatively low rate of interest—and that is all that is expected.
To leave electricity and go to other fuel, when will the Government take steps to bring to an end the extra charge for coal which has been paid by Scottish undertakings? How can you expect to compete when the Coal Board charge an extra 10s. a ton for every ton of coal which is used? There is a comparatively small paper mill on the borders of the new town of Glenrothes which pays this 10s. a ton which adds many thousands of pounds a year to its operating costs. Will the Government intervene in this matter?
Paragraph 83 deals with the 85 per cent. grant for clearance and rehabilitation of derelict areas. I had better quote this exactly, because it is somewhat incredible. The paragraph says:
"This concession was then introduced only for a limited period, but the Government have now decided to continue until further notice the arrangements for making an 85 per cent. grant available in all development districts…"
What is the exact difference between a grant being available for a limited period and being available "until further notice"? How does the local authority go about working on that? Under the old basis, they knew that for a period of a year, or whatever it was, these grants were going to be paid. Now the position has been changed, and they may find that in a month, six months, a year, eighteen months, or at some time in the future, near or far, they are told, "In a month's time the grants come to an end". It seems to me that something much more specific than a continuation "until further notice" is necessary. This could be a worthwhile part of the proposals, for a great deal of land in industrial areas is going to waste because something of this kind has not been available before.
Paragraph 126 stresses the suitability of Central Scotland for office accommodation. In a debate in January, to which the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, referred, that point came up. It is true that there are many places in Central Scotland which are suitable, and no place more so than the new towns, because they can build offices to suit
292
the requirements of incoming industry. They can provide houses for the people who may be shifted up to work in those offices. They could, for instance, quite easily provide accommodation for Government Departments. There was an inquiry some time ago into the possibility of moving Government Departments out of London. I would suggest to the Government that example is much better than precept, and that the Secretary of State for Scotland, with his colleagues, might make some arrangements for one or more Ministries to move some or all of their activities to either Central Scotland or North-East England.
The policies which are working in Scotland to-day are not Tory policies, but policies which the Tories have turned to on the collapse of their own. Their success is limited only because they limit the scope of the policies, and that I would suggest to the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, is the fundamental difference between his colleagues and mine. He and his colleagues are content to take a policy here and a policy there from other people and to apply it, and they are then surprised in two ways: first, that they have a limited success in each of the ones that are implemented, but, secondly, that put together they do not solve the whole problem. You will not solve the whole problem until you apply the whole solution.
I do not expect that at the end of this debate a majority of your Lordships will be found to be supporting the Amendment which was proposed by my noble Leader, and which I am endeavouring to support. But I must confess that that does not worry me in the slightest, because I am quite satisfied that in some months—maybe two months—a majority of the electors will find this Amendment to their satisfaction.
4.47 p.m.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, I was very interested to hear the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, about supporting the Amendment on the Order Paper. The chief thing, it seems to me, about the Amendment, are the words:
"but is of the opinion that these proposals fail to ensure an immediate substantial reduction in unemployment…"

293
Neither Lord Hughes nor his noble Leader referred to those words. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that he does not think there will be many of us supporting the Amendment. I cannot see that he supported it himself. And neither, perhaps, did the noble Earl. I quite understand that there are a great many things to think of, but I was interested when I saw this Amendment on the Paper and I thought I would wait to hear the suggestions of noble Lords opposite for an immediate substantial reduction in unemployment.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that the Tories were following Labour policy. If he could have told us of such a scheme, I am sure we should all—not only the Back Benchers but perhaps the Front Bench as well—do well to follow the Labour Party. But we have heard nothing about it at all.
LORD HUGHES: One has a limited time in which to speak in a debate with eighteen speakers. But, unlike some Members in another place, the noble Lady will probably still be in the House after the General Election, and I have no doubt that she will have an opportunity of hearing the most specific proposals.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: I had hoped to hear them to-day, because they are on the Paper to-day. All sorts of strange things may be on the Paper then, from either side. It is to-day I am speaking about. I keep to the present, and not the vague future.
I am one of those who entirely support the idea of regional planning and the principle of what I would call "select and concentrate." I also support the idea of the positive attitude of growth areas. I know quite well what happens when you "select and concentrate" on a certain area: you are bound to create a good deal of feeling, of sadness and disappointment in other areas. I remember well what happened when I went to the Ministry of Education in 1951, and the school building programme was very far behind. I had to make a desperate effort to see how I could get enough schools up and ready for the children of what was called (that awful word!) the "bulge," who were coming along. I had to do something
294
that was extremely unpopular. I had to cut down and keep to a certain building programme, and then increase it gradually. There were areas where schools had been promised, and I had to tell them that the schools would not now be begun. Week after week I was questioned about the number of new schools started, and I said then that my yardstick was going to be the number of new schools completed. I think anyone looking back on that period would now agree with me that that was the right way to do it. Of course, it was difficult; and there were the hard cases.
I believe that the Government have also chosen the right region—that of Central Scotland. After all, we have there 75 per cent. of the population and 90 per cent. of the industry; and, as a whole, there is similarity in the problem of all the places there. I believe that if we achieve real success in this region, with a really prosperous stripe across Scotland, it will affect the whole of Scotland for some time to come. I am in favour of this principle of "select and concentrate," though I have one proviso, to which I will come a little bit later. As there are a great number of your Lordships who wish to speak, I will pick out, if I may, what I see as one problem; that of mobility and emigration.
We all know that it is necessary to get a labour force that is mobile, which can move from areas of unemployment to growth areas where perhaps new factories have gone. What we are asking for in Scotland is sufficient mobility; but, in accordance with the White Paper, not a superabundance of mobility which means that the labour force is mobile over the Border and into England. We must try to face that particular difficulty. I am not one of those who feel it would be a great pity if in the future there were no enterprising young Scots who wanted to leave their own country and go to England or overseas; and it seems to me that the White Paper carries out that idea. One can see it very clearly in the figures for university students now. In the old clays, more students attended the university in their own home towns. Now, thanks a great deal to the increased grants, they are able to leave, say, their home town of Edinburgh and go to universities in England;

295
and English students can go to Edinburgh University. They can move around because there is sufficient money, and they are anxious to get away from their own surroundings and see something of the world.
As this process increasingly continues, we must, I believe, look at this problem of the mobility of labour and emigration as one. In what particular way can we help? The White Paper is quite right in talking of the obvious requirement of a sufficient number of good houses. I have read and re-read Chapter 6, and I agree with it. We cannot expect a family who are perhaps already settled in a house to move to another district where they may have to wait on a housing list. I am not going to say how the problem can be solved, because I do not know; but I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, say that it was impossible to have some houses on the list and others not. But if we want people to go from one district to another, are we to tell them that they can go but that we cannot give them a house; that they must go on to a waiting list? And these, my Lords, are the people of whose labour we may be desperately in need; and who may at the moment be unemployed. Can we not make some arrangement for the building of new houses which these people can offer to buy as soon as they move?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, has misunderstood me. I did not say that. I said that one could not expect such houses to be provided by a local authority which had to provide two lots of houses under the same conditions.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: I see. It would be a different condition here. This would be the condition for those moving into that area and the others. But even with what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, I think it is going to be very difficult. Think of the feeling of the people who are already in that area. They have their employment there; they are on the list waiting for houses. But because there is not enough labour for the new factories which have gone up in that area, new labour is needed. The people are willing to go, and, some way
296
must be found of providing them with homes.
Again linking it up with emigration, I am quite certain that if many of the people—young men, for instance—who are leaving Scotland and going to England at the present time, knew there was going to be a good house for them in Scotland they would stay. If they want to get married and bring up a family what they need is a good house. If we can show that homes can be provided in Scotland I think we should see a great change in the outlook for mobility of labour and emigration. With that mobility I would also include training and re-training. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has already spoken of the training scheme. People going to these areas want to see that there are training schemes for their boys who are growing up. Mobility may mean not simply geographical mobility, but the moving from one skill or trade to another skill or trade; and to secure that mobility we must see that there is more chance of training.
The White Paper tells us that there is to be a great increase in housing in the central area of Scotland. Whilst I know the difficulty of having different types of housing (I could discuss it at length, but time is short) I would ask the Government to see that from the start we have realistic rents. I am always being told that people in Scotland are accustomed to paying low rents and therefore will never pay anything but low rents. My Lords, people have come to England from Scotland in their hundreds to find jobs. Have any of us heard of any of them going back to Scotland because they find the cost of lodgings too high; or because a higher percentage from their pay packets must go on rents? There may be some, but I do not think there are many. They are accustomed to pay higher rents in England, and I believe that we shall not solve this problem unless we face up to a higher standard of rents in Scotland. I have been told on many occasions by industrialists with factories in England and in Scotland that although they may be paying the same actual rate of wages, they may be paying a higher rate in Scotland because the rents paid by employees are so low. I think this matter must be looked into.
Chapter 6 of the White Paper sets out what we must do—the increased number

297
of houses, measures for mobility and so on—to stem emigration. But then we come to the crux of the matter: how are we to do it? If we are going to build more houses, more schools, more training centres, more technical colleges and factories; and if we are are to extend our universities (though there is nothing in the White Paper about a new university, I am glad to say), how do we mean to do it? I think we are all agreed that it is quite impossible for all this building to be done in what I may call "traditional" methods. I want to see the traditional methods carried on but I want to see the building industry extended to the full. I want to see more people working in the building industry. But, my Lords, whatever we do, we shall not get sufficient building done unless we look to the less traditional, what I believe is called industrial, building.
We have had various papers from the Government on this subject. There was a Paper on housing in May (Cmnd. 2050), which spoke of the necessity of this type of building. Now we hear of a National Building Agency that is going to give advice on new forms of building. I hope this idea is going to be pressed, because it is of advantage in two ways: we shall have some chance of getting the building we want, and it will spread employment—the immediate employment we are asked about in this Amendment. You are going to get all the employment possible in the constructional industries in Scotland—all the building industry, the traditional industry. If you can do more in factories in way of industrial building, you will be bringing in new people, and that will increase employment.
How much is being done? I know there is a certain amount in Scotland, but perhaps we can be told what is now being done in these ways and what is planned to be done. Because if we cannot get something like that done, the rest of our hopes based on many of these schemes are simply valueless. When is the Board of this Agency to be appointed, with Scottish representatives? When is an office to be opened in Scotland? As I read the Report I kept on saying to myself "When?", when I came to this part.
Here I come to my last point—the proviso I made at the beginning to giving
298
my support: the need to select a particular area and to concentrate. Can we really get this work done with speed and with a sense of urgency? That is what is required. And the great point about concentrating on one particular region, such as this, where the problems are similar throughout, is that there can be a scheme of urgency that will really inspire the people of Scotland to help the Government work it out. The people like to see how the scheme is getting on, and I ask the Government to give us progress reports from time to time. We have them on housing—statistics of the number of houses that are built. I think we get them quarterly. I ask now, that we shall have definite progress reports, and I should like those progress reports under the headings in this White Paper: housing and movements and roads and everything else. Those reports might sometimes be discouraging, at other times encouraging. I believe it would give us that necessary feeling of urgency in getting the job done.
I read that the Scottish Development Group still has a good deal of work to do, two more surveys to be undertaken and further discussions, and after that it is to continue to phase and coordinate the execution of the development plan. Perhaps I am wrong—I daresay I am—but the words "phase and co-ordinate" seem to me a little leisurely. I want to see behind this a driving spirit, real energy. I speak here from personal experience when I say that when you have been working hard on a plan—and I congratulate the Development Group on the work they have done—when you have been working at it in detail, when you have had discussions and negotiations and you get to the end of that stage, you are very tempted to sit back and relax and say you have reached the beginning of the end. I believe this plan is good. If we can carry it through with speed and real urgency it will be a great thing for Scotland. But we have not reached the beginning of the end; we are just about to reach the beginning of the beginning, and I think that that is what we want in this debate to put to the Government.
For my own part, I think it is a great step forward for the Government to have given us this scheme, and I am

299
grateful for the work that has been done. But the plans must now be carried through with drive and enterprise and dauntless perseverence in overcoming the innumerable difficulties there are certain to be. Then I think all concerned with it, from the Secretary of State for Scotland to the individual workman, anybody who has had a share in working this plan out, will derive satisfaction and will have earned the gratitude of a reinvigorated Scotland.
5.5 p.m.
LORD TODD: My Lords, it is now almost a year since I first ventured to address your Lordships. That was on the occasion of a debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, on the state of the Scottish economy. During that debate many noble Lords stressed the need for some comprehensive plan to deal with the situation. To-day I should like to speak for a short time in connection with the White Paper on Central Scotland, which sets out to do that and presents a plan designed to promote the development of the area. I am very much with the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, in feeling that I do not object, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, seemed to, to the local character of this development plan. While it is true that Central Scotland is only part of the problem, it is, I believe, a major part, because given a flourishing Central Scotland then the solution of problems relating to the other areas would, I think, be made a great deal easier.
I think, too, that the programme put before us is, on the whole, a comprehensive and well-balanced programme. No doubt there is criticism one can make of individual features: for example, I feel so strongly about the rehabilitation of the derelict areas of industrial Scotland that the amount allocated by the Government seems to me a bit on the small side. I say this because I believe the image of industrial Scotland is vitally important when it comes to attracting industry and business, quite apart from the depressing effect of bad surroundings on young people growing up in the area. This question of rehabilitation of the areas is important, I believe, from the point of view both of immigration and of emigration.
300
When I spoke in our previous debate on the Scottish economy I stressed the need to encourage in every way possible the growth of industries which involve the location in Scotland of a substantial element of research and development. From some references in the White Paper I think this is, in a measure, recognised by the Scottish Development Department, but I should like to return to this matter for a moment because of what I believe to be its crucial importance. We live in an age in which consistent prosperity for any given area in a country is absolutely dependent upon continuous technological innovation in its industries. It was, indeed, lack of innovation in the traditional industries of Scotland that brought about the economic decline we witnessed in the first half of this century. But let me make it clear that in this respect the Scottish industries were not exceptional. Innovation in mature industries which are essentially craft-based rather than science-based is an extremely difficult matter, and the performance of these industries in other areas than Central Scotland has been very similar; much the same thing can be seen in the heavy industries of North-East England, which is also the subject of a White Paper before us to-day. One can see it in Lancashire, in South Wales, and not only in areas like those in this country but in foreign countries.
The factors which contribute to difficulty in innovation in mature traditional industries—I mean such industries as metal manufactures, shipbuilding and heavy engineering—are numerous and complex. Not all of them are clearly understood, and I believe incidentally—and this stands rather apart from the Paper we are debating to-day—that there is a great need for a comprehensive study to be made. Such a study of these factors underlying difficulties of innovation in mature industries might perhaps be undertaken jointly by Government, by industry and by the universities. I believe it would be most rewarding.
But some of the problems and difficulties are, I think, fairly evident. It is characteristic of most of those industries that they tend to rest on what I might call standard-product production—that is to say, they rest on the production of some item or material

