Sitting of 8 July 1963

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

    Blaydon-on-Tyne
    Mr. Woofasked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed disabled persons were registering at Blaydon-on-Tyne employment exchange in June, 1963; and how this compares with the figures for June last year.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William White-law): There were 97 disabled persons registered as unemployed on 10th June, 1963, the same number as on 18th June, 1962.
    Mr. Woof: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that this tragedy is likely to get worse because of the declining basic industries and seasonal factors? Does he not also appreciate how these disabled persons have to try to exist on a miserable dole? What steps is he prepared to take to provide suitable employment for the disabled, especially to deal with the long-term problem?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Everyone in the House would accept what the hon. Member says about the importance of the problem which he has raised. From what he has said, I think that he would also accept that the employment difficulties experienced by disabled persons are an integral part of the general employment problem on Tyneside. Therefore, the measures which the Government are taking to improve that position are bound also to help the disabled.
    Mr. Woofasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to provide a training centre in Blaydon-on-Tyne for unemployed juveniles.
    Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend is not proposing to set up a training centre for unemployed juveniles at Blaydon, although he is enlarging the facilities of the centre at Felling for the training of first year apprentices.
    Mr. Woof: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the high rate of juvenile unemployment throughout the Blaydon Parliamentary division? Is he further aware that on present indications there is a substantial risk of more juveniles being unable to get employment? Does he not agree that there should be close liaison with education authorities on matters such as pre-industrial training and that if the plans of the National Economic Development Council are to be carried into effect, increased training on that scale is vital?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I would agree at once that the closest liaison possible should be maintained with the education authorities, and that certainly is the case. I think that the N.E.D.C. Report has shown how valuable will be the Government's proposals in the White Paper on Industrial Training. We hope to convert these proposals into action soon.

    Dock Labour (Decasualisation)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Labour when he hopes to be able to de-casualise dock labour in the United Kingdom.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): It is the declared objective or the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry, which I strongly support to achieve further decasualisation of the dock labour force at the earliest possible date. The Council has called upon local port committees to prepare plans to this end on the basis of principles agreed by the Council. Discussions are at present proceeding between the employers and union representatives in most of the major ports and have reached an advanced stage in the Port of London. Complex problems are involved in translating the general principles agreed by the Council into practical measures which have regard to the varying circumstances in the ports. I am hopeful, however, that agreement in London will

    837
    not be long delayed and that rapid progress will be achieved in the other ports. I am keeping in close touch with representatives of both sides of the Council.
    Mr. Shepherd: I thank my right hon. Friend for his interest in this matter. Can he speed up conclusions, because this system is degrading in the second half of the twentieth century and brings with it all the evils of insecurity?
    Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend knows what I feel about this subject. I am doing all in my power to see that concrete proposals are brought forward, and I hope that a conclusion for London will not be too long delayed.

    Youth Employment Service
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to expand the Youth Employment Service so as to provide comprehensive vocational guidance for young people entering employment, and to ensure that it may continue to be available during their first few years at work.
    Mr. Hare: The Service already offers vocational guidance and help to all young people up to the age of 18 or over 18 if still at school; and staffing levels are kept under regular review by the Central Youth Employment Executive. I do not think it appropriate to extend the scope of the Service beyond these age limits.
    Mr. Prentice: Would the Minister agree that a number of young people try one job and then want to change to another and that they would benefit from advice during the early years of their working life? Should it not be his objective to convert this excellent service into something which provides for longer and more comprehensive training of young people in industry so that it can become a full-scale vocational guidance service?
    Mr. Hare: What we want to do now is to improve the quality of the service for school leavers and those under 18 rather than to extend its scope. The hon. Member will realise what a great strain the service is working under, particularly in dealing with the bulge. It is our intention to improve the quality of the whole service; in particular the quality of the vocational guidance given.
    Mr. K. Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend look particularly at youth employment liaison between one area and another to improve the links between youth employment officers in areas of high unemployment and those where unemployment is not so high?
    Mr. Hare: I think my hon. Friend is right. This is exactly what I have in mind in trying to improve the quality of the existing service.

    Retired Service Officers
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Labour how many retired officers from the Services are now on his Department's books; and how many have been on them for six months or more.
    Mr. Hare: At 31st March last 645 retired Regular officers were registered as unemployed, 322 of them for six months or more.
    Mr. Digby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that—as these figures seem to indicate—retirement becomes a very anxious time for many officers because it is necessary for them then to find a job and they find that difficult on account of Service experience? Will he try to help them a little more in one way or another?
    Mr. Hare: I shall try to help, but we have to look at this matter in perspective. I think my hon. Friend realises that since 1957 18,600 retired officers have registered with the Ministry of Labour. We have to keep in mind exactly how much has been achieved in placing the balance in employment. Of course, we must try to continue to help as much as we can, but, with the background I have given, I think my hon. Friend may see that the situation is not so bad as he thought.

    Northern Region
    Dr. Brayasked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed boys and girls there now are in the Northern Region; how many there were on the same date last year; and how many have been placed in training schemes established by Her Majesty's Government in the course of the past year.
    Mr. Whitelaw: On 10th June, 6,505 boys and girls were unemployed compared with 3,694 a year ago. Since June, 1962, 60 boys have commenced training in first-year apprenticeship courses at Government training centres. I understand that some 960 young people are also attending full-time first year apprenticeship courses or pre-apprenticeship courses at technical colleges in the region. The proportion of boys in the region entering apprenticeships continues to be well above the national average.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that those places will cope with less than one-third of the rise in unemployment since this time last year? Is he aware that the situation is now so serious that emergency Government training and employment schemes are required? Is he aware that the kind of reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) simply will not do? Is he aware that, for example, in Middles rough alone 1,050 school leavers are joining the 600 already unemployed and the average period of unemployment that a young person can expect on Tees-side today is two terms before he gets a job?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think the hon. Member would expect me to agree that any answer I make personally will not do, but he has done me the courtesy of writing a letter, asking for a full report on this, and I shall certainly give it to him.
    Mr. P. Williams: In view of the large number of young people who will be requiring a job in the near future, will my hon. Friend consider a request—or even an exhortation—to employers and trade unions in the area to combine together to take on supernumary apprentices to deal with this very human problem?
    Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend will be very pleased to respond to that.

    Clydebank and Kirkintilloch
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Labour how many youths and girls were registered as unemployed in the burghs of Clydebank and Kirkintilloch, respectively, at the latest available date; and what steps he is taking to place young people into suitable employment.
    Mr. Whitelaw: On 10th June, 86 in Clydebank and 30 in Kirkintilioch. The Youth Employment Service is doing all it can to find suitable jobs for the young people.
    Mr. Bence: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that in the Burgh of Kirkintilloch particularly, where there is an overspill agreement with Glasgow, this is likely to be added to considerably during the latter part of 1963? Will he do all he can to encourage employers to take on more apprentices?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I accept what the hon. Member says. I think we have reason for some modest encouragement in that there were 361 school leavers in Clydebank and Kirkintilloch at Easter and of these only seven were still registered, for first employment in June.
    9. Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Labour how many men and women are registered as unemployed in the Burghs of Clydebank and Kirkintilloch, respectively.
    Mr. Whitelaw: On 10th June, 1,425 men and 334 women at the Clydebank Employment Exchange and 312 men and 182 women at the Kirkintilloch Exchange.
    Mr. Bence: This is far more serious; it is very serious indeed. Development is taking place in both burghs to reduce the labour force in respective industries, for instance, Singers at Clydebank. Will the hon. Gentleman keep in touch with other Departments of State, particularly the Board of Trade, to see what can be done to require industry to settle in Clydebank by getting a factory there which could employ the enormous surplus of labour?
    Mr. Whitelaw: There is some satisfaction in the fact that, although the figures are higher than they were a year ago, they have fallen since last month. There is also encouragement in the measures being taken to improve the position. I shall see that the particular point made by the hon. Member is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

    Fair Wages Resolution
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Labour if the fair wages agreement, which requires recognition of trades

    841
    unions, applies to firms contracting with nationalised industries and services in the same way as is the case with Government Departments.
    Mr. Hare: The Fair Wages Resolution applies only to contracts placed by Government Departments. I understand that it is the general practice of the nationalised industries to include clauses based on the resolution in their contracts. The resolution requires Government contractors to recognise the freedom of their employees to be members of trade unions. It does not require them to recognise trade unions.
    Mr. Brockway: If Government Departments require the liberty of trade union membership and recognition, should this not also apply to nationalised industries and public services? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have particularly in mind the firm of Securicor which has dismissed its trade union members at Slough, whose case I raised in this House on 18th December? As reported in columns 1078–9 of that date, the First Secretary of State gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and me assurances that trade union membership and recognition would be allowed. Is the Minister aware that these men are still victimised? Will he do something about it?
    Mr. Hare: I remember well the case the hon. Member has referred to, but I think he also knows that the company has given a categorical assurance that it has not dismissed employees for the reason that they are trade union members
    Mr. Brockway: It dismissed them all.
    Mr. Hare: I have received categorical assurances that this is not so. This is the difference between the hon. Member and myself. As to compelling a particular company to negotiate with trade unions, that is not laid down in the Fair Wages Resolution.
    Mr. Gunter: As there appears to be a conflict of opinion and evidence between my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and the Minister on this important and serious matter, will the Minister give an assurance that he will take immediate steps to look into it?
    Mr. Hare: I can assure the hon. Member that I have looked very carefully into this. I looked very carefully into it when I answered Questions about it some time ago, and I naturally checked on what I have said here today. I have been fully informed on it and made the statement on that basis.
    Mr. Brockway: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

    Railway Workshops, Swindon
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Labour what instructions he has given to deal with redundancies at Swindon British Railways workshops which will affect boiler makers for whom other local employment is not available; and what discussions he has had with the men's trade union and the British Railways Board.
    Mr. Hare: The full facilities of my Department are being made available to workpeople of all trades. Forty of the boilermakers at present under notice have so far sought our help and have all been offered employment locally. I am hopeful that the prospects for the others will prove as good. I have had no discussions with the trade union, but I am in close touch with the Railways Board.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am grateful for anything the Minister can do. What kind of jobs have these men been offered? Secondly, is the Minister aware that these boilermakers have all been under the impression that their jobs were safe for at least another 12 months? When they got the news in the middle of June that they would be redundant it was a great personal shock to them.
    Mr. Hare: In reply to the latter part of that supplementary question, there has been no variation in the scheme announced for the run-down at Swindon. In reply to the first part, these men will be employed on general engineering work, including machine operating and, possibly, panel beating. Probably the hon. Member knows the two firms which will be largely responsible for giving them employment.
    Mr. Dance: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have a similar problem in

    843
    Bromsgrove at a wagon works there, and that Sir Stewart Mitchell has been extremely good over the whole matter in that he has given every encouragement to these men to find other jobs and has endeavoured to ensure that they do not lose the benefits which they would have received from the railways if they had stayed with them for the full term?
    Mr. Hare: It is true that the Railways Board are doing all they can to give as much prior notice as possible to men who will become redundant. A newspaper report, which the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) has probably seen, gave a slightly wrong impression—namely, that people were given notice to terminate rather earlier than would normally have been the case. In fact, the redundancy will not take place before the time originally planned.

    Industrial Training
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Labour how many men are being trained in all Government retraining centres; and what proportion of them are training in the skills of building.
    Mr. Hare: On 10th June, 1963, which is the latest date for which figures are available, 1,998 men were attending Government training centres of whom 89 were being trained in building skills.
    Mr. Dalyell: A figure of 89 out of 1,900 does not coincide with the hopes expressed by the right hon. Gentleman on 8th April as reported in column 931 of HANSARD. Why is this so?
    Mr. Hare: We have been proceeding on the basis of providing very little training in the building trade until my new programme for extending adult retraining becomes effective. The reason is that there was considerable union opposition to it.
    Mr. Prentice: Is it the Government's intention to expand training for skilled jobs in the building industry in their new programme of expanding Government training centres? Can the Minister give any estimate of the figures and when some of these courses will start?
    Mr. Hare: I hope that when the full programme has been achieved we shall provide about 1,250 places for training in the skilled trades of the building
    844
    industry. That will allow for an output of about 2,500 people to be trained in one year.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Labour how many men are retraining at the Government centres at Motherwell, Dunfermline, Glasgow, Dumbarton, Irvine and Greenock, respectively; and how many of these are being trained annually in skilled building trades.
    Mr. Hare: None of these centres is yet open, but those at Dunfermline and Motherwell are expected to be ready for occupation by September next. When in operation the six centres will be capable of training up to about 450 men per year for employment in the building industry.
    Mr. Dalyell: Should not facilities be dramatically extended above 450 in the light of the argument by the Secretary of State for Scotland that the unsatisfactory house-building rate in Scotland is due to bottlenecks in building?
    Mr. Hare: As the hon. Member will realise from my Answer to his earlier Question, this is a very considerable increase in the training arrangements for people in skilled trades in the building industry. We may wish to extend it as time goes on, but it is a very marked increase on what has hitherto been done. Up to now we have had a great deal of objection from the unions.
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the progress of his consultations with trade unions and employers' organisations arising from the White Paper on Industrial Training; and when he expects to introduce legislation on this subject.
    Mr. Hare: Consultations with the British Employers Confederation and the T.U.C. have enabled good progress to be made in preparing draft legislation. These consultations are to continue and discussions are also taking place with other industrial organisations and with employers' and workers' associations in individual industries. I hope to introduce legislation as soon as the Parliamentary programme permits.
    Mr. Prentice: On the latter part of the Minister's reply, would he agree to make a more detailed announcement as soon as he can, giving as much information as he can? Will he bear in mind that

    845
    certain problems arise in industry because of the uncertainty of the timetable? Does he agree that unfortunately some employers are holding back their own training plans and waiting to see what the Government will produce? Therefore, the sooner the Minister can make a definite pronouncement on the timetable the better.
    Mr. Hare: I share the hon. Gentleman's eagerness to have this Measure on the Statute Book. It will not be any fault of mine if it is unduly delayed. I obviously cannot say more on timing than I have said at the moment. As to employers who are holding back, I have already said in the House how foolish and wrong they are to take this attitude.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Minister realise that this White Paper on Industrial Training is particularly relevant to places where there are industries involving high technical skills, such as Aberdeen with its shipyards and engineering shops? Will he say what advice he has sought from the local trade unions about local conditions relevant to the White Paper?
    Mr, Hare: I am in full accord with the hon. and learned Gentleman's view about the importance of Aberdeen. However, he must realise that this is a national scheme and other Members of the House may think there are other places just as important as Aberdeen. That is not a subject on which I should like to have a debate. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are discussing with both sides of industry and with individual industries how to implement the proposals put forward in the White Paper.
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Minister of Labour if he will have regard to the part-time courses already provided in technical colleges when inaugurating training courses envisaged in the White Paper on industrial training.
    Mr. Hare: I have every hope that the training boards to be set up under the White Paper proposals will want to take full advantage of courses provided in technical colleges.
    Mr. Dempsey: Will the Minister see that wasteful competition and duplication of services are prevented, if at all possible? With this type of training, is it the intention to train, for example,
    846
    redundant railway men, redundant steel workers, and redundant workers about to lose their craft work because of the technological revolution that has taken place in this country, so that they may be fitted into some other craft, and given employment?
    Mr. Hare: Retraining will certainly come within the scope of these boards. In reply to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, one of the jobs of the boards will be to co-ordinate activity. There will be representatives of education as well as of both sides of industry represented on the boards and I hope that the sort of duplication and waste that the hon. Gentleman has in mind will be avoided.

    Rotherham
    Mr. O'Malleyasked the Minister of Labour how many men and women, respectively, were wholly unemployed, and how many were unemployed on at least one day a week, in the Rotherham Employment Exchange area at the latest available date.
    Mr. Whitelaw: 739 men and 147 women were wholly unemployed on 10th June and 496 men and 12 women registered as temporarily stopped on at least one day in that week.
    Mr. O'Malley: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary regard these figures as being extremely unsatisfactory? Is he aware that as a result of short-time working and under-employment in the Rotherham area the pay packets have dropped, it has been estimated, by as much as £2 a week in the last twelve months? What consideration has the Minister given to the implications of technological unemployment? Will he consider this as a matter of urgency so that unemployment and technical change do not go along as concomitants as they are at the moment?
    Mr. Whitelaw: What the hon. Member said about technological advance is extremely important and I respond to it in that spirit. What he said about the position in Rotherham should be seen against the background of the fact that the unemployment rate there at present is 2·2 per cent. It is right to see it against that background.
    Mr. O'Malleyasked the Minister of Labour how many boys and girls are at present unemployed in Rotherham; how many are expected to leave school in July; and how many school-leavers it is expected will be found jobs.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Altogether, 144 boys and girls were unemployed on 10th June. It is expected that about 580 will leave school in July. Although the placing of the summer leavers may take a little time, we are hopeful that they will obtain employment without too great difficulty. The Youth Employment Service will do all it can to help them.
    Mr. O'Malley: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary find this an unsatisfactory situation? Is he aware that the Youth Employment Service in Rotherham is finding, and has found in the last 18 months, increasing difficulty in finding jobs for these people who are unemployed? Will he take positive steps once again to see that the reduction in demand for young labour through technological change, particularly for young people of lower educational attainments, does not continue and that the situation is improved in the near future?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I must again put the matter in fair perspective. I accept some of what the hon. Member said, but the truth is that, although there were 334 Easter school leavers, the number still registered for first employment in mid-June was 33. This shows that considerable progress has been made.

    Coatbridge, Airdrie and Wishaw
    Miss Herbisonasked the Minister of Labour what was the rate of unemployment at the employment exchanges of Coatbridge, Airdrie and Wishaw, at the latest available date and at the same time last year.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Separate percentage rates are not available for these offices but the rate for the north Lanarkshire travel-to-work group, of which they form part, was 7·4 on 10th June compared with 5·7 in June, 1962.
    Miss Herbison: First, is the Minister aware that it is highly unsatisfactory that we cannot get separate figures for unemployment in such a wide area an Lanarkshire? Secondly, is he aware that these figures show very clearly indeed
    848
    the great problems which are facing our people in these three areas? Will he do everything possible to bring to the notice of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in deciding where the new industrial estates must go, that these two areas—Airdrie-Coatbridge and Wishaw—are the two areas which have been worse neglected by the President of the Board of Trade in giving any new industry in the last 12 years?
    Mr. Whitelaw: May I answer the three points in turn? The first concerned giving percentages for particular areas. I feel that this problem should be appreciated: if people travel from their home area to work they are counted as employees in the area where they work, but when they become unemployed they tend to register at the exchange nearest their home. This makes it difficult to calculate a percentage for a single exchange area where there is considerable travel-to-work, I am sure that the hon. Lady accepts that this is the case in north Lanarkshire, and from my own knowledge of the area I know that it is the case. It would be quite unrealistic to give separate percentage figures.
    Answering her second question, I think that the hon. Lady knows very well of the many measures which the Government have taken to improve the position. She knows of advance factories which are planned for north Lanarkshire, in particular. In reply to the last point which she made, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will note carefully what she said.
    Miss Herbison: The Minister has missed the whole point of my supplementary question. As long as he refuses to give the separate figures and his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade does not know where the highest unemployment in this very wide county is situated, how can the President of the Board of Trade decide fairly where this new industrial estate should go?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I note the hon. Lady's point, but surely, in an area where there is substantial travel-to-work, it would be right to place any industrial estate in a position where it would draw people for employment from all over the area. After all, this is the purpose of it.

    Shotts
    Miss Herbisonasked the Minister of Labour what was the insured population in the area covered by Shotts Employment Exchange in the month of June in each of the years 1951, 1961 and 1963.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The estimated number of employees was 9,443 in 1951 and 6,544 in 1961; I regret that the figure for 1963 is not yet available.
    Miss Herbison: Surely the Minister must agree from the two figures which have been given that there has been a great fall in the number of insured workers in this area? Is he also aware that this is due to the fact that every colliery in the area has closed and that 12 years of the Tory Government have failed to provide employment in their own area for people who would like to live in an area which is famed in Scotland for its community spirit and its worth-while ness?
    Mr. Whitelaw: From close personal interest in and knowledge of the area I can certainly agree with the last point which the hon. Lady made. She referred to the fall in the number employed. It is fair to remember that nearly two-thirds of this has taken place in coal mining, where there have been special difficulties, ft is also fair to give credit where it is due in this matter—and that is to the National Coal Board. For example, since 1962 530 miners of the 839 affected by closures have been found work elsewhere.

    Factory Employees (Washing Facilities)
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Labour what information he has from his factory inspectors as to whether the provision of a supply of clean running hot and cold or warm water is now available in all factories.
    Mr. Hare: The experience of the Factory Inspectorate is that compliance with this requirements of the Factories Act, 1961, is generally satisfactory.
    Dr. Stross: In view of the importance of this requirement in preventing industrial dermatitis, will the Minister watch the situation and ensure that there is no falling off in compliance with this provision?
    Mr. Hare: I certainly give that undertaking to the hon. Gentleman.

    Industrial Dermatitis
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the increasing number of complex chemical substances used in industry which cause irritation of the skin, he will make industrial dermatitis a notifiable disease, and issue a code of preventive practice embodied in regulations.
    Mr. Hare: My Department receives comprehensive information about cases of industrial dermatitis giving rise to successful claims for industrial injuries benefit. Statutory requirements providing safeguards against dermatitis risks are included in the Factories Act and in particular Codes of Regulations. These are supplemented by detailed guidance of preventive measures given in advisory publications issued by my Department. I think that these measures offer the most practical way of providing safeguards against the incidence of this disease.
    Dr. Stross: Is it not fair to say that, because of the complexity of the substances which are now in use and which are coming into use, the number of cases of industrial dermatitis tends to rise and that the consequent loss of productivity, loss of wages and suffering are very serious matters indeed? Does the Minister agree that at least one thing would help, namely, compulsory notification so that the right hon. Gentleman himself and the Factory Inspectorate would know just what the situation is?
    Mr. Hare: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the seriousness of this disease and its high incidence in industry. As the hon. Gentleman will admit, many things cause dermatitis. Some of the precautions advised, such as the maintenance of a high standard of personal hygiene, cannot be suitably imposed as statutory requirements. Therefore, we must draw a line as to where we can have compulsory codes of regulations and where we have to appeal to commonsense. I will certainly study what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mrs. Slater: Is it not true that many new chemical substances are constantly

    851
    changing and different compositions are being used? Has not the time now arrived for his Department and the Ministry of Health to keep a watch on new substances and study their effect on health? Is not this the time to review the situation in regard to compulsory notification?
    Mr. Hare: I assure the hon. Lady that we are constantly studying the problem. What she says is right: as new inventions come along, we get new complications. I do not think that anything that has been said today necessarily proves that we should take more compulsory action than we are taking at the moment.

    Hackney and Holloway
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Labour how many persons were at the latest available date registered unemployed at the Brook Green, Edgware Road, Hackney and Holloway exchanges; and what were the corresponding figures last year.
    Mr. Whitelaw: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate the information in the Official Report.
    Mr. Lipton: Would the Parliamentary Secretary at least give the total figures for these four exchanges last year and this year?
    Mr. Whitelaw: If I were to do that, I should be giving exactly what I shall give the hon. Gentleman in the Official Report. I will give one as an example. The figures for Brook Green are as follows: 2,892 in 1963 and 2,854 in 1962. The other figures are correspond-dingly all slightly higher than last year.

    —

    10th June, 1963

    18th June, 1962

    Brook Green

    2,892

    2,854

    Edgware Road

    2,824

    2,395

    Hackney

    2,951

    2,725

    Holloway

    2,710

    2,357

    Brixton
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Labour how many persons were registered as unemployed at the Brixton ex-
    852
    change at the latest available date; and what was the corresponding figure last year.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Two thousand six hundred and one on 10th June and 2,437 in June, 1962.
    Mr. Lipton: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bring these dismal figures to the notice of the Colonial Secretary, who recently told the people of Malta that there were tens of thousands of vacant jobs in the south of England, which is certainly not true of the London area, where unemployment and housing shortages would certainly be aggravated if the people of Malta were so foolish as to follow the Colonial Secretary's advice?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say, there is no doubt that in certain trades and in certain parts of London and the South-East there are vacant jobs which cannot be filled.

    Employment (Scotland)
    Mr. Smallasked the Minister of Labour how many redundancies among workers in Glasgow have been reported to his Department over the year up to the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour how many redundancies among workers in Lanarkshire have been reported, to his Department over the year up to the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Minister of Labour how many redundancies among workers in Fife have been reported to his Department over the year up to the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Steeleasked the Minister of Labour how many redundancies among workers in Dunbartonshire have been reported to his Department over the year up to the latest convenient date.
    Mr. J. Robertsonasked the Minister of Labour how many redundancies among workers in Renfrewshire have been reported to his Department over the year up to the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Hare: In the 12 months ending mid-June, 1963, 202 redundancies were reported in Glasgow, 66 in Lanarkshire,

    853
    32 in Fife, 20 in Dunbartonshire, and 53 in Renfrewshire affecting 10,169, 3,285, 2,378, 923 and 2,252 workers, respectively.
    Mr. Small: Do not these figures show that it is a waste of time for skilled men to put themselves on to the Ministry of Labour's books? There have been 202 redundancies in my constituency. Within the last fortnight another closure in the shipbuilding industry has been announced. Consequently, there will be more redundancies to add to the figure of 202. This is an inexcusable waste of skilled manpower in the Glasgow area. Surely the Government have some plan to cope with this problem. These men do not serve their time merely to become ciphers on the Ministry's books.
    Mr. Hare: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood my Answer. I said that 202 cases of redundancy were reported, affecting 10,169 people in the Glasgow area.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House find it difficult to understand a long series of figures such as he has just given? As these were separate Questions, why could we not have been given separate information? Will the Minister bear in mind that those figures represent jobs that have disappeared? This is not merely unemployment. These jobs have disappeared. Does the Minister agree that, according to the information available, the number of jobs disappearing exceeds the number of new jobs appearing?
    Mr. Hare: I thought it only right to try to answer the Questions in the way I did, not from any desire to be discourteous to individual Members of the House, but because there were a large number of Questions on the Order Paper. I thought it would probably suit the convenience of the House if I answered them in that way.
    On the problems of Lanarkshire, which I know the hon. Gentleman had in mind, it has already come out in answer to Questions tabled by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) that the industry most affected from the point of view of redundancy has been coalmining, with 1,200 workers affected. It is interesting that, since the beginning of
    854
    1962, closures or partial closures have affected 1,800 workers in the coalmining industry in Lanarkshire and over 1,100 of these have subsequently been redeployed in Scotland by the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that to talk in terms of one or two new factories here or there will not solve this problem because the number of new jobs which, we hope, will be provided will not make up for the number of workers who are receiving redundancy notices? Is he aware, for example, that at the end of this week 750 of my constituents will be out of work because of the closure of the local linoleum factory? Will he treat this matter as one of great urgency and urge his local officers to deal with those who will become unemployed at the end of this week with special consideration and expedition?
    Mr. Hare: I will certainly do all I can, and I am sure that my officers will do the same. As the hon. Member and the House knows, for I have said this repeatedly, there is no short cut to the solving of Scotland's unemployment problems. They can be solved only by the provision of more new jobs and this is the aim to which the Government are committed.
    Mr. Steele: Would the right hon. Gentleman repeat, for my benefit, the Dunbartonshire figures?
    Mr. Hare: Twenty in Dunbartonshire, affecting 923 workers.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise, arising out of these questions, that we are now being faced more and more with a quite new problem relating to unemployment; namely, unemployment which is attributable in the main to mechanical and technological changes? Would it be possible for the Minister to institute inquiries in order to provide clear figures to show the number of persons who have been thrown out of work during, say. the last twelve months, through technological change and rationalisation, and those who have been made unemployed as a result of ordinary trade recessions?
    Mr. Hare: I will see if that can be done. The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that a part of these figures

    855
    for redundancy is due to what he describes as technological change. However, I am sure that he will also agree that another part of them is due to the fact that certain of our older industries are contracting in size.
    Mr. Smallasked the Minister of Labour what was the increase in the number of male insured employees from mid-1959 to the latest available date in Great Britain and in Scotland, respectively.
    Mr. Hare: The number of male employees, employed and unemployed, rose by 450,000 in Great Britain from mid-1959 to mid-1962 and by 3,000 in Scotland.
    Mr. Small: Is the Minister aware of the differential which is shown in those figures, and should not something be done, having regard to the total of insured employees, to create more job opportunities in Scotland?
    Mr. Hare: As I have said, I think that we are all resolved in this House to see that more new jobs are provided in areas of high unemployment, that is in Scotland, the North-East and else-where. The actions of the Government are geared to achieve that objective.
    Mr. Grimond: Can the Minister give any idea of the number of people who have had to leave Scotland, apart from those registered as unemployed in Scotland, during this period?
    Mr. Hare: I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would put down that Question. It is not easy to give accurate figures of this sort but, if he will table a Question seeking the information, I will probably be able to give him some statistics which will be of assistance to him.
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Minister of Labour what was the increase in the number of female insured employees from mid-1959 to the latest available date in Great Britain and in Scotland, respectively.
    Mr. Hare: The number of female employees, employed and unemployed, rose by 480,000 in Great Britain from mid-1959 to mid-1962 and by 35,000 in Scotland.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many female school leavers in Fife have managed to secure employment this summer only by travelling to the North of Scotland and taking jobs in the hotel industry? What steps does the Minister propose to take to ensure that there will be employment in Fife for these girls when they return at the end of the holiday season?
    Mr. Hare: Fife is one of the areas which I hope will benefit from the plans the Government have set in being. I think that there is some comfort to be gained from the fact that there is less disparity between the increase in the number of female employees in Scotland and in Great Britain as a whole than that for males.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Minister happy in the knowledge that young girls aged 16 are having to leave their mining villages and seek work in the Isle of Man and elsewhere? Should he not be doing something more to find work for these young people in their own home towns so that, at these young ages, their parents can exercise some influence over them?
    Mr. Hare: I can assure the hon. Lady that I shall never be satisfied with this sort of happening. It is to ensuring that more local employment is made available in areas of high unemployment that the actions of the Government are being directed.

    Annual Report
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour when he proposes to publish the 1961 Annual Report of his Department.
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Member and the House will recall that in December, 1961, I announced that the publication of the Ministry's Annual Report was to cease.
    Mr. Lawson: I must confess that I do not remember that statement having been made. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the feeling I had when I looked for this document was that the Ministry was too ashamed to publish this Report? Since we are all anxious for this kind of information to be supplied, particularly hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies—so that we may know something about what

    857
    the right hon. Gentleman's Department is doing, how it is behaving and what it is achieving—will the Minister consider this matter afresh and, perhaps, publish these Reports again?
    Mr. Hare: When I made my announcement I think it was agreed that it was a sensible thing to do. The main topics previously covered in the Ministry's Annual Report have been dealt with in the Ministry of Labour Gazette. The hon. Member may also like to know that I am intending to make a report on the major trends in industrial relations at reasonable intervals. I am thinking of my responsibilities under the Conciliation Act and Section 13 of the Industrial Courts Act. I am considering making these major trends available from time to time, and it so happens that I think that the end of this year would be an appropriate time to publish these details. It will be seen, therefore, that the House will not be losing any information.

    Resettlement Transfer Scheme
    Mr. Steeleasked the Minister of Labour how many Scottish engineering craftsmen have been assisted under the Resettlement Transfer Scheme over the past three years to find employment in England.
    Mr. Whitelaw: In the three years ended 31st May last, the totals were 439, 220 and 147, respectively.
    Mr. Steele: Would it not be much better to provide jobs in Scotland rather than to incur the expense associated with resettlement and bringing workers south of the Border?
    Mr. Whitelaw: There can be no doubt that it is the policy of the Government to increase growth in Scotland rather than to encourage emigration of this sort. However, I am sure that it will be agreed by many people that for many years Scotsmen have left Scotland to go to all parts of the world, with valuable results to those parts of the world as well as to Scotland.
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Labour how many workers from Scotland over the past three years have been assisted under the Resettlement Transfer Scheme to find employment in England.
    Mr. Hare: In the three years ended 31st May last, the totals were 1,697, 1,244 and 505 respectively.
    Mr. Ross: Does the fact that there has been a decrease mean that the situation in Scotland is so much better?
    Mr. Hare: No, and the hon. Member knows that.

    Young Persons, Scotland
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Labour what proportion of his youth employment offices in Scotland reported difficulties in the placing of boys in suitable employment; and what advice he gave to those so reporting.
    Mr. J. Bennettasked the Minister of Labour what proportion of his youth employment offices in Scotland reported difficulties in placing girls in suitable employment; and what advice he gave to those so reporting.
    Mr. Hare: All youth employment offices in Scotland report regularly on the employment situation. Where there are particular difficulties in a specific area we are, of course, kept informed. In general, more difficulties have been reported in placing boys than girls. The position is kept under regular review by me and by my Scottish Youth Employment Advisory Committee.
    Mr. Ross: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by"kept under regular review", because the situation in regard to young people is getting worse and worse while the Government, according to the latest Report of the Estimates Committee on the Local Employment Act, are doing less and less? What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about it?
    Mr. Hare: Of course, we want to do more, but I think that the hon. Member will agree that this matter must be kept in perspective. To say that the Government are doing nothing, which is what his remarks implied, is absolutely unfair. The hon. Member should know that out of 16,302 Easter school leavens the number of those unemployed has been reduced to 549. Our object is to get those 549 boys and girls into employment.
    Miss Herbison: Will the right hon. Gentleman come to Scotland and see for himself?
    Mr. J. Bennett: In view of what has been said by my hon. Friends about unemployment generally in Scotland, particularly the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member far Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) about young girls being forced to leave their homes and seek work elsewhere, providing a constant worry to their parents, has the right hon. Gentleman nothing to say about what is to be done to reverse this trend and create more jobs in Scotland?
    Mr. Hare: I cannot say more at the moment than I have already said to the hon. Member and his hon. Friends. The Government have embarked on a considerable programme of expansion and this will help towards solving the unemployment problem, which worries me as well as the hon. Member.
    Mr. Prentice: Is the Minister aware that his replies to my hon. Friends would be more convincing if it were not for the fact that for the first quarter of this year more industrial development certificates were issued for the Midlands than for the whole of Scotland? What is he doing to discuss this matter with the President of the Board of Trade in an effort to get this trend reversed?
    Mr. Hare: This matter has certainly been brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. He will do all he can to further the policies of Her Majesty's Government to provide more employment in areas of high unemployment.

    Railway Workers, Scotland
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Minister of Labour what plans he has to find employment for redundant railway workers in Scotland.
    Mr. Hare: Arrangements are already being made at both local and regional level to make the full facilities of my Department available in advance of redundancy to all railway workers who seek our help.
    Mr. Dempsey: I regard that as a very poor statement, because the facilities of the right hon. Gentleman's Department may continue to be made available but we are still not getting the additional
    860
    jobs Scotland needs. Will the Minister get down to the problem of framing a blueprint of phased employment development to ensure that railway workers who become redundant in Scotland, and particularly in Airdrie, will find jobs available for them and not pie in the sky?
    Mr. Hare: As I have already said, it is the object of Her Majesty's Government to provide more employment in Scotland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to decry the work done by my Department, all of whose members are doing their very best in very difficult circumstances to look after people. As to the hon. Gentleman's general thesis, he will know that if the plan is implemented the reduction would be about 5,000 jobs. The anticipated wastage during this period is about 4,800 jobs. I cannot tell more precisely, nor can anyone else, what the actual redundancy is likely to be until these individual closure proposals are investigated by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee.

    Building Workers, Scotland
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Labour how many building trade workers are currently unemployed in Scotland; and what was the corresponding figure for last year.
    Mr. Hare: At 10th June, 1963, 13,511 workers whose last employment was in the construction industry were unemployed in Scotland, compared with 10,723 a year earlier. For skilled building trade workers, the numbers wholly unemployed were 1,665 and 1,198 respectively.
    Mr. Hamilton: How can the right hon. Gentleman explain the logic of an economic system in which Scotland has the worst housing position of the whole of Western Europe, with every local authority clamouring for more schools yet the Government refusing to let local authorities get on with the building, while at the same time we have thousands of building workers on the dole?
    Mr. Hare: The answer is that we have to train more skilled building workers if the building industry in Scotland is to be able to cope with the very large programme of public investment—which, I hope, will be followed by private investment—in the whole sector of the Scottish economy. That is why I am producing

    861
    a plan very considerably to increase the number of skilled workers to be trained for the building industry.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the Minister of Labour realise that many of these unemployed building workers are living in slum houses or overcrowded houses? If so, does he not think that there is something wrong in such a system?
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman, who is very fair on these matters, will realise that we will not be able to get the unskilled workers employed until more skilled workers are available. This will be the problem.
    Mr. Hamilton: How long has the Minister and his hon. Friend been in office?
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of that information without my having to give it to him.
    Mr. J. Bennettasked the Minister of Labour how many Scottish building trade workers have been assisted under the Resettlement Transfer Scheme over the past three years to find employment in England.
    Mr. Whitelaw: In the three years ended 31st May last the totals were 57,33 and 29, respectively.
    Mr. Bennett: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in this respect I am becoming, like Alice in Wonderland,"curiouser and curiouser"? The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Scottish Office has an ambitious programme of new schools, hospitals, industrial building, etc.; by what mental gymnastics does he intend to fulfil that programme while transferring workers to the South?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman should first of all appreciate that there is a very considerable programme of construction building work in Scotland. Secondly, it is very dangerous to generalise about figures of construction workers unemployed without breaking the figures down into trades. If hon. Members did that, they would find that already in Scotland there is, or is likely to be, a shortage of bricklayers. If there is a shortage of bricklayers, it is very difficult to employ many of the other skilled trades. It is because of that that
    862
    my right hon. Friend is stepping up the training of skilled workers in order to cover all the trades concerned.
    Mr. Steele: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he can go to any building site in London and find that half the bricklayers speak with a Scottish accent, and that if he would advise his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to get on with building we could employ those bricklayers in Scotland?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I should not like to dispute with the hon. Gentleman who speaks with a Scottish accent and who does not. It still remains a fact that, if we are fully to employ all the skilled building workers there are in Scotland at present, we have to make sure that there is not a shortage in one of the particular trades concerned.

    North-East
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Minister of Labour what was the total of unemployed in the North-East at the end of June; how this figure compares with that of 12 months ago; and what percentage rate it represents.
    Mr. John Hare: On 10th June—the latest date for which figures are available—the total was 52,480, or 4·5 per cent., compared with 39,121 or 3.4 per cent. on 18th June, 1962.
    Mr. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend tell me how many of these people are likely to find jobs as a result of the Government's programme of bringing in new industry? Can I now ask my right hon. Friend in person whether he, as Minister of Labour, will issue an exhortation to employers and trade unions to take on supernumary apprentices to cope with the problem of school leavers which will come before us in the very near future?
    Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend—and we work closely together—has already given that undertaking, and I will very willingly do so, too.

    Shipyard Workers, Govan
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Labour how many shipyard workers were employed in Govan in 1953 and in 1963.
    Mr. Whitelaw: There were 9,333 in May, 1953, and 5,581 in May, 1963.
    Mr. Rankin: Do not those figures awaken the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend, and the Government, from the sleep in which they have been indulging? Can the hon. Gentleman say what is being done to try to do something for the tremendous number of persons who have been thrown out of work as the result of the decline of the shipbuilding industry in Govan?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman is very well aware of the £30 million scheme to help ship owners recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to finance new orders. To that, there has been an encouraging response—
    Mr. Rankin—
    Mr. Whitelaw: —and the hon. Gentle-had better remain in his place, because I have more to say.
    The industry must do all in its power to make itself competitive with foreign shipyards. My right hon. Friend has established a joint working party to work out practical proposals for improving the industry's relations and competitive ability. This working party is making progress though, my right hon. Friend must say, not as rapidly as the urgency of the situation demands.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that the £30 million scheme was only announced about a month ago, and that it has taken nearly ten years to accumulate those 4,000 unemployed in Govan? What was he doing before the £30 million scheme was introduced?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Much consideration has been given to improving the position of the shipyards, but the hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate that this is a worldwide problem of supply and demand.

  MR. HAROLD PHILBY
  The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
  51 and 56. Lieut-Colonel Cordeaux: To ask the Lord Privy Seal (1) if he will state the nature of the reply sent by him to the inquiry from the Observer newspaper on 28th February
  864
  1963, concerning the whereabouts of Mr. Philby;
  (2) by what authority an official of the Foreign Office urged the Observer newspaper to employ Mr. Philby; and whether his department or the Observer newspaper took the initiative in this matter.
  52. Mr. A. Lewis: To ask the Lord Privy Seal on what date or dates Mr. Philby himself admitted that he worked for the Soviet authorities before 1946.
  55. Mr. Wade: To ask the Lord Privy Seal what assurances and recommendations were given to the editor of the Observer and the editor of the Economist by the Foreign Office before Mr. H. A. R. Philby was employed by them as a correspondent in the Middle East.
  57 and 61. Mr. Grimond: To ask the Lord Privy Seal (1) what information was given by his Department to the Observer and other papers as to the suitability of Mr. Philby as a correspondent in the Middle East;
  (2) what evidence he has that Mr. Philby has been living outside British legal jurisdiction for the last seven years.
  64. Mr. A. Lewis: To ask the Lord Privy Seal, in view of the Foreign Office's request for the resignation of Mr. Harold Philby as a security risk in 1951, why they advised his appointment with the Observer in 1956.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): Mr. Philby's name was given by the Foreign Office to the Observer in 1956 as a former journalist who was seeking employment. In reply to inquiries about him, the Foreign Office based itself on the statement made in the House of Commons by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, then Foreign Secretary, on 7th November, 1955. The Foreign Office acted in this matter on the authority of that ministerial statement.
  The Observer was also informed that the circumstances in which Mr. Philby was asked to resign from the public service made it highly unlikely that he would ever again be employed in any

  865
  work involving access to official information. As I told the House on the 1st of July, he has had no such access since 1951.
  As to the Observer's inquiry on 28th February, 1963, the foreign editor of the Observer was given the same information as I gave the House on 20th March, in reply to a Question from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) concerning the whereabouts of Mr. Philby.
  It was shortly before his disappearance on 23rd January, 1963, that Mr. Philby admitted that he worked for the Soviet authorities before 1946 and had warned Maclean, through Burgess, that the security services were about to take action against him.
  During the seven years before his disappearance Mr. Philby is known to have been living outside British jurisdiction, having made his home in Beirut. He paid a number of visits to the United Kingdom during that period. He is also believed, in the course of his journalistic activities, to have visited territories under British jurisdiction in the Middle East.
  Mr. A. Lewis: The Lord Privy Seal has now admitted that Mr. Philby has been here at least on two occasions. Why did the right hon. Gentleman say that he had not been within British jurisdiction, when he was entertained here in London? If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Daily Sketch of last Friday he will find that it seems to have more information than the Foreign Office. Why was it that only yesterday the deputy-editor of the Observer said that at no time had that paper had any inquiries made of it officially by M.I.5. or anyone working for M.I.5? Why not?
  Mr. Heath: As I said in my original statement a week ago, Mr. Philby had lived outside British jurisdiction. I stated today that he made his home in Beirut and was domiciled in the Lebanon. I have also said today that he made visits to this country and also, in his journalistic activities, to some colonial territories in the Middle East.
  As for the last supplementary question, it would not have been appropriate, in inquiries made about Mr. Philby, to have made inquiries from the newspapers.
  Mr. Grimond: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it rather strange that, when, as we have been informed, the file has been open during all these years, and inquiries have been going on, the Observer was encouraged to take on Mr. Philby and employ him in Beirut? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when it was suspected that Mr. Philby was a possible agent? Why were no inquiries made of the Observer and why did the Lord Privy Seal say that during the last seven years Mr. Philby has been living outside British legal jurisdiction? Surely the point was that he was not available for questioning, otherwise what was the point? Did the right hon. Gentleman know that during that time Mr. Philby had visited Britain and had been within the jurisdiction and could have been available for questioning?
  Mr. Heath: Mr. Philby was recommended to the Observer in 1956 on the strength of a statement made to the House of Commons that there was no evidence against him at that time. [Hon. Members:"Why?"] I am coming to that point. He was recommended because it was thought not unreasonable, and, indeed, wise, at that time that he should be in employment. [Hon. Members:"Why?"] There is a difference between the reason why he was asked to resign in 1951 by the then Foreign Secretary, because of his previous association, and the question of employment with a newspaper. It was thought, as the then Foreign Secretary stated in the House of Commons in 1955, that there was no evidence against him, and that it was not unreasonable that he should be employed by a newspaper. For that reason, it was put to the Observer.
  As for the second part of the question with which the right hon. Gentleman was concerned, I was aware that Mr. Philby had made his home in Beirut. The point about the legal jurisdiction was that it was possible to reach conclusions, as a result of the admissions made by Mr. Philby, only at a time when he was living outside British legal jurisdiction. He did not return to this country between that time and the time he disappeared. I was not aware of the details of his return to this country during the course of his journalistic conferences with his papers.
  Mr. Wall: Would my right hon. Friend make quite clear who took the initiative in finding Mr. Philby a job? Was it the Foreign Office or the Observer.
  Mr. Heath: The Foreign Office took the initiative with the Observer, The Observer took the initiative with the Economist.
  Mr. Grimond: I am greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but did he know when he answered Questions last Monday that Mr. Philby had visited this country at least twice?
  Mr. Heath: I stated very clearly that I was not aware of the details of his return to this country.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since the Observer and the Economist have considerable attention paid to them, particularly, perhaps, overseas, may we now hope that since Mr. Philby must have influenced their judgment on the Nasserite régime there will be an agonising reappraisal of their Middle East views on the part of these two journals?
  Mr. Heath: It was a question for the two papers employing him to judge his work and its value to them. It was entirely within their competence and for them to decide whether he should continue in their employment. It will be seen from the Observer yesterday that it discussed in great detail the quality of his work while he was employed by the newspaper.
  Mr. G. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this extraordinary position? The Foreign Office asks a man to resign for reasons which had to do with his past political associations. Why did the Foreign Office then take the initiative to get a newspaper to employ him in the Middle East? The Foreign Office is not normally an employment agency. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this sort of thing is bringing out in the open a lot of things which as a rule ought to remain not discussed in the open? Why did the Foreign Office do this?
  Mr. Heath: There seems to be a slight contradiction in the right hon. Gentleman saying that these matters ought not to be discussed in the open and then asking me directly why the suggestion
  868
  was made about Mr. Philby. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who has certain experience of these matters, to recognise that fact.
  After Mr. Philby was asked to resign in 1951 by the then Foreign Secretary, because of his previous associations, there was a period in which he had some employment, arranged presumably by himself. In 1955, the then Foreign Secretary stated that after a thorough examination of this matter no evidence had been found against Mr. Philby and, therefore, no charge of any kind was brought against him.
  In these circumstances it was thought not unreasonable, and, indeed, in some circumstances, as perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now recognise, wise, that it should be suggested that he should resume his previous journalistic employment. For that reason an approach was made to the Observer.
  Dame Irene Ward: While detesting Communism, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he thinks that in this free world, for which at the appropriate time many Communists fought, nobody who had Communist leanings at any time should ever be able to earn a livelihood again? Would my right hon. Friend like me to outline in the House the number of Communists appointed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in office?
  Mr. Heath: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the point which I was trying to make—that there is a difference between the reasons for which Mr. Philby was asked to resign, owing to his previous associations, and which surely are not incompatible with employment on a newspaper if the proprietors so decide, and the question of his security risk in Government employment where he has access to secret information.
  Mr. G. Brown: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware of what he is now saying? The only interest of the Foreign Office in this man being employed by somebody so that he could work in the Middle East could have been a Foreign Office interest. What was that Foreign Office interest? Was it that he should be available for work that he had been doing before, which was security work? Why should the Foreign Office put itself out,

  869
  when a man had been asked to resign because he was not regarded as security-worth-while, and ask somebody else to employ him to go back there to do security work; and subsequently, when he was found out not to be security worth-while, why should not the Foreign Office accept responsibility?
  Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to draw the conclusions that he has just drawn. In any case, he will not expect me to make any further comment upon conclusions of that kind.
  Mr. Burden: My right hon. Friend gave the House to understand, I believe, that the abilities of this journalist were assessed by the newspaper that employed him, but surely their assessment of his value and of his ability was coloured by the fact that he was suggested for employment by the Foreign Office.
  Dame Irene Ward: Rubbish.
  Mr. Burden: I do not believe that is rubbish. Is it not dangerous for the Foreign Office to suggest to newspapers that any particular journalist should be given employment? Is this proper behaviour?
  Mr. Heath: No suggestions were made by the Foreign Office about the quality of Mr. Philby's work, or his capacity for carrying out journalistic tasks. What the Foreign Office did was to suggest his name to the Observer, and it was always the responsibility of the Observer—[Interruption.] I am dealing with my hon. Friend's question. It was always the responsibility of the Observer and the Economist, or whoever else employed Mr. Philby, to make a judgment about his work. If my hon. Friend casts his mind back to the time of these episodes he will recollect that one of these newspapers took the view that Mr. Philby had been somewhat unfairly treated in that at the time when there was no evidence against him he was unable to secure employment.
  Mr. M. Foot: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the statement he made a week ago about Mr. Philby was because of the Government's ingrained preference for complete candour, or was there a less evident reason for it?
  Mr. Heath: I made the statement to the House because all the possible conclusions had been reached in this case, and I thought it right to tell the House at that time what those conclusions were. It is for similar reasons that I have answered these Questions after the normal Question hour today.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that Mr. Philby made his admission just before his disappearance, presumably last January. Could he explain why, on 20th March, he told the House that he had given the House all the information in the Government's possession? Did he not know about this admission at that time, or was he not giving us all the information in his possession?
  Mr. Heath: I can give the answer to that one very easily. The Question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend who asked Question No. 51 today concerned the whereabouts of Mr. Philby. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at my Answer he will see that I gave all the information that we had at the time about Mr. Philby's whereabouts. It was later than that that we gained further information about the suggestion that he might have gone behind the Iron Curtain. As the work on this particular case was still being carried on, it would, in any event, have been quite inappropriate for me and not in the national interest to have given such other information as we had.
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this matter now without a Question before the House. [An Hon. Member:"It ought to be debated."] That may be, but not now.