301
which is consistently demanded by customers; and they depend, too, on the exploitation of a rather rigidly set group of skills or technology. It is interesting to note that in such industries major technological innovation, as distinct from what I call slow product improvement, is usually brought about not from within the industry itself, but through invasion from outside by other industries, usually science-based industries. I think the invasion of the textile industry by the chemical industry is a recent example of this kind.
The adherence to exploitation of a standard set of skills in a mature industry, on the one hand, it is true, leads in due course to the setting up of resistance and reluctance to change on the part of management. It also leads—and this is as bad, if not worse—to the setting up of a rigid social system of hierarchy of skills within the industries themselves. This hierarchy gives rise to difficulties, not merely in the matter of demarcation problems as between skills in the industry, but it induces a powerful resistance to change on the part of the workers in it. If such industries—and they are the main industries in Scotland—are to survive, the need for a radical change must be recognised not only by management but also by the workers, too, despite the fact that temporary difficulties and hardships will be involved.
We have seen this process already getting under way in Scotland. The process of change leading, if you like, to a streamlining of Scotland's traditional heavy industry is already under way, but it has a good deal further to go. For this reason, I attach the greatest importance to the development of re-training schemes for adult workers and to the massive improvement in housing conditions and communications in Scotland in order to increase the mobility of the working population. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, raised this point, which I believe is an important one.
The streamlining, that I have been referring to in Scotland's heavy industry can, of course, be carried through without creating excessive unemployment only if the new industries are concurrently developed, as it is suggested they should be in the plan before us. But it is essential that some, at least, of these
302
should be science-based industries with a strong research and development element, because it is from this element that technological innovation is most likely to come; and that innovation is going to be the life-blood, not only of these industries, but indirectly, and for the reasons that come out of what I have just said, the life-blood, too, of the traditional or mature industries that we have been accustomed to in Scotland.
Innovation is, of course, a much less difficult thing to bring about in the newer industries, particularly the science-based industries, although sometimes I wonder whether it will always be so in some of the alleged newer industries, because one sometimes wonders whether this difficulty of innovation is not in part due to maturity as well as simply to the nature of the industry. I think everyone is aware of the fact that, once firms get beyond a certain size, many of them seem to run into difficulty in keeping what might be called the entrepreneurial spirit alive. They tend to become rather static.
In summary, my view is, as your Lordships realise, that economic growth and continuing prosperity depend on technological innovation in industry; and innovation not only requires the spirit of the entrepreneur, but needs the backing of technical knowledge at all levels. Here, I believe that Scotland has a great deal to offer, and I submit that it would be wise for the Scottish Council to emphasise this point in its publicity. Scotland has in its developing institutions of technical education an excellent instrument for the lavish provision of technicians and other trained personnel necessary for modern industry and business; and it is a flexible and, I believe, progressive instrument with a long tradition of innovation in technical education behind it.
I think it is worth while just to recall, in connection with its progressive character, that the first sandwich courses that were ever organised in Britain were operated in Glasgow in 1881. If you follow the course of technical education up to now you will find that there is at the present time at the Stowe College in Glasgow a most exciting experiment in apprenticeship training going on. Although it is possible to be prejudiced, these institutions are, I believe, working on human material which is second to none, as the technical record of Scots

303
in the past has shown. Behind these institutions such as those which I have been mentioning, stands the new University of Strathclyde, which is now being created on the base of the Royal College of Science and Technology in Glasgow. After all, this is the first independent technical university in Britain. It is in a phase of vigorous growth and, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned last week in our debate on the Robbins Report, it is venturing out into the fields of industrial management, social studies and modern languages in addition to the rapidly developing borderland fields of science and technology. Strathclyde aims at scientific and technological education and research at the highest level, and it will seek to maintain and to develop even further the close contacts which it has always maintained with industry in Scotland. These are facts which I believe should be publicised, because backing of the type that you give to such institutions is getting every year more and more important to industry.
I would add here how much I welcome the presence in the University of Strathclyde—and, indeed, in other Scottish universities—of many students from all over Britain. I believe we have got to break down the isolation of Central Scotland, to stop people from the southern part of this island regarding it as a remote and almost foreign land separated from England by something like 150 miles of shocking road, starting from Lancaster and finishing in Glasgow. Incidentally, I am glad to see from the White Paper that there is some possibility that work on the road between Glasgow, Carlisle and Lancaster is going to be treated with a little more urgency than it has been in the past.
Glasgow, my native city, is a place whose image in much of this country has been rather unfairly set by its past history, and by a small group of sordid novels which have enjoyed great popularity in the country. But I think that modern Glasgow is a progressive city. I believe it has a great deal which it can offer in the way of amenities to the newcomer. Let us make no mistake, it is now, and will remain for the foreseeable future, the industrial heart of Central Scotland about which we are talking in this White Paper. I would conclude by saying only this. I hope
304
that the Scottish Council and the development department will act with real vigour and dispatch in getting on with the proposals in the White Paper. It is all very well to give us a programme; but it is up to them and to the people of Scotland to produce the development and growth that follow from it.
5.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, there are a handful of Englishmen taking part in this debate, and therefore I am not going to trespass on their preserves. My remarks will be concerned entirely with the White Paper, which I welcome. I consider that the whole principle of the development areas, growth points and so on, is sound. Nevertheless, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I am outwith the Central Scotland area and a member of the other 25 per cent. I am quite prepared to take any setbacks which might arise through the activities of this White Paper, but I do not think they will be great; and at any rate they will be very limited in time.
Paragraph 8, to which reference has already been made, gives hope that the Government are fully conscious of these problems; that they are pressing forward with the examination of these areas and will produce measures to cope with the situation. I think that is most important, and I hope they will do it with the same thoroughness as that with which Toothill Report has analysed the problems of Central Scotland. I am convinced that it is only by taking a very large area and analysing the problems together, rather than looking at isolated matters, that these difficulties can be solved. Once the problems of Central Scotland have been solved, the problems presented by the other 25 per cent. of the population are nothing like so great. I venture to hazard a guess that about 60 factories strategically placed in the North-East of Scotland would produce a very different picture in that part of the world. That is not outside the bounds of possibility.
I should like to know what effect the proposals of the regional water schemes and the new housing developments, and so on, will have on the already extremely heavy rate burden. No mention is made as to whether it will be 100 per cent. grant-aided, whether local authorities will be left to carry half, or some, of the

305
burden, or what it may be. These things are, of course, very, expensive indeed. Paragraph 13 mentions the
"considerable expansion of the opportunities for training and retraining."
I should have said that "considerable" was the wrong adjective to use. If one is dealing with 7 per cent. of the annual redundancies I should have thought that "modest" was a better adjective to use. However, that point has been mentioned by several speakers, and I merely agree with them.
Paragraph 14 appears to me to be vital to this whole scheme. It is a question of co-ordination. How is this co-ordination to take place? Who is going to produce the drive so necessary to get anything going? This co-ordinated problem must take into account the requirements of the building industry, building materials, labour, transport, and everything else outwith these areas. One cannot just stop the rest of the country and merely consider an area in isolation. Who is going to be responsible for drawing up the detailed master plan? Who is going to do the detailed phasing of material supply, labour supply, transport—which will be a critical matter—and all the other things that go to make up a large operation of this kind?
It is easy to talk glibly of modern methods prefabrication, non-traditional building, and so on; but unless the officials concerned are behind them such methods will not work. A number of the officials in the local authorities in Scotland, and even in the Scottish Office itself, are absolutely set against any form of prefabrication and non-traditional building. They are the first obstacle to be converted. They may have very good reasons for their opposition; but it is certainly there. I would suggest that one could kill two birds with one stone by setting up a branch of the Building Research Station in Aberdeen where there is a fine nucleus of technical research institutions because, in the same way as in industry, it is a good thing to have one's technicians congregated together. One gets a pocket of people who can all talk "shop" together. I believe that demonstration of buildings and methods to be used in the climate in question would answer, through actual demonstration,
306
the criticisms and prejudices which exist among departments and many local authorities.
I should like to know whether the "Critical Path Method" which is advocated by the Building Research Station for programming jobs will be employed, and whether, owing to the large size of this scheme, consideration will be given to employing a specialist industrial firm which uses computers when these matters become complicated and laborious. These computers can produce the kind of answer that no individual firm or no individual builder or contractor can produce. On this I speak with feeling, because during the war I was responsible for programming a couple of ordnance factories which were large-scale jobs, and it was a mighty "headache". I agree that the arrangements to publicise Central Scotland are very necessary, but it can be done in such a way that it does not entirely prejudice the rest of Scotland. I should like to put in a plea to see that if possible it is done in that way.
In regard to paragraph 19, on airports, this is a most essential aspect. I suggest that the abolition of what I think the Army might call airport "bull" should be a priority. In other words, efforts should be made to avoid one's being herded about and made to wait, and all the other difficulties which are apparently inseparable from air travel. It is high time that firm steps were taken to mitigate this sort of treatment. When people come here from America (where I am told they can just buy an air ticket, get on the aeroplane and that is that) they are in many cases quite upset by the sort of things that happen in our own air services. The prospective industrialist is a rather fickle chap, very easily upset and put off. So I strongly put in that plea.
Port modernisation is probably a somewhat overdue measure and should be integrated into the master plan. When one talks about transport, what about the rail lines North of Inverness? The phrase "take account of" is a wonderful phrase, one that can mean anything or nothing at all; but that is all we have in the White Paper. On the question of power stations, would it be feasible in the planning stage to contemplate the possibility that one or more

307
of these stations might be required, before it has become obsolete, to switch to oil-firing owing to shortage of coal? I do not know whether that is a possibility, but it might be worth considering at the time of design.
As regards the grant for the rehabilitation or removal of old buildings—which I gather is 85 per cent., leaving 15 per cent. to be paid by the local authorities—would that apply in a development district if unsuitable old factory buildings were removed and the site used for housing? I do not know whether or not it would apply, but I should like to know whether it does in certain circumstances. I hope that the Scottish Development Group will work in the closest conjunction with the Scottish Council. I think that this recognition of their valuable services, which the Government give in paragraph 32, is long overdue. I do not know whether or not the contribution will come in a form satisfactory to the Scottish Council, but I hope that it does.
The chief beneficiaries, when all is done in Central Scotland, should be the working population. That is quite right. Nevertheless, I think this newspaper cutting is relevant:
"Production at the British Motor Corporation's Bathgate factory was affected again yesterday when 120 transport drivers came out on strike—the 59th at the factory in 29 months. As a result, 500 men were sent home and only the engine machine shop was in production. It will also likely be affected if the strike continues."
I do not attempt to lay blame on either side at all, because these are wild-cat strikes, but if you want to get industry into Scotland or anywhere else you will not get it that way.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I put this point? I think the record for industrial relations in Scotland is as good as, if not perhaps better than, is to be found in other parts of the country. I hope that the noble Viscount's words will not be a disservice to Scottish relationships.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: No; this is a question of one particular factory in Bathgate, where measures similar to those proposed in the White Paper were taken to get industry there. In 29 months 59 unofficial strikes have taken place. I think the Scottish T.U.C.
308
might seriously consider this matter with, the employers.
LORD SHEPHERD: But the noble Viscount will agree that he is quoting an isolated case, and that, as a whole, the record in Scotland is very good.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: Unfortunately in this part of Scotland, we have only isolated cases of industry. The White Paper talks about considerable travelling to work and considerable mobility. I must say that, except as a very interim measure, I should deplore this travelling. If one spends an hour travelling to work, does an eight-hour day, and then spends an hour travelling back, it seems that nearly 25 per cent. of the working day is spent in travelling. I think that should be avoided, if at all possible. Under modern conditions, with the building of new factories on new sites, the objections to living fairly near a factory can be overcome, and I believe that every effort should be made to do so because of this great waste of time and the unpleasantness which can arise from it.
On the question of incentives, mentioned in paragraph 118, the independent Advisory Committee is to give decisions on whether or not an industrialist will be getting a grant. It seems to me that, if this Committee meets only quarterly, as so many others do, there is bound to be very great delay. It is absolutely essential, if you want to attract an industrialist, that he should be able to get a decision within a week. That would fairly shake the normal procedure, but I believe that is very necessary.
One matter that struck me as perhaps requiring a little more thought—I do not know whether that is possible—is the office development, which could easily take place in places outwith this particular part of the centre of Scotland which we are discussing. I think that a depreciation allowance or unlimited depreciation should apply to office equipment. After all, computers are very expensive things. There are also mechanical accounting machines, and a very high degree of mechanisation in an office. If the idea is to attract people to these distant places, I should have thought that encouragement was very necessary. The Government have been singularly unlucky, or ineffective, in attracting their own offices

309
to go outside London, and perhaps the lack of encouragement has something to do with it. In paragraph 142 the Government quote figures of what they are going to spend in these areas, and they compare it to what has been spent elsewhere. But that is only a valid "crow" if they also quote figures for what they spent, or did not spend, in preceding years. However, I think it is essential that publicity is co-ordinated and carried out so that it does not jeopardise the rest of Scotland.
Just to show that enterprise is not dead around Aberdeen and other parts, I should like to quote a few firms who, without Government assistance and without carrots, have "got there". These firms have world-wide reputations and a world-wide export market. In the engineering field there are the Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Company, Hendersons and Gray's. In the textile field there is Crombies; in shipbuilding there is Hall Russell (who, incidentally, built the first Clipper boats; and they built the "Thermopylæ" in that shipyard before the Clyde built their Clippers) and there is Lewis. In the paper world there are the Culter Paper Mill, Stoneywood Paper Mill, Mugie Moss Mill, and Tait. In the field of agriculture, there are the Caledonian Milling Company, Scottish Agricultural Industries, Lawson's Bacon Curers and the canned food industry. Peterhead has the Cleveland Twist Drill Company and the Euclid earth-moving people. Fraserburgh has Maconochie Bros., and I see that Maconochie's are importing their tinplate front Wales. It may be that they will start taking it from Scotland: we ought to have some tinplate of our own. In Buckie, the B.T.H. have a small factory, and there are many other examples which show that enterprise is not dead in that part of Scotland. On the question of emigration, Hadrian tried to stop us migrating. He did not succeed. You must have Scotsmen about the place: they are useful as Prime Ministers, and offices like that.
5.40 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I rise to oppose the Amendment; and, looking at it, perhaps I exclude the word "immediate". The Amendment reads:
"…that these proposals fail to ensure an immediate substantial reduction in unemployment…".
310
If I may leave out the word "immediate", I do not believe that the proposals fail to ensure a substantial reduction: I think they do. This word "immediate" makes an alteration, in a measure, to its sense; but I feel that—and I will develop this as I go on, although it has been mentioned by several noble Lords already—the urgency of the matter is of the first importance. I shall refer only to the Central Scotland Report, as I have no competence to refer to the Report on the North-East of England. But I do feel that this imaginative and businesslike programme appears to offer the best feasible plan for the industrial belt. It is good to know that other plans are to be expected, and that the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) have got spearhead schemes in hand for the North and for the Borders. Of course, we can find faults in detail, but I believe that the Government are to be supported in what they are taking in hand.
But, my Lords, does the White Paper contain enough sense of urgency, of immediacy? I feel that the sense is there, but it is hidden away in humdrum, undramatic, governmental language, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, drew attention. He made this point, but I feel—and the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, said the same thing—that urgency is necessary. More than that, I feel that the sense of urgency should be made patent in everything the Government do about it. If speed is of the essence, then, as the White Paper says, first things must come first—and I would add, "and that right quickly". I am not sure that I have yet assimilated the word "infrastructure", but, whatever it is, let us get on with it. It started late enough, and I think we must remember that. Infrastructure!—roads, railways, ports and air.
It is interesting that the actual trunk road programme set out on page 13 differs little from the Release put forward in April, 1962. That means that the big increase which the plan proposes is in classified roads. So far, so good. To digress, I think the Government have done quite right in concentrating on the duplication of the A.8 as a first task. Now it is drawing to an end, and we hope that it will soon be completed—

311
and I see from the plan will be replaced, as to its middle section, by a motorway. But this is not the time or the place to go into technical details as to terms of the classification of the roads concerned. All I would say in supporting massive road development in the belt, is to repeat what I have said here before: that the major flaw, as I see it, in the road plan is the absence of an Edinburgh by-pass.
If your Lordships will glance at the map and mark—and I mean mark heavily—the line of the Pentland Hills, which extend from Edinburgh almost down to Lanark, you will mark a barrier of hills which is uncrossed by any road for 22 miles. Now this fact squeezes all the traffic between the industrial belt, the South-East and the A.1 into the City of Edinburgh. It astonishes me, and many others, that this situation is allowed to continue. With the traffic from the Forth and the Tay Bridges superimposed upon the growth traffic which we are discussing to-day of the central belt, a by-pass is needed—and a by-pass which was foreseen years ago. In a big city like Edinburgh no internal ring road will do to-day, and without it the beautiful city with its aesthetic values will have to be "Buchananised".
But, in addition to the place of such a by-pass road in the industrial pattern of Central Scotland, and in the light of the Buchanan Report, here is an opportunity, presented to Edinburgh on a plate, for a really forward-looking plan; for a by-pass road, complete with large parking spaces at the termini of public transport, with covered bus stations or access to public transport, so that as many people as possible will be able to do what they will have to do in the years to come—namely, use public transport within cities and thereby contribute to the very survival of cities as cities.
I go on from there to an industry in which I have a great belief. We must not forget that one of the industries in Scotland which have the greatest growth potential is that of tourism. Edinburgh, with its beauty and its Festival, is a capital asset of incalculable value to that end. I believe that, in terms of industry—and it is industry that we are discussing, the
312
industrial belt—we must remember tourism, not only in Edinburgh but elsewhere up and down the country. It is a pity that more mention is not made of it in the White Paper. We should, I believe, remember that in many countries in the world tourism is a major undertaking which contributes very largely to their overseas balance of trade.
Before I leave roads, let us remember that if £105 million has been set aside for all Scottish roads in five years, there will be precious little left if £90 million is going to be spent on the central belt, as outlined in the White Paper. I mention this only because my deduction from this is the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth—namely, that the targets for 1970 are (I think he used these words) too leisurely. I agree with him that that would be the deduction from the figures that I have given.
As for railways, it must be remembered that Scotland has been deeply shocked by the threat of the Beeching closures. Rightly or wrongly, Scotland has been deeply shocked; and if, as I believe to be the case, the Government are not committed to these closures, then let them say so, and let them say so in no uncertain terms. If ever there was a contradiction of the suggestion that this plan was an election stunt, here is that contradiction. Surely it would have been vote-catching to say, "No closures in Scotland". They have not said so. I wish they would. But we must be sensible. Some sort of overhaul is necessary, but the knowledge that railway accounting has been operated on an antiquated basis makes one doubt, and doubt very markedly, the validity of some of the findings in the Beeching Report. Too much has been said, I think, of passenger trains travelling light of passengers without taking into account—and I make this point very strongly—the unsuitable and slow timings of many of the train services which are in existence to-day. Further, there is the fact, which any railwayman knows, that empty passenger rakes have got to be worked back in any case even if there are no passengers in them. Whether it is empty or full, the fact remains that the rake has got to be worked back to terminus to be ready for the next day,

313
and every passenger—there may be only one or two—is a profit.
I have one specific suggestion to make in terms of the rail plans and that is in regard to the railway service to Livingston New Town. I urge upon my noble friend that this should not be closed and that a statement should be made to this effect. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the reverse should be the case. The line has a great potential at the moment for freight and extra sidings are being added as we speak. With the population of a quarter-million coming to surround the area, a great regional hospital and, perhaps, a university, the passenger traffic should be fostered. Indeed, the right course might well be to include the line in the electrification network of the future.
I will now turn to the ports. More so in ports than in any other type of transport facilities, by virtue of the long-term nature of the task, immediate decisions are needed. Surely the case for the development of Leith Docks is sound; and if it is sound then every day counts in giving the signal to go ahead. Is the National Ports Council alive to the need for speed if this plan for Central Scotland is to have its fully integrated infrastructure? My Lords, perhaps this would be a convenient moment for me now to interrupt my speech in readiness for the Royal Commission.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

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

Nigeria Republic.

Expiring Laws Continuance.

Electricity and Gas.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

DEVELOPMENT OF CENTRAL SCOTLAND AND NORTH-EAST ENGLAND
6.12 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, having interrupted my speech, I turn now to air transport. With all the disadvantages that stem from a very odd climate, the future of air transport is assured in Scotland. Again, speed of decision is of the essence. The new runway at Turnhouse should not await (if, in fact, that is what it is awaiting) a decision about the ownership of the airfield as a whole. Perhaps the Minister of State, who is to reply, will be able to tell us when we may expect to see the new runway at Turnhouse taken in hand.
Alas! the decision about Abbotsinch is disappointing to many people, including myself, though it may be satisfactory to Glasgow; and it is an expensive decision. I believe that, if it had not been for the general run-down of the railways, Prestwick, linked with the centre of Glasgow by a railcar service—as I believe London Airport should be connected with Victoria or St. Pancras—would have rendered a better service to the community than will ultimately be provided from Abbotsinch. And by "the community" I mean the community of Central Scotland, as distinct from Glasgow and its immediate neighbourhood. I am tempted at this moment to comment on my noble friend Lord Polwarth's reference to Prestwick and the overseas services from it. It is worth recalling that the new terminal is now completed, and I believe that that is another factor adding to the disappointment that Prestwick has not been made the airport for Glasgow.
While on the subject of air services, let it be remembered that airports are not the whole story. The airlines are also concerned. B.E.A., in my view, have thrown away a great measure of good will by their reaction to the British Eagle services, which have been added in order to increase the frequency of services with Scotland. B.E.A. had a certain measure of sympathy from us all over their operation of the unremunerative services with the Highlands and Islands; but to tell Scotland that they have not the aircraft to increase the frequency of services with the South,

315
and then to react as they have done to the British Eagle additional service, is just plain silly, so far as good will is concerned. The Toothill Report emphasised the need for frequent services, not for two planes leaving for the same destination at the same minute, which is what B.E.A. are doing at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, talked of Dundee. It makes me wonder what he must feel about the amount that B.E.A. are losing in this duplicate service with British Eagle which they might be spending on putting down aircraft within reach of Dundee. I cannot help feeling that it would be fair in a debate on Scottish affairs to describe this as "just a carry-on".
While on this subject, my noble friend Lord Stonehaven referred to airport "bull", as he called it. I think I am right in saying that British Eagle do not insist on this. I have never travelled by their service, and so far have had nothing to do with them; but my information is that they permit the walk-on service. My noble friend Lord Stonehaven referred to air travel in the U.S.A., but it is also the case in Australia that one is impressed by the simplicity and the speed with which one can walk on and travel from place to place by air.
There is another matter on which I should like to touch, and that is the question of the Government as an employer—and my noble friend Lord Polwarth referred to this point. First of all, let us press the Government to continue to disperse Government undertakings in areas such as Central Scotland and North-East England, as they have done in the case of the Post Office Savings Bank and the National Insurance offices at Newcastle. Let them carry on the good work and spread these in the development areas. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, made this point. Do not let it happen, as I believe it has done, that Government contractors are urged to establish their factories within easy reach of London to facilitate inspection and the like. The whole job would be so much more cheaply done with good and fast communications, such as those of which we are speaking, with the cheaper operation of manufacture in development areas.
316
Several references have been made to migration, and on this subject I should like to support my noble friend Lady Horsbrugh. I think it is fair to try to get this question into proper proportion. I speak as one who has served over 30 years abroad, and left Scotland, if not gladly, certain happily and with a spirit of adventure, as my father did before me. I have heard it said—and I should not be surprised if it is right—that there are ten Scotsmen abroad for every Scotsman in Scotland. I think there has been too much sentimentality around the subject arising from the hardships that sprang from the Clearances. It must be remembered that many emigrants, even in those days, were not unwilling to exchange the rigours of life in the Highlands with little or no prospect of improved conditions, for the rigours of life abroad with a wide horizon of opportunity. I hesitate to make this point, but I think it must be said, lest I be misunderstood. It is a grievous thing for a man and a family to be compelled by dire necessity to move, to have to tear up roots that linger in the soil. But let us be proud that many a Scot migrates because he wants to.
My Lords, as I said when I began, these development and growth plans deserve our wholehearted support, and in giving them mine I make no apology for outspoken criticism of certain details. Nor do I apologise for repeating the appeal which other noble Lords have made for immediate decisions, particularly in transport matters. I oppose the Amendment.
6.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I promise to be as brief as I can, and I also propose to look at this matter from a rather different angle—that of what the noble and gallant Viscount on the Bench behind would describe as "the tribal areas." I may say that I am extremely proud of being one of those tribesmen. Although what I have to say applies to the whole of Scotland North of Forth and Clyde, I speak more particularly for those people, nearly 135,000 of them, who live in the counties of Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness, Orkney and Shetland, and the North Westerly Islands of the Hebrides—an area of nearly 7,000 square

317
miles, all to the North or North-West of Inverness. We have just heard from greater experts than I could hope to be, on both sides of the House, about this White Paper for the development of the central belt. Although, like most other things it is probably imperfect, one still feels that the Paper is a move in the right direction, and will bring much good to an area which much needs it. Needless to say, no Highlander begrudges any advantage that may come to this area which so badly needs it, and has needed it for a long time. But we must realise that, with the added opportunities of employment in this already fairly crowded area, it will be bound to become a lodestone for many other parts of Scotland, and especially my own area, which will only add to the depopulation of this vast place.
I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Ferrier, that we have through the ages, of our own volition, gone abroad, in various types of service and for various reasons. But except for some very horrible times in history, which the noble Lord also mentioned, we have been able to keep a stock in the North, in the Highlands, which has proved of tremendous worth to the country as a whole. We have heard rather vaguely that there is to be another White Paper dealing with possible suggested developments for other parts of Scotland, and I would urge that this is done with all speed. The development of Central Scotland must proceed as quickly as possible, but we must get this other Paper out as quickly as possible, too. Already a vast amount of damage has been done in the area from which I come by the iniquitous threat—I repeat, the iniquitous threat—to close all the rail lines North of Inverness. I have already spoken on this subject in your Lordships' House and your Lordships probably know my views upon it. They are shared, I think, by practically 99½ per cent. of Scottish Members of your Lordships' House and even by some who are not Scotsmen.
I would remind your Lordships that no less a person than the recent Leader of this House put our minds to rest by informing us that extensive closures could not be indulged in for a number of years. I raised the point again a month later, and my noble friend Lord
318
Chesham gave me the same reply but in different words. On more than one occasion we have been told in another place—if one can understand straightforward, plain English—that there would be no closures of this kind until adequate alternative transport had been provided. I see no sign of it. There is not one mile of road which could possibly take the place of these railways. There is not one improvement on one single road that could improve the existing roads, which are the same as were there in 1912. I have looked them up. All that we have been given is a rather insulting and exceedingly stupid idea of a few extra buses for the public to use. If this closure goes through, I should like to get hold of the Minister of Transport, put him on to one of those buses in Wick, and see what he feels like after ten hours' travelling in that bus to reach the railhead at Inverness—and very likely in the winter he would not get there at all.
I shall not continue much longer, but I want to push this point in, because it affects the development of Scotland as well as development of this one area. There is, in fact, one inadequate main road, as many of your Lordships know, between Inverness and Wick and Dounreay, the atomic station. It serves several expanding communities who have expanded, as they were told to, in the last few years. Apart from that, there are two roads, one to South-West of Ross and Cromarty and one to the North-West of Ross and Cromarty. They are—if you can so call them—the only trunk roads we have. Where, therefore, is the alternative satisfactory transportation that we are to have? It just is not there. Quite frankly, if, after the promises we have had in your Lordships' House and another place (and I can see no sign at the moment of their being fulfilled), the Government decide to close these railways, it will, in my opinion, be one of the most cynical breaches of faith in which any Government have ever indulged.
I hope that the Minister of Transport will not only take some heed of the feelings of most Scots people, especially those who are most affected, but also remember his own motto of "Keep death off the roads", since, with the annual increase in motor traffic, the accident rate