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

WELSH AFFAIRS
Tourism in Wales and Monmouthshire, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Sir K. Joseph.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [24th Allotted Day]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir William Anstruther-Gray in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1963–64
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  That a further sum not exceeding £25 be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for the following services connected with Housing and Urban Land Prices, namely: —

  Civil Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, 1963–64

  £

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

  10

  Class VI, Vote 1, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Supplementary Estimate)

  5

  Class VI, Vote 3, Housing, England and Wales

  10

  Total

  £25

HOUSING AND URBAN LAND PRICES
3.45 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): This is the first opportunity that we have had to debate housing since the publication of my right hon. Friend's White Paper in May. It is an opportunity that we welcome.
Although I do not assume that the purpose for which the Opposition chose this subject was to be entirely laudatory, I hope that we shall start from the agreement that we all recognise that the home, in the broadest sense in which that word is used, still remains the anchor of a healthy society. But I would hope, also, that we would agree that the provision of decent housing is not the only factor involved, and that it will be accepted that in reviewing the past, the present and the future it is necessary to do so against a background of priorities covering a very much wider field.
872
As to what these priorities are, there are bound to be differences of view, but if we are to devote more of our resources to housing we must devote less to something else, and it is incumbent upon those who criticise to be as precise about where they would cut as about where they would increase.
I think that the Opposition will also be concerned with the record of the past as well as the policy for the future. I think that it is right, therefore, to remind the Committee of the very formidable success that has been achieved. Between 1st November, 1951, and 31st May of this year the number of permanent houses built in Great Britain has been over 3·4 million, which, together with approximately 1 million built under the Socialist Government, means that about 27 per cent. of our total housing stock has been built since the war. In addition, as the White Paper points out, about 670,000 houses have been improved with the aid of grant and, no doubt, many others without. But there remain formidable problems, and we certainly have no wish either to minimise them or to disguise them. The White Paper faces them squarely. But whatever criticism the Opposition may be impelled to level against the record of the past, I think that they will have a formidable task to show that they either would or could have built more houses.
The achievements of the last 12 years rest very largely on the fact that we were able by 1953 to exceed the target figure of 300,000 houses per annum, whereas the Opposition must remember that in 1951, during the General Election, and despite all the pressures that are general on those occasions to show their party at the best advantage, the best that they could forecast—and I am quoting the Prime Minister of the day in his broadcast of 20th October—was:
"We cannot at present go beyond 200,000".
I suggest to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that they will need some ingenious arithmetical juggling to prove that they could have hoped to make up that deficit of the earlier years by improving substantially over the 300,000 in later years so as to reach the same overall totals.
On the other hand, when we face criticism, as I have no doubt we shall,

873
with regard to the distribution of houses between local authorities and private builders, we face here a genuine clash of opposing philosophies. I am not exactly sure where the party opposite stands on this matter today, but for our part we firmly believe that the function of subsidised local authority housing is to provide for those who, in the absence of subsidy, genuinely cannot afford to provide decent housing for themselves.
But whether a house is built for letting by a local authority or for owner-occupation by a private builder, it fulfils a housing need. It cannot seriously be contended that the need for a house becomes any less urgent because the prospective occupier cam afford to meet the cost. That is not, of course, to say that we do not recognise that much more remains to be done in the local authority field, especially in regard to slum clearance and in the areas where great pressures have forced market prices beyond the range of income groups which, in other parts of the country, can afford to compete.
As paragraph 43 of the White Paper makes plain, the public authorities' share of the housing programme has in recent years increased, is increasing and will continue to increase. But in looking to the future the factor that dominates the scene is the substantial rise in the rate of increase of our population and the rapid change in its pattern. With people marrying and starting families younger, living longer and, rightly, aspiring to higher standards, the number of households has increased between 1951 and 1961 by 12·1 per cent. against a population increase of 5·3 per cent.
So, as paragraph 10 of the White Paper points out, over the next 20 years 125,000 new houses a year will be needed merely to keep up with the growth of households. In addition, there remains a serious overall shortage of houses in certain areas, in particular London and the other conurbations, and a formidable problem of slum clearance.
It is against this background that we have set our sights at reaching a rate of house building of 350,000 houses per annum as rapidly as possible. I do not think that that figure has been seriously challenged, either by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite or by responsible commentators in the Press, or in the
874
professional journals, either as unrealistic on the one hand or over-modest on the other, but no doubt we shall see during the course of the debate.
This expansion of the total annual housing programme to at least 350,000, including a local authority programme of up to 150,000, produces a vast housing programme by any standard. 350,000 houses equals the number of dwellings in Birmingham and Solihull together as shown at the 1961 census, and at an assumed cost of £2,500 per dwelling, it constitutes an annual investment of £875 million. To achieve this we need greater output from the building industry if we are also to sustain the other large programmes of construction, on the one hand on schools, hospitals and roads and on the other on the factories and offices needed to provide employment for an expanding population.
With this aspect of the matter my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Building and Works dealt comprehensively in our last Supply debate on 2nd May. But my Department also has an important contribution to make. Our aim is to get maximum efficiency from the clients' end of the operation by planning housing programmes on a scale sufficient to gain the benefits of factory production, and to this end we are urging the formation of groups of local authorities to operate on a larger basis than is possible for any single individual authority. Two such groups have already been formed. There is a Yorkshire development group comprising Sheffield, Leeds and Hull and a Midlands housing consortium consisting of ten neighbouring county boroughs. Other groups are beginning to emerge.
We are encouraging, too, the adoption of standard dimensions for ceiling heights, windows, and so on, and the standardisation of components, as well as the adoption of factory systems of building. At the same time, we are undertaking research into various lightweight systems of construction; houses based on these methods have already been built in Steven age and Sheffield, and there are further projects under way.
Mr. R. J. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman is arguing in favour of large groupings of local authorities for the building of houses. I do not think

875
that many of us on this side of the Committee would quarrel with that. However, that being the policy of the Government, can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Government are, at the same time, pushing forward a Bill which is designed to smash up the London County Council, which is already the biggest housing authority in the country?
Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the London boroughs will be very much larger than the existing metropolitan boroughs and that the Greater London Council will also have housing responsibilities on an even bigger scale than the London County Council.
We have further agreed to guarantee local authority building programmes for up to five years in areas where the worst problems are so that the councils can have the maximum advantage of continuity and long-term programmes.
Hitherto, total housing construction has been almost exclusively divisible into local authority houses and houses built by private enterprise for owner-occupation. The great gap has been in the provision of private enterprise houses to rent. No doubt there are a number of reasons for this—the cost and difficulties of management, the need or the desire to turnover capital and the relative attraction of building for sale in conditions of continued demand from prospective owner-occupiers; and this latter is something to be welcomed.
Indeed, it is a matter for satisfaction, though not for complacency, that we have now reached a stage where 6·8 million houses, or more than 40 per cent. of the total stock, are in owner-occupation. By American standards, where, I understand, the figure approaches 60 per cent., we have still some distance to go, but we have certainly made progress. We have very nearly doubled the proportion since the end of the war. But there will always, of course, be a demand for houses to rent by people who can well afford to pay an economic rent.
Whatever the other reasons for the reluctance of private enterprise to embark on any substantial contribution towards making good the deficiency in houses to let, the party opposite must bear a considerable part of the blame
876
for the major deterrent, which is its continued dedication to the reimposition of rent control. I do not deny for one moment that there are cases where landlords have exploited the housing shortage or demanded exorbitant rents and inflicted great hardship on tenants. This is an evil, but this sort of activity is not typical of landlords.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr, Corfield: I can assure the Committee that in my correspondence I have many cases brought to my attention, and by no means all of them by hon. Members on this side of the Committee, where rent control is shown to inflict severe hardship, i.e., severe hardship on owners, and particularly small owners. Over and over again I hear of people who have invested their savings in a house for their retirement and cannot now claim possession.
Mr. Mellish: But this is minimal.
Mr. Corfield: There are others whose sole source of income is that from a house bought many years ago and which barely meets the cost of maintenance. I really can assure the Committee that hardship is not all one way. The evil from bad landlords, of which I have been speaking, is not a general evil. Recontrol must be looked at not only in the light of its efficacy as a remedy for this particular evil, but also in the light of the ramifications that it is likely to have over the housing situation as a whole.
Neither control nor decontrol as such increases the number of houses, but there is a good deal of evidence to the effect that control reduces, and is always likely to reduce, the supply of houses to rent. Before the Rent Act was passed it was becoming the almost invariable practice for landlords with vacant properties to sell rather than relet. [Hon. Members:"They are doing it now."] Hon. Members opposite say that they are doing it now. The most detailed surveys to hand show that this happens only at the most with one out of five properties. Four out of five are relet.
It is very easy for hon. Members opposite to talk generally and vaguely about a fair rent, but it is a very different matter to devise a formula for determining it that will encourage, rather than

877
discourage, the maintenance of existing private capital in housing, let alone attract more. This is surely what we have to do. It is, of course, with that end in view that the Government attach so much importance to the proposed new third arm in the organisation of housing—the housing association, the housing co-operative, and the Housing Corporation.
As the Committee will recall, Section 7 of the 1961 Act made available £25 million for cost rent housing schemes. The response has been encouraging, although inevitably an incentive such as this takes time before it is reflected in firm plans, let alone in houses on the ground. But I am happy to state that my latest information shows that 42 projects from 23 housing associations, involving 2,430 dwellings and loans amounting to nearly £9 million, have so far been approved.
The new Housing Corporation will have £100 million available, under the White Paper proposals, from which it will lend about one-third of the amount required by housing associations on loans for up to 40 years. It is expected that the building societies will lend the rest for a similar period. Of course, £100 million is a considerable sum, and it will go a lot further than helping to provide an initial £300 million worth of housing because, after a while, the money will recirculate and be available again for more investment in more housing associations. The Housing Corporation can, we believe, be a most important institution, not only helping the growth of the housing association movement but also contributing to the development of new systems and raising standards of design and materials.
We hope, too, that, together with the provisions of the Finance Bill, it can give a further impetus to the co-operative type of housing association in which the tenants and the members of the association are the same people. Under this type of scheme, the tenant secures many of the advantages of owner-occupation, except that should he wish to move the dwelling remains the property of the association, of which he ceases to be a member, and he is repaid the contribution he has made.
878
I want now to turn to the question of the provision of land and land prices.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Whilst we are in no way opposed to housing associations, may we ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us what rate of interest the associations will have to pay on the loans? Will it be the market rate? If so, they will be no better off than anyone else.
Mr. Corfield: Yes. The market rate.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: On a point of order, Sir William. The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to a recent survey which indicates, he said, that one in five houses only is resold. If he is quoting from a document, should not that document be laid before the House?
The Chairman: I did not hear the Joint Parliamentary Secretary quote anything. I heard him give a figure, as I thought, in summary.
Mr. Mellish: Further to that point of order, Sir William. The Parliamentary Secretary made the point that he could give certain figures in consequence of a recent survey. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) is right to ask whether there is such a survey and to suggest that, if the hon. Member is to quote from it—as he has done—we should have it before us so that we can take it into account and check that what the hon. Gentleman is saying is correct.
The Chairman: I did not recognise what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said as a quotation.
Mr. Corfield: I was quoting from the Donnison Report, which has been published and is, as far as I know, in the Library. I will send the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) a copy if he has not got one. We recognise that hon. Members opposite have different views on rates of interest and about differential rates. No doubt all this will be raised during the debate, and my right hon. Friend will deal with it at the end. At the moment, I want to deal with the question of the provision of land and the price of urban land which, I understand, is the second main topic which the Opposition wish to discuss.
Mr. George Brown: The hon. Gentleman was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) whether these housing associations would have to borrow at the market rate. I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Minister say to the hon. Gentleman,"Say yes". Will the hon. Gentleman please tell my hon. Friend that?
Mr. Corfield: It will be the Treasury rate, but it is not expected that it will differ markedly from the market rate.
I do not wish to intrude into the time of the debate longer than necessary, but I want to deal with the land problem. The corollary of any housing programme is the provision of the necessary land and that, of course, remains a function of planning, which is briefly referred to in paragraphs 28 to 30 of the White Paper. But it is quite clear that an increasing population, demanding higher standards not only in housing but in schools, hospitals, factories, offices, open spaces and roads, and so on, must exert a very considerable pressure upon land.
So, too, does the vast increase in car ownership, which is estimated as likely to be doubled by 1970. Indeed, sub stantial acreages are already devoted to the motor car in one form or another, and more will clearly be required in future.
Basically, what determines where people want to live is their work, and exactly where they live depends on the communications with their place of work. In turn, the location of new industry depends in large measure upon the network of national communications, and new links in that network are, again, largely dictated by the need to link up existing or growing industrial and commercial centres. These are considerations which cut right across the boundaries of existing local planning authorities. It is necessary to look at these problems in the much wider context of the region, rather than of the local planning authority, and to ensure that regional plans themselves dovetail into a cohesive national plan. This is the purpose of our regional studies, which will provide the framework or skeleton on which local planning authorities will build and fill in the details for their respective areas.
880
I know that many hon. Members on both sides would wish to go further in the development of this regional planning concept by setting up formal regional planning authorities. There are various approaches. I am bound to say that nearly all of them do seem to me to present difficulties, although no doubt they also have advantages. I have no doubt that many will have their advocates this afternoon.
At this stage, I only wish to remind the Committee of two points which I regard as of overriding importance. The first is that planning at this level not only requires a very high degree and wide variety of skills, but also very close co-ordination between a number of Government Departments—not only my Ministry, but also the Board of Trade, the Ministries of Transport, and of Power, and of course the Treasury. Secondly—and I hope that the Committee will agree—a very considerable degree of local responsibility for local planning is essential and vital to the life of local government. Against these considerations, I submit that the system we have been following—of regional studies, carried out by the central Government and subsequently discussed with and implemented by local planning authorities—has a very real advantage.
I want to turn now to the question or the price of land. Not only, of course, have we got all these demands for land, but they are demands which, by and large, are particularly concentrated in certain parts of the country and, in themselves, underline the need in those same areas to preserve land for green belts and open spaces.
In many areas there is still no shortage of building land, though in the areas of pressure in and around the conurbations, and in the Midlands and the South-East generally land prices are high; in many cases they are very high.
Mr. Frank Allaun: They have been since 1959.
Mr. Corfield: That is the inevitable operation of a free market with a buoyant demand facing a position of static of even shrinking supply. As I understand it, this is the basic issue which divides the Committee.
A free market and competing pressures increase the cost of development and of

881
course that is particularly noticeable in developments of an obviously social character such as housing, education and hospitals. But that is not the whole story. There is the powerful magnetism of the great cities, which is responsible for the greatest pressure on land and, therefore, for the highest prices. It is a social-cum-economic phenomenon common to all the advanced countries in the world. Much as we may deplore its side effects, as a general proposition I cannot see that we contribute to the solution of this problem by cheapening land in the very areas where it is imperative to discourage rather than to encourage further concentration.
Whatever our pricing system, and whatever our planning system, if we are to preserve anything of our incomparable countryside I submit to the Committee that building land should always be regarded as a precious commodity, to be husbanded with the utmost care. A situation in which economic forces reinforce planning control in ensuring that the land is used to the maximum advantage is not entirely without its merits. Conceding that there are disadvantages in high prices of land for housing, schools and hospitals, it is not enough merely to advocate change.
It is also necessary for the Opposition to show that any alternative scheme, which may be the star to which they have hitched their wagon, is workable and has advantages which outweigh its disadvantages and that it will produce overall a more satisfactory system than the present one. In my submission, so far, the Opposition have failed to do this and we shall listen with interest to what is said by hon. Members opposite today.
As I understand their policy, it combines a proposal to secure land cheaply with a form of"betterment" whereby, to quote from" Signposts for the Sixties":
"the community obtain the benefit of the future rise in the value of land".
The first stage in the operation, apparently, would be for a Land Commission to purchase land which it is proposed to develop, and presumably the selection of the land would remain with the planning system. The second stage would be the granting of a lease. Indeed, the
882
whole basis of these proposals appears to rest upon a leasehold system.
I think that hon. Members opposite will agree—I hope that they will—that leaseholds will have to be of a fairly long duration, particularly in respect of commercial and industrial land. In the first place, only a long lease will attract a developer. In the second place, industrial and commercial firms often have to build to their own requirements and must have security of tenure to make it worth their while. On occasions they must be prepared to expand or change with changing techniques.
Finally, they will have in mind that it may be necessary at some stage that the undertaking should be sold as a going concern, or combined with other undertakings in similar trades. It is, therefore, difficult to see how, certainly in the commercial or industrial sector, this system of leasehold can conceivably be maintained in an expanding economy, unless the leaseholds are long, readily transferable and probably extendable. In other words, there will have to be a free market in leaseholds. And leaseholds, especially long leaseholds, are subject to exactly the same market pressures as are freeholds.
Moreover, the terms of the lease, according to the pamphlet, are to ensure that the community obtains the benefit of the future rise in the value of the land. But the value of the land increases as soon as planning permission is granted, or, under the scheme envisaged by the Opposition, as soon as the purchase is made by the Land Commission. It increases to the current market level for the type of land and the type of development in question. If this increase, as presumably is the case, is to be included in that which is to enure to the community, there can be no difference in the price of land to the user compared with what it is under the present scheme.
Similar arguments apply to land used for private housing but here again, as I see it, there seem to be further complications. Private houses change hands very much more frequently than do commercial or industrial premises. Indeed, it is the essence of owner-occupation that there should be no restriction on resale. Few of us, when we buy our first or even our second house, can guarantee that it will

883
be either possible or desirable to stay put for the rest of our lives.
If, under the Opposition's scheme, the Land Commission is to help by
"leasing plots of land to small owner-occupiers an especially favourable terms"
there will have either to be a restriction on resale, or any increase in value will accrue not to the community, but to the owner. The only difference will be that it will be a larger increase in value by the amount by which the sale by the Commission was less than the true value.
It should be borne in mind that the price on resale will be dictated by the general position of supply, and the general position will be set by the vast stock of existing houses which inevitably for many years ahead will vastly out-number those built under the scheme.
As I see it, the second problem which arises is that whatever the merits of the leasehold system it is simply not consistent with owner-occupation as we know it today. Nor, to all appearances, is it readily reconcilable with the pledge which, I understand, has been given by the Leader of the Opposition to introduce the compulsory enfranchisement of leaseholds. As I have already reminded the Committee, hitherto houses built since the war have been divided almost exclusively between local authority houses and houses built for owner-occupation.
There is no reason to suppose that there will be a rush of private developers into the renting market if these proposals are combined with a threat to reimpose rent control. There is also no reason to believe that the increase in owner-occupation has come to an end, or that it will not continue to increase to probably something in the neighbourhood of the proportion prevailing in the United States.
The owner-occupied sector is very large and I suggest to the Opposition that it does not make sense to rest a plan for land prices on a leasehold system and then tell us that the owner-occupier will be entitled to his freehold and, at the same time, benefit by lower prices, which, again we are told, can arise only under a leasehold system. Either the Opposition do not believe in owner-occupation, in the sense that the owner-occupier owns the freehold—in which
884
case it does not make very much sense to talk about the enfranchisement of leaseholds—or they do believe in owner-occupation in the current meaning, and are concerned, in their Land Commission and leasehold scheme, only with local authorities and those unlikely private developers in the letting market under a system of rent control.
I sincerely hope that hon. Members opposite will make their position clear during the debate.
The Opposition's proposals for undeveloped land, most of which will be agricultural, appear to be merely to acquire compulsorily at a price lower than the market value and to pocket the difference for the State. Is not what they are proposing really a system of taxation?
We have to look at these proposals in the light of the proposition that land once acquired will, as to its future value, enure to the benefit of the community. As I see it, terms which ensure that this happens can only mean one of two things, either a levy on resale or a periodic review of ground rents. If it is to be the former, I hope that we shall be told whether it is proposed that the whole of the profit element is to accrue to the community, whether allowance will be made for the fall in the value of money in the meantime, and whether account will betaken of the fact that the vendor may well have to rehouse himself in the sector of the market represented by existing houses as at today, which, of course, by definition, are out of this scheme and will be subject to the free play of the market. If, on the other hand, the proposal is for a periodic review of ground rents, we ought to be told how this differs in effect from the rating of site values, to which, so I have always understood, the party opposite is opposed.
If all that the Opposition are anxious about is that the increase in value should accrue to the State, they have merely to use the rating system, divorce the increase in value due to the buildings from that due to the land, and insist on a rate of 20s. in the £. That, I submit, is the effect of what they propose, and I hope that they will bear it in mind when they next accuse us of being insensitive to the rise in the rate burden.
I believe that over the past 12 years we have a fine record in housing. I

885
welcome wholeheartedly the Leader of the Opposition's wish, stated during the weekend, to fight the next election on that record. I am confident that the White Paper points the way to still further advances which are both substantial and realistic. I admit that they lack the spectacular. There are no rash promises by my right hon. Friend to cure the housing situation by the next election. I concede that in some areas and in some spheres land prices raise difficult problems, but I do not believe either that the disadvantages are all one way or that the ideas cherished by the Opposition can do other than create far more problems and far more anomalies than those which they set out to cure. As they say themselves in Signposts for the Sixties:
"Since John Stuart Mill made his proposals"
for the public ownership of building land,
"a series of partial attempts have been made to tackle the problem—all of them unsuccessful. It is now clear that public ownership of building land is the only way…"
The sole argument that this represents a way, let alone the only way, rests on the fact that, hitherto, the country has had the sense to reject it.
4.24 p.m.
Mr. Michael Stewart: The Parliamentary Secretary, having elected to open the debate, has, as we expected, told us something about the contents of the Government's White Paper. In view of the fanfare with which the White Paper was greeted on publication, I rather thought that the Government would have decided to choose a day of their own. time on which to expound the White Paper, particularly as it means very little unless there is to be a good deal of legislation based upon it, and we are to some extent inhibited, on a Supply day, in discussing legislation. However, the Government were not keen enough on their own White Paper to give any of their own time for it, and we are glad enough that they should have some of ours.
It would have been a very promising White Paper if it had been presented to Parliament at the outset of a new Government's term of office instead of at the end of an old and exhausted Government's term of office. Here is a series of ideas. Here are things most of which
886
cannot be put into operation until legislation is passed. The operation of them cannot, in fact, begin in this Parliament. Here, then, we have rather more of an election manifesto than a serious statement of Government policy. This conclusion is reinforced when we note that the actual contents of the White Paper are in every case modified echoes of things which other people have been telling the Government for the past six or seven years.
A target—perhaps that is too definite a word—an estimate is given of how many houses ought to be built per year in the coming years. Our main comment about that estimate is that it is substantially more than we are building at present and, as we now learn from the Parliamentary Secretary, a big proportion is to be houses provided by local authorities. That is exactly what we have been telling the Government for a good many years, that the total of building was not sufficient and that their present policy of steadily cutting down the number of council houses was one which ought to be reversed. Now, in the last stage of this Government's life, we are told that, at last, it is to be reversed.
The second proposal is for the setting up of a Housing Corporation. The interesting feature of that proposal is this. The Government make proposals to help owner-occupation. They make proposals for more council houses. They make proposals for the repair of old houses. When they come to the provision of rented accommodation by any agency other than the public authorities, they say nothing whatever about the provision of rented accommodation by ordinary private enterprise working for profit. They have, at last, reached the conclusion, which we have been rubbing into them for some time, that it is no good nowadays relying upon private enterprise working for profit to provide rented accommodation at rents within the means of most of the population.
In essence, the Housing Corporation proposal is—I do not use the adjective in any unfriendly sense—a philanthropic solution. The idea is that there will be enough people found throughout the country to do the organising work in getting the houses built, managing them, and arranging for their letting, and doing this not for profit. I hope that

887
the Government will be able to find them, but I think that it will be quite a job.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): Of course, the hon. Gentleman will have seen the sentence referring to the fact that the Housing Corporation will have paid officials at the centre and paid officials also in the regions to help to organise the housing societies which are to be formed.
Mr. Stewart: I do not dispute that. It is interesting to see how much propping up from the public one needs to get even the semblance.
Sir K. Joseph: Not propping up.
Mr. Stewart: Well, the Minister said that they would be paid for out of public funds. Even so, he must know that his policy depends on finding a considerable number of people prepared to work on these associations not for profit. I earnestly hope that they will be found. We know that there are many admirable people prepared to help, but it must, surely, be accepted that there is now an admission on both sides of the House that it is no good relying on private enterprise working for profit to provide rented accommodation. I shall show that some significant consequences flow from this.
The Government say something about the review of subsidies. We have been telling them for a long time that the provision from public funds, from the Exchequer, to local authorities to meet their housing responsibilities was not sufficient. Although there may be differences in our view of how the subsidies ought to be applied, it seems that, at the end of the White Paper, the Government themselves come to the conclusion that more subsidy help will be needed for local authorities. Once again, better late than never.
The fourth and last proposal mentioned is that steps should be taken to repair and modernise older houses. The essence of this proposal is to be met by increasing activity on the part of local authorities, backed up by compulsion, if necessary. It looks almost as though Ministers have been secretly attending meetings of a local Fabian Society. It
888
has registered with the light hon. Gentleman at last that the whole attempt by rent decontrol and improvement grants to get the main body of private landlords—I readily admit that there are admirable exceptions—to keep houses in decent repair and bring them up to date has failed, and we have to rely on the public authority.
In essence, we have a White Paper composed of modified versions of advice that other people have been giving to the Government, requiring legislation and not likely to be operated in the present Parliament. I would not go as fair as the Estates Gazette, which, after examining the Minister's White Paper and referring to the famous Hans Andersen tale,"The Emperor's New Clothes", concluded, choosing its words, I must say, very tactlessly:
"The Housing Emperor is standing there stark naked".
Mr. Dingle Foot: Wearing a mask.
Mr. Stewart: The Estates Gazette went on to make certain suggestions as to what he was wearing, which, for reasons of decency, I shall not repeat to the Committee.
Without going as far as that, we must ask, first, how far this White Paper meets the needs of ordinary people today, and, secondly, how far is it framed to meet the needs of the very startling future that lies ahead of us—the future of 60 million people in this country by the early 1980s and, perhaps, 70 million at the and of the century.
When I come to examine that second question and its relevance to the needs of the future, it will be necessary for me as for the Parliamentary Secretary, to say something about the price and use of land. Let us look, first, at how far this White Paper and policy meets people's present needs. We can most of us gauge people's present needs by taking a cross-section of the letters that come to us from our constituents, day after day and week after week. First, there is the need of the very many families who want simply to escape from slums, from filth, or, if not as bad as that, from overcrowding and constant restriction of life.
One could still find a case—there was a case in a metropolitan juvenile court

889
very recently—of nine human beings occupying one room. There are the far more numerous cases of families who, some years ago, may have had just adequate room, but who now, with the growth in the size of the family or the mere increase in the age of the children, find that their whole pattern of life is intolerably cramped and see no way of getting out of it into more spacious or appropriate accommodation. What is the situation there?
In paragraph 11 of the White Paper, we are told that the slum clearance programme, which began eight years ago and which was supposed, in effect, to finish the job in ten years from when it began, is now to extend over another ten years, and even at the end of that time the problem will not be solved in the more obstinate districts. On the question of shortage, the White Paper, in paragraph 8, estimates the present immediate shortage of houses as between 500,000 and 1 million, yet in 1959, four years ago, the National Housing and Town Planning Council estimated the shortage then as 500,000.
The situation certainly has not got better by this measuring rod in the last four years. It is difficult to reconcile that with certain advertisements appearing in the Press at the moment, stating that already the housing shortage has been greatly relieved. The significance of these figures is this: there is room for argument, as to how far this figure of 350,000 is a realistic figure. It is difficult to give a precise answer, because it depends on how much potential improvement can be found through the use of new building methods, and that, I agree, is still an uncertain question.
In a few years, we may be able to take a more optimistic view, but it would be unwise to take it now. Whatever view is taken on that, there can be no doubt at all that 350,000 houses, even if it is the very best that we can hope to reach in the near future, will not be enough for a long time to come.
Building at that rate means that the demand for houses will be well in excess of the supply for a long time. Two things follow. First, in view of that desperate imbalance in demand and supply, the Government must look again at the question of rent control. If they
890
look back at their own speeches when the Rent Act was passed, they will see that it was passed on the assumption that before long supply and demand for housing would equate at a reasonable figure.
This estimate of 350,000, as against our real needs, shows that there is no prospect of that in the foreseeable future. The other thing that follows is that we must accept the proposition that a bigger proportion of the national effort has to be devoted to housing in the future than in the past. The Parliamentary Secretary posed the question: if you have more houses, what do you have less of? I think that the hon. Gentleman is sufficiently an economist to know what is the real answer to that question.
The hon. Gentleman could have put that question to the country at any time during the last 50 years. If anyone had said in 1900 that we ought to be devoting a greater proportion of our resources to housing and had been asked,"What does that mean we shall have less of?" the answer is surely, and in any growing economy must be, that we do not get more housing during the next 10 or 20 years literally by sacrificing the things that we have now. We sacrifice the things that might otherwise have been produced during the next ten or twenty years, and it is the essence of the problem that we cannot define precisely what they are because they are the result of new inventions and new discoveries.
If it will satisfy the Parliamentary Secretary I wild say this: if we did, as a nation, decide deliberately to have substantially more housing over the next 20 years than we are contemplating, it would mean that during those next 20 years that part of the rise in the standard of life which is reflected by luxuries rather than things like housing would not show so rosy a picture. We should at the end of those 20 years have more houses and fewer luxuries. What those luxuries are, neither I nor anyone else can say. But they would be the kind of things that would be produced in the next 20 years. [Hon. Members:"Oh."] If hon. Members opposite do not understand this they had better apply their minds to it, because this is essential to the whole problem.

891
One of the questions that the Government must ask themselves immediately is: can we see that as few resources as possible are devoted to any kind of building that has not the urgent social necessity that good housing has? There may not be all that to be made out of that, but it is the question that ought to be asked and is not asked in the White Paper.
Then we have to ask: for whom are these 350,000 houses to be built? The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that the argument between building by local authorities for rent and building by private enterprise for sale was an argument between the political ideologies of both sides. Whatever it may have been in the past, what it is now surely is an argument which must be deduced solidly from the facts of the situation, which are these.
The slum clearance programme is proceeding barely fast enough to keep pace with the creation of new slums by the passage of time. If we are serious over the clearance of slums, we must demolish more houses per year than we are demolishing at present. An increase in the rate of slum clearance—and the Minister has talked of doubling or trebling it—means that a greatly increased number of people with incomes well below average need to be rehoused. If we are greatly to increase the number of people with below average incomes who need to be rehoused, it follows inescapably that we must tilt the balance more towards the provision of council houses to let. In the end the Parliamentary Secretary accepted that when he gave a figure which meant an increase of nearly 50 per cent. in the number of council houses to let.
We should note what a reversal of policy that is. Between 1952 and 1962, the proportion which capital formation in housing bore to the gross national product remained the same at about 3½ per cent. In 1952, 2½per cent. was in respect of council houses. By 1962, that 2½per cent. had shrunk to only 1¼ per cent. It had been cut to half. That is the procedure which must be reversed. If it is to be reversed, we must provide greater financial assistance to the local authorities and take into account in calculating that financial assistance the burden of interest rates upon them.
892
The Minister has objected previously that if we do anything to enable local authorities to borrow money for housing at a favourable rate of interest we"distort the economy". I cannot accept that phrase. We are simply ensuring that more houses are built than otherwise would be the case and pursuing a deliberate use of Government policy to that end. That is one of the things for which Governments are there.
To build more we must also consider the problems in the building industry itself, which I will touch on only briefly or I shall detain the Committee for far too long. It seems to me that the Government have missed an opportunity in the Housing Corporation which they create. To my mind, the interesting part of the idea of a Housing Corporation is that of deliberate action by the central Government in housing. The Government restrict the Housing Corporation to the comparatively limited field of the pro-vision or help in the provision of houses to rent at rents ranging between £4 and £7 a week, or, as the Economist unkindly called it,
"a driblet of high-cost housing."
That is, perhaps, an unnecessarily unkind phrase, although it may be necessary to remind the Minister that this is only a very small part of the problem.
If the Minister wanted to create a body of this kind, I should have thought that he could have given it powers to develop building research and to apply the results of research by building itself so as to be a pioneer in the application of new methods of building. He should not be content, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, with urging local authorities to come together in consortia to facilitate the giving of the right kind of orders to the building industry. One of the jobs of such a corporation might be the deliberate formation of such consortia of local authorities. I think that we need a more positive direction from the centre than either the White Paper or the Parliamentary Secretary suggested.
Another function which the Housing Corporation should have is that of itself granting loans on mortgage to would-be owner-occupiers. I think that we must accept that favourable rates of interest, which we propose, should apply not only to local councils building houses to let

893
but should be available also for mortgage loans to would-be owner-occupiers. The nation as a whole must accept that housing all along the line ought to be a subsidised service.
The odd thing is the way that the nation is being gradually pushed to that conclusion by the logic of the facts. The council house tenant is subsidised. The owner-occupier is partly helped through the Income Tax allowances on his mortgage. The owner of rented property is helped, to some extent, by improvement grants. The very poorest, paradoxically, are helped to pay their rent by the National Assistance Board. One group remains to which no help at all is given, namely, the uncontrolled tenants of private landlords.
We must give up being unwillingly pushed by the logic of the facts into recognising that housing should be a subsidised service all along the line. We should recognise that fact and deliberately decide the most economical methods of distributing that help through help to the finances of local authorities for them to build houses to let, for loans at cheap rates to owner-occupiers and for the provision of help for the modernisation of old houses. The sooner we give up pretending that in a perfect world housing would not be a subsidised service, and recognise the logic of the facts, the sooner we shall get the matter straight.
What I have just been saying arose from consideration of the needs of people who want to get out of slums and overcrowded dwellings. What about another kind of need, the need of people who have enough room but who are never certain how long they will be left in enjoyment of it? They may receive letters such as that which one of my hon. Friends gave me recently addressed to one of his constituents. It reads:
"We write to inform you that we have received instructions from our clients that it is desired the flat which you occupy is to be sold. We are instructed to give you the first offer to purchase same."
The means of the person to whom this letter is addressed make that offer completely nugatory. She is an old lady. What this letter means to her is that all her security has gone. That kind of
894
thing is happening time and again. It is one of the effects of rent decontrol.
The Parliamentary Secretary argued the virtues of rent decontrol. He spoke about the hardships which people suffered.
Mr. Corfield Mr. Corfield indicated dissent.
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman did. He began to paint the most heartrending picture of people who suffered because there was some control left.
I want to ask this very serious question, and I hope that the Minister will answer it: what is the extent of the faith of the party opposite in decontrol? It has power under the Rent Act to decontrol any dwelling by order, whatever its rateable value. In the unlikely event of the Conservative Party winning the next election, would it use that power and decontrol any more houses? It will be agreed, I think, that the House of Commons and the country are entitled to know the answer to that question before the election takes plase.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that before the last election the late Aneurin Bevan asked the Government to give a pledge? They gave the pledge and when they returned to office they immediately broke it. We cannot trust the pledge of this Government.
Mr. Stewart: It was in the 1955 election that the Government gave a pledge not to introduce legislation about rents at all, which, as is well known, was deliberately broken. The facts about that are not in dispute. What I am asking now is: what sort of pledge are the Government prepared to give about not carrying rent decontrol any further?
One of the evils of rent control is the way in which it encourages certain people to regard a house solely as a source of income to its owner and nothing else. I have here a document called"The London Property Letter" which is circulated to businessmen. Under a subheading"Fulham—Boom area for Speculators" its states:
"The London Property Letter takes a close look at this fascinating…district…(e.g. Victorian house near Wandsworth Bridge Rd"—

895
not one of the most fashionable areas in London—
"showing four-year record of appreciation from £1,800 to £6,500)."
The letter goes on:
"The London Property Letter answers the all-important question: what opportunities are in it for you?"
That is the kind of morality which rent decontrol and the general tenor of Conservative policy in so many directions over the last 12 years has produced.
We had it strikingly illustrated even in the sober columns of yesterday's Sunday Times, in the article on Peter Rachman. There was somebody who had found out how to combine inflaming race relations with the skilful use of existing legislation about rent control and decontrol in a way that showed neither compassion, decency nor any regard for the public welfare. The article was well entitled
"The life and times of Peter Rachman",
because these things did not happen simply through the villainy of one man but through a situation created by Government policy and the general tenor of Conservative propaganda. Land and housing should be wholesome commodities to give benefit to human beings. The Government's policy, like the hand of a diseased King Midas, at its touch can convert those things into gold and corruption.
Another thing that people need is that the home in which they live should be kept in decent repair, should be maintained properly and, if they are ambitious, should be brought up to date. The White Paper suggests that there shall be certain powers to bring in amenities and the like; the tenant can ask for them. I wonder whether the Government realise what the effect of rent decontrol is on tenants who think of asking for improvements. The Minister told us in answer to a question the other day that he was not aware that tenants were frightened of being turned out of their homes and, therefore, did not ask for improvements. It is astounding that the Minister should be so unaware of how so many of his fellow citizens live.
There is the question of those who need and want to become the owners of their own homes. This is linked with the provision of land and with the problems
896
of the future, to which I referred at the outset of my speech. If we are to deal with the 60 million people who will be here in 1982, we have to consider where the land is to be. That means that we must have a real policy for the dispersal of industry and for the creation of new towns.
We shall shortly welcome into the House of Commons the new hon. Member for Deptford. His arrival will be not only a commentary on the remarks of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary about the Government being judged on their record, but, in view of who the new Member for Deptford is, will be a reminder of the great work of his father, Lord Silkin, in creating 14 new towns during the difficult period after the war. Without that, it would have been totally impossible to deal with the housing problems of the great cities. Without further effort on that scale, we shall never solve the problems of our growing population.
Now, however, when land is made available, when it is announced that new houses are to be built here and there, the moment that decision is taken a great increase is planted down in value on the land. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that these fantastic increases in land values are not to be found everywhere. The trouble is that when the Government go around doing what they call making land available, the land profiteering follows them around.
Not long ago, the Government—and a very proper decision, I have no doubt, it was—decided to set up a paper and pulp mill near Lochaber, in Scotland. Fort William Town Council is now paying ten times as much for ground for house building as it was a year ago. That kind of thing has happened in the Lea Valley. It will happen everywhere the decision is made. That means that if we try seriously to solve this problem and make land available, we hang round the neck of the housing programme a totally unnecessary subsidy to landowners by the mere decision that the land should be used for building. A great bag of gold is handed to somebody who has done nothing for it.
The problem has become so serious that its existence is admitted in a leading article in The Times. The Times admits the seriousness of the problem, rebukes both sides of the House of Commons for

897
their attitude towards it and fails to inform us. what the right answer is. In substance, however, The Times urges us on this side to have second thoughts and urges the Government to have some thoughts at all. The Parliamentary Secretary has not followed that advice. He was happy to leave the situation as it was. In his view, anything that might be done would only make the situation worse.
In essence, what we are proposing is this. It is accepted that the development of the country gives these totally unearned gains to certain people. The problem is whether that increase in the value of land, or a reasonable part of it, can be get into the public purse so that some of it will be available for public purposes.
Our proposal is that when land comes to be built upon it shall pass into public ownership. The first objection is that that means confiscation. That is like saying that a farmer who makes provision to ensure that the birds do not rob newly-sown land is confiscating from the marauders something to which they are justly entitled. It is not so. We are simply saying that we will not have a situation when land which at present is worth a certain figure cannot be got to serve a public purpose without paying ten, twenty or, sometimes, thirty times its present price.
The argument of confiscation cannot stand. We are proposing that the land should be bought at a price somewhat above its present use value, but at nothing like the inflated values that now follow. That view is sensible and its morality is fully justified by the fact that it is a public decision that creates the increased value.
Once the land is acquired, the job is to lease it. Sometimes, it would be leased on a purely commercial basis. The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to think that that must mean that if the land is leased to a commercial developer, not for housing, but for some other purpose, a certain bargain is struck with him and, after that, the unearned profits would go into his lap instead of the landowner's.
Why not have a rent revision clause in the lease? Why not make an arrangement such as is proposed between local authorities and developers of city centres
898
in a pamphlet called"Change and Challenge", published by the Conservative Political Centre? If the Parliamentary Secretary has doubts about the workability of this, I commend the pamphlet to him. I commend also some of the advice that the Ministry itself has given to local authorities about the arrangements which they can make for private developers of publicly-owned land in city centres.
This is not an insoluble problem. Sometimes, the land would be leased to a local authority and for a public social purpose—housing. In that case, I presume, a bargain would be made with the local authority which would simply bring back to the Land Commission substantially what it itself had had to pay to acquire the land. The gain would, as it were, be passed on through the Land Commission to the local authority.
Then there is the question of leasing land to private persons for the building of houses. We have said, incidentally—and both the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister in commenting on our proposals have neglected this—that where the proposed development is simply that of a man building a house for his own occupation, our proposals do not bite on that at all. So that bogey has no substance.
I turn to the question of a private developer getting a lease from the Land Commission on which to build houses for sale. In view of the fact that it was for housing one would not strike a severely commercial bargain, but, in return, one would be entitled to exercise control over the price at which the house would be sold so that the benefit of the transaction would pass on, as we all want it to, to the young couple who will buy the house.
Then there was the final bogey, that this means the end of owner-occupation as we know it. What is to happen to owner-occupation at the moment? The prices of houses have jumped up 30 per cent. during the last four years, faster than average earnings. As a constituent wrote to me recently,
"I am trying to save, but prices rise faster than I can save."
I think that both the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister and his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary should be

899
capable of grasping the difference between a lease from our proposed Land Commission and leasehold ownership, as it is understood today, by the private landlord. The essence of a private leasehold is that there comes the time when the house passes into the ownership of the ground landlord. Under our proposals no such thing would happen. I made this quite clear speaking in the House on 20th July, 1961, when I pointed out that where
"a house is built on land leased from the Land Commission, that house should remain the property of the owner and his heirs so long as…there is a house there…"—[Official Report, 20th July, 1961; Vol. 644, c. 1488.]
Only when it is proposed to demolish the house to build something else in its place does the final right of ownership by the land commission operate. At no stage does the house itself revert to the ground landlord.
Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley (North Angus and Mearns) rose—
Mr. Stewart: Hon. Members will have an opportunity to argue this in debate. I must draw to a close what I have to say. I am sorry I cannot give way.
Mr. Philip N. Hocking: Only a question.
Mr. Stewart: I want to save time, because other hon. Members want to make speeches, and I shall not be much longer.
It is open to hon. Members to pick detail holes in this. I invite them, therefore, to say, do they propose that the present land racket should go on completely unabated? That is the question to which they will have to apply themselves.
Mr. Hocking: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has set out in the last few minutes detailed arguments for setting up the Land Commission and he prefaced his remarks by saying that this was a body which the party opposite would set up merely to extract the development value, the increased value at the beginning of the development of the site. The hon. Gentleman will understand that it would be better to bring in a selective tax on the capital value or the increased capital value of the
900
land. It would do away with all this business of setting up the Land Commission.
Mr. Stewart: I think that the hon. Gentleman will have to read our proposals in more detail. He will then see, first, that the extraction of the development value is not the only object we have in view. Secondly, there are difficulties about a selective tax. Thirdly, if it is the policy of the party opposite to impose a selective tax as a way of dealing with the problem, we should be glad to hear hon. Members opposite develop the mechanism for that policy.
However, I believe that the situation now is this: first, that to solve the housing problem the nation has to accept a range of new ideas. It has to accept the idea that housing is and ought to be for nearly everybody in part a social service and not a purely private transaction; secondly, that that involves greater financial help to local housing authorities, and help in different ways; thirdly, that we shall not solve the housing problem without much more deliberate Government action to determine where industry and population shall be in the coming decades; and, fourthly, that despite the admittedly difficult mechanisms of any policy we shall not get an answer unless we can somehow solve the problem of the price and use of building land.
The weakness of the Government is that they are constantly being pushed, by the necessity of the facts, nearer and nearer to these ideas; but to operate a policy which requires new ideas will, I believe, require a Government who do not accept these ideas reluctantly and under the pressure of events, but who believe in them genuinely, and act upon them from the start.
5.5 p.m.
Sir Herbert Butcher: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), in his last few remarks, dealt with proposals which have come from the party opposite. There is one point I would ask him to clear up at once, and I will give way immediately so that he may doso—if I may have his attention. The hon. Gentleman said that in the case of a house for private ownership the land would be in the occupation of the person

901
owning the house unless and until the house built on that land was demolished. Now, is not that absolutely the easiest way to perpetuate slums? Because not only does it mean the loss of the building but the lease of the land at one and the same moment, and surely the occupier will do everything he possibly can to make sure that the existing building never passes from him.
The arguments of the hon. Gentleman opposite, sincerely and ably put forward, quite clearly contain two points which I beg him to shed from his mind. The first is that rent control in itself is the way, and the second is that municipal building is more worthy to be assisted than other forms of housing development, I suppose that at this moment I should disclose, since we are dealing with housing, that I have some interest. I should disclose that I am a director of a building society and a director of a company which builds several hundred houses every year.
I would only say that the excellent Government White Paper is not, as the hon. Gentleman says it is, the last word of the Government on their policy for the last 12 years, but is a step by the Government an their steady movement forward to deal with housing. The Government have directed great attention to the question of housing under the leadership and inspiration of the Prime Minister himself, and when it comes to the record I accept the challenge, and I shall be prepared to fight any election on the Government's record.
The only comment I would make on it is that planning in all things is exceedingly difficult, so that Government planners can be caught out when forecasts gowrong—in terms of expected population, for instance. Indeed, so difficult is it to say what is to happen that while this White Paper, which came out only in May, says that funds are more plentiful for building societies, the fact remains that at the moment they are not as plentiful as they were at that time.
I cannot help feeling that one of the tragedies of this country is that normal housing for rent has been destroyed, but I think that we have to accept that it has happened, and that it largely happened in 1908, the time of the Land Act introduced by Mr.—as he then was—Lloyd George, and the imposition of
902
rent control in 1914, and its continuous application, have done more to prevent houses being available to rent—and furthermore the reintroduction and continuation of control by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. All these events have militated against the supply of proper housing accommodation.
Let us look at the present position, for if hon. Gentlemen opposite have any sense of equity they will wish to deal fairly with all classes of the community. What is the position? The stock of houses is about 16 million. About one-third are owned by municipalities, and in so far as the tenants do not pay a full and proper market rent to that extent they are subsidised either by the Exchequer or by rates. According to the figures given this afternoon by the Parliamentary Secretary, rather more than 40 per cent. of the houses are owner-occupied, so if we take municipal tenants who have no protection under the Rent Act, and owner-occupiers who have no protection under the Rent Act because they are not rent paying anyhow, we have more than 70 per cent. of the population to whom rent control is of no value whatsoever.
Thus the policy of the hon. Member for Fulham is to reimpose rent control and to continue rent control so that it may help a section of the community which is steadily declining in numbers. I am certain that this would be a retrograde step.
Mr. William Hannan: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Health, when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in 1956, claimed that the introduction of the Rent Act would make more houses available for renting, whereas the opposite has happened? What has the hon. Gentleman to say about that?
Sir H. Butcher: I believe that we are steadily moving towards that position. The number of what an earlier Socialist Government used to call"accommodation units", because they were much more accommodation-unit-minded than they were house-minded, is increasing. It is regrettable that at the moment they are coming along at the more expensive

903
side of the market, but, nevertheless, the building of flats for renting has started again.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: Would the hon. Gentleman complete his argument by telling us the number of privately rented properties still subject to control and the number being decontrolled every year?
Sir H. Butcher: Let us accept, if it is any advantage to the hon. Gentleman, that there are fewer houses under control this month than last, and that the number of houses under control is steadily running down. That emphasises the point I tried to make earlier, namely, that as worn out and slum houses subject to control are pulled down, and the people are rehoused elsewhere, or as, under the provisions of the Rent Act, other houses pass out of control, the number of houses in control is steadily diminishing. I accept that the Minister is most eager to see more houses available for renting, but I see the difficulties in this scheme.
Perhaps I might deal with the question of the Housing Corporation in which my right hon. Friend is interested. It is suggested that the new corporation shall be established on a basis of borrowing for 40 years, and that about £100 million should be provided by the Government and perhaps £200 million should come from the building societies. While I am sure that the building societies will do all that they can to aid and assist, it would not be equitable or right for them to lend at different rates to a housing association than to the ordinary owner-occupier.
We would have the position that the prudent lender of two-thirds of the money would receive, in return, the market rate, which at the moment is 6 per cent., while the other £100 million would come on Government terms at a somewhat lower rate of interest, probably 5 guineas or £5 10s. per £100, which is reversing the normal procedure, and I cannot help feeling that it is right that this housing association should rely for its finance on Government loan rather than on any other source of finance.
There are grave difficulties in this proposal. I mentioned a little while ago that building societies are not as well off
904
for funds as they once were, and as the price of individual houses increases the number of lenders that are required to finance one loan increases. The Government's policy is not quite clear to me. Four years ago the Government rightly made available to the building societies £100 million so that they could make advances on the older properties. That was an inestimable advantage, and nearly all the money was taken up. A large number of small, oldish houses, were acquired, in many cases by the sitting tenant, and I saw hundreds of these cases pass across my desk at fair and reasonable prices.
As soon as the man concerned became an owner, he made an enormous effort, frequently with the help of an improvement grant, towards repairing and modernising his house, and I say to my right hon. Friend that if it was right to make £100 million available in this extent only four years ago, it is slightly difficult to understand why it is possible for the building society movement at this time to be able to place at the disposal of this new housing corporation £200 million. I cannot help feeling that the building societies should concentrate on their main job, which in my view is the provision of homes for owner-occupation.
The hon. Member for Fulham quite rightly emphasised that the needs of different people changed during their lives. Some people would go so far as to say that they want one house when they marry, a larger house while their family is growing up, and then back to a small house as they get older.
Mr. A. Lewis: Some people would like one house in their lifetime.
Sir H. Butcher: The number of people buying houses is steadily increasing, and if the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), who has been in the House for a long time, feels in any difficulty, and I can assist him in a personal capacity, I shall be very happy to gossip with him later.
Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my point. Like most hon. Members, I am fortunate enough to have my own house, but there are thousands of my constituents who will never have a house of their own, just as their parents, and their parents' parents, never had their own houses.
Sir H. Butcher: I am indebted to the current issue of the Building Societies Gazette for the figures which I am about to quote. There is great difficulty in making a loan for as long as 40 years. Perhaps I might contrast a Joan for 40 years with one for 20 years, because it is the former period which is proposed for the housing association. I am assuming that the loan is taken out at 5 per cent. An instalment which repays a loan in 20 years at 5 per cent. repays the same loan in 20 to 21 years at 5¼ per cent.; in 21 to 22 years at 5½ per cent.; in 22 to 23 years at 5¾ per cent.; and 23 to 24 years at 6 per cent. In other words,
"an increase in the rate of interest of ½ per cent. adds under two years to the life of the loan, and an increase of 1 per cent. adds about 3½ years."
Next, let us consider a loan for 40 years, and in this connection I would like to inquire whether the Parliamentary Secretary is sure that the money lent to this housing association will be able to circulate. The instalment which repays a loan in 40 years at 5 per cent. repays the same loan in 45 to 46 years at 5¼ per cent.; in 53 to 54 years at 5½ per cent. and in 77 to 78 years at 5¾ per cent.; while at 6 per cent. the mortgage debt is increasing instead of being reduced. Because of these things, the money should be found by means of Government loan rather than in any other way.
I hope that this evening my right hon. Friend will feel able to announce that he has decided again to make money available for the purchase of old but sound houses, which can be brought into the housing stock, under the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959.
It would be discourteous to the hon. Member for Fulham if I did not say a word about the high price of land. I regard it as one of the greatest evils of the day that the price of land is increasing as it is. It inflicts great hardship and the increment therein is apt to distract the builder from his proper job of building and into hoping that he will be able to secure a somewhat higher density consent and so make an increased profit.
But this must be regarded in two ways. If we are not to allow people to build in certain areas in and around the large cities of London, Manchester, Birmingham and elsewhere, so that we preserve land for schools and green belts and
906
parks and other amenities, with the scarce amount of land available in the market, prices must increase.
The hon. Member for Fulham made great play with an example of a house in Wandsworth Bridge Road whose value, he said, had increased from £1,800 to £6,500. It is very difficult to talk about prices of houses without having seen them. The price of £6,500 for a house situated in Wandsworth Bridge Road, which I know quite well, does not seem to be too bad at 5 per cent. per annum and may be the proper price. I could not say without knowing what the accommodation was. It is a matter of scarcity and in this respect the market largely controls the price which is paid.
If we are to examine the price of land, we must ask the Government to concentrate on the development of parts of the country which are now regarded as less favoured. While land is terribly expensive in London and around other great cities like Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow, there are cities and other areas where it is freely available at reasonable prices. Why do people not build their houses there? [An Hon. Member: There is no industry there."] Somebody says that there is no industry there. On the whole, the industrial equipment is already there. The factories are there and so are the workers and the social services, like schools and main services. One of the real reasons why it is difficult to persuade industry to go to some of these towns is that they have a worn-out and tired appearance.
Whether it is an agreeable fact or not, it is a fact that in any industry about 5 per cent. of key people are responsible for the organisation and progress of the business. Without them the business would not go ahead, no matter what it is. On the whole, these people are the young executives who are in such great demand, as anybody who takes the trouble to look at the advertisement columns of the Sunday newspapers will see. They are the young technicians and the men moving forward to the use of computers, and others of the new implements of management in the new age.
If we could attract these young people to the North-East and Scotland, we would have done a great deal. Many

907
firms are eager to move into such districts because they recognise the advantages of a fine labour force, easier communications, less traffic congestion and so on. The difficulty is that these young executives, and their wives, are not convinced that the areas concerned will provide the kind of life and the kind of social environment which they wish to have.
It is a great pity that so much of the subsidies of all kinds is spent in London and the South. I may be a heretic, but I believe that if we were to cut the subsidy from Covent Garden and give it to an opera house towards the North, that would be an earnest of our eagerness to ensure that the backward cities got a new look. By concentrating on the amenities of the cities of the North, we should give them a new birth. The attraction of the new suburbs is their brightness and their layout, with their new concept of a social centre and a civic centre for shopping. Instead of moaning and groaning about the high cost of land in the South and the belief that these problems can be cured by some form of rent control, there should be a solid movement by all of us, inspired by the Government, to make the cities of the North more and more attractive.
There are one or two other ways in which the cost of land could be cut down, even now. I am always shocked by the cost of buying and selling land. Any hon. Member can buy a motor car for £1,000 or £2,000 now and have it in his possession, having borrowed the maximum, by this time tomorrow afternoon, and he can do so with the utmost ease. But if he were to buy £200 worth of land on which he wanted to build a garage or a house or anything else, he would have weeks and weeks of delay. I fail to see why, in 1963, it is not possible to have a new and improved system of land conveyancing. All these delays add to the cost by means of interest payments at a time when the land, obviously, cannot be used by the vendor and, equally, cannot be planned or used by the purchaser.
While on the subject of delay, may I say that I am sure that my right hon. Friend would help the position if he had a look through his own Ministry and did some speeding up of the deter-
908
mination of planning decisions. Delays of as much as three or four months in reaching planning decisions are now accepted and I fail to see why, with the resources of the Government and the many professional people available, these matters cannot be cleared up with a great deal more speed.
My right hon. Friend is making an important contribution to housing by his progressive approach to it. The White Paper, which I have criticised slightly, represents a great forward move in every way. The hon. Member for Fulham spoke of housing as a social service, but I believe that it is an entirely personal matter for the man, his wife and his family. Some people are content to rub along in very poor housing conditions, provided that they are able to spend a large amount of time in the hobbies and activities of their choice. Others are prepared to economise on everything else, provided that their home is comfortable and situate where they want, a place to which they return day after day. It is impossible to generalise. Housing is a personal need as well as a social service.
It would be completely wrong and it would be complete nonsense to accept the position, advocated by hon. Members opposite, in which almost everybody was subsidising almost everybody else in one way or another. As one who was once in the laundry trade, this is the best example I know of taking in one another's washing.
The right way to deal with these matters is to allow housing to be dealt with on an economic basis. Instead of subsidising the houses and the land, we should allow the natural forces of supply and demand to find their level—[Interruption.] I thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not like that—but, instead of subsidising the land or the houses, we should make sure, by means of assistance and subsidies to our less fortunate citizens, that we place at their disposal sufficient income to enable them to have their place and their opportunity of having proper accommodation in our midst.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: In addressing the House for the first time I know that I can rely on the indulgence of hon. Members. They are re-

909
nowned for the kindness and tolerance that they show to new Members. My task is made easier, moreover, because I am succeeding as Member for the Colne Valley the late William Glenvil Hall, who was a distinguished and much loved Member of this House.
Not the least of the many gifts which Britain has conferred on the modern world is the device of Parliamentary government, so merely to have the opportunity of speaking in this Mother of Parliaments is a great privilege. I feel that the least I can do is to observe all the conventions which fit the occasion. Above all, I shall try to be non-contentious, although this will be far from easy, not merely because I hold decided views on the subject under discussion, but because the tradition of the constituency I represent is far from pacific. Its tall smoking chimneys are monuments to the industrial development of the woollen, worsted and textile industries which succeeded the hand-loom weaving era and the engineering and coal mining which followed. It was the scene of the protests of those much-maligned men, the Luddites, as well as of the struggles of the Chartists.
The men of the Colne Valley, however, have not been give only to protest. They have displayed an extraordinary capacity for social inventiveness. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher) to the fact that the building society movement, the friendly society movement and the co-operative society, as well as the trade union and working men's club movements and even the Labour Party—all of which are now part of the very texture of our lives—were either created or profoundly shaped in this part of the country. Indeed, the history of the Labour movement has flowed down through the Colne Valley. It has had a romantic as well as a turbulent past. It has for long been the cockpit of British Socialism. Even the waters of the River Colne have run a bright red, although I must confess that that has been due less to local radicalism than to the dyes used in the mills which line its banks.
But in a never-to-be-forgotten by-election in July, 1907, just 56 years ago, the Colne Valley elected Victor Grayson,
910
the first man to be returned to this House on a straight Socialist ticket. There was something in that remarkable man, so far as I can judge, which mirrored the aspirations of the submerged half of the nation. More than anything else, I think, he appealed to the feeling in the hearts of his listeners for a new world of fellowship, and they responded. The values which he upheld are still practised in my constituency today. The men and women there still express them through their trade unions, through their brass bands and their clubs as well as through their churches. The result is that they have a strong sense of community consciousness and neighbourliness. Even the urban districts which make up most of the constituency have retained their village and rural characteristics.
Living is decent and healthy in the Colne Valley and stands for much of what is desirable in our society. I am concerned that it should not be threatened or undermined by lack of decent social amenities. If the worst evils of early industrialism are no longer evident in its crippled people—thank heaven—they are still evident in its crippled industrial areas. Up there, in the Colne Valley, the social problems of our society are to be found in their most acute form—in obsolescence, urban renewal and the shortage of small houses, especially for the old, an unsatisfactory households-dwellings ratio, education, traffic problems, loss of population and the difficulty of attracting specialists. On this, a passage in the speech of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston found a ready echo from me, for there is great difficulty in attracting specialists to the area.
There is a tendency, again, as the hon. Member implied, to believe that the housing problem is most acute in areas within easy reach of Birmingham, or London, and places where there has been rapid industrial development. But in terms of absolute need, obsolete housing, cramped houses, poor amenities, difficult approaches and even scarcity of building land due to physical features, these old industrial areas, especially in the Pennine valleys, are the worst off. In the Colne Valley old couples as well as young couples have to contend with the obstacles of dear money and dear land; and there is a disproportionate number

911
of old couples. The upsurge in land costs has not been so spectacular as in more fashionable areas. But the percentage increase in the land cost factor in the price of local dwellings has been disgraceful, nevertheless.
There is evidence that the problem of soaring land values is widespread, and there is certainly widespread resentment at the market in land. Assuming that land is a fit commodity for the free play of market forces—and that is a questionable assumption—trade unionists, or I shall be surprised, will want to know why this freedom is granted to capital, while moves are afoot to control their rewards through the N.I.C. Not that I should want to simplify that problem.
Land taxation and the rating of site values both fall short of what is needed. But despite the snags in the device of a Land Commission, society will become more, rather than less, sensitive to the problem of what is called betterment. For the moral objection to the private absorption of land values created by the whole community is not confined to Socialists, by any means. Land costs are not the only obstacle of course. There is the problem of modernisation of the existing stock. Too many houses in the Colne Valley were built during the nineteenth century. But how is the tenant of a decontrolled property to compel his landlord to improve the house and then protect himself against retaliation by the landlord? And what of the twilight houses—to use the Minister's own words—those houses which are not slums and yet are not eligible for improvement grants?
I am very much impressed by the vigour and determination which the Minister is bringing to his task these days. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) will not think that I am straining the conventions of maiden-speaking too far when I say that. But in view of the deterioration of old property, as well as the increased demand due to rising public expectation of good housing, I wonder if the Minister will look again at his target figure for new construction. Will he agree that it is too modest by Continental standards?
Then there is the persistently high rate of interest. That is another great
912
obstacle to new construction. How long is the Minister going to allow his colleagues at the Treasury to penalise this important form of social investment? Will he not explore the possibilities of a manipulated low rate of interest for public housing?
Once again, I emphasise that the problems of housing and urban land values are not necessarily confined to or even most acute at the growing points of the social economy. Colne Valley's neighbours, such as Oldham, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Wakefield and Barnsley, all have tremendous problems. Their importance for the Colne Valley lies in the manner in which they shape its employment prospects, and generally determine the tempo of its economic activities.
Does not this point to the need for effective regional planning? Is there not a case for a more determined approach than is envisaged in the White Paper? Do we not need to recognise that the size of the housing problem is too large for many existing authorities to handle? I would, therefore, ask the Minister to accord a measure of priority to the Yorkshire region, part of the cradle of our industrial society. Will not the Minister recognise that the West Riding is unfairly burdened with a legacy of early industrialism, Slums and obsolescence, the decay of the inner areas of the towns and cities, scarcity of suitable building land and the drift of population to the South, are just some of these problems. Will he not therefore recognise this situation?
I make these appeals to the right hon. Gentleman because I know that he understands these problems as well as I do. Will he not recognise that when the current rate of construction in Yorkshire is related to the condition, size and location of houses, as well as to the volume of need, much more needs to be done? For the economic growth prospects in Yorkshire are poor, and if the present trend continues the region will undoubtedly be designated a development district by the end of this decade. How far is this due to inadequate social amenities?
Finally, if much of the West Riding has been judged to be a special review area for local government reform, will the Minister not also judge it to be a special review area for urban renewal for some of the same reasons?
5.41 p.m.
Mr. John M. Temple: I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that it is a privilege for me to congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) on a notable maiden speech. I should particularly like to echo the tribute which he paid to his predecessor, the late Mr. Glenvil Hall, who was very much honoured on both sides of the House. We congratulate the hon. Member on coming to the House in the place of such a distinguished Member of Parliament.
As a son of Lancashire, it is a privilege for me to congratulate an hon. Member for Colne Valley. My grandfather was brought up in Colne Valley—but I am sorry to have to inform the hon. Member that he was never a member of the Labour Party! I do congratulate the hon. Member on his great knowledge of that part of the country, the home of the Industrial Revolution. The hon. Member has truly portrayed many of the characteristics which went with the era of the Industrial Revolution, and mentioned many of the scars of which will have to be wiped out in the comparatively near future.
The hon. Member was quite right to draw attention to the potential of his constituency. I am sure that the potential is as great as it was when Lancashire was the cradle of our Industrial Revolution a century ago. We were all delighted by the way in which the hon. Member spoke, and I personally congratulate him on his splendid fluency. We all look forward to hearing from him on many other occasions.
We have heard today two extremely thoughtful speeches from the opening speakers and, as I wish to make a constructive speech, I will, in the course of my observations, deal with many of the points which were made both by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary who, in his opening remarks, stated that housing was the bedrock of our society and of our family life. I am quite sure that he was right. I read with great interest the leading article in The Times of 4th July,"After Affluence". It was a pungent and penetrating article, and it must have made us all think. After affluence. I believe,
914
something else should come. I am convinced that our society today has been paying too much regard to what I would call the inessentials of life. I notice particularly that in that leading article The Times said that education should be a crusade. May I remind the editor of The Times that over many years the Conservative Party have made slum clearance one of their great crusades, and I think that the Conservative Party can take a considerable amount of credit for the success of that slum clearance crusade.
As I said, I believe that in our society today too much attention has been paid to the inessentials of life. Since the last war most of our people achieved a position in which they have two weeks' holiday with pay. They have achieved the status symbol of a television set. Almost one family in three has a motor car. Many families are looking forward to the time when they can have a family holiday abroad. I do not say that this is universal, but a great deal has been achieved and, significantly at the same time, there has been a reluctance to pay for what I call the fundamentals of life; food and shelter.
There has, I believe, been a reluctance to pay the full price for food. We have lived in a society for the last few years in which food has been available at a specially favourable price because of the subsidies paid out by the Government. Until the Rent Act, accommodation was available at a rental below the true market rental. There are many people living in homes which are subsidised by taxpayers and ratepayers and who could well afford to pay the full market cost of their accommodation. I hope that rent rebate and differential rent schemes will become much more universal. I believe that only those persons who are in need should be able to draw, through housing subsidies, upon the resources of their fellow ratepayers and their fellow taxpayers.
I echo the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher), who congratulated my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on being the prime mover in the Conservative Party's housing drive. That is true. I pay a further tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on being always in the van of great social reformers.