319
has gone up in my own area very considerably. If we lose our railways Heaven alone knows what the result will be; in the summer we can hardly get along as it is. Noble Lords may say that I have gone away from the point, but I do not think I have really. I would finish by saying that without transport, and good transport, there can be no development. The only thing there can be is depopulation.
6.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE: My Lords, I have two points to make in this important debate and I shall not take up more than five minutes of your Lordships' time. The Government's proposals for Central Scotland seem to have been largely welcomed by most speakers this afternoon. One aspect, however, which causes me concern and has caused concern to two or three of my noble friends who have spoken before is the feeling that unless more support is given quickly to the Highlands and Islands, to the North-East and to the Borders the drift of population away from these areas, particularly among young people, will inevitably tend to increase, and could increase alarmingly in a few years. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend Lord Craigton will give urgent consideration to the approach on this subject made, or about to be made, to Her Majesty's Government by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).
A subject not mentioned in the White Paper is forestry. This forms the second point I wish to make and concerns an outlet in Central Scotland for forestry products, especially thinnings, grown in the area. Since the war much encouragement has been given by Her Majesty's Government to private growers to put more land under timber and to produce it by the best methods of management and sylviculture, and much, over Scotland as a whole, has been done to provide outlets for thinnings such as the Fort William Pulp Mill and the chipboard factories at Inverness, Annan, and Hex-ham in Northumberland. I understand that there is also a possibility of another pulp mill to be situated in the South-West.
All these installations are very distant from the expanding forests of Central Scotland. Transport costs are high, and
320
for ever going up and eating away the net profits of an enterprise which has been encouraged by Her Majesty's Government. For instance, it is unlikely that the delivered price of pulpwood can be more than 85s. a ton, but delivery costs from Central Scotland to Fort William or the South-West will average out at 35s. a ton, a high proportion of the delivered price. The position is similar with material for chipboard, where the delivered price is equivalent to about 95s. a ton, and the delivery charges from Central Scotland amount to between 35s. and 40s. a ton. The situation is such that it has not been considered economic to try to get into these distant markets. Bearing in mind the ever-increasing volume of thinnings coming on to the market as a result of the extensive post-war plantings and the location of existing and projected outlets, may I urge Her Majesty's Government to give urgent thought to the establishment in Central Scotland of suitable timber-consuming industries, not only for the benefit of growers but also as one means of helping to overcome the unemployment position.
6.35 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I wish to congratulate the Government and the authors of what to my mind is an excellent Paper, which gives a great deal of evidence of much research, thought, foresight and application. But it is a blueprint which depends for success on the various essential parts being ready to take their place in the scheme at the right time, a process which will call for a great deal of organisation and the closest possible co-operation between all the departments and the other authorities concerned. That is, surely, only one part of what is required to enable Central Scotland to take her full part in the economy of the country. The other part is to get industry established and employment provided.
I venture to speak on this particular aspect of the matter because of my experience as chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, which has a duty under its Act to do everything it possibly can to improve the social and economic conditions of the people in this district, a district which includes all Scotland north of a line joining Dundee to Dumbarton, two-thirds of the land area of Scotland and covering some 20,000

321
square miles. In this connection, one of the Board's principal officers has for many years devoted much of his time to making known to industrialists just what the North of Scotland has to offer, and we have had some successes. But our experience is that, having secured the interest of an industrialist and his decision to come to the North, we then turn him over to the Board of Trade, and in most cases many obstacles then appear which take time, much time, and patience to overcome.
The credit-worthiness and management of the firm is investigated, it would seem, without any real sense of urgency. There does not seem to be anyone who can give a quick decision on whether the industrialist may set up in his new location and, if so, what assistance shall he forthcoming, what rent he will be expected to pay, or if he builds for himself, what grant he will get, though the latter is a matter which has since been clarified. The poor man is passed from one department to another, from one individual to another, until he becomes so frustrated that he feels inclined to give up altogether. I suggest that, in these circumstances, when an application is received by the Board of Trade it should become the duty of one official to see it through all its various stages. That would greatly speed things up and save much waste of time and feelings of frustration.
Just as, it seems to me, there should be one official taking charge of an application in the Board of Trade, so there should be one department, and only one, wholly responsible in relation to the transfer of Southern Industry from one location to another; and it should deal with every aspect of that move and with the setting-up of any new industrial project. In that connection I am glad to note that that Scottish Development Group is to be kept in being, but I would ask: is the Group concerned only with the infrastructure—a horrible word but it seems to describe what is meant? Has it responsibility only in connection with the setting up of the industry; or does the sole responsibility continue with the Board of Trade? I should be much obliged if my noble friend, when he comes to reply, could clarify the position.
I am also glad to note from paragraph 8 of the White Paper that the Govern-
322
ment
are conscious of the economic problem of other parts of Scotland and are pressing on with their examination. I hope most sincerely that their conclusions may soon be available, because many small communities in the North have not far to go before they reach the point of no return and cease for all time to be viable communities.
At this point I would ask whether applications to set up industry in parts of Scotland other than in the central area are to continue to receive consideration. I ask that because time and again my Board, having persuaded an industrialist that it would be to his advantage to set up in the North of Scotland, hear from him that the Board of Trade has directed him to some other part of the country. Just recently we had persuaded an industrialist that Dundee was the place for him, only to hear later that on the advice of the Board of Trade the two extensions which his board had planned were to go one to the North-East coast and the other to Cornwall.
In another instance we had advised a large number of industrialists who were known to be contemplating extensions or new projects of the advantages which the North of Scotland had to offer. Many replies were received, some showing a great deal of interest; others saying the Board of Trade had already suggested to them they should go to some other place; and others, again, stating that their needs for the moment had been met but that when they had further extensions in view they would certainly consider the North of Scotland. Some weeks after the main body of replies had come to hand we received a letter from the chairman of a large concern, who apologised for being so late in acknowledging our letter. He said that he had been in the United States and that it was only on his return that he had learned of the facilities which existed in Dundee, as the Board of Trade had told him only of East Kilbride and one other place in Scotland; and in the meantime his board were in process of negotiating with the Development Corporation of East Kilbride. We easily got in touch with the gentleman and took him to Dundee, with which he was so satisfied that he said he would certainly go there. Then, some ten days later, I heard from him that at a meeting of his board held that day he learned that in his absence they

323
had committed themselves irrevocably to East Kilbride. I venture to ask again, is it any use trying to get industrialists to go to any part of Scotland other than that part with which the White Paper deals? Will the Board of Trade agree to setting up new industries in the crofter counties in the North-East, Aberdeen, Inverness, or Perth until the requirements of Central Scotland have been satisfied?
Apart from these slight criticisms, which have little to do with the White Paper itself, I welcome the White Paper, because it plans the central foundation on which the economy of Central Scotland may be raised so as to ensure full employment and prosperity for that part of the country. But let us not forget that much remains to be done. May all play their part in raising on that foundation a worthwhile structure!
6.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I, along with many other noble Lords, believe that the White Paper is good as far as it goes. It sets out a sound pattern or sound framework for development. It sets out various measures for progress in communications, and in this connection I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, in his view about the attitude of B.E.A. in relation to Eagle Airways. I make a point of this, because I know that in the OFFICIAL REPORT we do not find in brackets the words "Hear, hear!" when some noble Lord makes a remark, and certainly there were many noble Lords who said this in connection with Lord Ferrier's remarks.
Then, again, on this framework, we have the promise of new houses and the development of the New Towns, and importantly—a point which the noble Lord, Lord Todd, made—there is the realisation, and I hope we shall see more than realisation, that a real effort must be made towards the rehabilitation of the derelict areas. Nothing is more important, when people are thinking of coming to a new district, than that they should see it in an attractive condition, and not with dumps and pits all over the place. Moreover, this is a way in which we could give immediate employment to quite a number of people.
324
Again in relation to the framework, we have the human side, which is most important. I refer to the training of the people. I am not competent to speak on this training, but I feel, with many other noble Lords who have spoken, that what has been done so far is inadequate to cope with the task that faces us. There are nearly 100,000 unemployed. Many of them will have to be retrained, and I think a crash training programme, not only by the Government itself but by industry throughout Scotland in collaboration with the Government, is of great importance.
The second thing which makes me say that I believe this is a sound Paper is the fact that it recognises the importance of carrying on with the growth areas once they have started to develop. This, as your Lordships know, is something that Toothill suggested several years ago, but in fact it is no new principle. We all know it in our ordinary daily lives—"Back your luck" or "Do not change horses in midstream"; and although it has taken the Government a long time to face up to it, they have done it. I think it is of tremendous importance that it should go on.
The third point which makes me feel that this Paper is a good one is the fact that there is a positive Government approach to regional development. Whether it is sufficiently positive, time alone can show. But in trying to judge whether it is sufficiently positive, I think we need to look most carefully at paragraph 14, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, referred and which is the "guts", if I may put it that way, of the whole of this White Paper. It is said that arrangements will be made so that all concerned can work together to bring about expansion in an orderly and efficient way. The noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, when he introduced the Motion told us a little about these arrangements, but I am afraid that even when he gave us some description of them I was not entirely clear about them, or satisfied that what he said is sufficient. Other noble Lords have spoken on this point. For example, I am not clear whether any body, and if so what body, is going to rule on the matter of priorities; because there will have to be a rule of priorities. There

325
is too much of trying to do things in too short a time. I am all for trying to do it, but if there is not a clear decision—for example, that certain roads must be put here or houses there—there will be confusion, and less speed than if there is a clear decision on priorities.
Again, in paragraph 14 we are told that everyone will know what part he and all the others concerned have to play in the expansion. This, I believe, is almost as important as the machinery to decide priorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, referred to this. She told us that she thought the Government ought from time to time to issue progress reports, and I would support her in this regard. 1 do not mind what form the progress reports take, but it is essential that all who are concerned in this matter should have a feeling that we are part of it, know where it is going and know how it is going; and so I ask the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, most earnestly, to think about this question of progress reports and to tell us all how things are going, so that we may play our part and feel we are playing it in a way of adventure and enthusiasm.
The second general point that I want to make is in regard to the building and constructing industry. Your Lordships will have seen from the White Paper that if all the things that are outlined are to go forward there will need to be an expansion in the building industry of some 30 per cent. At the present time the building industry has some 180,000 employees, and a 30 per cent. increase would mathematically make a further 54,000 jobs. I know it will not work out in exactly that way, but the point which I think is important is that it should provide a great number of jobs. And if it is pushed hard now it should provide jobs immediately, which is the anxiety of the Opposition in moving their Amendment. So I hope every effort will be made to push on with construction. But I think we all recognise that it is a difficult thing to expand an already pretty overburdened industry by a further 30 per cent. in a short period of time. There is, for example, the problem of training. Not only must the Government work on training and re-training, but I hope that
326
they will consult with various construction contractors on what part they can take, whether in Scotland or in the South.
Then, several of your Lordships have spoken about the importance in all of this of standardisation, prefabrication or modern methods of construction. Again, I am sure that this is something which is of tremendous importance if we are to get the best out of the building and contracting world. In this moment of urgency, in this crash programme of building on which the whole of the White Paper and the future development depends, I think it is tremendously important that both the employers and the workers should realise that this is not an ordinary time and that they should be prepared—I know that this is delicate ground—to be not as rigid as perhaps might normally be the case, for example, in regard to demarcation in various jobs. One knows that the building industry employs joiners, plumbers, electricians, plasterers and masons, and so often when one is trying to build something it is found that they say, "We cannot do anything now until the plasterer comes", although his work may be in some quite small part of a house and a jack-of-all-trades could easily do it. I hope that in these present conditions those concerned will recognise that perhaps what is right in normal times may not be the best thing in exceptional times.
Lastly, on this question of building and how we can increase the figure by 30 per cent., I have talked to one or two big contractors who have had it in mind to do jobs, or are doing small jobs in Scotland, but whose real base is in this country. When they have tendered in Scotland they have certainly had the feeling—I should not want to put it any more strongly—that there has been considerable favouritism, to their detriment. Perhaps it is understandable and human nature. Again, in these exceptional times I hope that we shall no longer have a position of that kind, but rather that we shall invite and encourage one and all of the contracting companies of this country to come to our help. Paragraph 158 of the White Paper says that the Government are confident that contracting industries will rise to the challenge. I say only that I hope that that confidence is well

327
placed, and I suggest that nothing is more important than that the Government should follow this up straight away to their best ability.
To sum up, I think that the most important thing in this White Paper is the arrangement to carry things out, to ensure that they are carried out, and, allied with that, the essential need that the people as a whole shall be told not only where they are going, but how they are going and what progress is being made in this great adventure for the development of Scotland. This White Paper deals only with Central Scotland, but, of course, none of us who has spoken to-day forgets that that is only one part of Scotland. For those who are there it is the most important part, but those who live to the north or to the south believe that their part is at least as important, and that their country is at least as beautiful—and who is to say they are wrong?
6.55 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, it has not always been our experience in recent years that a debate covering the affairs of Scotland can take place in an atmosphere of genuine hope and optimism, but to-day we are in that happy position. Hope is legitimately engendered by the imaginative proposals in the White Paper which so many of your Lordships have received approvingly. Optimism is justified by the positive signs of improvement that we can already detect.
I will try to answer some of the major points raised in this debate. If I fail to answer some of them my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn may deal with them in winding up. If not, I will write to noble Lords whom I have failed to answer. My noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie was the only noble Lord, other than the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, who referred to what is really our main concern—namely, unemployment. I think I should refer to that first. We do not underestimate the seriousness of the unemployment problem, but, equally, in a spirit of guarded optimism, we must not allow ourselves to be over-depressed by it. The current unemployment figures show encouraging trends. Over the three months, August to November, the
328
increase in unemployment was only 664 as compared with the normal seasonal rise of 8,500; and something like 5,000 jobs are likely to mature this winter from Scottish schemes for which industrial development certificates have been issued.
What are the reasons for this? I suggest to your Lordships that these signs of improvement can be directly attributed to the measures taken by the Government earlier this year.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, that is a little like a target for which I was asking. Can the noble Lord give me the exact figure of unemployment there now, overall?
LORD CRAIGTON: I have the figure. For Scotland it is 89,241–4·1 per cent. I was saying that this improvement is directly attributable to the measures taken by the Government earlier this year—measures such as the improved standard grants, free depreciation, the £75 million credit scheme for the shipbuilding industry, the increase in public investment, the additional overseas aid, from which Scottish industry with surplus capacity has benefited, and the renewal and extension to all development districts of the scheme to encourage small local authorities' projects which they can complete this winter. The White Paper is thus the logical evolution of the steps we have been taking over the past years. Undoubtedly, there will be other steps that will have to be taken, but we must make haste prudently, and must always be prepared for unforeseen changes at home and in the outside world.
Let me remind your Lordships of one of the many foreseen changes with which we have had to deal. It was absolutely crucial to get the Scottish coal industry operating more efficiently. The Government have given Lord Robens and his colleagues every support in their successful efforts. This really is a success story. Already productivity per man has increased by 25 per cent. in the last three years, and the net loss per ton has been cut down by nearly two-thirds. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, referred to the current price for coal in Scotland, and in particular to the surcharge of 10s. per ton. These, as he knows, are matters for the commercial judgment of the National Coal Board; but the long-term prospects

329
are good, and I have no doubt that Scotland will not be disadvantaged in what it can offer in terms of energy prices to industry.
Those and many other similar changes and contractions have been accompanied in the same period by the starting of new growth industries. The strip mill, the motor vehicle industry, re-established in Scotland after 40 years; and now the accessory firms, which are beginning to settle in at places as far apart as Irvine and West Calder. We have electronics at Glenrothes; ball bearings at Irvine; office machinery at Cumbernauld—to mention only a few. It is significant that all these major developments are located in one or other of the growth areas. It was in fact the combination of the locational judgments of these firms and the Government's own policy of planned overspill expansion in the new towns and in other areas taking Glasgow overspill that made a growth areas policy something much more than a paper theory and a paper exercise.
This policy has evolved from the events which I have described and is now formally defined in the White Paper. What is really new is that we carry this evolutionary policy a major step forward by a coherent pattern of development throughout the whole region, coupled with special additional investment and a commitment that this special treatment—both in industrial inducements and in investment—will be maintained until there is a substantial improvement in the economy of the whole area. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for the support he gave the Government and the White Paper, and I must express my own gratitude for the continuing and constructive help given to Scotland by Lord Polwarth and the Scottish Council.
A number of noble Lords—Lord Mar and Kellie, Lord Cromartie, the Leader of the Opposition. Lord Polwarth, Lord Hughes and the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh—in one way and another expressed anxieties that the special measures we are taking to reinvigorate the economy of Central Scotland are being taken, as one noble Lord said, in isolation and will accelerate the drift of population from other parts of Scotland, and in particular from the Highlands and Islands. On this, there are two considerations I
330
would ask your Lordships to bear in mind. The first is that the analysis given in the White Paper shows that the prospect of a long-term recovery in the whole Scottish economy will be seriously damaged if the net loss of young people in Scotland as a whole continues at its present level. It is essential, therefore, as a first step, to press forward with the measures we have announced for Central Scotland which contains 75 per cent. of our population and 90 per cent. of our manufacturing industry, and includes most of the run-down areas to which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, referred and from which we are losing so many of our young people every year—perhaps a trainload a day—from Scotland to the South. It may well he that initially a faster rate of growth in the area which is the heart of the economy will attract some element of population from other areas; but surely this is preferable in the short term to the movement of these people out of Scotland altogether.
The second consideration is that although, for the reasons I have given, priority has had to be given to Central Scotland, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State fully appreciates the importance of the need to survey the problems of other areas. This work has already begun, and noble Lords will be glad to know that the Scottish Development Group is giving priority and particularly close study to the Highlands and Borders, in view of their specially urgent problems. We are also embarking on an examination of the North-East and South-West which present different conditions. My right honourable friend hopes that in the next year or eighteen months it will be possible to have completed studies for all these regions.
The noble Lord, Lord Todd, made another of his valuable and constructive speeches and gave us much food for thought and action—and perhaps even more food for thought and action on the part of the Scottish Council. None of us would disagree with the estimate given by the noble Lord of the particular value which research and development activity within industry can have in stimulating faster growth. There is no doubt that science-based industry, as it is rather loosely called, can thrive in Scotland, and indeed is thriving now. The noble Lord suggested that the Scottish Council should emphasise in its

331
publicity how much Scotland has to offer. I need not remind him that the Ferranti complex in and around Edinburgh employs some 5,000 people; and that Rolls Royce have moved an engine design and development unit from Derby to Hamilton; and, as announced only the other day, that Honeywell Controls (who are already a large employer in Scotland) are now starting to manufacture magnetic tape computers at Newhouse, providing about 2,000 jobs in the next five years. All this growth is the best sort of advertisement and encouragement for further growth—which, of course, is the object of the White Paper.
I now come to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, whom I always like to hear so much. He seemed to have great difficulty in making a case against the Paper. He liked the way it was written; I am grateful to him for that—and I say that quite seriously. We made a special effort that this White Paper should be readable and written in ordinary Queen's English; and I am very glad that the noble Lord was so kind about it. I am only sorry that nobody else was, because we went to a great deal of trouble over it.
Lord Hughes did not approve of our facing the harsh facts of life—facts which had to be put down if we were going to justify the White Paper. We put down the hard facts in the knowledge that he would undoubtedly quote them against us. He twitted the Government because we had streamlined the grant arrangements and increased the number of advance factories. Who initiated these policies is not so material as whether they are the right policies. On this I could only presume that the noble Lord agreed with the White Paper. He quoted paragraph 25 on Housing. He asked: how are 9,000 houses a year to be built? How are the local authorities going to pay for them? The noble Lord does not expect to quote half the paragraph without my finishing the quotation for him. Of course, 9,000 houses would be a great weight on the local authorities, but he did not quote to your Lordships the next three lines, which say:
"Building in the growth areas will be largely sustained by the new towns and by the Scottish Special Housing Association, whose activities will be expanded."
So that explodes that bubble.
332
The noble Lord also spoke about school building in the new towns and growth areas. This is a very difficult point, and there are two conflicting considerations. We have to give special treatment to areas of rapid expansion, but we must not overload the constrution industry too much in any particular locality. I can assure the noble Lord that this is a point which exercises me, too. I have looked most carefully at this, and I am satisfied that our resources have been allocated as fairly and as intelligently as possible.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should like to intervene very briefly to say that the Fife County Council, which I quoted, believe from their past experience that they can do considerably more than the Government can permit them to do. I appreciate the point which the noble Lord is making. If events in the next year or so prove that the county council can undertake more, will their programme immediately be expanded?
LORD CRAIGTON: Knowing the Fife County Council, I am sure they will not be backward in putting their case up. Obviously I cannot bind any Government as to what might happen in two years' time, but if things turn out better than we think, then Fife should obviously come back to the Government for another go.
LORD HUGHES: I should be quite happy if you would give a commitment over the next six months.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may we ask the noble Lord whether he will see that in the housing developments there is a proper percentage of houses to rent and which do not have to be bought?
LORD CRAIGTON: That was not exactly the point.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: It is very much connected with local authority building.
LORD CRAIGTON: Well, local authorities in Scotland build mostly houses for rent. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, asked us what was meant by saying, in paragraph 83 of the White Paper, that the Exchequer grant of 85 per cent. for the rehabilitation and clearance of derelict land will be maintained

333
until further notice. I think I plead guilty to a little loose drafting here. There is no intention of cutting off or cutting down the grant abruptly, but it would be wrong for the local authorities to hold back in the thought that it continued indefinitely. Indeed, the Local Employment Act, which empowers the grants to be given, itself has to be reviewed by Parliament in 1967.
My noble friend Lord Stonehaven asked me whether the grant was payable for clearance of derelict premises. In principle, the grant is payable for clearance and rehabilitation of land in development districts where this will promote prospects of employment in the area. But each case is considered on its merits, and if the noble Viscount has a particular case in mind I should be very glad if he would let me know about it.
The noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Perth asked about progress reports. Of course, yearly these will be given in any case in the annual report of the Scottish Development Department. At more frequent intervals other Ministries issue statistical reports of unemployment and the like, and these are debated in both Houses. I do not want to add to the paper war without considerable thought, but we will consider the noble Baroness's suggestion and will let her know about it.
My noble friends Lord Stonehaven, Lord Ferrier and Lord Cromartie asked about rail closures, and I think I should say something about this. The present position is that the proposed closures to passenger traffic of 42 lines, including the Highland lines, and 345 stations in Scotland have been published. This is 42 out of 51 lines and 345 out of 442 stations in the Beeching Report. Objections have been lodged, and the Scottish Transport Users' Consultative Committee procedure for determining whether hardship will be created must be followed in every case. Public hearings have been held by the S.T.U.C.C. for the first 14 lines which were advertised in June. These public notices are the first stage in the procedure laid down in the Transport Act, 1962, and the timing of them is entirely for the British Railways Board. If there are objections—and, as I say, there have been objections to all the proposals—
334
the next stage is for the S.T.U.C.C. to consider whether any hardship will result, and to make recommendations about alternative services. In the meantime, the closures cannot take place, as the ultimate decision when objections are raised has to be taken by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, and he has taken no decisions relating to Scotland yet. But before he considers his decision, the S.T.U.C.C. will report to him on hardship.
Local authorities and others affected may make representations on other matters direct to the Minister of Transport, and he will consult the Secretary of State for Scotland in every Scottish case. This will ensure that all relevant factors are taken into account. In addition, in relation to the Highland lines the Secretary of State will take account of the views of the Highlands Panel and will consult the new Highland Transport Board as appropriate. My right honourable friend has, as the House knows, given an assurance that where a railway closure is the right course in the long run, the Government will ensure that it is not carried out in such a way as to leave an area bereft of facilities for the transport of passengers and freight. My noble friend Lord Cromartie should really give us time before deciding whether we are or ever will be cynical about the best interests of Scotland. I can assure noble Lords that all relevant factors, including the economic and social implications, and the adequacy of the roads and of alternative services, will be taken into account before final decisions are taken on the particular closure proposals to which reference has been made.
My noble friend Lord Stonehaven asked a rather technical point about water schemes. which is something that interests us both very much. I should like to write to him about it. My noble friends Lord Perth, Lord Polwarth and Lord Stonehaven asked me about the importance of co-ordinated effort among all those concerned in implementing the White Paper, and this is very important. As the White Paper makes clear, it is of course fundamental that each element in the pattern of development must be properly phased and fitted in to form a completely articulated whole. This will now be done on a wider scale than we

335
have ever attempted before. But the task is essentially similar to that which we have undertaken since the war in the New Towns, and we have learned a great deal about the problems and the techniques involved. The success which we have achieved in developing the New Towns has in no small measure been due to the confidence and optimism which a firm commitment to pre-planned expansion stimulates among all those who have a part to play in turning the plans into reality.
It is just this which we are now attempting to provide for the growth areas. Meetings have already been held with local authorities at official level, as the first stage of drawing up programmes, and next month I propose to take this a step further by myself meeting the elected members of some of those authorities, when I hope we shall be able to reach a broad measure of agreement on what needs to be done in their areas and what the priorities should be. We are very much aware of the fact that, although the Government with plans and with money can provide the essential basis for permanent success, there is still, if Scotland is to succeed, much to be done.
I come to the last point now, which was raised by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition as well as by my noble friends Lord Polwarth, the noble Lady, Lord Todd, Lord Stonehaven and Lord Ferrier—in fact nearly every speaker mentioned it. The need now, having produced a plan, is for more trained personnel to fill the new jobs that have been and are being created, and for more and more trained people to build new factories and houses in which the people will live and work. This is something that can be done only by the Government, the local authorities and the unions working together with management for a common end. First and foremost, confidence in the future is essential. The Government have given a firm commitment to maintain public service investment in Central Scotland over the coming years at about the same proportion as in 1964-65, and my noble friend Lord Blakenham dealt with this at some length. Confidence will lead to increased
336
building but, as my noble friend Lord Perth said, if we are to get the right buildings at the right place and at the right time we must use all our efforts. These are some of the things which we are doing to achieve this.
We have been for the past year or so—I have done it myself—showing the local authorities the value of consortia and standardised sizes. We have made some progress and we shall persevere in this. The Ministry of Public Building and Works are to set up a National Building Agency, and it will have an office in Scotland. The purpose of this agency will be to assist local authorities and others to make greater use of industrialised building components, and to encourage new approaches to traditional techniques. The Younger Committee has for the past fourteen months been studying Scottish building practices and will report soon.
At the request of the Ministry of Labour, the particular problems of labour deployment in Scotland in this traditionally mobile industry are to be the subject of a special research project in the University of Glasgow. The trained labour force—and here I answer a point raised by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition—in the building industry must he increased, and the Secretary of State is raising the matter with the Scottish Trades Union Congress, whilst the Ministry of Public Building and Works and the Ministry of Labour have arranged for discussions between both sides of the industry and their related professions. In expanding their general training arrangements, the Ministry of Labour are catering especially for the building and engineering industries. If the need became evident, the Ministry would be ready to consider a further expansion of their programmes. All these steps, taken together, will give powerful impetus to the construction industry.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, before the noble Lord goes on, might I ask him one question? I think that what he has told us on the building industry is most encouraging. If I understood him aright, there is to be a National Building Agency set up here, with an office in Scotland. Could we not have it the other way round: the headquarters in Scotland and the office in England?
LORD CRAIGTON: I will note my noble friend's suggestion, but I think the answer is going to be what he knows.
LORD STONHAM: What does he know? Is the answer, "No"?
LORD CRAIGTON: Yes, my Lords, I think the answer would be "No". So much for the effect on the building industry. But confidence, once established, will bring more jobs, too—and here, again, is a point the noble Earl, Lord Perth, made.
We need to provide more trained personnel for industry generally, and to achieve this the following steps have been taken. I may say that I am coordinating both these subjects and am giving all of the steps that have been taken because I have not seen it done previously and I think it is most important to realise that the Government are approaching this question on every front at the same time. Twelve new technical and commercial colleges are now being built, and a further thirteen have been approved. At the same time, alterations and extensions are being made to a number of the 92 existing colleges providing day-time further education. The Ministry of Labour have expanded their training facilities at Hillington, and are in the course of opening six new centres at strategic points throughout Scotland.
Industry, already heavily engaged in training in some sectors, will play an even greater part, as it must. The Industrial Training Bill sets out the Government's intention to establish training boards for the major industries, in order to improve and extend training practices within industry. I have dealt with this at some length, and even then have not exhausted the list of problems. I have not mentioned re-equipment, labour relations or restrictive practices. But all these problems are the urgent ones which, following on the White Paper, can no longer he overlooked or paid no more than lip service. Let none doubt that the houses and factories can be built, and that the Scottish people can acquire new skills. They have a long tradition of adaptability, and are able quickly to absorb not only new skills but new ideas.
338
Writing in the Financial Times (Scottish Supplement) of November 18, Mr. Geoffrey Rootes said—and I think every industrialist who is thinking of coming to Scotland could well read this:
"As well as injecting spending power into the neighbourhood concerned, the projects"—
he was talking about Rootes, Pressed Steel and B.M.C.—
"are doing something equally important for their future by injecting extra skill and knowledge. At Linwood to date approximately 2,000 workers have been trained in the processes of this new factory—142 foremen have undergone special courses in management and employees have taken specialised courses in subjects such as computer work organisation and methods, industrial supervision work study, chemistry and applied technology in mechanical engineering, and this work is continuing. We have also instituted a programme of apprentice training at a technical college in Paisley."
My Lords, for permanent prosperity, expansion there must be. But growth must keep pace with the task to be accomplished, and growth must be phased in its two aspects: the intake of skilled workers whom we must train, and the steady increase in productivity through investment in new building, in new machinery and techniques, and the adoption of better methods of operation. Only by doing all these things properly, and not half doing some of them, can we reach that permanent prosperity that comes only from selling the right goods and services at the right price.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I, with your Lordships' permission, hark back to this question of railway closures? Your Lordships will recall that a year or so ago my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, in (shall we say) an unfortunate Press interview, gave Scotland good cause, if not to distrust him at least to doubt his understanding of the position in Scotland. That being so, I think I asked the noble Lord in my speech—I rely upon my memory—this question: If the Secretary of State for Scotland is not committed to these railway closures, will he say so in no uncertain terms? The other day one of the right reverend Prelates used the words "Delphic" and "Sibylline". I regret to say that my noble friend's reply to-night was, to my mind, either Delphic or Sibylline, or both. May