915
Since 1951 the Conservative Party have a creditable record in housing, but my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Housing is right to say that today we face a changing situation. The hon. Member for Fulham said that Members on both sides of the House had for some time been saying many of the things in the White Paper. I think that that is quite true. If one had attended church regularly, Sunday after Sunday, and listened to the banns of marriage being read out, and if one had asked the local parson what was the average age of death and of marriage among the congregation, he would have said that the average age of marriage was much younger than in the past and that people were living longer. It did not come as a surprise to me, and it did not require statisticians and computers to detect the fact, that we should need an increasing housing target. In fact, two or three years ago I suggested a housing target of 400,000 houses a year, although I recognise that over the last few years it has been difficult to allocate our resources between all the various sectors of demand. At this stage it is certainly welcome to the whole House that my right hon. Friend has lifted his sights at least to 350,000 houses a year.
I cannot comment on all the facets of the Government's White Paper, but it makes it clear, from the 1961 census figures, that there is roughly an equation today, taking the country as a whole, between the number of households and the number of houses. But I submit that that is a very misleading figure. Indeed, the White Paper recognises that there is a supra-demand for between half-a-million or a million houses today. The White Paper goes on to say that the shortages are mainly in Greater London, Birmingham, Clydeside, and, I would say, elsewhere too. There is no doubt that throughout a great deal of the country there is a demand for houses which is not at present being met by the building programme.
It is difficult to quantify this demand, and that has been one of our difficulties over the last few years. There has been a relative lack of reliable statistics. We have had the housing lists of the local authorities, but they have not got down to the true position in their areas. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister
916
is calling for far better statistics. I ask him, when he gets these better statistics, to go further and to collate them on a regional basis.
Earlier today I read an extraordinarily interesting article in the Annual Productivity Review of the Financial Times which accompanied today's issue of this paper. This article was written by Mr. D. E. Woodbine Parish, past-president of the Building Trades Employers Federation.
The hon. Member for Fulham posed a question. He asked whether the target of 350,000 houses a year can be achieved. I shall seek to show the House that I believe that this target can be achieved. I believe that it can be achieved on two main premises—first, that the Government are now giving positive aid to the furthering of new building techniques, and, secondly, that the building industry is putting its house in order and breaking fresh ground.
The article is entitled,"Building puts its house in order". From this article we know that not only the National Federation of Building Trades Employers but also the professional bodies, the trade unions and the employees themselves are all prepared to work for a great increase in output by the building industry. They have had splendid encouragement from the Minister of Public Building and Works. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his leadership and enterprise. He has set up a Directorate of Research and Development. A great deal of good can stem from this Directorate. The National Federation of Building Trades Employers has set up an Advisory Council for the Construction Industries. The Royal Institute of British Architects and the Institute of Builders have joined together and undertaken critical surveys of their own spheres of interest.
Again, the trade unions and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research are looking into employees' skills and are streamlining the craft unions. I pay particular tribute to the enlightened attitude of the trade unions in the building sphere. They are showing what co-operation can do and how demarcation difficulties can be broken down. In that spirit we can achieve increased production. I am confident that, with this new spirit developing,

917
with this new partnership between the Government and all the various arms of the building industry, a target of 350,000 houses per annum—nay, more than 350,000—can be achieved.
One of the central points of this debate has been the difficulty over the provision of land. This will be a continuing difficulty. Very significantly, there have been two references in successive White Papers, more or less in exactly the same terms, to the way in which building land should be provided. Paragraph 62 of Cmnd. 1952,"London—Employment: Housing: Land" says this:
"Local planning authorities will have to consider how all these demands are to be met."
Paragraph 28 of Command 2050,"Housing", says this:
"This is in the first place the responsibility of local planning authorities…"
The Government are placing this responsibility squarely—I do not say quite fairly, but certainly squarely—on the shoulders of local planning authorities. The provision of more building land is definitely a very hot potato. I am not absolutely certain that local planning authorities, organised as they are today, are quite in a position to deal with the problem. Significantly, county councils are not housing authorities; yet it is county councils which have the planning powers over the bulk of the land which will need to be developed.
I want to pay tribute to all the aldermen and councillors who sit on local planning authorities. Theirs is not an easy task. I also pay tribute to the officials in the planning world. They have to adjudicate between the conflicting claims of the various interests in their area. I believe that we may have to look a little beyond local planning authorities to carry out this difficult rô1e of the provision of building land for the larger commitments.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has set up various regional studies within his Department. In their way they are a good thing, but I do not think they go far enough. I do not think that there is the continuity in a regional study which could be achieved by regional planning. In many instances at present these regional studies are having the effect of freezing the present situation. Local
918
planning authorities say,"We must wait until we hear the findings of the regional study". Therefore, momentarily the studies are having the effect of sterilising the position.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that his Department seems to be coming round to the way of thinking of many of us who have been thinking about these problems for some time. We have had mention of the"City region". This is the first time that the"City region" has been acknowledged in a White Paper, although my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was a joint author with myself of Change and Challenge, a C.P.C. document to which the hon. Member for Fulham referred. This document advocated a type of regional planning which was to be set to work between local planning authorities and national planning. We have I believe a powerful ally in the form of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who I hope will press forward with any concepts of regional planning which hon. Members put before him.
In the last few years the Town and Country Planning Association has carried out a series of regional studies of the four main city regions of England—London and the South-East, the Midlands, the North-East and the North-West. I had the honour to take the chair at the north-west regional conference of the Town and Country Planning Association in Southport. I was greatly struck by the tremendous amount of co-operation which there was between the various local planning authorities of Lancashire and Cheshire and related parts of the North-West. I formed the view that, once all the various authorities could be got together, either in one conference or in one standing conference, there was a much better chance of getting an understanding, first that a regional problem existed, and secondly that the regional problem was there to be solved in the interests of all the citizens of that particular region.
I do not say that these ad hoc conferences are the whole answer. Of course they are not. Nor do I think that my right hon. Friend's regional studies are the whole answer. However, there has been a recent development which I believe is a partial answer. Last night I was talking to my right hon. Friend the

919
Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), who is the chairman of the London Regional Planning Conference. This conference has no statutory status whatsoever. It was started as recently as December of last year. It has two technical panels—one consisting of planning officers, and the other an administrative panel consisting of clerks of planning authorities. I understand that the conference has developed an extremely satisfactory atmosphere of co-operation. I believe that something similar to this conference should be considered for our other major city regions.
Perhaps it is too much to expect my right hon. Friend to accept too great a degree of regional planning at present. In a debate in the House six months ago I spoke about all the details of regional planning, I will not go over that ground again. It would be wise to make a start with regional co-operation between local planning authorities, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will find it is in his heart to encourage a similar approach to that which is being made through the London Regional Planning Conference for other city regions.
There are difficulties facing local planning authorities at present. Their areas have never been delimited to take cognisance of geographical features, they are purely fortuitous, having been handed down from the past. Even with the reorganisation of local government which is going on at present, the new units of local government will not be large enough to take cognisance of problems over a wide area. I remind my right hon. Friend that only a few days ago he was arguing with me and putting forward the case in Standing Committee F for rather larger authorities to look after our water resources. If we could have regional planning authorities, which would take a wider view and would incorporate within them members interested in many of the facets of our industrial and administrative life—in the same way as my right hon. Friend is proposing for river authorities, which will have a much broader base than the existing river boards—then they could take cognisance of all the developing features that go with land use and the planning of highways, transport and other public services. If we were able equally to get the members of local
920
planning authorities into a standing regional conference they would have a better appreciation of the regional difficulties. One can imagine how such people, when drawn together, would have a joint determination to find living space for their fellow citizens. This surely is the heart of the problem we face today.
Turning to a related topic, I am pleased with the progress that is being made with further new towns, but I remind my right hon. Friend that in other countries much larger new towns are being considered. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has difficulty in finding a suitable spot to designate for a new town. I think that he would be wise to contemplate trying to designate one with a population of, say, 150,000 people. A new town with a population of this size could encompass within its boundaries a much wider range of larger industries. At present new towns frequently depend on one dominant industry or on a number of relatively small and secondary industries.
If a new town were designated with a population of 150,000 it would be an ideal administrative unit of local government and would be a bold experiment which, I am sure, my right hon. Friend would like to try. I encourage him to try this experiment because I cannot visualise that he would find much more difficulty in designating a town of this size compared with designating a town similar to the present new ones, which have populations of about 70,000.
As a small ancillary in our housing drive it is worth considering the potential of mobile homes, particularly for retired people. I have deliberately called these beautiful dwellings"mobile homes" because, like many hon. Members, I have seen them at recent caravan exhibitions. I have visited caravan sites in many parts of the country and have spoken to retired people living happily in these types of home. As an ancillary to our housing problem these mobile homes could be valuable because for every mobile home occupied another house would be freed to a family which needs to live closer to the heart of a city.
May I sum up? I have always regarded housing as the bedrock of our society. I realise that people who can afford should pay a realistic rent. Rising living

921
standards of the population mean that more land must be provided for house building. Although regional planning will not itself produce more land, it may well suggest the right places where land may be found. The new techniques which are being encouraged by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works will be valuable and I welcome the contribution which the building industry is making towards these new techniques. I regard the new target of 350,000 houses a year as a minimum. I hope that this target will be swiftly achieved; then we must press on to higher targets.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. B. T. Parkin: I promise the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) that I will refer to the rôle of the Prime Minister in the development of Britain's housing policy in the last few years. It is a sad thing on an occasion such as this—a short debate, which will be interrupted—that one cannot fully enjoy the courtesy and pleasure of commenting fully on the sort of speech the hon. Member for the City of Chester has just made. I should dearly love to throw away my notes and follow the enthusiasm of the hon. Member along several of the vistas he opened up—new building techniques, with which I am in agreement, his attitude to housing for old people, which needs further discussion, and many of the other points he raised—but I must not be tempted along those avenues because I have a sadder kind of speech to make.
It is nearly a year since, at 4 o'clock one morning, I made a long and, I thought, substantial speech—there was ample time at that hour of the day in which to elaborate one's arguments—about our homeless people. That speech was then dismissed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government virtually in a sentence, for the right hon. Gentleman said that my speech had consisted of dreams which he shared and mud slinging, which he did not share.
We can rightly get excited about new techniques and policies. I did not and do not ask for dreams. I set out in detail the sort of improvements which I thought might be made. I asked the Minister to consider the byelaws in relation to modern techniques and said
922
that, once he had adjusted them or had got a new set, he should see that they were enforced. I asked for all sorts of practical things to be done. I do not regard them as dreams, although the Minister does.
Even during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) I noticed a curious distinction on the benches opposite; a distinction between the laughter from the back benches at precisely the same moments when the Minister was nodding his agreement with the remarks of my hon. Friend. The Minister has been well in advance of his party and I share his enthusiasm. We know that there is an immense amount of experience, a good number of practical proposals and new suggestions available, particularly in the line in which I am interested; the conversion and renewal of old properties.
The trouble is that we get to the point when the little things, which added together could make so much, are frustrated because something else happens and because that something else is regarded by the Minister as being doctrinaire when we point it out from this side. The trouble is caused by the intervention of two characters in the community who do no practical work. We must arrive at a scheme whereby there is a reward for new inventions, enthusiasm, developers and architects. The trouble is that at present it goes to those two characters—the landowner and the money lender.
If the Minister will not listen to the protests of people who cannot in any way be called doctrinaire, to whom will he listen? I refer to the owners of the chain stores, who are beginning to squawk. They have seen how much they have fallen into the trap of the building policy of the Government in the last few years. They have seen how, tempted by the idea that if they take new properties and lease them over a period of years, so selling their old ones and realising the capital to be used in their businesses, they are having to pay 10 times the previous rent. The whole situation is now out of the hands of the developer and in the hands of the investment company.
Government policy has meant that all the ingenuity and artistic approach, the

923
good and forward-looking new developments, are meaning nothing. It has meant that all the improvements in distribution are coming to nil. With the self-service stores and the rest there is 4d. off no longer. It is 4d. on. One can have 4d. off on only a few catch-lines, while the coppers must come out of the pockets of the public to pay the high rents. This Government have done more damage to the small shopkeeper than any other single factor in the last hundred years. They have almost driven him into extinction because there is no longer room for the small craftsman.
The tally-man, Johnny-come-fortnight, can sell cheaper now than the small shop keeper. Madame Janette—and all the rest of the single-proprietor shops—where a woman of good taste could pick good clothes for her customers, with a nice turnover amongst the typists at lunch time, instead of having her little six-foot-wide shop has been"conned" into taking a new shop in the new parade, where she has to make £20 a week for the rent before she starts to show a profit. There is no room now for the repairing watchmaker, or the chap who takes the trouble to repair children's toys and give good advice about what to buy. There is no time for the service that should be available—it is eliminated from our society. We can do nothing about it, because the second stage has been reached, and we are in the hands of the moneylenders.
Turning to what has happened on the dwellings side of the picture, I shall be more critical. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have shared his enthusiasms. We have had many discussions on practical proposals. He has given me help, and I hope that I have sometimes been able to help him. I acknowledge all that, and he knows that there is nothing personal in what I have to say. Nevertheless, I have to accuse him of failing to see what has been going on.
I have to refer to the specific and definite promises made to me and to some of my hon. Friends by the right hon. Gentleman, by the Minister of Housing at the time, who is now the Home Secretary, and by the Home Secretary at that time, that the most careful investigations would be made into the Rachman empire to try to get
924
at the root of what was then the curse of west London, with all the threat to social stability and democracy it implied.
I want to know how far those investigations went, and how far the truth was known, because the Minister is caught on this fork: either the investigations were made and he knew the results, or they were not made. Either the follow-up was there, or it was not there. If it was there, and if everything was in order and legal, why did not the Minister ask the House for legislation to deal with the evils? If everything was not legal—
Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member will help me and the whole Committee if he relates his strictures, if they are to be strictures, to the law as altered by the multi-occupation Sections of the Housing Act, 1961.
Mr. Parkin: It would have helped if, for instance, the Paddington Borough Council had agreed at the time of passing that Act to get more staff to deal with the situation. It is all very well to pass an Act, but we then find that Tory councillors are not even interested enough to undertake even to consider getting more staff to implement an Act passed by their own Government. However, I must not allow the right hon. Gentleman to lead me into a discussion of the implementation of that Act, attractive though that would be, but he has a long way to go yet before seeing that Measure in full operation.
I want to go back to the beginning. I have just reminded the Minister of the main troubles then; the fact that no repairs could be insisted upon because houses were passing so quickly from one ownership to another; the fact that I, at least, could not find the source of finance that gave the large mortgages to those to whom houses were sold; that nothing was done to bring to book those playing the trick we now hear was done as a joke—taking the roof off a house, and leaving it to the Paddington Borough Council to put on tarpaulins.
Does the right hon. Gentleman know that when a group of the mayors and town clerks of west London boroughs came to this House to discuss what should be done about the racial tensions of the time, the Mayor of Paddington

925
of the time, who was rather inarticulate, left it to the Town Clerk, Mr. Bentley, to make the point that to take over houses as they were was municipalisation by the back door, and that there was no power for the authorities to take over the houses because it was not possible to make the case that they were required for our own housing programme.
I will leave that—but the right hon. Gentleman will remember the imprudent Mr. Carter who lent his name to that bogus estate agency in Westbourne Grove, under the cover of which many of these things took place.
The hon. Member for the City of Chester has spoken of the rô1e of the Prime Minister, so let us go back to 1955, when freehold property, formerly part of the Paddington Estate, was put on auction in Paddington"By order of the Church Commissioners of England." In 1955 there was much talk of a property-owning democracy and the present Prime Minister had just been Minister of Housing. I went to that auction in Porchester Hall, and listened to it for a few minutes. A few days later, in that same hall, I said,"This was a thieves' kitchen of financiers gambling with the homes of the people of Paddington." Great exception was taken to those remarks, but in view of what happened I can state them again.
The Church Commissioners are very often restricted by the fact that it is their duty to get the highest possible value out of the trust vested in them, and I do not complain about that. I have often said that one of their difficulties is that they have two loyalties. That applies to other trusts, too. They have no right to sell at less than the best price.
The lot I saw sold in the Porchester Hall was situated in Hereford Road, Paddington. Bearing in mind the enthusiasm for a property-owning democracy, one might have thought that a lot of people would on that occasion have had the chance to buy their homes. That was not the case. Those houses were lotted, four at a time. But, first of all, the whole road was put up for auction at once. That road went at £95,000–60 dwellings: just about £1,500 a house. I should have thought that the Church Commissioners were entitled to get a
926
little more than that, even at that time. I thought that there was a little fiddling going on.
What happened after that? Half of those houses were on monthly and weekly tenancies, and some on expiring leases, and at that time the return on them all was £10,979 15s. 1d. The investor did not do too badly. He was getting rather more than 11 per cent. on his purchase price, and need not have done anything more. Had those houses been bought individually, it would have meant £1,500 for a house with five floors—£300 a floor; £600, basic, for a two-floor dwelling. That would have helped a property-owning democracy. With all his recent enthusiasm, the Minister must remember that housing associations had been invented long before then. It would have been possible to negotiate, after preliminary publicity, and at the same time, get a little more money.
A year or two after that, one of the houses in Hereford Road, by then owned by Mr. Rachman, was let—and I take this just as an example of all that he was associated with—at a fantastic rent, all perfectly legal, to an experienced coloured man. He knew how to let the house as seven separate dwellings to seven separate girls at £3 10s. 0d. per dwelling per day, payable daily at noon. That is £10,000 a year from one house—enough to pay the interest on the price paid for the whole road.
The right hon. Gentleman will at least allow that, apart from the way in which the dwellings were taken from legitimate working-class people, that was a factor in pushing up the price. If he did not know, he could have asked a policeman. Methods of inquiry were open then. All these things were known and observed, but it was not thought right to bring in remedial measures for cases like that at the time of the Street Offences Act.
Let us go a little further with Mr. Rachman's activities. We could not find at the time how these large mortgages were obtained. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I reported to him trying to buy a house. The price was going up £500 or £1,000 every day and 100 per cent. mortgages were being offered. We could never get anyone to agree on a valuation for any house that we wanted to buy. If we had bought

927
it we should have been still obliged to let it at an economic rent on this inflated price. I skip over the rest. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that I, because I could not get enough done, and he, because he could not get enough done, and, above all, those in a better position to get enough done, must share the responsibility
Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am shirking nothing. I was hoping that he was going to tell us to what extent he thinks the 1961 Act, which was passed to deal with the Rachman type of problem, has been effective. I should be grateful if the hon. Member would tell us what he knows.
Mr. Parkin: I was coming to that. We shall come in the end to the same conclusion as in the case of Madame Janette. We shall find at the end of the day that everything has been tied up and is respectable and the moneylender has taken the place of the speculator and a new levy has inevitably to be paid through inflation. The right hon. Gentleman should hesitate before he interrupts me, because he knows perfectly well that that Act did nothing and could not do anything to stop this kind of inflated prices.
Sir K. Joseph Sir K. Joseph indicated dissent.
Mr. Parkin: Perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman has heard me out he will think better of it. I have pointed out what the Prime Minister and the Church Commissioners might have done at an earlier stage, but things have got completely out of hand since then.
I do not want to recapitulate, though I am tempted for the sake of the record, the details of those evil days, but the Minister knows that we share the responsibility for the racial riots of Notting Hill when night after night there was nothing less than civil war in that area, and fighting between members of the St. Stephen's Tenants' Association which, curiously enough, was formed to fight the coloured man only to find that he was not their enemy—
The Temporary Chairman (Sir H. Legge-Bourke): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but law and order hardly comes within the responsibility of the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
Mr. Parkin: You live in a happier world than I do, Sir Harry. You have the sort of problems of law and order which do not involve taking the roof off people's houses, but I accept your Ruling.
Not only did we have outbreaks of colour prejudice and the Notting Hill riots, but who knows what effect reports of these all over the world have had in strengthening the hand of those in the United States who want to oppose the final emancipation of 20 million negroes there? After that we had outbreaks of anti-Semitism in North Paddington, something which we thought should have been buried with the ashes of Auschwitz and Buchenwald. The synagogue in Paddington was smeared and all this anti-Semitism had to be lived through again. These are the things where responsibilities are very much wider.
Those who first of all appealed to the local authorities, to Members of Parliament and to Ministers, gave up in the end. They decided—and this is important in relation to democracy—that nothing could be done by democratic methods. Bit by bit they relied more and more upon force and less upon argument in defending themselves. Most of them eventually joined C.N.D. and the Committee of 100 and they have been in and out of prison ever since.
If, Sir Harry, you had not been talking to someone else, you would have given me one more warning to sit down, because you would not have seen the connection between the Committee of 100 and the housing situation in Paddington. Neither would I if I had not seen in the local paper, under the enormous headline"Ban the Bomb Group must Quit; Committee of 100 Chief is among Tenants", a spokesman for the landlord, Mr. Stephen Anderton Halsall, alleging dreadful things, such as people going to the flats and pressing the wrong doorbell.
Mr. Halsall is a very respectable man who rides to hounds somewhere near Great Missenden. He was fortunate enough to get control of the Eagle Building Society some years ago. The society, I am sure, is perfectly legal. The Registrar of Friendly Societies took a long hard look at it some time ago and decided on the whole that it should not advertise to the general public for money. But that was not trouble at all. There

929
were other sources. Mr. Rachman used to put deposits in the society in exchange for an undertaking that no questions would be asked about a valuation or a survey, and they never were asked. This is where the £2,000 and £3,000 valuations went up to £6,000, plus 10 per cent., known as a"procurement fee" which one pays if unfortunately the society is short of funds but a special exception can be made in one's case and one brings the 10 per cent. along in used pound notes.
The ins and outs of the Eagle Building Society are fantastic. I will tell the Minister one story if only for a laugh to break the tension. A lavatory was mortgaged for £2,500 by mistake, because the scheme was to mortgage all the flats separately. The surveyor was drunk and he went out into the back yard and came to the conclusion—
The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but it would be very helpful to the Committee and to the Chair if he could relate his remarks to the responsibilities of the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
Mr. James MacColl: Further to that point. As I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) is dealing with the contribution made by building societies for the provision of houses to let, and in view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary spent a long time in talking about the machinery to provide houses to let by co-operation between the Government and building societies, is it not in order for my hon. Friend to suggest that in certain circumstances the machinery may not work?
The Temporary Chairman: I certainly agree that if the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) suggests what the Minister should do that probably would be perfectly in order. I am concerned that the hon. Member appears to be dealing with matters which I think are beyond the responsibilities of the Minister.
Mr. Parkin: I am sorry, Sir Harry, but I was asked by the Minister himself to tell him something about the sequelae of the Rachman affair in relation to the 1961 Act, and I was following an hon.
930
Member who, a couple of speeches ago, was talking about building societies. I should have thought that this was highly relevant to the Government's policy. I should have thought that it was relevant to show how it has added to the inflation in property values. I should have thought that the Minister, if he has not found it out, would have been very glad to hear it. The right hon. Gentleman gave assurances that investigations were being made.
This is no time to discuss legislation and no time for name-dropping and scandal-mongering, but I am bound to bring out this case because here we have the choice—either the operations were perfectly legitimate and so will carry on, or legislation should be introduced to make them impossible. This building society is not short of funds. I am sorry that I have to amplify this matter. Mr. Rachman did not have to take the whole £6,000. It was enough if he took the money which he paid for the house. The rest is paid back as a deposit to the building society and is available for later use.
All sorts of interesting things were done. Mr. Rachman took £30,000 in cash on No. 1, Bryanston Mews which was mortgaged by Copeland Investments to the Eagle Building Society four months before Mr. Rachman disappeared. I say"disappeared" advisedly, because we now come to the point of examining the situation today. The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps know that Mr. Rachman's estate was sworn at £8,000 by an Inland Revenue affidavit. Does the right hon. Gentleman really think anybody would believe that, if investigations had ever been made? Should there not have been the most careful chase-up of every property that had been through his hands in the last four or five years? Good heavens, if I gave the house in which I live to my wife as a birthday present, and lived for four and three-quarter years, the sharks would be after her. I would not have got through the inter vivos. It is impossible, and because it is, everybody laughs and says,"They are a dopey lot in the Government. Why do they not go after the real crooks?"
That leads to the suggestion that Rachman is not dead. All Fleet Street is full of the idea that Rachman is not dead. The editor of the Daily Telegraph

931
obviously does not believe he is dead. Otherwise he would not have printed that"dead pan" article about Rachman's estate the other day. It would be easy to switch bodies since he was"dead on arrival" at Edgware General Hospital. With an overworked houseman in charge they can only feel the body to see whether it is warm or cold. It does not require many interested witnesses—a cremation and a Stateless man, and that is that. It would be a very good idea to have a substitution, and very useful—just 10 days before all hell broke loose.
Well, that is somebody else's story. It is not mine. There is no real evidence. But a lot of other people are alive. Mr. Nash is still alive—a very interesting character. A lot of property has gone through his hands. He is something to do with Copeland Investments. The New Court Hotel went through his hands. Rachman had it at one time. Billy Hill has got it now, and it is run by somebody called Peter Nolan, a very experienced person. Halsall has got the Ambassador Hotel at Paddington. I could quote endless names and addresses. But it is not really worth it. Carters have disappeared. Peter Davies is still very much alive, a cheeky young man who found property dealing much more rewarding than being a credit draper, who appeared on television and spoke about his great ambition to put coach lamps outside every one of these houses, which he called improvements. He has a very respectable-looking chain of companies. The Brush and Palette Club in Paddington is still in existence, as we have recently been reminded. I do not know who now owns the head lease of that. Mr. Rachman owned about 20 basement clubs which he leased out. The operators only paid him rent. That was one of the tricks. Rachman bought the property and sold it again, leasing the basement back to himself.
If one goes up the stairs instead of down, anyone who visits the Brush and Palette Club can get a long list of properties off the door. In the Kenya Coffee Bar opposite there is a modern Lloyds—history will recognise it—like the original Lloyds Coffee Bar, a sort of clearing house for people who have got into a bit of difficulty and perhaps are having some trouble with the public health man. One
932
sells a property for three months with the guarantee that it will be sold back. That is how the ownership is switched. Until one gets good will from the borough council one will not get very far under the 1961 Act or any other Act. One gets to the stage when the property is in the hands of the moneylender once more. Everything is sewn up and respectable, and the levy has to be paid by those who come in.
Nobody, not a Labour Government not a housing association, not an owner-occupier who is honest can cope with that kind of inflation of values. The right hon. Gentleman knows and I know that it can be done, that there is really nothing in the way of a decent landlord carrying out the repairs and improvement. All the devices are there. There are a few more speeding-ups to be done and a few revisions of rules, but even as of now, even as at the date of auction to which I referred, there was a good return on the investment. It could still be made possible. But we see how this corruption takes place. It goes from one to another. One sells a house to a man at an enormous price. He is given a 100 per cent. mortgage at 7 per cent. and he is tempted by the thought of what he could make by letting the basement or the upper three floors. Then he is committed to the moneylender. Then he in turn has to be an exploiter.
There has to be a two-pronged attack on this problem. On the one hand, we want all the drive we can get for the details and the devices, the new kinds of buildings, the conversions, plumbing, etc., but at the end of the day we are defeated if we do not make the other attack on this unproductive section of society, the landowner and the moneylender, who will make all one's work useless and laughable. That is the tragedy which some of us share on both sides of the Committee. Find a solution to that. There is very little joy in trying to be a constructive back bench critic. One gets abuse. One cannot do right, and sometimes one is conscious of the fact that every fresh point that one makes is at the expense of a colleague who can probably make a better speech.
Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has made a most vigorous speech. The

933
trouble is that when I answer it in three hours' time some Members who have heard the speech may not hear the reply. It is my impression—I should say this now—that the 1961 Act powers, which were passed specifically by the Government because of the conditions to which the hon. Gentleman refers, are, in the hands of a strong-minded local authority, adequate to deal with this situation. I am grateful for the opportunity to say this now.
Mr. Parkin: It is obvious that I must not make another speech now in reply to that intervention. My colleagues can deal with it. All I can say is that we are not altogether agreed. There is a lot still to be done.
I was concluding by saying that it is an unrewarding life being a constructive critic on the back benches. When one is making practical suggestions, one is told that they are dreams, and if one tries to analyse the reasons why they cannot be carried out, one is told that one is mud slinging. There must come a time in the life of every little tick-bird like me, however devoted and assiduous, when he has to go and whisper in the ear of the rhinoceros."Symbiosis, and peaceful co-existence, are all very well, but I have got a bellyache. There are more ticks in the folds of your neck than I can digest. I cannot help any more. You are not even washing yourself now. Deep down there is very nearly every nasty disease in the book in your system. You cannot survive that way. You have got to get at the root of this problem. You cannot survive in your present condition. You are going to drop down in your tracks one day and I may be underneath. I'm off."
6.39 p.m.
Mr. Paul Williams: I think that the Committee and the hon. Member for Paddington, North, (Mr. Parkin) will forgive me if I do not follow the hon. Gentleman into the details of property speculation in Paddington, for that is not a place or a theme on which I am well versed. I intervene in a housing debate with great trepidation. I feel almost as nervous in taking part in this debate as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) must have been in addressing the Chamber for the first time, for in ten years this is the
934
first occasion when I have intervened on a housing matter.
In spite of what was said by the hon. Member for Paddington, North, I think that one of the greatest bedevilling factors in the housing situation today is the attitude of the Labour Party in its anti-landlordism. I understand completely the hesitation which the hon. Member for Paddington, North will have in accepting that line or argument, but I believe that the Opposition's instinctive criticism of the landlord and the rôle of landlord in our society has done a great deal to make the provision of reasonable housing in the post-war years more difficult.
Mr. Parkin: I shall try to be brief. Will the hon. Gentleman make a distinction in his mind between the landlord as manager with a constructive rôle to play and the land owner who very often has nothing to do with the management of the property but who merely attracts to himself the increased value put into the land by the brains and activity of others?
Mr. Williams: I accept the distinction which the hon. Gentleman draws, but I still assert that the general attitude of hon. and right hon. Members opposite is epitomised by a remark made by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M.Stewart) who, in a not altogether congratulatory way, referred to"some admirable exceptions". It is this sort of attitude which makes prejudice enter in where reason would be a better guide.
This is the attitude of members of the Labour Party also when they talk of developers. So often, instead of speaking of the developer, who has a genuine and honourable rôle in our society, they talk of the speculator. But who in business is not a speculator in one way or another? Even a motor manufacturer is a speculator unless he is making a custom-built Rolls-Royce. Everyone in the British Motor Corporation and all the major motor manufacturing companies is a speculator in the sense that he does not know his customer at the moment the motor car is being made, In the same way, the speculator, or, as I prefer to call him, the developer, in the property world has an essential rôle to play in meeting and providing for a need in advance of the exact demand.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister that, in talking about housing

935
in this country, we tend very often to talk in far too limited a sense. The hon. Member for Fulham spoke of the population figures over the next few years. I suggest to my right hon. Friend and the Government that they should look rather more closely at population trends and not consider Britain as a tight little island of 50 million, 60 million, 70 million or 80 million people, whichever period is taken for the forecast, and should remember that there is the possibility of exporting population just as there is the possibility of exporting goods. We should not as a nation look at our problem just in terms of what happens within our shores but, rather, look at the prospects of exporting population as well.
Several hon. Members have said that the basis of a sound society is sound housing. This, of course, is true. It is true also that certain parts of the country are now receiving an almost adequate supply of housing. This, however, is not so in the North-East and in the older industrial parts of the country. The old industrial towns are those where the slums are concentrated and where the greatest effort is needed. I am delighted that, in the White Paper and in the Government's policy, there seems to be a realisation of this, but I am still not convinced that the Government have sufficiently appreciated the needs of the North-East in general.
I am thinking here not just in terms of housing but in terms of the whole range of Government economic policy. If the problems of the North-East are to be solved, it will not be done merely by inducing new industry to come in and provide employment. It will be done by providing that revived and revivified attitude and atmosphere which comes from better housing, better schools, better hospitals and better roads. This is why, at this point in my speech, I appeal to the Minister and the Government to give pole position and prime place not just to the industrial regions in general but to the North-East in particular.
The town of Sunderland may well be a typical example of how old industrial towns rot at their centre and need to be recreated with a new spirit, a new outlook and a new plan. The first problem is shortage of space. Borough boun-
936
daries are constricting. Boroughs need to acquire land, to gain planning permission, and, in due course, to expand. But this all takes time. I echo the remark of one of my hon. Friends who said earlier that if the work of the Ministry in these matters could be speeded up, consistent with proper safeguards for the just rights of the contenders or the opponents of expansion, the provision of the housing which people need would be greatly assisted.
In Sunderland there are about 12,000 people on the housing list. At the present rate of progress, it will be eight, nine or teal years before the list is cleared, by which time, of course, there will be new entrants. This is not good enough. One welcomes, of course, the target of 350,000 houses mentioned in the programme, but I suggest to my right hon. Friend that more needs to be done outside the two usual elements of the housing programme, that is, the provision of houses for sale and the provision of housing through local authorities. I make five specific recommendations to him.
First, much more should be done to persuade, if not to force, local authorities to charge economic rents, with, of course, rebate schemes to take account of genuine need. Second, as a consequence of that, more needs to be done to encourage private property developers to provide accommodation in flats or houses for rent. Several hon. Members opposite have said that the present policy will lead to the housing corporation and housing societies fulfilling this rôle and not free enterprise. If this is so, I regret that facet of the policy, for it seems to me that it will merely be changing one form of municipalisation for another major landlord. In a free society, we ought to offer people a series of options, a series of choices, and I am not convinced that we shall get it out of this particular policy development in Cmnd. 2050. Indeed, if we could do what I suggest, we should shift much of the financial burden from the State where it rests now on to private finance, and I should have thought that this, under a Conservative Government, would be regarded as well worth while.
Having said that, I support the proposal in the White Paper for the housing corporation and housing societies, although I am not yet convinced that they will work sufficiently closely with

937
building societies in what they have to do. As my fourth point, I suggest that the building societies themselves take far too conservative a line in regard to the provision of housing. I should like to see a much more positive line of thought and approach coming from the building societies to the provision of new houses and much more stimulus from them to the building trade to modernise itself.
My final point is to urge the development of industrialised housing, mechanised housing, modular housing—call it what one will. As the Minister has said on several occasions, we cannot, with the present building labour force, possibly meet the targets for housing which the nation needs and deserves. It is likely that there will continue to be shortages or at least bottlenecks in the supply of the skilled labour needed. Inevitably, we are bound to change the balance in house production from the traditional methods to the newer, non-traditional and industrialised methods. This is why I regret the attitude of conservatism of some local authorities and the conservatism of some building trade operatives whosee in this trend a danger to the traditional pattern of work and employment. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe that every building trade operative of skill will find employment, but this alone will not provide the housing that the nation needs. Therefore, we have to find some way of getting these new forms of housing started.
I suspect that one of the major difficulties of any new form of housing is to get the first order of sufficient size to make the prices competitive with the traditional methods. Therefore, I am wondering if my right hon. Friend the Minister cannot use this new Housing Corporation to lay down a few test runs, or provoke a few test runs from all the different companies concerned in producing industrialised housing.
If there could be a choice of perhaps the fifty best, or even the ten best, with two hundred houses from each, this would go some way to getting the costs on a competitive basis and seeing what the houses are like actually on the site. If this money is to be used for housing in any case, it should be used for introducing a new non-traditional form of house building, thereby bringing down the cost at the same time as providing
938
these extra houses. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that this is the sort of tiling his Ministry might well be now looking at, so that the figure of 350,000, while at the moment a target, can in due course become a pleasant comment on the past when we go to 400,000 houses a year.
6.54 p.m.
Mr. Tom Brown: The Parliamentary Secretary said that he anticipated some criticism from this side of the Committee. I can assure him that he will not be disappointed. So far we have had criticism, and I want to make a further criticism of the administrative side of his Department.
We have a saying in Lancashire, and I am a Lancashire man bred and born,"Speak your mind, yet be kind; give good advice and yet be nice." I shall speak my mind and I shall give some good advice, and I hope that the Minister will take it in the right spirit. I have a very serious complaint to make about the administrative side of the Department. In December, 1960—almost two and a half years ago—there was submitted to the Department what is known as the Maker field town map. On that map there were thirty sites marked by agreement with the local authorities concerned, with the Lancashire County Council, and all concerned with the progress of the reclamation of land. The map was a fulfilment to a very large degree of the pamphlet which the Minister had just issued, life from dead land. That map was a fulfilment of it because it marked 30 sites which had already been agreed upon. That was in December, 1960. Since then, a number of complaints have been made, first by the Lancashire County Council and, secondly, by the local authorities who were concerned with the drawing up and submission of the map.
We are now in July, 1963, and the Ministry has not made up its mind what it is going to do. Therefore, the local authorities are left in a state of bewilderment and embarrassment and they cannot proceed with the building of houses because there is no land upon which to build. I beg of the Minister to tighten up his administrative side and to see whether he can speed up schemes of this character when they are submitted. This did not need legislation. All that was required was an urgent examination

939
to agree finally on the reclamation of land.
Of course, when land is being reclaimed for any purpose connected with local authorities there are always objections, but those objections have to be overcome or a compulsory purchase order made. In Ince, which I have the honour to represent, there was only one objection. Out of fifteen sites in the township, there was only one objector, and when he was informed that the land was required for the housing of people, he withdrew his objection. The Minister had an opportunity to give consent to the Ince Urban District Council to proceed with the reclamation of that land. Nothing has been done. Interviews have taken place, letters have been written, questions have been asked, and we are still in the same position on 8th July, 1963, as we were in December, 1960. My plea on that score is: will the Minister please speed up the finalising of this town map and tell the county council and the local authorities concerned what he intends doing?
I emphasise what the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher) said in his speech. He said that the Minister ought to make the industrial areas more attractive for new industries. We shall have to do that whether the request comes from that side of the Committee or from this side. We shall never get industrialists to come into the industrial areas such as we have in the north-west, the north-east and the south-west, unless we make the environments more congenial than they are. As the Parliamentary Secretary proceeded with his speech, I anticipated that he would give some hope to those local authorities who are suffering as a result of the legacy which was left by the old industrial system. I shall not make any condemnation of the past industrialists. We have it. We have to deal with it, and the sooner we start to do so, the better it will be.
I give some figures of the position that we have in south-west Lancashire, which has been giving deep mined coal to this nation, essential to the wheels of production of other commodities, since 1546. Any man who has any imagination at all can visualise what that means to a district which has been extracting minerals at the rate it has
940
of what is left behind—not only damage from mining subsidence, but large tip heaps rearing their ugly heads, destroying the soul of the people, making it difficult for them to enjoy life as they should. In the township of Ince in Maker field, the constituency which I have the honour to represent and in which I was born, there are 162 acres covered by pit heaps. There are 615 acres suffering from mining subsidence and 104 acres of derelict land caused by many other factors, a total in that urban district of 881 acres. Forty per cent. of the acreage of that town ship is derelict land.
I was anticipating, and I am still anticipating, that the Minister—
It being Seven o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction of The Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for Taking Private Business).
Mr. Deputy-Speaker resumed the Chair.

CLYWEDOG RESERVOIR JOINT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
As amended, further considered.

Clause 79.—(Provision of facilities FOR RECREATION ON RESERVOIR.)
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I beg to move, in page 49, line 20, after"recreation" to insert:
"except motor-boating and water ski-ing".
With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and if the House thinks it convenient, I should like to take with this Amendment the Amendment in page 50, line 5, leave out"motor-boating, water ski-ing".
The Amendment in page 49, line 32, after"recreation", insert:
"but shall give special consideration to local inhabitants using the said facilities or reservoir"—
is not connected with the other two.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): It will be convenient to take them together.
Mr. Hooson: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
This Bill is designed to enable a joint authority to be set up representing 13 statutory authorities and to authorise its members to extract water from the River Severn. So that that abstraction may be carried out, it is the aim and purpose of the Bill to enable a reservoir to be built in the Clywedog Valley which will control the flow of the water down the River Severn. The Severn itself would be used merely as an aquaduct for the conveyance of the dam in the Clywedog Valley.
The Clywedog Valley is situated about three miles from the small town of Llandiloes, in Mid-Wales, where I live. It is a beautiful, secluded valley. It is off the beaten track. Not many tourists go there. It is the discriminating, knowledgeable country lover who usually goes to the Clywedog Valley. Even the roads which lead to it are extremely narrow. This valley, which contains one of the tributaries of the Severn, runs parallel to the Severn Valley from the mountain basin of Plynlimmon.
If the Bill is implemented, there will be a reservoir in the Clywedog Valley of about four miles in length. Its depth at its deepest point will be 225 ft. and it will submerge between 500 and 700 acres of land. For those hon. Members who are interested, there was a delightful photograph of this valley in The Times of 26th July last year which I recommend all country lovers particularly to look at. One of the essential qualities of this valley is its seclusion and peace. It is"far from the madding crowd" and away from any industrial development. It is one of the relatively few places in our country to which one can go for almost complete peace. The only noise which one may hear is that of a tractor, the bleating of sheep, the lowing of cows, or the swish of the fisherman's rod, since it is a very good fishing area too.
The people who live there are, in the main, farmers, and shepherds. Since 1915, there has been a camp of the Birmingham Central Grammar School near a farm called Bryntail to which boys have been able to go from Birmingham to enjoy the peace and country pursuits of the area.
942
The Bill provides for the preservation of the amenities of the area. Clause 77(1) provides:
"In the construction of the works authorised by this Act the Authority shall have regard to the preservation for the public of the natural beauty of the area in which those works are situate and the enjoyment of the area by the public."
That is a general Clause providing for the preservation of amenities. One amenity is undoubtedly the quiet which is to be enjoyed there and the essential rural nature of the area.
No one who knows this valley could possibly conceive of allowing motor boats or speed boats drawing water-skiers to be operated there. It is not that I am opposed to the idea of water ski-ing or motor-boating. These are very desirable sports and I have nothing to say against them, but there is a place for everything in our community and the Clywedog Valley is certainly not the place for this type of sport. In my view, it would be completely alien to the desirable amenities in this rural area.
Admittedly the area is to be changed when the valley is submerged, and there are many people who may say that some Welsh valleys have been improved by the reservoirs which we find in them. That may be so, but I do not think that anyone has yet suggested that we should turn them into a kind of Black pool or have the kind of sports which are incompatible with the districts in which they are situated.
I turn to the provisions of Clause 79 which, in my view, are incompatible with the general requirements of Clause 77. Under Clause 79,
"The Authority may provide facilities on the reservoir for the purposes of such forms of recreation for the public as they may think fit, but shall have due regard to the preservation of the wholesomeness of water to be supplied by them under section 49 (Supply of water in bulk to Montgomery shire Water Board) of this Act."
The Amendment in page 49, line 20, would amend that subsection by adding after"such forms of recreation" the words
"except motor-boating and water ski-ing".
The Amendment in page 50, line 5, which amends subsection (6,a,i) is consequential on that in line 20 because subsection (6) simply allows byelaws to be made regulating, among other matters, motor-boating and water ski-ing.