339
I ask again: is the Secretary of State for Scotland committed to the closure of these lines, or is he not?
LORD CRAIGTON: All that the Secretary of State has said, and I will not repeat all I have said, is that he is committed to being sensible about what Scotland's needs are, and taking the right action accordingly.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend one question? Is the existing output of the fine Scottish knitwear industry sufficient to provide its export and home markets as it stands?
LORD CRAIGTON: Subject to correction, from what I have been told by the knitwear people, the answer is, Yes. I have not heard that they are very worried about that. I regret I did not answer the noble Lord's question about herrings earlier to-day.
7.27 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, in the course of a very interesting speech during which he asked some very pertinent questions—to which he did not receive replies—said, "There are a few Englishmen taking part in the debate". As one of them, my Lords, I hope I may be forgiven for not taking part in the Scottish invasion. But I would say that, a little later on, I hope to deal, quite briefly, with something that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said about railways.
My Lords, I listened with great interest to the Scottish debate and with a great deal of appreciation, which has been sharpened by the fact that, the Ministers apart, every speech has, in its content, been in favour of the Amendment and against the Government's Motion.
LORD CRAIGTON: Really!
LORD STONHAM: Yes; some even violently so. It is true, of course, that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for example, in a speech which condemned the Government hook, line and sinker, then, in the last sentence, of course remembered that he had to say how much he supported the Government's proposals. But every single speech, and
340
particularly that of the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, has condemned the Government's policy. The other thing which I am sure the noble Lord who has heard the whole debate will not deny is that every speaker stressed the urgency, the need to get on with the job. He said himself that the Government's White Paper was a message of hope. Obviously, his colleagues have made it clear how important it is to realise that
"Hope deferred maketh the heart sick".
I am very glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, is now back in his place, because I listened with the greatest interest to his speech, delivered, I thought, with great force and speed. I was particularly struck by the fact that its principal feature was positive statements uttered with the utmost confidence, but not supported by the facts. They were uttered too quickly for one to interrupt and question them; but, after twenty minutes of that kind of thing, with that simplicity and charm which is the noble Viscount's principal characteristic, he said, "I do not think I have made any contentious statements". I think that was one of the most remarkable statements in the debate. As a sample of the noble Viscount's non-contentious statements, he referred, when speaking of the North-East, to "the excellent transport facilities", and then, in the next sentence, mentioned the town of Washington, where there is going to be a new town, or an expanded town, of 80,000 people. But he neglected to tell us that the railway line from Newcastle to Washington has been closed down. So transport facilities there are non-existent. Since there is going to be this large New Town, I hope that the noble Lord who is going to wind up can enlighten us on whether the railway line is to be torn up or whether the Minister, in his wisdom, will leave it down until the town grows.
I think the most remarkable statement of all—and one which will be reprinted and referred to again and again in the next six months—was that of the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, who, in the course of her speech, with which I agree, said:
"With this White Paper we have just about reached the beginning of the beginning."

341
After twelve years of Conservative power in Scotland and the North-East the experienced noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, a former Minister of Education, gives it as her considered opinion that the Government are just about to start to make a start. This White Paper is a deathbed repentance for the wasted years; and it is too late. The note of urgency which crept into every speech was the realisation that it was too late. In my view the Government's plans in these White Papers for the development areas are foredoomed to failure; first, because the Party oposite does not really believe in planning by the Government in a true national sense; and, secondly, because within the regions they refuse—and this has been confirmed again in this debate—to set up the necessary organisation for co-ordinating industrial effort and the ancillary services.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked who is going to do it; who is to provide the co-ordinating force and give the orders. The question was asked: "Why not have the organisation in Scotland and offices in. London?" The noble Earl, Lord Perth, was told: "You know what the answer will be now". Then we are led to believe that there is this driving force. I believe it is absolutely useless to expect these regions, which have been on the down grade for years, to pull themselves up by their boot straps. That is what they are being asked to do unless a national plan ensures and even directs the flow of industry to them. The noble Viscount, Lord Craigton, rejected this completely. He did not say anything even about negative direction. The Government are still relying on incentives in the development areas to persuade people to build or lease factories there instead of in the South. It just will not work.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting direction?
LORD STONHAM: Perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to finish. I was commenting on what he himself had said. If the noble Lord asks, do I contemplate negative direction in the sense of further restriction on building in over-congested areas, then I say, Yes, I most certainly do. I say you will not get industrialists—or at any rate many of
342
them—to go into or to employ people in those areas where we need them unless we strengthen the existing machinery of restraint and apply it with conviction and energy. As noble Lords will recall, when the Labour Party was in power 30 per cent. of all new factories built in the country went to the development areas. In the last three years it has been less than 20 per cent. Actually, a smaller share in new factory building is going to the development areas than to the London and South-East region alone. That is the measure of Government failure and of their lack of determination to do this job.
The 1945 Distribution of Industries Act empowers the Government to clear derelict sites and to give 100 per cent. Treasury payment against the cost. That power, the 100 per cent. grant, has not been used once since 1951. Now it is supposed to be a great concession that the local authorities are offered a grant of 85 per cent. of the cost. Unless, by the application of necessary restrictions elsewhere and the necessary expenditure in development areas, we show we mean business, we shall not stop the depopulation of or unemployment in Scotland or the North-East and we shall not stop the appalling and expensive congestion and traffic chaos in the South.
Two or three weeks ago we had the Buchanan Report. It suggested what should be done to deal with the chaos that has been created, and it is estimated that it will cost £9,000 million. It would have cost a great deal less if during the last twelve years the Government had shown determination with regard to the maintenance of industries in the areas which we are now regarding as development areas. I say, despite the hopeful and glib speeches made by the two noble Lords opposite, that during the past twelve years the Government have handled, and are even handling now, each successive problem with regard to the distribution of industry and the creation of jobs in those areas with about as much efficiency as you would expect a cow to handle a gun.
Let us consider the vital question of employment. I would remind the House that in November, 1959, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Maudling, speaking of the Local Employment Bill said:

343
"The Bill provides the framework for dealing with the problem of local unemployment and will add success in this field to the many that the Government have had in other fields."
Success in that particular field, so far as the Local Employment Bill was concerned, meant that after three years unemployment on the North East coast had risen to 7 per cent., compared with 1·8 per cent. when the Labour Party was in power.
I do not think that some of the local implications of this continuing unemployment have been considered. As some of your Lordships know, I am chairman of five London hospitals. We decided some months ago to try to recruit student nurses from the North-East, after discussing the matter with our former colleague, Lord Hailsham. Last month two of my hospital matrons went to the North-East on a tour of some ten towns, spread over a period of ten days, arranged by the local youth employment officer and with the town councils after appropriate advertising; and I have in my hand a copy of the report that they gave when they came back. There are one or two things which are very interesting. They said that it—
"was surprising to learn that from a population of 150,000 in Middlesbrough, one fifth, i.e., 30,000 of these were still at school".
That gives us an idea of the measure and relationship of the problem we have to deal with there.
At Stockton, the youth employment officer said:
"…the unemployment figures which were shown in the Ministry of Labour Gazette did not accurately reflect a true picture of the situation in the area. In that particular area, due to the scarcity of jobs, people normally retired at age 57; they then joined the register of unemployed to draw unemployment money and have their card stamped until such time as they reached the age of 65 years and qualified for a retirement pension".
Just imagine living and working in an area where it is thought you have to retire virtually at the age of 57 because there are not enough jobs to go round and you make room for somebody else!
Again, as already pointed out in this debate, the unemployment figures of young people contain a much higher proportion of boys than of girls. In what I think we all agree was a most
344
remarkable maiden speech, the most reverend Primate referred to this problem of the unemployment of young people and said that if over the next ten years 80,000 young people left the North-East, that would be an admission of defeat. I think we should all agree that that would be so. But the Report I have quoted says:
"Another difficulty in recruiting girls willing to move South is that the North East area of England is a strongly matriarchal society. Consequently few people want to leave the area; a considerable proportion would rather remain unemployed than leave the district…"
That first-hand knowledge of the situation, objectively obtained and with no kind of axe to grind, shows that it is particularly important to have the jobs there in the North-East and not to have paramount in our minds the idea of bringing people away from the area. It re-emphasises what I was saying: that it is imperative to have even a negative direction, if there is no positive one, so that we can get factories working in the area, so that we can have more advance factories built by the Government for letting, including a number of larger factories.
The noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, spoke about the growth areas, but, although he threatened to do so, he did not give any kind of explanation of the method of selecting growth areas. Is an area selected because of its potentialities or because there is a large number of unemployed there? Whichever way we look at the areas that have been chosen, it is extremely difficult to understand why they have been put into this category. Why have the Government rejected the idea of a real regional organisation, with regional controllers of each Department to consult and work together regularly and link up with the planning machinery for the area? Why cannot we have development areas and growth areas in one area, without any kind of arbitrary division, so that we can harness all the resources of national and local government in the development of these areas and do the job they need?
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that he was glad to know that the existing groups of development officials are to continue in being. We are all

345
glad of that, but we were expecting something extra. There is no increase or change in the administration at all. In the North-East, all that has happened is that officials have moved from one building in Newcastle to another, and things are exactly the same in all other respects.
Finally, I want to say a brief word about railways, a subject which was raised by three or four noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said that the procedure, with which we are all nauseatingly familiar, must be followed. Why must it be followed, when it is such abject nonsense, which is no longer accepted by any sensible person as a proper procedure to pursue? The Prime Minister gave an assurance in another place that there would be no closures unless there was adequate—I emphasise, adequate—alternative transport. In the area about which the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, spoke there are 135,000 people in 7,000 square miles—20 to the square mile. It is impossible to provide any kind of public transport on wheels which would be economic. As has been said, there is not a single mile of roadway in the county of Caithness which is as much as sixteen feet wide. Everybody knows that it would take tens, perhaps scores of millions of pounds to make the roads in that single county fit for the transport that would have to replace the railways. We all know these things, which could be repeated all over the country.
If the Beeching Plan goes through, the Government would denude the development area about which I have been speaking entirely of transport. The Government While Paper says:
"The railway facilities of the North-East are reasonably good."
But the Government are proposing to destroy the railway facilities of the North-East. There will not be a railway line west of the Newcastle/Darlington line in the whole of Durham. What is the use of talking about reasonable railway facilities, if they already have plans to do away with them altogether?
The White Paper on the North-East says:
346
"At the same time the Minister of Transport has arranged to take account of the local travel implications of the region's development needs when any railway passenger service closure proposal comes before him for decision."
And the Scottish White Paper says:
"…the Minister of Transport…will, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland, take account of its consequences in terms of the planned economic development of the area concerned."
What absolute rubbish! Already in Scotland 45 out of the 55 possible closures have been objected to—I have seen to that—and in England about 150. The only one I did not oppose was Washington. I wanted to see what the Government would do there. The Minister, as he assured us in another place, is supposed to be looking at them all, at every detail. He is supposed to be reading the whole 200 of them. That is absolutely impossible. But it still would be wrong, because half-a-dozen Government Departments, as well as many local authorities, have to go into all these matters.
I promised to sit down and I will do so in a moment, but I should like to quote just one passage from a letter. It says:
"The examination of one form of transport in isolation is an amusing exercise but a waste of time;…".
That was not written by a politician; it was written in a letter by Mr. Gilbert S. Szlumper, former General Manager of Southern Railways. These are the words of an expert and a sensible man. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, knows his own country and loves it well. He will know that they have vigilantes and are in process of forming a National Transport Council in Scotland which will have the people aflame over the whole country. He was pleasantly surprised that the Government held the Dumfries seat a few days ago. He also knows that, with the possible exception of the seat held by the Prime Minister, unless they do something sensible about the Scottish Railways there will not be a Tory seat in Scotland after the General Election. These are bold words, but I am sure that they are true.
What is the sensible thing to do? It is to say publicly to the people, "We are not going to insult your intelligence

347
by putting you to the great trouble of organising petitions and objections, gathering evidence of positive hardship about the closures, which, whatever the Transport Users' Consultative Committee say, we know within the general conditions cannot possibly be closed at present or for many years ahead." They should also do what we in the Labour Party said: consider one form of transport not in isolation from all other forms of transport and indeed of the whole economy of the country, and arrive at a sensible conclusion.
Let the Government admit that a foolish mistake was made. It has been stubbornly adhered to and, to some extent, dishonestly adhered to, because they continue to let figures go out which everybody knows are not the full and correct figures. This is not the proper thing for any Government to do. Still less is it proper for the Government to come to us and say: "Here are policies for the development of Scotland and the North-East region of England" which they say will cover all sorts of things, but at the same time they allow this transport "fiddle" to go on. I therefore urge the Government on this point to admit that they were wrong, and to say, if they mean business, that they are not going on any longer with a stupidity which is not supported by any sensible person of any political Party in this country.
7.51 p.m.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, it was a delightful thing to hear my noble friend open this debate, and also to hear the new Minister, who really knew what he was talking about. I say that advisedly, because the last time I stood here talking about Durham and Scotland I talked about the Industrial Revolution, and the Minister did not know what I was talking about. I believe he thought I was talking about some fierce kind of revolution, because he never mentioned the matter. That would be of interest to the noble Lord who has just come among us. It has been a delight to hear this debate to-day. But there are more men idle in Durham to-day than there were at this time last year. There are more children receiving unemployment pay than there were at this time last
348
year. So severe has the problem become that the Government have had to issue a statement that the children must attend school almost as a condition of receiving unemployment pay. That is a very serious matter. I think the case is very much the same in Scotland.
I know of no sadder time in my county than these last two or three years. It is a sad thing when a man is unemployed; but when little children come to you and stand in queues at the door for a reference to get a job (and all public men know what the request for a reference means) it is heartrending. This is a very big subject, and I think that the Government some day soon will have to face up to these varying stages of the industrial Revolution.
I went to see a film this week called Remote Control. I saw things performed in that film that when I was a man in the pit would have seemed miraculous. I think that very soon the Government must face this new situation. This film showed how somebody touched a button (he could be sitting in a drawing room, if he liked, so long as he was connected) and a great machine moved. It cut the coal, it put the props in place and did everything, without a single hand touching it. What are you going to do with a machine like that? It ought to make the world happier. I know that I did not get any fun mining when I did it with my hands. It was the hardest class of work that I remember, and very dangerous work. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I describe in a few words an incident that happened to me. I was working on a fork and using my pick upon it when suddenly a small piece of stone released the whole lot and it almost caught me on the head. When the dust had cleared there was a white wall eight yards long in the place where I was working. Those around me thought that I and the man working with me had been killed. But now you have a machine to do that work. This is the kind of thing that will be applied in other industries and to other things affecting our lives.
If I may make a suggestion to the noble Lord who is to reply, it is this. My noble friend will tell you that I