943
It seems to me that in Clause 79 the drafters of the Bill have slavishly followed a provision in the Great Ouse Act, 1961. I am not here concerned with the question of precedents generally; the drafters of the Bill can go where they like for their precedents. I am concerned with a particular district and a particular provision. I am not opposed to a reservoir, if it is built in Wales, being used for amenities. For example, I do not object to the idea of sailing boats using this reservoir. I do not object to the pursuit of fishing or other recreational facilities of this kind. What I do object to very much is the idea of motor-boating and water ski-ing being carried on there. It is tragic enough that a valley of this kind should be submerged at all and I believe that the House of Commons must look carefully into all proposals of this kind, before coming to a conclusion whether the valley should be submerged, to ensure that there is a crying public need for it and that the necessity from the public point of view overrides the other considerations.
There is a happy rural community in this area. Conceding that the need for this reservoir is established, we should try to preserve its character as much as possible. We should try to preserve the character of the countryside not only in Wales but in all other parts of Great Britain. The number of areas of our country which are still havens of peace where one can escape from the artificiality and noise of city life is decreasing. This is such an area.
In my view, there is no place for the noisy speed boat and water ski-ing on the Clywedog reservoir. May I say to those who are fond of this sport that I believe that there is a place for it in other areas, but not in this sort of country area? Whether it is in England, Wales or Scotland does not particularly worry me. Therefore, the House should accept the Amendment, whereby we ensure that the Authority cannot in the future allow this kind of sport on the reservoir, as it would be allowed by the Bill.
It might be suggested that this is a permissive provision only. The promoters of the Bill have already indicated that they are prepared to accept the Amendment. Even so, once we have this kind of provision in a Bill, pressure is always brought by certain
944
sections of the community to enforce the power that the Authority would always have. Therefore, one's only safeguard is for the House of Commons to ensure that the Bill does not contain this provision.
This matter was first raised in another place by Lord Chorley when the matter was debated in the House of Lords. I understand that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) raised the matter in the Unopposed Bills Committee of this House, but that he was assured that nobody had protested very much about this provision. That was not quite correct, although I accept that the assurance was given inadvertently, because I understand that this matter was raised at the town meeting in Birmingham and that 500 old boys of the Birmingham Central Grammar School had signed a petition concerning it. Various organisations had already written to the promoters complaining about this provision in the Bill. However, the promoters are prepared to accept the Amendment. Suffice it to say that there is considerable support for my Amendments.
My last point is purely a constituency point but, nevertheless, an important one from the public point of view. The Montgomeryshire Water Board, one of the 13 authorities constituting the Joint Authority, is the only authority which will draw its water direct from the reservoir. All the other authorities will abstract the water from the river as it flows down. Naturally, the people of Montgomeryshire are concerned with the wholesomeness of the water which they draw from the river. They are concerned also with the expense of purifying plant.
I understand that if, for example, sailing boats and fishing are allowed, the question of purification is a minor one. If, on the other hand, any number of motor boats are allowed on the reservoir, much more complicated problems of purification and of preserving the wholesomeness of the water will be created. This is an additional, although not a major, reason for ensuring that motor boats and water ski-ing are not allowed on the reservoir.
Mr. James Griffiths: I should like to begin by saying a word to

945
my colleagues from Birmingham. I pay tribute to their authority and to all those responsible for the care they have shown concerning the Elan Valley, one of the lovely places in Wales, to which they came many years ago to establish a similar water scheme. I am not old enough to know, but I have met people who are old enough to be able to say that the Elan Valley is more beautiful now that it was in the days before Birmingham came and took it over.
We get many of these water Bills concerning Wales and it is time that we began to consider whether our present system of doing this is the right one. My view is that the time has come when there should be complete public ownership of water, and I should like to see Wales have its own Welsh water board. That, however, is another matter.
I hope that the Minister and out friends from Birmingham have listened to what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has said. His is a county in which the population is less than it was a century ago. It is a county with grave economic problems. I and my colleagues think that it needs a new focal point of growth. We have made our proposals, which, I hope, will be approved by the country in the not too distant future. Montgomeryshire is a county which over the generations has suffered by continually losing its people. It is a community which has very deep associations with a good deal that is best in Welsh life.
I do not know whether the Minister has heard of Llanbrynmair. If he mentions that name to any man or woman in Wales, or to any Welsh man or woman throughout the world, it will at once conjure up two sets of initials—S.R. and J.R., who played a notable part in the development of Nonconformist radicalism in Wales in the last century. It is, therefore, a place that evokes emotions.
7.15 p.m.
We ought to pay attention to what people think about their neighbourhood. Love of a neighbourhood can be very strong and deep. There is an old French proverb to the effect that the most enduring form of patriotism is stupid patriotism. This kind of concern is never
946
fully understood. I hope, therefore, that what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has said will be listened to.
In the town which I represent in South Wales, we are very fortunate. We do not have many places left where we can say with poetic measure that we can stand and stare. We dare not stand and if we stare, we stare at the noise up above. That is not like W. H. Davies in"Leisure". I am proud that we have kept the Gower. I hope that we always keep it. I hope that my compatriots will fight to the death before they allow the Gower to become what some of our coastline has become. We must have some places where we can get away from noise.
I speak as an old coalminer. The lot of the coalminer has improved a great deal. His life has improved. There is, however, one thing that the present-day miner is subjected to that I was not. I am almost terrified of the noise in which he works for six or seven hours every day. He needs a bit of rest sometimes and a holiday. Certainly, those of middle age and beyond deserve a place where they can go and rest.
I am glad to know that the promoters of the Bill have agreed to the Amendment. That being so, I hope that nobody else objects. If they agree that in the setting of the Clywedog Valley it is desirable to preserve the amenities and prevent noise, and the local people think that if ski-ing and motor-boating are allowed they will add noise to an area which is so peaceful and restful, I say to my Birmingham and Coventry colleagues that that is not too much to give to a county which is providing them with water. It is not too much to give to Mid-Wales.
But for the water of Mid-Wales, Birmingham would come to a stop tomorrow. The local people are not asking too much. Their local authorities have co-operated in every way possible. Now, through the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, the county asks that the promoters should accept the Amendment. This is not too much to ask and having regard to the local co-operation, I hope that the promoting authorities and those who speak for them in this House will accept the Amendment.
Mr. Denis Howell: I speak as a Birmingham Member and I should like, if permissible, to speak on behalf of the promoters of the Bill. I should correct the record to start with. I do not think the position is that the promoters have agreed to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: Yes, they have.
Mr. Howell: The position is that the promoters are neutral about it. It arrives at a very late stage of the Bill.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe rose—
Mr. Howell: The hon. Member must wait until I have finished. I speak now for myself and I think that the Amendments have been put down unreasonably at a very late stage of the Bill. Faced with the need to pass this tremendously important Bill, affecting not simply Birmingham, but the whole of the Midlands, the promoters said that if the price of getting the Bill through—and they thought that it was an unopposed Bill—was acceptance of the Amendment, they were prepared to pay that price. That was the situation.
The promoters were prepared to accept the Amendment because of that, but other interests have now come forward and have objected to the objectors: they object to the Amendment being put forward. That is now the situation. The Bill is wanted for the purpose of getting water for the industrial heart of this country, and although there are views about this Bill and I shall expand on them in a moment, so far as the mechanics are concerned the promoters would do anything which the House asked them to do to guarantee the Bill a safe passage. That is the situation, I think.
Mr. Thorpe: I am sure that the hon. Member wants the record to be as accurate as other hon. Members in the House would wish it. I am not certain whether he was in the House when the Privilege matter was originally raised—I think two Mondays back—but it will be within his recollection that the letter from the promoters was to the effect that the committee of promoters was prepared to agree
948
to the Amendments which had been proposed, and then there was a condition precedent,
"subject to you and the other Members…refraining from further opposition…"—[Official Report, 24th June, 1963; Vol. 679, c. 952.]
As I understand it, that is now withdrawn by the apology the next day, and whether the Amendments would be agreed to of not. I do not think it is for us to question their motives. They went on the record as being not in opposition, or reluctantly in agreement, but in agreement.
Mr. Howell: That was a fascinating speech by way of interruption, but I think it confirms what I was saying, that the promoters would not object. But others have objected. So the position of the promoters is that they want the Bill and were prepared to have this consideration if the House wished it, and they would not object, as long as that would not hold up the main part of the Bill.
Mr. John Morris: Do I understand that my hon. Friend is saying that the view of the promoters is that they are withdrawing their letter addressed to myself and to other hon. Members?
Mr. Howell: They are doing no such thing. I think I made it perfectly clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) has his name to this Amendment, but why he has, I just cannot fathom at all, and I want to deal with that in a moment in a kindly way.
Before doing that, however, I would say that it seems to me and, I think, to the promoters, too, a rather peculiar business, that a Bill which has been the subject of a town meeting and a town poll and which has passed through all its stages in the Lords and through the House of Commons should be subject to this sort of Amendment at the very last minute. I am not suggesting that hon. Members have not a right to try to amend it now. They obviously have, and that is why we are discussing the Amendment, but I do not myself think that it is in the best Parliamentary traditions to leave this sort of Amendment to this very last stage in the proceedings on a Bill. [An Hon. Member:"Nonsense."] The hon. Member may say it is nonsense. That is a subject on

949
which, I readily admit, he knows a great deal.
The fact is we have spent a long time considering this Bill, and Clause 79 follows almost exactly the provisions in the Great Ouse Water Act, 1961, in respect of which the hon. Member for Montgomery—[Hon. Members:"Honourable and learned."] yes, and learned, although by the tenor of these Amendments I have a little doubt about it. The hon. and learned Member suggested that we ought not slavishly to follow precedents, but I would say to him that I thought that that was what the law was all about—the question of precedents. I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has argued many handsome briefs by quoting precedents for days and days in the courts. In fact, the question of precedents is of extreme importance in the law of our country, and I would kindly ask the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery to consider what is the position of promoters of Private Bills.
If this House says it wishes a certain provision to be in a Private Bill, then the promoters of the next Private Bill look at that preceding one. It is the only thing to guide them as to what Parliament has said and Parliament has done before. In this case the promoters saw that Parliament as recently as 1961 decreed a provision in exactly identical terms, and they ought not to be castigated in this House for believing that Parliament, two years later, in 1963, is going to apply the same views. That is precisely the position here.
When the Great Ouse Bill was in Committee of this House this specific proposal was put in at the instigation of the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) who was the Chairman of that Committee. When a Member of this House sitting as the Chairman of a Committee on a Private Bill decrees this specific provision, saying that it ought to be in the Bill, then I submit that the promoters of this Bill are not to be castigated for believing they are doing the right thing in following exactly the same course as that already taken.
But it is not only the Great Ouse Act which contains this provision. We have a precedent which is far more recent than that, as the Joint Parlia-
950
mentary Secretary well knows. I say with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon that we have just been I do not know how many weeks working on the Water Resources Bill and sitting very late to deal with it.
I would say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), whose very kind remarks about Birmingham are much appreciated, that in Standing Committee upstairs we have been doing precisely what he suggested we ought to do, and that is, looking at the whole of the water resources. This may be the last time that Parliament considers a Bill of this sort or that a Private Bill of this sort comes before the House, because the Water Resources Bill, I can tell my right hon. Friend, is doing precisely what he suggested we ought to do.
The hon. Member for Aberavon, like myself, sat on that Standing Committee on the Water Resources Bill during its long and tedious Committee stage and he well knows that Clause 79 of the Water Resources Bill is exactly the same, by a remarkable coincidence, as Clause 79 of the Bill now before the House. Incidentally, my hon. Friend did not raise any objection to that other Clause. 79. I am rather surprised that he is now supporting Amendments to this Bill and objecting to this provision here for the Midlands and Birmingham when less than three weeks ago in Standing Committee on the Water Resources Bill he did not object to exactly the same Clause.
Mr. Thorpe: We are not objecting to the Clause.
Mr. Howell: Hon. Members are objecting to this Clause 79. I am sorry that the Liberal Party is getting disturbed, but what they are objecting to at the moment is Clause 79 as it is drawn, and they are attempting to amend it.
I am just saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon and myself sat in Standing Committee upstairs less than three weeks ago and passed a Clause for the whole water industry of this country, a Clause in terms identical with those of this one, and it would be absolutely ludicrous, in my view—and this is why I disagree with these Amendments, leaving aside, for the moment, the question of noise about which I have

951
some sympathy with hon. Members—for this House, having agreed to a provision for the whole of the water resources of this country, now to say that that provision will apply to everybody except the promoters of this Bill.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend let me put this point to him very seriously? He will realise that we all have an interest in this. My county will be affected shortly. Do I understand that he is putting forward the view that if local feelings about a particular aspect of this problem are expressed upon a new Bill we ought to object to that?
7.30 p.m.
Mr. Howell: Not at all. I want the position to be carried to the point of Parliamentary logic. I say that it is illogical of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon not to object to Clause 79 of a Bill which affects the water resources of the country as a whole and then to object to Clause 79 of this Bill. That is the only point I wish to make, and I shall not carry the argument any further.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly pertinently raised the question of local objections. I come back to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. Two of the promotors of the Bill are the Montgomeryshire County Council and the Montgomeryshire Water Board, and they have agreed to it. I do not suggest that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery does not understand local feeling—he obviously does—but surely his own local authority, is well seized of public feeling on this matter? Has the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery made any representations either to the Montgomeryshire County Council or to the Montgomeryshire Water Board in connection with these Amendments? I ask that because they had no idea that they were to be tabled until they appeared on the Notice Paper.
Mr. Hooson: It was the members of that authority who informed us that they accepted the Amendments.
Mr. Howell: This is a complicated Bill containing 90 Clauses. It took a great deal of time to prepare, and it received a good deal of local publicity.
952
The hon. and learned Gentleman has had every opportunity, at town meetings and town polls, to express his objections to this Clause, but he has never done so. He has waited until this late Parliamentary stage to put forward his objections. I am not suggesting that he ought not to have made his objections known, but if any other hon. Member had objections to a Bill, I feel certain that he would have made them known before the Bill reached this stage. His objections would certainly have been made at a much earlier stage if he was acting in co-operation with his local authority, and this again shows the unreasonableness of objections being made at this stage of our proceedings.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly, I think that it is blessed to be able to stand and stare. As W. H. Davies asked
"What is this life if, full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare?"
But life these days is different from what it was when W. H. Davies wrote that poem. There are many people in sedentary occupations, clerical workers and so on, who, during their leisure hours, like to pursue an active sport.
Mr. J. Griffiths: There are plenty of other places for that.
Mr. Howell: The whole discussion is about a proposal to give this authority power to make byelaws. The promoting authorities have not said that they will allow motor-boating or water-ski-ing. What the objectors are doing is taking a pessimistic view of the future of the motor-boat industry in this country. I agree that motor boats make a lot of noise, but at some time in the future manufacturers might be able to produce a more silent engine. It would then be ludricrous to prevent them enjoying motor-boating simply because, when this Measure was going through the House, nothing was said about noise.
There is nothing more that I want to say about these two Amendments. [Hon. Members:"Hear, hear."] I gather that hon. Members have not taken very kindly to my speech. That shows that it is reasonable and pertinent, and the sort of speech to which the House ought to listen. I shall have a word to say about the other Amendment later.

953
I am opposed to these Amendments because of the unreasonable way in which they have been put forward. There is no evidence that the local authorities want them. Parliament has enacted the Great Ouse Act, and a Standing Committee has dealt with the Water Resources Bill. No objection was raised to similar provisions in these two Measures, and I cannot understand why the promoters of this Bill have singled out Birmingham, Coventry and the rest of the Midlands for this treatment.
Mr. John Morris: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) mentioned me several times in the course of his most interesting speech. I am sure that his speech will not endear him to the Welsh people. In view of the co-operation which the County of Montgomery has given in the preparation of this Bill, it is rather sad that a Member representing the City of Birmingham, which will be one of the main beneficiaries of the Bill, has sought to make a speech of this nature. Strong feelings are held in Wales on these issues; feelings about which my hon. Friend knows very little. My hon. Friend expressed views which he no doubt holds sincerely, but in view of the views held by local people about our most valuable asset, our water resources, it is unfortunate that my hon. Friend made the speech that he did.
What are the objections to these Amendments? First, it is said that those Members who put their names to them were unreasonable in tabling them at this stage of the Bill's progress. Surely it is open to hon. Members to take whatever course they think fit at any stage of any Bill? That is what we are here for and nothing that my hon. Friend can say will stop hon. Members exercising their constitutional rights. If the Amendments were not in order they would not have been accepted by the Table, and it is therefore unreasonable of my hon. Friend to object to the action taken by us.
The other point made by my hon. Friend was that I said nothing about Clause 79 of the Water Resources Bill when it was being discussed in Committee. I agree that that Bill does many of the things which we want to do, but
954
it does not contain a Clause to set up a Welsh water board. I would be out of order if I were to advance arguments setting out the many advantages that would accrue to Wales if such a board were set up, but the Minister has promised to look at this matter again, and, if I understand the position aright, to bring forward some proposals on Report.
The comparison which my hon. Friend seeks to make between my silence on Clause 79 of the Water Resources Bill and what I have said about this Bill is rather ridiculous. My hon. Friend has obviously not read Clause 79 of the Water Resources Bill, because there is nothing in it about motor-boating and water ski-ing. He sought to make the point that Clause 79 of that Bill was on all fours with the Clause under consideration. It may be due to old age, but my hon. Friend's memory does not appear to be very good, and I hope that he will refresh it before this discussion is concluded. If he reads Clause 79 of the Water Resources Bill, he will see quite clearly that it is not on all fours with the matter we are discussing.
In the Clause in the Water Resources Bill there is a general provision to permit use by members of the public for the purposes of any form of recreation which the river authority considers appropriate. That is a general provision and this Bill goes on to deal with a particular. While one may be silent about a general provision in one Bill, one's course of action may be entirely different in dealing with a particular provision in another Bill.
We are here considering water ski-ing and motor-boating in the context of the Clywedog Valley, and it is the duty of hon. Members to consider forms of recreation which are not mentioned by name in a general provision in another Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath was quite wrong when he said that as I had been silent about a general provision in another Bill I should therefore be debarred, ipso facto, from discussing a particular provision in the Bill.
The third matter is this. From his opening remarks, it seemed that my hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath was speaking on behalf of himself and the promoters. He sought to make the point that the promoters were now taking a neutral stand

955
and that their original agreement, in which they had signified their intention to those of us who had put their names to this Amendment, no longer held good. The letter which I and other hon. Members received was on these lines:
"We are instructed to inform you that the Committee of the Promoters of the Bill this morning considered the Amendments standing in your name to be moved on consideration. The Committee are prepared to agree to those Amendments subject to you and the other Members who put their names to the Amendments refraining from further opposition to the Bill."
The latter part of that proposal has been held to be a prima facie breach of Privilege, and that would therefore fall and would leave the words merely as:
"The Committee are prepared to agree to those Amendments."
Those of us who have put down these Amendments have not received any suggestion from the promoters, as far as I know, of their withdrawing from this position, and, so far as I know, the promoters are still prepared to agree to these Amendments.
I ask hon. Members seriously to consider the Amendment so ably moved by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). My right hon. Friend spoke about noise. We are dealing with a most beautiful valley which so far has not suffered from what only last week was described as the hazard of noise, a hazard to health in particular. I hope that the House will agree to the Amendment.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. John Wells: I hope that the House will reject the Amendment. In the original Clause 79 the Bill contains clear provisions to enable the Authority to control water ski-ing and motor-boating so closely that they never need be a nuisance to local people. Every hon. Member appreciated the pleasant and lyrical way in which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) spoke about his own home area. We appreciate the beauty which he described to us, but the fact remains that he makes a grave error when he says that he is not concerned with precedent. This is what alarms me, because it is well known that promoters of Private Bills always look at the last relevant Bill
956
and take it—I will not say word for word—in large slices.
If there should be a similar Bill—and I say similar and not identical because I am well aware that, as a result of the Water Resources Bill, there will never again be a Bill identical with this—dealing with kindred purposes and the promoters of that Bill observe that the House of Commons does not like water ski-ing in this or that area, undesirable Amendments will be written into that future Bill.
I hope that the House will reject the Amendment. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) rightly pointed out, the British motor boat industry is making great advances with improvements in silencing and efficiency. There are many industrial and office workers who want to enjoy open spaces and if, inadvertently as a result of these Amendments, there was some future restriction on water ski-ing elsewhere, which is what I fear, a grave disservice would be done to the cause of leisure.
Mr. Hooson: Is not the hon. Member aware that the House of Lords in Committee has already amended Clause 33 and radically changed its provisions, provisions which obtained in the Great Ouse Act?
Mr. Wells: That may well be, but I am concerned not with Clause 33 but with the Amendments to Clause 79. When promoters of Private Bills want to provide a similar Measure in future, they look at the last relevant Bill, and this will be that last relevant Bill. I hope that the House will reject the Amendment, bearing in mind the fundamental fact that under subsection (1) the Authority will have to have due regard to the preservation of the wholesomeness of the water, that under subsection (6) it will have power to make byelaws regulating sailing and motor boating and so on, and that under paragraph (iii) of subsection (6,a) it will be able to forbid the passing into the water of any injurious matter, whether solid or fluid. The Authority will have sufficient power, and I hope that the House will reject the Amendments.
Mr. Roderic Bowen: I support the Amendments. Several hon. Members have spent a considerable time

957
discussing precedent and procedure, but in deciding whether to accept the Amendments our prime consideration should be their merit, particularly in relation to the Bill as a whole.
When the Bill is implemented, there will be created in this valley a delightful artificial lake in beautiful and peaceful surroundings. There is no doubt that the number of people who will visit and enjoy those surroundings will be substantially increased. Therefore we should be particularly careful that nothing is done to detract from the pleasure and enjoyment of the people who live in the area and those who visit it.
The Amendments are directed towards dealing with noise. The main interest of the hon. Member for Maids-tone (Mr. J. Wells)—I make no quarrel about it—is that the motor boat industry should not have its development hindered by restrictions of this kind. If we are balancing the perfectly genuine honourable interests of the motor boat industry with the question of the amenity of a valley, in these circumstances it is quite clear where our duty lies.
Mr. J. Wells: I am afraid the hon. and learned Member has put some words into my mouth. I said specifically that I was concerned about the pleasure of many people and mentioned the motor boat industry only in passing.
Mr. Bowen: I am concerned with the pleasure of people, both those who live in the Clywedog area and those who visit it. The Bill provides for recreational facilities in the area. There are plenty of recreational facilities which could be provided without making noise which will interfere with the pleasure of others. I should have thought that in this respect the hon. Member for Small Heath would be doing great disservice not only to the population of Clywedog but to his constituents who will be visiting the area. In the last few days a report has been presented to Parliament by a committee which has been considering the problem of noise. Two paragraphs in that Report might well have been written with these Amendments in mind.
Mr. Denis Howell: I do not want to be tendentious or carry this argument too far, but would the hon. and learned Member deal with this question? If we
958
are to have noise in our society, is it not better to have it in remote places where no one lives than in large towns?
Mr. Bowen: There are places where people can go and expect to find noise there, but there still remain places to which people can go in order to have peace. One of the objects of these Amendments is to see that there shall still be places in that category.
I was referring to the very valuable Report we have just received. The two paragraphs in it which I have in mind are headed, very appropriately,"Noise from Boats" and"Noise in the Country". Under the heading"Noise from Boats" the Report says:
"In the last few years noise from motor-boats on rivers, lakes and the sea has begun to cause complaint and in some areas to become a nuisance. With the growing popularity of motor-boating and water-ski-ing the nuisance is likely to become worse and more widespread unless preventive measures are taken."
It is with that sentiment in mind that I support these Amendments. Under"Noise in the Country", the Report says:
"There is no doubt that the countryside is getting noisier",
The hon. Member for Small Heath apparently thinks that that can be a pleasing development. The paragraph goes on to say:
"We have noted in Chapter XI the greater number of townspeople who are now able to visit and find their recreation in the countryside tends to increase the noise there. We hope that in such places as National Parks and National Trust properties endeavours will be made to preserve, or create, havens of quiet where those who wish to can escape from noise for a time."
Those who oppose these Amendments are those who want to destroy—to use the phrase used in the Report—"havens of quiet". The paragraph goes on to say:
"In fact most of the noises that occur in towns also occur in the country, but to different degrees,"
I believe this sentence is of importance:
"It must be remembered, however, that the same noise may give rise to greater annoyance in the country on account of the lower background noise, and for the same reason a lesser noise may still cause significant annoyance."
From the purely noise angle these Amendments have very considerable

959
merit. It may well be that these matters have been raised at a late stage, but at whatever stage they have been raised they have great merit in them, and I commend them to the House.
Mr. Charles A. Howell: I intervene for only a few seconds to get one or two things on the record corrected.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who moved the Amendment, referred to a petition signed by a number of grammar school boys in Birmingham. He should have made perfectly clear that that petition was not supporting these Amendments or making any reference to these Amendments, but was opposing the Bill. It would have been rather infra dig if any of the grammar school boys had the privilege of going camping in this beautiful part of Wales—I accept all that the hon. and learned Member said about it—but that right was denied to the next generation. I do not think it was quite fair for the hon. and learned Member to say that he had the support of these grammar school boys.
I was surprised to find that every one of the four hon. Members who have supported this Amendment, and three are in the legal fraternity, used an argument which was contrary to what is followed in that profession, the use of precedents. After all, this House works on precedents.
Mr. J. Griffiths: I am not a learned Member.
Mr. Howell: I excluded my right hon. Friend when I referred to learned Members. They put me in mind of so many hon. Members opposite who, when we were discussing another Bill, dealing with transport, supported it so long as it would not close branch lines in their areas. Apparently we can have a Water Resources Bill dealing with the whole of Britain, but hon. Members do not want it to apply to their own particular areas.
I shall in future have to regard my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. J. Morris) as the hon. Member for Wales because he said that he was speaking for the people of Wales. He did not, however, tell us of anyone in Aberavon who supported this Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Mont-
960
gomery did not tell us that any petition had been got up by anyone objecting to this point in the Bill. I do not know for whom he was speaking. They have not revealed themselves and neither of the hon. Members has revealed that to us.
Is it suggested that Birmingham people would take motor boats to this area? Is it suggested that people from Coventry will lead a contingent of motor boats there? The only people who would use motor boats if that were allowed—and the Bill would merely give permission for motor boats—would be Montgomeryshire people. If there is any objection it cannot be against the people in my constituency nor those in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) or Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman).
The hon. and learned Member should be clear about this. He would be stopping his own people doing these things, but he says that they do not want to do them. I apologise to my right hon. Friend in that I have difficulty in pronouncing Clywedog—
Mr. J. Griffiths: My hon. Friend does it very well.
Mr. Howell: The hon. and learned Member for Montomery said that very few people knew Clywedog or even how to get there and that the roads were very narrow. All that will change. In the Derbyshire district there is the Lady Bower Dam, a beautiful place which people did not know about some time ago, but now it has become known one cannot get near it for motor cars. If this is so beautiful—and I am sure that it must be—it will become not only a beauty spot but a place to which thousands of Welsh people will go in their motor cars. I suggest that from some areas they will even go out picnicking to this beautiful spot—which will be far worse than motor boats.
Mr. J. Griffiths: On a point of order. Are we to have any advice from the Government?
8.0 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I do not think that I can help the House much

961
on this matter because the Government do not take a very strong view either way.
I accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that this is not directly comparable with the Great Ouse Water Act. In that Act this Clause was put in at a fairly late stage and the Government representative before the Committee made a plea that it should not be regarded as a precedent for all future reservoirs. There is, on the other hand, this other difference. I understand that there is no direct abstraction at all from the Great Ouse reservoir, whereas there will be direct abstraction here for the Montgomeryshire Water Board.
I must, however, give some support to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr.Denis Howell) because it is relevant to remember that we have been considering the Water Resources Bill and, if anything the Government have been pressed to go rather further to allow discretion in these matters than was originally written into the Bill. In that Bill the discretion is left with the river authorities. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Charles A. Howell) said, this is the crux; we are not dealing with a decision whether we shall have motor boats on this lake, for we are asked either definitely not to have them or to give discretion.
Mr. Bowen: This is the only opportunity which the House will have to decide that question.
Mr. Corfield: It is the only opportunity which the House will have to decide to give a complete bar against these operations in this case.
The Water Resources Bill contains provisions by which river authorities may in the future take over reservoirs in their area. I will not forecast the fate of this reservoir, but it is the sort of reservoir which might well come under an Order in the future, and in that event there would be public inquiries and the hearing of objections. If that is so, it seems a little illogical to have a provision written in which would not apply to other reservoirs, many of which are in Wales and are in beautiful valleys.
On balance, therefore, the sensible thing, I think, is to leave it to the discretion of the Authority, but the Government do not take a strong line. I am always influenced by the eloquence of the right hon. Member for Llanelly and by the local patriotism—I come from just over the Border and I understand it well; but I believe that this is sound advice.
Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —
The House divided: Ayes 77, Noes 70.

Division No. 159.]

AYES

[8.5 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Probert, Arthur

Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Randall, Harry

Barnett, Guy

Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Bence, Cyril

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Harper, Joseph

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Biffen, John

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Robson Brown, Sir William

Blyton, William

Hayman, F. H.

Shepherd, William

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Boyden, James

Hooson, H. E.

Snow, Julian

Brockway, A. Fenner

Hoy, James H.

Spriggs, Leslie

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Symonds, J. B.

Carmichael, Neil

Hunter, A. E.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Cooke, Robert

Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

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

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Thorpe, Jeremy

Darling, George

Kelley, Richard

Wade, Donald

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Kenyon, Clifford

Warbey, William

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lipton, Marcus

White, Mrs. Elrene

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

McBride, N.

Wilkins, W. A.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Mellish, R. J.

Willey, Frederick

Dempsey, James

Milne, Edward

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Dodds, Norman

Mitchison, G. R.

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Evans, Albert

Morgan, William

Woollam, John

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Moyle, Arthur

Finch, Harold

O'Malley, B. K.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Galpern, Sir Myer

Pargiter, G. A.

Mr. Morris and Mr. Lubbock.

Greenwood, Anthony

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

NOES

Barlow, Sir John

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

MacColl, James

Barter, John

Glover, Sir Douglas

Marshall, Sir Douglas

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Grant-Ferris, R.

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

Green, Alan

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

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Braine, Bernard

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Brooman-White, R.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Pitt, Dame Edith

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Pott, Percivall

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Hiley, Joseph

Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Hirst, Geoffrey

Rankin, John

Burden, F. A.

Hocking, Philip N.

Seymour, Leslie

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Holland, Philip

Shaw, M.

Cary, Sir Robert

Hollingworth, John

Sorensen, R. W.

Cliffe, Michael

Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Swain, Thomas

Crossman, R. H. S.

Hughes-Young, Michael

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

Deer, George

Jeger, George

Temple, John M.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Turner, Colin

Duthie, Sir William

King, Dr. Horace

Ward, Dame Irene

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

Kitson, Timothy

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Lagden, Godfrey

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Lilley, F. J. P.

Fisher, Nigel

McAdden, Sir Stephen

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Denis Howell and Mr. Gurden.

Mr. Hooson: I beg to move, in page 49, line 32, after"recreation", to insert:
"but shall give special consideration to local inhabitants using the said facilities or reservoir".
I propose to add these words to Clause 79(3), which at the moment reads as follows:
"The Authority may demand and take such reasonable charges as they think fit from any person using any facilities provided under this section or using the reservoir for the purposes of recreation."
As hon. Members who represent Birmingham constituencies will appreciate, Birmingham will draw millions of gallons of water from this reservoir every day.
Mr. Denis Howell: And it will pay for it.
Mr. Hooson: That is just the point. It will not pay for it. The local inhabitants will lose a beautiful valley. They will also lose other things. The valley has running through it a very good little trout stream called the Clywedog, in which many generations of local inhabitants have fished by special arrangement with the farmers owning the land. The local inhabitants will lose this facility.
I happen to come from an area, referred to by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), which is suffering from depopulation and where the wages are very much lower than those earned in the Birmingham area. When a reservoir of this kind is built, thus creating an attraction drawing people to the
area, prices will inevitably be driven up. What are reasonable prices for people coming on trips from the Birmingham area may be very different from what are reasonable prices for local inhabitants.
8.15 p.m.
I am concerned about the rights of people who have lived in the area for generations. The local angling associations at present enjoy fishing facilities on the river. They will lose these. I do not doubt for a moment that the fishing facilities on the reservoirs will be very much poorer. There is a matter of great principle here. It is all very well for great authorities to come and prospect for water in Wales and say,"We need water for the industries in our growing towns", In this case the authorities concerned had the greatest co-operation from the Montgomery County Council and the Montgomeryshire Water Board. This matter has been treated on a more adult level than other proposals of this kind in recent years in Wales. There has been far greater co-operation than in previous Measures of this kind. It is important that the local inhabitants should not be entirely forgotten in a Measure of this type. After all, it is their countryside. They have lived there and they have certain rights in respect of it.
My hon. Friends and I have deliberately drafted the Amendment in not very specific terms, because we agree that the joint authority should have a certain discretion here as to where to draw the line as to who are local inhabitants. The

965
Amendment charges the authority with the duty to—
"give special consideration to local inhabitants using the said facilities or reservor".
For example, in the Elan Reservoir in Radnorshire, which has been run by Birmingham for many years, the local inhabitants are given special facilities and are charged special prices for fishing. This should obtain also in the Clywedog Reservoir in respect of fishing, boating, sailing, and so on.
Mr. Denis Howell: This is perhaps the vaguest and most irresponsible Amendment ever put before the House. I understand what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) is seeking to do, but it is very obvious that he has not given this matter mature consideration, because we are asked to accept the proposition that in the recreational facilities provided at this waterworks the local inhabitants should receive special consideration in the matter of charges. The corollary to that is that there must be a definition of what a local inhabitant is. It is obvious that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who understands the law far better than I do, as he has already told the House, should have tabled an Amendment to the interpretation Clause stating beyond doubt what a local inhabitant is. Is it a member of the parish? Is it a member of the county council area? Is it a member of the Montgomery constituency? We do not know what a local inhabitant is. We do not even know how long a local inhabitant has to be local before he is an inhabitant. If I go camping for a fortnight, do I become a local inhabitant for the purposes of trout fishing or any of the other pleasant pastimes under consideration?
The hon. and learned Gentleman also told us that this was a provision carried out in the Claerwen Valley district. I am sorry to have to say to him that it is not so.
Mr. Hooson: I did not say that it was a provision. I said that in fact facilities were provided.
Mr. Howell: My information is that no special facilities are provided for local inhabitants in the Claerwen and Elan Valleys, nor should they be. If this argument were carried further, what
966
would happen to the economy of the country? Should the local inhabitants of Birmingham, because of their great contribution to industry in the motor trade, be granted special privileges as to the prices they pay for motor cars, as compared with the prices paid by people living in other parts of the country?
Mr. Bowen: This is not a question of special facilities. This is a modicum of compensation for the local inhabitants for something which has been taken from them.
Mr. Howell: Where does that argument end? Every agricultural worker could claim, on that argument, that he should be charged less for the products he provides. In any case, on that argument, who is to be the arbiter?
Mr. Cyril Bence Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East) rose—
Mr. Howell: I am tempted to give way to my hon. Friend, but I am inclined not to do so in view of the business which will come before the House when we have dealt with the Amendment. However, since my hon. Friend lived and worked in Birmingham I will allow him to intervene.
Mr. Bence: My hon. Friend referred to workers in the motor industry not enjoying privileges. As he knows, I worked in that industry. I can assure my hon. Friend that for several products, from washing machines and stainless steel sinks to motor cars, I was able to get a reduced price.
Mr. Howell: That may be true of some firms, but it is by no means the universal practice in the industry. Even if my hon. Friend did get such a"perk", I am sure that he would not think of promoting it as a piece of legislation, which is what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is trying to do.
Anyone considering this matter in a fair-minded way will agree that the Amendment would be unworkable. The authority which would have to determine its operation would be placed in an intolerable position, and Parliament should not allow that to happen. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will shed a little more light on this

967
subject than he could on the previous Amendment.
Mr. T. W. Jones: Half-a-dozen speeches of the type just delivered by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) would soon urge me to become a Welsh Nationalist and to say to the people of Birmingham, with them,"Find your water in England and leave us in peace". The hon. Member should have said,"We are grateful to the people of Wales in general, and of Montgomeryshire in particular, for having given us all this assistance to make this reservoir possible".
The people of Birmingham will be spending £4½ million on the construction of this reservoir in Montgomeryshire. I hope that they realise that £4½ million cannot buy one thing—good will. The people of Liverpool appreciated this when they took over the Tryweryn Valley and, eventually, were wise enough to do everything in their power to secure the good will of the inhabitants of the area. Nothing will help more to secure the good will of the inhabitants of the Clywedog Valley than to accept the Amendment, for it is obviously reasonable.
Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Member is surely not suggesting that his constituents and the people of Wales can have their good will bought by giving them advantages of a financial character. Would that not be totally unworthy?
Mr. Jones: I never suggested that good will could be bought at any price or in any way, certainly not financially. However, it can be secured. Acceptance of the Amendment would show that the people of the area are being considered, along with the construction of the new reservoir. Realising that a subject of considerable importance has yet to be debated, I will do no more than appeal to hon. Members to support the Amendment.
Mr. Bence: It might be helpful if I, as a Welshman who left Wales to work in Birmingham, expressed my point of view. I discovered when I got to Birmingham, being a keen angler—and my
968
hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) knows this to be so—that at weekends I was able to go into the Welsh hills and to fish in the Welsh rivers.
I also discovered that many Birmingham angling clubs and associations were in the habit of buying fishing rights for their clubs. I have, therefore, considerable sympathy with those who support the Amendment. Had I remained in a Welsh valley, instead of being able to fish in Wales at the times when I left Birmingham to do so—because, for instance, certain angling clubs owned fishing rights there—I might not have been able to enjoy those fishing facilities. As a Welshman working in Birmingham I could go back to fish in Wales in water that had been bought by a Birmingham club. A Welshman who stayed in Wales might not have been in this fortunate position.
For these reasons I have considerable sympathy with the local inhabitants who have decided to remain and live in Wales. In any case, the argument about what is a local inhabitant is simply explained. A local inhabitant is someone who lives in the area of the reservoir.
Mr. Graham Page: Is such a person an inhabitant of the local?
Mr. Bence: It depends upon which local one is discussiing. I have not been the usual or frequent occupant of the sort of local I think the hon. Member has in mind. A part of my constituency happens to be dry and I want to keep it that way. I believe that the hon. Member is referring to institutions in which is consumed whisky, beer and the like. I am talking about the local inhabitants of the areas in the vicinity of the reservoir; people who have enjoyed certain fishing facilities in the streams that will now become a reservoir.
In permitting Birmingham to convert this valley into a reservoir it is only right that Parliament should ensure that the local inhabitants are not denied the amenities provided by the reservoir—amenities that may be provided for citizens of Birmingham who have left Wales but not for citizens of Wales.
Mr. Ede: Surely the great advantage that Montgomeryshire will get from this reservoir, which we are told

969
is to cost £4½ million, is a hugely increased rateable value. Radnorshire gets about 60 per cent. of its rates from the Birmingham Corporation because of the Elan Valley reservoir. Montgomeryshire, while I do not think it will get 60 per cent., will get a considerable addition to its rateable value in a county where that is much needed.
Mr. Bowen: Will it really help the rates?
Mr. Ede: I would advise my hon. and learned Friend to consult his hon. Friends who represent Radnorshire about the advantage, from the municipal point of view, of being able to extract so much of their rates from the Corporation of Birmingham on one rate demand note.
Mr. Corfield: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) in saying that hon. Members would not be wise to accept an Amendment of this sort. As the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) said—if we are to use this as an operation for securing good will—the very essence of the operation by Liverpool in the Tryweryn Valley and of
what has happened in the Elan Valley is that it was done voluntarily and was not written into a Bill.
8.30 p.m.
If we set a precedent here, we may be starting off on a very dangerous path. I cannot for the life of me see how we could operate this provision without a definition of what is a local inhabitant, without defining how long someone has to be resident in the district before qualifying for these benefits, what the district comprises, and so on. I would remind hon. Members that Clause 33(1) makes it clear that the intention is that the compensation shall be based on every form of loss—including, presumably, these fishing rights. Clause 33 is much wider than the general legislation and, as far as I know, the only precedent is in the Liverpool Corporation Act. I think that it would be wrong to write this provision into the Bill, and get into difficulties over precedents in the future.
Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —
The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 59.

Division No. 160.]

AYES

[8.31 p.m.

Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Probert, Arthur

Barnett, Guy

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Rankin, John

Bence, Cyril

Hannan, William

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Biffen, John

Harper, Joseph

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigam)

Hayman, F. H.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Boyden, James

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Snow, Julian

Brockway, A. Fenner

Hooson, H. E.

Sorensen, R. W.

Cliffe, Michael

Hunter, A. E.

Symonds, J. B.

Cooke, Robert

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Critchley, Julian

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

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

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Kelley, Richard

Thornton, Ernest

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Kenyon, Clifford

Thorpe, Jeremy

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Wade, Donald

Deer, George

Lipton, Marcus

Warbey, William

Dempsey, James

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Wilkins, W. A.

Dodds, Norman

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Willey, Frederick

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

Morgan, William

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Finch, Harold

Moyle, Arthur

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Galpern, Sir Myer

Pargiter, G. A.

Woollam, John

Greenwood, Anthony

Parker, John

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Pavitt, Laurence

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Mr. Morris and Mr. Lubbock.

NOES

Barlow, Sir John

Corfield, F. V.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Coulson, Michael

Harris, Frederic (Groydon, N.W.)

Bell, Ronald

Crossman, R. H. S.

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Dance, James

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf''d)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Bourne-Arton, A.

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Hiley, Joseph

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Hocking, Philip N.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Farr, John

Hollingworth, John

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

Burden, F. A.

Gammans, Lady

Hughes-Young, Michael

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Glover, Sir Douglas

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

King, Dr. Horace

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Kitson, Timothy

Pitt, Dame Edith

Tomney, Frank

Lagden, Godfrey

Pott, Percivall

Turner, Colin

Lilley, F. J. P.

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Ward, Dame Irene

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Pym, Francis

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

MacArthur, Ian

Seymour, Leslie

MacColl, James

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Marshall, Sir Douglas

Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

Mr. Denis Howell and Mr. Gurden.

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

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

Bill to be read the Third time.

SUPPLY
Again considered in Committee.
[Mr. Charles Royle in the Chair]
Question again proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £25, be granted"to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for the services connected with Housing and Urban Land Prices.

HOUSING AND URBAN LAND PRICES
8.41 p.m.
Mr. T. Brown: It has been said, and it is perfectly true and manifest today, that to be a Member of this House one must have the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon. We went in the course of debate from the ugliness of the mining villages in my constituency to the beautiful hills and valleys of Wales. I was saying before we were interrupted that land wastage in the town of Ince-in-Makerfield added up to 881 acres, or 40 per cent. of the total acreage of the town. I was appealing to the Minister then, and I reaffirm it now, that he should give some consideration to industrial towns where mines have ceased to operate and the local authorities are left with a legacy of the upheaval caused by industrial evolution—not revolution.
I have the good fortune or misfortune to represent a constituency in which five out of the seven urban authorities are affected by the result of mining operations. In the township of Ashton-in-Makerfield, 260 acres are covered by spoilage, 130 acres have been damaged by mining subsidence, and there are 180 acres of derelict land caused by other factors. All told, there are 570 acres which the township wants to reclaim for house building purposes, but it has not the wherewithal to do it.
I had expected that the Parliamentary Secretary would have made some reference to something being done for urban authorities which were so unfortunately placed. During the five years, 1963–1968, the local council wishes to reclaim this land, but it wants some help which can come only from the Treasury. Not very long ago when we were appealing to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the district into a development area the right hon. Gentleman said that it was up to the local authorities to initiate matters. Here is an example of what is being initiated by these local authorities in the reclamation of derelict land. They cannot do it as long as the rateable value remains what it is. I appeal to the Minister to consider this matter and to give financial help to those local authorities which are anxious to reclaim land now lying dormant.
In the third township of Hindley pit heaps 120 ft. high rear their ugly heads, destroying the souls of the people who live in the neighbourhood. I want the Minister to understand the position of these people in the mining areas. They have behind them pit heaps and in front of them large mounds of earth thrown up by opencast mining. That has been going on since 1941. Local authorities in industrial and mining areas are not getting a fair deal from the Minister or from the Treasury, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to do something in that direction. It might be said,"What about the rateable value? Cannot they increase it?" How can they increase the rateable value when they cannot build the houses?
Take another district, Abram, with a small district council and a population of just over 6,000. The rateable value is £20,231. In Ashton-in-Makerfield the population is 19,440 and the rateable value is £72,551. All the districts that I have mentioned, Abram, Ashton-in-Makerfield, Ince-in-Makerfield and Hindley, have not the rateable value upon which they can raise the money to effect reclamation. I am complaining

973
about the lax method of the Department in dealing with plans submitted to them. I repeal: what I have said before, that the Makerfield town map was submitted to the Department in 1960, and now, two and a half years after, that town map has not been finalised to enable the local authority to proceed with the work of reclaiming the land.
Not long ago a well-known photographer, in order to make some money, came into the district and I have here a photograph of six flashes and slag heaps. No doubt, the photographer made some money out of it. He gave it the title"Wigan by the Sea". Of course, we all know the joke about Wigan pier. Actually, it is no joke for there is a pier there, but there is no sea. There is, however, a tremendous amount of water caused by mining subsidence occupying acres of land which ought to be reclaimed by the Government, no matter which party is in power.
I have said before, and I repeat with great emphasis, that sooner or later this country will have to face with determination and seriousness the reclamation of derelict land. The Department has issued a pamphlet entitled Life from Dead Land. Here is an opportunity for the Department to help the county councils and local authorities to put that policy into effect. I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to assist these local authorities, which are facing these difficulties which are great but are not insurmountable. They can be overcome, given the will and determination to go forward in the direction which the right hon. Gentleman indicates in the pamphlet.
About a fortnight ago an important deputation met the Prime Minister. Incidentally, Mr. Royle, it was led by your brother, who is town clerk of Wigan. It is reported that in the interview which took place he spoke of the old Lancashire saying,"Where there's muck, there's money". The money has gone, but the muck is still there.
I beg the Minister once more to give better consideration to these unfortunate local authorities which, although the pits have gone, are left with the muck, the debris, the ugliness and sordidness of heaps, flashes and marsh land. The whole situation should be tackled at
974
once. Let him go forward, with the assistance of the local authorities and the county councils, to make a determined effort to rid the north-west and the south-west of Lancashire of the ugliness and sordidness for which the people there now are not responsible.
One further word. I remind the Minister that he is going out into Skelmersdale in Lancashire and establishing a new town. It is proposed to take 33 farms, but nothing is being put back in the form of reclaimed land. Yet it could be the salvation of the district if land could be reclaimed equal to the acreage which is being taken for the new town. Two fine objects would be achieved. The place would be made more beautiful, and the amenities would be enormously improved by the restoration of the land. I do not suggest that it should be restored to its original condition because, of course, that cannot be done, but it should be restored to something like what it was before industry came in. I beg the Minister to help these local authorities to reclaim this land which is urgently needed for housing purposes.
8.52 p.m.
Mr. Harold Steward: The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), in resuming his speech, said something to the effect that, in the House of Commons, we require the wisdom of a Solomon. I think that some of us at this time would be inclined to add that we need also the patience of a Job. We sit here wondering whether it is possible to get in at all. I realise that other hon. Members wish to speak and that we have promised to allow the winding-up speeches to begin at twenty past nine, so I shall concentrate on two points.
Inevitably, in discussing land values at this time, our debate takes place against the background of my right hon. Friend's White Paper. I very much welcome the White Paper. It has been described today as a document which merely brings together ideas which have been percolating through the House for a long time, but a truer description would be that it is a progress report covering the past 13 years and a forward look into the future by my right hon. Friend with the initiative and

975
resourcefulness which lie has demonstrated ever since he came to the Ministry.
It has been rightly said that the bigger housing programme of the future depends upon the availability of land. This is the crux of the whole problem. It is true, also, that there is land available around many of our cities and towns which have not the pressing housing problems of the conurbations referred to in the White Paper, and that in such places land prices have not, perhaps, soared to the extent that they have in the London area and the larger conurbations. But, where the pressure is greatest, where the need for housing is greatest, where the shortage of land is greatest and where the greatest rise in the cost of land is taking place, the fact of the matter is that in certain local authority areas there is no land available at all and one has to go farther and farther a field. Although we try to take a national view of the situation, it is inevitable that individually we bring to bear in these debates those matters which are nearest to our minds, and the districts and parts of the country with which we are most familiar.
In this debate, I am concerned with Mersey side and south-east Lancashire, two of the specific areas mentioned in the White Paper—two of the areas in which all these pressures have come together. My right hon. Friend says in his White Paper in reference to land shortage that he has done two things. In the first place, he has taken a five-year view, as it were, with regard to building and a ten-year view with regard to planning, and in addition he is instructing various regional officers to take a view which will take us to about 1980. He says that regional studies are being made by two planning departments.
I suggest that where we are concerned in relation to the shortage of land and the rising price of land, we are concerned because the amount of land which is made available to us, piece by piece, is only just sufficient for the immediate programme ahead, and that while that obtains the price of land must inevitably continue to rise. If we are to take this longer view, if the two planning departments operating in a regional sense are
976
to take a view of the land which will be positively required for housing purposes under any of the three-pronged attack which the Minister suggests, it should be possible to produce an exact date with regard to that land, and then my right hon. Friend will be in a position to create a land surplus rather than a land shortage. If he can do that, these rising prices will surely fall. If he will declare, as soon as these regional surveys have been completed in a positive way, that this is the land which will be available between now and 1980,and make it available at once, he will immediately change from a position of absolute shortage and scarcity in these areas to one of surplus in which prices are bound to fall. It may be that I have not merely over-simplified this problem but possibly ignored some fact which would destroy what I suggest, but at least it appears a tenable proposition at first sight.
The second point that I want to make is that my right hon. Friend is making provision for all needs, which we welcome very much. He speaks in terms of the three-pronged attack—home ownership of the future, extension of the 6·2 million homes occupied as a result very largely of the work of the last 12 years, and in terms of local authority building for those who cannot meet the full cost of housing; that is the slums and the redevelopment of the decaying areas. He speaks, thirdly, of something which has been in being for some time but to which he is giving by this White Paper an added impetus, new housing to let and co-ownership largely by means of these housing associations.
If we take the first and read the White Paper, every word that it contains is perfectly true if looked at in a national context. It is not true in a pattern equally diffused over the whole country. It is significant that in the very places where the greatest housing shortage still occurs the number of homes built for home ownership are fewer than those in other parts of the country. I believe that it is true that at this moment homes built privately in this way have been almost two-thirds of the total, but in one authority, of which some of us have some knowledge, out of a total of 46,000 built since 1945 only 7,000 have been built privately in this way.
It is easy to understand the reason for this. It is because of the grievous local

977
authority housing shortage and the grave shortage of land so that the local authority, with its powers, naturally and understandably exercises those powers to get on with its own programme which results in some distortion of the pattern for the country as a whole.
On local authority building, I wish that we could get back to the very fair description in the White Paper of the idea of local authorities
"building for those who cannot meet the full cost of housing"
—that is, the clearance of the slums and the redevelopment of the decayed areas. This was the position when local authority building first commenced. This was why local authorities were first empowered to build houses. In the course of time, and for reasons which appeared to be good at the time, the pattern changed from one of housing need in the sense of financial need to the housing shortage of an entirely different character following the last war. Many homes, particularly in the last 18 years, have been occupied by people to whom one could not under any circumstances apply the description of people
"who cannot meet the full cost of housing".
Again, that is understandable, but if the Minister is suggesting in the White Paper that we should get back to this, and is bringing in the third prong of his attack to make housing for rent available by other means as a supplement to the local authority shortage, that is something which I can well understand. It would be extremely useful if my right hon. Friend could give us some positive indication in this connection.
My right hon. Friend speaks in the White Paper of the Housing Corporation being given special powers. One paragraph states that it may be thought right to give the corporation a reserve power to buy land compulsorily, subject to adequate safeguards. If that recommendation were carried out, the Housing Corporation would be in exactly the same position as the local authority, with both going for land in exactly the same place where there is a grave housing shortage. How will these two bodies rank against each other? Will there be co-operation? Will there be direction? Exactly what will happen? I dare say it is a little early for my right hon. Friend to be asked these questions, but if he could
978
help us on this point I should be very grateful.
I welcome these housing associations. Perhaps I should declare an interest in that I have become a member of one of them. We have not been able to do a great deal up to now because of the shortage of land. If these housing associations are to flourish and go forward as the Minister suggests, we must be very careful about their formation. Because of the basic goodness of the idea, it would be so easy for them not to contain people who know the local authority working, who know exactly what they will come up against and who will be frustrated in the end to the extent that they will give up what they regard as a hopeless position. This has happened in some cases. I hope, therefore, that these associations will be formed very carefully and that they will be given the necessary power to carry out the third prong of the attack as indicated by the Minister.
9.14 p.m.
Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I hope that the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. H. Steward) will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely. Since half-past three, I have been prepared to give devastating replies to the hon. Members for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher) and Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) and every other hon. Members opposite, and now, equally, I should like to answer some of the points made by the hon. Member for Stockport, South. Time is short, however, and I will try to concentrate on the problem mainly from a constituency viewpoint.
I agree with the hon. Member for Stockport, South about the importance of the third prong, and I welcome that part of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's contribution to the debate. The Minister knows that in my constituency we have pioneered the co-operative housing association as one of the means of dealing with out problem. I am surprised, however, that in the White Paper the Minister comes forward, as he has done, with support for the housing association, increasing the original £25 million, but failing still to call into collaboration and consultation the co-operative movement with its 11 million members. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in Sweden this movement has

979
played an important part in the development of participation by tenants in co-operative housing associations and the British movement has over a hundred years experience of co-operative organisation.
I should like to come down from the national view to the pressing problems which, like my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Parkin), I must approach from the viewpoint of my constituents. In the White Paper, the Minister fails completely to get to grips with the kind of problems that we seek to tackle in the community. Listening to hon. Members opposite, I sometimes wonder whether we live in the same world or even whether the Minister lives in the same world as some of his back benchers, who are obviously also seized of the importance of some of these problems.
The Minister talks of 60,000 slums to be cleared in ten years. The telling part of the White Paper, however, is that his plan will tackle most of the areas"except those with the largest concentrations," which are precisely where the slums exist. Sixty thousand will be a useful contribution, but the estimate which has been made in many quarters in the past few months is nearer to a figure of l¼ million and the position is not static.
The Minister hopes in ten years to make an inroad into the problem, but at the rate at which we are progressing in my constituency, with the number of people on the housing list—which has been revised during the past 12 months to eliminate those who are no longer still in need of housing—it will be not a ten-year programme but a 250-year programme.
In Willesden, we have 4,045 people on the housing list, plus 2,274 on the list for nomination to new towns. Last year, under our points scheme, we were able to rehouse only sixteen families. The Minister knows that this points scheme is a fair method of allocation. Points are awarded for such things as overcrowding, health reasons, residential qualifications and so on. In spite of the fact that we made 357 new houses available to people in my constituency during the twelve months, only 16 from the housing list were satisfied. The reason is that we have a large
980
slum area. We were able to rehouse 267 from the slum clearance scheme, but these people have to be rehoused only at the cost of delaying those who are on the housing list. We also rehoused 74 hardship cases, most of whom had been evicted because of the Rent Act. In my constituency, the local ratepayers have had to find something like £156,000 to buy old property, sometimes dilapidated, and put it into a decent state of repair to cater for people evicted because of the Rent Act. Thus, our 4,045 people on the wating list are being rehoused at the rate of 16 a year.
In these circumstances, some of the complacency shown by the Minister about the housing problem does not strike a chord with me when on a Friday evening, in my waiting room outside my" surgery", man after man and family after family approach me because of their intense housing problems. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the kind of eviction cases which have to be dealt with. One is a widow aged 84, with a married son and his wife and their son aged four and daughter aged nine. After 24 years at the same address, the family has been evicted. Case number 1247 is of a spinster aged 59, who has been evicted after 17 years at the same address. I could give details of case after case which needs to be rehoused.
In an intervention to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North, the Minister raised the question of multi-occupation tenancies. I do not quite know what one does in the circumstances of case number 25877 in our housing department's files. On the ground floor in one room there are father and mother who is expecting a child in three or four weeks' time, a son aged 5, a daughter aged 4 years 6 months, another child aged 2; in another room on the ground floor another lady; another gentleman in a back room; seven people upstairs in one room and the two other rooms with one occupant each. It is the sort of cottage which would have sold for £250 before the war. Hon. Members know the sort of thing—two rooms on the ground floor and an extension room, the same upstairs, and a lavatory in the back garden.
The people living there will have to be rehoused, because of statutory over crowding but how can we possibly do

981
it in the circumstances we have in Willesden, in spite of the Housing Association and in spite of the three-pronged attempts?
What we should like to know is, just what is the Minister going to do to prevent evictions? And what does he regard as an exorbitant rent? I had a very courteous letter from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary about a case I referred to him only last week. The tenant concerned is on National Assistance. The rent has gone up to £6 10s. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary pointed out to me that that is six and a half times the gross value at 1956 and, as he also pointed out, the house is over 50 years old. It is in a bad state of repair and not worth any more rent than about £3 10s., which is what the National Assistance Board is prepared to pay. What does my constituent do when National Assistance cannot pay the £6 10s. rent which is demanded and which is six and a half times the gross value in 1956? Yet, obviously, if the tenant is evicted because she cannot pay the rent she goes on to the housing list and once again delays others on the points scheme. I do hope that the Minister will sometime or another just tell us what he thinks is an exorbitant rent for such property in terms of the 1956 gross value because this an acute problem in many areas other than Willesden.
I should like the Minister also to look again at land prices. He will recall that in a previous debate I told him of a portion of land being sold at £112,000 an acre. He may be interested to know that Middlesex County Council has now bought that piece of land. In 1953 during a housing scheme in my constituency land was purchased at £8,079 an acre. Last year a similar area of land in a comparable neighbourhood was at £54,318 per acre. How does one tackle the housing of 4,045 on the list when one has to pay that type of price for land? It is no good the Minister saying that we hope that somehow or another we shall solve the problem, because even with the greater densities, and despite the help the Minister has offered for grant for expensive sites, with land at prices like that we simply cannot cope.
We have already done a lot in Willesden and we are proud of our record. We spent last year something like £1¼ mil-
982
lion of the ratepayers' money on rehousing, repairs, buying land, and housing schemes which include slum and prefab clearance. We accept these responsibilities, but we are getting absolutely no help from the Minister. We have had to buy 11 sites by means of compulsory purchase orders, but the right hon. Gentleman turned down two others we sought and let the sites go for private development. Willesden is close to London. This makes the building of luxury flats the tenants of which commute to the City a profitable business, but that makes it impossible for those on the housing list to be rehoused by the local housing authority.
So, in spite of the fact that we have pioneered a housing association, in spite of the fact that we have done a great deal to encourage owner-occupation and have given 880 mortgages—although we had to stop that for a period because there was not the money available—we are in an impossible situation. We shall be unless the Government helps us to meet it.
When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and other Gentlemen opposite talk about encouragement of the owner-occupiers, I wonder whether they realise some of the problems which face young couples who do not have enough money to pay heavy mortgages and to meet that big difference between the valuation of the house and the amount which the mortgage society or local authority is prepared to advance. As a result a large deposit has to be found. The young couple are prepared to find it, because both go to work, but then they have a family and the woman can no longer go to work. The family gets into financial difficulties and, as a consequence, a number of human problems arise.
My time is short, but I should have liked very much to have talked a good deal about a number of other important housing matters which affect not only my constituency, but those of many hon. Gentlemen opposite, and certainly constituencies like that of the hon. Member for Stockport, South where there are crowded industrial areas magnets attracting workers without special housing accommodation for them. What we are asking for is less promises and more action, and in this White Paper I can see nothing which will give any

983
hope or comfort to my constituents in the foreseeable future.
It will take 250 years to rehouse those on the housing lists with interest rates as they are, with the possibility of trying to find land where no land exists, and where it does exist, having to pay up to £112,000 per acre for it. The task is so formidable—a word used several times by the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon—that I cannot see how it can be tackled until this Government departs and we get a Government who are more understanding of the real human and social problems and have less of the statistical doctrinaire approach of the right hon. Gentleman.
9.18 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: I have about three minutes in which to make my speech. The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) has stressed what always happens in these housing debates. Each side of the House says that not enough houses are being built. We shall go on saying that if both Front Benches believe in this misleading statement about there being the same number of homes as there are houses at the moment. This statement is repeated again in the White Paper, that there are the same number of households as there are houses.
Any hon. Member who keeps in touch with his constituency by what the hon. Member for Willesden, West calls his"surgery" knows that that statement is unbelievable. If one looks at the census from which this was taken, one sees the fallacy of it. This is according to the 1961 census where it is said that there are the same number of households as there are houses, and it is based on this definition of a private household as a household which
"comprises one person living alone or a group of persons living together, partaking of meals prepared together and benefiting from a common housekeeping."
It does not take into account the young marrieds living at home and waiting for a home of their own before they have children. It does not take into account those who have delayed marriage and are living at home until they can get a house. It does not take into account the elderly people who want homes of their own. It does not take any of these factors into
984
account, and as a result a figure of 350,000 houses a year, which was the figure given by my right hon. Friend—and he is encouraged in this by the Front Bench opposite—is inadequate to solve the problem.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) would not come out with a target today. He talked vaguely about 350,000 houses a year being the correct figure. It is nowhere near the correct figure. In the period 1951 to 1961 the demand for households increased by 1 million. Over the next ten years it will be much greater than that; it will bean increase of 2 million.
If we consider the number of obsolete houses, and give a house a life of 100 years, it means that 3 million houses should be torn down and rebuilt in the next ten years. One needs only to look at figures like this to get the proper target figure of ½ million houses a year, and that is the number we need. If we continue with a target of 350,000 a year, our people will continue to suffer the tragedies about which we hear so much. I want a target of ½ million houses a year, and not one of 350,000.
9.20 p.m.
Mr. George Brown: I am glad to have been able to give the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) a chance to make his point, but it was unfair of him to accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) of having encouraged the hon. Member's right hon. Friend in his sins.
In a way, this has been an unsatisfactory debate, although the Minister and I have tried to make up for it by getting up a good deal later than would otherwise have been the case. We have been affected by other business, and that has been a bit of a misery. Listening to the Parliamentary Secretary's lecture to us this afternoon, I was not very clear whether he realised that there was a problem. The Minister had better make it clear now. Does he accept that after 12 years of government for which his party has been responsible, there is still a considerable problem?
I often get the impression that the atmosphere in the House of Commons and that in the country are totally different. Ministers make speeches here and we may make speeches here, but all the time we are thinking of the atmo-

985
sphere in the House and of the critics in the Galleries and we are acting as though we are actors putting on a show. [Hon. Members:"No."] I speak for all of us. Sometimes we impress each other and sometimes we impress the critics, but the people outside are not impressed. The Deptford by-election has made that absolutely plain. There the issue was housing. The electors of Deptford held not only the Government but the House of Commons to be responsible. In a cynical kind of way, they thought that none of us had any interest.
Listening to the debate today, I have understood that. From the beginning until now—I hope that it will now change—points have been made which may look very good in tomorrow's HANSARD but which have nothing to do with the problems of people living in miserable streets and in even more miserable—I was about to say"houses", but that is not the right term;"units" is the right term. They have none of the amenities.
In this London of ours there are 400,000 people, men, women and children, who are homeless. This can be reproduced in every other big city.
Sir K. Joseph Sir K. Joseph rose—
Mr. Brown: I cannot give way. The Minister can make the point in his own speech. He pressed me very hard to sit down a couple of minutes earlier than I had intended and he cannot have it both ways.
Sir K. Joseph: It is 4,000.
Mr. Brown: Was that the only point? [Laughter.] I do not think that anybody would think that that was—[Laughter.] If hon. Members opposite are to take that view, any agreement I made with the Minister goes by the board. I meant to say 4,000. If anybody thinks that it is worth making the point, O.K., it is now made. There are 4,000 men, women and children in London who are now homeless.
Mr. Temple: How many in New York?
Mr. Brown: Let the 4,000 know—even more, let the constituents know—that that is the amount of interest in the housing problems of this country which the hon. Member has. That is the first half of the problem and it has increased in the last two years.
986
The second half of the problem is that 600,000 slums are still being lived in, despite the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor some years ago that by now almost all the slums would have gone. There are 2,500,000 old houses recognised as being beyond repair or improvement at reasonable cost. Altogether, there are nearly 4 million houses without baths and mostly without hot water and without lavatories.
That is the problem. I ask right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite to stop scoring silly little points and to think of what it means to be living in houses or flats which have none of these amenities. The Opposition have had no responsibility for 12 years. We are building well below the need each year. People are overcrowding more, the older houses are becoming older and the whole problem is worsening. When the Parliamentary Secretary has scored his little point and the Minister has scored his, as he did in May, after 12 years of Tory Government and heaven knows how many Ministers of Housing and Local Government, from the Prime Minister onwards, this is the problem we are left with.
Of course, said the Parliamentary Secretary, the Government are building more in the beginning of the 'sixties than we were building at the end of the 'forties. I give him his silly little point. There were a lot of other things to be done when the war ended. It would have been absolute disaster if this Government were not building more houses 15 years after the war ended than we were building when the war ended. That is the silliest, stupid point to be making now. It was all right to make a year or two after they came to power, but not now. The fact is that a decade or more after the war ended they are failing to meet the challenge with which they are faced. The present Prime Minister, the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, the new chairman of I.T.A. and the present Home Secretary all guaranteed that within no time at all they would have solved this problem, but we are still being given another 10-year programme, even now.
Within the overall problem are they meeting the need? The Minister has to face this fact. Most of the houses

987
which are being built, inadequate as they are in total, are being built for purchase at prices which are well outside the range of a very large sector of our people. I do not say that providing houses for those who can afford to pay for them is wrong—it is right. All families need houses, whether they are richer or poorer, but look at the borough in which I live and see for whom houses are being provided.
For the most part the only houses being provided in the Borough of Camber well are for those who can service mortgages on houses of £6,000 and upwards. I live in a borough with a tremendous housing need, but houses are not being provided for people who cannot pay such prices. It is the same in the borough in which I live in London and in the constituency I represent, Belper. The only houses provided, apart from special cases, are for people who can afford to service the mortgages on houses which, in the latter case, cost more than £4,000. Houses are not being provided for the general need of people who cannot meet that price.
Why the failure? The Committee and hon. Members opposite ought to face this. In the first place we are not providing a sufficient proportion of our gross national product for houses. It is a straightforward inefficient allocation of our resources. The last figure I got was 3 per cent. for houses. The Parliamentary Secretary asks from where we would take it. It is the business of the Government to decide the priorities. The sad business is that under this Government housing has been given a very low priority. [Hon. Members:"Oh."] I do not know how much lower hon. Members opposite think we could go than tenth out of 13 countries in Western Europe. How much lower can we go? We are simply not providing enough.
We may be asked how we can increase the resources allocated to housing. It must be borne in mind that we cannot plan positively unless we also plan negatively. We must restrict people. What the Government have never understood is that planning involves both positive choice and negative restriction. Over many years there has been building in the big cities which we could have held back had we decided that housing,
988
schools and hospitals were our first priority. It could have been done. It was not done—and this is the consequence.
The second reason for the failure is the withdrawal of a systematic and fair allocation of resources within housing. Hon. Members must face it. They have given private enterprise a bit of a free range—more than bit of a free range; and the consequence is that we have not been building houses for people whose need came first.
The third reason is the withdrawal of the annual subsidies for local authorities for general need housing—the Minister must not shake his head at this—and the substitution of a new formula based upon the potential rent resources. This was a straightforward distortion. When they were getting the subsidy based on general need and on the housing requirement in the area, local authorities could do much more than they have been able to do under the new formula.
The fourth reason for the failure has been the cutting back of the local authority housing programmes by Ministerial administrative action. Whenever they were going ahead, they were cut back.
The fifth reason was dear money. In the May debate the Minister said that it was nonsense to talk about dear money being one of the factors which held up housing. He said that it was nonsense to talk about land prices being a factor which held up housing. May I give him the figures for the borough in which I live? I ask the Minister to note these figures because they were given to his Parliamentary Secretary last September, a reply has been awaited ever since, and none has been given. In 1951, when the Labour Government went out of office and a Conservative Government came into office, the interest on the loan debt in the Borough of Camberwell was £65,000. In 1962 the interest on the loan debt in the Borough of Camberwell was £450,000 per annum—and the whole of the difference was housing, arising from the cost of land and the cost of interest on the money which we have to borrow in that borough to try to service what we are attempting to do. This was put to the Parliamentary Secretary in September, but we have had no reply and no help in the matter at all.

989
Every single house, flat and conversion, every housing operation in the borough in which I live, costs the ratepayers there a loss of £150 a year for 60 years—and they are charging more than the 2⅓times the gross value, the limit which the Minister suggests is right. Why is this? Because of the price of land—and the price of land is due to the action which the Government took—and because of the interest rates which flow from the Government's policy of dear money. These are the fundamentals of the problem. If the Minister believes that the cost of land and the cost of borrowing money for housing programmes are nonsense, then he is totally inadequately equipped for the job which he is trying to do.
The Government forced up prices. They placed a limit on what can be done, even though we spend this amount of money in Camberwell, even though we force this on our ratepayers. The point is that we cannot house people. Apart from that, those providing houses for owner-occupier ship cannot house them, because the rents get out of reach, the mortgages get out of reach, the rates get out of reach, the whole thing puts too much pressure on people. Therefore, we limit the number of houses which can be provided for a given sum of money.
On top of all that, there is the Rent Act. By next year about one-half of the houses that were controlled when the Act came into being will have been decontrolled. We have a thing called creeping decontrol—"creeping"does not seem to be the word—at the rate of 300,000 houses a year. The argument used was that, if we put up with the disadvantages of decontrol, private enterprise would then have a real interest in providing houses and flats to let. The short answer is that it has not. We have got all the disadvantages. We have the increase in rents. We have the pressure on people. We have, as we saw yesterday in the piece about Rachman in the Sunday Times, all the overcrowding. The only thing we have not got is the provision of more flats and more houses for people to rent. This has vastly increased everybody's problems.
Is it not time that the Minister admitted that the action of his colleague, whatever motivated it, has turned out in
990
retrospect to have been totally wrong? It has vastly increased the problems of local authorities and everybody else. It has increased rents to almost everybody. It has not provided more housing accommodation. It has not brought about any improvement in the standards of houses. Ought we not to face up to this? Is it not absurd to talk, as the Minister does in his White Paper, about the tenants of decontrolled, or easily decontrolled on movement, flats and houses forcing their landlords into making improvements? When I read these things I wonder how out of touch Ministers can possibly be with life as it is lived outside. It is time that they gave up blaming—these are the Minister's words in the last debate—local authorities for having a lack of"housing management drive". They have got that, but they also have problems. They are not able just to toss them aside in the way the Minister does here with an easy speech.
The way out is certainly not, in our view, along the lines of the White Paper, although parts of it, were they supported by an attack on interest rates and on the price of land, would not be all that out. But they must be supported by that. It appears to be the aim of Ministers today to pick holes in our idea for getting at, for breaking the back of, the land crisis. Unless we do this, unless some Government do it, there will be no answer to this problem. This is the thing that will make every Tory Government fail.
Uthwatt onwards through the Silkin Act have all tried this. They have all failed, for one reason or the other. The present Government offer no proposal for this. Indeed, they have argued this afternoon that it is wrong to try. We believe that the proposal we are now making with the Land Commission taking over land at the point of development and being entitled to lease it back for development on flexible terms, which was what the Silkin Act did not provide for, and which will leave something in to encourage development, is probably the best answer. The point is that it is flexible. It allows room for movement. Just to say that this involves nationalisation and principles which Tory Members do not like is not the answer. Unless we deal with land when it becomes available for development and, at that stage, impose conditions and terms for its development,

991
there is no way by which we can solve this problem.
A number of other things need to be done. We must lower interest rates, reform the subsidies as they are now operated and deal with the effects of the Rent Act. I do not mean that we must just repeal it: we must deal with all that flows from it. We must then help local authorities to deal with houses that are in disrepair and, above all, we must provide money for housing at interest rates which make it possible for the job to be done—and that means selective interest rates.
There is a way in which our housing problem can be tackled. For 12 years hon. and right hon. Members opposite have tried. For 12 years they have failed. The Minister's White Paper is no nearer getting at the problem, because it ducks all the essential issues.
9.41 p.m.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): The House will wish to welcome the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) who, in a knowledgeable and engaging speech, recounted the history of his constituency—all except the fact that the right hon. Philip Snowdon was one of his predecessors. I only wish—and in these remarks I speak to the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr.Pavitt)—that the co-operatives, of whom the hon. Member for Colne Valley is rightly proud, had turned their attention to housing, so that we had a Swedish experience behind us.
The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) made a speech cataloguing the main housing ills of the country. It is easy to make that sort of speech, but not quite so easy to find the solutions. To every point of complaint that has legitimately been made by hon. Members on both sides today about these remaining ills there is one simple answer; we need many more houses. We need many more largely because the population has been rising at a rate faster than the building programme that has been undertaken. Had the population not risen so fast more would have been achieved.
We will only manage to get the extra houses by raising the productivity of the building industry and by decentralising
992
homes and work from the big cities, where land is running out. I do not know which is worse, to have to live in a slum or in over-crowded squalid conditions. Most people are today living in less over-crowded conditions than they were five or ten years ago. However, while housing conditions generally have improved, in the big cities there is a serious over-crowding problem.
I do not believe, and hon. Members must recognise the reality of this, that rent control is any way the answer. It would lead inevitably to much more selling of houses and flats when they become vacant and this would reduce the amount of accommodation available to let. We must build more houses and this can only be done by increased productivity, by decentralisation, and by increases of land. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. H. Steward) and the hon. Member for Willesden, West made this plain.
The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), in an extremely strong speech, spoke of the exploitation of houses in some of the big cities. This is the sort of exploitation that led to the multi-occupation which, when seen by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary, led him, by the outrage he felt, to bring about the passing of the 1961 Act, Part II of which sought to deal with multi-occupation. That part of the Act was designed to deal with Rachman and his ilk.
The problem is to pin the responsibility for these bad conditions—for"sweating" houses; taking in people beyond sanitary or decent human standards—on to the individual responsible when he, for bad reasons, seeks to avoid responsibility.
The 1961 Act has been in force only a year. I have encouraging reports on its effect from Nottingham and from Kensington. I was most impressed by the vigour and sturdiness with which the local authority in Birmingham is using this power. It is true that the local authority of Paddington is only beginning to try to use this power, and has not yet made full use of it. I have asked all local authorities to report to me next year in what ways they think the power needs strengthening, and I shall wait eagerly for any recommendations from local authorities, even in advance of that time,

993
to see what strengthening needs to be done.
Even so, the only answer is more houses and more land. It is true that prices of land in, near and for the big cities have risen sharply, although I am glad to hear from this debate that most hon. Members recognise that prices in much of the rest of the country have not risen much beyond, if they have risen at all, the changed value of money and the quintuple rise in the level of earnings. But, where land prices have risen seriously, they reflect a combination of prosperity, the desire for homes, the benefit of planning and the remaining shortage of houses. Above all, they reflect the shortage, the inherent, the absolute shortage of land in and near the big cities.
The only way to stabilise prices of land and houses is to acquire more land and build more houses. That, of course, is one of the main reasons why we are raising the house-building programme to a figure of at least 350,000 houses a year. It has been generally recognised that this is a realistic next step and, obviously, when we achieve it we shall seek to go faster still. But, to achieve it, we shall have to help the building industry to continue to raise its productivity.
The building industry is already fully stretched on a massive simultaneous investment programme in every field of social, public and industrial service, and there is a grave shortage of craftsmen, which is the main limitation on the pace of house building.
We are helping by dimensional co-ordination. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works is issuing advice on the use of standard dimensions. We are encouraging local authorities to go in for longer programmes, and we are encouraging industrialisation, which is beginning to make a small contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) spoke of the need for large orders, of the sort I am glad to say Liverpool and the L.C.C. have already given to demonstrate the value that industrialised building can bring to the country.
But more houses mean more decentralisation of population, and that is why the regional plans which the Government are now preparing, and which will
994
provide for a second generation of new and expanded towns, is so vitally important. Here, we shall remember what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) about the size of new towns.
The pace of house building is not limited by finance or cost. All over the country there are vacancies for craftsmen far in excess of the number of craftsmen available. All parts of the housing programme, public and private, are rising quite sharply, and but for the bad winter we have just had we should have had a record year for housing completions. As it is, the April figure reached a record post-war level for housing starts, public and private, and there are more houses, in both the public and the private sectors, now under construction than at any other time since the war.
Prices, of course, are vital, and local authorities have every right to know that their financial needs will be constantly reviewed so that they can discharge their housing responsibilities. Such a review has just started. It will cover the cost of land, for which there is already an expensive-site subsidy, with the object of enabling local authorities to plan ahead with confidence.
Private enterprise building for owner occupation is rising sharply at the moment. From record levels, we have had such a huge increase of owner occupation as is most impressive—from 29 per cent. of the total of houses built when we came to power to 44 per cent. now. It is true that people often strained their resources in order to buy houses, and that is just why the Government are proposing to start a third arm of housing, which may start quite small at 15,000 houses a year but which, by co-ownership and like means, will bring new housing within the reach of people who, until now, could only by great effort get a house of their own. It may start small but it may grow to great heights and stand on its own feet and make a very large contribution before long.
House prices will be stabilised for local authorities and for private enterprise only by increased productivity and closing the remaining gap between supply and demand. It is no good looking

995
for those easy panaceas which are the Opposition's favourite weapons. Today we had a clamour again for special rates of interest. This would be the most utterly indiscriminate way of helping housing that could be imagined. It would help wealthy authorities and poor authorities alike, and wealthy men and poor men alike, and it would not produce a single extra house.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said that a lower rate of interest would enable local authorities to build more houses, but it would not. The limitations are craftsmen and productivity. It would simply enable more people than now to compete for the apparently bargain houses and up would go the price fast. It would put extra profits in the pockets of the builders without adding a single extra house.
As for the Land Commission idea of hon. Members opposite, which Socialist Commentary itself described as extraordinarily vague, we have learned a little more about it today and we shall need to study in detail what the hon. Member for Fulham said. One thing is clear. The proposal is to buy development land at less than the value which the market will pay for the use to be allowed. This will mean virtually that no land will come forward voluntarily. There will be no willing land sales. All or nearly all will have to be bought by compulsory purchase order. Views on that may vary from one side of the Committee to the other but surely we are all agreed that this will slow down things desperately. There is bound to be great delay in wresting land from its owners by means of compulsory purchase orders.
The hon. Member for Fulham rides off this little difficulty by saying that, once acquired, the land can be passed on sometimes at full value—no benefit of cheaper land there—and sometimes for less. In those cases where the land is passed on at less than full value the queue to get the bargain, which would then be sold at a profit, would be endless. There would have to be a rationing scheme and an allocation system.
All this would have to be done in order to get some of the price of the land for the taxpayer, but it is not necessary to do this to cheapen land for the
996
local authorities. There is already an"expensive site" subsidy which may well have to be reviewed on the evidence which local authorities will give us. It have been running for several years and is doubling in expenditure at the moment, and exists purely to cheapen land for local authorities so that those who cannot afford market prices can get housing more cheaply.
The hon. Member for Fulham was clearly not proposing to pass on all or any of the cheapness obtained by way of Land Commission purchase to the householder. No one necessarily has to like all the financial implications of our present planning policy. But to limit the profit individual land owners may make and take some of the money for the taxpayer does not seem sensible if it would risk slowing down the only solution we have to the housing problem, that is, the building of more houses.
From every side, from the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), from Birmingham and from London, we hear that local authorities are sitting on land which could be being developed. This may or may not be true, but at least there is plenty of land not now held by local authorities. Our system at least brings land to the market. Would we have as much land being developed if all the land people most want had to be wrung unwillingly from its owners at confiscatory prices by compulsory purchase order and then kept pouched by a great bureaucratic machine? The Land Commission idea is full of obscurities but one thing is plain—one of the casualties of the scheme would be owner-occupation as we know it today. I grant that some holders of small plots would be allowed to develop land as now. The rest would either get leaseholds, which hon. Membesr opposite are always indicting as a criminal method of tenure—a householder would never finish paying for his house—or they would get a house which the occupier would not be able to sell except with the Land Commission's approval and at their price.
No one under a Socialist Government, for houses which have not yet been built, would ever be able to call his home his own. This vast bureaucratic machine—confiscation plus rationing

997
plus controls—is no longer put forward confidently to cheapen prices. There was very little argument about it cheapening prices, and it would not build a single extra house. It would not tackle the real problem—the remaining shortage due to a rapidly rising population.
That is the problem the Government are tackling on every front. We are tackling it by regional plans for new and expanded towns. We are tackling it by subsidy review. We are tackling it by encouraging increased productivity and by industrialised building. We believe there is a choice in housing policy—on the one hand a free market, more land, good credit arrangements, adequate subsidy, more houses, but at prices and rents reflecting current earnings and current willingness and ability to pay
for better accommodation; or, on the other hand, an attempt to distort the market, to hold prices at bargain levels, slowing down the natural incentives at each stage and leading to controls, distortions, more controls, no more owner-occupation, fewer houses and no cheaper prices. That would be the result of the Socialist panacea.
While the Opposition dream about bringing prices down, the Government are getting on with putting the housing programme up.
Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move,
That Item Class VI, Vote 1 (Ministry of Housing and Local Government), be reduced by £5.
Question put: —
The. Committee divided: Ayes 198, Noes 260.

Division No. 161.]

AYES

[9.58 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Duffy, A. E. P.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Ainsley, William

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

King, Dr. Horace

Albu, Austen

Edelman, Maurice

Lawson, George

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Ledger, Ron

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Evans, Albert

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Baird, John

Fernyhough, E.

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Barnett, Guy

Finch, Harold

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

Fletcher, Eric

Lipton, Marcus

Beaney, Alan

Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

Lubbock, Eric

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Galpern, Sir Myer

McBride, N.

Bence, Cyril

Ginsburg, David

MacColl, James

Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Benson, Sir George

Gourlay, Harry

Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

Blackburn, F.

Greenwood, Anthony

McLeavy, Frank

Blyton, William

Grey, Charles

Mahon, Simon

Boardman, H.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

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

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Manuel, Archie

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

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Mapp, Charles

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

Marsh, Richard

Bowles, Frank

Gunter, Ray

Mason, Roy

Boyden, James

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Mellish, R. J.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Mendelson, J. J.

Bradley, Tom

Hannan, William

Millan, Bruce

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Harper, Joseph

Milne, Edward

Brockway, A. Fenner

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Mitchison, G. R.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Hayman, F. H.

Moody, A. S.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)

Morris, John

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

O'Malley, B. K.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Holman, Percy

Oram, A. E.

Callaghan, James

Hooson, H. E.

Oswald, Thomas

Carmichael, Neil

Houghton, Douglas

Owen, Will

Chapman, Donald

Hoy, James H.

Paget, R. T.

Cliffe, Michael

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Pargiter, G. A.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Parker, John

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hunter, A. E.

Parkin, B. T.

Crosland, Anthony

Hynd, H, (Accrington)

Pavitt, Laurence

Crossman. R. H. S.

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Peart, Frederick

Dalyell, Tam

Janner, Sir Barnett

Popplewell, Ernest

Darling, George

Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Prentice, R. E.

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Jeger, George

Probert, Arthur

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

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

Randall, Harry

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Rankin, John

Deer, George

Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Redhead, E. C.

Dempsey, James

Jones, J. Idwal(Wrexham)

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Dodds, Norman

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Reid, William

Donnelly, Desmond

Kelley, Richard

Rhodes, H.

Driberg, Tom

Kenyon, Clifford

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Steele, Thomas

Warbey, William

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Weitzman, David

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Stones, William

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

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

White, Mrs. Eirene

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

Swain, Thomas

Whitlock, William

Ross, William

Symonds, J. B.

Wilkins, W, A.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Willey, Frederick

Skeffington, Arthur

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

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

Woof, Robert

Small, William

Thornton, Ernest

Wyatt, Woodrow

Snow, Julian

Thorpe, Jeremy

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Sorensen, R. W.

Tomney, Frank

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Wade, Donald

Mr. Charles A. Howell and Mr. Irving.

Spriggs, Leslie

Wainwright, Edwin

NOES

Altken, Sir William

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Kimball, Marcus

Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Kirk, Peter

Allason, James

Doughty, Charles

Kitson, Timothy

Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

Drayson, G. B.

Lagden, Godfrey

Arbuthnot, John

du Cann, Edward

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Atkins, Humphrey

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

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

Leburn, Gilmour

Balniel, Lord

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Barber, Anthony

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Lilley, F. J. P.

Barlow, Sir John

Farr, John

Lindsay, Sir Martin

Barter, John

Fisher, Nigel

Litchfield, Capt. John

Batsford, Brian

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Longbottom, Charles

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Forrest, George

Loveys, Walter H.

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Foster, John

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

Bell, Ronald

Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(Stafford&Stone)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

Gammans, Lady

MacArthur, Ian

Berkeley, Humphry

Gardner, Edward

McLaren, Martin

Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

George, Sir John (Pollok)

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Biffen, John

Gibson-Watt, David

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Biggs-Davison, John

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

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

Bingham, R. M.

Glover, Sir Douglas

McMaster, Stanley R.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Bishop, F. P.

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Black, Sir Cyril

Goodhew, Victor

Marshall, Sir Douglas

Bossom, Hon. Clive

Gough, Frederick

Marten, Neil

Bourne-Arton, A.

Gower, Raymond

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Box, Donald

Grant-Ferris, R.

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Green, Alan

Mawby, Ray

Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Grosvenor, Lord Robert

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Braine, Bernard

Gurden, Harold

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

Brewis, John

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Mills, Stratton

Brooman-White, R.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Miscampbell, Norman

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Bryan, Paul

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Morgan, William

Buck, Antony

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Bullard, Denys

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)

Neave, Airey

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Burden, F. A.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Hendry, Forbes

Orr-Ewing, Sir Charles

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Hiley, Joseph

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Cary, Sir Robert

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

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Channon, H. P. G.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Partridge, E.

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Hocking, Philip N.

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)

Holland, Philip

Peel, John

Cole, Norman

Hollingworth, John

Percival, Ian

Cooke, Robert

Hopkins, Alan

Peyton, John

Cooper, A. E.

Hornby, R. P.

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Corfield, F. V.

Hughes-Young, Michael

Pitman, Sir James

Costain, A. P.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Pitt, Dame Edith

Coulson, Michael

Iremonger, T. L.

Pott, Perclvall

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

James, David

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Crawley, Aidan

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Prior, J. M. L.

Crowder, F. P.

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Cunningham, Knox

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Curran, Charles

Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Pym, Francis

Currie, G. B. H.

Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

Ramsden, James

Dance, James

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Kerans, Cdr. J, S.

Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)

Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Renton, Rt. Hon. David

1000

1001

Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Vosper, Rr. Hon. Dennis

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Studholme, Sir Henry

Wakefield, Sir Wavell

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

Talbot, John E.

Walder, David

Robson Brown, Sir William

Tapsell, Peter

Walker, Peter

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Roots, William

Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

Wall, Patrick

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

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

Ward, Dame Irene

Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Russell, Ronald

Teeling, Sir William

Whitelaw, William

St. Clair, M.

Temple, John M.

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Seymour, Leslie

Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Sharples, Richard

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Shaw, M.

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Wise, A. R.

Shepherd, William

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Skeet, T. H, H.

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Woodhouse, C. M.

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

Turner, Colin

Woollam, John

Smithers, Peter

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Worsley, Marcus

Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Spearman, Sir Alexander

van Straubenzee, W. R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Speir, Rupert

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Mr. Chichester-Clark and Mr. Finlay.

Stanley, Hon Richard

Vickers, Miss Joan

Original Question again proposed.
Sir Stephen McAdden Sir Stephen McAdden (South end, East) rose—
It being after Ten o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on the Lords Amendments to the British Museum Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
BRITISH MUSEUM BILL
Lords Amendments considered.

New Clause.—(Report by Trustees.)
Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 43, at end insert new Clause A:
"A. The Trustees of the British Museum shall within three years after the commencement of this Act and subsequently at intervals of not more than three years prepare and lay before each House of Parliament a report on the Museum."
Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. du Cann.]
Mr. Robert Cooke: I hope that: my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will accept this Amendment. When we discussed the Bill on a previous occasion there was a good deal of talk about publicity for the British Museum. As a result of a continuation of that, their Lordships have seen fit to suggest that the Museum should produce a report at intervals of not more than three years, That seems to me not a very great im-
position on the trustees of the Museum. They are not obliged to produce it at very regular intervals. I feel that such a report as is envisaged would create more public interest in the Museum, and that is what we all want. During the previous debates a good deal was said about that aspect.
The Museum has done much to modernise itself, and if the public is to enjoy all these new facilities its attention surely should be drawn to them. Therefore, I feel that the Government, who perhaps were not over-keen on this Amendment in their Lordships' House, would be well advised to reverse their decision and accept the Amendment because it continues the policy which the Government have been trying to pursue recently of bringing all our great national institutions into line with the needs of the day.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward du Cann): This is the first of the three Amendments which we are to consider tonight. It is a minor matter but, none the less, the most important of the three and covers an interesting point.
At present there is no obligation on the British Museum to publish reports. Up to 1938 it published an annual report, but the practice lapsed for reasons of economy, induced, of course, by the war, and it has not yet been resumed. This is a subject which, in spite of the correct reference of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), was not touched on in detail in this House when we were considering the Bill earlier, but it caused a good deal of interest in another place and a clear view was expressed there that there should be such an arrangement.

1003
This is a Government proposal designed to meet that intention but, at the same time, to allow the trustees some latitude about the timing and content of their report. It would enable them, for example, if they thought fit, to issue reports two or three years running on different aspects of the Museum's work and then, perhaps, have a gap of anything up to three years, but not more, before issuing another report. There can be little doubt that it is appropriate to put on the Museum some obligation to produce reports, for, as my hon. Friend says and as other right hon. and hon. Members well know, there is intense interest, not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the academic world, in the valuable and exciting work which the Museum is doing with such distinction.
We think that this flexibility will make for more interesting and valuable reports than might perhaps have flowed from an obligation to produce reports without fail every year. One might say that the object of the Amendment is"away dullness". It certainly does not imply any desire to discourage the trustees from issuing comprehensive reports, but leaves it to their judgment what to write about and, within limits, when. I am advised that the trustees welcome this provision which was well received on Report in the House of Lords.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: This is not a very thrilling proposal to come from another place. Those of us interested in the Bill in its earlier stages in this House hoped for something more. We did not think of this matter in our discussions either on the Floor of the House or in Committee upstairs. It seems to have had a rather rough passage in another place.
It is rather surprising that the trustees have been under the blight of economy for so long. Reports which were issued up to 1938 were suspended on grounds of economy and have not been resumed since. One wonders what is the explanation of that. It is probably that the Government have kept the British Museum so short of money that the trustees have not felt that they could spend any of their meagre resources in publishing a report of their activities. In the last dozen years, we have had reports on
1004
everything else under the sun, but not a report from the trustees of the British Museum.
In another place, the Government suggested that there was nothing to stop the trustees of the British Museum from publishing a Report and that, indeed, it would be welcome if they did. It would be undesirable to impose upon them a statutory obligation to publish a report every so often irrespective of whether they had anything interesting to say, and it would be much better left as it is. That was the Government's idea when the matter was first introduced in another place on 6th May.
It is, however, a little difficult to justify leaving things as they are if nothing happens as things are. Since the trustees have not published a report, although they were free to do so and the Government would have welcomed it had they done so, it is not surprising that a majority of their Lordships took the view that it was time to put a little discipline on the trustees of the British Museum to require them to say something at least once every three years.
Mr. Robert Cooke: Is it not a fact that the trustees have published a great deal of other matter, even if they have not published these annual reports?
Mr. Houghton: Yes, but, apparently, what they published did not satisfy the requirements of noble Lords, who pressed this matter to a Division against the advice of the Government in another place. This is a Government defeat brought here for ratification. That is the importance of this occasion. The Government has not resigned; they are bluffing it out. As the price of the Government's defeat in another place, the trustees of the British Museum are to labour under the yoke of a statutory obligation to report at least once every three years.
As the Economic Secretary has said, the trustees can report in driblets, if they like, now and again, but there must never be longer than a three years' gap between the last report and the next one. They can report every year if they like, if they have something to say, and then leave it for not more than three years before they make another report. Even if they report every year for 10 years, they have still to make another report within three years of the last one. This is a form of tyranny

1005
which is now being imposed on the trustees of the British Museum owing to the weakness and indecision of the Government in another place.
I have read carefully the debates in another place. I have read the way in which the Government spokesman tried to slither through that important debate and I am not surprised that one noble Lord expressed something near to consternation at the indifference on behalf of the Government in another place.
The new Clause has important political significance. It is simply another indication that the Government have lost their grip and are slithering to defeat as a result of their incompetence in another place as well as their incompetence in this House. Nevertheless, we support the new Clause.
Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7.—(Separation of Natural History Museum.)
Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 10, after"6" insert:"and section (Reports by Trustees)".
Mr. du Cann: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Since the last Lords Amendment was received with such generosity, with such fervour, particularly on the part of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Hough-ton), I hope that he and, indeed, the whole House, will accept this Lords Amendment with equal fervour, for it is purely consequential on the first.
Question put and agreed to.

Second Schedule.—(Transitional Provisions as to Separation of Natural History Museum.)
Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 30, leave out
"the proviso to section 5(1) of".
Mr. du Cann: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Remarking upon the fervour with which the last Lords Amendment was accepted. I would only say that this is a purely technical drafting matter, and I hope that it will similarly be accepted with generosity.
Mr. Houghton: That is not really the correct description. This was a mistake
1006
in the Bill. It was an oversight, an omission, slapdash work, put right in another place.
Mr. du Cann: I would ask the hon. Gentleman this question. Would it not have been very helpful to have drawn our attention to this earlier? I very much regret that he did not draw our attention to it earlier, for if he had we should have been quite ready to rectify the omission.
Mr. Robert Cooke: Does my hon. Friend think that the trustees, in their first triennial report, will be able to give an account of the speeches by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton)—possibly in illustrated form?
Question put and agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (MINERAL WORKINGS)
10.21 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I beg to move,
That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations 1963, dated 19th June 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.
These Regulations are in effect a consolidation Measure, in the sense that they follow the main consolidation Act under which they are made and are consequential upon that consolidation. They take the place of the Regulations of 1954 which adapted the provisions of the then planning legislation to the circumstances of mineral workings, and these Regulations are designed to do exactly the same thing in relation to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, which is a consolidation Act, as the House knows. I think the only new provisions—very minor ones—arise in Regulation 4. The consolidating 1962 Act contains certain provisions of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, which were not, of course, previously in the Town and Country Planning Act, and, therefore, could not affect the 1954 Regulations. The 1954 Regulations remain operative, in so far as they are still appropriate, in accordance with the Fourteenth Schedule to the 1962 Act.
Question put and agreed to.

FISHING INDUSTRY, NORTH SHIELDS
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. I. Fraser.]
10.24 p.m.
Dame Irene Ward: I am very mollified tonight by the receipt last week of a letter from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food informing me that the new Chairman of the White Fish Authority was shortly to visit the port of North Shields and to consider in detail, and, I hope, helpfully, the position of the fishing port of North Shields with a view to helping that port in the very difficult circumstances in which it finds itself. I was very pleased to receive this information, because having been fortunate enough in the Ballot to secure the Adjournment debate for tonight I had intended to deliver as powerful an attack as I might on the White Fish Authority, because, having observed its operations during the last few years, I had come to the conclusion that it was not operating satisfactorily, at any rate so far as the North-East coast was concerned.
After the publication of the Fleck Report, with all its important recommendations, and the attention that had been paid to the fishing industry by Lord Fleck and his colleagues, I felt that the White Fish Authority as constituted failed to live up to the recommendations and the work that had been done by the Fleck Committee.
I also felt that my right hon. Friend was much more interested in agriculture than in fisheries. I did not feel that, at any rate in my part of the world, since the distant water fleets and the middle water fleets had come under the jurisdiction of the White Fish Authority the middle water fleet had received as much support and help as it had had in the past. I felt that the distant water fleet had received far too much attention, to the detriment of other fleets. I felt—and I say this with regret, because I know of its struggles, just as I know of the struggles of the port of North Shields—that the White Fish Authority had granted loans to Aberdeen which resulted in there being too many trawlers operat-
1008
ing to the detriment of both Aberdeen and North Shields.
Indeed, I also felt—and I say this again with regret, because I am not an expert in these matters—that wherever one went in the fishing world the only people who seemed to be exercising any influence at all on my right hon. Friend was the Ross Group. It seemed to be flourishing. It may be, as I understand it is, a very important firm, but I am not one of those who like the big chaps to outdo the smaller chaps, and I did not feel that the Minister of Agriculture was really interested in what happened to my small port of North Shields.
Ever since I returned to the House in 1950 successive Ministers of Agriculture, both in the House of Commons and in Committees, have always asked what was going to be done to resuscitate the port of North Shields. We had an excellent record in the help that fishermen gave to the war effort but, for reasons which were not difficult to understand, the old trawler owners who had contributed their work in their own fleets to the fishing off North Shields had to turn to other occupations. None of the trawler owners appeared to have sons who were interested in going into the fishing industry to follow in the footsteps of their fathers.
Not unnaturally, a very steady decline in fishing set in at the port of North Shields and, as I have already said, successive Ministers of Agriculture continually asked me what was going to be done about North Shields which, as they said, was giving cause for great concern in the Ministry. I assumed that each Minister of Agriculture was only waiting for a move to come from the port of North Shields, and that any action in that direction would be welcomed with open arms.
After a very long period, at least there came a stir. The port of North Shields is unique in that the fishing quay is owned by a very competent local authority, the County Borough of Tynemouth, which takes a very great interest in everything that the fishing industry does, for it is an integral part of the livelihood of the people of the district.
When a son of a very well-known trawler owner, Mr. John Purdy, decided that he would like to come into the industry, we thought that he would be

1009
welcomed by my right hon. Friend with open arms and that everything possible would be done to help him to build up his father's fleet, for that would help not only the North Shields fishing interests but the local authority and the general revival of industry in the port. I was sadly disappointed, as were all those interested. We then entered a battle with my right hon. Friend which we have so far lost, but I am slightly mollified by my right hon. Friend's letter, which seems to indicate that the unpleasant things which have been said about the White Fish Authority and my right hon. Friend have at last begun to make an impression.
Mr. John Purdy is a very creative young man who has had wide technical training. He has great knowledge of the world and has certain interests, as has his family, in Australia. Because of his integrity and ability, he gets great support from certain interests on the North-East Coast. Before putting forward his ideas about grants and loans, he was joined in his enterprise by people with private money which they were willing to invest in the industry. As far as we could see, if the Ministry would be encouraging, we should be taking a step in the right direction.
I cannot comment on the technical design which Mr. Purdy put to the White Fish Authority, but there is no doubt that those who are technically competent to express an opinion said that there was great merit both in the design of the trawlers for which Mr. Purdy wished to obtain grants and loans and in his design for a fishing fleet.
We were all somewhat staggered when we met with a complete refusal to make any grant or loan. There are only two ports which, because of their peculiar situation, do not have to scrap a trawler when they get a grant or loan to build a new one. They are Milford Haven and North Shields, and this is an indication of our dire need.
Mr. Purdy was unable to make any progress and he then decided to ask for a grant and loan for building a trawler of what was called a conventional type. Nobody could see that there could be any objection to that, but the White Fish Authority refused a grant and loan for that, too. Again, this caused great consternation.
1010
After what I had heard from the British Trawler Owners' Federation, it seemed to me that too many trawlers had been built. This related particularly to the port of Aberdeen. There was a feeling that the fishing areas could have been restricted and that those which were left were being over-fished. It seemed that the White Fish Authority, having over-aided Aberdeen, intended to knock the port of North Shields on the head. That did not suit North Shields or my local authority, or Mr. Purdy—and it certainly did not suit me. I hope that it does not suit my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply on behalf of my right hon. Friend.
I thought that I would find out the proportion of grants and loans made to Scotland compared with English ports. I made the inquiry, and there was a very long delay. I must say that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is a very slow Government Department—but possibly agriculturalists are slower than industrialists. After a very long delay and many telephone calls, I received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture telling me that I was quite wrong in thinking that Scotland had received favours at the expense of England. The curious thing was that in the analysis which he sent to me of trawlers which had been grant-aided there was mention only of England and Wales and no mention of Scotland. The word"Scotland" did not appear in the analysis at all, and this made me more suspicious than ever.
Next, my attention was drawn to the fact that the old system of asking for tenders by those who applied for grants and loans for building new trawlers had gone by the board. I have never heard an announcement that the old system of asking for tenders was being abolished by the White Fish Authority. It is true that when we have a debate on this subject it is nearly always at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. Perhaps my right hon. Friend forgot to tell us that the White Fish Authority had abolished local tendering. When I went into the matter I also found that certain trawler firms were building trawlers in their own yards without tendering. When my right hon. Friend took the decision to allow—because of G.A.T.T.—trawler owners to

1011
build abroad if they so desired, I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I always adopt the technique that if I do not get a satisfactory answer from one Government Department, I set about going to another. I then compare the two letters, which sometimes produces the most interesting results.
The Minister of Agriculture told me that they had departed from tendering about 1954–55 but that he was considering reimposing the obtaining of tenders before a grant-in-aid was made. At the same time I had a fascinating letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer who said that he had read my correspondence on the matter of tendering with very great interest but that he always understood that the Trawler Owners' Federation thought that competitive tendering was impracticable. This was a conflict of opinion and of evidence which only reinforced my view that the White Fish Authority had got completely out of control and was not doing the job which it was set up to do by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.
All these extraordinary things have happened and the total result has been that, in spite of the fact that we regarded it as something special if we did not have to scrap a trawler in order to build a new trawler, we in North Shields got no help at all, and all the energy and initiative of the son of a well-known trawler owner went by the board.
My hon. Friend may be interested in this next point, because I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we must get down to it and encourage youth. I hope that when he reads the debate he will realise that this is an opportunity. This young man is full of energy and knowledge. I am glad to say that he has now been put on a technical committee dealing with the design of trawlers. This is a move in the right direction. I hope that the Chancellor, who is young and interested in youth, will at least take the initiative in seeing that a young man who is anxious to build up a new trawler fleet at North Shields is given his opportunity. He is young, very active and very able, and I was delighted when he wrote to me and said that anybody who thinks that the port of North Shields will not fight for its position is
1012
living in a fool's paradise. I hope that my hon. Friend will remember that.
I want to make only one other observation, because I am longing to hear what good news my hon. Friend has for me tonight. I want to refer to a letter which the Town Clerk of the County Borough of Tynemouth wrote to the North-East Development Council on the subject of the port of North Shields. I approve of the letter. I have also made my representations to Lord Hailsham. The position of the port of North Shields has been the subject of deputations received by the Prime Minister from the local Conservative Members of Parliament and from the North-East Development Council.
My Town Clerk says this:
"During the period from 1945 there has been, much to the concern of the Council"—
this letter was written on 1st May, 1963—
"and those connected with the industry, a steady and regrettable decline in the number of trawlers based upon and operating from the port. Compared with the average of about sixty trawlers prior to 1939, there are now only nine trawlers and fifteen seine net boats operating regularly from North Shields. After taking into account the increased efficiency and productivity of the nine new trawlers, it is still estimated that an average of between twenty and thirty trawlers supported by an adequate number of seine net vessels is required to make up for the loss in fishing capacity.
To make good this deficiency in supplies, many wholesale fish merchants at the quay find it necessary to bring in supplies of fish from other ports to meet the demands of their inland customers, and they have given an assurance that if there was a regular and sufficient supply of fresh fish landed direct at North Shields, they would purchase their requirements locally rather than from other markets."
That puts the position into perspective.
I am not quite certain how good the position of the wholesalers at North Shields is. It may be that my hon. Friend can make suggestions about that to us. All I want to know tonight—I want to know it absolutely certainly and with no equivocation—is that this disastrous position at North Shields will now occupy the attention of my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend so that there will be no more complaints that the North-East Coast, to which we are giving so much attention now, is not being properly dealt with.
10.44 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): Luckily we shall be having the opportunity for a debate on the fishing industry next week in connection with the White Fish and Herring Subsidy Orders. I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that I do not think that debate will be in the early hours of the morning.
In the short time left to me I will try to answer some of the main points my hon. Friend made. We will have to leave some of the more general points until next week's debate. My hon. Friend, as always, put her case extremely cogently and with great force. She persistently made the point that the trawler fleet of North Shields must not be treated any worse than the fleet of any other port. She is anxious that we should look into this matter with urgency.
It is vital, when discussing aid to fishing companies—about the supplying of loans and grants for building—to remember that it is aid for people who are willing to put up some of their own money and are thought to be able to carry out the obligations which this entails. Some mistakes are inevitable, I hope very few, but the White Fish Authority is necessarily much concerned with the financial status and efficiency—financial and technical—of applicants for these funds.
The Authority is under an obligation to use its judgment in these matters and the answer to requests for pressure to be put on the Authority must be that under the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951, responsibility is vested in the Authority. We as a Government cannot intervene in particular cases, although the fishery Ministers may give directions about general policy.
We should, first, get the facts right. Grants and loans for near and middle water vessels were introduced in 1953. The Fleck Committee reported on the industry at the beginning of 1961 and, after its Report, everything was to some extent in the melting pot and the White Fish Authority stayed its hand. Up to the end of 1960 the White Fish Authority had received applications for the
1014
construction of 13 trawlers for North Shields firms. Of those 13, 12 were approved and one was rejected.
Regarding two approvals, for Messrs. Purdy, the White Fish Authority had found that, after two-and-a-half years, these vessels had not been commenced and, naturally, it withdrew its approval. That was the position up to the time of the Fleck Report. After the publication of that Report—that is, from then up till now—20 further applications have been received. Six of these have been deferred for further consideration and are still being considered. Of the rest, one was for an experimental vessel and was turned down by the Authority. Seven applications were from completely new entrants to the industry, which were turned down because the number of applicants was very high in relation to fishing resources. Twoapplications—from Messrs. Richard Irvin & Son—were approved. There were four further applications from Messrs. Purdy, which have also been turned down.
By the time that North Shields got into its stride in taking the opportunity to use the provisions of the grants and loan arrangements, there were already signs that firms were getting, or were likely to get, into difficulties in their repayments to the Authority. Further, changes in Government policy—-the"scrap-and-build"arrangements—were under discussion with the Authority, and the British Trawlers' Federation put in a request that no further assistance should be given to vessels of 139 feet. It is fair to say that the Authority was right, between 1961 and 1962, in being extremely selective in dealing with applications.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, Tynemouth Corporation owns the port. Officials of the Corporation have been in touch with the Authority and officials from the Ministry, on both general and particular aspects of this matter. I was pleased to see that my hon. Friend was slightly mollified by the fact that the new Chairman, who only took office on the 1st of this month—and this is a measure of his concern with the problems of North Shields—will visit the port on the 24th of this month to look into conditions there. I think that it is only right that, to some extent, we should await his appraisal of the situation on the spot.

1015
My hon. Friend mentioned that the fleet had diminished, and that is true. There were 40 trawlers over 70 ft. long 10 years ago, most of them being coal burning, but now that the last of the coal burners has ceased to operate there are in this size group 10 trawlers, of which one is old and nine are new. In addition, there are, as my hon. Friend knows, three on the stocks. At the same time, the number of the smaller vessels, between 40 ft. and 70 ft., has risen from five to 22 in the same period. Of these, 14 have been helped by grants and loans from the White Fish Authority, so that the balance between seiners and inshore vessels has been changed. During the last five years the landings—which are much more likely to fluctuate when there are more inshore vessels—have not varied all that much. They have fallen by about 10 per cent. or 15 per cent., but the value of the catch has not fallen.
My hon. Friend was worried about the position of Messrs. Purdy, and here we must get the facts absolutely straight. Purdys put in an application to build two vessels of 115 ft. costing about £80,000 each, and the Authority approved the project in 1954. Between 1954 and 1959, only three applications had come in from North Shields of which two were approved and one was turned down. Although other proposals did come in during 1960 and 1961, it was not until 1962 that Purdy Trawlers Limited, which now has only one vessel, put in further applications, first for a
1016
139 ft. experimental vessel, and then for four 139 ft. stern trawlers. I should like to make it clear that there is at present no application before the Authority.
I entirely accept what my hon. Friend has said about the need to encourage young people to go forward, and young Mr. Purdy is to be commended for his enterprise and initiative in doing what he has to resuscitate and get things really going again. I cannot go into all the details of this particular case but, as I say, the Chairman is to go to North Shields, and I hope that Mr. Purdy will take advantage of that visit to put forward whatever views and case he has to the Chairman himself.
My hon. Friend mentioned competitive tendering. The position is that the White Fish Authority has entire authority to deal with this matter, which is why no announcement was made to the House by my right hon. Friend. We are again looking into the question of competitive tendering for vessels built at home, but the Authority did find from its experience in earlier years that it was in a position, with the trawler owners, to assess the tenders that came in on the home side. Any tenders that come in from overseas—
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 six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Retail Prices Index and Average Weekly Earnings
  Retail Prices Index and Average Weekly Earnings
  School Leavers, Abertillery
  School Leavers, Abertillery
  N.A.T.O. (FRENCH NAVAL FORCES)
  N.A.T.O. (FRENCH NAVAL FORCES)
  KATANGA
  KATANGA
  YEMEN
  YEMEN
  LAOS
  LAOS
  BRITISH GUIANA
  BRITISH GUIANA
  MR. HAROLD PHILBY
  MR. HAROLD PHILBY
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Woodland Establishment and Management Techniques
  Woodland Establishment and Management Techniques
  Sheep and Lambs, Brecon and Radnor (Losses)
  Sheep and Lambs, Brecon and Radnor (Losses)
  Yorkshire Coast (Seismic Survey)
  Yorkshire Coast (Seismic Survey)
  New Potatoes (Import Restrictions)
  New Potatoes (Import Restrictions)
  Northern Ireland Herbage Seeds Fund
  Northern Ireland Herbage Seeds Fund
  International Fisheries Conference
  International Fisheries Conference
  Sugar Prices
  Sugar Prices
  Home-Grown Timber
  Home-Grown Timber
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Old-age Pensions
  Old-age Pensions
  Old-age Pensioners (Telephones)
  Old-age Pensioners (Telephones)
  National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946
  National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Assistants, General Practice (Middlesex)
  Assistants, General Practice (Middlesex)
  Medical Treatment
  Medical Treatment
HOSPITALS
  Senior Registrars
  Senior Registrars
  Hospital Administrative and Clerical Staff (Report)
  Hospital Administrative and Clerical Staff (Report)
  Barnsley
  Barnsley
  Aged People (Admission to Hospital)
  Aged People (Admission to Hospital)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  New Potatoes (Import)
  New Potatoes (Import)
EDUCATION
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme
SCIENCE
  Strontium 90
  Strontium 90
ROYAL NAVY
  Commissions
  Commissions
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Commissions
  Commissions
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Ayr County Council (Letter)
  Ayr County Council (Letter)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Premium Bonds
  Premium Bonds
HOUSING
  Local Authority Housing Costs
  Local Authority Housing Costs
SCOTLAND
  Teaching Profession (Report)
  Teaching Profession (Report)
TRANSPORT
  Driving Test Centres, Wales and Monmouthshire
  Driving Test Centres, Wales and Monmouthshire
  Deputy Traffic Commissioners, South Wales
  Deputy Traffic Commissioners, South Wales
ROADS
  Road Junction, Leatherstone (Accidents)
  Road Junction, Leatherstone (Accidents)
  Road Schemes, Pontypridd
  Road Schemes, Pontypridd
BRITISH ARMY
  Commissions
  Commissions

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

OPERATION OF STREET OFFENCES ACT, 1959
2.35 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the evidence of the increase in the procuring, exploitation of and trafficking in women, since the passing of the Street Offences Act, 1959, they will institute an immediate inquiry into the effects of the Act, instead of waiting for the review which was promised at the end of five years.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, while there has been some increase, during the past five years, in the number of persons convicted of offences of this sort, there is no evidence to suggest that this increase is due to the operation of the Street Offences Act. My right honourable friend is not aware of any undertaking to review the effects of this Act at the end of five years, but its operation has been closely watched since it came into force, and my right honourable friend considers that it has been successful in its main purpose of dealing with loitering or soliciting by prostitutes in public places. While he will continue to keep the position under close observation, my right honourable friend does not think that any special inquiry is necessary at present.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that that reply will give satisfaction to only the members of the "effluent society", as The Times called them? Is he further aware that during the course of our dealing with the Bill in this House an undertaking to have a review after five years was given, and will he look at it again? With
1174
regard to evidence, is the noble Earl not aware that it is virtually impossible for anyone to walk round the West End and not be aware of the further evidence of the evil consequences of the Street Offences Act unless he has his eyes closed, his ears stopped and his nose in a clothes peg?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will certainly be glad to look further to see whether any undertaking for a review within a specific number of years was given. I have had a search made of the Hansards of both Houses, and it did not turn up anything. However, I shall be glad to have another look, and perhaps the noble Lord may here be able to help me in my researches. I would, with respect, dissent from the conclusion which he has drawn about the operation of the Street Offences Act.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, while the noble Earl, quite rightly, has replied to the question of the effect of the Street Offences Act, I am sure he will agree that from recent evidence in a number of cases there is considerable public concern in regard to the procuring and trafficking in women and, in particular, young girls. May I ask the noble Earl, in view of the gesture that has been made in regard to the London Government Bill, and the undertaking he gave me that he would look into the question of the age of girls being employed in some of the clubs, whether he does not think, irrespective of whether an undertaking was given, that perhaps the Government would be wise to carry out an inquiry, official or otherwise, in which they could obtain the facts and information and then perhaps consider whether legislation is necessary?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that some of the points the noble Lord has raised go rather wider than the particular Question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. But in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I did say that the whole position here was kept under a close review. I think I am right in stating that there is no Act which concerns the Home Office the operation of which is kept under closer review than the particular Act to which the original Question referred. But, as the noble Lord himself knows, I am very willing to pursue further some of the

1175
related matters which came up during our discussions on the London Government Bill.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would not the noble Earl say that, although the streets appear more wholesome, the traffic which is conducted underground is even more vicious?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, that again is an expression of opinion, and it is my information that, at least in the Metropolis, the total number of prostitues operating is lower than it was before the passing of the Street Offences Act.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, although what he has just said is true, the fact is that the girls coming before the courts are of a much younger age than formerly, and some 500 a year, or more, are sent to prison for prostitution? Is he further aware that the Josephine Butler Society, in its interim Report, after eighteen months' study, finds that prostitutes have gone into places which are euphemistically called clubs and where it is virtually impossible for social workers and women police officers to have any contact with or control over them? Is he also aware that there is further evidence that there has been a great increase in the number of men who are living on immoral earnings? Is that not evidence of the evil consequences of the Street Offences Act, and the fact that the cure, so far, has proved far worse than the disease? Will he look into these facts, of which, apparently, he is not aware?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should be glad to look at any further information with which the noble Lord may furnish me. He has referred to a Report of, I think, a Working Party of the Josephine Butler Society. I myself have not seen that Report, but I think the noble Lord is in a position to send it to me, and I should be glad on behalf of my right honourable friend to examine closely, or have examined closely, the facts contained in that Report. I do not think I should like to go further in answer to the noble Lord's various supplementaries within his supplementary,
1176
beyond saying that I would not entirely agree either with the conclusions he has drawn from the facts he has adduced, or, I think, with some of those facts.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that police reports indicate that there has been a substantial increase in organised prostitution rackets in the London area, particularly since 1959?
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, may I ask whether he will bear in mind that Sir John Wolfenden was asked by the Government to get the prostitutes off the streets of this country, and that he got them off?
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he will extend his undertaking a little and, when he looks into the matter, not to look into it from the point of this or that particular effect, but from that of its whole effect upon a civilised society?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the undertaking which I passed to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was in fact in fairly wide terms.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said, I would ask the noble Earl to realise that I was not questioning that one intention behind the Street Offences Act has been achieved; I was drawing attention to the other evil which has arisen. As the noble Earl asks, I will send him this interim Report which I mentioned and which has been compiled on the interviews and discussions of social workers and probation officers, and is quite factual.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, would the noble Earl be good enough to indicate the nature of the police reports on this subject since 1959?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should have to make rather a long speech if I were to indicate the nature of the police reports. I think it would probably be better to refer the noble Lord to the Report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis which is shortly to come out and which deals with this matter.