349
would hardly come into the Chamber to-day; that is so, is it not?—
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Hear, hear!
LORD LAWSON: —because I was so disgusted on the last occasion at the lack of understanding on the Front Bench opposite in regard to the unemployed men and boys who are now suffering. But Mr. Quintin Hogg does not understand much more. Just see what he has done! He has used this lamentable situation as a possible vote-getter. I make that statement after considerable thought. All that concerned him about it (I wish he had been here, because I would have told him so if he had been) was how many votes were going to be got out of it. That is surely a lamentable position for any Government to arrive at.
This is a situation which I think demands no ordinary thought, and I put this suggestion to the noble Lord opposite. If we could have a sort of standing committee, composed of people with scientific knowledge and practical experience, it would be very useful. The problem will not touch only the miners in the future. The noble Viscount himself almost said teat it would so develop that it would touch most sides of our national working life. I think it would be a good thing if we had a standing committee of some kind, mixing practice with science, to explain to Governments how the present situation is likely to affect society. We have more children at school this year than last year, preparing themselves for some class of work which they will not be able to get. Children cannot be sent about the country. If they were trained and were of an age, it would be all right. But there will have to be some kind of organisation to send them to certain parts, although, so far as I am concerned, I prefer to see them staying at home and doing their work.
I do not want to speak too long, because this has been a very good and valuable debate. I think we should be wiser if we made arrangements for the increased numbers of unemployed in Durham and the Scottish coalfields, because, owing to remote control and the doing of work automatically, there will
350
arise a lack of the need for men who work in stone, as well as for those in coal. If we take note of these things, then I say that we must have standing committees to give us their experience, and to deal with the situation which is likely to arise. That is all I am going to say. I could say a good deal more upon this matter and I am glad, indeed, that my noble friend persuaded me to come in to-day and saw to it that my name was put on the list. I can assure the noble Viscount that I was angry with the last Minister who heard me speak about the Industrial Revolution and who thought I was talking about some revolutionary power. He did not really know what I was talking about, because he never mentioned it. It never struck him, and he did not give two minutes' consideration to that matter. But we have one Minister, at any rate, who knows something about the Industrial Revolution, and who can talk about it without giving the impression that anyone who mentions it carries a gun.
8.5 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before turning to the bones and meat of the debate, I should like to refer to two speeches which have been made this afternoon, the first the notable maiden speech of the most reverend Primate, the Lord Archbishop of York, which was beautifully delivered. I think his words, and what was behind them, must have struck at any heart in this House. particularly when he spoke of those school-leavers who left their homes and came to London, this great City, to look for work. I admire initiative, but I cannot help feeling that this was, as the most reverend Primate said, a sign of defeat. The other speech to which I should like to refer is that of my old friend Lord Lawson. Men come from Durham, and in Lord Lawson we see a very good example. If the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, had been here, I should have sought his support; because in my estimation the best Division he commanded (and I was never in it) was the 50th Northumbrian Division, the "Double T's"—and thank Goodness! most of the Scots have disappeared from the House. But I think we are agreed on that; and

351
certainly the Minister himself spoke of the quality of these men. I think it should also be placed on record that this same opinion is widely held by industrialists who have gone to this area. They speak extremely highly of their work.
I cannot help feeling that in a few days' time we shall be looking to the New Year. Most of us, in our homes, clubs and hotels, will look to our families and our friends, and we shall wish each other a happy, peaceful and prosperous New Year. I think most of us who have listened to this debate will be conscious of the 462,000 men who are unemployed and their families, perhaps 900,000 or 1 million men, women and children, who will watch into 1964 with not the same hope that we have. Apart from that number, let us not forget the men to-day who are in these declining industries about which the noble Viscount spoke, and who will look to 1964, not with hope but with fear. If I wanted to level an indictment at the Government, it would not be on these proposals: it would be that the position of these declining industries should have been foreseen by any economist, any industrialist, and any Government worth its salt. The Government give the impression that the situation in North-East England has suddenly appeared with the cold weather at the beginning of the year. Through history this area has always had a high rate of unemployment. The factors were the same—declining coal, declining shipbuilding. The indictment that I would lay upon the Government is that they wait until their last moment of breath as a Government to produce a programme.
I want to examine in a little detail the Scottish White Paper. I noticed that the Scottish Peers, as my noble friend Lord Stonham said, spoke in support, but in every case they raised certain doubts. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, spoke of what we might call the infrastructure of this central area. He drew our attention, and quite rightly, to the need for roads, housing, schools and many other services. One would imagine, from the global figure, that we are going to see a dynamic improvement in these particular spheres. I wonder
352
how many noble Lords have looked at this particular document, Public Investment in Great Britain, October, 1963. I should like to refer to this document first so that we can be quite clear that I am not exaggerating the position. In paragraph 14 it says:
"The implications for public service investment of the Government's proposals for developing North-East England and Central Scotland will be set out in the forthcoming White Papers on these areas. The figures for 1963-64 and 1964-65 shown in this White Paper include the extra investment which has been approved as part of the policies for these two areas."
Perhaps we can look at the figures in this White Paper dealing with roads. The House will remember the words of my noble friend Lord Stonham and of the noble Lord opposite on what the consequences of the rail closures will be. The Government recognise that there will be difficulties, but say they will overcome them by road building. All right, let us look. The total figure for roads in Scotland, 1963–64, is £17·5 million.
LORD STONHAM: Including maintenance.
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes. For the year 1964–65 it will rise to £18·1 million. During the time the Government are going to cut the railways on a massive scale, the increase in road building is to the tune of £600,000. Where is this dynamic policy with which the noble Lords opposite have come to the aid of the Government? Can we recognise this: that in the case of trunk roads the amount has been increased, but in regard to classified roads the amount is falling from £8·3 million to £6·2 million? These are figures taken out of the White Paper issued in October, 1963.
Let us consider housing, because this, again, is a key part in the Government's White Paper for Scotland. I understand that in this area they are going to increase output by 7,000 houses a year. I want to look at the total cost—and it must be the total cost—for Scotland. In 1963-64 the total cost is £70·1 million. In fact, for 1964-65 the same figure is given. If we are going to see an increase in house building within the central area and there is no increase in the amount to be spent on housing, one thing must

353
happen: the outside areas, particularly Glasgow with all its slums, must take a second position. In fact, it may well be that the sums now available to Glasgow will not be available next year. That is my only reading of these figures.
My last point is to look at education. In 1963–64 we shall be spending £21·5 million on all forms of education in Scotland. In 1964–65—and I would ask noble Lords to bear this in mind—the figure will drop to £21·3 million. There will be a marginal drop. But in schools between those two years—schools, mark you!—there will be a drop of £1·6 million. So what chance has my noble friend behind me, in regard to the County of Fife, of getting extra money? He'll be lucky!
This is the position as I see it in Scotland. I have taken these figures and have laid them side by side with the Government's plan and proposals that have no specific figures allocated to any of these particular items. I have taken them from this document. Therefore, on that basis it would appear that the policy which the Government is trying to persuade its supporters to follow as being dynamic means very little. I hope that the Scots, if they are not here to-night, will at least read these words and will ask the Minister when he returns to Edinburgh for an answer, because it would seem to me that they have been seriously misled.
My noble Leader put one issue to the Government. He said: "What are your targets? If these are plans and proposals, surely you must have some idea when you lay them out. what it is you seek to achieve and what is the end to which you work." I asked the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, because he is well up in Scottish affairs, what was the number of jobs that must be provided in Scotland to ensure that there is full employment and that this steady drift of population is prevented. But Lord Polwarth was unable to give it. I do not blame him; he is not in the Government. But your Lordships will note that when the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, was replying he again avoided, not only the question I put to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, but the question that my noble Leader put to the Government: what is the figure to which you are working for Scotland?
In the case of North-East England, while the Government are quiet, the
354
North-East Development Council under our very great friend Mr. George Chetwynd, to whom great tribute is regularly paid, has assessed that in this particular area at least 100,000 new jobs will have to be provided within the next ten years. We have to take into account not only the automation that is taking place and the declining industries, but many other factors. It may well be that this particular assessment is below what will be needed. But at least it is an assessment on which they are working.
Cannot we have from the Government the number of new jobs they believe need to be provided in Scotland and North-East England? Because, if we take North-East England as requiring 100,000 jobs over the next ten years—and I am not going to stand up to-night and say that the Local Employment Act is a failure; but let us keep these particular figures in mind—is it not a fact that during the last three years to April, 1963, eighteen companies have been persuaded to go to North-East England to provide jobs for 2,288 persons? If those are the figures, and I took them from the House of Commons Hansard, and they were not challenged, how short we must be in meeting this challenging figure of 100,000 new jobs! During this period 33 companies closed, with a loss of 3,600 jobs. So, in fact, with the use of this Act we did not make up for the loss of jobs that arose merely from closures. It took no account of increased birth rate, or of the results of automation and efficiency. It seems to me that if we take those figures we are a long way short of the target that will have to be met.
I wish to say only one last word—and this is perhaps the most important. The noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, said that the Government had used very severely curbs on development in South-East England. He may say that; but for the rest of us who live in South-East England, who have to put up with the intolerable travelling conditions, who have to struggle to town to work, when we see the result of this pressure in the rising cost of houses, the rising cost of schools and hospitals and the like, we wonder whether, in fact, the Government ever use their powers; particularly when we see not only this steady drift of individuals coming to the South-East

355
looking for work, but the way in which administrative offices, and sometimes new companies, are being set up in South-East England.
The noble Viscount may be correct when he said that the use of these certificates has prevented certain companies from coming here. But in fact the Government will not use the industrial certificates in regard to office building. It is the office building that is the magnet for the young people who want to become clerks and typists and the like; and it is that which brings them to the South. Unless the Government are going to do something in regard to South-East England they will have to use the certificates in regard to office building. Why should office work be confined to London? The boys and girls in Newcastle and Durham, and other similar places, are as well educated as the youngsters who are being brought up in London. Why cannot we see a movement of these administrative offices to those areas? I think the Government themselves could play a big part in this respect if they would use their certificates in this matter.
My Lords the time is late. We wish to hear from the noble Lord, particularly on the points that I raised in regard to Scotland, and the others raised by my noble friends in their own brief speeches. A plan is a plan. A plan is useless unless there is a will. I be lieve that the Government have the will, but when we look at the twelve years of their record I do not think they have the capability.
8.24 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to start, as the noble Lord Lord Shepherd started, by paying our tribute from this side of the House to the very valuable and cogent speech made by the most reverend Primate, a speech to which we all listened with very great attention and which nobody who heard it could possibly fail to appreciate. I would also say right away (this is a point on which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, commented) that the most reverend Primate dealt most sensitively, if I may say so, with the question of unemployment among young people, and possibly, also, one could
356
say with what he regarded as the misemployment of young people. I can tell noble Lords that my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour is planning to visit the North-East early in January and will be devoting special attention to the problem of youth unemployment and training. My right honourable friend the Secretary for Industry. Trade and Regional development also proposes to spend several days in the North-East early next year.
My Lords, this is the first opportunity that we have had to debate these two White Papers. My noble friend Lord Polwarth, in a notable speech, referred to them as bringing a brave new look to the scene in the two areas concerned. These White Papers involve an entirely new principle which has evolved from operating the Local Employment Act, a principle which is to be applied side by side with the giving of aid, under the Local Employment Act, to districts of high unemployment. The new principle is that of the growth area, and I might describe it in a few words as the reinforcement of success in areas which are already proving attractive to industry and which can generate growth not only within themselves but in the areas around. And it is that principle that your Lordships' House is invited to-day to approve.
If I may say so. I thought that the noble Earl who spoke first for the Opposition came very near to opposing it. He called it planning in isolation. But this is deliberate discrimination. You take the areas that you consider need attention first, and, of necessity, you come to deal with other areas later. The noble Earl complained that other areas were not being dealt with at the same time. He referred to the situation in Wales. Well, the unemployment figure for Wales is now 3 per cent.: there has been a steady improvement there. Nevertheless, there are, of course, areas of high unemployment there also—the heads of valleys, the places to which it is notoriously difficult to attract industry. A study is now in hand to cover the prospects over the next 20 years in Wales.
The noble Earl referred to Merseyside. A group is to be set up to study the economic problems there in the same

357
way as the North-East was studied. He referred also to the North-West. In the North-West as a whole the unemployment figure is 2·5 per cent. Nevertheless, studies are already in progress there. And as to the South-West, my right honourable friend indicated in another place that a study has not yet been started, but he himself is going to pay a visit very early in the New Year to the South-West.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The whole point I am trying to make is that there are very serious pockets of unemployment. Take Corn wall, where it is nearly 5 per cent. in places. It was 5 per cent. overall a few months ago—I am glad it is not now. Birmingham is the same; Cumberland is the same. There is no point is saying that as a whole the proportion is 2·5 per cent. That is no consolation to Bishop Auckland, which has gone up from 4·6 per cent. to 6·9 per cent. in the last few months. When you are having a scheme in one part of the country, that is no use to them: they want relief now.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I had hoped to deal with this problem in due course. We have so far been making use of the Local Employment Act, and I would say straight away that I think it is right to say that it has had a considerable effect since it came into operation on April 1, 1960. The number of undertakings which have received assistance under the Act in Central Scotland and in the North-East is 171 in Scotland and 134 in the North-East. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that, of the 17,000 or so jobs which have been provided in the North-East—or are in the pipe-line—11,000 are accounted for by firms coming in from outside the area. That is a considerable contribution to a solution of the problem.
If I might enlarge on this point, we have under the Local Employment Act been seeking to deal with the areas of highest unemployment. It is impossible at any one time to attract more industry than is on the move, and we do strictly operate the industrial development certificate policy in other parts of the country. It is no use pretending that it is possible never to give an industrial
358
development certificate in the areas of high pressure on employment. It is quite unrealistic to suppose that all industrial development can be prevented in those areas. For one thing, certificates are granted for extensions to industries that are already established there and which cannot be separated from their existing factories. Then again, certificates are applied for in order to increase productivity and to improve efficiency. Those have to be granted. Then there are also certificates that are applied for by local service industries—industries to serve the locality, the people who are already living there. Wherever it is possible to steer industries away we do so.
As I myself was responsible for the development of industry policy for two years as Parliamentary Secretary at the Board of Trade, I can assure your Lordships that one comes very much under pressure from two sides here. Anyone who has sat in another place when these things were discussed will realise that one is attacked just as much for refusing certificates as because industry does not come to areas. This is the problem that one is up against. Early in the year 1960 there was a lot of industry on the move and, as my noble friend Lord Craigton said, we were able, for example, to bring the car industry to Scotland with the attendant ancillary industries which are now growing up around it. We were able to do that in other parts of the country, too. Unfortunately, we were just not so successful in the North-East as we were in other parts of the country. Then there was a slowing up in industrial activity and there was less industry available to go to places. If there is not a demand in the country it is no use creating and setting up new industries under the Government.
Under the Local Employment Act one of the essential elements, and a condition of assistance, is that it can be given only to firms that are likely to be economically viable. It would be absurd to set up other industries in competition with existing industries, with, say, Government subsidy, and running at a loss in these areas. I noted that even the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, did not suggest that. He suggested that we should operate more strictly the policy of industrial development certificates. What I am