ABINGDON STREET CAR PARK
2.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: 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 when work will begin on the reconstruction of the present open car park in Abingdon Street opposite the Victoria Tower; and whether any special facilities will be arranged for Members and staffs of both Houses.]
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I understand that the Westminster City Council are planning to start work next month on the underground car park which is to be constructed below the site of the present open car park in Abingdon Street. The work is expected to take about twelve months. The responsibility for arranging any special facilities that may be required in the new car park for Members and staffs rests with the authorities of each House.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl. Does he not agree that the number of staff of both Houses owning cars is likely to increase in the next few years? Does he not also agree that the car parks in Old Palace Yard and New Palace Yard are often completely congested? In these circumstances, will further consideration be given to facilities for parking for staff and Members in this new garage?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would agree with my noble friend that car ownership among not only the staffs but also Members of both Houses is likely to increase. To match that increase extra car-parking facilities have been made available in recent months in Horse Guards Parade, the details of which I shall be glad to furnish to my noble friend. Whether or not the facilities are adequate as regards another place is not perhaps for me to say, but it has been my own experience, in the course of our fairly protracted discussions on the London Government Bill, where we had quite a large attendance at all times, including a car-owning attendance, that I personally never had any difficulty in finding accommodation for my small car. As regards the last question, my right
1178
honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works will, of course, be glad to lend his good offices should the House authorities wish to pursue this matter with the Westminster City Council.

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS AND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT
LORD PEDDIE: 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 severance payments paid to redundant employees under the terms of a trade union agreement prejudice the payment of unemployment benefit to the redundant worker.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the decisions of the National Insurance Commissioner have distinguished between payments which are compensation for loss of employment and those which are compensation for loss of remuneration. Title to unemployment benefit is not affected at all by payment of compensation for loss of employment. Unemployment benefit can also be paid in addition to compensation for loss of remuneration, but only if the amount of compensation, together with the single person's rate of benefit, does not amount to more than two-thirds of the remuneration lost. Whether a payment of compensation under a particular agreement precludes the payment of benefit is a matter for decision by the adjudicating authorities under the National Insurance Acts.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer. I will take the opportunity to study it in detail later. I have taken note of the fact that severance payments, being compensation for loss of employment, will not prejudice the redundant worker who signs on for unemployment pay. I am glad indeed to have that assurance.

ANIMAL BOARDING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
DOG RACING (APPOINTED DAYS) BILL
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
2.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the London Government Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 2 [Greater London and the Greater London Council]:
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, this Amendment has been put down to meet the point made, both in Committee and at the Report stage, by noble Lords opposite. The words to be added widen the scope of the Amendment that we put down during Report stage in order to allow the Greater London Council not only to change its own name, or that of the Greater London area, but also to give a more dignified name, if it so desires, and can find one, to the chairman, vice-chairman and any deputy chairman as well. As in the other cases, of course, the consent of the Minister would be required, but this new provision would not need any order to give it effect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 19, after ("names") insert ("or make provision as to the titles by which the chairman, vice-chairman and any deputy chairman of the Council are to be known").—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I rise just to thank the noble Lord for having brought forward this Amendment for which I asked, I think, at Report stage. I am much obliged to him and, of course, we support the Amendment.
On question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [General provisions as to exercise in Greater London of existing local authority functions]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment and Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 go with it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 20, leave out ("extending only to the administrative") and insert ("passed with respect only to the whole or part of the existing").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Alteration of boundaries of or within Greater London]:
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, with your permission I should like to move this Amendment and Amendment No. 12 together. They are consequential upon the decision of your Lordships on Report to exclude the three northern wards of Epsom and Ewell from Greater London. As a result of my noble friends' famous victory over Epsom and Ewell, we now think it best to cut out the reference to Chigwell here. Chigwell would otherwise be left in isolation and solitary splendour. My right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has asked me to take this opportunity to inform your Lordships that the Government are prepared to accept the decision of your Lordships' House on this matter and to leave the whole of the Borough of Epsom and Ewell out of Greater London. I can confirm that it is not their intention to seek further amendment of the Bill when it goes back to another place. In reaching this conclusion, my right honourable friend has naturally taken close account of the views expressed by noble Lords who spoke on this matter in Committee and Report stages in your Lordships' House. He has also taken account of the representations made to him by the right honourable and learned Member who represents Epsom in the other place, and who has, in the past months, continued to maintain that there are features in this case which distinguish it from other proposals to remove particular areas from Greater London and has pressed my right honourable friend on these grounds to reconsider the original decision to include the three northern wards in Greater London. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 25, leave out from ("contiguous") to ("may") in line 28.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Jellicoe for the information which he has just given to the House, and I should like also to thank not only my own noble friends but noble Lords opposite and members of the Liberal Party who went into the Division Lobby on an issue which is not a matter of Party politics but a matter of great concern to a very famous and ancient borough.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, that is very nice of the noble Lord opposite. We were glad to give him our support on the Amendment. I thought I had better say a word here, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, who, I am sure, if he had been here would also have spoken. I gather from the Minister of State that the Solicitor General, who is a member of the Government, behind the scenes has come to the rescue of Epsom. Of course, it would have been better if he had come to the rescue in another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Modifications of London Building Acts]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, broadly speaking, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 2. In order to conform to the drafting and other provisions of the Bill the reference to Clause 4 is to be deleted from this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 26, leave out from first ("to") to ("the").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Shops]:
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to suggest that we consider this Amendment and Nos. 6, 27 and 28 together as they are linked with it. Their purpose is quite simply to amend the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Acts, as it soon will be, to take into account the reorganisation of London Government provided for in this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 31, at beginning insert—
("(1) The council of a London borough shall as respects the borough, and the Common Council as respects the City, be the local authority for the purposes of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, and the Greater London Council shall have the functions of the London county council under that Act; and accordingly—

(a) in the definition of 'local authority' in section 90(1) of that Act, for the words 'or a county district, the council of a metropolitan borough' there shall be substituted the words 'a London borough or a county district'; and

(b) for the words 'London County Council' wherever they occur in that Act there shall be substituted the words 'Greater London Council'.

(2) The said Act of 1963 shall be further amended as follows:—

(a) in section 41(1) for the words 'administrative county of London' there shall be substituted the words 'inner London boroughs, the City of London, the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple';

(b) in section 41(3) for the words 'administrative county of London' there shall be substituted the words 'inner London boroughs, the City of London, the Inner Temple or the Middle Temple';

(c) in section 52(3)(a) after the word 'county' there shall be inserted the words 'or the Greater London Council';

(d) in section 52(5) for the words 'administrative county of London' there shall be substituted the words 'Greater London'").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this Amendment is formal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 41, leave out from beginning to ("means") in line 4 on page 73 and insert—
("(2) Until finally repealed as respects all classes of premises and for all purposes by the said Act of 1963—

(a) section 72(2) of the Shops Act 1950 shall have effect throughout Greater London as originally enacted and not as amended by section 18 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1958;

(b) the definition of 'sanitary authority' in section 74(1) of the Shops Act 1950 shall have effect as if for the words from 'means' onwards there were substituted the words").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Parks and open spaces]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 37, leave out ("and which is not property") and insert ("not being land").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 64 [General grants]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on previous Amendments to Clauses 45, 46, and 47 during the course of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 3, at end insert ("and any expenditure by way of contributions by that Council—

(a) by virtue of section 45(4) or 47(4) of this Act; or

(b) by virtue of section 46(3) of this Act so far as it relates to section 26(6) of the National Assistance Act 1948").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 83 [Other adaptations of enactments]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 2 and is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 29., leave out ("extending") and insert ("passed with respect").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 89 [Interpretation]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment' is also consequential on Amendment No. 2 and is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 42, leave out ("extending") and insert ("passed with respect").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 93 [Repeals and Savings]:
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that the repeal of any enactment specified in the said Part I shall not affect the operation of that enactment in relation to an election held on or after the date of the passing of this Act to fill a casual vacancy occurring before that date."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will agree to
1184
consider this Amendment and Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17 together. They are just a little more than drafting, and I propose briefly to explain their purpose. As at present drafted, paragraphs 6(1) and 10 of Schedule 3 to the Bill prevent an election from being held after the passage of the Bill for any office which is to disappear after April 1, 1965. Section 67(1) of the Local Government Act, 1933, and Section 42(1) of the London Government Act, 1939, in providing for an election to be held within 30 days of the date on which the High Court or the local authority declare the office vacant, or on which notice of the vacancy is given in writing by two local government electors, require all the arrangements for holding of the elections to be put in hand in respect of a casual vacancy occurring before the Bill is passed. If the Bill, therefore, received the Royal Assent, say, at the end of this month, on July 31, under the Bill as at present drafted an election which was to be held on August 1 could not, in fact, be held and there would have been much expense, work and trouble caused to the local authority for nothing. In fact, a vacancy has occurred, I believe in the metropolitan borough of Stepney.
The Amendment, therefore, provides for the elections to be held as if the London Government Bill had not been passed and for the councillors elected who fill casual vacancies to remain in office until April 1, 1965, which is the date on which councillors mentioned in paragraphs 6(1) and 10 would have gone out of office. I trust that your Lordships will agree that this is a sensible provision, and I should like to express my regret that we have only lighted on the necessity for this provision at this very late hour. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 110, line 30, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The London boroughs]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 114, line 9, after ("Coombe") insert ("and").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Constitution and general functions of Greater London Council]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to make this paragraph of Schedule 2 consistent with the language of Section 257 of the Local Government Act, 1933, on which it is modelled. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 124, line 13, leave out ("expenditure") and insert ("expenses").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Parliamentary and local government elections in and around Greater London]:
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments 14 to 17.
Amendments moved—
Page 130, line 28, leave out from ("the") to end of line 29 and insert ("date of the passing of this Act, except an election to fill a casual vacancy in an office where before that date the office has been declared to be vacant or notice of the vacancy has been given under section 67(1) of the Local Government Act 1933 or section 42(1) of the London Government Act 1939; and any such councillor holding office immediately before that date or elected on or after that date to fill a casual vacancy occurring before that date")
Page 131, line 44, after ("any") insert ("such")
Page 132, line 2, leave out from ("the") to end of line 3, and insert ("date of the passing of this Act for any electoral area situated wholly or partly in Greater London, unless before that date the office has been declared to be vacant or notice of the vacancy has been given under section 67(1) of the Local Government Act 1933; and any such councillor elected for any such electoral area on or after that date to fill a casual vacancy occurring before that date shall (unless he resigns his office or it otherwise becomes vacant) continue to hold office until 1st April 1965.")
Page 137, line 18, at end insert—
("36. Any modifications of an enactment made by Part II or this Part of this Schedule shall not effect the operation of that enactment in relation to an election held on or after the date of the passing of this Act to fill a casual vacancy occurring before that date.").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Amendments as from 1st April 1965 in Highways Act 1959]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment requires a little explanation. It excepts the inner London boroughs from the operation of the
1186
advanced payments code in Part IX of the Highways Act, 1959 which, where it applies, requires a developer in a private street to give the street works authority a deposit or security for the cost of street works before he begins to erect a building. The extension of highways legislation, including the advance payments code, to inner London requires new machinery to take account of the fact that the special L.C.C. building control system is retained there. The procedure for requiring payment is linked to the procedure for depositing and passing plans in accordance with building by-laws, but in inner London building control is not by by-laws and plans do not have to be deposited. There is believed to be very little need for the code in inner London, where private streets are few and undeveloped land scarce, and the simplest course is not to apply it in that area. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 159, line 38, leave out from ("173(3)") to end of line 39, and insert ("for the words 'boroughs and' there shall be substituted the words 'boroughs other than the inner London boroughs and in all'").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is consequential on the preceding Amendment: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 160, line 1, leave out paragraph 55.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Modification and re-enactment as from 1st April, 1956, of enactments relating to sewerage and drainage]:
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words from "them" down to and including "thence," and to substitute:
"directly or through any river or creek."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20 and also to speak to Amendment No. 21 in the name of my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth and myself. I feel that in some respects I should apologise at this stage for raising this particular point again, particularly as it has been considered on at least four other occasions, both in your Lordships' House and in another place. We still feel that the position in regard to the

1187
dispersal through storm water of perhaps a percentage of sewage is unsatisfactory. Before I continue, may I express great appreciation to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for seeing me on last Thursday and for the letter that he has written to me? Unfortunately, our postal service is not quite as quick as it should be and I have not seen the letter, but it has been read to me over the telephone, and it would appear that the noble and learned Lord does not feel in a position to help us in this matter.
I will try to be as brief as possible, but I think I should put in some background because we shall have to wait to see whether we have to put this question to a Division. The problem in London of the dispersal of rainwater and sewage has been a growing problem. In 1844 there was the first piece of legislation, which made it compulsory for all householders to put their drainage into the metropolitan sewerage system. This caused chaos as far as the River Thames was concerned. In 1855 legislation was passed prohibiting the Metropolitan Board of Works, from which the London County Council sprang, from at any time placing sewage into the River Thames; but in 1858, a mere three years later, it was necessary to amend that legislation because the whole position was thoroughly impracticable. The 1858 legislation was consolidated into the 1936 Public Health (London) Act, which is being repealed by the London Government Bill.
The particular section to which I would refer the House is Section 28. I would submit that it lays a duty upon the London County Council
"to construct such sewers and works…as they think necessary for securing the effective sewerage and drainage of the county."
Those words were the same as in the 1858 Act. They also included very important words and words which were found necessary:
"so far as practicable".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when he spoke on the Report stage, said that those words had very little significance. I submit that there must have been some significance, in that those words had to be inserted in the 1858 Act and that they were consolidated into the 1936 Act. As I understand it,
1188
the intention then of the Government—because it was a Public Bill—was that the London County Council should not place sewage as of right in the River Thames; that it was their duty to provide a sewerage system which would effectively disperse sewage without putting it into the River Thames; but they recognised that problem at that day, and which exists to-day, that on occasions it would be necessary for sewage to be placed into the river. At the present time I believe the only occasions on which the London County Council are forced to put sewage into the Thames are after heavy storms when the existing sewerage system is unable to cope. Therefore, it is submitted that the words "so far as practicable" have a considerable significance. They are there for the protection of the authority.
This particular provision will be repealed by this Bill, and the London County Council, and the Greater London Council which will take its place and will become responsible, will then come under the Public Health Act, 1936. I think it is right that we should take note that the Act to which I referred just now was passed in the same year; in fact, it appears in our records as having been passed after the Public Health Act, 1936; so there is no question of one Act repealing the other. The Public Health Act, 1936, Section 30, in my view puts a total prohibition on the placing at any time of sewage into the Thames. But I believe it goes even a stage further—and this I would ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to consider; in my view it lays a duty upon the authority not to construct sewers or drains which in fact would put sewage into a stream. In other words, whereas at the present moment it may be said that the London County Council can in special circumstances, because of the Public Health (London) Act, put it in, I would guess from Section 30 that the authority would be prohibited from constructing any type of drain which would put water in.
I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the authority is called upon not to put sewage or foul water into a river or into a stream which might affect prejudicially the purity of the water. When the noble and learned Lord Chancellor brought this point forward on Report stage, I

1189
must say I was rather surprised. I feel that this was perhaps due to the fact that I had not done my "homework" sufficiently well. But I have, naturally, looked up the records, and I find that of course he is quite right. This was a decision made after a case concerning the Attorney General and the Birmingham Corporation. But I think there is a later case in the High Court in which the judgment given was that it was not necessary to prove that the total quantity of water had been prejudiced, and that if it were proved that at the point of discharge you raised the quantity of sewage there was an offence under Section 30.
The London County Council are well aware of their duty to reduce the quantity of sewage in the Thames. They are, in fact, spending considerable sums of money in building new sewers and new drains, but, as I have said right through the discussions on this Bill, they are hardly able to keep up with the demand that is being placed upon their system. Therefore, we must anticipate that for a good number of years the authority will have to continue to place storm water and sewage (because it is mixed) into the Thames. The Lord Chancellor will no doubt be aware of the Government publication on the Pollution of the Tidal Thames. At page 21, paragraph 75, this Report refers to the fact that the amount of storm water from the London County Council system is large, and that its polluting load represents a substantial proportion of the total, because it enters the Thames in the narrow reaches of about 10 miles. Its great effect on the condition of the Estuary is indicated by its proportion to the total polluting.
There is no doubt that within the narrow area of London at moments of crisis, large quantities of storm water and sewage are put in, and it can be said that the quantity of sewage in the Thames rises quite materially. Therefore, I should have thought that the authority could be said to have committed an offence by putting this material into the water. As I said, under the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, they are in some ways protected by the phrase "as far as practicable", but: if they are really to come within the Public Health Act, 1936, I suggest that they would be breaking the law.
This is not a political matter. What we are really interested in is seeing that the new authority should come within legislation with which they can comply. May I refer your Lordships to paragraph 4 of Schedule 9 to the Bill? Here the Government are, in fact, giving power to the Greater London Council to cause storm water to be discharged in the area of the Channelsea and Abbey Creek. These particular overflows are at the boundary of the Greater London Council and the Essex County Council. I understand that the reason why it has been necessary to give the Greater London Council power here is the fact that under the River Lea Acts there is a total prohibition, under Section 91 of the Act of 1868, on putting into the River Lea or its tributaries any sewer, drainpipe or channel. Here, within this particular provision, it is quite clear that no authority can put in storm water and sewage. Therefore, it was necessary in this particular Act to make an exception so far as the London County Council were concerned. These exceptions to the general prohibition have, in fact, been included in this Bill.
I would put three questions to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. The noble Lord stated that the authority will not be committing an offence if they continue to put storm water and sewage into the Thames and do not materially increase the quantity of sewage. What I would ask is whether, from the fact that in this Bill you give particular power in regard to a small number of outflows, you are thereby weakening the general understanding which the noble Lord gave us—that is, that the London County Council and the Greater London Council could continue with their present powers and would, in fact, have the same power as the authority has at present? In other words, by giving particular powers on a limited scale, and by omitting them on a broad basis, would you in fact weaken the power or the provision in that respect?
The other question that I would ask the noble and learned Lord is this. The 1936 Act says that you must not construct sewers which would prejudicially affect the quality of the water. If this Schedule goes through, will it prevent the authority, if at any time it should be necessary, from increasing the number

1191
of outflows, which, of course, would have the result that there would be a quantity of water and sewage? As I see it, the 1936 Act will lay on the authority a prohibition against the construction of any further sewers or storm water outflows.
With those few, and, I feel, rather inadequate words, I would ask the noble and learned Lord to consider the proposal in our Amendments, which is to bring the present outflow and the present system in regard to putting storm water and sewage into the central part of the Thames, into the same category as those particular outflows in regard to which in this Bill the Government are giving power. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 179, line 33, leave out from beginning to ("into") in line 40 and insert ("direct or through any river or creek").—(Lord Shepherd.)
3.19 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I had hoped that I made the Position clear with regard to this particular matter when I last addressed your Lordships upon it. I hope that I shall make it clear to-day, when I say that these Amendments, the first of which the noble Lord has now moved, would, in fact, give the Greater London Council greater power to pollute the River Thames than the London County Council have ever had, and greater power than they have found necessary.
I cannot agree with the noble Lord's citations from my speech on the last occasion, or with his views upon the law. I pointed out that Section 28 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, defines the duty which rests upon the L.C.C. The noble Lord must distinguish between a section which is imposing a duty (and the duty there is limited by the words "so far as practicable"; it is not an absolute duty, but a limited duty) and a section which is empowering the London County Council to do something. It does not follow from the fact that the duty in relation to the creation of sewers is not an absolute duty that they have a power to discharge a polluting liquid into the Thames. The ordinary law may apply. I stressed this on the last occasion, and I stress it again to-day. The noble Lord relies again on Section 28,
1192
but Section 28 must be read in conjunction with Section 31 of the same Act, which puts upon the London County Council liability if they create a nuisance. That applies over the whole field, except where it is cut into by the particular provisions in relation to the "Channelsea river or Abbey creek" to which the noble Lord has referred to-day. There is, and always has been, a liability upon the London County Council, if by reason of their discharge, they cause any nuisance. That is covered by Section 31 of the Public Health (London) Act.
The case put against us, first of all, was that because we were attracting the general Act, the Public Health Act, to the Greater London Council we were putting the Greater London Council in a worse position than the London County Council with regard to the discharge of storm water. That case I have dealt with. I repeat again that, in my submission, the effect of this Bill is to put the Greater London Council in materially the same position as the London County Council with regard to the discharge of storm water. But the noble Lord now wants to go further. By these Amendments he wants to make paragraph 4 of Schedule 9, which applies to the discharges in the "Channelsea river or Abbey creek", apply to discharges of storm water where-ever they may occur. There is only limited liability there for nuisance. The obligation in paragraph 4 is
"to take all steps to avoid, so far as practicable, the creation of any nuisance…".
The effect of accepting the Amendment would be to put the Greater London Council with regard to all its outlets in a superior position to that of the London County Council at present.
When one goes to the reality of the situation, I ask your Lordships to consider this. The L.C.C. do not appear to have suffered any difficulty, or indeed inconvenience, from the form of the present law. A picture has been painted to us on more than one occasion of the terrible position in which the Greater London Council will find itself in having to choose whether to pollute the River Thames or to flood a large number of basements with sewage. If there is any reality in that suggestion, the London County Council must have been in that dilemma for a long time. But in fact there is no such difficulty.

1193
What I am saying to the House is this. We are seeking to put the Greater London Council in substantially the same position as the London County Council, and I cannot advise your Lordships to extend the scope of paragraph 4 to such an extent as to enlarge the rights of the Greater London Council beyond those now possessed by the London County Council. Paragraph 4 was put in to deal with a particular provision, and to deal, in particular, with the difficulties that arose because of the fact that the interests of the British Waterways Board and the Lee Conservancy Board were concerned with those particular outlets. This particular provision in paragraph 4 was contained in the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, and we feel that that particular provision dealing with those particular outlets should also be contained in the London Government Bill now before your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, there is no reason to say that that particular provision should be of general application. It is for those reasons that I invite your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I shall be only a minute. The short point, as I see it, is that the words which were formerly in the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, which is repealed by this Bill, included the phrase "so far as practicable". That phrase goes under this Bill. I understand from the Lord Chancellor that he thinks those words really mean nothing.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I did not say that. That, if I may say so, is where the noble Lord,
Lord Shepherd—quite unintentionally I am sure—misrepresented me. It is not that they mean nothing. They are a limitation of the extent of the duty resting on the London County Council. The distinction is to be drawn between a duty to construct sewers of a particular kind and liability under the Common Law for, it may be, pollution.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: We have been advised otherwise, but in any case I cannot see the reason for taking out these words. They could have been preserved. The words do mean something, and I cannot understand why they should be taken out. To-morrow we shall be considering the Television Bill, and Clause 13 provides that something must be done "so far as practicable". Those are practically the same words. What I am afraid of is that, as a consequence of this legislation in this form, the Council may some day be afraid to allow the imperfect effluent into the Thames—which they will not want to do if they can possibly help it—with the consequence that sewage will go into people's houses, cellars, shops or factories. I am sorry to divide the House at this stage, because we want to get on to the main debate, but I think we must do so, in order that should the situation I have described occur, we shall know which noble Lords were responsible for this disgusting experience and which noble Lords were not.
3.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Latham, L.

Shackleton, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Lawson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Attlee, E.

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Listowel, E.

Summerskill, B.

Crook, L.

Longford, E.

Uvedale of North End, L.

Francis-Williams, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Wise, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Inman, L.

Samuel, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Brecon, L.

Dudley, L.

Allerton, L.

Colyton, L.

Dundee, E.

Ampthill, L.

Cowley, E.

Effingham, E.

Amulree, L.

Craven, E.

Ferrers, E.

Auckland, L.

Denham, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Devonport, V.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Gough, V.

Jessel, L.

Salter, L.

Grenfell, L.

Mabane, L.

Sandwich, E.

Hanworth, V.

Mansfield, E.

Sinha, L.

Hastings, L.

Mills, V.

Somers, L.

Hawke, L.

Milverton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Home, E.

Monsell, V.

Waleran, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wynford, L.

Jellicoe, E.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 11 [Modification and reenactment as from 1st April 1965 of provisions of Public Health Acts]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 195, line 38, at end insert ("in Greater London").—(Lord Hastings.)
Schedule 14 [Functions as from 1st April 1965 with respect to land drainage, flood prevention, etc.]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, Amendments No. 23 and 24 go together, and they have been drafted and put down at the request of the London County Council. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 213, line 45, leave out ("public sewers") and insert ("that it does not include so much of any public sewer as lies outside the flow and re-flow of the tides").—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I beg to move formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 213, line 47, at end insert ("and lies outside the flow and re-flow of the tides").(Lord Hastings.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a redrafted version of the saving provision for the Port of London Authority, and I hope that it will satisfy the queries raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, at Report stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 213, line 50, leave out paragraph 16 and insert—
("16. Paragraph 7(a) and (b) of this Schedule and so much of paragraph 15 thereof as relates to the said paragraph 7(a) and (b) shall not be construed as extending or restricting the application of any of the local
1196
enactments relating to the tidal Thames to property for the time being held for the purposes of their undertaking by the Port of London Authority or as extending or restricting the functions of that Authority; and the other provisions of this Schedule shall not apply to any property for the time being so held or affect any functions of that Authority.").—(Lord Hastings.)
Schedule 18 [Repeals]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I foreshadowed this Amendment and explained it at Report stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 231, line 44, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 18").—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 245, line 30, leave out ("18").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 250, line 31, at end insert—

("1963 c.

The Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963.

In section 9(6) the words 'nor section 106 of the Public Health (London) Act 1936.'

In section 24(9) the words 'or Part XI of the Public Health (London) Act 1936.' Section 77.")

—(Earl Jellicoe.)

3.38 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, it is now my duty to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so I wish to say at once that I shall not be making a long speech; in fact, I shall make an extremely short one. All the arguments in favour of this Bill have been fully deployed by Government spokesmen not

1197
only at Second Reading, but also in great detail during Committee and Report stages. It is not surprising, therefore, if I have nothing more to say by way of argument. No doubt the noble Earl who leads the Opposition, when he moves the Amendment on the Order Paper, and those who support him, will once again express their disapproval of this Bill. But I think it would be more appropriate in the circumstances to wait and see whether they have anything new to say, and to leave it to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to reply to any final points they may wish to raise.
Nevertheless, I can perhaps make one or two brief comments and give a little statistical information to your Lordships which may be of some interest. For instance, I think it will interest your Lordships to know that we have spent 115 hours on this Bill, spread over 17 days. In fact to-day is the eighteenth day, and no doubt we shall clock up another five hours or so. One hundred and five of those hours have been spent on the Committee and Report stages, compared to 89 hours thus spent in another place. We have gone through the Division Lobbies, so far as I can calculate, some 85 times; and I believe there will be some noble Lords on both sides of the House who, like myself, have not missed one of those Divisions.
As a result of all this work here in your Lordships' House, 785 Amendments have been considered; 80 Amendments of substance were in fact made to the Bill, together with over 200 of a less substantial, consequential or drafting character. Of the Amendments of substance some 30 were made either directly by noble Lords opposite, or as a result of the arguments they had put forward. The other 50 or so were made spontaneously by Her Majesty's Government—with the exception of the little matter of Epsom and Ewell—and many of them were very acceptable to noble Lords opposite.
When we started upon our Committee stage there were some noble Lords who feared that they would not be given time to deal with the London Government Bill in the thorough manner it deserved, and that they would not be able to express their opinions as freely as they wished to do, owing to the lack of time. There were also noble Lords opposite who, in the early stages, claimed that
1198
the Government spokesmen were not replying adequately to the arguments put forward. My Lords, I think that the figures I have just given the House should finally have dispelled any such fears and any such claims. The Government spokesmen—and there were no fewer than seven involved in this Bill—have, I would claim, given every care and attention in their replies; and that, I am glad to say, is also the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who used those very words at the close of our Report stage.
I should like to express my thanks, not only for myself, of course, but also and particularly on behalf of my right honourable friend and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who are responsible for this Bill, for the continual and continuous effort that other Government Ministers have made, and for their invaluable and enthusiastic assistance; and I think no small measure of credit is due to all those who have worked so hard in the various Departments concerned. I should like also to pay tribute to the efforts made by noble Lords opposite, and I am very ready to agree that the considerable improvements to which the Bill has been subjected are due in no small measure to those efforts. We have had our tense moments, as was only to be expected during such a highly controversial Bill. But we have, none the less, carried through our task, I believe, greatly to the credit of this House, both with efficiency and with becoming restraint. My Lords, I am sure you will all be glad to hear that I have now spoken my last word on the London Government Bill, and I beg to move that it be now passed.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hastings.)
3.43 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH rose to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, to leave out all words after "That" and insert:
"this House declines to pass a Bill which, whilst destroying existing local government in the London area, fails to put in its place a system of local government which will assure to the people of the Greater London area those adequate services and facilities which are their right; and which fails to take account of the serious effect on the finance and affairs of the truncated counties."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we have indeed come to the last Parliamentary session in this House on one of the most remarkable and ill-conceived Bills ever submitted to Parliament. Whilst we appreciate very much the attempts that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has just made to explain some of the reasons why we have sat so long, and even his concession—and we thank him for it—that some of the improvements in the Bill have been due to the efforts made by my noble friends on this side of the House, it is also true to say that, of course, we ought never to have been required to sit so long as we have done—never! We have actually sat longer, I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, than they sat in the House of Commons; but if the Bill in the House of Commons had not been guillotined in the Committee stage and in the Report stage, then surely much more of the required debate and possible acceptance of Amendments would have taken place in another place. That did not happen.
I ought to say, too, that I am not quite sure in which spirit the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, commenced his recital of statistics of the occupation of time, and the like; but there have been whispers to me, not far removed from the official channels, that there is resentment in the House about the length of time we have been called upon to sit here, and a sort of reversion in the minds of noble Lords to the idea that we have brought into this great and august Assembly too much of the methods of the House of Commons. I can see no reason for that statement at all. First of all, I say the Bill itself is a remarkable Bill—born in political jealousy in a metropolitan area; carried on by intrigue; threatened and promised years ago by the present Home Secretary when he was himself connected with the London County Council; and far worse in its depredations against the present system than even that which was actually recommended by the Royal Commission which the Government set up.
The Royal Commission which they set up, although containing some members who were learned in the general principle and practice of local government, did not contain, so far as I can see, one
1200
single person really deeply experienced in the local government required in this great metropolis—not one. I have heard it said that the London County Council members were at fault in not agreeing to appear before the Royal Commission; but in view of their 34 years of majority rule on the London County Council, with all its history of achievement and development which has taken place in all the services in London, why should they appear before a Royal Commission so packed against them? Why should they be there before the Commission, if they were there to pass the death sentence upon their organisation and upon their administration? It was perfectly clear—perfectly clear to me, at any rate—as I read the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, that that was what was fully intended.
This is a remarkable Bill, from the time expended on it. One needs only to look at its size—254 pages. It has been increased in size since it came up here. It is an amazing document: 111 pages of it containing the clauses which are the statutory basis of its authority for the future. But think of the work of a small Parliamentary Opposition such as I have here to-day, with just a semblance, among its small numbers, of those legally trained. What sort of a Bill do you think it was for us to deal with? I do not know where we should have got without the skilled help of a good many old friends from the London County Council, and some help occasionally in correspondence from the County Councils Association. But here it is—the whole balance of the 250 pages; 139 pages laid down to Schedule, almost every Schedule effectively altering the basis of the law for the local government of the metropolis. Think about that, from the point of view of studying it, of drafting Amendments, or even of considering whether you are in favour or not of a new set of legislation. Think of the amount of reference and study that this small Opposition has had to do.
Then, how much help have we really had from the other side? I exempt from that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, because I want to congratulate them upon their patience and their long suffering at times, when we were bound to be rather obdurate. I think they stuck to the job

1201
magnificently. But for a Bill of this size and with these enormous effects, where are the members of the Cabinet? I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack for the time he gave from time to time, and I will merely make this apology for him: that he was dragged off during the course of this Bill to other duties from which he might well have been spared. But, in regard to Cabinet responsibility in this House, for the whole of the detailed debate we have not had, by any means, all that we had a right to expect from those who are responsible in the Cabinet for the whole of the policy, the iniquitous policy, which rests in this Bill. I must say that I wish we could have been better treated than that.
I do not want to say very much more, in the general sense, in introducing my somewhat abbreviated remarks that will follow, but I want it to be remembered, as this Bill goes from us, that it not only makes terrible alterations in the system of local government but it does permanent injury. It does permanent injury to the services, which I shall mention briefly, in the county council area as at present; in the boroughs which are to be given greater authority, but in dessicated portions; and it actually does permanent damage, as well as immediate inconvenience, to the truncated counties which are to have great slices cut off their population, their resources and possibly their control of a great deal of future development. For all those reasons we criticise and condemn this Bill.
Look at what my noble friends on this side of the House have had to do—not under a guillotine, I agree, but in relation to our numbers and the strain upon us, a guillotine of physical endurance. A certain number of days was laid down during which all this work had to be done, all this complex detail studied. It was a question of physical endurance as to how it could be got through. The time could have been cut to nearly one-half if we had had anything like the arrangements that a Conservative majority in Opposition in 1950 were able to impose on a Labour Government in a small minority in this House. They were able to impose their will on them by saying they would throw out the Iron and Steel Bill unless they could be certain
1202
the appointed day would not be until after the next election. The Iron and Steel Bill was absolutely mandated in a complete statement to the country by Labour in 1945: Let us Face the Future—it was all there. And that was regarded in that way by a Tory majority, a hereditary majority, in this House. And they threatened to throw the Bill out unless we agreed to postpone the appointed day until after the election.
We have moved Amendments on this Bill on more than one occasion which would have put back the dates of operation in regard to local government administration and changes to next year or the year after. We moved to delay them another year so that there could have been more time for consideration and adjustment. The country at large were never consulted on this matter; the Government have no mandate at all. The local municipal electorate in the metropolitan areas have all declared against it in the recent elections. You have no shred of foundation on which to stand for your action in this matter. We gave you the opportunity on two or three occasions to defer the date, to give us the same right that you imposed on us in 1950. This could have halved the time for the debate on this Bill in this House; and you must not expect that we shall forget either 1950 or that we shall forget 1963; because we have been forced into a situation which was unfair, unsound and unjust.
Now I will just mention the other points briefly that I want to make. Take the services which are being interrupted. In 1902 the Conservative Party passed a major Education Act. In 1902, when I was a junior in an education office, I began to see what a revolution was going to take place in a great county like Somerset. What had been just village school boards and one or two larger borough school boards was spread over the villages and the parishes and the church schools. All that was brought into one comprehensive local education authority and it was absolutely moulded in. We have seen the growth and development of the London County Council education system which has all the advantages of the adoption of the centralised principles of the Act of 1902. It lies to the account now of a Conservative Government to undo in London, to

1203
a large extent, all that has been built up by the principle by which they sought to, and did, revolutionise education administration in 1902.
Look around at what is to happen. You will wipe out Middlesex altogether. It has a very good and successful educational system. I have seen and talked with a great number of its local members. What are you to put in its place? You say you are going to put in amalgamation of boroughs or districts which will give you a borough authority large enough, compared with the rest of the boroughs in other administrative counties in the country, to operate. But instead of leaving it like that, you first break up a far more comprehensive and more concentrated authority for education than you can possibly put in its place—except that you will have the satisfaction of so gerrymandering the electorates of municipalities which are to be joined that you hope it will not be possible to have the permanence of a Labour majority on these matters, as you have under the present distribution. That is one of the great charges that lie at the door of the Government on this business of the electorate.
If we look at the other services we find the same thing happening. I mentioned education; what about health and mental services? When you come to putting most of the aspects of administration of these matters on to the enlarged boroughs, as compared with the wide area of the London County Council, what sort of service are you going to give them, for some years to come at least, to compare with the comprehensive service which now exists and is practised so successfully as to have become the admiration of local government throughout the world? We have argued and argued; and we have received a little concession here and there, thanks to my noble friends here; but we have not been able to break down this fortress. We do not all have special power with the Government as have the two Conservative Peers who scored such a victory over Epsom and Ewell. We moved Amendments, we put up just as logical arguments; but we were fiercely rebuffed in most of the instances in which we moved Amendments. This was the case in education, health, the mental services,
1204
road transport, housing and planning; in every case it was the same.
You are going to break up something and put it into a sort of wider municipal melting pot; but with divisions between them all the time. Obstructions will have to be overcome in administration between area and area, all of which are more or less completely contiguous. You know perfectly well, in your hearts, that this is so. We have had the themes of the learned Members, the commercial Members and the financial Members of your Lordships' House, who seem to have adopted the bug of amalgamation and concentration in all their businesses for the last fifty years, in steady progress.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: And what about the take-overs?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Yes, look at your take-overs; look at the last one that failed in which you the Government are big shareholders. There is always the tendency to say you can be successful only if you can have sufficiently wide control and mounting centralised resources. But in this case, to meet a political gerrymandering, to forward a political intrigue, to try to break the power of a great and successful municipal Labour organisation of the last 34 years, you go back against all your own beliefs and say, "Break it up. Something better is sure to come out of it, if it is a Tory Government that breaks it up and not a Socialist one." It is an amazing situation to have to face.
I am not going to take long. I had a lot more to say, but I am not going to say it: my colleagues who follow me will fill in the gaps. But I am bound to say this. I have been too busy to read and study the Bill and I should not have understood half as much of it as I do if I had not listened to my colleagues who carried the burden of the fight—my noble friends Lord Morrison of Lambeth, Lord Shepherd, Lady Summerskill and Lord Latham, with his great experience of metropolitan administration. All the time I saw how impossible it was for the Government to stand up to their criticism. All that noble Lords opposite could do was to obey their mandate from their Government, not to give way on any major point. As I have said, I appreciate the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and

1205
the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, but they were bound almost hand and foot. Neither of them is invested with complete Cabinet authority. They did their best against the small number on these Benches who have fought this Bill at every stage.
From the Back Benches I pick out one of my old friends from the House of Commons, Lord Champion, who has applied the local government knowledge he has obtained in a sphere outside London to the discussions on this Bill. He spoke with insistence on what could be done in Greater London, and I am grateful to him. There are also my noble friends Lord Longford and Lady Wootton of Abinger and others (I cannot mention them all), who spoke for this small Party of mine. I must say that I am grateful to them.
If this Government come to an end—and it ought to come within a very few months—I hope that, if it is not possible to repeal the whole of this Bill (although it may be possible to do that), there will be such a reconstruction of it as will bring back the best possibilities and do away with some of the abuses. I refer particularly to lopping off so much of the present resources of a county such as Essex, in which I live, although they are losing less than other counties and are going to have some compensation paid to them. Other counties are to be taxed more heavily on their remaining resources in order to finance the overall scheme of this Conservative Government in the London area. The Government ought to be hanging their heads in shame. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after "That" and insert:
"this House declines to pass a Bill which, whilst destroying existing local government in the London area, fails to put in its place a system of local government which will assure to the people of the Greater London area those adequate services and facilities which are their right; and which fails, to take account of the serious effect on the finance and affairs of the truncated counties."—(Earl Alexander of Hillsborough.)
4.4 p.m.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment which my noble Leader has moved. I do so as a Cockney who is proud of the many years' work of the L.C.C. and as one who has lived
1206
for many years in the County of Surrey and appreciates that the Surrey County Council, although Conservative-controlled, have done a good job of work. Others who will follow my noble Leader will deal in general terms with the Bill. I want to speak of one of those ruined counties on the outside—Surrey. I speak not only for my own Party in that county but I also express, for thousands of members of the Conservative Party in Surrey, something of what they think about the Bill.
There may be agreement between Conservative and Labour in Surrey on very few things, but on our opposition to this Bill there has been agreement from beginning to end. Surrey County Council did what the L.C.C. did—that is to say, they went to the electorate to talk about the proposals in the Bill and got a verdict completely against them. We have worked together to try to stop the Bill, which is now to leave your Lordships' House after many of us have fought for over 100 hours to try to improve it; to secure proper local government in London and the counties around; to make certain that life is left good for the old people; to see that the welfare services are not ruined or disturbed by the passage of the Bill; to safeguard the special children's services and education—to sum up, truly to try to see that the word "local" is not taken out of the phrase "local government."
The Surrey County Council have always agreed on the need for some overall planning machinery. It is perfectly true that they had in mind a much wider area than that proposed for the Greater London Council. They put to the Government their proposals for a joint planning authority to deal with strategic planning over an area no less than that of the Greater London Plan of 1944. They were agreed that local councils of adequate size should have direct responsibilities for the local administration of the big county services. All these views they put to the Royal Commission. They put proposals for full and unfettered delegation under the Local Government Act, 1958. They agreed that main roads and traffic needed a broader treatment than has been possible under the present law. They suggested to the Government that, in conjunction with the joint planning

1207
authority, the existing county councils were available to undertake these responsibilities.
In the speech I made on the Second Reading of the Bill, I referred to the integrity and courage of the leader of the Conservatives on the Surrey County Council, a Member of another place, Sir Cyril Black. He said to us in Surrey last year that there was an easy solution to hand, according with the evolutionary nature of our Governmental institutions over the centuries, but that the Government "quite unjustifiably," were bent on a revolutionary answer involving an unprecedented and drastic upheaval, with the destruction of all the existing tried and tested local government units, with their local pride and traditions built up over the years. It was he who first reminded us that the "local" was to be taken out of local government by this Bill. And, in his own words:
"All this could only be tolerable if, at the end of the day, there would be a guarantee of overwhelming benefit and improvement to the people of Greater London."
He added:
"That will clearly not be the case."
Indeed, he posed the question:
"What is the price to be paid for this revolutionary proposal for a Greater London Council?"
He gave the answer that we have tried to give in the 100-odd hours that we have spent on the Bill in your Lordships' House:
"It is that the big human services which require broad treatment are to be fragmented and damaged to the harm of the people."
He was entitled to offer that kind of comment, and we have been entitled to do so. Indeed, he had said in the other place, in February, 1962, to his credit, in the preliminary debate on the Government White Paper, that the Government ought to take away their plan and do some serious thinking; that is to say, to do some serious thinking so that a scheme could be produced more suited to the conditions to be faced, more acceptable to the authorities, the ratepayers and the general public. But he then said—and I think that all our fifteen days of debate here in Committee and Report stages have shown this to be true:
"The only rethinking appears to have been in the direction of adding complication and confusion to the local government pattern."
1208
That complication and confusion is, in itself, serious enough to worry local electors; but, of course, things were, and are, worse than that. What the people of my county see is their services in danger of being damaged, disrupted and delayed while all this upheaval takes place and, withal, being made more expensive for them.
I am not going to try to argue again with your Lordships the basis of the 5d. to 2d. Amendment which I moved on the subject of compensation. I will only say that no relief was forthcoming from any means at all, local or national. When this Bill becomes law, Surrey County Council will have to face a new rate of just short of £1 million, imposed upon them by the Government, for no benefit to themselves but for the benefit of a shibboleth plan which this Government had in their mind about London.
The county of Surrey, I would remind your Lordships, loses, under this Bill, 48,311 acres, which is 7·7 per cent. of the administrative county. In these acres there live 674,840 persons, or 39½ per cent. of the population. The rateable value of these acres is £3,822,926, or 42 per cent. What a clever picture of administration this is! Seven and a half per cent. of a county is taken away; 39½per cent. of the population in that small area goes, and 42½ per cent. of the rateable value disappears. Administrators of a great company, or of a great public board who designed plans of this kind, and made no attempt at any time to put a financial figure on what they were doing, and made no attempt to forecast what the effect would be in due course, would find themselves removed from the board which they graced.
What this Bill is going to do as it moves on, despite whatever we may try to do this afternoon, is to reproduce the very elements which the Royal Commission on this subject found to be so worrying—namely, the power of national Government to be "the boss", in due course. The Royal Commission were worried that unless some method could be found, within the framework of local government, to tackle present problems of Greater London, the central Government would increasingly supersede the local authorities. I will give noble Lords on the other side this credit: that the Government of the day gave lip service to

1209
that, because in the White Paper of November, 1961, paragraph 12, they said:
"They"—
meaning the Royal Commission—
"thought that it would be disastrous for local government, and they were right".
Then the Government continued, in that paragraph, with such grandiloquent phrases as:
"That is the answer to those who say that a system of local government which recognises Greater London for some purposes is not local government at all."
I have no doubt that someone drafting that paragraph knew what it meant. But your Lordships will not need me to remind you that under the Government's plan, which we are now seeing moving to its final stage of becoming law, it is inevitable that there will be much intervention by the Departments of State.
My Lords, what are the facts to be faced? Some 20 boroughs are to be co-ordinated in the field of education; some 33 authorities are to be co-ordinated in the field of health, welfare and children's services. Does this not mean that there will be more, not less, intervention by the Departments of State? Moreover, as time goes on, we predict—as I think is clear from all the amendments we have moved to try to save this situation arising—that one thing is quite inevitable: that the boroughs set up will, in the circumstances and reality of Greater London, increasingly be found too small to administer the education and social services with which they will have been entrusted. We know, and we have said, that they are too small for aspects of many of the services now. The county councils, to which they are accustomed, having been abolished, there will be nowhere for these services to be transferred but to the Greater London Council; to ad hoc committees—which neither the Government nor any of us likes; to joint committees—which do not find much more approval with many of us; or alternatively, to the organised Central Government.
There it is, my Lords. I have tried not to speak too long. Like my noble Leader, there is much more I could have said. It was my last chance to say anything on this deplorable Bill, and I rose knowing that whatever I said would have no effect on the Government, who made up their mind long, long ago.
4.18 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, as the only representative from the Back Benchers of my Party, I hope I may be allowed to make a few observations on this Motion. I do not normally speak on the Third Reading of a Bill because it is a stage on which one does not usually speak unless strong feelings are felt, but I have certain feelings on this Bill, quite apart from Epsom and Ewell, to which I will come in a few moments. I should like, first of all, to make what is in effect a personal statement. During the marathon sitting of the night of July 2 and the morning of July 3, I think I should explain away what may have seemed discourtesy to the House. After the Amendment on the 5d. rate bar I was forced to leave the Chamber for the reason that my wife had driven up from Surrey to meet me and take me home, and one of our children having been ill, I thought it unfair that she should have an abnormally late night.
During these proceedings the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, took me to task, a little harshly perhaps, on the supposition that I had abstained from voting for an Amendment to which I had put my name. May I say at once that I completely accept his apology in the spirit in which it was given, but I hasten to assure him, his noble friends, and the House, that it would certainly be against my principles to abstain from voting on an Amendment to which I had added my name. I will say no more than that. I hope that he will now want to see me again. Whatever his feelings are, I certainly hope to see and hear the noble Lord again, because, whatever political feelings I may have in opposition to him, I know that Parliament would be the poorer without him.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his courtesy. For the record, I think I ought to mention that he has one point wrong. I chided him on two Amendments, on the first one of which I think he abstained. The second one was the one about which I apologised, but that was because we found that the noble Lord had voted, and in the right Lobby, too. So I think it must have been an earlier Amendment to which the noble Lord is now referring, and on which I did not apologise. But if he can prove to me that I ought, I will.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I will not go into the technicalities at this stage of the Bill. I completely accept the noble Lord's word, and in any case I can assure him that, far from there being any hard feelings, I think someone like myself, who has been in this House for a relatively short time, has often benefited by the chiding of his seniors, from whichever side of the House it may have come.
Although I support the principle of this Bill, since I think that boroughs will benefit by having more local government, I am unhappy about the rate bar, for the same reason that the noble Lord, Lord Crook, and others are. I shall say no more than that, but I hope that perhaps, even when the Bill becomes law, it will be possible for a review to be had if necessary, so that if the people concerned are heavily penalised, especially those living on fixed incomes and elderly people, it will be possible for some kind of review to be given. I know there are measures in the Bill dealing with these matters, but whether they are strong enough is another matter.
May I now especially thank my noble friends Lord Hastings and Lord Jellicoe for the extreme courtesy which they have shown throughout this Bill and for their great tenacity? I say this in all sincerity. I should like to congratulate noble Lords opposite for the spirit in which they have dealt with this Bill. I am bound to say that there have been times when I have disagreed but, after all, if we cannot have disagreement in a democracy—perhaps at times passionate disagreement—democracy goes by the board. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, would agree on that score. I have sat through many hours of this Bill and, like other noble Lords, I have worked a sixteen-hour day, because we have had mornings in our offices as well; and I think it has been a fair example of our British Parliament.
I disagree with some noble Lords opposite who say that this is a political Bill. I am not entirely in agreement with that. For one thing, if the Government had thought of it in terms purely of Party politics, bearing in mind the temporary tricky state in which the Conservative Party is at present, they might well have felt disposed either to drop
1212
the Bill or to amend it considerably. If I may be technical for a moment, I would point out that some of the ward boundaries bear that statement out. For example, the merging of Mitcham and Wimbledon and Merton and Morden cannot exactly be the kind of marriage—if you can call it that—to promote the interests of the Party to which I belong. I could instance others. Be that as it may, I certainly hope that, when the Bill becomes law, all councils and councillors, and all those engaged in local government, will band together to make it work. I am unhappy also about the arbitrary number of councillors—the bar of 60. I have not had experience of local government, as have many noble Lords opposite and some of my noble friends, so I cannot comment on that from any personal experience. But, again, I hope that the Government will review the position on this matter from time to time.
May I say a word about Epsom and Ewell? I am, of course, grateful to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe for accepting the situation as it now stands. His replies, whatever shortcomings there may have been in them, were, as always when he replies to a debate, courteous and well studied. I think thanks are due primarily to the Town Clerk and the Council, to the inhabitants of the northern wards, and to the Charter Mayor of Epsom who, as I have said before in this House and elsewhere, has a record of public service in Epsom and in the county second to none. I should also like to thank the right honourable gentleman the Solicitor-General. I think he has been a little unfairly criticised during the course of this fight, but may I make one point here? It was through him that, before this fight began for the three northern wards, one other important ward, Ewell Court, was excluded. Since then, even with his Government Department, he has constantly tried to help those of us who have now obtained what we wanted.
My noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton—who has asked me to apologise for his absence to-day; he has to attend a funeral—made a speech which I think will go down in the annals of this House as one of sound common sense on practical issues. The local Epsom and Surrey Press have campaigned for this, not in a partisan but