359
saying to the House is that we are operating it as strictly as we possibly can. I ask the House to believe that.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: All I can say on that is that I come to and from the suburbs, and when one sees blocks of offices such as were mentioned by my noble friend still standing idle, having been completed for two years, one asks why have all that kind of thing which will bring increased population to this area?
LORD DRUMALBYN: As the noble Earl knows, industrial development certificates were not covered by the Distribution of Industry Act or the Planning Acts. There are great difficulties about controlling office employment. The building of those office blocks is quite a different matter from the case where a firm comes along and wants to set up an industry and to obtain an industrial development certificate. Everybody knows, if you ask for permission for office accommodation, that you can dispose of that: it is much more flexible; you can get rid of it quite easily, and there is really no criterion for the issue of similar certificates for office accommodation.
Nevertheless, the Government has not been idle in this. It has been doing its best to encourage private firms to keep out of the London area. It has set up a Location of Offices Bureau to help in this matter, and to demonstrate to firms in London the advantages—and in many cases there are great advantages and great increases in efficiency—which result from moving out of the London area. The Government itself has set an example, as one noble Lord observed, in the moving of the Post Office Savings Certificate Division to Durham. And that will provide 2,000 jobs there. Three hundred have already been provided, 200 of them recruited locally.
In addition, in order to assist in the provision of employment in the North-East, the reconstruction of the National Insurance offices in Newcastle was brought forward. That is quite a long-term undertaking, because accommodation is required for the best part of 9,000 people there. This is only one of the examples, I would observe to your
360
Lordships, in which an effort has been made to deal with the immediate problem of employment in the North-East. Others are the advance factories that have been set up. Twelve are being set up in the North-East and twelve in Central Scotland—ten due to be completed in the North-East by the end of February, and eleven in Scotland by the end of March. There are the industrial sites at the Team Valley and the Vale of Leven which have been prepared, at any rate in the case of the Team Valley. Other sites have been reconnoitred; and, in the case of Aycliffe, expenditure has been authorised. Extra construction of a short-term nature was authorised for the North-East. The road programme there was hastened on. An additional £1·4 million was authorised in November last year, and a further half a million pounds in February of this year.
Then there is something that has not been mentioned at all, and which the Government introduced—namely, the loans to underdeveloped countries from surplus capacity. The North-East has benefited from that. Two cargo vessels have been ordered from Ghana; a £3½ million loan to India for steel plate;£2 million for wagon ferries and diesel locomotives to East Africa and so on. These are all practical things. The electricity and the gas programme was brought on. There was a loan of up to £2 million to the Tees Conservancy Commission to speed the £4 million Lackenby Dock Scheme. Reference has already been made to the training centres that were set up, to their considerable expansion and to places being there available. And, of course, reference has also been made to the loan of £75 million for shipbuilding, the vast majority of which has gone to the North-East and to Scotland.
So, my Lords, it cannot be said that nothing has been done to deal with this problem. But surely the philosophy of the two White Papers is that while you can palliate the clear tendency for industries such as the coal mining industry to run down, in the long term nothing less than a cure is required. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, right away, that of course he is right in the figures that he quotes, but the fact of the matter is that any programme of

361
this character takes time to develop. He knows as well as anybody does that if you are going to build a new road, it is at least three years after the road has been conceived before any work is done on it, if it has the character of a major road; and the same goes for other plans of this sort. The general purpose of these White Papers must be the welfare of the whole country, and regional plans must conform with that purpose. This is not planning in isolation: it is deliberate and co-ordinated planning weighted in certain areas.
There are some who persist in believing that since there is a marked tendency for expansion in some parts of the country at the expense of others, we should accept, and even encourage, that tendency, and certainly do nothing to correct it. I take it as one of the approvals shown by this House that not one person to-day has put forward that view. No Government since the war have endorsed those views. They have taken the view that it can-not be in the interest of the nation to encourage growth in areas which are short of labour, thereby adding to the pressures on the resources of housing and schools and on the economy as a whole, while other areas languish from lack of new industry and see too much of the best of their youth lured away by the prospects elsewhere, prospects often inflated in their imaginations.
The end of the war presented the Government of the day with a unique opportunity which they very properly seized. Industry was turning from the needs of war to the requirements of peace, and needed factory space. The Government provided factory space in the areas in which unemployment had been a veritable scourge in the inter-war years; but once the general shortage of factory space had been overcome, once we changed from a sellers' to a buyers' market, the situation entirely changed. It was undoubtedly right in those circumstances to concentrate Government assistance on the areas of highest unemployment, but once factories were established then they had to be allowed to expand.
The 1960 Act worked well in the expansionist atmosphere of 1960. It brought enough industry to South Wales
362
to enable practically all that area, apart from the heads of the valleys, to be taken off the list of development districts. Together with the Government assistance for the steel strip mill at Ravenscraig it brought the motor industry to Central Scotland. This is proving a focus of growth. Ancillary industries are now growing up around them. Another focus of growth is the petroleum industry at Grangemouth. The new towns in Scotland are proving attractive to industry and to the workers in industry. They are also growth centres. The industrial estates are also centres of growth, but not all of them were in areas of high unemployment.
In the North-East we had the difficulty that many of the areas of high unemployment were associated with the coal industry and, to some extent, isolated one from another. They did not form a true industrial complex. On the other hand, the main city in the area did not suffer from high unemployment, but it was not growing, despite the presence of one of the best industrial estates in the country on its threshold. Experience tended to show that firms depending on national demand would come to the area, provided they were situated near to a main communicating road, such as the A1, but not if they were steered away to more remote places.
Everything pointed, therefore, to designating as the zone of growth the quadrilateral taking in the proposed new town of Cramlington, in the North, Tyneside, Tees-side, Darlington and Aycliffe. The noble Earl asked whether it took in Hartlepool. The answer is, Yes. If I may say so, had the noble Earl looked at the map at the back of the White Paper he would have seen that Hartlepool was taken in.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I have seen the map.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Earl complained that Saltburn was just outside, and complained also of the areas of West Durham which are left out. Most of them are development districts.

363
Yesterday I was present when my right honourable friend received a deputation from the Urban Districts of Blaydon, Consett and Stanley and the Rural District of Lanchester. He explained to them that if, as we confidently expect, the special measures taken for stimulating growth in the growth zone succeed, the development districts on the fringes of it would be likely to benefit. Moreover (and I am not certain whether the noble Lord fully understood this), nothing is taken away from the development districts. Undoubtedly their prospects of getting industry are diluted to the extent that more development districts have been designated. They themselves have been designated on their own merits. These development districts remain eligible for all the benefits of the Local Employment Act. They are not deprived of any of the public investment previously planned for them. The only difference between them and the growth zone is that in the growth zone there is concentrated the additional special public expenditure over and above the level already planned—which itself, of course, was higher than ever before.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord mentioned the development areas and said that a deputation had visited his right honourable friend. Is he aware that the towns of Consett, Stanley and Wilmington, in the development area, are all subject to Dr. Beeching's plan and will lose their railway stations and their railway? That would take some employment from them—not only in regard to the railwaymen, but they will also lose the chance of other employment that might have been attracted there.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord made the point earlier, and made it strongly, if I may say so; but I thought that my noble friend Lord Craigton covered it in his speech, and in view of the lateness of the hour I was not proposing to traverse it again. Of course, it is the case that proposals have been made by British Railways for the closure of a number of lines serving development districts. These will all be considered under the procedure which was described by my noble friend and which I think is now sufficiently well-known.
364
We should consider what the growth areas really need. Obviously they need diversification; they need modernisation; they need co-operation between all concerned; and they need continuity. I would appeal to noble Lords on the other side in this matter. If we are to have continuity in this matter we should like to think that the policy which is now proposed will be continued in all possible circumstances over the years ahead. Governments may change, but this is not a policy which can easily be turned on and off. I would suggest to the noble Earl that it would be very unfortunate of any Amendment which would in any way derogate from the support and the sense of strong co-operation which there must be if we are going to have confidence in this drive, were put to the vote tonight. It would give the country the feeling that your Lordships' House is divided on this issue. I do not really believe it is. I believe Members feel that while there are undoubtedly points in the White Paper which need further clarification and which can be clarified only by time and study, nevertheless this is the right approach. I very much hope that the noble Earl, for that reason, will not press his Amendment.
My Lords, there is not much I need add at this very late stage. What the White Papers set out to do is to initiate a reversal of the secular tendency for population to flow towards the South-East and Midlands by creating conditions which will make people in the areas want to stay there and others from outside the areas want to come and work there. The complete reversal obviously cannot be achieved in a day or a year, or even in a decade. It would be unrealistic to plan on the basis that net migration will be entirely arrested within the period envisaged, even by 1981. It is surely enough, considering the natural rate of growth of population in the North-East, which is higher than the national average, to plan for a reduction in the percentage of unemployed to the national average together with the halving of the net rate of migration.
The noble Earl asked: what is the target? The targets are set out in Chapters 2 of the White Papers which state the scope of the problem. The scope

365
of the problem, or the assumptions laid down, is that 150,000 or so jobs will be required in the North-East over the eighteen years in question, and 240,000 or so in Central Scotland. That, if you like, is the target, and that is the scope of the problem. It may well be that, if the plan succeeds in its purpose, it will be possible even to arrest the amount of migration which is taken into account in the assumption. But, in any case, I would stress that the halving of the net migration figure is an assumption for the purpose of planning. If these two areas, as a result of the measures taken, become areas of prosperity higher than the national average, there will be no difficulty in finding jobs not only for the people who would tend to migrate, but for others from other parts of the Kingdom. In that case, the trend would in fact be reversed, and nobody would mind if the assumption proved incorrect. In such circumstances capital investment could readily be found to meet the demands for additional housing, schools, factories and the like.
Finally, there is the claim that the White Paper has failed to provide for regional development necessary to prevent long-term unemployment in the two areas. I say quite frankly that I find it difficult to understand this claim and, if I may say so, it certainly has not been substantiated. What more do noble Lords opposite want? Are they seriously going to suggest some alternative?—because no alternative has been suggested to-day. We have simply been told that we should apply the existing procedures more strictly. No alternative has been suggested, except perhaps some kind of certificate procedure for offices, the difficulty of which has been indicated time and time again. And here, again, we are doing our best to deal with this problem. But these proposals constitute a coherent whole and represent a deliberate discrimination, as I have said, in favour of these two areas. This discrimination is undeniably substantial. We believe it should in time achieve its objective of making them as attractive in every way for people to live and work in as any other part of these Islands.
366
Besides this, of course, and behind all this, there is a driving spirit. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, whom we are so glad to see here to-day, I was sorry that he attributed to my ex-noble friend, Mr. Hogg, the idea that he was interested only in votes in this matter. I would say very frankly to the House that nobody who knows Mr. Hogg can possibly fail to recognise the tremendous enthusiasm and urgency with which he throws himself into any problem. That is the way in which this problem has been dealt with. I am quite certain that both Mr. Hogg and Mr. Heath will provide that driving spirit for which my noble friend Lady Horsbrugh called. With that driving spirit, and with the co-operation that we all hope for, we believe that these Papers provide the beginning of the beginning of the solution of something which has lasted for far too long in Scotland, under all Governments. The amount of unemployment in Scotland has been double the national average. This is what we want to attack. The decline in the coal mining industry has flung up a fresh problem in the North-East. That, also, we are determined to overcome. I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
8.54 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged for the courteous nature of the reply of the noble Lord, but we do not think he has adequately replied to the case that has been put to him. Certainly, as regards the targets, for which I asked, I know full well the small figures which the noble Lord quoted from the two White Papers, and I am much obliged to him for quoting them, but they do not meet the whole point. We have had targets for practically nothing advanced to us. We have had no real explanation of how the Government are going to deal with all the construction work which must be the inevitable result of stepping up public service investment. We have had nothing on that at all to show how it is going to work. Therefore, I am hound to ask my noble friends to go into the Lobby with me in favour of the Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 48.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hughes, L.

Stonham, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Lawson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Attlee, E.

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, B.

Burdon, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Taylor, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Peddie, L.

Walston, L.

Champion, L.

Shackleton, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Crook, L.

Shepherd, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Denham, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Albemarle, E.

Derwent, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Alport, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lothian, M.

Balerno, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Blakenham, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bossom, L.

Dudley, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Boston, L.

Falkland, V.

Newton, L.

Brecon, L.

Ferrers, E.

Perth, E.

Buccleuch and Queensbury, D.

Ferrier, L.

Polwarth, L.

Carrington, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Gosford, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Chester, L. Bp.

Greenway, L.

Somers, L.

Conesford, L.

Hailes, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Craigton, L.

Hastings, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hawke, L.

Teynham, L.

Cromartie, E.

Horsbrugh, B.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Resolution agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT MOTION: CONTINENTAL SHELF BILL
9.5 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Lord Carrington.)
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, on that Motion I want to raise a question. I had not observed it before, and it is partly my fault, but I see that we took the Committee stage of the Continental Shelf Bill yesterday, and it is down for Third Reading to-morrow. That really is preposterous. I do not understand how it happened, but somehow or other it escaped being brought to my notice. I am just making a protest now, and I shall have to consider between now and to-morrow what we shall do.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I thought, frankly, that it had been clear for some time that the Third Reading would be taken to-morrow.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, No.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I understood that.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I had heard nothing about it, except that I hear now that it was put on the Paper last night.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: It was put on the Paper last night—that is quite correct—but for some little time information has been available that it was going, to be taken to-morrow.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Where?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I can show the noble Earl the papers to which I am referring, but obviously this is not for discussion on the Floor of the House. But I thought certain discussions had taken place with noble Lords opposite, and I understood that they were in fact satisfied about it.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My advice is that they had heard nothing about it until it was seen on the Paper this morning.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that perhaps the best thing to do is this. There appears to have been a

369
slip-up in the usual channels. Perhaps the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition would let me look into it, and if there is anything I can do, either to put it right or to make it more convenient to noble Lords opposite, of course I most certainly will do it. Perhaps he will allow me to look into this between now and tomorrow.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I just ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, who has been very forthcoming, not in making concessions on Amendments but in being willing to consider points, several times yesterday invited those noble Lords who were debating to come forward with suggestions. I do not know how it could be expected that we could come forward
370
with suggestions between nine o'clock last night and tomorrow, when we thought that the Third Reading was going to be taken after the Recess.
LORD CARRINGTON: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will think that I have been fairly forthcoming. I have not had a chance to look at this, but I most certainly will do so. My noble friend was probably thinking that there would be an opportunity of amending the Bill in another place. But perhaps I might have a talk with him and the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, and we will see what we can do.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes past nine o'clock.