1213
in a responsible spirit, and all those living in these wards, particularly the Residents' Association, and others, too, have campaigned without any unreasonable partisanship. I would stress again that there has been no lobbying on my own side for this, and no large-scale lobbying in the areas concerned. I think that this was a decision bereft of Party motives.
We are very grateful, as I said earlier, to noble Lords opposite and to noble Lords on the Liberal Benches for their support and to many of my own noble friends. The only sour note, and I am bound to mention it, came from the Economist, in an article headed "Lords for Epsom." I do not propose to quote from it but I can show it to anyone who is interested. It is rather a long article and this is a Third Reading speech.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: You can quote from an article.
LORD AUCKLAND: Yes, but it is a rather long one. What they said, in essence, is that the unelected House has been irresponsible in making a decision of this kind and that these decisions do our House a great deal of harm. The Economist really cannot have it both ways. They and other papers have been saying from time immemorial that the House of Lords should try, so to speak, to redress some of the Party caucuses in another place, Party caucuses which at times must necessarily operate. I do not say this because this happens to be my own doing; I would say this on any occasion. Here is one on which a decision has been made of a non-Party nature, and I really think that this article in the Economist has been very much less than fair.
As I have said, we have discussed this Bill for a very long time; many of us have sat up late hours; many arguments have been put forward, and we are now reaching the closing stages of a long innings. I would say only this, in extending my own thanks again to all sides of the House: that those who have to operate these proceedings will be faced with a great challenge, and I think that in our quality of government, both national and local, they will not fail.
4.34 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I feel that at this stage of the Bill brevity is called for, because there is little fresh that any of us can say. However, I should like to express, on my own behalf as well as that of my colleagues, the appreciation of the courtesy extended by those in charge of the Bill to the Front Opposition Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, in introducing the Third Reading this afternoon said that he felt, and the Government felt, that the discussions in this House had been a credit to the House. From this side of the House, as a comparatively new Member, I would say that they have been an education, because the shift system which the Government introduced has enabled us to meet noble Lords opposite whom we have not met before and whom perhaps it will be a long time before we see again. But these meetings, though brief, have been very enjoyable.
During the Second Reading of the Bill I set out various services under the control of the Middlesex County Council and of the L.C.C. and posed the question as to whether in any respect or at any stage either of those Councils had fallen down on the job of providing an effective and efficient service to the citizens of Middlesex and London. That question was never answered by the Lord Chancellor, who replied to the debate at the end of the day. We have had a very lengthy Committee stage and Report stage, and again there has been no accusation whatever, nor any evidence produced, that in any field of local government service either of those two local government bodies have fallen down on their jobs. In fact, to be fair to the Government and the Government spokesman, they have gone out of their way at all stages of the Bill to express the fact, on behalf of the Government, that both Councils have provided good services; and they paid tribute to the quality and standard of administration of those services. The only claim the Government have put forward at all stages of the Bill has been that there are all-purpose authorities, county boroughs, in various parts of the country who administer, or have the power and authority to administer, all the services, and who do that job efficiently. The Government's case is that if it can be done in a comparatively small county borough, or in much larger county

1215
boroughs like Birmingham, Manchester and the rest, then the breaking down of the large authority of Middlesex and of London ought to work out all right in the end.
My Lords, I think it is a little difficult to understand a Government who can disrupt local government services and make no pretence of claiming that the new system they are to introduce will in any way cause a better standard of service, greater efficiency or greater health and well-being of the peoples of London, Middlesex, or the annexed parts of Hertfordshire, Surrey, Kent and Essex. Even at this late stage—and I am sorry that the Lord Chancellor is not at the moment on the Woolsack, because he is to reply—I put a question to him. If, as the Government have accepted throughout all the stages of the Bill, there has been no failure on the part of the existing authorities, and the new authorities will in no way enhance the standard of local government, why create this upheaval? Because, whatever is done—and this is no criticism whatever of the new authorities which will be set up—in the early stages of the re-created boroughs, and re-created educational authorities and the rearrangement of the services, there is bound to be an upheaval; and until they get working smoothly (which may take one year or two years) there is bound to be hardship to the peoples to whom those services are rendered, and there is bound to be the provision for that period of time of a lower standard of service. How anyone who is associated with Government, and who has responsibility for seeing that local government services throughout the country are maintained on as high a standard as possible, can take action which will endanger the standard of services to the people is really beyond me.
The noble Viscount who leads this House has over the past few weeks been preaching—I was almost going to say putting on an act—about high moral tone. There can be no claim to any high moral tone by the Government in regard to the introduction of this Bill. I would put it to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, again, were he here, that this is a dying Government, to put it at its best. It is a discredited Government, and even noble
1216
Lords opposite would not claim that the Government and the Tory Party generally are in the highest of spirits and are looking forward to an early Election. Then why, in the dying days, or dying months, at most, of a Government should we have this Bill placed on the Statute Book?
Let us face it. My noble Leader today, in his introductory speech, said that whenever an Election comes, if there is the return of a Labour Government that Government will look at the repeal of this Bill, or its rearrangement, in order to reinstitute many of the institutions which have been destroyed by this Bill. That creates even further uncertainty. No effective and efficient service can be rendered in local government during periods of uncertainty as to what is going to happen from month to month or year to year. I suggest that, even at this late stage, the Bill should be at least postponed, as was suggested by my noble Leader this afternoon. If this Government came back at the next General Election, then I am certain we could promise from this side of the House there would be no interference with the Bill. But this Bill is not a credit to the Government which has introduced it. But, what is worse, so far as I am concerned, it leads to an undermining of the standards of local government service to the peoples of Middlesex and London. After all, local government exists in order to render to the people the highest standard of service possible, and equally, at the least possible cost. That is endangered by this Bill, and therefore it is with no enthusiasm that we leave the Bill to-day on its Third Reading.
4.43 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment. This day may well be known as London's Black Monday, for to-day this House may decide, at the behest of the Tory Party and Tory Government, to dismantle the local government of London. If this odious Bill becomes an Act, it will cast the people's local government with its comprehensive social services into the unknown, where upheaval, fragmentation and disarray will preside and prevail. This Bill was conceived in malice, was born in iniquity and it will function in confusion. The provisions of the Bill constitute, not, as

1217
is alleged, reorganisation, but the disruption and dismantling of local government, under which frustration and uncertainty will abound. In truth as a measure of reorganisation it is a bogus Bill.
This Bill is the most insidious ever promoted in the history of local government in this country. In their unrestrained haste to hamstring progressive local government in London, this doddering and insecure Government, which are under notice to quit, have decided to sacrifice the social services of the people of London, services which have been built up by their dedicated devotion and that of their predecessors. Thus the interests of the people are to be sacrificed on the altar of Party spite, spittalled with the spleen of little-minded men and women who are vassals of the Party machine.
Throughout the consideration of the Bill, notwithstanding what has been said this afternoon, in Committee or at Report, we were repeatedly told that there could be no departure from the principle decided upon by the Government, on which principle, or alleged principle, the Bill is based. And there was no departure of importance, however wise, however proper, however suitable our Amendments were. It was take it or leave it. In the debates the Government spokesmen sought frequently to justify the provisions of the Bill by reference to some esoteric principle, variable when necessary, and if that sounded a bit thin, as it often did, resort was then had to the Royal Commission, to what the Commission said or did not say. As I stated in the Second Reading debate, the Government have discarded much that the Royal Commission recommended, including elements of the much vaunted "broad design" to which almost lyrical reference is made in the White Paper Command 1562. It could be said that where the Commission were right the Government rejected their recommendations, and where the Commission were wrong the Government have embraced them.
From a wide and comprehensive absence of experience, the Commission made the weird and wonderful discovery that what was needed in London government was to improve its status, to en-
1218
hance its dignity and to foster and cultivate a share of self-importance in the members of the authorities. These are the qualities that matter first before the services and facilities: so said the Commission and so said the Government. Then the Commission made a remarkable discovery, that the commuter resident, among others, in an area to be torn from its historic county—let me emphasise this—considers Greater London to be his city, that he too is a Londoner. Could anything be more inept? I know how the real Londoner would describe a statement of that kind, and so does my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth. And yet it is upon such nonsense as this that the alleged reorganisation of London's government is based, according to the White Paper to which I have already referred.
The purpose of local government is the provision of those collective services, aids and facilities which are part of the attributes of modern civilised society. It is not to puff up the status of local authorities or their members. Nor should functions be given to them in order that they may have something to do. The allocation of functions should be based on how best the functions can be performed, and where. The functions to be given under the Bill to the London boroughs reflect this upside-down wisdom of the Commission. Thus, there are 33 of everything in many cases, and in the inner boroughs there will be 13 of everything, temporarily. And so the dignity of the boroughs will prevail at the expense of the services.
As an example, the Government solemnly insisted that the inner boroughs and the City should have the power to make by-laws covering, if you please, the carriage of offensive matter through the streets. No doubt this will redound to enhance the status of the boroughs, each of which can make, in dignity, separate sets of by-laws, to the greater glory of that offensive matter especially if it possesses a pungent olfactory constituent. Furthermore, and for the same reason, the Government have insisted that the mortuary service should go to the boroughs, doubtless to show the Government's undying devotion to borough dignity, dead or alive. So it comes about that the social services of the people are

1219
to be torn up from their roots, to be replanted in confusion and to be fertilised in inadequacy and inefficiency. This is the Government's gift to the people of London. Let it be said a thousand times that the Government are responsible for this monstrous injustice to London. The executioners are here, led by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. They are here to do their fell work.
The speeches made from the Government Benches have all been devoid of real understanding and appreciation of the human elements of local government. They were concerned with its form and structure rather than with the warm flesh and blood of men, women and children, whose interests it is the finest mission of local government to serve. Summarily stated, this so-called reorganisation of local government in London will put units in place of people, and dignity and status in place of services and facilities.
I cannot help feeling that there are present in this Chamber this day the elements of a social tragedy, for two great agencies for the welfare of the people are to be destroyed—the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council. As I have said, the executioners are here; albeit, it is not they who are responsible, but the evil men who control the Tory Party and the Tory Government. It is they who are doing this odious thing in order, principally, to destroy the London County Council, one of the greatest municipal authorities in the world, if not the greatest. For three quarters of a century the L.C.C. has served successive generations of the people of this great Capital City, in helpfulness, kindliness and gracefulness for at least the past 30 years. Now, because of its success, because of its achievements, and because of its fulfilment, the London County Council is to be destroyed with all the impalpable ethos of service which it has created and nurtured over the years.
History will pass its ultimate judgment on this foul deed. I think there is little doubt as to what that judgment will be. For my part, as one who served the L.C.C. for wellnigh twenty years, I conclude by saying, may the wrath of the people descend upon those who have done this wicked thing, for they are the guilty men of 1963.
4.55 p.m
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I think my sole qualification for rising this afternoon is the precise opposite from one of the many qualifications that my noble friend Lord Latham has for speaking, and that is that until this Bill found its way into your Lordships' House I was to all intents and purposes entirely ignorant of the working of the London County Council and of all the matters pertaining to it. I cannot say that my attitude with regard to it was that of sitting on the fence; it was rather the attitude of being perched upon a three-legged stool, the legs of which were not too well made. As I have said, my first leg was ignorance of these matters, the fact that I was remote from them, being a resident neither in the London area nor in any of the counties immediately adjacent and affected. The second leg to my stool was my profound respect for my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and therefore he was bound to exert considerable influence upon any thought that I might have upon this matter. The third leg of this stool was the fact that I belong to the only progressive Party in this country, and therefore I certainly had no preconceived ideas as to the immutability or resistance to change that there may be in an institution such as the London County Council. In fact, I thought that if anything had been in existence for as long as the L.C.C. had been, it was probably well in need of change and reform in some manner or another. So I looked forward to the discussion with some considerable interest and with a relatively open mind.
As your Lordships have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, we have spent 115 hours listening to, a very small part of which, so far as I am concerned, has been occupied actually speaking on, these matters. I must say that during the course of those 115 hours my views have somewhat crystallised. During the 115 hours I have learned a great deal. I have learned an increased respect for the iron fist in the velvet glove of the Government Whips, for the discipline which has been willingly shown and submitted to on both sides of the House. I have learned that many noble Lords seem to regard late night sittings here with as much pleasure as other people are prepared to spend long hours in

1221
night clubs, or even at some of the stripteases in Soho. I have also learned from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, in his final spate of statistics, that we have on 85 occasions passed through the Division Lobbies. A short calculation led me to realise that had certain noble Lords, instead of walking that distance through the Division Lobbies, been running between the stumps at Lords during the recent test match, they would have added something like 341 to the English score. I think they would have been far better occupied doing that than by moving round the Division Lobbies here.
But I learned, I think, more important things than that. I have realised the enormous importance of the local government of London, not only to those people who actually live in the London area but also to the country outside. I have learned of the invaluable help that has been given, and is being given to-day, by the L.C.C. to the old people of London, to the homeless of London, to the sick and to the children in the educational services; and I have come to have a great respect for them and gratitude to the people who keep it up. I have also come to realise how very important the whole structure of local government is to the creation and maintenance of democracy in our local government throughout the whole country: that if we have the right structure in our local government, democracy will flourish; and if we have the wrong structure, if it becomes powerless, or impersonal, or too big, or too bureaucratic, it will wither away. If it withers away in local government we cannot expect it to survive in national government. That is the first leg of the stool on which I was sitting.
The second one is this. My respect for my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth has undoubtedly increased (if such a thing were possible), not only because of his obvious love for the L.C.C., his obvious devotion to probably his first and greatest love as a young man; but, above all, because of his knowledge of local affairs and local administration, and his real interest not only in the form of local administration, but in the end results: the people who are being looked after, helped and governed by these democratic organisations.
I come to the third leg of the stool. I still believe that there is need for change.
1222
I do not believe that the L.C.C., even in its present form, is perfect. It is no "sacred cow" which cannot be touched. The letters "L.C.C." do not stand as some people seem to think for "London's Consecrated Cow". It is something which, like all organisations, is capable of improvement. It should be improved and we should not, and do not, reject a new idea simply because it is changing something that is already there. It is to be rejected only if it is changing something that is good for something that is worse. That is the strongest impression I have taken away from listening to all these lengthy debates; that this great opportunity for improving a great organisation has been wantonly thrown away by this Government. This whole Bill is ill-thought out, hurried, and gives every indication of having been pushed with undue haste for reasons other than those of efficient administration.
Again, one has only to look at the figures given us by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, as to the number of Amendments which have been accepted. I think he told us the figure was 80.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, 80 Amendments of substance.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, 80 Amendments of substance. What are the Government up to, bringing a Bill into this Chamber after it has been through another place in such a form that they themselves have to admit (and we are grateful to them for admitting it, though they did so only in face of overwhelming argument) that there are still 80 matters of substance on which it has been possible to improve it? We contend that there are many other matters of substance. I am not being ungracious to them, and we thank them for making that admission; but there is evidence to show that the Bill in its original form was hurried and was not thoroughly thought out. The edict had gone out that Carthage was to be destroyed, and it was to be destroyed by the end of this Session. That is the reason for the ill-considered form in which this Bill has come before us. As I have said, we are in favour of Amendments and alterations which are going to make the administration of the Greater London Council authority, whatever it may be, better. But in the course of our consideration of this Bill we have seen that some of

1223
those things which could be better have been neglected entirely, and many of those things which are already good have been utterly destroyed.
On top of that, no time has been given for any running-in period, for getting over essential teething troubles which anybody who wishes this Bill, even in its present form, to succeed, knows is absolutely essential, unless grave hardship is to be caused to the people concerned. As we have watched the progress of this Bill, it has been borne upon us time and again that the refusal of the Government to accept Amendments has been based not on the lack of merits of the Amendments but on the Government's innate mistrust of anything that has come from this side of the House and their doctrinaire adherence to their preconceived ideas. So I, for one, cannot be surprised if my noble friends on this side have from time to time imputed bad motives to the Government for this indecent haste.
The first question we should ask ourselves, after all this, is: Will London, in its wide sense, in 1970, be a better-governed place as a result of the passing of this Bill, or will it be worse governed? The second question is: Will democracy, local self-government in London, be stronger in 1970 than it is at the present time? Having listened to these debates, I am convinced that the answer to both those questions is, No. What is even worse is that by the passage of this Bill we have postponed for a far longer time than otherwise would have been the case the chance of improving the good, though not perfect, set-up that exists to-day in London. We had a chance, which we on this side should have welcomed, of seeing an even greater Phœnix arise from the ashes of the old Phœnix of the L.C.C. We had a chance of crying, "The London County Council is dead. Long live the Greater London Council!" But that chance has been denied us, because the Government, in their blind adherence to these words which have gone out, "The L.C.C. must be destroyed", have refused to allow to be built on this grand foundation which is already there a structure which is worthy of the new responsibilities. By doing that they have not only dealt a harsh blow to the young, the old, the
1224
sick and the ordinary citizen, who have already been living under the L.C.C. and who have benefited from the good things they have done, but they have also dealt a blow throughout the whole country to this far wider question of local self-government and of democracy. My Lords, that is something which the country will find it very hard indeed to forgive.
5.8 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, those of us on this side who have been occupied in the long hours of the Bill are grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, when he praised us for the persistence with which we either attacked him or inquired. The noble Lord referred to a remark I had made at the end of the Report stage, which gave the impression that I had congratulated the Ministers on the manner in which they had looked into and dealt with our particular speeches. However, I would draw the noble Lord's attention to what I actually said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 251 (No. 106), col 878]:
"I think we shall also wish to thank the noble Lords, the Ministers, for their care and attention in their replies. Not always has their case matched their own eloquence…".
We have had many notable and extremely persuasive speeches, particularly from the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, but we have always felt, except in one particular case on Civil Defence, that the Government have not met the case that has been deployed repeatedly from this side. In particular, I think of the children, the health service and, as my noble friend refers to them, the silent ones—those who are mentally sick.
The Government could well have made concessions without affecting the principles that underlie this Bill. I would again refer the noble Earl to the question of elections. My noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, speaking with all his experience as a Party politician, as a Party manager, and as one intimately connected with London, advised the Government that it would be utterly wrong and against the principles of local self-government if they held the elections for the Greater London Council and the borough councils on the same day. I thought it was appreciated on all sides of the House that the issues that might dominate in a borough election could

1225
well be completely different from the issues that would dominate in a Greater London Council election. There are many here who sit on county councils. They themselves would be the first to say that there are many issues in county council elections which are quite different from the issues that would arise in a parish or rural district election. So far as I know, there is no case where a rural district election has been held on the same day as a county council election.
I think it is recognised by those who have experience in this matter that it is wrong for them to adopt this course, but the Government obstinately refuse to listen to advice. I believe that this is one of the greatest disservices that the Government have rendered to local government in London. It has always been recognised, on all sides, that the political Parties themselves are the mainstay of local interests, either in local affairs or in national politics. If you cannot provide a pattern for elections which political Parties are able to use, by which they are able to put forward their particular points of view, without getting them blurred because of the different issues, then I say that you have not given proper service to democracy and, in this particular case, to local government.
We also are grateful to the Government for having accepted the decision of this House in regard to Epsom and Ewell. I thought an overwhelming case was made, but I would remind the House that an equally good case was made in regard to Caterham and Warlingham. But presumably Caterham and Warlingham do not have the power and the resources that Epsom and Ewell have to put their case.
LORD HASTINGS: Does the noble Lord not mean Coulsdon and Purley?
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes; I beg your Lordships' pardon. A similar case was made for these two areas, and I am glad that the House was persuaded by those interested—
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I think that Epsom and Ewell is the only borough with a mayor and corporation which has been affected by this Bill. While I agree to a large extent with what the noble Lord has said, I think that is the strongest case for Epsom and Ewell.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord will agree with me that a mayor and corporation do not make an area. They are merely the figureheads and representatives. What we are concerned with are the areas, and the position these particular areas have in regard to the Greater London area. However, we will leave it at that. I am glad that we have had at least one success.
Then we had this remarkable position with regard to the City of London. Noble Lords, have admitted, time and time again, that the government of the City of London is not true local government. Yet while we are to see this change made against the wishes of the electors of the Surrey County Council and others, the one body which is recognised as completely undemocratic is to remain intact. My Lords, this is another reason for expressing our regret to the Government that this is a Bill of a political nature.
I think the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, appreciates the concern in regard to the children's service. I hope that the Government will look carefully at the development of the children's service and if they see that the position of the children is in any way being affected because of this measure will not be slow in admitting their mistake and in bringing forward legislation to rectify matters. It has been said that education should go with children, and that children should go with education. With the creation of this new educational organisation the Government have admitted that, for the time being at least, the present educational service in central London should remain. I should have thought that as the Government had accepted the case for education they could recognise the case for the children's service. It is true that children go with health, but it would not have been beyond the wit even of this Government, to find some flexibility within the health service; because noble Lords have said that there is always flexibility here and that we can always get together. But the problem of health could easily have been overcome. The children's service, which has proved itself to be one of the finest in the country, could have been retained and could have worked side by side with the educational service; but the Government have refused even that.
However, I would beg the noble Earl, because I believe he is a man of good

1227
heart, if his Ministry see a breakdown of this vital service affecting 9,000 children, to be prepared to stake his reputation—because his reputation is at stake, as he has said that he is satisfied—that he will come before this House and say that something shall be done, and will put the measure before us. We will not criticise him for it; we will praise him. Because, my Lords, these 9,000 children should be very much on our conscience.
My Lords, I believe that this Bill may go through its early stages. I do not think it will be put into effect. I believe we shall see a General Election and I have no doubt as to the result. I should be indeed surprised if my Party, which would then be in power, did not take the necessary action to prevent this Bill from being put into effect. We should have to do it because, in our view, with all sincerity, and Party politics apart, we believe that this Bill cannot provide effective local government, that its organisation will not lead to healthy understanding by the people of local government. My Lords, I think this is one of the most retrograde steps that I am aware of in the history of British Parliament.
5.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am proud to speak in this debate between my noble friend Lord Shepherd and my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth. As our noble Leader, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has said, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has supplied us with magnificent inspiration in our resistance; and the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth himself has, of course, done more for London government than anyone alive, although he has been ably assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin and other noble Lords.
My Lords, this debate brings to a close what is surely a discussion of the most important measure in this Session. I agree if I may say so respectfully, with my own Leader, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, in expressing astonishment that the Cabinet has been represented here so little. I do not know whether there is any excuse for the absence of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. It seems to me that there are some movements of the head opposite but I do
1228
not know whether I am to take them as amounting to anything in particular. It is to me astounding that, with this tremendous measure in front of us, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, does not even bother to come down and sit here. I do not know whether he will bother to vote: let us hope he will be too ashamed to do that. But I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will tell the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that in our view his absence to-day is quite indefensible. In many ways he is proving an excellent Leader of the House but, in the view of all of us on these Benches, in connection with this Bill he has fallen a long way below his standard.
Then we have the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. For a time I thought he had absconded. There was a long moment—at least it was rather more than a moment—when he was not with us. He will forgive me for saying, respectfully of course, that he has played a much less conspicuous part in this discussion than some of us expected when we knew he was to be in charge of the Bill, because we know that he is a very thorough professional man. Of course, on the Second Reading he made the outrageous statement to the effect that the general principles on which this Bill is based command general approval among local authorities and informed people concerned with local government. We have not seen many of them about, and we have not seen many coming out to defend the Government. Certainly there have been very few people on their own side; with the single exception of the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, who should be saluted for at least trying to defend the Bill, we have seen no support from any other quarter of the House.
My Lords, when I think of the part played by the Lord Chancellor in this and the tremendous assaults on his able lieutenants, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, I recall the story of the Marquess of Clanricarde, who was an absentee Irish landlord and a gentleman whose rents were exceptionally high: I believe that he lived in the Carlton Club. On one occasion he received a telegram from his agent saying, "Tenants say they will murder

1229
me unless you lower rents", to which the noble Marquess knew the answer. He wired back: "No threat to your person can intimidate me". That, roughly speaking, has been the attitude of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the face of the assaults on his subordinates. I think he would agree that he has not found it—I think he would say, "necessary" to come to their assistance; at any rate he has not come to their assistance in the great difficulties in which they have found themselves.
Your Lordships will not expect me to run over much of this ground again, but let me just say a few words about the social services. Take the London Teachers' Association. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, questioned my statement that the London Teachers' Association was 100 per cent. against this Bill. I daresay that was too strong an expression, but certainly they are overwhelmingly against the Bill. I have received a further communication from them to-day. They say:
"From the first formulation of the Government's proposals for the reorganisation of London local government, the London Teachers' Association has strongly opposed the fragmentation of the London County Council's Education Service as being fraught with grave dangers to London's schools and the education of London's children. All the London associations of teachers, united in a common effort, were joined by great numbers of parents in strongly opposing the Government's original intentions. This led to the modified plan to set up an Inner London Education Authority. The London Teachers' Association, however, believes that the danger to London's schools has not been removed. It believes, too, that the administration of an Inner London Education Service, separated from the other children's and social services, is likely to encounter great difficulties. In particular, the clause specifying a review before 1970 prevents any important planning being undertaken by the I.L.E.A.
"The London Teachers' Association continues, therefore, strongly to oppose the Bill and welcomes the undertaking given by Her Majesty's Opposition to repeal the Bill when it becomes an Act, if circumstances make this possible. It calls, even at this late hour, for the withdrawal of the Bill, and for consultations between the Government and the local authorities to ensure that London's education system shall continue to develop unhindered."
My Lords, I can quote the child care officers; I can quote many of those involved in providing these social services, and many who are interested in those who receive them. In the last resort I
1230
would say that no serious argument has been brought forward from the other side in favour of these changes in the social services as they stand in themselves. At an earlier stage the noble Lord, Lord Newton (and as he is not here and therefore has not perhaps received any bouquets, let me at any rate pay him the compliment of saying that he has always preserved a friendly face in the teeth of a lot of sharp criticism), said that this Bill was intended to improve the arrangements for traffic and planning; and he implied, although he did not put it quite like this, that education therefore had to be fitted in. That has really been the whole story: the social services had to be "fitted in" to the revolutionary plan of the Government.
To take a particular issue, take the Government's defence on the subject of the fragmentation of the children's service. That is a matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made so powerful a speech on the Report stage, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, if I may say so, made a most gallant and comprehensive attempt to reply to the particular points. It is perhaps just worth looking at the general argument put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, about the children's service. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 251 (No. 105), col. 735]:
"…given that a choice has to be made—and the choice does have to be made—between health, welfare and housing, on the one hand, and education, on the other, we believe that it is right to associate the children's service with the former group. I would concede that in the best of all possible worlds it would be pleasant not to have to make the choice".
Of course there was no need to have to make that choice, and this arises from this Bill. Perhaps I may quote the noble Lord, Lord Hastings—I will not quote him at length, and if he thinks I ought to quote more he will tell me so. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 248 (No. 72), col. 1228]:
"The Government's case for a children's service organised on a borough basis does not rest on the record of the L.C.C. (or of the other affected authorities), but on the belief that, given that local government in Greater London is to be reorganised, the proper place for the children's service—along with the other personal services—is with the boroughs."
So that in tackling all these new social services the argument always is that

1231
once one assumes that there must be a fundamental reorganisation, this particular service must move with the others into the boroughs. That has been the basis of the argument, of which I have given two illustrations, throughout the Committee stage and the long discussions on the social services.
So, my Lords, we are back once again asking the fundamental question: "Why this change?" Of course, one may say that the Government are mad; that it is purely fatuous; that there is no reason in it all. I was reading a most attractive autobiography the other day by a friend of some of us here, Mr. Michael Astor. He recalls when, during the war, he was going on leave and was advised by his colonel to have his appendix out. He said there was nothing wrong with his appendix, and the colonel replied, "That does not matter; it makes you a better officer if you have your appendix out". The colonel apparently said, "I had my appendix out whilst I was on leave in India". You may take the line that the whole thing is a fit of madness, that there is no rhyme or reason in it at all. That would be the most charitable view you could arrive at, but I am afraid that I cannot take that view.
I am afraid I must form the opinion that the Government decided at a certain point that the L.C.C. must be destroyed; and once you commit one murder you are led on to others. If you take Macbeth, he murdered Duncan and then after that there was an irresistible case for getting rid of the guards and Banquo, and any available members of the Macduff family and anybody else he could lay his hands on who might possibly interfere with the full consummation of the crime. That is the position of noble Lords. They have decided to destroy the L.C.C., and to "bust" the whole thing up; to build up the boroughs; and then, when it comes to any particular service, they say, "Health has gone already, so child care has got to go with it." They present that kind of argument, and it all stems from the original murder.
We are then forced back to ask the question about motives. It is unpleasant, as I said at a much earlier stage in these proceedings, to impute bad motives to those opposed to one in politics. It is a good rule to avoid such an imputation—and let me say that, in my period in
1232
public life, I cannot remember an occasion when I have found it my own duty to make that sort of attribution. But, of course, for some of us who have been in this House for some years it is not the first time that so-called political motives have been attributed to far-reaching proposals. If we go back to 1949, at the time when the Iron and Steel Bill was being introduced, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, then the Leader of the House (I gave him notice this morning, but I do not think he is able to be here), did not hesitate to attribute most unworthy motives to the Government of the day. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 162, col. 1018]:
"I will therefore repeat—and I think everybody really knows it—that the motive is purely political…".
He was referring to the motive for the introduction of the Iron and Steel Bill.
"That motive is purely political, and all those elaborate economic arguments about the necessity for increasing production and the closer integration of the industry and so on are pure 'ballyhoo' to deceive the public".
That is what the noble Marquess, who then was, and now is, very profoundly admired in this House, said about our proposals—that the arguments behind them were "'ballyhoo' to deceive the public".
What is sauce for the noble Marquess is sauce for lower Members of the nobility on this side of the House, and I can therefore assure him that, in our view, all these arguments that we have heard in favour of these changes are "ballyhoo". I will not even say "to deceive the public". I think I will stop short and, just for once, teach the noble Marquess a lesson in restraint. I will say they are pure "ballyhoo", and leave it there.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: And we had a mandate.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: As the noble Earl says, we had a mandate, which is a lot more than the noble Lords opposite have. May I quote the famous orator Grattan, when he was opposing the destruction of the Irish Parliament?—
"The Constitution may, for a time, be so lost—the character of the country cannot be so lost".
I doubt whether even the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, can rescue

1233
the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, now—it is too late, I am afraid; that rescue should have come much earlier in the Bill—but if I might obtain the attention of the Lord Chancellor just for one closing moment (and I can assure him I do not want to interfere at all with discussions) I would say this. Our present rulers, in this last malevolent spasm, are acting contrary not only to the immediate wishes but to the whole character of the people of London. I cannot believe that they will ultimately succeed. I was told that when the Iron and Steel Bill was being carried some civil servants who were asked to prepare the Bill for us were already getting ready a Bill to cancel it out. That may or may not be true, but I hope that they are getting ready a Bill to cancel this one out—although I am bound to say that I do not think it will cause them very much exertion: one or two clauses should do the job. It is a great pleasure and a privilege to speak before the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and to throw my weight behind him and all the rest of our Party in opposing this wicked Bill.
5.36 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I had no intention whatever of speaking when I entered the House. I so often find the noble Earl who has just sat down agreeable to listen to, and he often deviates into sense, but I am bound to say that I do not think he did on this occasion. I rise only because I think it might perhaps be misunderstood if the whole reply on all this were left to Her Majesty's Government. I was critical, and am critical, of certain parts of this Bill. I made that quite clear in the debate on Second Reading and I made it clear in the Committee stage. I am glad to say that I was not without success in altering certain parts of this Bill, particularly those dealing with transport. Nevertheless, I have never thought—nor, I think, has anybody on this side thought—that there is not a case for the reform of local government in London. I do not think that anybody, whatever his views on the L.C.C., thought, in the events that have happened, that the L.C.C. area represented a reality that should be preserved.
For the moment, I am not concerned whether it is a good Bill or a bad Bill,
1234
whether it does the thing as well as it should be done or does not. But what is the point of saying, as the whole attack on this Bill, that the motive of the Bill is to destroy the L.C.C., if by universal admission by all people who think at all about local government in London the L.C.C. area is known to be the wrong size? I doubt whether even the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, would dispute that. I am not saying at the moment whether all this Bill is wise—the House is well aware that I am by no means satisfied with some of the planning provisions—but I cannot believe that any serious person can possibly think that the whole motive for a major reform of local government in London can arise out of dislike for the L.C.C. Whatever the explanation may be, that explanation simply will not work.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It has long been stated by the present Home Secretary. He threatened it, and he is now getting it.
LORD CONESFORD: The Home Secretary, I think, has long thought, as have so many people, that in modern conditions the L.C.C. represented an area which was not an area which could be preserved in any reform of local government for the London area. The same conclusion was reached by the Royal Commission; the same conclusion has been reached by a number of experts of all Parties. I am not saying for the moment whether they are right or wrong, but they believed, at any rate, that the L.C.C. area was the wrong size, and had no hesitation in saying so.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: But at any rate the Government had no mandate for this Bill, and the electorate—those who are really interested in municipal matters and go to the polls—have been against the Government right the way through on it.
LORD CONESFORD: I was not dealing for the moment with the question of mandate. I am interested in the sudden conversion of noble Lords opposite to the doctrine of mandate, and particularly interested when I remember their attitude to the abolition of the university seats—a matter on which in the previous Parliament, sitting at a Speaker's Conference, they had agreed without dissension to the

1235
maintenance of those seats. Nevertheless, when they came back, they had no, or very little, hesitation in abolishing them.
This idea of a mandate is a rather novel conversion. It has been said that they abolished University seats because I was a University Member. As a matter of fact, there was a Member for Cambridge University to whom they equally objected; and the late Walter Elliot had also won a seat for a university constituency. The joke was that, the University seats having been abolished, all three representatives came back for ordinary constituencies. The argument at that time was that many of us who then represented University seats could not expect to be elected for any other. I pointed out that the converse was much truer: there were a great many people elected for other seats who could not possibly hope to be elected for the Universities. But I must not be diverted by this.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it is a sorry argument to give a university man two votes to the one of the ordinary person.
LORD CONESFORD: It is extraordinary that these arguments against University seats were not obvious to the representatives of the Labour Party who sat on the Speaker's Conference and who agreed, without dissension, that the University seats should be preserved; and after they had had some legislation in the previous Parliament on the footing of that agreement, they proceeded—without saying anything about abolition of the seats in their programme—to abolish them. So much for the Opposition's attitude to the mandate.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, the noble Lord forgets that in the House of Commons Sir Winston Churchill denounced us for abolishing University seats because if he had them it would make a Tory majority. He regarded them as pocket boroughs for discarded and would-be M.Ps.
LORD CONESFORD: Really, my Lords, I must not get too involved in this subject. I should like to say to the noble Earl opposite that I think that is a complete misrepresentation of the argument that my right honourable friend, the then Leader of the Opposition in another place, put forward. Possibly,
1236
one of the reasons why he did not proceed to restore the University seats when he formed a Government was not unconnected with numbers. But I may say that, if anybody thought that the Universities could safely be relied upon to vote Tory, they were very much mistaken.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, made an extraordinary attack on my noble and learned friend, Lord Hailsham, apparently for not being here. I thought that attack, if I may say so with great moderation and politeness, was the most complete poppycock. Noble Lords opposite seem to think that their arguments gain in strength through wearisome repetition; and that, if they all say the same thing often enough and at enough tedious length, that somehow casts a duty on the members of the Cabinet to come here to listen to them again and again. It does nothing of the sort. I have no particular love of all the actions of this present Cabinet—in fact, I think they produce a good many silly Bills—but, nevertheless, I should be very sorry to think that my noble and learned friend, Lord Hailsham, had not something better and more important to do than to listen to the speeches delivered from the other side this afternoon. I should have regarded it as a gross dereliction of duty had he felt it incumbent upon him, with all the important public duties that he has, to listen to them all. I was astonished by the amount of time he spent here. During the all-night sitting I myself urged him to go home and leave it to others, but he thought it his duty to attend the House, in such a way, I should have thought, as to make nonsense of the criticism being brought against him for his absence to-day.
The noble Lord then proceeded to attack my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for not coming to the aid of members of his Front Bench who have conducted the main battle. But why should the noble and learned Lord perform such a work of supererogation? —the noble Earl, Lord Longford, will know what that means. Anything more superfluous than that the Lord Chancellor should come to the aid of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, I cannot imagine. Those arguments that came from the Opposition that did not answer themselves were most effectively countered by Lord Jellicoe. Whatever else can be said

1237
against this Bill—and I have found quite a number of things to say against certain parts of it, particularly against the planning provisions—it cannot be attacked on the ground that it was premature to reform the government of London. Nor can it be sensibly attacked because in its main provisions it follows the recommendations of a Royal Commission.
My Lords, I should like, if I may, to conclude by saying a few words about the part of the Bill with which I must admit I am least satisfied. I succeeded in getting a great improvement of the traffic provisions on all the main points I mentioned on Second Reading. I did not have similar success in the main Amendment that I moved dealing with the planning of Central London. As a friend of the architects and planners who have tried their best to plan Central London and who have the most farsighted views as to how that should be accomplished, may I say that I hope an ambitious view will be taken of the powers that, even in the Bill as it stands, are left to the Greater London Council? I believe that if that Council take the view of their duty that they would have taken had they had much greater powers in the centre, they will not be going beyond what they are entitled to do under the Bill as it now stands. I believe that if they bring forward a sufficiently good plan under the powers that are left they will find many friends in all Parties and in all professions who will battle to see that the provisions of their plan get embodied in the plan or plans which finally become law. That is all I will say about the merits or demerits of the part of the Bill of which I am most critical.
As I said in speaking on Second Reading, this at any rate is to be said for the Government: they have tackled the reform of London Government which is a task long overdue. It is quite absurd to say that the whole explanation for that major reform must be a disapproval of or an enmity to the London County Council, when most thinking people know that, whatever one thought of the L.C.C., its area was the wrong one. As can be seen from my earlier speeches (before this Bill was introduced), nobody gave more praise than I did to the Architect's Department of the L.C.C. There were many things about the L.C.C. which I admired, but I cannot pretend that the
1238
area is the right size. I thought it inappropriate that nothing should be said from the Back Benches, after the speech by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and I hope that the House will forgive me for having detained it.
5.50 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but after some of the speeches we have heard to-day, including the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, I should like to say a word or two. I feel that this Bill cannot be ascribed to mere hostility to the L.C.C. I want to say, to begin with, that we have seen a remarkable performance on the part of the Labour Opposition in your Lordships' House. I know only too well the difficulties of trying to run an opposition to a major Bill of this kind. I had to take the lead on the Rent Bill at short notice, and I know what it means. There is no doubt that the Labour Opposition have put up a magnificent performance, day after day, night after night, in their defence of the L.C.C. and in their opposition to this Bill. We supported many of these Amendments, and I believe that if their Amendments had been carried the Bill would have been a much better Bill. But that was not to be.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and as one who has no hostility whatsoever to the L.C.C., I believe that this reform in local government had to come. In my view, it is in line with the reform of local government which should have taken place in the country as a whole. In my own country of Wales, in certain parts of England and in Scotland, there is great need for regional authorities able to provide the main services, while the second tier—the boroughs, or whatever they may be—would be able to deal with matters that are particularly near to the people whom they represent. This is a principle which the Liberal Party are anxious to see carried out and which I think is enshrined in this Bill. There is a regional authority for this huge complex of London, and then there are the boroughs. Up to now, the boroughs have not had the authority which they should have had, and as a result they have not attracted the interest and support of the public. If we take the latest by-election in Chelsea, we see that there was—I hesitate to say, a 13 per cent. poll, but

1239
it was not much more. That is the sort of interest which is taken in the boroughs at the moment. I believe that if the boroughs have the authority which they will now have under this Bill, their inhabitants will take a great deal more interest than they have done hitherto.
But there is one blot on this Bill which I must mention. I cannot understand why, if the Government intended to make a real job of this local government reform, they should have included in the Bill the retention of the old, antiquated, reactionary City and Corporation of London. What on earth is the point of keeping that? The authority is elected—or, rather, selected—by a small group of people who masquerade under completely false titles. They are supposed to be tallow chandlers or spur sharpeners or saddle grinders, but they have nothing to do with any trade at all. It is a mere matter of paying a sum of money and getting a couple of friends to nominate them—then they are in.
The actual people who live in the City, a few thousands are nearly all caretakers. There is no real body of electors. Yet we have this great façade of the City of London. I think that by retaining this the Government have ruined their Bill, and largely destroyed their answer to the argument which the Labour Party have brought against them. When the Labour Party say that the Government have destroyed the body which they are so keen on, the L.C.C., but have not destroyed the City and Corporation of London, the Conservative Party have no answer to that. No argument against it. The only reason why they have not interfered with the City and Corporation of London is that so much of their finance comes from the City of London and so much of their support comes from the great bodies in the City. My Lords, this is a blot. No one can persuade me otherwise.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, proposed an Amendment—and I supported him strongly—to create a new borough of the City of London and Westminster, in accordance with the Parliamentary seat, for which there is now one Member. In the same way, there should be a composite borough, the council of which should be elected by the inhabitants, just like any other borough. Then, when the Lord Mayor,
1240
dressed in his robes, welcomes distinguished people from overseas, he will represent somebody. Who does he represent now?—a few bogus tallow chandlers, spur sharpeners and other characters like that. As one who believes in regional government, I think that a great deal more should have been done by the Government of the day in getting these regional authorities. I can but weep for the harm they have done to regional government by leaving in the Bill this reactionary authority, the City and Corporation of London as it now exists.
5.58 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, we now come nearly to the end of our proceedings on the London Government Bill. They have been long, as they were bound to be, but it has been a great experience, and I think that your Lordships ought to be grateful to noble Lords on this side of the House. We have put the House of Lords on the map. People are taking more notice of your Lordships' House than they have done for a long time.
We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who spoke for the Liberals, for the nice things he said about the Opposition's conduct of this Bill. It has been a great effort and sometimes a considerable strain. I am sorry that the noble Lord then went off the lines and gave his qualified blessing to the Bill. After all, it was the Progressive Liberals who first led the L.C.C., for 17 years, and led it, especially for those times, ably, uprightly and in a progressive spirit. They were defeated by the Tories in 1907 at a monstrously conducted election, when the Tories published that ugly poster with the ugly face and red nose marked, "Progressive Socialist. It's your money we want!" I once reprinted it in the London News, and was threatened with action for breach of copyright, after so many years.
The Tories treated the Progressive Liberals abominably. That was typical of the Tories then and it is typical of the Tories now. That is the sort of people they are. Mr. Churchill once asked, "What sort of people does Hitler think we are?" I need not ask, "What sort of people are the Tories?" That is the sort of people they are. I should have thought that, as the Liberal Progressives had done

1241
so much for the L.C.C., the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, would have had more affection for their memory.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I have every affection for their memory. As the noble Lord knows, Sidney Webb was in the Liberal Party in those days. The point is that time marches on. What was good and adequate fifty years ago is no longer so to-day. In view of the way that London has grown, a new authority is wanted to deal with its increased size.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I can only say that I believe if those progressive Liberals had been here they would have taken substantially the same line that we have taken. The Liberals have got themselves into difficulty. There were six Liberals in the House of Commons when this Bill was brought in, and all six of them voted for the Second Reading. I do not wonder that they are not doing as well in London as they are in the Provinces and outside London. If they are asking to lose their position, nothing could suit us better, in so far as we are in competition with them. But I assure the noble Lord that the old Liberals of the L.C.C. were a good lot, and if they had been here they would have opposed this Bill.
The interesting thing about this debate to-day, as on other occasions, is that not one noble Lord opposite, except noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite—and this is true also of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—has given firm, unqualified support to this Bill. This, also, was substantially true in the House of Commons.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, may I point out that there is a reason for that? If noble Lords opposite had brought any new arguments up to-day, we might have been tempted to speak; but we have been listening to the same points and arguments that we have been listening to for the last six weeks.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: That is a try, but it is rather a poor one. That will not wash; and I do not think the noble Viscount expects that it will, either. Not one noble Lord has given unqualified support to the Bill. I must say that if I were a Minister on the Front Bench opposite, or on the
1242
Woolsack, for that matter, I should be rather alarmed about this situation. The truth is, I believe, that more than half of the Tory Lords do not like this Bill. It is not a popular Bill.
Local Government in Greater London, as things are, is really not at all bad; it is pretty good. Noble Lords have only to walk about the streets of London to find that it is well-governed and well-administered. It is no good assuming that local government in Greater London is in a chaotic state. It is working quite smoothly. Ah! here comes the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who has actually turned out on the London Government Bill, a matter in which he is not at all interested and in which he has treated the House with utter indifference throughout the whole of its proceedings.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: It is no good noble Lords saying "Oh, oh!". I am entitled to comment about a noble Lord who turns up at the last minute, who is a senior responsible Minister and has not taken part in the proceedings on the Bill. I think it is a bit rough on the noble Lords on the other side who have done the work, that now he turns up at the last minute. I should have thought that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, would have been the one to wind up this debate. But we have the Lord Chancellor—and we are glad to see him, although we have not seen or heard much of him in connection with this Bill. As my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition said, the Cabinet Ministers in this House have not treated the House very respectfully in the proceedings on this Bill.
I say that London government works well, especially in view of the difficulties of this huge, sprawling, built-up area of Greater London, which none of the local authorities created. But there it is. Anybody who assumes that London is badly governed is, as I say, making a mistake. I agree that there was the possibility of adjustment of areas, both of the County Council and of the metropolitan boroughs and the county districts outside, but it could have been done by agreement, by negotiation and by discussion, though not on this fundamentally large scale. Similarly, with the functions, there

1243
could have been discussion, negotiation and, quite likely, agreement. That could have come about. And, indeed, some was offered by the London County Council to the boroughs, and accepted with appreciation. I say that the system of local government in Greater London works, and you have only to look at London to know that that is so. Indeed, when it was said here on one occasion that saying that a system works is no defence, my noble friend Lord Silkin pointed to this House itself, which is full of anomalies and illogical characteristics, which some noble Lords find charming, and he said, "It works." That is the defence for the existence of this House; and it is not a bad one, either.
By the way, we have heard nothing much about the Metropolitan Water Board, which I understand the Government intended to put in this Bill, but they found that it would necessitate a hybrid Bill, and presumably they will bring in a Bill next Session. The Metropolitan Water Board is an independent authority on which I once sat for three years, which does its work well. But I think it is an anomaly that it continues to exist side by side with the Greater London Council, and if the Government think it wise, as I understand they do, to bring in a Bill to merge the Metropolitan Water Board with the Greater London Council, personally, I would give it my support, although probably that would cause some disappointment among some Labour members on the Metropolitan Water Board.
This Bill, in my judgment, has a Party political origin, and I have some evidence for that. In 1894, or thereabouts, the Conservative Government were to bring in a Bill for the establishment of metropolitan boroughs. That was some five years before the 1899 London Government Bill. They intended, at the same time, to abolish the London County Council, because (may I tell the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore?) the offence then was that there was a Liberal majority on the London County Council. That was the reason why they wanted to abolish it: because they regarded any other than a Tory majority on the great local authority of the capital city as an offence, And so they still do. Well, the Webbs got to hear about this—and, by the way,
1244
Webb was a Fabian Socialist, as well as a Progressive member of the London County Council, at the time, and his business then was to penetrate the Progressives and the Tories and to give them good ideas; and he was very successful. I think that the two Webbs were largely the authors of Mr. Balfour's Education Act of 1902, to which my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition made reference. Lord Haldane got to hear about this plot against the Liberals. He went round to the Webbs and told them, and it so happened, for one reason or another, that that Bill was dropped. Later a Bill was brought in to establish metropolitan boroughs, but not to abolish the London County Council. So the idea is an old one; and in those days it was the Liberals who were the offenders.
Then we have the point that the present Home Secretary said, after the London County Council Labour victory of 1934, that he would not be content until the Socialist L.C.C. was abolished. What he meant may be open to argument, but it is a significant statement. And he was Minister of Housing and Local Government when this Bill was ministerially conceived. That is the second evidence.
The other evidence is that the London Municipal Society gave evidence before the Royal Commission, broadly and roughly on the lines of this Bill. I think the deduction is quite clear: that they could not get a majority at County Hall by the consent of the people, so they said: "We will get it without the consent of the people. We will so enlarge the area that we are pretty sure to get a Tory majority". They have had to give concessions now which have diminished the area, which does not make it so certain. But the motive was there, and is still there. They wanted to legislate the London County Council out of existence, and logically they had to legislate the Middlesex County Council out of existence as well, and parts of the other counties around London. So the London Municipal Society, which is the Tory electoral machine for Tory government in the County of London, gave evidence before the Royal Commission for the purpose of achieving these ends, and the Government have loyally followed the lead of the London Municipal Society since.

1245
I say that the purpose of this Bill—and I am not open to be converted on it—is founded on Party political bias: that it is gerrymandering, jiggery-pokery and that it represents dishonourable conduct on the part of Her Majesty's Government. All this has been done now, in spite of the fact that the Conservatives had a majority on the London County Council between 1907 and 1934. They had 27 years of power. During that time there was no talk about the County Council's getting too much power. On the contrary, Conservative Governments were busy giving the' County Council more power, because there was a Tory majority there. They insisted under the Local Government Act, 1929, on giving them substantially the whole of the powers of the Metropolitan Asylums Board and the 25 boards of guardians—about 100 hospitals, as my noble friend Lord Latham reminds me. Why has the change come? Why have they now come to the view that the central authority should have less power and the boroughs should have more? There is only one answer. It is the Party political explanation, which my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition gave, and which I now repeat.
Let us look at the Bill. I will look at it very briefly, because we have examined it at some length before. The authorities under Part I are all too big in population and in area. The Government said that they wanted to bring local government nearer to the people. But it is taking it further away from the people. The central authority will have a population of about 8,500,000. The local authorities will have enormous populations and very big areas, with the result that the centre of administration will be further from the people than before, and the number of electors to each councillor will be far greater. So that is a failure: the areas are too big.
Here I join forces with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about the City. The explanation about the City is perfectly plain. It is true that the Tory Party receives a great deal of its money from the City. It receives a great deal from the County of Surrey as well, which is perhaps why some concessions have been made to Surrey, about which I am glad. But the other thing is that the City as a local authority is a non-Party, one-Party local authority. It is
1246
easy to be non-Party when you are one-Party and it is thoroughly Conservative. I admit that it acts as generous hosts to various people whom the Government want to entertain. But the argument of the Government is that the boroughs must be bigger. What do they do with the City? It is a square mile, with a resident population of between 4,000 and 5,000, and yet the City is left alone; nothing is added to it. I should have been happy if it had been the Corporation of Greater London, with a Lord Mayor as the head of the Corporation of Greater London. Not a bit. They have left them alone for partisan, Party political reasons, because the political composition of the Corporation suits them very well.
It is argued that the Greater London Council is really an enlarged London County Council, and there is something in it. But it is to have much less power than the London County Council, as little power as possible. The London boroughs are to have as much power as possible. It is argued that the boroughs must have the powers affecting the individual. This Bill is produced by a Government, with Cabinet approval, presumably. Notwithstanding all the arguments against my noble friend about the children—education, school medical services; all these services are supposed to affect the individual, which indeed they do—it has been their argument not to give the Greater London Council anything that concerns individual welfare, and that is why the education service has been played about with. I cannot be universally dogmatic about that point, because it is a mixed up solution.
A White Paper has been published on The Modernisation of Local Government in Scotland, Cmnd. 2067. This no doubt has had Cabinet approval, or the approval of a Cabinet Committee. Most of the arguments about London are reversed when the Government come to Scotland. In Scotland it is recommended by the Scottish Office (this document is presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Scotland), subject to discussion with the enlarged county councils—and they are of some size in Scotland—that among their functions shall be child care, which in London is to be dealt with by the boroughs. In Scotland it is to be the enlarged county

1247
council, and not the burgh, who will deal with Civil Defence and other defence matters (though there are minor powers which will go to the burghs); food and drugs regulation (which in London is to go to the boroughs), while food and milk administration and libraries will remain a borough power.
How much did we hear about the local health and welfare services having to go to the borough? Yet the same Government produce a White Paper concerning Scotland in which those services go to the enlarged county councils. Remand homes go to the enlarged county councils, and all roads, except unclassified roads, to the county council. But that is not so important. I admit that in this White Paper there are considerations which could lead to an argument a little the other way round. But how can you bless a Government which produces a Bill based on one principle, and a White Paper based upon contradictory principles? It shows what a pantomime Government we are afflicted with in our country at this time.
Part II of the Bill deals with traffic and highways. We have achieved a little improvement, but the Minister still has enormous powers to interfere with the local authorities, although one of the purposes of the Bill was supposed to be to keep the Minister off the local authorities on highways. And there is going to be something of a muddle about metropolitan roads. Part III on housing and planning denies powers of slum clearance to the Greater London Council, which we are absolutely sure will slow down slum clearance in London and extra-London, as was proved by my noble friend Lord Silkin, with his great experience of housing in London. They have stuck to it, and they will slow down slum clearance as a result. There is uncertainty as to the future ownership of the estates and land now in existence under the county council. The planning powers are insufficient for a wider London. We did our best to get improvements in the central area without much success.
Part IV of the Bill deals with education. Here there are two philosophies. In the administrative County of London the Bill establishes an Inner London Education Authority. Outside the present county they have the boroughs as
1248
all-purpose education authorities, although the county councils have discharged important, considerable powers in education, and discharged them very well. The Inner London Education Authority is an improvement. But this is politics, too. They did not make this improvement because they wanted to. They made improvements because of the great agitation of the teachers, whose organisation is politically non-Party. But they have a very powerful influence in elections. The Government were afraid of this. And the parents were upset, including a lot of Tory parents, who liked the education which the L.C.C. gave to their children.
So politics came into it. The Government were afraid of losing votes—which they will lose by this Bill, anyway—and so they invented the Inner London Education Authority, which, at the beginning, was to be for a population of about 2 million to 3 million. Then we pressed and pressed, and so did the teachers, and the Government have now taken in the whole existing administrative county of London. That is an improvement, but it is something of an anomalous body. It will consist of the members of the Greater London Council for the county, plus one member from each borough and one from the City of London. But the Greater London Council will not be able to examine the Education Authority's estimates. They will make them up on their own responsibility, and my experience of education people is that they are great enthusiasts and very able people but they do rather like spending, which is natural. The Greater London Council cannot interfere with their estimates and a precept goes through the Greater London Council to the boroughs to find the money. Even then, it is not finished. There is to be this review in 1970, which is leaving everybody concerned in a state of doubt, uncertainty and apprehension. In outer London it is to go entirely to the boroughs, notwithstanding the very good service of the outer London county councils before.
The school medical services are to go to the boroughs, or, at any rate, to joint arrangements between the Inner London Education Authority and the boroughs; and the poor Inner London Education Authority is to be advised by

1249
thirteen borough medical officers of health: an unlucky number and an unlucky arrangement. The Inner London Education Authority is not even allowed to appoint a chief school medical officer or a chief school dental officer. This is administrative muddle. It is administratively indefensible that one education authority is not responsible for its school medical service and that it is to have thirteen borough medical officers to advise it. That does not square with the Scottish White Paper as to what is being done in Scotland. Youth employment is, for the moment, to go to the Greater London Council, but again with a review in 1970 and greater anxiety as to what is to be done.
Part VI deals with public health, et cetera, and here the City of London (again showing the Government's bias) is the Port of London Health Authority. This square mile is going to be the port health authority for the whole of the river, from the Nore to Twickenham. This is bias again, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will agree with me on this particular point—and if we go on like this I shall get him into our Lobby at the end. There it is, and it ought not to be the Port health authority. It is preposterous. This is again showing the City favouritism; that it is one of the Government's darlings. It is a single-Party, Tory authority, and that is why the Government favour it.
Part VII deals with old folks' homes and with the service for old people, who are unevenly distributed over London, who have not children to look after them or whose children do not find it convenient to do so, and who have been well looked after by the L.C.C. This service is to be divided up among the London boroughs purely for the sake of dividing it up. It is the same with the children, over whom we had a great fight, in which my noble friend Lady Summerskill took part. They are to be split up and are to be unevenly distributed all over the London area. Parks are in a somewhat uncertain state, and truncated counties are treated very badly, both administratively and on financial grounds.
Moreover, running right through this Bill are enormous provisions for conferring regulatory and order-making powers on Ministers that I have ever seen in any Parliamentary
1250
enactment. It really is extraordinary that should be so. This is a vast Bill, as my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has said. It is a Bill for which the Government have no mandate whatever and to oppose which we have ample mandates. The last London County Council election was fought on it, among other things; the last metropolitan borough elections were fought on it, among other things; one county council by-election in Middlesex and one in London were both fought on it; and we won with far greater success, I think, than we did before. And the Government have not been doing very well either in local government or Parliamentary elections in the Greater London area. So they cannot claim any mandate for this Bill. We, on the contrary can claim mandates against it.
This House has had to devote considerable attention to the Bill, partly because it was a big Bill but partly because the House of Commons was treated in a most shameful and scandalous way by Her Majesty's Government. Members had hardly started on the Bill before the Government imposed a cruel guillotine. What is the result of that guillotine? I know, because I have handled guillotines in my time, though I have not such extensive experience of guillotines as this Government have. They have had many more guillotines than we had in our time, even allowing for their—unfortunately—longer period of office. But that not only meant that some Amendments were not reached; it meant, as all guillotines must, that the Opposition had to restrain themselves from talking too much or moving some Amendments in order that they could concentrate on the more vital and important Amendments. It meant that when the Bill came back on to the Floor of the House the Speaker, probably quite fairly, and understandably, had to be more severe in selecting Amendments in order not only to protect the Government but also to protect the Opposition; because if too many Amendments were moved the Opposition would be stultified in the work it had to do.
All this meant, of course, that the Bill, when it came here, was ill-considered. Indeed, not only was it ill-considered but you can tell by the enormous number of Government Amendments that we have had on the

1251
Bill right up to and including the Third Reading—in fact, as my noble friend says, 27 at Third Reading—that it was not a very well considered Bill and that, although the guillotine was there, the Government did not look after the Bill enough. But who would expect anything else while Mr. Macleod is Leader in another place, and presumably Chairman of the Legislation Committee of the Cabinet? But it just shows how important the Bill was.
It has been said that we talked too much. We have even most unfairly been accused of obstructing the Bill. It is not true. All we have done is our Parliamentary duty, both on the merits of the measure and because of the inadequacy of its consideration in another place. We have done our duty. And do not let noble Lords think that we thoroughly enjoyed being here night after night. It is not a very pleasing thing. Those of us from the House of Commons did not come to the House of Lords in order to sit all night, or even to sit late. We came here to have a quieter time. Therefore, we have no temptation to stay here late. I like to go home to my wife, which is the test of a happy marriage. We did not want to stay here, but we had our duty to do, and it was an act of self-sacrifice on our part that we have given so much attention to this Bill. We did our Parliamentary duty, no more, no less. It has been hard work for us; very hard work; and here I wish to pay a tribute to my noble friends, who have really "played ball" and been fine in the great support they have given to us through considerable difficulties and often even inconvenience. I am very grateful to them.
But this is the way not to do legislation of this sort. Government in local government should be fair and impartial. Governments should not bring in Bills like this for Party political motives. It is true that there was a Royal Commission; which was very carefully selected, with remarkably scientific care. Not for nothing have the Government been to universities where they studied political science. The selection of the Royal Commission was real political science. It is true that the London County Council gave evidence to the Royal Commission, as I think was made clear by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition; and,
1252
if not, that is what he meant to say. They gave evidence. What they would not do, when the Government invited them, was to help the Government in the framing of this Bill. They did not see why they should be self-executioners. I do not blame them; I warmly support them in the attitude they adopted.
Another thing is that in Scotland it is insisted by the Secretary of State (he repeatedly said it) that they must have adequate consultation with the local authorities before legislation is framed. That was not done in the case of the London Government Bill. It may be said that the County Council had the chance to consult with the Government after the Bill was published. They did; but that was to help in hurrying the execution and administration of the Bill, and they said they were not going to be part executioners of their own heads. I do not blame them. For Scotland, the Government have promised to do things differently.
In all justice, a Bill of this character, which uproots things, seizes people's property, local government's property, endangers over a wide area the financial interests of the ratepayers, seizes their property and hands it over to somebody else, ought to have been a Hybrid Bill, so that the local authorities could have appeared before a Select Committee, or Select Committees, by counsel and otherwise, and argued their case out, and the Government would then have had to reply. But no, that was not allowed. In justice it ought to have been allowed. Indeed, they must allow it, I gather, in the case of the Metropolitan Water Board. Why in that case and not this I do not know. I am not thoroughly expert about Hybrid Bills, though I did once run one, the London Passenger Transport Bill. Here was a great case to have a Hybrid Bill with the right to appear by counsel and so on.
The conduct of this fight in your Lordships' House has been interesting; and I think it has been valuable. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, that some concessions have been given, and we appreciate them. They have not been many; they have not been very fundamental, but they have been worth having. We on our side have genuinely tried to improve the nature of the Bill. I agree with others—as well as thanking my noble friends, which I

1253
do first, foremost and all the time—in expressing appreciation of the courtesy we have received from the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lords, Lord Hastings, Lord Newton and Lord Chesham. These so-called "Junior Ministers" (though the Minister of State, Home Office, is not quite so junior), have done a very good job: up to a point, they deserve our thanks—not altogether, because we have not got what we wanted from them. But they deserve the thanks of the Government, especially the Cabinet Ministers, who ought to have been here doing their job. They deserve appreciation, and I hope that they will be given consideration in the right quarter in due course, either under this Prime Minister or another one, as the case may be.
This is an important Bill, an enormous Bill, a Bill of fundamental importance to British local government. We do not like it. We reserve the right to repeal it, as the late Hugh Gaitskell said—in fact, he said he would do it. I believe that Mr. Wilson has also said, and the Labour Party Conference, that we completely reserve the right to repeal this Bill in the next Parliament. It must depend on the circumstances of the case, but that is the right we reserve; and, having said so, we shall have a mandate to do it, if it is expedient so to do at the time. This is a bad Bill, brought in from bad motives. It is in large measure a destructive Bill, as a Party political Bill brought in for Party political ends and not for good administrative reasons must be. I do not believe that it will improve, I believe that it will injure and damage the good government of a city in which I have lived my life, in which I have played my part, and which I love very deeply.
6.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have listened with interest to nearly everything that has been said in the course of this debate. I was sorry not to be able to hear part of the speech of my noble friend Lord Auckland and part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, to which I will refer in the course of my reply. I hope they will excuse me.
The best part, I thought, of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, was the part in which he
1254
referred to my noble friends Lord Jellicoe, Lord Hastings, Lord Newton and Lord Chesham. I should like to join with him—it is about the only thing on which I can join with him—in the tribute he paid to their ability, their courtesy and their capacity. I naturally part company with him in the criticisms that he and others made in relation to members of the Cabinet, and, in particular, the criticism made by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham because he was not here on certain occasions. I thought it had been clear to your Lordships that I was the one primarily in charge of the conduct of this Bill on behalf of the Government, and the criticisms which your Lordships made on that account should have been directed to me—and no doubt perhaps some of them were meant to be. I was sorry that owing to circumstances of which I think most of your Lordships were aware, I was not able to enjoy the rare pleasure of staying up with your Lordships the greater part of one night recently. But I have done my best to be here throughout the debates, and I have listened with admiration to the speeches of my noble friends, in reply to speeches made by the Opposition, and I have never found it necessary to intervene or add anything; I could not think of anything to add that would improve their replies.
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and, so far as I am concerned, it has had three novel features. I, for one, never anticipated that in the course of a debate on the Motion "That the London Government Bill do now pass" we should embark on a discussion about University seats. Nor did I anticipate that we should hear that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, had so far left London as to inquire into local government in Scotland. It is quite remarkable that he should pay that attention to it. Of course the one defect in his argument about local government in Scotland was that he failed to contrast the size of a borough in Scotland with one of the new boroughs created under the Bill. He would find, I think, that his enlarged counties more nearly correspond in size to the boroughs under the London

1255
Government Bill than the boroughs of Scotland to which he referred.
The third and other respect which I thought was surprising was the vigour and violence of the language used on this occasion by certain members of the Opposition. The noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, went so far as to say that the Royal Commission was packed against the London County Council. And that allegation was repeated by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. What is surprising is that when the names of the members of that Commission were announced, there was not a voice raised in criticism. I myself always rather discount criticism of a body on the ground of partiality when it has produced a conclusion which you yourself do not like. I need not say anything more about that at the moment. I think perhaps the most violent language was that used by the noble Lord, Lord Latham. He really strained his vocabulary. At one stage I thought that he was going to refer to me as the Lord High Executioner.
I should like to congratulate noble Lords opposite on the way they have endeavoured to make sure that none of their arguments should be overlooked—by constantly repeating them. Sometimes it may have appeared that the repetition bordered on what in another place might have been called "tedious", and across the sea as a "filibuster". I myself was puzzled to know what advantage there was in dividing on a particular Amendment without any discussion at all. However that may be, this Bill has certainly been exhaustively examined.
With the interest that the Liberal Party now take in local government it would not be right for me not to say something about the part the Liberal Party have played in our deliberations on this Bill. Sitting for some 17 days, discussing some 446 Amendments in Committee and some 311 Amendments on Report, considering, as we have done, every facet of local government in the Greater London area, I feel that I should congratulate the Liberal Party on having taken part in our debates, in Committee and on Report, on no fewer than ten occasions; and to-day again we
1256
had an interesting speech from Lord Ogmore.
After all that has been said, it is surprising to me to hear noble Lords opposite go on repeating so vehemently, as they have done to-day, that in bringing forward this Bill the Government have been actuated solely by political motives; that our one aim, our one motive and our one object in bringing forward the Bill has been to break up the London County Council solely because it has a Socialist majority. Constant repetition will not lead people to believe that. It has been their constant theme, and no doubt it will continue to be. But it simply is not the case. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, put forward what were to me two most surprising explanations. He said that this is a purely political Bill for a political motive. Then he went on to say that this will not be, and it is not, a popular Bill. I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, would not introduce a Bill with a political motive which he did not think would be a popular measure.
These people who put forward these charges of political motives may sometimes find that they recoil upon themselves. In this connection I should like to remind your Lordships of what the Royal Commission said, in paragraph 210 of their Report. They said there:
"The London Labour Party is not only the policy-making body, but is also the Party machine for organising the Party and fighting elections. It appeared to us that its principal, and perfectly legitimate, object was to ensure that as far as possible any reorganisation of London Government would facilitate rather than impede its task as a Party machine of gaining and maintaining political power."
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Is this the impartial Royal Commission?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Again the noble Lord should not accuse it of being partial because it has produced a result that he does not like.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: They had no experience of London and municipal government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: They had sufficient experience to express a considered view on the actions and attitude of the London Labour Party.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: On whose evidence?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: They were Tories.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The difficulty about the Opposition's argument in this matter is that they must, if they really believe in that argument, persuade themselves that the administrative County of London—an area which was established in 1855 chiefly for purposes of main drainage—is still somehow to be equated with "London". As my noble friend Lord Conesford, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, pointed out, we have got to look at the position and the situation to-day.
In pursuing this obsession the Labour Party have managed to ignore the fact that Greater London to-day includes over 8 million people, of whom only 40 per cent. live in the administrative County of London; that the area covers some 700 square miles but the County represents only 20 per cent. of it. The obsession with the L.C.C. and the County of London appears, I suggest, to obscure from the view of the Opposition the fact that the Government, in pursuing this reorganisation which we believe to be both necessary and desirable in the interests of local government in Greater London, are at the same time risking political unpopularity in the five counties of Middlesex, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey, and in the three county boroughs of Croydon, East Ham and West Ham which are also affected by the proposals.
I should like to remind your Lordships of the view which has been held by the Party to which noble Lords opposite belong. They have not always taken the line that the London County Council area is perfect and inviolate. I would remind your Lordships that in 1921 an earlier Royal Commission was appointed to consider the future of local government in Greater London. Its starting-off point was the pressure put on the Government of the day by the London County Council to establish a system of local government covering the whole of Greater London as it then existed. One of the basic grounds of the London County Council's case was that the piecemeal division of the area made rational administration impossible. The London Labour Party gave evidence before that Royal Commission—
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: When was this?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In 1921—and their memorandum of evidence contained the following paragraph:
"The facts conclusively demonstrate to us that the administrative London of the Metropolis Management Act 1855 is no longer the real London. Sheer administrative or economic necessity have burst over the boundaries of the administrative county repeatedly, and device after device—almost uniformly unsatisfactory—have been evolved for the purpose of establishing administrative machinery for particular services."
I hardly need to remind your Lordships that the spokesman for the London Labour Party on that occasion was the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth.
Now let us look at the statement which the Labour Party issued in 1942, The Future of Local Government. There is a section on Greater London and, among other things, this is what it says:
"Built-up Greater London has spread far beyond the Administrative County, whose boundary is still approximately the same as that drawn by the Metropolitan Management Act in 1855. This failure to adjust the structure of Local Government to the rapidly-changing industrial and social conditions of the past fifty years has contributed in no small measure to the unplanned development and urbanisation of the Greater London area".
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Which Labour Party was this? This was not the Labour London Party.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: It was the National Labour Party?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes. The same thought must have been in the mind of the honourable gentleman who represents Fulham in another place and who led the opposition there to the Bill which we are now considering. In 1938 he published a book called The British Approach to Politics. There is a chapter on London and a section where the author not only reviews the ad hoc bodies which have been set up to deal with problems needing a wider area of administration but also foreshadows the actual title "Greater London Council" for the body which might one day be set up.
But now, however, when the chance comes for a genuinely constructive approach to local government in Greater London we see a strange change in the attitude of the Labour Party. The Royal

1259
Commission was established in 1957 as part of the comprehensive review of local government throughout England and Wales. Naturally the L.C.C. was one of the main witnesses, but it now has a large Socialist majority. Instead of their evidence reflecting the earlier views of that Party on the true nature of Greater London, we find the Council's written evidence saying, "No major defects of structure or organisation exist"; and their final words were that they had "no desire to seek a wider area or a wider field of administration", and so on.
The Royal Commission commented on the attitude of the London County Council spokesman, that the witnesses refused to discuss with them the wider issues of the government of London as a whole, and stuck firmly to the proposition that "London" and the Administrative County of London are synonymous terms and that the London County Council is the government of London. I do not wish to attack or to criticise the London County Council itself. The Council has a fine record as one of the greatest local authorities in this country, perhaps in the world. But I do attack those who accuse the Government of base motives. When their Party was in opposition in County Hall they saw the realities which lie behind London government. But their tune has changed now that they are in power. That change of tune would make it seem that one of their chief aims is to retain that position at all costs, ignoring the rest of Greater London in the process. My Lords, there is a vernacular expression which I will paraphrase into a form perhaps more suitable for your Lordships' House. I would say it would run as follows: "I am not concerned with your predicament, Jack, as my own personal circumstances are eminently satisfactory."
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. We shall be most glad to quote certain parts of his utterances as showing a basic admission that the origin of this Bill is political.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if the noble Earl can read or imply anything of that sort into what I have said, his capacity is even greater than I anticipated.
1260
Two other major assaults were launched on the Bill during the debate this afternoon. One was the allegation that we are breaking up established arrangements through which local government services, and particularly the social services, are administered, without any guarantee that the new proposals will be an improvement. This is a point upon which the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, touched in his speech. In that connection I would draw attention to paragraph 695 of the Royal Commission Report. If I might remind him, it reads as follows:
"Where things are working well our inclination is to leave them alone. We do not believe that London's problems can be solved merely by improving the machinery of government. Our inclination is to recommend changes only where they appear to be essential. In spite of these predilections the facts we have found to exist and the inferences we feel bound to draw from them drive us to the conclusion that, judged by the twin tests of administrative efficiency and the health of representative government, the present structure of local government in the Review Area is inadequate and needs overhaul."
That is really the approach from which one must start, not on the basis that over the whole area the present structure of local government is adequate and does not need overhaul.
The Government have never disguised the fact that their proposals will necessarily involve formidable problems during the transitional period, but such problems are inherent in any worthwhile scheme of reorganisation. But there are other aspects which I would urge upon your Lordships' attention. First, do not let us underestimate the ingenuity and responsibility of all those members and officers of local authorities in Greater London who, no less than your Lordships, will be anxious to preserve and protect the standard of local services. The Government are confidently relying—and believe that any Government can safely rely—on the skill and integrity of all those concerned in local government to apply proposals which Parliament has approved on the basis of the unanimous report of the Royal Commission.
Second, let us not fall into the error of thinking of local government services as static arrangements which have existed since time immemorial.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: The City!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In the background there are the ancient environmental health services on which local government was built, but the personal social services so much to the fore to-day in the fields of education, health, welfare, and so on, are constantly changing, developing and expanding. Moreover, there is a new awareness that these personal services must be looked at together not in self-contained packets, but as inter-related aspects of personal and family needs. What we must provide for the future is the right framework within which these services may be expanded for the benefit of the community.
Thirdly, I would extend what I have just said about the personal services to local government as a whole. We should not look at particular provisions and judge them in isolation. This is one of the ways in which local government has been weakened in recent decades. Particular services have been considered at different times and dealt with on their own; often this has resulted in responsibility being transferred from smaller authorities to larger, or from local to central Government without regard to the ultimate effect on the health of local government as a living democratic institution.
I should like to remind your Lordships of the principles upon which the Royal Commission founded their recommendations and which we have accepted. Their first broad principle, which surely must be right, was that London is a single city with a recognisable civic entity and shape; a big town but a single town which, for some purposes, demands to be treated as one. For this purpose a directly elected Greater London Council is to be established whose main responsibilities will be those strategic services requiring the wider treatment. The Royal Commission's second principle was that local government should be greatly strengthened at borough level in order that as many services as possible may become the clear and undisputed responsibility of the authorities which are the closest to their electorate.
The Amendment to the Motion now before your Lordships' House accuses the Government of failing to take account of the serious effect which the Bill will
1262
have on the finances and affairs of the truncated counties; and I must address a few words to your Lordships on this aspect of the problem before I conclude. I think that the charge is rather that this House has shown itself unconvinced by pleas put forward on Second Reading, in Committee, at Report Stage and again to-day. I do not criticise noble Lords for trying again and again and again. If they have shown themselves reluctant to accept reasons put forward, my confidence has been confirmed by the arguments put forward on behalf of the Bill's provisions for assistance to truncated counties. To listen to some of the things that have been said on the subject one might be excused for assuming that the Government had conveniently overlooked the whole subject. But it is dealt with most adequately in Clause 70, as to the contents of which I need not remind your Lordships.
The objections seem to me twofold, First, that the assistance should begin from a much lower burden than 5d. in the pound and in this respect a figure of 2d. has been frequently quoted, Secondly, that the national taxpayer, instead of the ratepayers of Greater London, should foot the bill. The purpose of local government reorganisation is for the benefit of the inhabitants of the area. That is certainly the case here, But what some noble Lords would maintain is that, while the Bill is bad for London, it is perhaps even worse for the counties of Essex, Kent and Surrey, in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Crook, talked of Surrey as "a ruined county"—language which I think was somewhat exaggerated. These contentions have been rejected decisively at every stage in the passage of the Bill. It is indeed a little surprising if the fate of Surrey is to be so miserable that the inhabitants of the three northern wards of Epsom and Ewell are so anxious to share it. Or that the noble Lords, Lord Auckland, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, Lord Crook and Lord Morrison of Lambeth were so anxious to keep them there.
Local government reorganisation is a continuing process. It is only where the changes are of a quite exceptional nature that financial assistance may be appropriate, until the new organisation has had time to get into its stride. In the

1263
circumstances of the reorganisation of London government the right course, surely, is for the ratepayers of one part of the area affected to come to the aid, if need be, of those of another part. The Government's duty is to maintain a fair balance. I am not going to discuss now whether the amount should be 5d. or any lesser sum; we have discussed that point fully in earlier stages of the Bill. I want to make just one further point in this connection. There is no question of the Exchequer absolving itself of what are properly its responsibilities. Rate-deficiency grant is available to authorities, whether affected by reorganisation or not. This is a part of the permanent machinery of government, and, although, naturally, the pattern changes from time to time, through a variety of causes, its help is always available to bring resources up to the average level. It is estimated that, following reorganisation, Essex might attract a rate-deficiency grant of some £600,000, and that Kent similarly might get an increase of the order of £680,000.
My Lords, I am now approaching the conclusion of what may be the last speech on behalf of the Government in support of this Bill. It has indeed taken a long time, and it can be said that it has been exhaustively considered in your Lordships' House. I should like to conclude by saying this. The promotion of this Bill does not imply criticism of the members and officers of the present authorities. But I repeat, again, that it should be acknowledged that the existing structure which divides Greater London among six countries, three county boroughs and some 85 smaller authorities is now out of date; this fragmentation not only impedes present administration but will increasingly obstruct future development. Our aim is to create the best framework within which services can be provided for the community; and as there has been repeated allegation that local government opinion is against the Bill I should like to conclude with a
quotation from the current issue of the Municipal Review, which runs as follows:
"There can be no doubt that if the Bill completes its course, as it now seems certain to do, before the summer recess, Greater London can look forward to having within a couple of years a new local government structure more in keeping with the needs of the present time and able to provide efficient services controlled by bodies which are responsible and responsive to the localities in and for which they are provided."
My Lords, it is because we believe that under this Bill there will be throughout the Greater London area a new local government structure more in keeping with the needs of the present time, that we have introduced this massive measure to Parliament. I ask your Lordships to support the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
7.2 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, apparently the noble and learned Lord Chancellor wishes me to exercise a short right of reply. I did not wish to delay the House in any way, but I must say that I have listened to his speech with great interest and I shall study it very carefully to-morrow. But I have not been able to persuade myself that there can be any possible argument in it which would persuade me, or my noble friends on this side of the House, to refrain from going into the Lobby on this Amendment. I think that many of the arguments that the noble and learned Lord has used will be exceedingly valuable to us. I am glad that we have been able to fight unitedly in this Party up to this stage, and to come to the decision, which we did not want to have to adopt, to move a reasoned Amendment to the Motion, That this Bill do now pass.
7.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 72.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Crook, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Darwen, L.

Inman, L.

Archibald, L.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Latham, L.

Attlee, E.

Faringdon, L.

Lawson, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Francis-Williams, L.

Lindgren, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Henderson, L.

Listowel, E.

Champion, L.

Hughes, L.

Longford, E.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Summerskill, B.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

St. Davids, V.

Walston, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Samuel, V.

Williams, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Shackleton, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Nathan, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wise, L.

Peddie, L.

Silkin, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Stonham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dundee, E.

Mancroft, L.

Abinger, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mansfield, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Margesson, V.

Albemarle, E.

Ferrers, E.

Melchett, L.

Aldington, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Mersey, V.

Allerton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mills, V.

Ampthill, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Milverton, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Molson, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Monsell, V.

Beauchamp, E.

Grenfell, L.

Newton, L.

Blackford, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Palmer, L.

Bossom, L.

Hanworth, V.

Perth, E.

Brecon, L.

Hastings, L.

Remnant, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hawke, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Carrington, L.

Home, E.

St. Just, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

Somers, L.

Conesford, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Soulbury, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Jessel, L.

Spens, L.

Denham, L.

Long, V.

Strang, L.

Derwent, L.

Luke, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Devonport, V.

Mabane, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Devonshire, D.

MacAndrew, L.

Westwood, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Wynford, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

WILLS BILL
7.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Conesford.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clauses 1–5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Interpretation]:
LORD CONESFORD: This Amendment cures a defect in Clause 6(2)(b). The object of that paragraph was to cover the case where recourse is had to the law of a country where there are two or more internal systems of law. A typical example is a reference to the law of nationality in the case of a citizen of a federal State, such as the United States
1266
of America, or a composite group of countries such as the United Kingdom and Colonies.
In order to meet this problem the clause as it is now drafted requires reference to be made to the system of law with which the testator was most closely connected at the time of the execution of the will. That will not meet the requirements in every case, because it may well be that he had no connection whatsoever with the country at that date. That is the reason for the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, leave out from ("system") to end of line 20 and insert ("shall be that with which the testator was most closely connected at the relevant time, and for this purpose the relevant time is the time of the testator's death where the matter is to be determined by reference to circumstances prevailing at his death, and the time of execution of the will in any other case.").—(Lord Conesford.)
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.

OATHS AND EVIDENCE (OVERSEAS AUTHORITIES AND COUNTRIES) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

LIMITATION BILL
7.17 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, since this Bill is not by any means easy to understand, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I try to explain it in a little detail this evening, particularly in view of the fact that I know the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and other members of your Lordships' House are most interested in getting the matter right. The Bill really goes back to the time when a case named Cartledge v. E. Jopling and Sons, Limited, was first decided in the court of first instance in about 1956 or 1957. The facts appear from the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, when eventually the case reached your Lordships' House, and they are as follows.
The firm of Jopling and Sons, Limited, the defendants, manufactured steel castings and Mr. Cartledge, whose widow was one of those suing as plaintiffs, had for many years been employed by them as a steel dresser. Lord Pearce went on to say that in that capacity Mr. Cartledge and his fellows
"worked in an atmosphere which could easily become laden with dust from the particles of fractured sand or silica inevitably produced by grinding and shot-blasting processes designed to remove sand from the steel when it emerges from the mould. In breach of…the Factories Act, 1937, the defendants had failed to provide proper ventilation from 1939, when war-time conditions created certain difficulties, until…1950. By that time, as a result…all the plaintiffs were suffering from pneumoconiosis; but (with three possible exceptions) they were unaware of it and had no reason to suspect it. From 1950 onwards the defendants committed some breaches of regulations with regard to the removal of dust from pedestal grinders. By that date, however, a new and effective mask was being worn by the workers, and the breaches…after 1950 were not of sufficient importance to produce any material
1268
contribution to the disease of the plaintiffs. They could not, therefore, suffice to support or to continue any cause of action. The writs were issued on October 1, 1956. Although it would have been possible to issue the writs within six years from October, 1950, it is not suggested that the plaintiffs were dilatory or unreasonable in failing to start proceedings earlier."
That is a quotation from [1963] 1 All England Law Reports, at page 346. The plaintiffs in that case did not discover until after the relevant date in 1950 that they were suffering from the disease of pneumoconiosis. Although they got their disease from the defendants' breach of statutory duty, and would indeed have been awarded quite considerable sums in damages, nevertheless your Lordships' House found itself forced to agree with Mr. Justice Glyn-Jones, who gave the judgment in the first instance, that the Limitation Act prevented them from being able to get this money to compensate them for the sufferings and the illness which they had incurred as a result of that breach of statutory duty.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, at the end of his Opinion, said this:
"One thing at least is clear. The fact that the present law requires us to dismiss this appeal shows that some amendment of the law is urgently necessary".
My Lords, under the Limitation Act, 1939, as amended by another Statute in 1954, the law is that there is a three-year limit within which one must bring an action for personal damages in the case of negligence, nuisance or breach of statutory duty, and after that the defendant can put up the Limitation Act as a bar and prevent the plaintiff from getting any damages from his action. It was this that was held to prevent the plaintiffs in the case of Cartledge v. Jopling from getting their due damages. This Bill which is now before your Lordships is seeking to put right the state of the law which I think all Members of your Lordships' House who were involved in that judgment thought was wrong and should be changed. It was passed through another place at the instance of my honourable friend the Member for Colchester. There was some argument about certain parts of it which I think may very well recur to-day—and it is very right that it should, because it is by no means free from difficulty.

1269
The Bill itself results from a Committee which was set up by my noble and learned friend and by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and which was presided over by Mr. Justice Edmund Davies. This Committee reported in August of last year, and it concluded in its Report that the number of cases where this sort of difficulty arose in the law was small but it was sufficient to constitute a real problem. It is not just pneumoconiosis which is involved. There are quite a number of industrial diseases, some of them arising from things like lead poisoning; and radiation is another which could very well cause difficulty in the future. There are also ordinary accidents which are necessarily outside the industrial sphere but which, nevertheless, may occur: small accidents in the first place which may later become dangerous and even fatal. For instance, a blow on the head can cause a tumour, or epilepsy or some other disease which no one would have suspected at the time and no one would have thought of suing about; and then later, when it comes about, it is too late.
What, my Lords, is the way to deal with this? The Committee considered various methods. First of all, they rejected the possibility of specifying a list of diseases which would entitle a man to get round the ordinary bar which is placed upon his action by the Limitation Act. They thought this was unsatisfactory. They also recommended that the matter should not be dealt with solely on the basis of these industrial diseases, but should take in the other sort of case—the accident cases, which I have just described to your Lordships—as well. They also rejected a maximum period, as it were, of prolongation of the limitation period in these cases because no suitable period to fit all possibilities could be found. Finally, in paragraph 44 of their Report, they recommended this:
"An injured person should not be liable to have his claim defeated by the operation of the Limitation Act if he satisfies the court that—(i) he could not reasonably have been expected to discover the existence or cause of his injury in time to start proceedings within the limitation period; and (ii) he has started those proceedings within twelve months of the earliest date on which he could reasonably have been expected to make that discovery".
This is what the Bill puts into effect, and before I come on to the difficulties in
1270
the Bill I shall, as rapidly as I can, run through it so that your Lordships may see what is in the Bill and what there is on paper which might be subject to criticism or suggestion hereafter.
Clause 1 extends the time limit, and, in subsection (1), it does it in a way which deals with the point that I made as to its being for the defence to raise the plea of limitation. The plaintiff, of course, may bring his action at any time, and if the defence do not wish to raise the plea of limitation then they need not do so; but, as it stands, after three years it is open to them. This Bill takes away in specific circumstances the ability of the defence to do this. The circumstances are, in fact, set out in subsection (3) of this first clause. Before that, subsection (2) provides that it is the sort of cases which are dealt with under Section 2, subsection (1), of the Limitation Act, 1939, as amended, which are the ones which are covered by this particular Bill.
Subsection (3) of Clause 1 is very important, and it contains there three terms of art. The first of them is the words,
"material facts";
the second is,
"facts of a decisive character";
and the third is,
"outside the knowledge (actual or constructive) of the plaintiff".
Those three phrases are dealt with in Clause 7. I think it will be convenient to deal with them now, because they do go entirely with subsection (1) of Clause 1. The first of them is in subsection (3) of Clause 7, and the "material facts" with which this Bill is dealing are the fact of the injury, the nature or extent of the injury or the fact that the injuries were attributable to certain things which the injured man knew happened. On the other hand, the fact that there was negligence, or the fact that there was a breach of statutory duty, or nuisance, does not come within the term "material facts"; and so, if he did not know about that at the time, then he would not be given the relaxation of the Limitation Act which this clause allows in proper cases.
The second term of art is, "facts of a decisive character". This is defined in subsection (4) of Clause 7, and it gives the injured person the benefit of the

1271
doubt. The facts which are of a decisive character are those which he would have known would give him a proper ground for action with a substantial chance of success if he had taken advice about it, and if he was reasonable in not taking advice about it because, at the time, he did not realise how serious it was. This business about advice is further dealt with in the third term of art in subsection (5) of Clause 7, where it is quite clear, I hope, that the knowledge which he need not have in order to gain the advantage of this relaxation is either the pure fact that he did not know, or that he could not have found out, or that he could not, with the appropriate advice, have found out about this.
The third is important because it means that if the man went to his doctor, and his doctor, either negligently or simply from lack of medical knowledge, was not able to advise him that there was something serious in the injuries he had received, that would not be held against him. It would not be, provided that he had been to his doctor. If he did not go to the doctor, he can take advantage of this Bill only if it was not reasonable for him to go to his doctor in the circumstances. Those are the crucial factors under subsection (3) of Clause 1 which, if they can be shown, will give an injured man the ability to defeat for a period the Limitation Act and the period which is now laid down therein. But they will allow him to do so only within a certain period; and the rest of Clause 1(3) explains what that period is. First, there is the three-year period. During that time he can quite safely bring his action without any defence being raised against him at all. Thereafter, he can bring his action and seek the benefit of this Bill if he does so within twelve months of finding out about the things that I have just explained. Then he can benefit from this Bill.
There is the intermediate stage also covered by this subsection. If, towards the end of the three-year period he should happen to find out, then up until the end of that period he can bring an action without benefit of this Bill at all. After the end of that period it would not be right for him to have more than
1272
the rest of the twelve months from the date he discovered the facts, in which to bring his action; and this Bill, therefore, in rather complicated language but nevertheless rightly, lays down that where the period is to begin to run in the last year of the limitation period, then it will be only twelve months from the date when he found out the relevant facts. The first clause goes on to lay down that there will be no diminution of the right of a plaintiff which arises out of the special provisions of the Limitation Act on fraud or where he is under a disability. Nor will this prevent various other statutory lengths and periods of limitation from running in the ordinary way. For instance, the period under the Carriage by Air Act and the 30-years period during which he can bring his action without the defence period available under the Nuclear Installation Licensing and Insurance Act, 1959.
Clause 2, which I think is the really controversial clause, lays down a preliminary procedure, which is something the Edmund Davies Committee recommended as right, before an action can be introduced into the courts under the benefits of this Bill. The procedure which is laid down in the Bill as it stands is this. There shall be an ex parte application to a Judge and on that application the plaintiff, or the would-be plaintiff, must show not only that he has a case which is meritorious on the face of it, that is to say prima facie, but also that he can satisfy the three points in subsection (3) of Clause 1, which I have just explained to your Lordships. He has to make these two points before the Judge on an ex parte application, and if the Judge is satisfied that he has made out a prima facie case within the terms of the Bill, he can give leave to go to trial. Provision in the Bill is not needed but it is possible for the would-be plaintiff to appeal to the Court of Appeal, but not higher, if he is not granted leave by the Judge; and, in rare circumstances a potential claimant can apply to the Court of Appeal to strike out the leave which has been granted by the court below. This is an important point, as noble Lords will appreciate.
Again, as the Edmund Davies Committee recommended, the third subsection of Clause 2 provides for the possibility of

1273
leave being granted after the action commences—for instance, if the plaintiff finds, on discovery, that the cause of action upon which he bases his case accrued more than three years before the time when he issued the writ. Having so discovered, he can apply to the court for the benefit of this Bill; and again the same test will have to be gone through, except that there is a further test with which the court must be satisfied: that he did not and could not reasonably have known about the earlier period being the time relevant for his cause of action until he had brought his action. That is in the second part of subsection (3).
Clause 3 deals with the case of a plaintiff who has died, and it gives his personal representative all the powers he would have had, had he lived, under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, and also makes provision for the dead man's dependants to have their separate cause of action suitably adapted under the Fatal Accidents Act. Again this implements the Edmund Davies Committee recommendations.
Clause 4 is a general clause, a subject outside the Committee's powers, although they mentioned it. It is a clause of general application to all torts and not only with reference to the sort of cases I have mentioned. It cuts down, from six years to two years, the time in which tortfeasors can claim contributions from each other. This is quite an important point because not only does the clause do that, but subsection (2) also sets right a general doubt which has existed in the law for some time and which came to the surface in a severe form recently about the date at which damages accrue to a tortfeasor in one of these cases. I am afraid that in Committee your Lordships will be troubled with a few Amendments of a technical nature on this clause to deal with one or two things which are left out.
Clause 5 makes it clear that the Bill is binding on the Crown; and Clause 6 is a transitional provision which is something in the nature of a compromise. It would not be right to apply this Bill only to cases where the cause of action accrued after the passing of the Bill into law; because, by the nature of things, these causes of action often do not turn themselves into actions for a long time, be-
1274
cause people do not discover that they have suffered the damage. Equally, it would not be right to back-date the Bill in such a way that it might mean reopening actions that had already been satisfactorily settled. This clause says that the Bill applies to a cause of action which has arisen before the Bill comes into effect, but has not finally been adjudicated upon by the court of first instance. Where final judgment has been given, even where an appeal is pending, the Bill cannot apply. Otherwise if the action has not arisen, or has not reached that stage, the plaintiff will be able to get the benefit of this Bill. I have already dealt with Clause 7; and I hope that your Lordships will have understood what that implies, although I am afraid that it appears complicated.
Clause 8 and the subsequent clauses of the Bill apply to Scotland; and this fact also has the Committee's recommendation, because it is a United Kingdom measure. The Scottish provisions are almost exactly the same as the English ones in content, although the law of Scotland is different. There is not, for instance, any difficulty about fraud. There are no special provisions about fraud that have to be legislated for. On the other hand, the saving for plaintiffs under a disability had to be dealt with under Clause 8(4). Again, the actions where the plaintiff has died are dealt with in Scotland under Common Law and not under Statute, as in England, and the particular part of the Bill has had to be adapted in that way. Similarly, the contributions between what in Scotland are called wrongdoers are not subject in Scotland to the limitation of six years; the period is 20 years, and this also has been cut down to two The only other point I want to make on the contents of the Bill, so far as Scotland is concerned, is in Clause 12, where the Committee recommended that these cases should not be tried, as they usually are, by jury. Consequently, as was recommended, the power to try by jury has been taken away.
The main difficulty about this Bill is on Clause 2. The Bill provides for ex parte application on the merits, and also on matters in Clause 1(3). Although have taken a great deal of advice and thought a lot about this aspect, I am very much inclined to think that what is in the Bill is best, but it is a matter which

1275
is not in the least straightforward and anything your Lordships say will be of great value to me in making up my mind which way this should finally go. I think that I should point out to your Lordships the four possibilities there are for dealing with this. First of all, there is the possibility of doing nothing in the way of preliminary hearing at all—no filter through which these actions must go. This was something which the Edmund Davies Committee thought was wrong. What they said was:
"It has appeared to us important that any general relaxation of the three-year rule should be accompanied by safeguards designed to exclude from its beneficial operation actions of an unmeritorius, speculative or fraudulent character."
They went on to say later on:
"Although we are confident that the courts"—
if they were given unfettered discretion—
"would do their utmost to exercise such discretion wisely, we are not in favour of such a fundamental amendment to the existing law. From the practical point of review, an unfettered discretion would encourage optimistic claimants to institute proceedings which in truth had no chance of success and thus to waste their own, the defendant's and perhaps the taxpayer's money on pointless litigation. More serious is the objection based on the principle that the law should be certain and the area of judicial discretion therefore narrowed as far as is possible. We were impressed by the practically unanimous opposition of the legal witnesses to the conferring on the courts a wide discretion. We think this opposition is well-founded."
They therefore decided that they would not support the idea of a complete discretion for the courts to accept or review these cases whenever they came before them.
The alternative is to have the full treatment which is in the Bill, to have a preliminary application on which the would-be plaintiff would have to satisfy the judge not only on the merits but also on the Clause 1(3) conditions, if I may so describe them. This not only has the advantage of showing the court that the conditions in Clause 1(3) of the Bill are justified, but also makes certain that there is a proper case, a case in which it is right that the ordinary protection of the defendant under the Limitation Act is to be suspended. This again is something which the Committee dealt with, in these words:
1276
"We contemplate leaving leave to sue out of time operating so as to relieve the plaintiff from the operation of the Limitation Act in respect only of those incidents specified in his application: in effect, he will be given leave to go back to, but not beyond, a specific date. We do not think this would cause any hardship to the plaintiff: by the time he makes his application he ought to know what case he seeks to present; indeed, it might be advisable to require him to produce to the judge to whom he applies a draft of the statement of claim he proposes to deliver if leave to proceed is granted."
Therefore, it seems to me that the Committee at any rate thought that this matter, which is written into the Bill, was fairly balanced between the plaintiff and the defendant in the circumstances.
On the other hand, in another place a proposal was put forward to limit the application to the conditions under Clause 1(3). It was said that it would not be fair for the plaintiff to disclose his case on the merits at this stage, or any rate at the stage of discovery. The honourable Members who put forward this view said that in any case there would be considerable protection on the merits for the plaintiff in the fact that either a legal aid committee or committee of a trade union which was going to support the action would have had a look at the facts first before deciding whether or not they would give financial help for the case to go forward; or alternatively, the argument runs, if there is no such backing it follows that the plaintiff will be a person of some financial substance and therefore he can safely go ahead, even if his action is ill-founded, because the defendant would be able to recover his costs from him.
On the other hand, I wonder whether an ex parte application at the beginning and the certain amount of trouble it will cause would be worth it, simply for the Clause 1(3) points, or whether there would be any prejudice worth talking about so far as the plaintiff is concerned if he did have to put forward his case on the merits to be looked at at the time of discovery. After all, this is not very much for him to give way at this stage, when the defendant is being deprived of his ordinary protection under the Limitation Bill. Those are the arguments on that point.
There is one final point of difficulty: that is the form of the application itself. The Committee certainly thought that this should not be addressed to the

1277
person booked for final hearing and should be ex parte; and the would-be defendant should not be represented and it should not be argued at that stage. This, I am certain, is right. But then, on the other hand, should the hearing be ex parte, in the sense that the documents will later go on the court record and become available on discovery to the defendant, or should the plaintiff's case be kept so secret by this method that there would be no record of what he put before the judge on his ex parte application? It seems to me that the latter is almost impossible, because, as I have explained to your Lordships, there may be cases where these ex parte applications go to appeal, and if you try to keep the whole thing secret in the normal case this would clearly be impossible where the plaintiff had to go to the Court of Appeal to get leave to proceed. The same would arise if the would-be defendant sought to get leave granted by the judge set aside by the Court of Appeal. In any case, there is a very good system, under what is known as the Order 14 procedure at the moment, whereby a similar sort of thing occurs. In that case, it is not at all infrequent for the case that a defendant has put forward to the Master, under Order 14, on affidavit for leave to be compared later with the defence he puts up in the court; and if there is any discrepancy between the two there is at any rate something for considerable comment. If the ex parte application under this Bill were to be secret, then there would be nothing, either on the record for the court itself, or indeed the defendant, to look at to see whether, in fact, the plaintiff was putting forward the same kind of argument when the case came to the court as he had addressed to the judge who granted him leave. Indeed, it may not be the same case at all.
It seems to me that the Bill, which provides that the affidavit, or whatever document goes before the judge on ex parte application, should not be kept secret and should be open for discovery when it comes to the right point in the trial, is about right. I will add this: I do not think that the plaintiff would, in fact, be very much prejudiced, because, although some of the facts would be in his affidavit, there would be annexed to it such things as his
1278
medical evidence, which I think would not be available on discovery anyway as being privileged. So I doubt whether the form which is in the Bill would cause injustice to anybody; and if there is to be a balance, my own inclination is to keep it as it is, this being about the fairest.
I would add one final comment. As the Bill was originally introduced in another place this ex parte proceeding was applied to Scotland also. It is not now, because the Scots asked that it should be omitted. This does not mean that there will be no similar filter in Scotland. The reason is a technical one: that in Scots law there is a procedure by which the points that arise under Clause 1(3) of the Bill can be dealt with as a preliminary point, in much the same way as they would be on an ex parte application in England; and it might also be that the merits also would be dealt with as a preliminary point. It seems to me that there is, at any rate, something to be said for having as similar as possible a procedure North and South of the Border. That being the case in Scotland, it accords very well with what is in the Bill for England and Wales, and it affords one reason far keeping the Bill as it now stands. However, on this difficult matter I shall welcome anything your Lordships may have to say, and I shall be particularly glad to hear what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, may say. I think your Lordships would agree that, subject to this small difficulty, the Bill is doing a good thing. It is setting right a clear injustice, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
7.52 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I can relieve the noble Viscount's mind straight away. This Bill will, so far as I am concerned, receive a Second Reading, and I do not imagine that anyone else would wish to oppose it. It is a good Bill, on the whole, and I think, after the unkind things that were said on the previous measure this afternoon, I can congratulate those who introduced this measure, and the

1279
Government who supported them, on the promptness with which the recommendations of the Committee were sought to be implemented. The Committee reported in September, 1962. It is not many months since the Report was made, and here we are in this House discussing this Bill. I should also like to congratulate the noble Viscount on the way in which he introduced this most difficult, complicated and technical measure. He has done it so well that I do not propose to follow him or to try to elaborate on any of the points he has made. However, I have one slight comment on his observation that the number of cases to which this Bill would apply would be small. The noble Viscount has no means of knowing that. He knows quite well that, as the law stands at the present time, when a person is seeking advice about his rights, and the Statute of Limitation applies, he is told that he is not in a position to institute proceedings, and that is the end of the matter. No record is kept.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I was actually quoting from the Committee's Report.
LORD SILKIN: I know. But I still say that nobody can know the number of cases which have not come to the courts or to which this applies. If a person goes to a solicitor for advice after the three years, he is told: "I am sorry, but the Statute of Limitations applies, and I cannot advise you to commence proceedings." Nobody can know, not even this eminent Committee, the number of cases to which it applies. My own view is that it applies to many more cases than the Committee suspected. That is a small point, but it makes this Bill much more important.
There are a number of matters which possibly I shall deal with at some length at a later stage. For instance, I see no reason why the period should be one year. After all, for many years the period of limitation was six years in all. It is now three years. Surely the equitable thing would be to give a person who is affected by this Bill the same rights from the time when he becomes aware of his rights as he originally had; that is, three years and not one year. I may say that this is the view of the Law Society, and
1280
the evidence that they gave on this point was to the effect that there should be a three-years period from the time when the person first became aware of his rights, and not twelve months.
Then there is the very troublesome point of whether a person taking advantage of this should have to make a prima facie case to the court. I rather felt that the noble Viscount—I hope he will not mind my saying this—came down far too heavily in favour of the person making the prima facie case. In fact, in another place the matter was, as I understood it, left completely open. An assurance was given that this matter would be properly considered in this House, and, as I thought, both the Solicitor General and the promoter of the Bill were perfectly prepared to give favourable consideration to this question of a litigant's not being compelled to make a prima facie case.
Then there is the point about Rules of Court. This is all subject to Rules of Court, and one does not know what Rules of Court may be introduced in the Bill. I hope at a later stage to get a fuller explanation of what kind of Rules of Court are contemplated, because they might completely take away the ex parte provision and make it a public hearing. But at this stage I do not want to argue the merits of what I propose to put down at a later stage. I should like to explain that many of the Amendments I should have liked to put down I am not going to put down, because my honourable friends in another place are so anxious to get this Bill through that they do not want anything to be done which will cause it delay. However, they feel strongly about the necessity of having to make a prima facie case, and, therefore, I hope it will receive rather more sympathetic consideration than the noble Viscount gave it this afternoon.
The noble Viscount was quite right in saying that there need be no fear of frivolous or vexatious actions. He said that there would be very few, and the Committee say that, too. If that is right, it cannot be a very difficult matter, anyway. However, there are two other factors. In the majority of cases of this kind, as the noble Viscount said, the person seeking redress would have to get aid of some sort, either through the legal aid provisions or from his trade union, and there are effective safeguards

1281
against frivolous actions in either case. I should have thought that the disadvantages of requiring a person to make a prima facie case within twelve months, without necessarily having all the data available, would far outweigh the possible disadvantage to the defendant of the elimination of this machinery.
As I say, I do not propose to argue the matter at this stage, because I hope we can have a rather fuller discussion on this point and other points that I propose to raise. But I want to give notice, as the noble Viscount himself anticipated, that this will be a matter which will be seriously debated, and I hope the noble Viscount will find himself in a position to agree with the contentions we put forward. In the meantime, I want to give the Bill a cordial welcome, and I hope it will go through as speedily as possible.
8.2 p.m.
LORD MORRIS OF BORTH-Y-GEST: My Lords, may I be allowed to add the hope that your Lordships will give a favourable reception to this Bill? should like, if I may most respectfully do so, to express my appreciation of the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in introducing in so helpful a manner for your Lordships' assistance the provisions of this Bill. I rise to express my general hope that your Lordships will receive it favourably, because I was a Member of your Lordships' House who determined in January of this year the case to which the noble Viscount has referred, Cartledge v. Jopling, which led to the appointment of the Committee under Mr. Justice Edmund Davies. The facts have been clearly detailed by the noble Viscount, and from what he has told your Lordships it would appear that there is striking support from the events and facts of that case for the view that some amendment of the law is desirable. The noble Viscount has quoted what Lord Reid said. There were similar expressions of opinion by Lord Evershed and Lord Pearce, and I added my own expression of opinion to the same effect.
The facts really were rather striking, as the noble Viscount has said. There were certain breaches of the Factory Act before October, 1950. They were breaches because there had been failure to provide proper ventilation. Mr. Cartledge in that case was a steel dresser.
1282
The evidence showed how minute particles of silica may enter somebody's lungs, may gradually cause damage to the lungs which will continue, and there may be permanent injury occurring of which the sufferer is entirely unaware. The result in that case was that there was a breach of the Factories Act before October, 1950. There was no breach after that date. It was shown that Mr. Cartledge suffered physical injury before October, 1950, although he was quite unaware of it, and he was neither negligent nor dilatory in being unaware of it. The learned Judge who tried the case held that a cause of action accrues when damage is done consequent upon a breach, and not when the plaintiff first learns that it has been done. In cases of that kind, there is insidious industrial disease giving no indication of its presence in its early stages, and someone may be a sufferer and have a cause of action, be quite unaware of it, and yet, under the law as it stands, may find himself defeated by the plea of the Statute. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will form the view that there is in general a strong case for some amendment of the law.
As regards the actual procedure, I am quite sure your Lordships will pay great heed to anything that has been said, or that may be said, by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, either now or in the future. I would just say at this stage that I feel that the proposed procedure is acceptable and satisfactory. I appreciate the force of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, but I do not myself think that if a plaintiff is to be given the right to overcome the difficulty that at present is in his way he would regard it as unreasonable that he should satisfy a judge that he has a prima facie, a good, case. It seems to me that possible defendants, who otherwise could succeed because of the lapse of time, are entitled to have some measure of protection against irresponsible claims, and such measure of protection as this proposed procedure would ensure.
I would add this. On the point that has been indicated—the point that is felt by some—that a defendant may become aware on discovery of the way in which the plaintiff puts his case, I cannot think that that involves any hardship to a plaintiff. If he has a good case, then it

1283
can stand the light of scrutiny and investigation. A good case does not become a weak case by being revealed. If it is a weak case or a bad case, then it should fail. I would suggest that the course of justice is not thwarted if a defendant, by having adequate time and notice, is able to demonstrate that a case does in fact lack merit. I hope your Lordships will favourably receive this Bill.
8.8 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it gives me particular pleasure on behalf of the Government to welcome this Bill. I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for introducing it so clearly and explaining it so well. I am sure the House will join with me in thanking the very distinguished Committee which, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Edmund Davies, examined and reported on the problem which lies at the root of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has already drawn attention to the remarkable speed with which the state of the law is being put right, and no one will argue that the present state of the law in this aspect is in the least degree satisfactory. The solution of the problem is not an easy one, and I think the Edmund Davies Committee did some valuable work indeed upon it.
I do not propose at this late hour to detain your Lordships with a long speech on this subject, but there are one or two things I should like to say. The first point I should like to make is that although one cannot tell whether there are more cases than the Committee thought should be kept alive by this Bill, that strengthens the argument, I should have thought, for some kind of filter. Although the majority of cases may be cases of industrial disease, the Bill applies to personal injury of any kind. Although in a large number of cases there may be scrutiny of the claims by a trade union or by a legal aid committee, that does not exclude the possibility of unmeritorious, speculative, actions being initiated.
In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, I should like to give him this assurance. I have myself read all that was said in the other place in relation to this Bill, the speeches made
1284
by the promoter of the Bill the honourable Member for Colchester, and what was said by my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor General. I find the question of whether you have a filter, and, if so, what form of filter, very difficult, but I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that I have given as much consideration to it as I can. That does not, of course, exclude the fact that I shall listen with the greatest interest to anything he cares to put forward as regards this in the later stages, as I am sure my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross will, too. It is, I think, extremely important that we should avoid tilting the balance too much against potential defendants, and my own view (and I say this quite frankly) is that the Bill is just about right, because there should be safeguards, I think, for defendants, to protect them from unfounded threats of litigation.
I do not propose to take up any time in expanding all that tonight. The only other point to which I wish to allude is the proposal to introduce a two-year limitation period for claims for contribution. I have always felt that the current six-year period is too long, because it starts only when the plaintiff's original action is disposed of, so that the unfortunate second tortfeasor may find himself resisting a claim based on something that happened twelve or more years before. If we did nothing about it, the time could, in cases to which the Bill applies, be even longer. I do not believe that the shorter period can cause any hardship and I welcome it.
There are a number of points arising on the details of the Bill which we can more suitably discuss in Committee, and, in the meantime, I join with the noble Viscount in hoping that the House will support him and give the Bill a Second Reading. I commend it to your Lordships as a Bill which puts right a very unsatisfactory state of the law in one respect, and I hope its passage to the Statute Book will be as speedy as possible for that very reason.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed for the support which this Bill has been given, I think from North, South, East and West in this House, and I am also very grateful, too, for the advice which, as I had hoped might be the case, my

1285
noble and learned friend, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, have given. I had not intended in the least to suggest to the noble Lord opposite that my mind was made up. I was merely seeking to put forward some arguments, as I think it is my duty to do having introduced the Bill in the form in which it stands; but this by no means indicates that I shall not consider seriously and fully anything he might say, if I have not done so already. I think I am entitled to some opinion on it, which is, I am glad to say, the same as that of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor; and, as we are not unknown to disagree upon certain matters, this is a very pleasant thing to happen.
Of course, the point of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, about the length of period of one year has some bearing upon this, too, and I think it should also enter into the sphere of consideration at a later stage. I do not think that the noble Lord need be very worried about the Rules of Court under Clause 2(1). These would be necessary for cases where leave
1286
had to be given in the middle of an action, but I think that is what those were intended to deal with, and not with any sense to change an ex parte case to something else. I should like to thank your Lordships once again for the welcome that has been given to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FORESTRY (SALE OF LAND) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LAND COMPENSATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with an Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at a quarter past eight o'clock.